Windows Server 8 Marks Shift Towards GUI-Less Future

So nice to see Microsoft finally starting to catch up to Unix.

I feel sorry for those folks who feel the need to remote desktop to a server to get anything done. (Not.)

(Yes, yes, I realize that ssh/telnet is the Unix equivalent of remoting to a server, but there's quite a lot that can be accomplished with just exported filesystems, since everything goes in .rc files.)

So seemingly so, Microsoft's current strategy is: Be like Mac on the desktop, be like *nix on the server, be like Google on the web.

If anything is to ever be Microsoft's undoing, it will be this. For decades, love them or hate them, Microsoft has succeeded by doing what they think, what they believe and what they want. Absolutely they borrowed ideas from competitors, but they still did it their own way. Sure they didn't always do the best job... but they were still Microsoft and did it their own way.

Companies that follow, fail. Even though Microsoft may have been copying, they weren't necessarily following. They were making smart decisions about implementing that which was known to work, in addition to trying a few things that were known to not work. They succeeded in some and failed in others. But they did not follow.

For the first time, I see Microsoft as truly following. From Windows 8 Metro, to Bing, and now to this. What they're losing sight of is that their core has always been business. They should remain business first, and muscle their way into the home on the back of business as they have always done.

Currently neither Apple nor Google have a viable alternative to Windows and Office in the workplace. And I'm not sure they even care to. Both companies are after the general consumer. In Apple's case, they seem to be moving further from business, not closer. And in Google's case, they're approaching it with all of the vigor of any of their other 10 year betas.

So the immediate future will see you owning two computers and two phones. The Mac and the iPhone you bought for yourself. And the PC and the BlackBerry that your company bought for you.

Now we all know RIM is dead. That is a virtual certainty. No hope.

This leaves an immediate gap for Microsoft to fill: Corporate targeted phones. Make them business first, but then add the flash, flair and fun to them second (and without threatening the business side). They don't even have to be as good as the iPhone... just close enough to make it not worth the extra $200 + $50/month for a personal iphone. Heck, if I were in their position, I'd buy RIM, keep the hardware, put Windows Mobile on it, hook it up to Active Sync and give phones away to everyone who buys exchange server for the first year.

Computers are the same way. Business first. Add the fun second. And when portability finally dominates in the workplace, then make the computer the company bought for its employee just "good enough" to make the $1000 for the MacBook Air not worth it.

Microsoft has to let Mac be better. Let Google be better. Let *nix be better.

And then they have to make it not matter, like they have always done.

If they follow, they're admitting defeat and failing because they'll be chasing someone else's business plan from 5 years ago to attempt to be the market leader 5 years from now (~Tom Peters).

IMHO
Clinton

>> They should remain business first, and muscle their way into the home on the back of business as they have always done.

but, Clinton, this is overwhelming false, today, computing has become a "consumer" market, devices are built for consumers first and maybe the business might find a use for them. Apple has started to focus on consumers in the early 2000s and it paid off. Facebook made it a de facto strategy and Google jumped on the bandwagon later. Today, either you compete with IBM and Oracle, or you compete with Apple, Facebook and Google. Thinking that you'll attract consumers with business gears, tools and goodies, is IMHO the wrong strategy. Nobody cares about Windows and Office, any longer, and the people that do are quickly becoming the minor minority (<5%).

So either Microsoft splits itself to compete on both markets effectively or it will fail, because businesses will not necessarily want what consumers want and vice versa (both on the client(s) and the server)

but, Clinton, this is overwhelming false, today, computing has become a "consumer" market, devices are built for consumers first and maybe the business might find a use for them.

>> My global point was that it was disturbing to see Microsoft giving up on what they believe to follow Apple, Google and Linux...

yes, this is exactly what kills companies. Sun got killed because it decided to react to every move that Microsoft did. Microsoft is a bit better at that game, they have kept an eye on the financials, but eventually this is how you become a bureaucratic shadow of yourself, PMing instead of innovating. Google seems also slipping into that mode chasing both Facebook and Apple and with search becoming less relevant to their top line.

The overall problem of these companies though is that when you become so big, any innovation looks like a distraction, bringing only a few 10 or 100 million initially until they reach the billions they are all chasing.

>> Google seems also slipping into that mode chasing both Facebook and Apple and with search becoming less relevant to their top line.

You and I agree more than not, I think! :-) I also feel this way, and you're one of only a few others that I've encountered with this opinion.

Perhaps specialization is what's best. These mega-corporations are trying to do way too much. It's hard to say though, because one in a hundred of their gambles pays off. Google's Android gamble is working (patent battles aside), Microsoft's XBox paid off, and of course Apple's iPod and iPad all took off -- they're on a streak.

So maybe it's unfair of me to think they're doing too much, when really it's just a giant gambling game, whereby they increase their odds of a success with a shotgun, rather than a marksman approach.

I think the consumer ends up paying the price though -- in time, money and confusion.

In these times, I suppose it does not pay to be an early adopter.

Cheers,
Clinton