Despite the fact that Microsoft has pushed in excess of 88 million copies of Windows Vista to its channel partners worldwide in just the first year since the operating system was released to manufacturing, there is still the perception that the latest Windows client is a monumental failure. And despite the fact that ever since mid 2007, Vista's install base has surpassed that of Mac OS X and Linux combined, the operating system's adoption is still perceived as crawling along. At the same time, while Vista is eroding away at Windows XP's dominance, climbing toward the 10% share of the operating system market, Microsoft is receiving advice on how it needs to abandon its latest iteration
of its flagship product, or a four step program to salvage it.
Now, I recently read an article, and the actual source matters little but
here you go, telling Microsoft that it needs to 1. Go open source; 2. Eliminate all of those versions and only sell Ultimate; 3. Stop focusing on Google and start focusing on Apple and 4. Ditch Windows 7 and bring Windows online. For me, these are four ways in which Microsoft would push Vista to commit suicide. Why? Well, it's quite simple actually.
Vista to go open source. Yes, what Microsoft really wants is to give away on a silver platter the source code for the most attacked platform in the world. Well, not actually Vista, but Windows as a whole; however, there is a common foundation of code to all Windows operating systems. Now imagine that Microsoft would actually still sell a product, that everybody is free to download, distribute, edit, upgrade, update as they see fit. The argument of going open source is that Vista would, by magic and overnight, turn from the Cinderella of the security world to a Princess OS locked away in an ivory tower. Apparently, all the users would be able to patch away all by themselves at the open source operating system. I have Ubuntu installed at home. Want to know when was the last time I wrote a security update for Ubuntu? Well, never. How about you?
Just sell Ultimate. Yes, what Microsoft needs to do is to desperately copy Apple's distribution model for Mac OS X. This because whatever Apple does is right and whatever Microsoft does is wrong. Forget about options, or diversity. There should be only one Vista. But maybe users don't need Media Center, or DreamScene, or BitLocker Drive Encryption, or even Aero. What then? And wouldn't a single SKU of Vista come in conflict with the open source model? Last time I checked there were over a 1,000 different distributions of Linux out there with Red Hat, Novell and Ubuntu essentially hugging the otherwise immense market share for Linux of well under 1%. Yes, because open source magically works...
Apple vs. Google. Hmm, I am not here to dispute the value of either Apple or Google. But to me, Apple is competing with the original equipment manufacturers that have partnered with Microsoft. Apple being a hardware company delivering Mac computers, iPods, iPhones... You get the drill. OS X is nothing more than an accessory for Apple, the fact of the matter is that Inter-based Macs can just as well run Windows. And as for Google... Since its initial public offering in 2004, in just three years Google has made Sergey Brin, Co-Founder, Technology President and Larry E. Page, Co-Founder, Products President two of the most wealthiest men alive with fortunes estimated at over $20 billion each. And the Mountain View-based company, now with a headcount of 15,000, strong owns in excess of 50% of the search engine market worldwide. Yes, Microsoft needs to focus on a hardware company that accounts for 6% of the operating system market. Just forget about Google... I mean, what is this Google anyway? Now Apple, there's a real danger. If Microsoft is not paying attention they might just skyrocket to 6.1% of the OS market!!!
Windows in the cloud. Of course, I mean, this is pure genius! Microsoft has Bill Gates, and approximately 80,000 employees and no geek was capable of the revelation of taking Windows online. Just imagine connecting to your online copy of Vista over an Internet speed of 100KB per second. You'll never again complain about the operating system's performances... ever again... !!! Right, obviously this is not the case. At this point in time we simply do not have the infrastructure capable to support viable scenarios of cloud operating systems. And we still won't in 2010 when Windows 7, Vista's successor, will hit.
