In the mainstream media there
is now the implication, hint,
suggestion, claim, etc. that somehow
Google, Facebook, Apple, and Samsung
beat Microsoft at its own business.
I don't buy that.<p>That hint, etc. plays well with
consumers who see computing just in terms
of consumer client devices.<p>Here are two blunt facts:<p>First, many more client devices
need servers, and Microsoft with
Windows Server, SQL Server,
and many software tools for
system installation, monitoring,
and management has demonstrated that
it knows how to run one heck of a
big server farm with surprisingly
small staff.<p>Second, people still need to work,
at a computer 'work station' complete
with a good, physical keyboard, the
old kind with keys that move,
and one or more screens, hopefully large,
and maybe more than one. And they need
to run some major software applications
in graphics, high end word processing,
video creation, editing, and production,
engineering, statistics, etc., and for
that people still need a high end
desktop computer with, from Microsoft,
Windows 7 that can run both 32 bit
and 64 bit software. That work station
may have 32 GB of main memory
and 12 TB of disk memory. So, no
smart phone or tablet can compete.<p>Yes, Apple sold a lot of iPhones,
and McDonald's sold a lot of
hamburgers, but that doesn't
really mean that Microsoft
should get in either the
phone or hamburger business
or was beaten by either
Apple or McDonald's.<p>For the new CEO of Microsoft
to push Microsoft into
mobile client devices in
competition with Apple
and Samsung and software for
such devices in competition
with Apple and Google and to
ignore desktops and servers
would be huge mistake.<p>Yes, generally if there is a new
business opportunity that involves
software, Microsoft should consider
getting in, e.g., search and Bing.
And maybe Microsoft should push
mobile client devices and associated
operating system and application
software, etc., but to ignore
desktops and servers would be
dumb, dumber than anything
Ballmer did.