SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956
Stewart Butterfield says Microsoft sees Slack as existential threat – TechCrunch
In a wide ranging interview with The Wall Street Journal’s global technology editor Jason Dean yesterday, Slack CEO and co-founder Stewart Butterfield had some strong words regarding Microsoft, saying the software giant saw his company as an existential threat.
The interview took place at the WSJ Tech Live event. When Butterfield was asked about a chart Microsoft released in July during the Slack quiet period, which showed Microsoft Teams had 13 million daily active users compared to 12 million for Slack, Butterfield appeared taken aback by the chart.
“The bigger point is that’s kind of crazy for Microsoft to do, especially during the quiet period. I had someone say it was unprecedented since the [Steve] Ballmer era. I think it’s more like unprecedented since the Gates’ 98-99 era. I think they feel like we’re an existential threat,” he told Dean.
It’s worth noting, that as Dean pointed out, you could flip that existential threat statement. Microsoft is a much bigger business with a trillion-dollar market cap versus Slack’s $400 million. It also has the benefit of linking Microsoft Teams to Office 365 subscriptions, but Butterfield says the smaller company with the better idea has often won in the past.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Friday October 25 2019, @07:07PM (15 children)
Firefox(even if chrome came by and won after that) v IE was a fight that mozzilla won handily.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Friday October 25 2019, @07:31PM (9 children)
Mozilla is a non-profit.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by ikanreed on Friday October 25 2019, @07:45PM
Oh just because the GGP was explicit and clear on that point is no reason to bring it up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 25 2019, @08:19PM
free brendan eich!
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday October 25 2019, @10:16PM (6 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by RamiK on Friday October 25 2019, @11:14PM (5 children)
That's the point. The reason stormreaver specified for-profits is because foundations like Linux, OpenOffice and Mozilla winning against Microsoft is the result of multiple corporations joining hands to develop/dump the market with a collaborative product which they're planning to profit from indirectly through services and such. That is, someone made the decision to be a loss leader rather than let Microsoft win. Which isn't the same as winning against them.
Having clarified that, Microsoft did lose in databases, cloud services, mobile, consoles and game stores to Oracle, Amazon/Google, Apple, Sony and Epic Games/Valve respectively in a straight for-profits battles. What's really remarkable is that it all started with the Zune: If they could only get those music licenses secured, Apple wouldn't have made the comeback they did with the iPod and iTunes. This just escalated over the years into mobile, streaming and game stores which affected their ability to compete in cloud services... Basically, the Balmer years.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday October 26 2019, @02:16AM (4 children)
People pay for Microsoft Office. You can't even give them LibreOffice. The same is true for Linux, but for a different reason - way too much fragmentation amongst distros and user interfaces.
As for Firefox, Microsoft is exiting the browser business since they don't need a browser to lock people in any more. They make the same amount of money if they just rebadged Chrome - and they hurt Google when Google gets investigated for antitrust issues over their browser monopoly.
Microsoft is making margins of close to 40% - they really don't care about market share of unprofitable niche products. And with RedHat now owned by IBM, expect Linux to become even less consumer-friendly.
And Android is a closed box that demonstrates how to make Linux de facto closed on devices, doing TiVo one better. And that stupid Linux phone that was supposed to be shipping this month (only 3 years late) is still not in general release, and at $700 US for an unproven product from a company that continues to fail to make deadlines of their own setting? Pull my finger.
It's unfortunate, but to claim that Microsoft is losing when they're making more money than ever on an ever-widening user base, that's just delusional.
I still use Linux, but mostly I just use a phone. Same as most people.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by RamiK on Saturday October 26 2019, @10:54AM (1 child)
I've literally spelled out it's not really winning in the following sentence saying "loss leader rather than let Microsoft win. Which isn't the same as winning against them.".
That's irrelevant since they entered a whole different market (cloud providing) instead after losing in the consumer market. On the office suite you could argue the market changed from competing against Open Office to competing against Google Docs. But its not like the market they left isn't profitable so they effectively lost it.
Don't forget large companies in the US don't simply lose. They're too big to fail. Too public sector. Flexible enough to turn to a completely different business model and still come-out strong. They diversify into multiple markets, often competing products, all to make sure they survive their failing products.
That's actually a good example: If Red Hat gets swallowed by big blue, did IBM win? Of course not. The whole point of open source is to lose lead and prevent leveraging one market on another. IBM is very limited in the kind of product bundling they can do now. They can't just force Power down our throats anymore. Microsoft and Intel are in the same boat: The markets they've lost thanks to open source cost them other markets.
Overall, it's not about the 40% they have. It's about what Apple and Google has that could have been theirs and how they had to change their business model to something less toxic to respond to open source. I admit its a rigged game. But the consumer have more options now. Shitty options. But options nonetheless.
compiling...
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday October 30 2019, @10:24PM
Shitty software with crappy documentation because there's no money to pay for proper documentation, and users being the testers because there's no money for proper internal testing because any extra money is put into "oh shiny", and ways to monetize users by invading their privacy instead of just letting them buy the product ...
Of course people would be far more demanding if they had to actually pay for software and services today. How many people would pay $15/month for Facebook (their current per customer revenue).
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 27 2019, @10:50PM (1 child)
"I have never used Microsoft Office, but LibreOffice, which used to be somewhat usable, is absolutely crap."
it's not crap for me, but i don't use it much. maybe you're just a half ass linux user who uses out dated shit that was fixed years ago?
"People pay for Microsoft Office. You can't even give them LibreOffice."
People are dumb fucking slaves that are too lazy to learn anything new and are such whores they would sell their grandmothers if you promise to save them a click. fuck them anyways.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Wednesday October 30 2019, @10:13PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DannyB on Friday October 25 2019, @07:47PM (3 children)
Firefox rose from the ashes of Netscape -- which Microsoft destroyed.
Netscape only won because . . . open source.
Apache vs IIS . . . open source.
Linux vs Windows on servers, devices and non-desktop . . . open source.
I begin to perceive a pattern.
When it comes to commercial things going up against Microsoft, or that refuse to be acquired for pennies on the dollar, the history of our industry, at least the 1980's and 90's is littered with the corpses in the wake of Microsoft. Good businesses whose product or service Microsoft suddenly took an interest in. Sometimes Microsoft would "partner" with a company. The agreement included terms that if the company went under that Microsoft got all their Intellectual Property. Before the ink was dry on the agreement, Microsoft would go about trying to put their "partner" out of business.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Friday October 25 2019, @07:51PM (1 child)
Since we're talking about browsers, let me mention another one.
In 1995 Microsoft still didn't recognize the internet. Bill Gates said it was just a fad.
Suddenly Microsoft realized it was a tsunami. Microsoft needed their own browser and quick.
They found a small company Spyglass that made a browser of the same name. Microsoft bought it for only $100,000 plus a healthy royalty percent of profits. Guess how many copies of Spyglass that Microsoft ever sold? Spyglass became IE. Microsoft put $150 million into its development over the next years in attempt to "microsoftize" the internet. But never sold a single copy.
Real nice guys.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 26 2019, @03:47AM
To quote a famous billionaire, "You don't get rich by writing a lot of big checks."
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday October 26 2019, @02:52PM
Large commercial companies have been eating Microsoft's lunch for a long time. Once you get back the OS and Office products, Microsoft doesn't have much market share in anything.
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Saturday October 26 2019, @04:08AM
... and then lost