Strategic CIO // Digital Business
Commentary
7/18/2014
09:35 AM
Rob Preston
Rob Preston
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Microsoft Shows Tech 'Monopolies' Don't Last

As nature abhors a vacuum, innovators abhor a monopoly, especially in the fast-paced IT industry.

In handing down his landmark antitrust decision against Microsoft in 2000, US District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson wrote: "There are currently no products -- and there are not likely to be any in the near future -- that a significant percentage of computer users worldwide could substitute for Intel-compatible PC operating systems without incurring substantial costs." At the time, Windows commanded about 90% of the desktop operating system market. The competition? Mostly Unix and MacOS and a handful of thin clients.

Today, Windows' share of the market for operating systems on all computing devices -- PCs, smartphones, tablets, and all manner of hybrids -- stands at about 14%, according to a new Gartner report. Who’d have thunk it back in 2000? And Microsoft's loosening grip over the years has had absolutely nothing to do with the government's antitrust proceedings more than a decade ago. Microsoft's announcement Thursday that it's cutting 18,000 jobs from its payroll, the largest such reduction in company history, shows just how vulnerable the world's biggest software company has become as competitors from Apple to Google to Amazon.com have eaten its lunch in mobile and other core businesses.

If nature abhors a vacuum, innovators abhor a monopoly, especially in the fast-paced IT industry.

[More challenges ahead for Windows Phone. Read Apple-IBM Deal: Trouble For Google, Microsoft.]

We've seen the free market knock down dominant tech providers before. The government's 13-year antitrust probe of IBM (yes, 13 years!) petered out in 1982, as the mainframe era ushered in the client-server era, and a wave of PC clone and then minicomputer makers flooded into the market to challenge Big Blue. Governments in the US, Europe, and Asia brought antitrust charges against Intel in the 1990s and 2000s, just as No. 2 microprocessor rival AMD was getting its second wind, and then the likes of ARM, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and even Samsung beat Intel to the mobile device revolution. 

(Source: Crispin Semmens)
(Source: Crispin Semmens)

EMC once dominated storage hardware, until lots of new players piled into the market hawking cheaper, less proprietary alternatives. Today, EMC is still the storage market leader, with a 30%-plus share of key sectors. And storage products and services still account for about 70% of EMC's revenue. But the company, which long ago saw the commoditization writing on the wall, was smart enough to start distinguishing its products based on software features while diversifying into the content management, security, virtualization, and big-data software sectors via its Documentum, RSA, VMware, Greenplum (and many other) acquisitions. The announcement on July 15 that cloud competitor Box is now giving its business customers unlimited storage as part of its base content management offering provides further evidence that raw storage capacity is going the way of voice communications.

Cisco once dominated the networking systems market -- heck, it still does, with close to 60% of the Ethernet switch market and 70% of the enterprise router market. But commoditization is coming in networking as well, as virtualization and software-defined systems promise to make it easier for customers to deploy cheaper white-box alternatives to Cisco's high-end products. Meantime, the Facebook-led Open Compute Project will share designs for low-cost network hardware that any number of third-party manufacturers can bring to market. No wonder that Cisco's market cap, which reflects future earnings potential more than current levels, is about a fourth of what it was at its tremendous peak ($540 billion) in 2000, despite the fact that Cisco's 60% gross profit margins are still the envy of enterprise IT.

Likewise, emerging competition has cut into HP's one-time dominance in printers, Oracle's in databases, VMware's in virtualization, Apple's in tablets. No IT "monopoly" can last for very long.

The Microsoft, IBM, Intel, and other examples are far different from what economists call "natural" monopolies, which occur in the telecom, railroad, electric utility, and other industries whose extensive infrastructure costs and real estate demands deter market entry. There, government intervention and regulation often are necessary to promote competition (sharing of infrastructure with competitors) and/or to keep prices in check.

Otherwise, the free market has a way of sorting things out -- faster than ever in this day and age. Government trustbusters work at a methodical, measured pace. While they're no longer taking 13 years to make a move, as was the case with IBM a few decades ago, they aren't always keeping up with or anticipating the dramatic fits and starts of the modern technology industry. Market shares can rise and fall in a heartbeat as product cycles shorten, the cloud makes it ever-easier for customers to switch providers, and rapid innovation dictates new winners and losers. Free enterprise is far from a perfect system, but in high-tech it's producing wonders.

In its ninth year, Interop New York (Sept. 29 to Oct. 3) is the premier event for the Northeast IT market. Strongly represented vertical industries include financial services, government, and education. Join more than 5,000 attendees to learn about IT leadership, cloud, collaboration, infrastructure, mobility, risk management and security, and SDN, as well as explore 125 exhibitors' offerings. Register with Discount Code MPIWK to save $200 off Total Access & Conference Passes.

Rob Preston currently serves as VP and editor in chief of InformationWeek, where he oversees the editorial content and direction of its various website, digital magazine, Webcast, live and virtual event, and other products. Rob has 25 years of experience in high-tech ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
7/25/2014 | 1:41:01 PM
Re: I see Microsoft's evolution
Andrew, let me clarify: I'm not saying that Microsoft's desktop monopoloy came apart because of competition; I'm saying that other companies have innovated around it. Tablets and smartphones and hybrid devices make Microsoft's Windows dominance much less relevant. Taking the argument to an extreme just for argument's sake, no one quite broke Western Union's telegraph monopoly, but innovations elsewhere made it increasingly irrelevant over time. 
Andrew Binstock
50%
50%
Andrew Binstock,
User Rank: Author
7/23/2014 | 3:23:35 PM
I see Microsoft's evolution
Rob:

While I concur in part with your analysis, I view your main point rather differently. Microsoft had a monopoly on the desktop. It still does. The numbers you quote add in phones and tablets where the company never had market share. So analyzing their desktop monopoly as falling apart b/c of non desktop devices doesn't work for me.

My larger take is this: Microsoft maintains a strong monopoly on the desktop. But the company correctly viewed the desktop as a shrinking market several years ago and began three key initiatives to offset the anticipated decline: cloud, tablets, and reinvestment in its phone business. It's clear the first initiative, Windows Azure, is paying off well. 

It's too early to tell whether the Surface will ultimately be an important player or not. And the Nokia acq, having only just been completed, is another long-term unknown.

So, unlike the usual story of a company with a monopoly that was unable to adapt to the new world, I see Microsoft as doing that adaptation uniquely well. Far better than other IT vendors, such as IBM, Dell, etc. have been able to do. I think the company's excellent financial results over the last two years strongly support this view. 

Cheers!
jries921
50%
50%
jries921,
User Rank: Ninja
7/23/2014 | 10:49:51 AM
Re: Yes and no
Perhaps dominant vendors like MS are no longer in a position to hold on to their dominance long term, but I don't think your claim that MS' dominance was undermined by market forces alone is supported by the history of the past 16 years.  Rather, I have to believe that the antitrust cases and the 2001 settlement with the US Justice Department greatly impaired MS' ability to maintain its dominant position and that the DC Circuit's quashing of the breakup order was a Phyrric victory for MS.  Indeed, I have in recent years come to the conclusion that it would have been better for MS' stockholders, employees and customers if the breakup had gone forward, as the case would have been over, and the two successor companies could have gone about their business without further restrictions.

 
RobPreston
50%
50%
RobPreston,
User Rank: Author
7/23/2014 | 10:39:34 AM
Re: Yes and no
I just don't see dominant tech providers able to hold onto their dominance like they used to--the "natural" monopolies with their huge barriers to entry excepted. Pundits worried about iPhone and iPad dominance--there were even calls for government intervention. Then came Android. And Microsoft didn't go away either. There's just too much vibrant innovation, out of startups and established players alike, to let any single big tech provider sit fat and happy and control a market for long anymore. Certainly not for as long as they used to.
stevew928
50%
50%
stevew928,
User Rank: Ninja
7/22/2014 | 6:33:28 PM
Re: Absolutely nothing?
I somewhat agree. Certainly one company isn't going to master every conceivable area, but you either have to master (or do pretty well) at one, and continue to innovate in that area, or you have to do well in catching some emerging category, or creating one.

Apple, for example, has done pretty well at both aspects. They are still quite good and pretty innovative where they started in traditional 'PCs' but also have done well in other areas like mobile, and at least tying their stuff to the cloud. That isn't to say they are perfect. They've blown attempts in a number of areas as well.

Microsoft, on the other hand, hasn't done so well in their cores (especially in the last couple of years), nor in innovations to catch the various waves, or create them. If they don't get that straightened out soon (which they might), they will eventually be just part of tech history. Remember Novell? That's (their technology) where I started my IT career. My CNE (and almost ECNE) is pretty worthless now.

And, Microsoft DID venture into a number of areas. So, taking a risk wasn't the problem. They just didn't have the vision to actually apply the talent they obviously had in a meaningful way. For example, how many anticipated hits did they attempt in the tablet sector? I remember at least two efforts, which I predicted would fail (it was quite obvious). And, even their current one, while much better than the others, is questionable IMO.

Hopefully Nadella can turn things around and properly put some of their tallent to use. I'm always a fan of any company or competition which drives the market forward. I've been a critic of Microsoft because they did the opposite, and didn't get where they are by being excellent.
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
7/22/2014 | 6:18:51 PM
Re: Monopolies incur "protected," not competitive, thinking inside
@Micheal, agreed, at least one of Microsoft's product or service will have to be a success in order for Microsoft to gain some good PR. It would be better if the product or service is consumer facing, this could be from any line, even the ones that are already established, for instance, Xbox. However, in terms of sales, Microsoft is losing to Sony in the console world. 
Brian.Dean
50%
50%
Brian.Dean,
User Rank: Ninja
7/22/2014 | 5:48:06 PM
Re: Absolutely nothing?
The IT industry has grown to include many types of new services and products and this growth is also reflected in the current financial size of the IT industry. Microsoft or any one company could not possibly deliver this diversity and range. The Cloud was ignored by Microsoft -- resulting in Saleforce. Social was ignored -- resulting in Facebook and Google, and so forth. The IoT is being ignored currently by Microsoft, but there is a trade-off, if any company tries to enter a new area, it is accompanied by a risk factor and capital can be lost.
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
7/22/2014 | 2:43:17 PM
Re: Monopolies incur "protected," not competitive, thinking inside
Well put, Charlie. Nadella's trying to break down some reinforced cultural walls right now, in an attempt to make Microsoft move more like the Silicon Valley start-ups who've begun to encroach on Redmond's turf. I think Nadella is saying all the right things, at least in the abstract, but there's still a lot of work to be done. I run into a lot of people around the Bay Area who reflexively dismiss Microsoft. "I haven't paid much attention to Azure because I assumed it sucks," a guy running IT at for a non-profit website told me. "Does anyone write apps for Windows anymore?" asked the web-inclined CTO of a promising start-up when I asked if he'd ever used Visual Studio. You can criticize these people I'm anonymously quoting for failing to pay attention to Microsoft's recent momentum, of course. But it still shows that Microsoft has a cultural and PR challenges, in addition to tech ones.

I think all the viewpoints here touch on the reasons why Microsoft is now, as Nadella puts it, an "underdog"; as a protectionist market leader, Microsoft succumbed to market forces, but as Tom cogently explained, those market forces were better-positioned thanks to the courts.
Michael Endler
50%
50%
Michael Endler,
User Rank: Author
7/22/2014 | 2:31:03 PM
Re: staying ahead
Good point about VCs, which shouldn't be neglected from the conversation. At least during the current tech renaissance, they've certainly forced the issue.
David1960
50%
50%
David1960,
User Rank: Apprentice
7/21/2014 | 12:57:14 AM
Re: Absolutely nothing?
The Government did hurt MS but a lot of it was well deserved with their monopolistic tactics including trying to destroy Netscape.  Lets start with CPM.


But on the other hand the article doesn't talk about the probably 80 - 85% of desktops that use Windows in one form or another maybe 5% for Apple and 7 for Unix/Linux...


So their monopoly has lasted but the Desktop/Laptop martket has become a smaller fraction of the total pool.

While I am not a big fan of MS their product does work, most of the time with a good degree of reliability for the average user.  I have always found Apple to be impractical for business and frankly a toy but I do hear more people using it each year so maybe will have to revise my opinion. 


Yet by the time I do, based on the premise of the Article, Apple's advantage in iPhone iPad will probably be gone too but what will replace it?  Android which is controlled by Google? Or will there be a new model?

 
Page 1 / 4   >   >>
Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014
Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Archived InformationWeek Radio
Join us for a roundup of the top stories on InformationWeek.com for the week of December 14, 2014. Be here for the show and for the incredible Friday Afternoon Conversation that runs beside the program.
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.