Open Source Weblog

Dvorak's "eight signs that the software giant is dead in the water" are (briefly) as follows:

1. Vista is too delayed and "it appears as if it is going to be a great disappointment".
2. Office 2007 offers nothing new and will come in too many versions.
3. MSN is distracting the company from its main role as a software company.
4. MSN Search. Ditto.
5. Xbox360 is a good product, but the company has failed to meet demand.
6. Pad-based computing hasn't taken off as Bill Gates predicted.
7. The .Net framework "is being killed by open source systems that are free and almost just as powerful. Microsoft has been unable to cope with open source except to complain about it."
8. The company is too obsessed with Google and is exhibiting "old-lady-like skittishness" as a result. (The obsession with Google doesn't look to be reducing, according to Steve Ballmer's spending plans)

Dvorak notes that he doesn't expect the company to stop making money, but adds that the list "only scratches the surface of the Microsoft malaise."

What occurred to me when reading this is just how stretched Microsoft has become, and how damaging its obsession with competing with any significant other - be it Oracle, Palm, Nokia, Sony, Apple, Sun, Java, the European Commission, the open source movement or Google - could become.

I'm reminded of America's current position and its ongoing war against the "Axis of Evil" as well as the economic battle it faces with China and India.

"In the coming decades, China and India will disrupt workforces, industries, companies, and markets in ways that we can barely begin to imagine. The upheaval will test America's commitment to the global trade system, and shake its confidence. In the 19th century, Europe went through a similar trauma when it realized a new giant - the U.S. - had arrived," noted BusinessWeek.

Whether the US has an Empire is debatable, but its position is similar to Microsoft. From a position of dominance it has expanded its influence in many directions and now faces battles on multiple fronts to maintain its way of life.

"According to [Professor Niall Ferguson, a history professor at Harvard] wars among near-equals can be particularly destructive," noted a recent article from the New York Times. "Had Britain been able to use its influence to head off World War I, its ensuing decline would have been far less abrupt. But even if avoiding war with Germany might not have been possible, it appears that Britain seriously overestimated its chances of achieving a quick strategic victory…

"It's a good reminder that military actions are among the most risky a nation can undertake. So far, the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan, much weaker nations, are not in themselves likely to seriously injure the United States' position. But concluding the conflict in Iraq has not proved as easy as prewar estimates suggested, and opening a front in Iran or elsewhere could add significant burdens," it added.

Could the same be said of Microsoft's multiple fronts? History will be the judge.