How Microsoft keeps its edge

It comes out with shoddy version 1.0's, decent 2.0's and good 3.0's...

COMMENT Microsoft has managed to remain dominant in IT for decades while rarely being first to market. Charles Cooper looks at how Redmond pulls off this feat.

There's something about the slow-starter strategy that works like an absolute charm for Microsoft. Throughout its history, the company has recovered from mediocre product launches that ultimately morph into smash hits.

By now, Microsoft has it down to an art. Is it method or madness? Probably a little bit of both, but more about that in a moment.

So it is that the newest rendition of Windows Media Center introduced earlier this week received a tentative thumbs-up from the digerati. When you consider the kludgy design of the first release of Media Center, this is no small achievement. It also says something about how this company goes about its job.

Microsoft has carefully cultivated an image of being an outfit that outthinks and outinnovates rivals. To be sure, the company does employ some of the brightest people in the computer industry. Under the capable direction of Rick Rashid, for example, Microsoft Research only trails IBM when it comes to turning out technology patents.

All that looks great on paper but does it translate into sterling design and implementation? In truth, the record suggests that the secret behind Microsoft's success owes more to applied perspiration (not to mention an occasional sotto voce whisper of encouragement, Tony Soprano style) than to divine inspiration.

Consider how long it took Microsoft to labour away at building a graphical operating system. When it debuted, Windows 1.0 was arguably no better than the contemporary GEM graphical user interface from Digital Research. Critics rightly dunned it for being a pale imitation of the work generated by Xerox PARC. Windows 2.0, which came out a couple of years later, was equally mediocre. Only with the 1990 arrival of Windows 3.0 did Microsoft figure out the memory management improvements that let users exploit the capabilities of the 286 and 386 microprocessors. (Even then, many folks say Windows wasn't worth spit until version 3.1.)

Windows NT followed a similar script. The product was a memory hog - and this back in 1993, when memory cost a bundle. It took Microsoft another three long years to pretty NT up with a Windows 95-like interface and the sort of beefed-up administration controls that made it popular with the IT community.

And it took Microsoft three long tries to catch up to Netscape in the web browser business. That's not to mention the bully tactics along the way that ultimately got the company's higher ups into hot water with the US Justice Department.

Years ago, I inadvertently incurred the wrath of Paul Maritz, who then was a big-shot Microsoft mucky-muck. In a column, I suggested that Microsoft did a great job listening to customers and fixing what was missing, not because the company developed 'wow' technologies. That argument got under Maritz's skin, and he let me know about it.

But was I that off base?

Maritz's ego was bruised, but I was paying a compliment. Microsoft had perfected a system to incorporate customer feedback and improve upon existing products. That goes a long way toward explaining how Microsoft came to be number one in its field. But that's a lot different than spinning tales of a techno hothouse in the Pacific Northwest that consistently churns out excellent tools.

Xbox was a huge hit for Microsoft from the day it hit the shelves. On the other end of the spectrum, Microsoft Bob was dumber than a sack of hammers and deserved every bit of ridicule hurled its way. I wouldn't get carried away in either case, since Microsoft's performance is usually somewhere between the extremes.

While Media Center remains a work in progress, the company has been working out the kinks. So far, Microsoft has unit sales in excess of a million. The company also claims to have about 100 industry partners around the world, more than double last year's count. But Microsoft will have to unseat Apple Computer before it can hope to dominate the digital lifestyle. And that's an obstacle that I think is just too steep to hurdle. More about that in a future column.

Charles Cooper is the executive editor of commentary at CNET News.com.

Comments

There are 5 comments. Join the discussion

  1. 1. anonymous

    Oh XBOX was a huge hit? Is that why Microsoft loses money on each one?

    • 18 October 2004 03:07
    • Add comment
  2. 2. anonymous

    You don't imagine that Microsoft got where it is today by improving its products do you?

    Take Windows NT. You refer to NT 3.51 as a memory hog and inferior to its successors. In fact, it is the only really reliable operating system that Microsoft have produced. By hiring Dave Cutler to produce a "crash-proof" system they got as near to that goal as they were ever likely to.

    Why?

    Because their real objective at the time was to kill OS/2, Word Perfect and Lotus. They therefore massively expanded the number of APIs in a way that maximised the difficulty of implementation for these competing products. They then prepared their own unpublished APIs that maximised the performance of their own Office Suite.

    Microsoft succeeded in these objectives but at the cost of a hopelessly compromised operating system. Real quality is to be found elsewhere.

    • 18 October 2004 12:23
    • Add comment
  3. 3. F smith

    Xbox a success?

    Not compared to the rivals IE: PS2

    Xbox was to become the defacto 'computer in the living room' this never even hurt PS2.

    -Frank

    • 19 October 2004 09:53
    • Add comment
  4. 4. Martin Taylor

    Two other reasons that were not explicitly mentioned are:
    -Multiple tens of billions of dollars in cash allow Microsoft the resources to throw huge sums of money at multiple projects, even though many fail initially.
    -Microsoft's monopoly position on the desktop, a la Netscape

    • 25 October 2004 15:12
    • Add comment
  5. 5. Rigormortis

    Xbox a failure : NOT!

    1.
    The fact that MS looses money on each xbox sold does not make it a failure. That is how the console business works; loose money on the console - make money on the software.

    2.
    MS expected to loose money on the xbox this generation. They put aside billions. They are trying to position themselves this generation and make money next generation. Personally I think they are doing a good job; great games like Halo and other exclusives & and a wicked live service. Bill Gates even said that he would "spend whatever it takes."

    • 16 November 2004 21:40
    • Add comment

Post your comment

In order to post a comment you need to be registered and logged in.

You can also log in with Facebook. Log in or create your silicon.com account below

  • Login

Will not be displayed with your comment

By signing up for this service, you indicate that you agree to our Terms and Conditions and have read and understood our Privacy Policy.

Questions about membership? Find the answers in the Membership FAQ

Get silicon.com's daily newsletter

  • Register on silicon.com

    Enter your email to register

Keep in touch with silicon.com

silicon.com newsletters