05.22.11
Microsoft is in a Freefall, IBM Surpasses it in Value
Summary: IBM is worth more than Microsoft again as one monopoly descends
MICROSOFT is making foolish moves that put the CEO in jeopardy although he has the backing of Gates.
There are yet more investors who want Ballmer out and one of them publishes “Microsoft Needs a New CEO to Unlock Shareholder Value”. To quote:
I believe if a new CEO took these simple steps, MSFT could easily achieve a much higher stock price in the short and medium term.
Matt Rosoff, a Microsoft booster arriving from a Microsoft-oriented firm [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7], notes that “IBM Is Now Worth More Than Microsoft”. As we noted in yesterday's audiocast, Microsoft in not far from falling to 5th position now. What a reversal, eh? As the Microsoft booster puts it:
That’s a stunner for anybody who remembers the tech landscape in the early 1990s, when Microsoft’s embrace of the PC revolution sent IBM into a tailspin.
What we are seeing here is a company so inherently unable to evolve, a company whose core business becomes outdated as the cash cows are suffocating (profits decline). All it can do now is rely on dubious testimonies from so-called ‘analysts’ who are paid by Microsoft. Yes, Office is once again being defended by friends of Microsoft, who conveniently ignore people’s increased use of the Web for collaboration and productivity. As Groklaw correctly points out, “Business *Productivity* Online Services? Methinks a name change is in order to something a little less hyperbolic.”
The site talks about Microsoft's continued problems with E-mail, which culminate in this recurring issue a Microsoft booster writes about:
A week after being hit hard by serious cloud e-mail problems, a number of Microsoft’s Business Productivity Online Services (BPOS) users are reporting on May 19 that they’re experiencing e-mail delays of up to an hour or more.
Microsoft’s poor software reduces productivity and that sure has a toll/cost. The world of IT will be a better place when bad technology is rejected and not selected based on anti-competitive conduct, lock-in, and dangerous proprietary zealotry. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA