10 Microsoft Acquisitions and What They Mean Now 145
Posted
by
CmdrTaco
from the if-you-can't-beat-it-buy-it dept.
from the if-you-can't-beat-it-buy-it dept.
FrankPoole writes "CRN takes a look at the past five years of Microsoft's acquisition history, which totals $13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees, and highlights 10 deals and how they've affected the software giant. While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse, such as Danger and aQuantive, there are some smaller, blink-and-you'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft's push into new areas such as virtualization. And Microsoft's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by former employees like Dick Brass."
Smart buys (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the companies on that list were intelligent purchasing decisions by Microsoft, even if all of them didn't pan out in the end. Most of them even have examples included of where their input has specifically improved Microsoft's products. I think that Dick Brass's article in the Times was fairly harsh, but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation, then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves. It's certainly not ideal, but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so.
It can only be good... (Score:3, Insightful)
Grow or die... but, it has allowed MS to improve their product offerings over time. Should be interesting to see what the future holds.
"Become"? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator.
Microsoft has always been a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator (though I suppose dumpster-diving does require a certain amount of agility).
Re:Smart buys (Score:2, Insightful)
Innovation at Microsoft ended long, long ago. Microsoft has failed to produce a single innovation that it has not outright purchased for a at least a decade. And no, ClearType is not an innovation: others were doing subpixel font smoothing well before ClearType came along. The sad thing is that without the ability to innovate internally, they will lack the mobility to survive the coming storm of change in their industry. Vista failed to deliver innovation in operating systems, Windows 7 is just Microsoft playing catchup with Apple, Azure will fail to secure a Windows monopoly in the cloud. Microsoft makes hundred-billion-dollar profits because of their monopoly position. Once it starts slipping -- and it already has -- they must either learn to become an equal player in the industry or they will die.
Still the best one by far (Score:4, Insightful)
Though not acquired in the past 5 years, Visio is still the best "Microsoft" product. It is the only one I wish I had, as the open source alternatives don't have the bells and whistles that make Visio a great product.
If you have had to use it - you know exactly what I'm talking about. Its got all the interoperability of Microsoft products that you'd expect, with all the ease of use and understanding that each Office iteration lacks.
Re:Smart buys (Score:5, Insightful)
and how is this different from Apple and Google which are current tech rag favorites? both are on a buying spree. Almost every new Google service in the last few years has been based on a company they bought. just like Apple's multi-touch was as a result of a tiny startup they bought a few years ago
Re:kdawson (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been able to get pro-Microsoft articles posted by kdawson...
The idea that articles would be pro or con seems insane to me. What ever happened to journalism? It seems like everyone has decided it is more profitable to have rabid, emotionally driven dichotomies to sell "news" rather than just strong, objective, fact-based journalism.
Re:Smart buys (Score:5, Insightful)
I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass's article. Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft (whether homegrown or acquired), there are too many internal power struggles going on for those innovations to ever really shine through or live up to their full potential. It's really a symptom of the corporate culture that's been allowed to fester for far too long there.
Ready Your Fanboys (Score:0, Insightful)
Before you morons get all in a tussle, remember that Google BOUGHT most of everything it owns.
The following were outright bought:
Google Groups
Blogger
iGoogle
Google Maps
Google Earth
AdSense/AdWords
Baidu
Google Sketchup
Google Spreadsheet
Picasa
Youtube
Google Talk
Panoramio
Feed Burner
The following were developed around large chunks of bought code, IP, marketshare, etc.
Google Analytics
Android
Google Latitude
Google Documents
Google Sites
Google Chrome
Google Wave
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Google [wikipedia.org]
Simple adaptation (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.
When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty. Very little competition. So the best move for MS to make was innovation. Come up with something new and market that. And hope to make it big, which they did. It was a gamble.
Now, MS is HUGE. And the market is full - loads of competition. They don't have to innovate anymore. They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them. They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore. A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big. There isn't much room. Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem. That is what MS is hoping to acquire. The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market. They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore. They're here to stay. Now given that, what is the best strategy? Stop anyone else from competing at their scale. Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.
The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment. It's not surprising.
Re:Smart buys (Score:5, Insightful)
Vista failed to deliver innovation in operating systems, Windows 7 is just Microsoft playing catchup with Apple [...]
People say this a lot, but is there really that much innovation to be done in the operating system space, at least for end users? (The server space is, of course, quite different.) Personally, I'd be a lot happier if Microsoft stopped "innovating" with Windows, unless the innovation in question is to get the hell out of my face and operate smoothly so I can focus on my applications, which are why I have a computer in the first place. It's 2010, for crying out loud. The personal computer OS is a mature product category, and would be better served -- especially in Microsoft's case -- by fixing its plethora of bugs and security holes and misfeatures and just supporting new hardware as it comes along. While they're at it, maybe they could focus on optimizing its memory and CPU usage so that there's more left over for -- again -- the applications its supposed to support.
Being as we are, as a group, actually interested in the inner workings of operating systems, it's sometimes hard to remember that operating systems are mainly visible to users to the extent that they don't work as well as they should. A good operating system is unnoticeable for users and highly tractable for developers. Microsoft is failing miserably (and, for misguided marketing purposes, deliberately) at both.
Live by the sword, die by the sword (Score:4, Insightful)
Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. At Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence.
This sounds like the same thing they do to external competition.
Re:Ready Your Fanboys (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation:
"Wah, stop bashing my favorite big corporation! The other big corporations are no better, blah blah, whinge, whinge".
CLUE: intelligent people don't have "favorite" big corporations.
Where did he profess his love for any corporation? Pointing out that Google gets much of its innovation from others doesn't mean he loves Microsoft or any other large corporation. I guess an intelligent person such as yourself already knew that.
Re:Smart buys (Score:5, Insightful)
They didn't say playing catchup in marketshare, they mean catchup in features, stability performance and appearance etc..
People don't buy windows because they've assessed multiple competing options (including osx and linux) and found windows to be technically superior or better value for money, they buy it because they don't realise anything else exists, because they're afraid to learn something new or because theyre forced to by having their data held to ransom by proprietary applications and their formats.
Re:Simple adaptation (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Smart buys (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't buy windows because they've assessed multiple competing options ...
Depending on the user, the thought of the OS was probably secondary to the intended task: Run a web browser. Think about the typical user. And by typical, I mean grandma, mom, brother, dad, friend down the way that aren't tech geeks like the readers here. They just use a computer to get things done, like driving a car to get to work. They just use it, it is just a tool. This kind of user could care the hell less about the OS wars. They mock people like you and me for even caring about something "so trivial, because they all look the same anyways." (that is a direct quote, and it bugged me) And for many, many people, using a computer means running a web browser to get to FaceBook, MySpace, AOL, Gmail, etc, etc. The OS underneath doesn't matter for many of these people. Oh, sure, some of them want to type up documents, maybe write up a quick spreadsheet to help calculate some costs, but even then, the apps look the same on all platforms.
The difference comes in the money used to purchase the product. If dad only wants to spend $400 on "something that will let me read e-mail", it is probably going to be a PC with a copies of Windows already included. So, no, there is no comparison shopping be done. There is no point for them.
Think about the last time you bought a broom. Did you feature compare several models? Hate it or not, but the computer is on the level of a broom to most users. This fact bothers me...a lot. But I have had to come to terms with it.
Re:Smart buys (Score:3, Insightful)
Unintentional monopoly? (Score:3, Insightful)
The author was only there from '97 to '04. There was nothing unintentional about it. If you know their history you know this. Their restrictive licensing began in the '80s. For example, early on they made license deals with manufacturers, e.g. Dell and Gateway. What that came down to was the manufacturer had to pay a fee whether or not a PC shipped with an MS OS. So what did they do? Ship only MS OS on their machines. MS was locking out the competition as as fast as possible.
This is also the company that said, It's not done until Lotus won't run".
Ballmer earning profits? He lead MS into their first ever period of losses. Now only remediated by Windows 7. Vista was a train wreck.
Being a monopoly has done what it always does; t makes a company fat, sloppy, lazy, and unimaginative.