Microsoft is making a defensive play by targeting the consumer market, and they're right to do so. As it stands, their enterprise position isn't threatened - nobody else is coming close to them yet. But they've lost a lot of ground in the consumer space over the last decade which is becoming a problem.
Why? Because the people in the consumer space are the very same people who make enterprise decisions. The "bring your own device" trend is growing, and people are bringing iPhones, iPads, and Android devices in. Apple is still a little slow on this front, but Google has cottoned onto this fact and they're improving their enterprise offerings and targeting businesses.
If sysadmins and CTOs are using Android devices, and staff are bringing in their own Android devices, once Google's enterprise services become of a comparable standard to Microsoft, MS will begin hemorrhaging enterprise customers; that
is the bigger problem. It would be a catastrophic strike right at the core of Microsoft - Windows. If the enterprise moves away from Windows because enterprise end-users aren't using Windows, it an endgame scenario for Microsoft.
The tech world is moving away from an open system and becoming increasingly siloed into discrete ecosystems where Apple, Google, and Microsoft devices do not play well with each other. Whoever owns the consumer space will own the enterprise space.
Microsoft is finding it very difficult to break into the smartphone market because everyone is already tied into Apple and Google ecosystems, and it's late to market. But late is better than never; the push into the consumer space will pay off if it makes sure that the Microsoft doesn't become an afterthought in the next 10 years.
To put it simply, Microsoft's end vision is something like this: People will use Microsoft at work because they use it at home.
Not the other way around.
Originally Posted by revro
I wouldnt call a tax avoidance scheme a charity. Death tax is what, 40% these days? And these so called charities have to fulfill what requirements? To spend 5% of their assets per year on 'charity'? Also what actually does constitute doing charity? Sending off money to another 'charity'?
No wonder Warren Buffet joined them, that son of a congressman and owner of brokership aint stupid to pay taxes
I genuinely cannot tell if you're trolling or you actually are that ignorant and consumed by blind hatred for Bill Gates. Either way, the fact remains that he, along with everyone else part of the Giving Pledge are contributing more good to the world than you ever will.
Originally Posted by ejb222