I could readily argue that Microsoft incurs huge costs for making all their products Windows. Technology is usually a minor cost, and having one, two, or three technologies to address a wide range of use cases and markets will wash out of the costs if the technologies are appropriately used.
Microsoft announced a Windows Everywhere strategy in the 1990s, and Windows has taken its annual turnover from $1bn to $74bn. (That includes doubling under Steve Ballmer.)
Some people would call that "putting all the wood behind one arrow."
Microsoft did try developing a new and different technology for different use cases with Windows CE. That's what it's replacing with Windows 8....
http://www.economist.com/node/107364
Are those numbers due to The Age of PCs, or is that because Windows actually went everywhere and and is a tier 1 competitor in those categories, i.e. servers, tablets, handsets, cars, TVs, media players, etc.?
On servers, Microsoft is on a supposedly even footing with Linux, but I have not seen traffic-weighted statistics. Apart from that, where is Windows?
It looks like Microsoft has created a bottleneck for itself, where all innovation has to get stuffed through the Windows product line.
Microsoft's Servers and Tools division is a $19bn business and sales were up 12% on last year. This compares with Red Hat revenues of $1.13 billion, up 17% year-over-year.
The $19bn compares with initial expectations of zero. Linux fanboys have been telling me for more than a decade that Microsoft was going to be wiped out in the server business, but so far, it hasn't happened. Maybe next year, like the Linux desktop, eh?
Since you're not paying me to do your research, you can google (or even bing) Windows Embedded, Windows Embedded Automotive (aka Ford SYNC) and so on. Of course, it's tough competing with FREE.
> It looks like Microsoft has created a bottleneck for itself, where all
> innovation has to get stuffed through the Windows product line.
