MS is exhibiting behavior that is typical of a dominant market leader who's making tons of money on existing technology and doesn't want to upset that, but instead plots each venture into new realms with a principal focus of preserving the existing base for Windows.
GM did that for decades and finally imploded. So did Kodak, DEC, etc, etc.
HP seems to be on that arc too.
It's hard.. think of the tons of money Kodak was scooping up for film and processing while digital cameras are so ubiquitous that it's hard to see how anyone makes money on them.
They finally turned off the lights on their last processing plant last year and based on what I'm reading they aren't far from liquidation.
Actually, that has been the norm.

One of the most common fallacies in business thought is that because a company is enormously successful with an innovative product it will continue to do that with new products.
In fact the reverse is true.
With a few rare exceptions (Apple is one, Intel was for a long time and HP used to be one) most companies that score with enormously successful innovations don't repeat that performance.
More typically we get a Ford following the enormously successful Mustang with the Edsel.


A former golf partner of mine made a huge killing with a board game - it's a household word now - and refused to try to develop another game. When I asked him why, he said that the first success was one in a million and the odds against a repeat were so high as to be incalculable- like making back-to-back holes-in-one.
So he collects his money on the board game and plays a lot more golf now.

Bill Gates has pulled more than $50 billion out of Windows. He can close up tomorrow (and maybe he should) and still be the most successful innovator of the 20th century.


>>The reason is that web standards developed and now include a video standard. Microsoft is more supporting to web standards now than ever before.
>>
>>Additionally, there are many platforms that no longer support browser plugins. iPad, and WindowsRT come to mind. Also, with phones and other small portable devices, loading additional things like Silverlight is getting less likely.
>>
>>
>>>Netflix dropping Silverlight, thought it is intersting they making the move now. I just don't understand how MSFT could spend so much money and development on something, then drop it so quickly which causes other companies to drop it. How long did it last before they announced they were droping it.... perhaps 2 years? This link is not from a tech article, but from an "so so" investing site.
>>>
>>>http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/04/15/netflix-to-drop-microsoft-silverlight.aspx
>
>I think Mel (and I ) would both agree as to *why* MS pulled the plug on Silverlight but I also think his question (in the context of "My god what were they thinking") is how they could have put so much energy, money and evangelism into it before realizing it was MS version of IBMs micro-channel architecture.
>
>I know that for some reason at MS there has been a culture of doing things like putting three teams on projects that basically compete and then killing off the losers ( Linq to SQL ) and maybe that has given them good results in some cases. I suspect that while the Silverlight/WPF team was doing their thing and getting a lot of love, the VS/javascript/HTML team(s) were quietly tolling away on what a lot of people thought would be the backup that would save their asses when Silverlight went south.
>
>But being tone deaf to a lot of consumer demand, thinking they could create demand by juggernaut as in days of yore, the resounding lack of success for Windows 8 is pretty much chickens coming home to roost.
>
>I take more than a passing interest in new OS. i have a vested professional interest in success of MS platform. I develop apps to run on MS and I advise clients regarding MS.
>
>I don't have a Win 8 device of any kind, wouldn't ever consider a windows phone (are there still such things - I've never seen one?) Would never consider putting 5 minutes into Metro (oh, wait, what is it now? ) development.
>
>If I had to buy a new PC (which it seems not many people do right now) I may get Windows 8 but like everyone I know who has one I'd probably spend the first day getting metro the hell off of the screen and getting it to look as much like Win 7 as I could.
>
>I have never seen a compelling case to use, develop for or recommend Win 8 and I know there are a lot of folks out there lest interested in and supportive of MS than I am.
>
>So far it seems through their advertising that the best argument they make for Win 8 is you get some big clunky looking boxes on the screen (which users try to figure out a way to turn off as their first "customization" ) and if you get a whateverthatis they are advertising in the TV ads it has a kickstand and you can slap it around and dance. Oh, and you get a touch screen interface for your desktop or laptop where you have got along quite nicely without one since 1981.
>
>Of course this doesn't speak to the technical merits of Windows 8. I know nothing of those, but I do know that this is a business where perception means a lot (or Apple would have crashed years ago) and MS is not winning that war.
>
>Meanwhile, the actual great developer IDE they have created - Visual Studio - is great because it makes HTML5 and javascript work and play well with good stuff - like SQL Server.
>
>Very schizophrenic company.