Fascinating to me that this only mentions phones once in passing, and even if it had made a big deal about that seismic change in the industry, it would still be wrong. It doesn't mention Microsoft's struggles in the console market, but would still be wrong. It mentions Linux once, doesn't talk about servers, databases, S3 or EC2, but it'd still be wrong.
Dunno what the lesson is, and obviously you can move the goalposts to make 'dead' mean something else. Maybe we'll see this again with all the companies that aren't quite AI enough today. Sure is nice having enormous amounts of cash on hand, though.
In 2007 Microsoft was on top of the console market, which was also a pretty new market for Microsoft in general. It doesn't factor into their argument much.
In any case, the article is definitely hyperbolic. The overall statement that Microsoft is no longer an IBM-tier titanic bully is correct, "dead" is an aggressive overstatement.
Dunno what the lesson is, and obviously you can move the goalposts to make 'dead' mean something else. Maybe we'll see this again with all the companies that aren't quite AI enough today. Sure is nice having enormous amounts of cash on hand, though.