I could have saved you some effort. By &quot;computer&quot; I meant &quot;personal computer&quot;. I presume that everybody here would understand that I didn&#x27;t mean &quot;device which can compute&quot;, i.e. all servers, cash registers, calculators, difference engines and Turing machines. I&#x27;d have thought that this would&#x27;ve been obvious since I said 95% off the top of my head, and your very own link says 91.47%.<p>Microsoft are so far from niche it&#x27;s unreal, and it shows a great ignorance on behalf of the author to look at one product from one arm of a diverse organisation, which has been at the forefront of CS research for decades, has competences that Google et al absolutely do not, and compare it to other companies which only have vague product-line overlap so blithely.<p>This is ignoring the manufacturing, supply chain management, distribution, retail competences that the other mentioned companies have, which Google and Facebook may <i>never</i> have. It&#x27;s also ignoring fundamental aspects of marketing such as brand equity, positioning, etc. It&#x27;s also ignoring the fact that some of these companies are already embedded in industry, via their product line and also via consultancy. Lastly, it&#x27;s taking a single current snapshot of the industry, and is ignoring the fundamentals of organisational strategy and competition and capitalism, which would suggest that the companies mentioned will adapt and compete to survive (in b4 Innovator&#x27;s Dilemma). Not all companies will do this successfully, but the companies mentioned will.<p>It seems like the author is judging these companies via their perception of a small subset of their products, and the market&#x27;s perception of them (some of their share prices are up and down) without looking at the fundamentals of each business, their diversification strategies, product line strategies, their financial metrics (which the author could&#x27;ve looked up in 10 seconds), and so on.<p>I mean to suggest that these companies are in trouble because of OSS such as MongoDB, <i>which they have partnered with, support, and sell</i> (and more than likely funded at some point), is very silly, but that&#x27;s precisely what the author has done.