Yeah. I've always thought they'll "die" the way IBM did; still significant, still profitable, still a force to be reckoned with, just not dominating the industry anymore. Arguably, that's already come to pass, or we're very close to it. It gets easier every year to build large companies that simply ignore them. (It's always been possible, but it continues to get easier.)

While predicting their Imminent Demise™ does get old after a while, I would point out that for years, people have been pointing out that they make all their money on Windows and Office and have failed to penetrate any other market. This has remained true. People further point out that sooner or later, those markets aren't going to be as lucrative as they once were. I think we're only now beginning to see that, but I also think it'll snowball once "I have a Linux-based system" is no more weird than "I have a Mac". (Linux and Mac both legitimize each other.) The arguments that Microsoft are going to "die" (their dominance if not the actual company) are well-founded in structural arguments about how they get to their bottom-line, not merely GPL-hippie wish-fulfillment fantasies. Without a lucrative third-front, Microsoft can not continue as the force they are today. That the argument is old doesn't mean it's not true, it simply didn't happen as quickly as some people anticipated(/wanted).

(I'd actually characterize the XBox as doing better than the article does, but it's still nowhere near profitable enough to build the company around, nor does it seem to have prospect of doing so. I can't think of anything else that could support them, either.)