Nadella says "Mobile first, cloud first" because that's where the market is going. So far it's doing well with Azure (which is second to AWS) and Office 365 (which is overtaking or has overtaken Google). Both Outlook.com and OneDrive work well.

It's a relative scale, though. Google Docs, or whatever we're calling it this week, is basically a toy. It's useful enough for what it does, but completely unsuitable for a lot of professional or otherwise demanding work because it lacks so much in both features and usability. Overtaking a toy version of your flagship application isn't particularly impressive.

Comparing Office 365 against Google Docs also seems to be something of an apples-to-oranges comparison anyway. What is the market share of any on-line office suite compared to the desktop Office powerhouse? I can't immediately find recent figures searching as I write this, but based on not-too-long-ago data the answer appears to be tiny.

On the other hand, it has a strong cross-platform strategy with very clear goals. It also has a track-record for coming from behind and beating incumbents (albeit not recently, unless you count Xbox).

I see things rather differently.

For one thing, I don't think Microsoft's cross-platform strategy is strong at all. They seem to be trying to make all devices work the same way, but many of those devices are fundamentally different. The result is all too often the same as a lot of "mobile first" web design: least common denominator thinking and poor usability in many of the environments it's used in. See also: criticism of Windows 8's excessively touch-friendly UI by just about everyone who had a keyboard and mouse on their computer.

As for coming from behind and beating incumbents... I'm honestly struggling to think of good examples of that. The Microsoft history I recall seems to be full of failures, from Bing to successive mobile operating systems. Even the Xbox programme, which you mentioned as a positive example, actually contributed to MS losing billions in its first few years, while today the Xbox One remains far behind the PS4 in current gen console market share.

The only real difference is that Windows Update now delivers both patches and improved features, instead of just patches.

Well, there is that little "you can't opt out" issue.

This is a bit ahead of the competition (what's innovation for?) but smartphone users are familiar with having apps updated automatically on a regular basis.

And in my experience, it's hard to find any of them that actually like it, not least because people keep pushing out updates that change UIs in unwanted ways, cripple performance, or outright break the phone. There seem to be few things that rile my less technical friends and family more than their systems changing (and sometimes breaking) when they didn't ask them to. See also: the failure of dynamically changing menus that were in Microsoft's own Office suite for a while, and attendant tech support nightmares, not to mention the users of web apps and other subscription software taking to Twitter and Facebook to complain every time something important drops out.

As things stand, I don't see this trend lasting as the mainstream option for more than a few years, even with industry momentum and commercial incentives behind it. There's just too much customer-hostile about it both under the hood and in your face. The marketing says you get better security and the latest features sooner. The reality can all too often be substandard software shipped before it was ready because it can just be patched later, frequent rearrangement of UIs that no-one really wanted, uncertainty every time you fire up your software about whether it will work today, and perhaps worst of all, fewer substantial new features, because why bother innovating when your customers are already locked in anyway?

We're talking about the consumer branch of Windows 10 here

We are? As far as I can see, most of what's being said in this discussion is just as applicable to Pro, which means it also applies to power users and most small to medium businesses.

Otherwise, re the hysteria about "privacy intrusion" see

The thing is, I've seen several waves of this. First there were the "It's all good" reviews. Then there were the panic-stricken "Privacy is dead, security is dead" responses. Then there were the rationalising "No they're not" posts like the one you linked to there.

It's true that some of the concerns were overstated. However, it also remains fundamentally true that Microsoft's Windows 10 privacy policy is vague and open-ended in its scope, and that the default Windows privacy settings will send large amounts of data to Microsoft, much of which they would not previously have received, and potentially including sensitive information. It is also likely that many users won't be aware of the numerous settings on numerous screens they would need to turn off to restore previous levels of privacy, partly because it's pretty much all opt-out, and partly because in some cases the installer outright lies (e.g., on the telemetry question).

However, the real debate-ender for me is that even if every privacy criticism were completely fabricated and false today, with compulsory updates and a vague privacy policy there is no guarantee that they won't become true tomorrow. The only reason to trust that it won't is trust that Microsoft won't make changes you don't like. And that's the same Microsoft that has just removed the ability to block updates (something only relevant to power users if Microsoft wants to force an update that the user doesn't want), the same Microsoft that is already relying on absurd levels of complexity and dark patterns to dissuade users from opting out of the existing privacy intrusions in Windows 10, and the same Microsoft that has repeatedly abused the Windows Update process for users of earlier Windows versions in recent months to push out telemetry (essentially, spyware) updates, nagging advertising messages, and so on.