i thought he was implying that others were being hypocritical about actually believing that they could take-on M$
What he said about pretenders and microsoft was this:
"I think when it comes time to really building platforms; we have a lot of experience," he said. "It's taken us 17 years but people think we finally get it a little bit in the enterprise. Some of the pretenders have no enterprise expertise."
A lot of expertise, he said, comes down to the actual feature set and functionality competitive applications have, especially on the Web. "At the end of the day, the actual functionality in the application still matters," he said. "People don't want to go backward when it comes to presentation or word processing capabilities." Later, he specifically called out Google (NSDQ: GOOG). "What we've seen out of the other guys is maybe not even as good as 'me, too,' so I feel very well differentiated versus Google on the productivity, business infrastructure space."
from which you are taking him to mean by pretender "one simulates, pretends, or alleges falsely; a hypocrite or dissemble".
and you think that fits in with the article. i don't see how you possible came to that conclusion. he says that that microsoft have 17 years' of enterprise experience and those that seek to challenge them lack that same experience. where is the allegation of falsehoods (which in your supposes more relevant definition of pretender)?
