Slashdot Mirror

Actually, according to this article, Sirius has already started experiencing "positive free cash flows" which means profits are, literally, right around the corner. It gets somewhat more complicated since Sirius will continue to pursue desirable content and technology improvements (such as, I believe, launching at least one more satellite this year or next) in an effort to improve their service, but subscriber numbers have already been increasing at a higher rate for Sirius - when they signed Stern in 2004 they were at around 600,000 subscribers and they are now over 6 million - than XM over the last year which would seem to indicate that their numbers are going to keep going up.

Sorry, bud, those most certainly ARE very socialist, left-wing, countries who have crippled their economies.

Yeah, Canada has longer lifespans, lower infant mortality, spends about half what the U.S. does per capita on health care and gets universal coverage for its money, has a currency that is rising against the U.S. dollar and has had budgets balanced at the federal level and in most provinces for the past ten years. We have low unemployment and interest rates, and you can incorporate federally in your pyjamas (I've done it--is that too much information?)

Sure sounds like a crippled economy to me.

You mean they didn't just fire half their employees and turn off half their equipment? Can't you just add new stations cheaper than moving old ones?

Yes, the selloff actually began on the 18th with this headline:

http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_118 2255.html

Absent this downgrade and the general downturn, its share price would not have moved more than a few percentage points. After all, GOOG is big business, and let's not forget who's running the show.

First let me state that I believe MS will win against Google. Also let's point out that AOL accounts for 12% of Google's annual revenue, and that is nothing to laugh at ($380million). The NY Times has also reported that MS is the front runner. http://www.newratings.com/analyst_news/article_110 3765.html

So what is at stake and why is AOL so important? Well take a look at these stats (as reported by the NY Times the nation's paper of record).
September rankings
1. Yahoo: 123 million users
2. Time Warner (AOL and related sites): 119 million
3. MSN and other Microsoft sites: 114 million
4. Google: 87.6 million

Combine AOL and MSN and they almost double yahoo and are almost 3 times Google! Advertisers will KILL to get their ads in front at that number of possible people. As far as Google's superior tools... they aren't THAT much better. 87.6million vs 233million is a big difference and lets face it MS has very good developers, lots of resources, and will catch up. They always do.

Now where is the growth? Well, the real crown jewel is getting access to Time Warner's arsenal of media content. Most people expected the next big wave to be media, and AOL is the gateway to one of the biggest deposits on the planet.

The winner of this battle wins more then just bragging rights. If MS beats out Google, it's going to be a HUGE hit for them financially. It's more then just loosing their 12% of revenue each year. It will also mean they will loose their premier advertising title. People will start throwing money at advertising with MSN strictly for the numbers, and that will result in more losses for both yahoo and Google.

This is much more then a warning shot across Google's bow. I see this as a precise incision, not at Google's hear, more like cutting off one of Google's legs. They can live without it, but in a race you do best with both legs.

We know how bloated and heavy Eclipse is. So its no surprise that Business Objects is also overweight!

This week, Philips signed an agreement with Microsoft that will integrate Windows Media and DRM at the chip level into all its consumer products. Microsoft, Philips team up for multi media software

Apple makes a good case study for the massive negative impact of GPLd software. You can see how their profits have been plummeting since they (partially) embraced the Open Source model.

Nice consiracy theory and all, but FYI, MS has been trying to sell its stake in MSNBC. They sold Slate magazine too, by the way.

Non-computer people see the computer as a single entity - it's not quite Windows that crashes, it's "the computer" (but they do seem to know that Microsoft is to blame). They really don't give a crap about the distinction between the OS and the computer, so they may see it as more reasonable to get a whole new computer rather than perform what they perceive as "brain surgury" to put Linux on it (and which Linux should it be? Red Hat, Linspire, Gentoo, etc... kind of confusing for someone who doesn't follow this stuff and isn't quite sure what role Linux plays on their computer).

So here's the logic as I see it: now that a Macintosh can be had for a reasonable $500, and getting a new, "different kind" of computer seems like the best solution, the Mac Mini seems more likely to replace Windows on the average desktop than Linux. Everyone's heard of the Apple Macintosh, and Mac software does sometimes appear in retail stores (besides Apple stores). It seems to be selling well enough.

Now, we know that it's cheaper to install Linux on your existing hardware, but just try to put yourself in the shoes of average, don't-care-about-computers-they're-just-a-tool person and imagine how they see things.