Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's 'Freedom to Innovate' Brochure
SEA writes: "Scans of a Freedom to Innovate Network (FIN) leaflet passed out by some of the cutest boothie chicks from MS's largest booth @ PC Expo. Felt so dirty for taking one but had to just for giggles and rant ..."
Here's
the front and
the back of the brochure. My favorite part is that this is a 'grassroots effort' but it has a Redmond address. One can only speculate.
I think the companies are just catering to the types of people that make up the vast majority of attendees at these shows, namely men. If there were more women attending, you'd probably see half-naked men showing up at the booths too. Or whatever else the companies seem to think will attract women. Giant chocolate bars perhaps. :)
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
"The FIN is a non-partisan effort,..." = We'll buy any politician regardless of party.
Can't the spin doctors at MS see that this is exactly the sort of cynical campaign that will damage their case in the court of public opinion? I cannot imagine that there are many people more intelligent than "ditto heads" that will fall for this. But maybe there are enough "dittos" out there to make a difference? The stupidity of the American People has never been in doubt, sadly.
Dog is my co-pilot.
One system to rule them all, one system to find them,
One system to bring them all and in the darkness bind them,
In the Land of Redmond, where the Shadows lie.
:)
So where are the pictures of the cute booth babes?
Bad Mojo
Bad Mojo
"If you can't win by reason, go for volume." -- Calvin
Thanks for such a thoughtful reply; I haven't any experience as a systems integrator but I will try to bring up a couple points.
I don't suppose I would expect them to consult me on that; I was thinking more of cases where they stop selling a product that you really depend on for your sales, or take that product in a significantly different direction. In a market that contains Microsoft, you might be lucky to find another company whose product you can use instead - in many such markets, Microsoft will have destroyed those other companies and you won't have any other options besides restructuring your business around the remaining options that MS provides you.
On the other hand, if Red Hat decides to go in a different direction than I like, I could just start using a commodity Linux or BSD distro from some other vendor, or even take the existing RH source code and tweak it to work for me. Not entirely painless maybe, but not a business-shattering event. No one's integration business would go down the tubes if RH faced similar antitrust action, for example.
Maybe I'm a little fuzzy on the exact bounds of what systems integrators do, but it seems to me that if you're a Microsoft shop and you only integrate between various MS tools, why can't you be replaced by Microsoft at some point in the future? If they already have the know-how (which they would need to keep their systems compatible in the first place), and they wanted the business, and they already know who your customer is, some future MS Integration Division could easily provide what you provide, probably more cheaply.
I'm not sure how likely this scenario is, it just seems like you sacrifice a lot of control of your business that way. I can see that in the short-term the single-vendor approach (especially if vendor==MS) is a big win for your company; I'm just not convinced that in the long run it will turn out to be so. As you pointed out, Microsoft's business practices (which are entirely beyond your control) may cause serious problems for your business now.
I can't argue with that, since I haven't been through it. From my perspective, though, MS is no longer on the side of the angels. You can now get development tools, documentation, tools source, and a direct hotline to the creators of the products that you use for free, without any reciprocal expectations on you. You don't have to use just Red Hat tools, you don't have to just provide Red Hat solutions, you're free to choose the best tool for the job in every circumstance. You aren't locked in and neither are your customers when something better comes along. From my perspective, Microsoft may have started the sea change in developer relations, but it is no longer leading the charge. It's great that you retain that loyalty and I can't fault you for that; I guess we'll have to let the market sort out how much you really have to thank Microsoft for.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
I'm emphatically not saying that Micros~1 is linked with the Co$.
But they are!! At least according to the german government...
The integrated disk defragmenter software (DiskKeeper) built into Windows 2K is made by Executive Software, a company run according to Scientology guidelines. This has triggered an investigation by the BSI (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik - federal agency for security in Information technologies), who are to check if there may be some backdoors or snooping of users data in W2K.
Mind you, they cannot prohibit it from being sold, but all government bodies could for example refuse to buy Microsoft products (short anecdote: recently, a study has been posted on a german governemnt webserver which suggests that the generalized use of free/opensource software for the governements IT needs would substantially lower costs and increase security of the state's computer infrastructure).
The BSI is currently in negotiation with Microsoft to determine if and how much of the W2K source-code it's experts may get access to. Interestingly enough, the US has excerted some pressure on Germany to convince them to stop it's repression on Scientology...
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
The address is www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate. What's to speculate?
Repeat after me, scream it for everyone to hear...
AS-TRO-TURF! AS-TRO-TURF! AS-TRO-TURF! (repeat ad nauseam)
Hey, it's not just for politicians during election years anymore!
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
And of course in French it means....
The End
Which for the MS Monopoly it could well be.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Yep, it's a really good deal for these developers and those stockholders and blah and blah. Except what has the "network" actually done for the "American people"?
Number One, forever corrupted use of the term "innovate" or "innovation".
Number Two, created a huge number of companies run by ex-Microsofties. I just left one because, frankly, the management was (without their monopoly) totally clueless about (a) basic business, (b) truly innovative technology (c) people (d) any kind of actual creativity.
What's sad but also scary about the Redmond factor is that its loyal troops are subliminally programmed to trust only other rich guys - and to trust only other people who worked at M$. They seem like it's not that way, but in any situation where decision-making is called-for, you'll find even the 3rd-rater M$-ex ranks higher than anyone from elsewhere.
It's truly sad, unwittingly hilarious - and pervasive all around the Puget Sound.
Of course, in many companies around Redmond and Seattle, this leads inexorably to diminishing returns.
"Innovation"? The loyalists I worked with couldn't even spell it. When their company began falling apart, too, all the ex-M$ programmers headed back to - a quote - "the ready arms of Uncle Bill".
PS People at several national news orgs have for months refered gleefully to the FIN as "Microsoft Pravda".
Numerous times since then, they've been caught paying press for articles or having their employees write happy letters, etc. It's at the point where if something nice is being said about them, I immediately suspect the speaker of having been paid off.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Hi!
First off--a word of thanks. A friend and sometime employee who lurks on SlashDot sent me an email this morning that read, "so--kicking over anthills on /. again?" I fully expected to see some ugly flames when I checked in. I am delighted by the posts of those of you who have taken the time to respond. SlashDot has a reputation for trolls, and I'm delighted by the tone and tenor of these comments. It's a very engaging conversation.
That's a very good point. In fact, that situation is presently happening with Microsoft Site Server. Site Server Commerce Edition 3.0 is a relatively cheap tool, and it does Registration and Membership quite nicely. Site Server Commerce Edition 2000 is a big-ticket tool that does all sorts of stuff--but all I need is plain vanilla registration and membership. I don't want all the other stuff, and I don't want to make my client (an Internet startup) have to pay for it. Microsoft is doing precisely what you suggest: moving away from what I want to do. (Or, "I don't want to go there, at least not today.") What to do?
For the short term, we're writing our own version. It isn't integrated with the OS in the slick way that Microsoft's is--in fact, it depends upon inclusion files in each Active Server Page we write. But we believe in stuff like the CMM and repetitive processes, so that's easy to handle.
My friend, Charlie, whom I mentioned above, is entirely of that opinion. And Microsoft's latest server pricing announcement lends a lot of weight to that view. I'm very interested on what the next round of Visual Studio will look like--if the purported breakthrough in Internet development tools really amounts to something I'll get a lot more excited about Microsoft. If the "breakthrough" amounts to another kludge like Visual InterDev I may look at Borland's Kylix with a lot more enthusiasm....
Hi!
Not just "significantly" cheaper and easier--dramatically cheaper and easier. The $3000 per seat licenses I mentioned earlier were the kind of scam database vendors got away with because those were the only tools you could use to connect to a given database. Microsoft blew that entire market strategy away with ODBC (Open Data Base Connectivity). The last time I checked there were 34 different databases with ODBC drivers available from at least one vendor. OLE DB (such as Microsoft's Active Data Objects) provides significantly higher performance to Microsoft SQL Server and Oracle, and other vendors that create an OLE DB interface.
Microsoft didn't do this out of altruism. They did it to permit developers using Microsoft tools to connect to any database out there--but in the process they made it possible for developers using anybody else's tools (PowerBuilder, Delphi, etc.) to connect to those databases as well. The net result was that the proprietary database developer marketplace (Progress, some others) has dried up.
They're presently driving the price of what I'd term "mid-range" database solutions down with the Microsoft Database Engine. It's SQL Server 7.0 without the GUI. Develop the app with SQL Server, ship the app with the MSDE. You have an embedded database with positively kick-booty performance (SQL Server 7 is an absolutely groovy DBMS) with no nickel-and-dime client license fees.
Compare/contrast with database development for the AS/400 platform. Big bucks for the AS/400, big bucks for the OS, and even big bucks for each minor upgrade to the OS. Big bucks for DB2. And big bucks per seat for every user. Who is, of course, sitting in front of a PC running a $400 per seat 3270 terminal emulator package. A Windows client/server solution stomps that whole conglomeration silly both on price and performance. Being able to distribute it across the Internet using anybody's browser makes it even easier. The Total Cost of Ownership is dramatically lower with the Microsoft solution.
You should understand that this kind of behavior is the "bullying" that Microsoft's allies (particularly Oracle) are crying about. Oracle has good reason to cry--they charge an astronomical price for a very good database. Microsoft, with SQL Server 7.0, has a comparable database for most applications at a fraction of the price. Larry Ellison was running around a year ago offering $1 million to anybody who could show that SQL Server was as fast as Oracle--he withdrew the offer right before SQL Server 7 shipped. Oracle's political work to start the Dept. of Justice investigation (including $750,000 in free software and services to the Senate Judiciary Committee), their coordination of the DofJ anti-trust suit, and their snooping around the trash of Jonathan Zuck are all of a piece: they have some whopping great margins to protect, and Threat Number One is Microsoft.
The next question is, is there an Open Source solution that is even cheaper? Yes and no--the tools cost less, but some of the tools simply are not available. (For instance, I'm not aware of any Open Source DBMS that are supported on Linux or BSD by ER/win or InfoModeler. I'm also not aware of any Linux- or BSD-compatible database modeling software similar to ER/win or InfoModeler.) The time you spend doing stuff that Microsoft already does for you out of the box negates a lot of the Open Source cost advantage.
From my experience working at a Microsoft Cerified Solutions Provider last summer as well as the fact that I have a few friends working at MSFT plus my former constant perusal of the talkback at ZDNet, I can say unequivocably that there is no subculture of Microsoft fanatics past, present or future.
Heck, even my friends that work there aren't Do Or Die about it, unlike most Slashdotters are with Linux or Open Source. Conversations with them have lead me to believe that this entire MSFT vs. Open Source war is generally one-sided with Slashdotters making mountains out of molehills at every turn.
In my opinion, the Freedom To Innovate Network isn't targetted at the average hacker or software developer. It's a means to gather popular user support from people like my mom's friends who feel that they'll have to stop using PCs once MSFT is broken up since Windows is all they know and (in their opinion) without MSFT they'd still view computers with fear and awe. This demographic is a lot more powerful vote-wise (there are more of them than hackers) and easier to persuade than the developer audience. After all, most of them already feel that MSFT is being targetted not for any wrongdoings but simply for being too successful.
Does it also includes supporting reverse engineering? What about fraudelent EULAs that say if you don't agree, that you can get a refund? Or that permit you to reverse engineer to be able to be compatible?
Me thinks this emperor is nude, and it's not a pretty.
Fight Spammers!
Am I the only one who finds the presence of those buxom babes at technology (and comic, and electronic gaming) conferences really disturbing? I mean, I'd like to think we're better then that sort of idiotic pandering. Sure, she's a babe, but if her presence is encouraging me to by into their products, there's something seriously fscked up here. Oh well, maybe I just expect too much from humans. I'll just have to work more on the super-beings that I'm breeding from gerbils.
I guess your perception and my perception of "cheap" differ substantially. Or perhaps you simply work for a large company with a generous development budget.
But I work at a small company; and if generous capital isn't available, then MS software sucks you dry quickly. If you have, say, 5 VC++ programmers and 5 VB programmers (for example) the costs add up extremely quickly: 10 licenses for Visual SourceSafe, 5 licenses for VC++, 5 licenses for VB, a copy of Windows NT server (plus client licenses for all users, plus hardware to run it on) to run the SS database on, somebody to administer the server, 10 copies of Windows 2000 (unless you want to go nuts by developing on crashy Win98.)
When you're a big company, those expenses are probably a tiny percentage of the overall expense budget; but when you're a small company, you're talking a substantial percentage of your expenses.
Makes it kind of difficult to get off the ground. But I guess MS would rather target big companies because big companies have lots more money to spend. Very much like our local banks here - they only want business clients - they try as hard as possible to drive away individual personal clients, because its far less work for much more profit with business clients.
"I have a strongly vested interest in the success of Microsoft, and I'm not shy about saying so"
When you compare MS to the old Unix-based "regimes", yes, MS is cheaper. But times have changed, and MS profit margins are very high - all it would take is a little competition from a few other companies with some development capital to create some decent products to compete head-on with the VisualStudio series to bring prices way down, quality up, and speed up innovation (Visual SourceSafe is an excellent example of a product that is completely stagnant for lack of competition.)
Have you considered that your "strongly vested interest in the success of Microsoft" may be at least somewhat a dependency; a dependency which exists for a lack of alternatives? If this is the case then your argument amounts to not much more than the "we can't break up Microsoft because we're all so freaking dependent on their products" argument.
The best part - is that they copyrighted their "innovative version" of the flag!
:)
Next thing you know - they will sue the US for immitating their "look and feel"
and maybe they'll come after us if we print out their flag - and burn it!!
You start your post by mocking those who would dare to talk about the "Microsoft hegemony" and "bullying" practices, but then seem to conclude your message by describing the de facto way these practices exist between Microsoft and developers.
I agree that it's convenient that Windows is as close as there is to a standard, and that they can use this to their and their developers' advantage. At the same time I'm not about to say that this is anything but what it is, monopolistic practice. This is exactly what the DoJ is griping about. Microsoft is using it's rank in the industry to perpetuate its products and launch new ones. How can smaller firms compete? And yes, Microsoft has worked very hard and intelligently to achieve their current status, but that doesn't justify what currently exists. Rewarding business saavy is not as important as a competitive marketplace.
It's too bad that under the current system you seem to benefit from what in the long run will only stifle innovation and create larger problems. The thing about a monopoly is that it IS convenient, but convenience isn't necessarily efficient or even, more importantly, desirable in the long term.
Rock over London. Rock on Chicago. Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Here's why. Have you ever seen what sort of sinister things an AOL install does to Windows 9x? AOL 5.0 is so self-important, it seems to think it needs its own virtual network adapter, instead of opening a TCP port. Or better yet, a COM port, which is what older AOL clients did before Steve Case thought he was bigger than Jesus. The whole thing is heavily dependent on 9x's specific network components. (And by calling them network components, I'm paying Microsoft a far greater compliment than they deserve.) AOL 5.0 isn't compatible with 2000 in the same way 9x video drivers aren't compatible with 2000.
Fact is, AOL doesn't make a client that gets along with NT/2000. No grand conspiracies, just poor software.
Every day we're standing in a wind tunnel
Facing down the future coming fast - Rush
This sig intentionally left blank.
into a commons OS and an Apps division reduce their freedom to innovate? The OS division will be free to add features that the Apps division PLUS EVERY OTHER App Company can take advantage of, just as well as the Msft Apps division will be free to innovate anything they want and will have to use the same api's as anyone else. The apps division can request os services and the os division can fulfil or not. The only thing different will be that the competitive playing field will be leveled for other software companies to compete with the msft apps just like msft.
CASE IN POINT: Even while the court was coming to a verdict, Msft released Windows 2000 - suddenly AOL is broken but MSN works great!! One of our sales force with an existing AOL account got a new notebook and we couldn't get AOL to connect, so now he's using MSN. All we consumers want is freedom of choice to pick AOL, MSN or whatever on their own merits without having the perversion of having an Msft product given special treatment because they're in cahoots. MSN should be completely free to innovate, just on their own terms and not by getting secret inside information that's not available to competitors first.
We really need to keep the heat on these guys and not let some BS campaign twist reality, for their own good as well as ours. Only a continuence of consumer choice, as well as educating consumers to the choices they have will keep Msft on their collective toes, improve the quality of software, prevent monopolistic price gouging and make it affordable to everyone.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Actually, this is pretty typical Microsoft behavior. They take a standard -- in this case, the meaning of the term "grassroots" -- and alter it to benefit themselves and trash it for everyone else.
Sounds like this actually falls under the term "astroturf activism" -- fake grassroots. It's a (relatively) recent, um, innovation by unethical PR departments. Put up a falsely-fronted and supposedly independent "activist" organization to spin things the way you want them spun, while giving the oh-so-wholesome appearance that "concerned citizens" approve of various corporatist policies. It takes cynical manipulation to a whole new level. (Well, it's relatively new for corporations, I think. For gov'ts, this is an old propaganda trick.)
Voices from the FIN:
"I fully intend to e-mail my representatives, and I hope they realize the important impact that Microsoft has had on the computing industry alone, and ALL the other industries as well."
(supposedly) From a FIN site visitor.
Oh, they do realize the impact MS has had. The Department of Justice in particular is very aware of Microsoft's "impact".
As a Microsoft shareholder (I know, I know, but I do think they're undervalued, even if they're evil), I received a reply card inviting me to join the Freedom to Innovate network, along with other shareholder materials.
Hardly a grassroots effort.
Kevin Fox
Kevin Fox
No. As a member, you can use the facts to make informed decisions of your own. Meanwhile, we'll still count your membership towards our number of supporters on issues we lobby for despite whatever conclusions you make on your own.
To my legislature...
I am a big supporter of you. I've met your son, Todd, and I think that you are doing an excellent job.
I'm a littl e worried about my rights as a consumer. I know that large companies often try to avoid laws or break laws in order to maximize their profits. I realize that large corporations that do this should be stopped, hence I support antitrust legislation. Please, enfore legislation that protects consumers from large companies.
The purpose of this letter is to show you how large companies such as Microsoft make it so that it seems like they have public support. I joined a Microsoft "freedom to innovate" group with a fake name and fake information. If you actually recieve this letter, then you will see that the whole 'Freedom to innovate network' is hogwash. The large corporation Microsoft is putting forth propoganda that makes it seem like they have public support. They don't have my support and if you are reading this letter, then the whole Freedom to Innovate Network is compomised, because many other members may be doing what I'm doing and the membership numbers will not accurately reflect the people who think microsoft should be allowed continue its anti-competitive behavior.
The name/address at the bottom of this letter is correct, so feel free to send your reply back to there. Please don't accept the the Microsoft Freedom to Innovate Network. The only good that it did was sending this letter to you.
Sincerely,
grammar nazi
Actually, I used my real name and address here.
I wonder if it'll get sent?
Keeping
Isn't this, then a network of people commited to helping Microsoft remain a monopolistic bully? Will they also go after Linux, as it could "severely impact Microsoft"? And what does "better products at lower prices" mean? Have they even been watching the price of the competition's products - from Linux to BeOS, most is free or $100. Gotta love that Microsoft - resorting to outright lies and misinformation.
Do I have to agree with every position FIN takes?
No. As a member, you can use the facts to make informed decisions...
Oh thank you Bill, honestly, I wouldn't know that it's alright to think for myself unless you told me that it's OK. I can't BELIEVE this question needed to be asked.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Good for a grin, if nothing else.
Now, what possessed them to write that? What could they have been thinking? That people might read this flyer and think that perhaps participation wasn't voluntary? That by reading the flyer you were automatically a member of the group?
Could they have thought that there is any possible way that they could make participation non-voluntary?
Little sentences like 'Participitation is voluntary' show how much Microsoft operates in a different world than everybody else. Which is the 'real world' is an exercise for the reader.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
Don't you worry about being discarded by MS once you can no longer expand their market share any further, or if you come to be perceived as a threat to them? It sounds to me like a very Faustian bargain - you've done well for yourself by allying with the market leader, but at the same time your business is irrevocably tied to their business goals and their bottom line. As you mentioned, if MS changes (or is forced to change) their business strategies they aren't going to give you and your business any consideration.
Let me put that another way - now that you know the dependencies that this sort of partnership locks you into, would you take the risk again and get into a similar relationship with the next big technology company?
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
Maybe they are terming it as a "Grass Roots Effort" Because you would have to be smoking that grass in order to assume that Microsoft is respomisible for innovation.
On a more serious note: Perhaps it is "Grass Roots" because the effort is being led by Microsoft employees and not directly by the corporation's management?
I think that my respect for Microsoft would triple if they would just drop the "Freedom to Innovate" charade and start up a "Freedom to Capitalize" movement.
Brought to you by Frobozz Magic Penguin Fodder.
What I am saying is that Micros~1's upper management and grunt personnel are exhibiting similar reactions to a crisis where the facts, once exposed, threaten their world view:
- Delusion: all the forged testimony during the trial, in particular the videotape that MSFT tried to pass off as "real" footage, was forced to admit was "just a simulation" when exposed, and whose justification for the faked evidence was "well, the simulation shows what it would have been like had we really done the experiment".
- Denial: Endless trumpeting about how Micros~1's triumph during the trial was somehow inevitable, ignoring the mounting evidence that indicated that they'd lost all credibility before the Judge.
- Astroturfing: Countless brainwashed minions and bald-faced propaganda campaigns, all writing essentially identical letters supporting the party line...
- Demonization of the Other: Slogans and buzzwords in Co$ for its opponents include words like "bigot", and for themselves, the notion that they fight for "religious freedom". Likewise, opponents of MSFT are anti-free-market radicals, and supporters are people who fight for "freedom to innovate". The more evidence to the contrary (Co$: "Clear the planet" - exterminate all who do not join the Cult, MSFT: "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish"), the stronger the rhetoric becomes. The red, white, and blue in the MSFT pamphlet was so blatantly propagandistic that it was almost comical.
I could go on, but you get the idea.I wonder if this is universal? These behaviors appear throughout history, but are most common in top-heavy authoritarian regimes faced with an imminent demise brought about by a new paradigm.
(Thinking back to the dying days of the cold war, when former Soviet republics seemed to break away and collapse on a weekly basis -- Romainian dictator Nikolai Ceaucescu appeared to sincerely believe that his people loved him, right up until they booed him in public, summarily revolted, and put him up against the wall within the week...)
Prediction: Therapists who want a guaranteed clientele over the next 15-20 years should set up shop within 100 miles of Redmond :)
... That membership is still voluntary! I bet when Microsoft.net comes out we'll have to fill out a registration form *and* a "Freedom to Innovate" membership form before we're allowed to use our applications!
Walt
Hi!
In a word, yes. There is a very large community of programmers and database analysts who have grown substantial businesses by using Microsoft tools and technologies. Microsoft has grown by expressly targeting these people (including me) as "influential end users." We're the people Microsoft originally created the Microsoft Developer Network for, and the people that Microsoft is constantly plying with information and inexpensive tools.
When people rant about "Microsoft hegemony" and "bullying" they're being clueless. Or showing their age. The way that Microsoft has developed a monopoly isn't by driving around with fedoras and machine guns, threatening some CIO's family unless he installs Windows NT. Microsoft has been much, much more sneaky than that. Microsoft has, since the late 1980s, expressly targeted the "influential end user" (their term) and particularly software developers. They have expressly sought to gain "mindshare" (I believe an original Microsoft term, but perhaps "embraced and extended" from somebody else) among developers for a very specific purpose: custom apps written by developers require customers to buy the operating system.
Microsoft has been candid about this all along: they'll provide all kinds of tools and help, because at the end of the day they want the client to buy the OS. And the more of the OS they buy, the greater the opportunity for site license deals on Office, etc.
For the developer, it's a great deal. Microsoft development tools are always substantially less expensive than anybody else's, and Microsoft bends over backward to get you to sign up for programs (like the ISV program) that give you the tools even cheaper. Price developer versions of Oracle tools and databases for a team of five developers, for instance--Oracle won't quote you a price. They'll schedule a meeting, bring in a bunch of suits, try to estimate how much you're worth, ask a zillion questions about who your clients are and how much they're worth, and then quote you an astronomical sum. Microsoft will sign you up as a Solution Provider for $2495, which gives you licenses to everything. And they'll refer customers to you as well (unlike Oracle, who has no compunction about calling on your customers).
Partnering with Microsoft is a very, very good deal. But (and here's the wrinkle:) everybody involved knows how the deal works. In the end, Microsoft wants the OS sale. In effect, they're subsidizing all the tools, all the conferences, all the contact, all the support based on sales of the OS. Split the OS off into a different company than products (especially developer tools) and all of a sudden we're looking at a whole new pricing model. And for the small companies out there, like mine, an uncertain future.
So, yes--I've registered as a member of FIN. I've written to my congressman, and to both my senators. I have a strongly vested interest in the success of Microsoft, and I'm not shy about saying so.
Accountant: Hey Taco, ad revenues are down this week. Do something.
Taco: Don't worry I'll post another Microsoft article.
Accountant: Thank God for Microsoft, gauranteed 500 post articles. I see you're poking fun of Microsoft for using the term "grass roots". Do you think anybody is going to realize that your average joe really likes Microsoft? Have they seen the ABC polls? Do they ever talk to mechanics, soccer moms, those kinds of people?
Taco: No, for them "grass roots" is the Linux hacker community.
Accountant: Well, I guess that's to be expected from people who call "outside" the "big blue room with the bright light".
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Everyone knows about the dedication of the linux subculture, fanatics, loyalists, whatever you want to call them.
Is there such a culture surrounding windows? I'm asking honestly, because I don't know... Is there a huge following that would join the FIN, support microsoft, and rally around them during these "trying times" ??
I was just wondering exactly what leads microsoft to PR moves like this... are they trying to tap into this culture? create one? whatever you may say about gates/microsoft, they are where they are today from sheer business sense.. it may not be the best code in the world, or the best product, but they are sinister business people..
i was wondering why they are throwing money into a PR thing like this - whether they are rallying the subculture, or trying to create one..
wish
---
A: Yes, drink it all. We'll all be together soon, in Redmond. Together forever, and ever.
sig:
See the "..for smart people" banners Wired runs here? Look elsewhere guys.