Slashdot Mirror
ESR Says as PCs Get Cheaper, Windows Will Die
james writes "Eric Raymond reckons Windows will be obsolete because people won't be able to afford it soon." Owning the OS gives MS too great of
an advantage. They'd sell the client for 5 bucks if
it meant that they could still control Office, the
server market, and the zillions of other markets that
their OS monopoly lets them crush.
No, Eric, microsoft will not go away like you've claimed for several years. Linux won't win the desktop 'war'. Get over it. Nobody cares anymore.
-
Yeh, whatever. I'm like so sure that microsoft wouldn't lower their prices or anything like that if the alternative was loss of their monopoly.
And hasn't M$ been pushing CE as a platform for low-end home equipment?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
To be honest I don't think teh majority of Windows users actually bought a copy from a store.
When you go to the shops (or mail order) and buy a new PC, usually they have a software bundle with them and that's where you get your copies of Windows and Office (Well, mostly MS Works) from.
Because of this, and because it's very difficult to buy a PC *without* Windows, I don't think that this is at all true.
Chris
News flash: Product fails because no one's buying it.
Anyways, PC's are a LUXURY, not a necessity. You can either afford the box or you can't. Plus, how much of that cost is actually Windows? No one knows, no one's talking.
The average consumer thinks Windows is "included" with their PC purchase. That means that in their mind it's free, not a major portion of the actual cost. As long as that price is hidden it won't be a factor in a purchasing decision.
The single best thing we could get out of an MS settlement (since we're not going to get the break-up that they deserve) would be to require all PC sales adds to prominently display the cost of Windows and the percentage of total cost that it represents. That would certainly open a few eyes.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
ZDnet's infalliable crystal ball has never lead us wrong.
Even if they start giving away windows for free, people are eventually going to grow tired of spending another few hundred bucks for the next version of office with no worthwhile new features. Meanwhile, there are other products available that are catching up, like Star Office. Even if Sun's going to be charging for Star Office in the future, I don't think it'll be nearly as expensive as MS Office.
Okay, so the idea here is that once PCs drop to a certain level of cost, the idea of paying Microsoft a huge sum goes out the window. Two problems. One, which has already been noted here, is that Microsoft can just lower their own prices.
But two, and most importantly: What ELSE are you going to install on that computer if not Windows? Linux? Then we get into the 'is Linux ready for the desktop' thing. It doesn't matter if Microsoft charges your first born son, if they're the only viable, usable OS available for Joe Q. User to check their e-mail and read the web with, they'll still get payment even with ultra-cheap computers.
Of course, if some OS steps up to the plate to replace them for free/cheap AND the PCs drop in cost, then we've got something. Perhaps OEMs will start developing their own user-friendly, stripped down blends of Linux to ship with new PCs?
But he has not taken into effect the combined microsoft plus PC industry strategy, which goes like:
(1) Build a fast expensive computer
(2) Write an operating system that uses all the resources of (1) just to run a word processor.
(3) Go back to (1)
That can keep the price of both inflated indefinitely. Hopefully someday people will think "Gee do I really a 1 GBit Quantum computer just for the latest version of Word?".
My handle breaks slashcode, what does your handle do?
Wow, this is shocking. First ESR claims that Microsoft is doomed. What's next, RMS claiming that the GPL is the One True License, or JWZ saying that Netscape sucks now?
Just because an MS product is not profitable does not mean it will "die" as in go away.
If MS has to give away windows for free, that will just cause windows to proliferate even more. Which means that MS will have an even tighter grip on the industry.
... because his VA Linux stock has made him fabulously wealthy. Do we need anymore reasons why we shouldn't take the latest ramblings of this pillock seriously?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I think Eric is misreading the situation. If a PC goes below 350 bucks, people will be willing to spend much more for the OS. The reason for this is simple, 350 bucks is nothing relative to today's cost of a PC, thus $350 + OS
People won't move away from Windows for 1 of 2 simple reasons, "I don't have time to learn something new" or "I can't transfer my MS Office documents to ". While there are falacies in both arguments, end users are a stubborn ignorant bunch for the most part.
Linux will have a heck of a time breaking in on the desktop due to the illusion that there are no apps and that it's difficult to install. All slashdoters know this isn't true.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
Apparently the
Walmart.com is selling PCs without Windows. In a Cnet article (sorry, don't have the link) Walmart announced this because the cost of Windows is offsetting the cost of cheap hardware and Windows is making the computer too expensive.
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
Whatever happens, SOMETHING is going to have to give, either the pricing of WindowsTM and OfficeTM or the software people use.
Microsoft is going to have to drastically cut prices, or lose a huge segment of the market in the near future. This must be why they are trying so hard to go with a "renting" scheme, but I don't think that's going to be workable anytime soon.
So no matter how things work out, Microsoft's profits are probably going to drop sometime soon, they can either cut prices to hold onto the market, or lose a large part of the market.
That's how I see it anyway. Anyone see why that's not the case?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Wow.. professional journalism at its best.
Taco would like you to believe that MS only controls the Office market because of Windows. I guess that's why it's the most popular office suite for Macs too?
Windows lets MS control the server market? Ummm, how about (cross platform) Apache? Aren't you the one that posts surveys every two months about how Apache dominates? Maybe you mean that since MS only needs to write for one OS, they can focus their energy on things other than porting?
I of course can't really argue the "zillion other markets." I guess he means hardware, and games, and a zillion minus 2 other things.
God forbid they control those by making excellent products (mouse wheel, optical mouse), and excellent libraries (DirectX). Don't forget, Windows didn't always rule the gamers world.
Dear Linus,
I have always felt that Linux is a nice operating system (for hobbyists and geeks), but there are some areas where it is seriously lacking, especially when compared to its main competitor, Microsoft Windows.
With Windows XP, Microsoft has again improved multi-user support. Not only does Windows XP come with a large library of user pictures that are displayed on the login screen, such as a guitar and a flower, it also has "quick user change". This makes it possible to login as a different user with a simple keyboard shortcut, and the good news is: programs from the old user keep running in the background! Beat that, Linux!
I also find it disappointing that Linux has not embraced new technologies such as Digital Rights Management which will finally make it profitable for artists to sell their intellectual property on the web. The content industry has calculated that it loses about 450 trillion dollars per day to piracy. If this continues, the economic effects will be devastating. Richard Stallman has supported DRM for years and made it a fixed part of his GNU/Hurd operating system -- Linux should not hold back progress in this important area. DRM should be made part of the Linux Standard Base (LSB), and Linux distributors should put "DMCA-Compliant" buttons on their websites. We all know that Linux would never have been created without strong intellectual property protection as enforced by the FSF, so let's not be hypocritical.
On the plus side, I have found Linux an absolutely superior operating system for viewing pornography. Porn is loading much faster than on Windows, especially with the Cox and Love kernel patches and powerful porn browsers such as Pornzilla. This is truly an operating system written by geeks, for geeks!
Sincerely,
Bruce.
Didn't he also say NT 5.0 would be DOA because of it's bloat and tardiness? I really wish ESR would stop making so many "predictions." It'd be a good move for his reputation and everyone else in the OSS community that feels the effects of the blanket associations with his comments.
...that the ideal computer always costs $5000.
Raptor
"Procrastination is great. It gives me a lot more time to do things that I'm never going to do."
This is a good point, I must admit I never though directly about this as a consequence of the reduction in PC costs, BUT theres a flaw in the Logic, software has ALWAYS cost more (since the late 70's) than the hardware itself, it may cause a shift, but certainly not the demise of MS.
MS would sell..hell give copies of Windows away if it meant they could continue their other markets, Less than 1/3 of MS income comes from desktop operating systems. Now that said they dont want to loose it but certainly it wont kill them.
Sig went tro...aahemmm.....fishing........
Ok lets just go along with this for a second and assume MS has no business sense whatsoever and would not adjust the OS price accordingly, will $350 pc's really be the norm? Even as PC prices continue to fall, it seems that most people are continuing to pay around $1500 or so for a computer because that is what they expect to pay for a computer. Systems that are really cheap have a negative stigma amongst consumers because they assume the computer is obsolete and will not meet their future needs. People are gobbling up multi GHZ machines even though a pIII would work for must people's needs.
Software like Linux also inherently has more appeal to many non-English speaking countries than software generated and controlled by big American firms, Raymond pointed out, which is becoming a significant issue as PC growth outside the US becomes the industry's main driver. "Countries like South Korea are finding that open source is a precondition to their economic and cultural autonomy," he said.
I thought we'd already seen that countries like South Korea find open source to be a convenient excuse for serving as a spam gateway. Win some, lose some, I guess....
What a stupid article!
Sure, MS will keep the prices marching up - but it won't be that big a problem because:
1. People WILL pay it
2. Most people could never know where / how to by a PC without windows.
3. Microsoft will sell different versions ("home" m "Office," "Pro," "God-like," etc, each priced appropriatly - so people like my poss can waste money buying "Pro," because they think that they are important enough to need it - for word processing...
4. Honestly - do you REALLY think that if MS started to see a major slip in marketshare they woldn't cut prices very quickly? Hello - they may be EVIL but they damn well arn't STUPID!
I can remember a time when all of our applications and data were locked into proprietary hardware and software solutions. (Wang word processors, among others.) The next step was to break our dependence on one vendor to supply the limited set of choices.
Today our data can be stored on many different manufacturers' hardware, but we are largely locked in to one vendor's OS because of proprietary file formats. (And the same architecture, to boot.)
Long term I hope that our data is freed from that prison. We continually re-engineer systems to perform the same functions on different platforms because of the mindset imposed by the prison. However, we are a little closer today. Things like SQL allow us to migrate data reliably from one database to another. I can foresee a time when application vendors allow reliable interoperability, but it will be a while.
It also occurs to me that MS is in a bit of a pickle. There was a time when new applications provided greater functionality, and people migrated to them because they were superior, or at least people perceived that the new features were useful enough to justify the change.
Eventually the functionality of the applications on the market increased to the point where they were functionally very similar, and most consumers didn't need much more in the way of application functions.
Outside of a major paradigm shift, I don't think that many people competing with MS need to do much besides catch up. They are getting closer each year. You can't continually embrace and extend because at a certain point, it's just too much trouble. As an example, my MS desktop here at the house has 93 different typefaces. I use about 10. If you gave me 500, I would still use about 10. I just looked at my Linux system, and it has 2200 typefaces installed! I still use about 10.
Even if MS makes their OS and apps do 5000 new and snazzy things, most people simply won't use them. Look at the Outlook-based emails that are sent in Arial or Tahoma, and the documents that are printed in Times New Roman. People stick with the deafult because it's too much to think about to do otherwise. My hope is that we break free from the prison imposed by proprietary interfaces and formats.
Regards,
Anomaly
Ps - God loves you and longs for relationship with you. If you would like to know more about this, please contact me at tom_cooper at bigfoot dot com
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Everybody Slams Raymond
My other sig is extremely clever...
Exactly! In fact, NT5 turned out to be the best OS release from MSFT ever. I haven't reinstalled it in the 2 years that I've had it installed, which is exceptional for a MSFT OS. The thing is pretty damn stable.
Does anyone even listen to this guy anymore?
I know I stopped shortly after he got his "Hey! Look at me I'm filthy rich!"[1] article on the front page.
C-X C-S
[1] Believe me, "Sex tips for Geeks" didn't help his case, either.
ESR has made predictions of MS dying before - every time they are usually followed by growth in MSFT as they move into new markets and drive Windows further into the economy.
What if to get the next version of Windows .net or whatever you ahve to buy the 64Bit CPU.
It only runs on Itanium, and Itanium systems cost (theoretically) more than a loaded G4 Power Mac. The Windows Faithful would have to spend $4000 a machine for hardware, what's another $300 for the OS?
I mean the way they are acting towards the 9 dissenting states, this seems like something they'd do without even blinking. Though I don't know how Intel would take it.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Hrm, not like anyone working for Microsoft reads Slashdot, if they did, they probably wouldn't work there for long...
Huh? Villainize Microsoft as much as you want, but as far as tech employers go Microsoft is by far among the best (I don't work for them, but by what I've heard. This great treatment of employees is one of the primary reasons why MS is where it is today). Because of that I'm often baffled by so many in the industry, working for companies that stuff you in tiny cubes and treat you as chub meat, go out with fangs out against Microsoft.
Plenty of people from Microsoft read Slashdot (and I doubt as sinister "covert operatives" either. It's (sometimes) interesting stuff whether you run Linux or not. I have FreeBSD on a firewall, but apart from that it's all Windows baby, yet I read Slashdot), provable if you've had a link on here and you see the hits come it from Redmond.
That's one of the reasons MS is trying to move its vic^H^H^Hcustomers to Danegeldware; just as you don't realize how much of your money the government seizes when they do it a bit at a time, you won't notice how much you're paying MS if you do it a bit at a time, and they can play the Polaroid game (sell the cameras cheap, charge mucho $$$ for the film).
Like this little gem. Conspicuously absent link from the story, don't you think? ESR prediction story on /., clearly topical.
+5:offtopic,but anti-American
In essence, they will not be able to charge the kind of prices they have before and they will either have to cut prices (almost a certainty) or see people stick with older and cheaper versions or perhaps used copies or bootlegs. (very likely)
I suspect that this may eventually trigger a copyright lawsuit that gets lost by them if they (or the SPA) really try to enforce their no transfer rule on bundled software, a restriction the Supreme Court has ruled was not permissible back in the Bobbs-Merrill case back near the turn of the (19th) Century; despite what the software companies claim, their mass-market software is sold, not licensed and is subject to the "first sale" rule.
Inexpensive computers are going to be real trouble for Microsoft's bottom line.
Paul Robinson <Postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us>
http://paul.washington.dc.us
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Exactly. In fact, by making the claim that Microsoft can not lower their prices and survive, ESR is making the argument that Microsoft is not a monopoly.
The classic definition of monopoly power is that a company has the power to price above marginal cost - or the cost of producing an additional unit. While we know that real life is a little more complex than this classic definiton, by making the argument that M$ will crumble if forced to lower their prices, ESR is actually saying that Microsoft is not a monopoly...that the current pricing scheme used by M$ is driven by the market.
In one statement, ESR just poked a hole in his own argument without even realizing it. Nice job!
As for his whole palm vs PC argument, his premise is wrong. Palm and PocketPC have two very different approaches to the market. Palm knows its market is the PDA market, i.e., handling contacts, appointments, and other daily tasks, whereas PocketPC is about being a mini-laptop (which largely attracts the techies and trendy types). Well both the PocketPC OS and the tasks themselves demand a lot more expensive hardware. PocketPC also eats batteries for its intended uses like none other. I'd also argue that Microsoft's vision for PocketPC is fundamentally flawed given the battery limitations, the hardware for the next couple years, and the problems with data entry/input methods and screen size on anything the size of a PDA. The point being is that we have a lot of good reasons to believe the difference in sales has a lot more to do with other issues than just the licensing price difference between the two OSes. For instance, completely ignoring the price of the total costs of either units, I would not want PocketPC if I all I want to do is use the PDA as a PDA (the battery life and other issues are too significant to me).
PCs are going to get cheaper because they use cheaper hardware... that's what they've always done.
I've got entry level boxes from several companies, from sever different 'eras'. The ones that are still working are the older ones. Its AMAZING the hard drive failure rate on new cheap machines! I'm just starting to replace hard drives from 4-5 years back, but i've already replaced 25% of the drives from machines made 2-3 years ago!
Manufacturers cut corners were they can be cut. Were they have control, which is the hardware. That, and they're gettin a SWEET deal from software companies anyway!(at least the major companies)
Which begs the question: Do you really WANT them cheaper? I've seen a trend in our sales from the entry/home-use boxes to mid-line/commercial boxes. We now deal strictly in commercial lines (cpq evo over the presario, hp vectra over the pavilion, etc)just because of the better reliability track record and longer warranty. Although they are $60 to $100 more than the 'equivilant' home-line box.
.
Unfortunately, this doesn't mean that OEMs will all stop including Windows, or even that MS will have to drop the price. All they have to do is move the expense out of the initial purchase. They could give the OS away free to the OEMs with a three-month subscription. That way the OEMs could offer a machine that works out of the box, and three months later, the consumer starts paying Microsoft
Window$(TM)® will become 'free' as soon as .net is in a usable state. I believe they will go to a subscription service. There is nothing that Bill would like more than having Window$(TM)® used like electricity, water, cable, satellite, isp or (ha) garbage services. You'll get a bill every month; don't pay the bill, and no Window$(TM)® for you (and no computer). He is hoping that people will suck this up, 'cause hell! everything else is subscription based...may include features of PVR. Most likely off-site storage would be favored, since control of content would be with MS. Hardware copy protection would be moot, since everything would be installed though MS. (No way to install anything on site)
These suppositions assume that broadband will be widely available, and probably bundled w/ Window$(TM)® (MSN) MS will market this as easy to use! (MS will remotely repair and admin installs) and use passport for security (whoohoohaha....snif.) The more MS can push the death of the 'PC' as it stands now the better off they are.
The return of the network appliance?
Let me wake up from these nightmare visions! Ahhh! Ahhhh!
not the hardware.
The situation is like with DVD's. The medium (hardware) costs maybe $1, but the #&%/s can still charge $20 for a movie (software).
Suppose Dell could make a PC for $10. If Microsoft charges them $350 for windows, the end customer will have to pay $361 (at least) for a Dell w/ windows.
This won't change until Linux or another OS can challenge MS on the desktop. I'd pay for MacOS X if only they'd port it to x86...
They don't stop using the software and turning to cheaper alternatives... they start pirating it. Why do you think the piracy rates in China and Korea are higher than 90%? (Yes, higher than 90%!) Its because the people can't afford to shell out $150 bucks for the latest software, and at the same time, they don't want to fall behind the rest of us.
ESR is an idiot, and his rediculous predictions have done nothing more than make me laugh at his stupidity. Its pure nonsense.
-Ryan
I love to order new computers without an operating system. I used to build them from components, but now I've found that for about the same cost (plus a lot less time) I can have a brand new computer sent to my door via my favorite on-line retailer. And since I don't want an operating system installed, I'm not going to be forced into buying it. And that's all well and good since I generally nuke the hard drive as my first order of business anyway.
Most consumers, on the other hand, are morons. I know this. If I get one more phone call at 1:00am because of some jack#$$ tried to upgrade to WinXP and somehow lost all of his data, I'm going to scream. I don't even like Windows.
Back a few years ago (it's been a while), Microsoft sent out a memo to all its OEM vendors about how it's bad for the customer to receive a computer without an operating system. The basic reason for this was Microsoft's fear of piracy, which I believe is legitimate. Far too many people who will purchase this type of computer from Wal-Mart will either pirate a copy of Windows or will buy a copy and then have a very difficult time getting it installed. All the various questions it asks always has people calling me at all hours.
So, give the thing an operating system. Bundle RedHat, Suse, Mandrake, etc into the thing without any cost--and give the end-user a "coupon" to use if they want to activate RedHat's (or whomever's) support. Sure, that will be for extra money--but the end user might be happy to pay for that support if it's needed. And it keeps him/her from having to run back to the store for a copy of XP.
Nothing annoys a non-computer person more than when they turn a brand-new computer on and all it says is "Not Bootable Devices Found" or whatever. At least give them a Linux distro with all of X's prettiness. Besides--they might actually like it.
That's just my $0.02
Long, cute, or funny Sigs are just another form of over compensation, used by geeks, nerdz, etc.
ESR is being an optomist. While I agree that this is a possibility, I don't see it happening soon. There
are a few reasons why.
1) These PCs must be everywhere. There are cheap PCsnow that you can get. Someone mentioned that you can get cheap PCs w/o Windows at WalMart. That is all and good, but these types of boxes must be available everywhere, from every manufacturer. I doubt we'll see Dell advertise a $350 box without Windows anytime soon.
2) There has to be an operating system to replace
Windows on these boxes that is cheap. Linux is
not it. This probably would be a great place for
BeOS to have stepped in. I always envisioned
BeOS as being the ideal non-MS OS for the average
user. Unfortunately, they no longer exist.
Another unfortunate aspect is that there needs
to be an OS that essentially will need to have
a monopoly on these boxes.
Of course, it could be an Open Source OS.
3) The said operating system needs to have a few
good applications for it. One would be a fully
standard compliant web browser. Another would be
a word processing program with features roughly
equivalent to MS Word. There are some other
necessary apps, like perhaps a simple image
editing program, email client, media player, etc.
Basically, programs to cover all the bases.
4) There will always be people who still buy
computers that price in the thousands. These are
people who need and want more powerful PCs.
I doubt most gamers would care for the $350 PC.
I think that the number of people willing to pay
thousands for a superior PC is still high enough.
If the economy gets worse, however, this might change.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
There's such a thing as quitting while you're on top. I guess ESR hasn't realized this yet.
He was a good spokesperson (if not self appointed; I don't recall voting for him), but nowadays he's just spouting off whatever stream of thought he has re: Linux and open source software.
Newsflash, ESR, in case you haven't read the other 100 or so posts of this ilk: when PCs get cheaper, so will Windows. MS will do whatever it takes to get Windows on PCs, even if it needs to make Windows into a loss leader. You don't become a multi-billion dollar corporation with $0 (yes, **$0**) of debt by not adapting to markets. If any OS is not adapting quick enough, it's Linux, not Windows. (Yes, I'm a Linux/*BSD advocate, but I'm realistic, unlike Mr. Raymond.)
Someone put ESR to bed... Quickly... Maybe he can tweak his geek sex howto or one of his other myriad unwarranted-but-written-nonetheless documents. Regardless, I no longer consider his rantings to be benefitial to open source development or Linux. Just my personal opinion.
Flame away.
E.
There are also increasingly numbers of alternatives channels, many more suitable for Home use.
Consider this service (www.kitv.co.uk) that I work on, Broadband Internet Access, via a TV, STB and no Windows in sight. Perfectly suitable for Joe Public's (none Geeky requirements).
The PS3 look's set to be completely broadband enabled and no Windows in sight.
There are a host of other alternatives, Convergent Devices, Wireless networked Web Pads, 3G Phones, and again no Windows in sight.
The business world will never abandon Windows because they won't change the way they use computers. The cost of the computers used in business is viewed as an entire system, and software costs with support contracts are already a huge part of the total system cost. Even if the hardware got much cheaper it wouldn't budge the bottom line enough to make a difference.
The home computer market might be affected by this, but anyone who uses a computer at work will probably still want the same OS and software at home. MS already sells different levels of software between their home and enterprise users so they are aware of the price sensitivity.
If school boards can look beyond MS's bullshit fud they might consider open source to save money, but the reality is that they MUST teach what is used in the business world with real world hardware and software.
Walmart's experiment in selling computers without an OS will probably fail, though I hope they can make this program work for customers who know what they are buying.
For many people, the value of a product has more to do with the price than what the product can actaully do. By inflating the OS price, Microsoft marketing is trying to make consumers think it's worth more than it is. In the past they would inflate a price to increase desire, then slash the price to make the product ubiquitous, then slowly raise the price again. Why should they change a strategy that has worked so well thus far?
As PC hardware becomes cheaper, the OS will become cheaper, especially whenever a competing product comes on the scene. Microsoft is big and can afford to forgo profits much longer than potential competitors, thereby forcing them out of buisiness. Kind of like OS2.
----------- Sig what?
Next time you find something that's News for Nerds, and it hasn't been posted to slashdot, submit the story as you normally would, but include comments from some Open Source luminary who ISN'T quoted anywhere in the story or even remotely related to it. Guaranteed front page post.
[o]_O
I'd certainly be happy to say he speaks for me, at least in a general, Linux community kinda way. I might disagree sometimes, but most of the time he's on the ball.
The whole problem with ESR and RMS is they're preaching a religion when all we want are tools and options to get our jobs done. People don't liked to be preached too, they just want thier options. It doesn't matter if you're right and you have the insight of King Solomon, people still don't want to hear you preach.
.COM bubble. (1993-1997)): Cheap communications medium offered by vast range of carriers (ISPs)
Now, If you can explain the *REAL* benefits of a *SPECIFIC* Open Source tool, or *SPECIFICALLY* how the open source model may benefit those involved (Benefitting usually implies the bottom line somewhere), THEN you will get people listening to you.
Look at the evidence:
The IBM PC clone didn't need a spokesperson, it's value being a commodity tool available from hundred and thousands of manfacturers spoke for itself.
As did the birth of Internet's commercialization (Not the
These products worked because:
1. They were cheap
2. They were valuable
3. They provided business opportunities for people to sell cheap and valuable products.
If you want Open Source to really take off, forget about a spokes person. Meet these three criteria, and Open Source will speak for itself.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
The PC pricewars came and went years ago. It was the age of the sub-$1000 PC, E-machines, Ellison's network computer, and all that. None of it happened of course. The market has stabilized since then. Computers are not getting that much cheaper anymore. You get a lot more value for your money each year: but in dollar figures the prices aren't dropping that fast anymore, if at all.
Pushin' 'n dealin', shovin' 'n stealin'
The above letter makes some very interesting points. It should be posted to the Linux Kernel list. For best reception in two months and a day's time.
hasn't ESR noticed MS is diversifying it's business into games, tv and enterprise services? windows sales might become less important, but it's far from going away. get real.
For example, the studentdev.org thing they set up. Part of those programs was that students would get free copies of Visual Studio and Operating systems, to keep the students interested in developing for MS.
Lately, I haven't seen this so much, but I have seen the MSDN Academic Alliance, where they sell a massive license to a school for relatively cheap, and then allow all students in that school/deparetment to download all kinds of software for free legally. Included is stuff like Win2k Advanced server (which has a sticker price of nearly 4,000 dollars), and tons of applications. They will put the prices on the OS and development tools as low as they have to, just to keep corporations buying into their products.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Umm... From what I see, the only reason that corporations tolerate MS's bullcrap (daily crashes, frequent upgrades forced by file incompatibilities, etc.) is that "everyone knows how to use Windows." Lose the low end, and the only way they could hang onto the high end would be to actually _be_ better. And we all damned well know that there are several better options for a server OS under $800, and it would be mighty hard to justify paying $1300 for Windows + Office on the desktops...
I think that in the long run, Windows is going to get pushed out because of excessive costs -- but it's not the direct sale price of the product that will do this. As soon as MS sees itself losing ground at the bottom end, they will spin off a low-priced, slightly crippled Windows to keep their hold on that market. The real excess costs of Windows occur AFTER you buy it: Everyone loses hours a week to crashes, and to having to reboot the server after every security patch. You also buy Office. You get locked into Office because of incompatible files. You get forced to buy Office again every 3 years because of incompatible files -- and if you manage to finally freeze things at XP, someday MS will shut off the product activation service for this, so when your HD crashes, you'll HAVE to buy the new version. You have to buy expensive virus filters and subscribe to update services just to slow down the Outlook viruses. Viruses e-mail company trade secrets to China. People lose more hours cleaning up after viruses. Your virus filters strip off attachments that people needed to get their jobs done...
Raymond's conclusions are on track. For numerous years the theory has been that MS really didn't care about the OS - they were more focused on productivity software. I would argue that .Net and the Xbox both point in the direction that MS really isn't in this for the OS - they want to have a more insidious avenue into the household via your entertainment center (Xbox), your e-commerce (.Net), your mobile communications (PocketPC). Ballmer and Gates both have said that MS is becoming this (fuzzy) "services company." When you consider the way they've backed bids with the DirecTV and AT&T Broadband buyouts and you can see that MS is only using the OS as a means to an end, not the end itself.
Of course WIndows will become obsolete, because there will come a point where MS won't care about your PC any longer because MS will OwN j00!
I'd say that those tasks [reading Internet e-mail and browsing the World Wide Web] are exactly where Linux is perfectly able to replace and outperform Windows most completely.
Not necessarily. Those tasks require a connection to the Internet, and most users still connect to the Internet by using a modem to dial-up to an ISP. In general, name-brand PCs under $1000 tend to come with modems that do not emulate a Hayes modem connected to a 16x50 UART. Instead, they offer a proprietary interface to either a DSP or a mere DAC. These "winmodems" come with software that lets Microsoft Windows treat them as a Hayes on a UART, but most do not have driver support under any OS other than Windows. A few chipset vendors have released proprietary Linux drivers, but this doesn't help users of BeOS, Solaris operating environment, or *BSD systems (which are not dying).
Will I retire or break 10K?
Two words:
CODE RED. Kills default Windows 2000 installs.
I'll grant, though, that being born with a fatal disease is not the same as being DOA.
Considering Walmart's ruthlessly efficient business practices, I wouldn't be surprised if Walmart were selling this information to Microsoft. Not many people pay cash for any $400 purchase, so they probably have good data.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
People who build their own PCs have seen how large the M$ tax is for a while. Dell, Gateway, whatnot, who are essential for the M$ monopoly can not sell a PC for much less than $1000. I can build one that spanks them all for less than $400.
They are an absolute necessity for the corporate environment because without them, larger companies cannot move the information in sufficient quantity or speed, nor can the process the inforamtion fast enough to remain competitive in today's environment.
What makes you think Microsoft has anything to do with that? Moving information quickly and easily conflicts with several Microsoft goals which are a direct result of their distribution and marketing model. Companies that rely on M$ in the future will be at a huge disadvantage as their competitors gain softare that costs less and works better. All this stuff should be as taken for granted as manilla folders and file cabinets.
The real problem is that hardware is progressing much faster than software, and this leads to a couple of very bad scenarios for Dell, Compaq, HP, etc. and also by extension Microsoft. If hardware is more powerful than necessary, it stays around a bit longer.
That's no much of a problem, except to M$. The software I use (Debian) is acutally using fewer resources as time goes on, not more. I'm also seeing real new features in user interface, programs available and software concepts in general. M$ blows and they will suffer for it, so will Dell and Gateway as their cusotmers are constantly dissapointed by stuff that looks the same as it did ten years ago while working no faster or better.
The one and only thing that can save M$ from collapse is Digital Rights Denial Legislation. They have many other failing giant industries to back them up on that: Telcos, Holywood and traditional publishers who will fail in the real internet world. Proping these companies up by denying constitutional rights is completely unamerican. The time to fight the stupids is now.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Eric Raymond is essentially correct on his assessment.
I am not sure if the $350 price point is the magic number but it could be that it is. Keep in mind that Wal-Mart now sells a 1 gig, 128 MB PC for $399 sans OS and monitor. PCs have been quoted sans monitor since the beginning of time. And, with the wide availability of free copies of linux in books and via download plus a lot of old copies of windows laying around, PCs sans the OS are marketable. Wal-mart thinks so. The white box boys know so. So too do the vendors that sell motherboards, chips and other parts as ordered by the most qualified of all buyers.
The interesting observation is the great sensitivity to this cheap PC issue during the DOJ antitrust trial. Microsoft tried very hard to convince the judge and the world that a typical PC costs $2000. The only reason for that is to downplay the impact of a $200-250 OS price from Microsoft. If PCs cost $2000, then the OS from the monopolist is only 10% or so of the total price. However, as Raymond points out, if the price is $350 or so, the OS from Microsoft could be 57% of the price. All of sudden, PCs sans OS are a lot cheaper. And, pricing PCs without monitors was engaged in as a practice to attract potential customers to the store. (Clearly no OEM thought a PC could be used without a monitor. And, few potential customers have spare monitors in their closet they want to use.)
The whole issue puts an interesting spin on the remedy proposed by the litigating states. Selling a bare bones OS may save Microsoft. It certainly reduces the burn of a $200-250 package included as part of a minimum purchase. This high minimum price also explains why the advertising from Microsoft often suggests that every single PC must have a browser, media player and any other gizmo software package that Gates thinks is neat. Gates can not be so stupid to think that all PCs do the same thing. Clearly he has more intelligence than that. It is simply a campaign to convince all consumers to not object to being forced to buy a whole pile of Microsoft branded applications before a competitor can make an impact on the market. Forcing the sale of the Microsoft branded media player is the next big push or force being applied to consumers. And, they are being forced to buy it if Microsoft and the DOJ can possibly do it.
The problem is (as Raymond points out) that all consumers are harmed by the process. Business computers may have no need for a media player. And, they certainly would prefer not to be forced to buy it for all employees. A media player is not going to increase the productivity of employees except in certain limited circumstances. And, if any customer has those circumstances, clearly they would prefer to pick and choose just which technology is best for their needs. Of course, the Microsoft plan is to prevent all customers from having that choice. The DOJ plan is likewise. The DOJ is now seeking to preclude all consumers from being to avoid buying a whole range of Microsoft branded products.
It is going to take more than just the while box boys and Wal-Mart. It will require IBM, HP, Compaq, Dell and others to sell PCs sans the OS (or PCs with a bare bones windows). Strange as it may seem, the litigating States may help save Microsoft from oblivian. Actually, Microsoft may figure this out on its own, although it may be too late by then.
NexuSys - Linux support by the best
And below $100, won't be able to afford a power cord!
Silly claims. Windows is just one of the components. You can't use the argument that the difference between some price and the cost of components won't enable the purchase of Windows. You could easily make the same argument for a CPU or a keyboard or a mouse by leaving in the Windows but removing that other component from the cost calculation.
If Windows could be replaced by Linux, PC makers would do it and pocket the extra margin. Doing so makes the PCs unsellable, though. It's been tried.
So then if Windows and a CPU and keyboard, mouse, RAM etc. are mandatory, the price won't fall below the cost of the mandatory components -- at least not below the cost for the biggest players, and not for longer than needed to drive out smaller players and raise prices again.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
Hey, you've got to lose karma to get karma back, right? And it is on topic.
I bought Office 97 with a student license a few years ago, for $99 CDN. It came with *no* documentation, only a CD and an MS "certificate of authenticity". If it had not been available for that price, I simply would have sought it illegally, because on a grad student's stipend, $399 is not an option, period. Sadly, the student licenses mysteriously disappeared shortly thereafter - the campus IT store said "MS stopped offering them, it was a marketing trial".
:-) Well, ok, it works, but in my limited experience it's surprisingly incompatible with Office (which was used in my lab)!
Wordpad, while functional for ordinary student reports, really isn't up to the task of producing a professional quality M.Sc. thesis, with tables and figures. MS Works should be the basis of a false advertising suit, because it doesn't
Freedom: "I won't!"
Even completely ignoring the other duanting issues that an alternative OS has in facing MS' dominance on the desktop, MS' powerful applications can effectively stop the OS dead in its tracks. Let's say if Macintosh were to start encroaching on Windows' market share with MacOSX. You can be pretty safe in the assumption that Microsoft's Office package for Mac [not to mention IE] would not be encouraging this. In fact, today's MS would have lot of incentive to ensure that Mac Office is generally inferior. So not only would Macintosh (or some other mythical company) have to develop a competetive alternative (not just a "competitor") or else Macintosh would be competing with a substantial disadvantage. This is a non-trivial problem in this day and age. As mediocre as Office may be when you consider its market share, you're going to have to spend millions of dollars to make it anywhere near as good. And even then, you're going to have to worry about file compatibility with MS Office and the users are going to have to get training to respond to the difference.
Now if MS were split up, it may well be a very different scenario. The Office company would have an incentive to develop an equivalent Office suite (certainly > 5% of such a large market is enough to justify the full porting costs and then some) since they could further expand their marketshare or at least sell NEW Macintosh copies of their software. This, in turn, would at least allow the competition OS(s) to compete in more equal footing.
The situation is not terribly different with Internet Explorer (or Office) on Windows, where application growth is the objective. But I really don't feel like hashing this whole argument out here, just use your head.
The result at the end of the day is that Windows and Office are just good enough to retain their market share. Neither has sufficiently serious competition in their market to spur any real effort into improving the products, despite the fact that they're selling billions of dollars worth of product, more than enough to make vast improvements. Now I don't think there is necessarily room in the market to have any large splits within the OS market, and maybe even applications (e.g., 30/70 split), but I do believe that having credible competitors competing for financially viable portions of the market (say, 10% +) is both feasible and highly desirable in that it would cause MS to be much more responsive to the customers needs. When you combine this fact with the minimal or non-existant downside (I mean what benefit does the unified MS _really_ offer us?), I totally support it.
I bet I could!! The first thing I'd haveta do is label myself a guru, afterall gurus are smarter than non-gurus. Legally changing my last name to guru might have the same effect.
Then I make an obvious generalization like "PC's are getting cheaper." Other ones that work are "People don't want to pay for stuff.", "Linux will eventually be something people at home will care about.", and "PCs are getting faster." This makes me look like I'm experienced in the market and that I've seen trends before. This makes me look like I'm providing credible indsight into my topic. As long as I point out that things change, then any case I make is possible.
Then I employ a scientific process called "Although my observation proves that things change over time, the entity I'm trying to debunk will do the exact same thing forever and ever.", where my observation will eventually kill my target. Using the "PC's are getting cheaper" observation, I'd then say "But the price of Windows right now is $350, so I'm going to assume it will stay that way forever." Now I have some solid evidence to back my claim. Most people don't break things down into individual costs with every little thing they're interested in, so when I pass off logic like 'the OS will make up most of the price', people will assume that the OS is the bottleneck to preventing their PC from being free. It'll never occur to them that the reason they buy computers is to run software, so it also won't occur to them that the company getting money is the company providing service. They have dollar signs in their eyes, so I don't need to write much more here.
Here I look for some obvious details that don't readily bob up into people's minds, and I pass that off like my target has never thought of that. "Microsoft needs to realize that computers will eventually be cheaper than the OS!" I've found that most people will say 'really?' and will process that bit of information. Since they are busy people, they aren't likely to put too much thought into it. They'll file that bit of logic away, think I have a point, and then I maintain my guru status.
From that, I can draw my conclusion. "One day, computers will cost only a dollar, and the rest of the cost of the machine will be for Windows. Microsoft is doomed." And then I find a buzzword that makes it really sound like there's something new on the horizon who's hype will obliterate it. "Open Source software will make Windows obselete!", but I don't need to explain why. The hype makes everybody understand it. There's no point wasting my time bringing an interesting perspective here. Thank god for hype, it means I can write less and still get paid.
As you can see, the formula for writing for ZD-Net is very simple, and requires very little effort! Just remember to change your name to guru, that's the hardest part.
"Derp de derp."
It seems that ESR doesn't know that window charges about 20 bucks for OEM versions. This might be an impact when you can get a new PC for 100 bucks.
OR ms will drop is OS to free, the make money from OFFICE.
Of course if you can only sell OSs with DRM, MS will have a Monopoply and be able to charge what they want because the government makes them and there be no legal alternative.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
From what I see, the only reason that corporations tolerate MS's bullcrap (daily crashes, frequent upgrades forced by file incompatibilities, etc.) is that "everyone knows how to use Windows."
Plus, everyone knows how to cope with MS problems from frequent use.
An example:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Hit control-alternate-delete, click on netscape, then close the program."
After Bob installs Linux on everyone's desktop:
"Hey, Bob, netscape froze."
"Ok, open a terminal window, type "ps auxwww", then a vertical bar character, then "grep netscape", then find a netscape process with a high CPU usage, mark down the process id number, then type "kill thatnumber". If it doesn't work, do "kill" then dash 9, then the process number."
Windows also, to be honest, has a slightly easier way to do certain things.
Installing a new program:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"Double click on the installation program, then follow the directions on the screen."
Post-Linux:
"Bob, how do I install this program?"
"It's an RPM, so you have to do rpm -i then the filename."
"Ok, that's easy. Thought I'd have to compile it or something."
"Haha, no,you don't have to untar and compile it. All you have to do is use RPM."
"Hey, it won't run."
"Well, RPM just installed the source, so you have to compile it now."
"But you just said I wouldn't have to!"
"I don't remember saying that."
One sound effect:
BZZZZT!
Only server versions of Windows 2000 default to installing IIS. The vast majority of Windows 2000 systems are running Win2K Pro, and are not vulnerable to Code Red by default.
The cost of Windows to small OEMs is about $50, less at high volumes.
It's a mandatory component, just like a CPU or RAM or a keyboard. You don't say that when the price falls below X, you can no longer afford a CPU. The cost is whatever the cost is when you include all the components. The big players will use their purchasing muscle to get lower component costs and price so as to drive smaller players out of business, but nobody is going to price in a way that is independent of the cost of a mandatory component.
On the other hand, MS wants a broader consumer presence, so they may choose to create a separate "lite" version that they sell for less in order to make $350 computers possible. They could go all the way down to free for lite versions built around access portals to MS online services.
ESR's open source experience has apparently been more about politics than economics.
"Those who have never entered upon scientific pursuits know not a tithe of the poetry by which they are surrounded."
CONFIG_DRM=y
--
The Cap is nigh. Time to get a fresh new account.
I should have said the only real reason to buy Office, not use it. If you have it, came with your computer, got it for free, etc., you have plenty of reason to use it over SO/OO if you prefer it.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
OverDrive33 wrote:
;)
> People would buy it and use it for five bucks.
Don't be too sure. The top selling computer (iMac 2) on Amazon for all time doesn't run Windows. 10 (Macs) of the 25 top selling computers on Amazon don't run Windows. The Windows PC market is in the dumpster right now. The higher priced Macs running OS X are selling just fine.
Don't worry Linux, OS X is ready for the desktop *now* and has joined the fray. You little penguins have time to get your act together.
"Heart can reach where hand cannot. Climb over any wall..." Mothra (via Moll) "Mothra 3: King Ghidora Attacks"
Eric, I usually agree with you buddy, but you're making a crucial mistake here.
You're assuming this is inevitable because PCs will drop below $350.
If that's the magic point at which one can make money, then guess what; PCs won't drop below that point, unless and until there is a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE for the home user.
There isn't. I'm typing this on Linux, and it's perfect for me, but it's nowhere near ready for Joe Sixpack, and some of the things that have to happen for it to get there are totally contrary to the aims of the community.
It's going to be a long time until the day comes that Linux is ready to out-home Microsoft, and by that time, Microsoft may very well have sold people on the idea of paying $300 for a computer plus $19.95 a month for the OS with free Internet access or somesuch nonsense.
Sounds laughable to you and me, but we aren't normal.
As for the PC makers, they recognize that when Joe Sixpack sees a PC he can use for $350 and a PC he can't use for $200, he's either going to pay the extra bucks for one he thinks he can use, or buy the $200 PC, get it home, get frustrated, and take it back, thereby costing the manufacturer and/or reseller a lot of money for a non-sale.
If you think people won't put usability over cost, compare sales of the Jeep Cherokee and the Ford Focus.
It is entirely possible that Microsoft holds onto its monopoly in operating systems as the market for them gets smaller and smaller, while something else replaces it--it's just that what replaces it will not face windows head-on, and will probably make minimal inroads on the type of system which uses windows.
hawk
- In order to keep satisfying its investors, and to keep using its stock options as currency, the price of MS stock has to keep increasing.
- In order for that price to go up, investors have to believe that MS profits will continue to grow.
- In order to keep growing its profits, MS must have lots of current profits that can be reinvested in developing future products (or future versions of current products).
If pressure from low hardware prices makes MS profits go down -- because MS cuts its prices or because more consumers buy cheap OS-free computers -- then this cause-and-effect chain runs in the other direction.send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
Which would he buy?
/home so that the 'recovery CD' will not cause loss of his data should he screw up his machine somehow. Oh yeah.. probably has some cheezy games too.. except they might actually be fun.
Computer A..
- Includes Windows, MS Word, some cheezy games
- Has all sorts of obnoxious copy controls
Computer B..
- Includes Linux, StarOffice, Gaim/Licq, CD writer software, XMMS, Gnutella/Fastrack/OpenNap clients, and everything else he could possibly ever need--all pre-installed and with seperate
- No copy controls whatsoever
I'm no Linux expert, but it seems likely to me that these issues are not a problem with Linux so much as with the Linux "experts." They'll tell you a ridiculously overcomplicated way of doing something from the command line whether or not there is a point and click equivalent, just because they disdain using the GUI. First, if having to kill a process that froze is a common experience, this sort of implies that either that application or the OS has some bugs that ought to be looked into. (Like Windows!) Second, if it is something the average user should know, there should be, and usually is, an open source utility that does it from KDE and Gnome; this ought to be in the standard distros, and the gurus ought to teach that first...
As for the second example, assuming there is a reason to require compilation to install the application at all, couldn't the software be distributed with a script to do both the RPM and install?
The basic issue here is that user-friendly Linux distros don't exist because users aren't running Linux. Let MS fumble so as to make Windows non-viable on the $350 machine they are trying to sell to your Aunt Minnie, and someone would work out the details of how to make a Linux pre-loaded machine suitable for her real fast. But no one's going to bother if Windows Lite is going at an OEM cost of maybe $35.
IMO, it's already untrue. Sure, you can build a "luxury" PC for several thousand dollars, with a GeForce 4 video card and latest P4 processor.
Those types of things are obviously unnecessary for the average user - and serve more as a status-symbol than anything practical. (Show me *one* home user who really has problems because an application they use every day just won't run on anything less than a 2Ghz P4.)
On the other hand though, most people have a real need to type letters and documents, on occasion. Today's budget-priced PC replaces the typewriter for that job, making it much more of a commodity item than a luxury item.
Furthermore, as an educational tool - a PC of some sort is becoming just as important as having the textbook used in a course.
I'm not angry with you at all.
Defensive? No, just asking why you're so upset.
Engage my brain? Give me something to think about instead of merely lobbing character critisms my way.
You don't even know me - so you really can't say that I'm a jerk, can you? If all Christians are by definition jerks, then which of us is intolerant and bigoted?
Besides, I'm not so keen on religion as I am on a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
My relationship with God *is* relevent because it's a part of my world view to go into all the world making disciples of Jesus Christ.
If you had the cure for cancer, would you tell anyone, or fear that they might be offended or consider it off topic? What I have been given is far greater than the cure for cancer, and I can offer that for no charge to others. So I do.
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?
Heh. I've worked in computer repair and maintenance. Have you seen non-technical users try to maintain Windows? Believe me, it's not pretty- and there is no grounds for claiming that it's better than Linux. 0 = 0... the real question is, are there people out there who can be paid to fix up busted software? In both cases, the answer is yes- although SO FAR, the Linux repair contingent is both smaller and MORE likely to be useful. The Windows repair contingent is large but often useless..
I don't think it's absurd to think that Dell is paying $20 or $25 dollars for Windows when they buy 10,000 copies.
If anyone here recalls Obi-Wan Raymond and the Windows Refund Day hullabaloo, they might recall this story: Emachines give $26 refund for Windows Return
Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
Firstly, I don't want to turn this into a political debate, and I'm neither adovocating capitalism, communism, corporate anarchy, or socialism.
What I am suggesting is that all of these things, including the Free Software Movement, and Open Source movement's, and even Microsoft's goal is to create tools, wealth, and knowledge for the purpose of increasing our quality of life.
What RMS and ESR are greating wealth when they are writing software, because software is usually a tool and as we all know, tools have value.
Unlike physically tangible tools, these tools can be replicated and distributed it zero cost. It's a shame that food can't be replicated and distributed like this. This is what captivated me and I'm sure many other programmers about software. The fact that we have the ability to craft a tool for connecting people, storing and organizing our ideas to be shared is amazing. If one of us creates a truely novel and amazing tool, it can be distributed to millions at no cost. If that software saves people a significant amount of time or money, you just created an incalculable amount of wealth.
Of course, wealth is nothing if it doesn't increase they quality of life.
While I'm on a rant: We need to stop nit picking whether capitalism or socialism is better and worry about corporate anarchy instead.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
My point is: All of our goals are for the same end:
* creating wealth
* increasing quality of life
We will probably disagree how to go about it. My outlook is that a number of different systems should be employed for different circumstances. The goal is to make great tools and to get them into the hands of people.
Hence, My original point: If the tools are great and the system works well, then people will take to it. Otherwise, you either need to makes some tweaks or complete overhauls.
AKA: The shut up or put up argument
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
MS DOS replaced Apple Macintosh, remember?
Um, no. Please put down the crack pipe.
First of all, Apple Macintoshes are still produced, sold, and bought and used by millions of people. They never got replaced by anything, really. Secondly, MS-DOS came first. It was introduced three years prior to--and was in common use by--the time the Apple Macintosh was introduced. It couldn't have 'replaced' the Macintosh.
Nothing has replaced the Macintosh. The only thing you can say about the Macintosh is that it's popularity has waned since the introduction Windows 9x...even then, popularity of the Macintosh has grown back to some degree since then.
My journal has hot
Yabut... were I MS, I would, as ESR suggests, look to ways to separate the OS/apps from the box, such as thin client architecture and software as an online utility. If the box comes without an OS and apps but recommending MS and boots online to download/install the most uptodate, "ultimately configured" MS software then the customer might mindlessly separate the two and see the OS/apps as a licensed utility. The economics of doing away with the most part of manufacturing and distributing shelved software will give MS alot more margin to play with. Still, over the near term, as the need for standards and, independent bodies to maintain and further standards grows, the gap will close as standards will provide a platform for the Open Source/FSF communities to close said gap. What ESR said will prevail in that a large body of independent coders have and will come together to produce a competitive mass market product.
Excuse my morning rant, the nimbling of my fingers and the impact of the first brimming mug of coffee.
cheersheuristic algorithm seeks stochastic relationship
No comment.
The truth is: I'm trying to reform myself as a zealot by attacking zealotry with immense zeal.
...and I didn't see the irony...
Usually I try to subdue the zealotry by posting somewhat rhetorical questions rather than assertions, but not today... Oh no... I have to be a big guy today and say things like, "You shoulda listened to me in the first place boy!"
Fuck it! I can't run... I can't get out of the proverbial bear trap... You can club me like a baby seal now...
I wish someone would mod you up as Funny, only then would I be truely attacking zealtry.
"Communism is like having one [local] phone company " - Lenny Bruce
In any case, it doesn't matter. Microsoft can adjust their cost structure so that they can give away consumer-Windows and still be hugely profitable.
Maybe OSes will be given away the same way as web-browsers, complete w/ banner ads, user tracking and spyware.
The biggest trick the devil pulled was letting lawyers become politicians so they can write the laws.
A $350 computer more than likely cost the retailer about half that. $26 is a large percentage of $175. Viewed from that perspective, ESR's argument looks right. Dell and Gateway can not survive selling $500 computers as it is. Their costs are too great. One of their costs is the $26 bucks or so they have to pay for EACH computer they build and sell, regardless of OS installed. Costs like that will break them and Microsoft as smaller outlets start offering cheaper PCs that do what people want. Remember that Dell got started in a dorm room. Someone else will eat their lunch soon.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Joey Q can't grasp the notion that a CDR needs to be mastered. Even the XP CDR tools confound them.
Linux is not more confusing to this kind of user. Once you've gone over Joey Q's head, it doesn't matter if it's by a meter or a light year.
OTOH, Linux can be adapted by individual VARs in ways that Windows can't. WinDOS is going to continue to be jack of all trades and master of none while becoming a burden on profit.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
As PCs get cheaper, if Microsofts high price becomes an obstacle to market domination then they will lower it. They only charge that much because they can. Bill Gates will do what he must to stay on top, if that means lowering the Windows price, he will. Then, he gets legions of sheep buying computers for the first time because the most important man in the world was nice enough to lower prices for them.
ESR is a smart man, I'm sure. But Bill Gates- I honestly do not believe he is after money. He just wants his software running everything in the world. I don't think he actually wants domination, but he wants a piece of every pie just to have it. If it got to the point where to keep the windows dominance he had to subsidize Windows out of pocket for a while, I am convinced he would do so.
I have news for ESR. The start point for complete midrange P2 and low- to midrange P3 systems is already down around $200, and has been under $350 for somewhat over a year. Yeah, name-brand machines still cost more, but clones don't. (Your locale may vary, but this is Los Angeles, a HUGE market for PCs of every species. Or check out compgeeks.com, where just-add-hard-disk systems start at $169.)
Second, the consumer appliance marketplace is already accustomed to getting the hardware for cheap or free, and paying for a service (operating systems are roughly parallel). Frex, buy X-months of service, get your cell phone free.
Personally I think the effect will be the opposite, and will *help* M$ consolidate a chokehold on the PC-as-consumer-appliance market, where the PC hardware is very cheap or even free, and the user pays a monthly or annual fee for "service" (which includes the OS).
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Ballmer especially is a real raver.
:)
Remember the Monkey Boy video.
Heay! Don't go saying nasty shit about ravers! I love Techno and Rave music!
On the other hand you have my blessing to insult country music all you want...
Ballmer especially is a real redneck.
Remember the Monkey Boy video.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I think you are both right and wrong. Microsoft does not have to generate increasing revenue through its traditional channels. Their war chest is so loaded that they can buy revenue, at least for a while.
But only for a limited time, otherwise they will "Enron".
With all due respect, I invested a good bit of time in the process of commenting thoughtfully on the problem that MS is currently facing - a topic that directly reated to the issue at hand.
At the end of my posting, I attached one line inviting people to find out more about my faith. The S/N ratio of my posting was very high.
As far as making sure that everyone could find it is concerned, The Bible calls for me to live out my faith. To make it an integral part of my life - to have it affect everything that I do. I'm called to tell others about what God has done for me, and to be prepared to discuss with them the reason for the hope that I have. I strongly believe that inviting people to contact me to learn more about Christianity is a part of my responsibility to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. I tell people about Jesus Christ in every part of my life. Since Slashdot posting is a part of my life, I invite people there to contact me to find out more.
WRT being seen by men - I never asserted that I am holy or righteous. In fact, my heart is deceitful and desperately wicked (Jer 17:9) just like every one else's. My only hope of being found acceptable by a perfect and Holy God is based on my faith in Jesus' perfect life and sacrifice.
I hope that you find the peace that you are seeking.
Respectfully,
Tom Cooper
But Herr Heisenberg, how does the electron know when I'm looking?