Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft At Middle Age
gordyf writes "The Seattle Times has an interesting article concerning Microsoft's current position in the market. It describes how its customers and parners are reacting to its heavy-handed tactics, and how 'you can point to Linux being one of the major drivers for this decade.' An interesting read."
For those interested , it's a weeklong "series" in the SeattleTimes.
are we there yet?!?!
...creating new software to entice people to buy more powerful computers
That just about says it right there.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I'm sick of hearing zealots spout crap like "Wait until DRM is in, then everyone will tell MS to shove it!"
MS is a superpower. If they told everyone they plan on cornering the stock market, and taking over the world, people STILL would be buying their product. Face it people, if there is going to be a change, it will happen slowly.
I'm not saying Linux is bad, or that there is no way it will ever take over MS, I'm just saying don't expect it to happen overnight (or in the next 5 years, for that matter).
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
Turn the number backwards, subtract 1957 - the year DEC was founded. The number is now 21777.
Subtract 7491 from the number - this is the year Aleister Crowley paid a longer visit to hell, written backwards. It gives 14286.
Multiply the number by 002 - this is the symbol of greed, from right to left. It gives 28572.
Turn the number backwards, divide by 6 - the smallest perfect number. The number is now 4597.
Turn the number backwards, and add 1927 - the year Fidel Castro was born. The number is now 9881.
This number, read from right to left, is 1889, or the year Adolf Hitler was born.
No further questions. QED.
By home-improvement, I hope he means replacing that NT cluster he has running everything with a more reliable system. I figure he's got to be sick of getting locked out of the john at 3 AM by a system crash...
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
The little blurb at the side tells us that Mr. Gates' net worth is a bit over $50 billion. That's a lot of money, in fact, I've read estimates of the cost of constructing a small moon colony that run below that.
So think about this: if you had the chance to liquidate most of your assets, and then finance a moon colony how could you say no? Oh I'm sure there are more humanitarian things he could do with that money, but he isn't really doing that either. But come on, Bill, a *moon colony* you could do it!
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
I can see it now....
These articles make me sad. I mean, think about it. Doesn't Bill Gates seem like the type of guy you could kick back and watch LotR with? Seriously, he seems like your standard cool dork guy. I wonder how he could have ever sold out like that...
Oh yeah, the billions of dollars he's worth. I'd sell out too for some of that kinda loot. If someone gave me just $1 billion* I'd spend the rest of my life convincing people how cool Microsoft is.
*=obviously, I'm just kidding. My price would definately only be around the $1 million mark
"It describes how its customers and parners are reacting to its heavy-handed tactics..."
So.. what'd they do? Research gunpowder? Build more villagers?
but great influence. Mac OS will only run on boxes from Apple, whereas Linux/BSD runs on those Dell, IBM, and HP machines, too. Linux could kill Microsoft; Apple can't. The most Apple can do is take a few market share points from Windows as people upgrade from PCs to Macs.
If 27 is middle age, then I guess it's about time for me to buy a flashy new car and have an affair.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
In competitors, agreed.
"In a sense, despite the market climate, everything, we need to be even more committed to charging in and helping out and building products in areas where we don't compete today ... because that's what's really in the best interest of the customers," Ballmer said.
The last thing I want is for MS to be in new markets. They have a tendancy to move in to a market, play 'fairly', and manage to use Windows to kill everyone in the market.
The problem here is that they don't really make great products. They make mediocre products that 'look nice,' but nothing that's really spectacular. Shouldn't they be dedicating more of their time towards creating an OS that is not a security risk, and not in expansion to other markets?
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
GUI is just a small part of the real battlefield: functionality. Sooner or later, Linux is going to blow past MS in terms of user experience due simply to the fact that they can pick-and-choose which bits to emulate (fast-launching browser in, annoying Clippy and friends out). At that point, it won't matter if MS gives away Windows because nobody'll want it anyhow. The only way they'll survive is if they can consistantly innovate new, useful features at a reasonable price to stay ahead of the curve, something which MS has *never* been able to do.
So, MS will have to flee off the desktop to other things the OSS community doesn't do well -- game development, console systems, etc. There, they'll have to compete in a far more level playing environment and will in the long term probably get their monopolostic asses handed to them by smaller, faster companies.
How can I predict this? Because that's how things work with most industries which don't exist as regulatory monopolies. I don't see software being any different -- in fact, I predict the decline of MS on the desktop will come so quickly that if you blink you'll miss it.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
Never going to happen. The main reason being that OS X runs on apple's hardware, not x86. x86 hardware rules market share because it is cheap and readily available from a great number of merchants. Mac hardware is expensive and hard(er) to find.
:)
"Mac OS X is a single OS, as opposed to a set of OSes that may or may not work together."
OS X is no more a single OS than Linux is a single OS. Linux interoperates just fine with other Linux machines. Don't confuse the operating system with the applications.
"Also, OS X also has the backing of a long established company that will probably be around in the foreseeable future."
And Linux has IBM. At least they're not constantly going out of business
"OS X is also a BSD, which is a much better OS than Linux. "
Mod -1 Flamebait. BSD is not a better OS than Linux, nor is Linux better than BSD. Make your arguments based on credible facts, not personal opinion.
"Lastly, Apple is adopting a less proprietary model and much of the operating system is open source, so many of the benefits of a completely open source OS are there too."
A less proprietary model than Linux, where ALL of the OS is open source? I doubt that.
I like and use OS X, but it's not competition for Linux. It's a good OS, and has it's places, but it's no threat to Linux or MS.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid.
I love this bit:
... because that's what's really in the best interest of the customers," Ballmer said.
The company is trying to adopt a more paternal role. It's using its vast resources to help the ailing PC industry in new ways.
So, Microsoft's press pack for lazy journalists says that MS is now a mature grown-up company. Lazy journalist writes that MS has changed for the better.
Argh. And don't you just hate MS doublespeak!:
"[..]we need to be even more committed to charging in and helping out and building products in areas where we don't compete today
Steve. Please. Drop the bullshit. You need to move into other markets to maintain your current revenue growth. It is not because "that's what's really in the best interest of the customers".
Do you think Microsofties say these things to themselves so many times that they end up believing them? It's kind of like a bizarre cult. I chatted to some friends of friends the other day who work at Microsoft. I was ruminating on the facts surronding OSS. They just flipped. They couldn't believe that I could be so stupid as to think that OSS was ever going to get anywhere. MS calls OSS people "zealots", but believe me, you wouldn't believe how fanatical and brain-washed some Microsofties are.
Rant over and out.
Just for the hell of it, the other day I typed 'Windows' into Google. I got (about) 57,600,000 results.
Then I typed 'Linux'. I got (about) 53,700,000 results.
Now, one could write a whole book on how unscientific those statistics are, but it was still interesting to see a (damned near) 1:1 ratio. I had anticipated something more like 5:1
Sigs are bad for your health.
God help us when they go through the teen years and start experimenting with drugs and plotting to kill us.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Gates talks excitedly about putting together software he thinks may change the world.
Microsoft's greatest contribution to the computing landscape is not software. There is nothing particularly innovative or inspired about anything they have ever written. I'm not saying it's bad software, just that there's very little that they have done that wasn't preceded by other less successful counterparts.
Microsoft's great contribution is their business method. Ensure customer loyalty by ensnaring them with de-facto proprietary standards. They aren't the only ones playing this game, but they are far and away the best at it.
Microsoft's business model, not their software (or their service, for that matter), is responsible for their success. Those who believe shareholder value at any cost is the ultimate objective can be very happy. On the other hand, those who believe customer loyalty should be earned, rather than enforced by patents, copyrights, licensing and killing off the competition are mortified.
I don't know anyone who is delighted to use Microsoft products. I know a lot of people who feel they have no choice. Given the option to use a truly viable alternative, they would. I don't myself see such an alternative available today. However, I do think the writing is on the wall. And when the tide turns, it will be like a dam bursting.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
Uh, duh. Boss. Chief. The Big Man. He who leads. Does this mean anything to you? Microsoft is 100% Bill Gates' vision as the Ultimate Money Making Machine. Let's face it: many people have spent much time trying to build such things, dreaming of such things, wondering what it would be like to have an endless flow of dollars. Billy G just happened - by luck, family, and intelligence - to make it come true. If you choose to use words like "blame", then you must point the finger at the right person, and that is William H. Gates III personally.
But the entire discussion is tedious and vapid. Wealth comes from careful and lucky negotiation of the (male) networks that thread our business world. Get born into the right family, with the right brain, and at the right time, and you stand a good chance of being rich. Choose the wrong parents, genes, and place and time, and you will dish out hamburgers.
Talking about it just mixes jealousy and ignorance. History shows that wealth never stays in one place for very long. Inequality of wealth creates the condititions for its own redistribution.
With Microsoft, its very stranglehold on PC operating systems has been a major stimulus behind the development of what will become the de-facto standard operating system, being Linux of course. Without Microsoft as the enemy, would so many people really have focussed on one single reliable alternative? It certainly did not happen before.
So, sit back, and watch history in action. We are approaching a period in which the Linux OS is becoming a standard commodity product, and in which all businesses that rely on control over one or other OS will die. If Microsoft realize this within two or three years and embrace Linux fully, they will survive. If they continue to rely on Windows, they will fail.
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
It will be common sense that if you go to a meeting that's recorded digitally ... you can go back and get that information."
Um, excuse me Bill, but isn't this what Palladium and Trusted Computing(TM) are supposed to eliminate? You can no longer go back and get that information unless your DRM module allows you to. Which means that basically the author, your employer, or Microsoft, can lock you out of your own data.
Something just occurred to me regarding DRM. Once Microsoft has succeeded in entrenching DRM in the PC marketplace, what is to keep them from charging their customers royalties for every Office document they view? The technology is there - Microsoft Office could encrypt your documents, and refuse to read them after a specified period of time, unless you bought an upgrade. I can see it now - it would be sold as "Legacy Support Services - with a simple upgrade, you'll be able to view documents created 2 or more years ago!..."
With the advent of MSDOS, people began paying for what they used to get for free. How long will it be before people expect to send Microsoft money every time they view documents created with Microsoft software? How long will it be before Microsoft charges developers royalties for every copy of a program that runs on Windows? Think it can't happen? Think Palladium and Trusted Computing.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I'm pretty sure that in the far future, a few people will look back and say "Well, it's a crying shame that Linux won, really MacOS was much better" in much the same way that people think of the video system wars of a decade or so ago.
In reality of course, they'll be wrong. In much the same way that when people remember VHS vs Betamax all they tend to think of was that Betamax tapes had higher quality pictures, but forget the smaller capacity/higher prices/sony control.
And so really, although I'm sure there are people out there who kind of regret the dominance of VHS, when you get down and argue the points through you tend to realise that a lot of what people remember about Betamax is rose-tinted. They think of only the good points, and forget why it really died.
I mean, when I read the points you make above, it's just like reading a VHS vs Betamax argument. There's the whole will-the-free-market-work thing going, there's the whole its-backed-by-a-megacorp thing and then there's a baseless assertion about the relative "goodness" of the kernels. I mean, maybe FreeBSD has a better VM system or something, I don't really know, and I don't care either. It's like video quality - 99.9% of people can't tell, don't know and wouldn't care even if they did.
Finally I'd point out that "less proprietary" isn't good enough: it's still proprietary, and that's a bad thing. It also condemns them to a minority marketshare for ever, something I'm sure they are aware of, but they're doing OK selling to a niche so that doesn't really matter.
I believe this is a good indication of split from how Bill Gates sees the world and how the rest of the world sees itself. The problem is a touch of reality. One where the business is not technology but the use of technology for business. An area that MS seems to fail at way too often, given their scope. Instead, their success tends to be from the hard work of developers outside of the products themselves.
... you can go back and get that information."
From the article:
"...It will be common sense that you can correspond with your doctor and ask him questions electronically. It will be common sense that if you go to a meeting that's recorded digitally
It is not common sense. My doctor does not correspond electronically for two reasons. He is busy and he gains no revenue from it. Doctor's do not sit in their office waiting for someone to show up.(Try to see your doctor the same day you call). As for recording digitally that again is economically available today, but it fails to meet a wide business need. Instead, I call up Jane and ask "Was that two foobars or three you wanted?" I don't go to the archives and pull the video. Perhaps it is just his lawyers talking, in which case the video will expire in 30 days and be self destructive.
as for
If it works as planned, an airline would be able to update a passenger's on-line calendar if a flight were delayed, while notifying the passenger of the change with an e-mail and a phone message. One goal is to create a standard format so that data could be read by whatever device the passenger uses.
Again, a solution looking for a problem. Since a flight is not legally "late" until it does not push off, do you really expect an airline to send you an email in the morning?
As for a standard message format, they could have that today. They selected to remain proprietary, no one is holding a gun to their head. Let's see support for a universal open document standard and we would all be happy.(Well, except MS.)
"In addition to creating new software to entice people to buy more powerful computers, Microsoft is designing new types of computers, encouraging PC makers to build them."
Yes, the do this and not for the business' that is using it. Who wanted to go to an OS who's base requirements were four or five times the previous release? Hardware makers. Do I like having a 2.0ghz chip and a gig of memory for compiles? You bet. Does business appreciate needing to update an entire administration pool to run W2k and XP? Not even a little.
and finally, the "lost leader" thrown in to later claim "everyone knew it was coming:"
One key feature is expected to be a new file-storage system for better organizing things stored on a Windows-based PC. It could finally make it easy for people to search and find all sorts of files -- contacts, printers, documents, programs, photos -- with a single search tool.
Sadly, almost no one in the mainstream recognizes this for what it is. A shutout of other devices, services and software. I predict this is going to be a 100% legally encased product that will prevent or impede anything from interacting that is not MS. Anyone (i.e. SAMBA) trying to engineer a solution can look to DCMA for guidence. Nothing more complicated than that.
I do run Win2K and Office2k on an older machine...a P200 MMX with 128 MB ram and 2.1 GB disk. It runs fine. Take out even 16 meg of memory though, and forget it. I would try to run it with 256 meg of memory, but the board is so old it only supports 4 32MB simms. YMMV, though.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
IBM thought they could dictate the new *standard*. .NET, License 6, and other MS BS look more and more like an MCA kind of thing.
Their arrogance cost them dearly.
Palladium,
I think that within 2 years there will be a mass exodus from Microsoft by developers, OEMs, large and small business sites, and finally, even home computer users.
May you live in interesting times, Mr. Gates.
1000 SlashDot sigs
My prediction: In fifty years junior high school kids will be learning about the Gate's vaccine for Malaria. (named after the benefactor for the research)
After, of course, those schoolkids plunk down $25 for a 15-minute limited copy of the Gates Vaccine MS-PDF (tied to their computer at school - if they want to read it at home, it's $50 for the "extra license") on their Trusted Computing Tablet PC (c)
There is one thing you failed to mention: You can't recompile the windows kernel to make it smaller.
I regularly tune and recompile my linux kernels to support the specific hardware I have on my eclectic assortment of old boxes (P100s etc..). This fine tuning makes the kernel run quicker, and allows me to lower the disk and memory footprint. (P.S. I burn CDs that contain these unique kernels as recovery disks - so no worries on catastrophic failures). You don't have to live with a bloated 'one size fits all' distribution if you don't want to under linux. Not so for windows (unless you pay a price of course).
I have all of this flexibility in Linux for free. Windows can't beat that.
It is a big deal for me. I demand quality over quantity and glitz. Windows does not deliver.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain