Slashdot Mirror
Is Microsoft Money Crushing Microsoft?
JoshuaDFranklin writes "The latest Seattle Weekly has an article by a former Microsoft project manager titled Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow. It argues that Microsoft, addicted to its Windows and Office revenue, is stifling innovation within the company: 'new, better ideas that would take business away from Windows or Office don't really have a chance at Microsoft.' Apple, in contrast, has embraced Open Source and is delivering a better consumer experience." Update: 06/06 21:24 GMT by T : Sorry, it's a dupe.
Microsoft has never been big on technical innovation (although when it comes to licensing and marketing, they've come up with some new tricks). They've done a few new things here and there, but their time-tested strategy is to let other companies do the pioneering research and develop markets, and then either buy those companies and/or steamroller them and take the market. They don't take risks because they don't need to.
Am I part of the core demographic for Swedish Fish?
Yes, but check THIS out!
** A Sketch a Week **
http://www.sketchplease.com
the fact that apple delivers a better costumer experience has much more to do with vertical integration (hardware + OS + drivers + application) rather than the fact that they embrace open source.
what open source did for apple was that they could provide a whole bunch of services in a compatible, attractive fashion that would have been very costly to develop. M$ doesn't really need that, they have their own services (web server, file server, databases etc) already.
Yes, Darwin as a UNIX platform is open-sourced. But honestly, can you really say that Apple has "embraced open-source" anything without cracking a smile?
Last I checked, they were the one of the largest proponents of proprietary software/hardware. Granted, they have let up a little bit in releasing development tools for packages like iTunes. But all the same, that's a long ways from embracing free and open source code.
Also, Apple tends to lean HARD on Microsoft for office tools. In that vein, can you really say Apple has diverged from the path Microsoft set? I'd argue no.
I was in a store yesterday and saw an Apple computer for $799 with a builtin 17" LCD display. Those monitors usually cost over $400 so the marginal cost of the iMac was less than $399. I haven't owned a Mac in over 10 years mostly because of price but the difference between PC and Mac is becoming close enough that I think I will try one out next time I purchase.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Serious question. I could have sworn Taco said subscribers would be aiding in the editorial process...
We get dupes just as before, at an alarmingly increasing rate.
"Sufferin' succotash."
This makes a lot of sense. Microsoft hasn't innovated anything for years, if at all. After crushing its competitors (Netscape, WordPerfect, etc.), Microsoft hasn't really made any viable updates to its software. Take Windows for example. The first few versions of Windows were bad and it didn't take until Windows 3.0 until Microsoft finally made it usable enough for developers to develop on it. Windows 95 was probably at Windows's peak. It's interface was very usable, didn't really get in the way, and had a lot of developers.
But then, Windows's quality deteriorated beginning with Windows 98, when Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer as a means to kill Netscape (and when Windows now had a 95% market share). However, as many people on this board know, integrating a browser to an operating system causes all sorts of problems, and Windows has gone downhill ever since. Windows XP, for example, is more stable than Windows 95/98, but it suffers from more worms than those operating systems, it's "eye candy" (if that's what you call it) is really an eye sore, and the interface gets in the way (compare the Find dialog in Windows 95/98 to the Find command in Windows XP, you'll see a difference). Ditto for Office, last time I checked, Clippy is still there. Microsoft Word has a lot of other annoyances (ever tried outlining there? It's a pain).
Now, look at Apple. Apple has made a lot of innovations within its whole lifetime. It was the first to bring the graphical user interface to the secretary's desk (Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh). Apple has made a lot of innovations that make many processes very easy (for example, in the old days, all you needed to do to network two Macs together was to connect a printer cable to each other, and then use Chooser to share files. No network configuration or anything. Try that on an old PC.). Finally, Apple took UNIX and fused the Mac OS with UNIX to make, after a long process that includes NeXT and Rhapsody, to create Mac OS X. Mac OS X is the only UNIX-based operating system where it is so easy for a non-geek to use without much difficulty, yet the UNIX pro could access the core using a few mouse clicks.
Apple could be considered one of the masters of usability. The operating system never gets in the way of your work, you control the computer. This is different from the Microsoft approach, which is the computer controls what you do. This is exactly why Apple hasn't came out with something annoying like Clippy or that dog in the Find box in Windows XP.
Microsoft needs to do something drastic with Windows and Office. Microsoft needs to start innovating, make Windows and Office user-friendly again, and finally make a stable version of Windows. Windows doesn't need a UNIX core (Microsoft spent tons of money on NT; besides, Microsoft adopting a UNIX core wouldn't be innovation), but Windows should be stable enough to use on a regular basis without any problems. Microsoft should also fix many of its other applications, such as the rapidly deteriorating and antiquated Internet Explorer, and not integrate the browser with the operating system. Isn't it about time that Microsoft should learn that integrating a browser with an operating system causes instability within the operating system? It's like, whenever Microsoft finally takes control of something, they sit on their couches, raise the prices, and the quality of their applications deteriorate with each and every new release. Microsoft needs to innovate fast here, and improve its products.
Some of the patents associated with Linux
Regardless, didn't MS try to emulate Emac's scriptability when they made VB6?
How about the Nautilus interface? MP3 preview feature? SAMBA? The ability to lay firewalls at the kernel level? Support for multiple desktops, with single-click changeability?
I could go on, but I won't. Just look at some of the stuff gAIM has done if you want to see a common example of open source innovation.
The likely next step for Google is to offer its customers remote storage space, a virtual hard drive on which to store all of your files, share them with friends and colleagues, and access them from anywhere.
Reifman suggests that Microsoft's salvation lies in signing up portions of the Windows user base for services (20 million x $19.95), but they've already been beaten to the punch on this one. Check out Novell's Virtual Office. Not only can you do these things with virtual office but you control the information because it's hosted on your own servers. This was the failing that Reifman pointed out for Microsoft's Passport service. Evidently Novell has learned from Gate's mistakes.
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
I do not know what you regard as "new" and "innovative", not to speak of "technology". The iCab Browser I am posting this with does
use that "new", "innovative" "technology" since 1998/1999.
Mh... a typical MS-burlesque, isnt it?
>I'm actually starting to see some signs of innovation and creative
>thinking coming from MS. The new "pop-up blocking" technology in
>Internet Explorer is a very good example.
The blurb didn't say "Apple is benevolent and worth of praise." It also didn't say "Apple has done the most for open source." It said:
(1) Apple has embraced open source (they use it where it is appropriate, and often give back (KHTML, gcc))
(2) Apple is delivering a better consumer experience.
Sun gets beaten up because they are schizophrenic and have no clear vision.
Apple is often praised because they build things that people want and enjoy using (they have to because Microsoft is the default choice unless something else wins them away). Not because people think they are selfless angels.
Recently a friend had the hard drive of his thinkpad crash. Faced with a considerable delay on a replacement IBM drive (seems they are replacing a lot of drives), He asked me if I could do anything about it. I said I'd install linux on a flash drive and mount it on his system. He asked if I could fit linux on the drive and my other friend noted that you could install linux on a Zippo lighter.
Well a few hours later we had the 182 MB SLAX distibution up on his thinkpad and he's overjoyed with the functionality. Once we score a 1 GB drive we're putting a compressed Knoppix distro on.
The point of thos story is that when a free as in beer and speech mini live-cd distro of open source gives you the majority of XP's vaunted capability we are approaching a tipping point.
In a similar vein, my Zippo lighter friend is seriously considering using the Quantian Live CD distro for teaching his college courses.
My third friend runs a mini-ITX system with WiFi I built for Christmas. Just to illustrate the point about the thinkpad I booted the SLAX distro on her system. It installed flawlessly and she couldn't find any difference from the Win 2k on the hard drive for her purposes.
So fast forward to 1-2 years from now when nano-itx PCs with Knoppix burnt into ROM sell for $99 in bubble packs in Target and Wal Mart. Where does M$ stand then?
We always say microsoft has not innovated. WHat does that mean?
It means that what they have chosen to release into the public, to market, has not been innovative.. and has often been mediocre. We don't really respect them for it at all, right?
That doesn't mean that internally there is no innovation.. microsoft has a LOT of good programmers, and developers, and so-on... not everyone at microsoft is an MCSE know-it-all.. many are very talented, learned people.
Given that, and given some examples that slip through (like Office for the mac.. it's actually quite a bit nicer than the windows version)... you can see that they are capable of producing good software that plays nice.
The question is whether, as a company, they will choose to market such software.
If most of their solid income is from corporate windows workstation & server licensing... a model that requires lock-in and a fairly closed minded development model to continue generating revenue from... then they will naturally persue that over, say, writing good mac software that everyone likes, yet making far less money.
The problem, in short, is that they make the most money from their sleaziest practices...
He's using sarcasm to make the point that what MS is just now trotting out has in fact existed in several places for several years. And that that's innovation, Microsoft style.
One could argue that IBM is addicted to its mainframe revenue. They charge some hefty fees for maintenance and support of those monolithic relics. Any software company that is more than 10 yeras old has some sort of 'cash cow' which provides steady income. If you dont like that then buy newer technology, nobody is forcing anyone to buy anything. You cannot blame the crack cocaine dealer simply because he sells you what you need.
I can't stand the way that KDE and most (if not all) Linux apps handle task-bar-like functionality. For example....if I click on a window that belongs to the Gimp, only that one window is made active. The Gimp is an app, and an app usually consists of a collection of windows, palettes, etc - when I activate an app, ALL of the associated windows should be brought forward, not just the one. The way it is now, I have to fish each window out of the pile separately, and that is a pain.
and for the record, here it is:
AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS
By William Henry Gates III
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands
programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two
months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC.
The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these
"users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time
spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people
who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to
us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional
work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has
invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software
available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the
ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108.
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software. Bill Gates General Partner, Micro-Soft
In my mind, MS has always been akin to the Japanese market in terms of "innovation". They don't make anything conceptually new, but they sure as hell improve on (in some way or another) other people's ideas and make them profitable. One of those improvements (at least if you're not sitting on the Linux bench) is a very integrated operating environment. If there's one thing MS has done, that is it: integration. OS X doesn't seem to have gotten that far along in terms of integration yet, even, and KDE only has recently.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers