Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Memo Gives Microsoft New Direction?
daria42 writes "An e-mail memo sent from Microsoft chairman Bill Gates to top execs at Microsoft has been leaked, revealing the executive wants his company to hurriedly change its focus and start to tap online advertising and services as new revenue sources. In the e-mail, Gates cites another, earlier memo, sent from MS exec Ray Ozzie, in which Ozzie also warns MS of the importance of focusing on the online medium. 'It's clear that if we fail to do so, our business as we know it is at risk,' Ozzie wrote. 'We must respond quickly and decisively. We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax, following our pioneering work in OWA (Outlook Web Access),' he continued. 'We knew search would be important, but through Google's focus they've gained a tremendously strong position.'"
Oh, and you, the user, don't get the revenue. That is reserved exclusively to MS. It'll be in the EULA.
That's just what we need: another "me too!" document format. Oh for crying out loud. Windows is fast becoming the toilet with a toaster, cordless drill, leaf blower, and pencil holder built in. It's the Chewbacca Defense of featureware.
Gates, Ballmer, Ozzie, et al: I'm going to give you a hint which will help you. I'm not supposed to do this because I'm a Linux fanatic but I'm going to do it anyway because you seem to be retarded and it makes me feel good inside to help those who are less fortunate than I am. Do you really want to stay in the game? Figure out what your job is, define it, simplify it, and do it well before you try to branch out like some mutating cancerous amoeba. Drop all the featureware that's in your OS and concentrate on simplifying, standardizing, and securing the 600 layers beneath what the users see. There, I've even invented a new 3S meme for your PR campaign--and I claim full IP on it right here on
Young, energetic, and emerging Linux devs would do well to follow the same advice before they take Linux down the same path that MS forged years ago.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Wasn't this supposed to be leaked on Halloween?
Sure, it's great and all, but it'll never change the way the web works. Improve it, yes. Change it? No. You can build as large js-applications as you wish (and yes, spend exponentially as much time debugging them) - you will never escape the fact that you're just building hacks around a stateless technology from pre 90's.
...to finally get MS Office on Linux.
Will this be the next step (after the recent reorg) of the long-awaited breakup of MS into more focused and independent companies?
"Leaked."
investor: "Wow, Microsoft is really going to push that online stuff. Let me call my broker."
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I find it very hard to believe that anything like this coming from Microsoft is not entirely intentional.
Microsoft is nothing more than a gargantuan marketing machine. This action is no exception.
Bill and friends are too busy running around trying to put out all the fires while they cannot even fix their core product. Bill, clean up your room and then go out and play.
...It must be true. Everyone knows that you can't fake an email.
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Gates memo warns of 'disruptive' changes
Ina Fried, Special to ZDNet
November 09, 2005
URL: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Gates_me mo_warns_of_disruptive_changes/0,2000061733,392214 68,00.htm
Aiming to stir up the same kind of momentum as his Internet Tidal Wave memo of a decade earlier, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has penned a memo outlining the challenges Microsoft faces from a host of online competitors.
"This coming 'services wave' will be very disruptive," Gates said in an Oct. 30 e-mail to top Microsoft employees. "We have competitors who will seize on these approaches and challenge us."
In the memo, Gates cites an earlier missive from Ray Ozzie, outlining the importance of tapping online advertising and services as new revenue sources.
"It's clear that if we fail to do so, our business as we know it is at risk," Ozzie wrote. "We must respond quickly and decisively."
Ozzie's memo, which was also seen by CNET News.com, includes a laundry list of missed opportunities for the software maker, citing competitive threats from rivals such as Google, Skype, Research In Motion and Adobe.
Ozzie notes areas that Microsoft could have led, such as Web-based applications, but where other companies are instead more heavily focused.
"We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax, following our pioneering work in OWA (Outlook Web Access)," Ozzie wrote. "We knew search would be important, but through Google's focus they've gained a tremendously strong position."
In the memo, Ozzie talks about Google as Microsoft's most prominent of the emerging competitors, but also makes reference to Yahoo and Apple Computer.
"Google is obviously the most visible here, although given the hype level it is difficult to ascertain which of their myriad initiatives are simply adjuncts intended to drive scale for their advertising business, or which might ultimately grow to substantively challenge our offerings," Ozzie wrote. "Although Yahoo also has significant communications assets that combine software and services, they are more of a media company and--with the notable exception of their advertising platform--they seem to be utilising their platform capabilities largely as an internal asset.
"The same is true of Apple, which has done an enviable job integrating hardware, software and services into a seamless experience with dotMac, iPod and iTunes, but seems less focused on enabling developers to build substantial products and businesses," Ozzie wrote in his memo.
He also makes reference to smaller, emerging companies that are developing software and services that use the Internet, rather than Windows, as their base platform.
"Developers needing tools and libraries to do their work just search the Internet, download, develop and integrate, deploy, refine," Ozzie wrote. "Speed, simplicity and loose coupling are paramount."
At the same time, Ozzie sees am opportunity if Microsoft can create a Web-based development platform.
"The work of these startups could be improved with a 'services platform'," Ozzie said. "Ironically, the same things that enable and catalyse rapid innovation can also be constraints to their success. "
Microsoft has talked of a developer platform in conjunction with Windows Live, but the company has offered few details of how third parties will be able to build on top of Microsoft's work.
Microsoft has already reorganised the company and outlined some of its plans, but the two memos make clear the urgency and importance that the company is placing on this effort.
The company announced in September that it was reorganising itself into three units and tapping Ozzie to lead a companywide services push. Last week, Microsoft announced the first fruits of that effort--products called Windows Liv
To us brits AJAX is known for been a cleaning product, to Microsoft it sounds like the next best thing but AJAX (not the cleaner) is already widely used for various things including the MSDN, so why HAS it taken M$ so long to jump on the already rolling bannedwagon?
why?
Unix: Do one thing, and do it well
Mac: Do a few things, but be simple, and secure about it
Windows: Do lots of things, some well, most not, but get them into production fast
Charles Ferguson created the company that produced FrontPage. He sold out to MicroSoft when he realized that Netscape would lose, due to their own faults. He wrote a great book on his story dealing with VCs and selling out to MicroSoft.
5 ,308,p1.html
In the book, he describes how MicroSoft slept through the early 'net, until the Netscape Wunderkind (can't remember his name) said Windows would be reduced to a bunch of buggy device drivers by the web. Then Bill woke up. He writes about it like Sauron has been up in Redmond, sleeping away, until the Netscape guy wakes him up. And then Bill wakes up, like a big pissed off Sauron, turns Ballmer loose so he can get medieval on Netscape and so on.
Charles Ferguson also happens to have a PhD, and has done a lot on high tech competition. Here's something he's written on the topic of Microsoft fighting Google -- for real.
"... But if Microsoft gets serious about search--and there is every reason to believe that it will--Google will need brilliant strategy and flawless execution simply to survive..."
Which is an amazing think to consider.
Here's the article where discusses this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_1406
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Sure thing microsoft has plans to do the same in the web-space, but the competetion is tougher in this case. The coming days are gonna be really very interesting.
They can spend billions of dollars and they will never catch up with Google, because Google has a position that money can't buy. It's not about Building a Better Browser this time - unless Microsoft manages to completely revolutionize search to where, as Eric Schmidt I believe put it, "it knows what you mean". However, Microsoft does have the right idea at least (we'll have to wait and see if they implement it well) with Live, and web-based productivity tools. Everyone has been deriding MS as "behind the curve" on the web-based, or subscription-based software model, claiming that the likes of Google will kill the desktop-oriented software market, and Microsoft with it, but Microsoft is the first to start rolling out prebetas of said software, while most else is just speculation and vapour.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I shouldn't really reply but isnt that getting close to a thin client.... and to be honest can you guarentee that your net connection is 100% reliable? so basing a OS around the net is just asking for trouble isnt it?
why?
It's clear that if we fail to do so, our business as we know it is at risk
This is a seriously ambiguous line. Is he saying that the business is at risk or that the business of being fundamentally a software development company is at risk. I assume he has got to be saying the first because moving into the Google services space is a fundamental shift in the way M$ works. I have wondered from time to time why M$ have decided to go down the services + content route when their core business and money making comes from software development. They could own the software development world but are instead going head to head with massive companies in the content and service space. Odd. Here's to hoping they contiune.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Joy. Their "pioneering work" with outlook web access used to get me woken up in the middle of the night at least once a week to play with registry settings when the OWA server forgot how to talk to the mail servers.
Hopefully their foray into online advertising will be just as successful.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Do what you want and do it as well as you can (with a little help from your friends)
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
you mean this?
In a nutshell: "We missed the boat again. Smaller companies are beating us. Let's crush them. Go Microsoft!"
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Seriously, don't give Microsoft ideas. Like the "stateless" bit. How would you like for Vista to have a nice little HTTP extension built-in the fabulous IE7 browser AND all the Live stuff, which would precisely identify the machine, the Windows and Office installations, and, why not, the persons using them?
The State Management Mechanism (aka "cookies") was designed the way it was for a reason: privacy. And they stood the test of time all too well.
Once Microsoft bundles that sweet little bit of spyware in Vista, you can expect them to, naturally, sell a nifty new version of IIS which makes use of it. And then all hell will break loose. Which major website owner or online advertising broken can really resist the temptation of finally having precise Web statistics?
i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
When Microsoft decides to kick ass in an area, here's what they do, in a nutshell (according to Charles Ferguson):
In all of Microsoft's successful battles, it has used the same strategies. It undercuts its competitors in pricing, unifies previously separate markets, provides open but proprietary APIs, and bundles new functions into platforms it already dominates. Once it has acquired control over an industry standard, it invades neighboring markets.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
This really is ominous news, as it means that MS is going to release - YET ANOTHER - development platform which will surely have a slick interface that n00bz can pick up and drag'n'drop together some basic apps (but experienced programmers will scoff at) which - of course - will only build apps for MS' proprietary platform ... and of course, the only client which will be able to access this new platform is MSIE7 on Vistahorn...
Nothing to see here people, its just another tactic to lock us in but this time they want to tax us -while- they rape us, rather than just beforehand.
I know its wishful thinking, but I really hope this goes the way of passport and bob...
-GenTimJS
Before they think about playing with ajax they may wish to fix the slow ass script interpreter in IE. Of course they are threatened as these new rich web applications neutralize the platform. This time however there is a new kid (firefox) in town that is gonna be hard to kill off like they did with netscape.
Got Code?
This email is nothing new. All over the years Microsoft has proved having a keen eye of what competitors are doing, not for being progressive. They jump on the fastest train.
Nothing wrong with that, ofcourse. What I think will happen is that while Bill and his fellow Microman are betting on this new horse, Google is already doing something newer. For the users (that's me and you) that only means progression.
Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
TFA: '"We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax, following our pioneering work in OWA (Outlook Web Access)," Ozzie wrote. "We knew search would be important, but through Google's focus they've gained a tremendously strong position."'
Hmm, something does not add up. I remember several other web-based email interfaces long before Outlook Web Access. I thought pioneering was essentially the early adopter phase, not the second wave.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
I am a ASP.NET Developer, recently we switched to ASP.NET 2.0. While I must say, .NET has some powerful abilities, a great leap in producitivity. Rails, as another long time coworkwer says "makes asp.net look clumbsy to use". We both been programming 12+ years, and more I use rails, more I keep trying asp.net to do it. Oh do I hate DataSets. Its simply TERRIBLE compared to ActiveRecord.
Microsoft fails to realize them naming it asp.net 2.0, I expected a good level of backward compatibility, its simply not the case, the Model is INSANELY different underneath.
Anyways back to the topic of web technology, I would be more warry of rails than google, cause rails is going to cut the life line of asp.net
At last, Microsoft decides to specialize in annoying people as opposed to just dabbling in it as a sideline.
"Microsoft is proposing its own rival to PDF, known as Metro, with Windows Vista, its new operating system that is due out next year."
Perhaps Billy failed to notice this, and I know he personally reads all my posts. The U.S. Federal Court system is accepting electronic delivery of documents. The two formats accepted by the court are WordPerfect and Portable Document Format.
What Billy is ignoring is the reason PDF is so successful as a format--its everywhere and has been for years. So, to try to come in now with a "new" document format, he'll have to surmount the legacy. Of course, he'll try to do this with some variation of the PCDos bug and Microsoft's unique market position. Although, another reason why PDF is so successful is it builds off of the PostScript file format, which oddly enough is owned by the same company as PDF--Adobe. So, what Billy will have to do is defeat PS.
All in all, that ZD article shows how grovelly they are toward Microsoft. There's nothing but positive spin on a leaked memo that itself carries little information of nutritional value.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
This article was written before GMail.
It was written before Google Maps, and more importantly, before Google Maps and Google Local combined.
It was written before Google Movies, and Google Video.
Frankly, I think Microsoft has at least a year of catching up to do, and that is *because* they are Microsoft. Any other company, I would give them at least double that.
That is just to match the technology. Then, they have to get marketshare. Sure, they have a huge channel to shove their stuff down (Windows), but Google is in a far better position than Netscape was in it's day. Netscape was still an app that had to be run. Google is a verb. You never saw the Jennifer Lopez talking about how she "Netscaped It" in Maid in Manhattan.
It is the same reason that Amazon auctions and Yahoo! auctions flounder in obscurity, even though they are cheaper to list on and have basically the exact same feature set as eBay. Ebay has the mindshare. It is featured in Movies and TV constantly. It is a verb. It is so commonplace it will be really a tough nut to crack.
Not to mention Google also has billions in the bank and is raking in revenue, while Netscape was giving away it's key product for free. They are also in a fa rbetter finiancial position to fight than Netscape ever was.
Why is that every M$ story like this reminds me of the scene in "Pirates of Silicone Valley" where Bill Gates sees the mouse/gui system for the first time and starts jumping up and down screaming "I want it, I want it, I want it!"
http://www.hypercamp.org/2005/11/09#a43
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Shouldn't the article's headline read "Leaked Memo Gives Microsoft's New Direction"? I had thought this was a memo from Google that was leaked that was giving Microsoft pause. As it is, the memo is giving new direction to Microsoft. Wait... maybe that's actually it. That would explain a lot....
"We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax, following our pioneering work in OWA (Outlook Web Access)"
Economist Clayton Christensen points out in his books (The Innovator's Dilemma, etc.) that market leaders often develop the technology that does them in. Microsoft is facing a war on two fronts: 1 - Open source is starting to eat their lunch and that trend will continue. 2 - A lot of important things are moving online. People are now doing things for free on the net that they would have done previously with purchased software.
In his books, Christensen points out that entrenched market leaders usually see what is coming at them but can't adapt their businesses to take advantage of it. He has studied many industries and finds that this is something that usually happens. The bottom line is that even if Microsoft manages to weather the storm, it won't be the same company ten years from now.
www.itconversations.com/shows/detail135.html
Let's get rid of AJAX and web browsers. What is needed is a distributed portable operating system standard, that Microsoft and all the companies follow.
A downside of being a web developer is the amount of crap you have to deal with because of IE. If MS is going to focus more on AJAX, they'll have to produce a better web browser for their OS users. Won't this then mean that we web developers get better tools which takes us further away from using the operating system more.
home http://www.peterbe.com/
Remember, you saw it here first!
A memo tackling broad changes in directive without a clear sense of direction. Wonderful. This is the beginning of the end of for Microsoft, at least for now. I'll wager money that in 8 years Microsoft will be a much less powerful entity, and where they go from there will depend on who takes over once the original execs retire. Good products just don't get engineered this way.
http://news.com.com/2061-10812_3-5940667.html?part =rss&tag=5940667&subj=news
Looks like they are giving away search appliances for free.
Shades of Netscape?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
If you have seen QooxDoo then you probably thought the same thing I did when you saw it: "Microsoft should be freaking out about this!" Later when I learned that AJAX comes from discarded Microsoft Technology I realized that Microsoft had pulled a Xerox. Just as Xerox threw away the chance to be the leader of Desktop Software and gave away the GUI and Mouse... Microsoft handed Google a lead. The problem is, this is Microsoft not Xerox we're talking about. Will Google keep that lead?
[signature]
Start off by creating AJAX based WebChat instead of JAVA or anything other than XHTML.
For more info contact me at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AJAX_2-0
Unfortunately the article doesn't dilate on exactly what Micrososft mean by "This coming 'services wave' will be very disruptive". But broadly it does suggest that a Google/Sun combo or similar outfit offering office apps on a client/server basis would really turn over the applecart, maybe not right now but sometime soon when the technology is robust enough.
...
I guess two other things emerge from the article. First, Microsoft is getting sucked deeper into an impossible dilemma. They know they must become more and more friendly both to developers and to open source. But smooching with open source appears to shaft their lucrative closed-source licensing model. If there is a way out, they don't seem to have figured it yet.
Second, sure, the memo was probably meant to be leaked. Why? Well, it suggests that Microsoft see the next few years as a serious and testing challenge for them. Since about 2000, they've had it easy because nothing fundamental has changed in the industry. But now the plates are shifting
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
Well... I think, IMHO, the slant M$ will take on this will be to offer an either/or environment, offering a huge library of productivity services while online, and when offline, productivity can continue uninhibited, but without the overhead of maintaining service oriented functionality.
When "sync'd" to the net, users will be able to leverage that vast library of services such as communications, file sharing, document reprocessing (spell check, calc, etc...).
Think about it, what do you REALLY use the net for? Communication and sharing, perfect services candidates. What do you NOT(or not always) want to use the net for? File/data storage.
I think its too much of a strech to say that the thin client is back. Instead, I would say that a "Slender" Client (IP. 2005) is on the horizon, which, I would argue, will be better for everyone.
Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
Seriously. I can't beleive they fell for it that easily! Good work guys!
Poor MS. I almost feel sorry for them, this web 2.0 is a dirty trick...
But then again, so was Windows 95 and IE. So fuck 'em.
Frantically playing catch up to technologically superior competition. This all seems familiar somehow.
Looks like Microsoft is "innovating" again.
MS bashing aside, it kills me that something as vague as AJAX is touted as a specific technology with a birth date. The only thing with a birthdate is the term. Wikipedia says it's when Jesse James Garrett first coined the term, in an article dated 2/18/2005.
Yep, it is thinner than thin client.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AJAX_2-0
Of course Microsoft has a lack of focus. They spend too much time knee-jerking when the stock price of one of their competitors goes ballistic. Over-attention to competition and jumping from one topic to another (.Net, XBox, you name it, flavor du jour) is the best way to drive a company into the ground.
MS needs to get its own house in order and execute first. This fiasco with Vista being the perfect example.
The good news for Microsoft is that it sure looks like Google is losing focus now. Next they will have a disappointing quarter and a stock plunge, and then be like everyone else.
That is the jist of the memo...why pay for Microsoft's products when others are giving it away.
Google will give away a lot of the features and services that were at one point a Microsoft monopoly.
Advice for Bill Gates, stop sending around memos and CREATE something INNOVATIVE and useful. Something that everyone can use and can download for free. Add some advertising to make up for the revenue loss maybe? Also, change the hideous Microsoft support websites that are not only hard to navigate, but usually end up causing more confusion for the average user (SEE: http://support.microsoft.com/ph/1173 as an example.)
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Seriously folks, how is Google competitively threatening Microsoft?
How many people here have written checks to Google that they would have otherwise written to Microsoft?
Put another way, in what product categories could you purchase a Google offering instead of a Microsoft offering? Google doesn't offer an operating system product and doesn't offer an office productivity suite.
Recently, I purchased an Apple PowerBook instead of a Wintel laptop. And recently I purchased an Apple iPod instead of a Microsoft-backed MP3 player. Then and now, Google did not offer any competitive products in either of those categories. In other words, Apple was a competitor to Microsoft for my money, but Google was not.
While it may be true that Google is the most sophisticated billboard company on the planet, selling advertising has never been one of Microsoft's core lines of business. So, even if Google had 100% of the Internet billboard revenues and Microsoft had 0%, how would Google be threatening Microsoft?
There are those who believe that Google will someday undermine Microsoft's operating system and office productivity suite lines of business by offering subscription-based versions of each or even free versions of each. Well, how many people here want to pay subscription fees for software that is currently available in product form? Not many, I'd bet. Especially if using that subscription software also required storing your sensitive data on Google's servers. And as far as free software goes, Linux and OpenOffice are available for free now, yet at least within the U.S. neither is threatening Windows and MS Office today.
And regarding all of this talk about AJAX-based offerings, let's get real folks. Who here would really like to trade in their desktop apps for AJAX-based apps?
In my opinion, Microsoft has a locked in customer base and currently has Google trapped in a browser. As things stand now, Google is not a genuine competitive threat to Microsoft. The only way that Google will be able to become a genuine competitive threat is if Microsoft makes a serious mistake by heading down its proposed path of competing with Google on Google's browser-based terms.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
YET ANOTHER - development platform which will surely have a slick interface that n00bz can pick up and drag'n'drop together some basic apps (but experienced programmers will scoff at) which - of course - will only build apps for MS' proprietary platform
You know.. n00bz as you put, can probably hack together some piece of shit code in Visual Studio. You are absolutely right. But you know what? Proffesionals can actually use it to make decent software. See, I know how my machine work, I know how networks work, I know my fair deal of everything, and if required, I could implement it, but I would definitely scoff at that.
The fact that I don't have to rewrite generic code 10,000 times during the development of a application is something I consider good. Yes, I do think that developers should know what is happening under the hood. No, I don't think they should be asked to implement the same hood every time they make a function call. Say... Do you reimplement the full stdio library everytime you put together a C-program? Didn't think so. That was generic allready decades ago.
Times are moving forward, and lots of stuff that used to be tedious, repetetive and annoying slave labour as far as coding went, is now what I refer to as generic code. Any tool that frees me from writing that is a tool I like. You know, so I can actually concentrate on the application design and program logic.
In that sense C# and .NET (and definitely .NET 2.0) a good thing. A easy, concistent API. Good development tools. There might be better, but I think Visual Studio kicks ass.
And as far as "requiring MSIE 7 and Vista goes", I guess you 've never seen the product you are critizing? ASP.NET gives you exactly as much control as you desire. Or as little. If you go by the defaults, it will automaticly render you pages according to the client capabliities, ie using tables and what not so it even looks good if you are using Netscape 3.0. How is that for "requiring MSIE 7 and Vista"?
I can't believe a AC troll like you actually got moded insightful. However, I guess that's the way of slashdot. Badmouth Microsoft and the mods will love you.
I'm not saying all Microsoft does is good though, but .NET and Visual Studio is one of those things Microsoft actually got 100% right. Granted, it's MS-technology designed for a MS-OS and a MS-infrastructure, but what do you expect? I've yet to see Sony develop SDK-tools for Xbox.
Not Buzzword 2.0 compliant. Please speak english.
I wonder if Bill Gates sees Google's slogan in his dreams now.
In the past, Microsoft has been very good at playing catch-up. They have been able to identify an area that the company lacks, and then through a variety of methods such as standardization, guaranteeing interoperability, undercutting, and flat out buying competitors they unify a market and they make a lot of money in the process.
Microsoft in the past, rightly or not, was seen as a great innovator. I can remember in high school listening to a Microsoft employee talk about his job and being amazed about how fun it sounded to work there. Even though they were playing catch up in a lot of what they were doing, they were able to come off to a lot of people as improving whatever they were copying and pushing it in bold new directions.
The problem now is that the perception of Microsoft has shifted to a more accurate one: a company that does not innovate, and "borrows" all of its good ideas rather than pushing the limits. This memo just furthers this idea. Online advertising has been done before, it has failed miserably before (anybody remember the dot com burst?) but now that Google has made a successful business model from it, Microsoft suddenly stands at attention and decides to get into the market.
Right now Microsoft can't even compete with Google in the areas which Google is strong. Even though Microsoft released its "new" search engine, it still only occupies something like 5-10% of users with Google having something like 50%. I realize that Bill Gates desperately wants to kill Google off, because he (rightly) sees the company as a huge threat. The problem is that Google is much better at doing what Google does than Microsoft is.
If Bill Gates wants to kill Google, he's going to have to find a way to leverage what Microsoft is dominant in (oh say... desktop operating systems) against Google. An even better idea would be to start innovating again, bring back the public perception that Microsoft is a leading edge company and start bringing back really smart people back to the company, and start doing something new.
Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
if MS got out of the software business and into advertising. It might make software better and advertising worse :)
putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
Another piece of amateur bloatware. FF has become what it set out to kill - huge and unstable. As soon as IE7 with tabs comes out, I'm giving the heave-ho to the hobbyware known as Firefox.
This is a prime example of why Microsoft seems evil. They want it all. If anybody is doing anything that makes money with a computer Microsoft seems to feel that is money being stolen from them. If Microsoft has stuck with just the OS and development tools would they now be seen as the evil empire?
It looks like this is a typical meeting at Microsoft.
Flunky: A new company is making a billions of dollars selling software that tracks hamster breeding!
Bill: My God we must take that market. If we don't the company will be destroyed! Start development of Microsoft Hamster Love V1.0 right now! Maybe we can bring back clippy to make suggestions to how to get hamsters in the mood.
I have to wonder if Microsoft just worked on making Windows a better OS instead of spending money on XBox, MSN, and goodness knows what else.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I like this part from B.Gates leaked memo:
.net) and businesses across all markets. (threatening not to
"More than any other company, we have the vision, assets, experience,
and aspirations to deliver experiences and solutions across the entire
range of digital workstyle & digital lifestyle scenarios, and to do so
at scale, reaching users, developers and businesses across all
markets."
Which translates to
"More than any other company, we have the vision(copy from others),
assets (money from our monopoly), experience (we know how to screw
others - last example Netscape), and aspirations (being first without
innovation) to deliver experiences (limit users options) and
solutions (create proprietary file formats) across the entire range
of digital workstyle & digital lifestyle scenarios, and to do so at
scale, reaching users (buying users), developers (copying Java and
make
give discount for MS WINDOWS to our enemies - for example IBM - see
judge Jackson antitrust verdict)"
Yeah, right. Rails is SO robust and handles database problems SO well. Just look at this, and the 10 month old bug report.. And don't give me that crap about needing to use native DB drivers. Rails is buggy, immature and not ready for the prime time. If I was feeling malicious, I'd also add that it's the over-hyped darling from the same stable of over-hyped "technologies" as eXtreme Programming.
Jon.
Sorry but I've seen retards run businesses and manage to do well due to their support network around them. After all, how many rocket scientists have you seen go to business school in comparison to the number of frat boys?
I believe the frat boy to intellectual ratio to be rather high.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
Enter Google who is now poised to perform the same task as Bill but in different shoes and against Bill's company. Anyone who has read "The Road Ahead" (the original unmodified version) knows that Gates writes off the Internet and dismisses it similar to the way that IBM did with personal computing.
Google has taken that slip and now Microsoft is trying to play catchup. Deja Vu anyone?
Be sure to remember the Programmers Prayer
Another counter example for those who still think Microsoft is an innovative company. No innovation, just reaction. Somebody else did it, so they have to do it just so they get to keep part of their lunch. The next step is to spin it so it looks like their idea.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
I think Microsoft is at cross purposes with fixing security... most security fixes have not been about creating a more secure, trustable architecture, but instead putting some security candy on top of an insecure OS (e.g. XP SP2 firewall, spyware beta) and I think this is because system security can not be a top priority for Microsoft as long as they also are attempting to:
a) Hide software on your computer (e.g. DRM)b) Allow other big companies to pay to hide software on your computer (e.g. RIAA DRM)
c) Force you computer to phone home
d) Force people to go to automated updates that can remove functionality
e) Sell ads on your computer (I suspect the number will depend on which of the 8 levels of Longhorn you rent - will they still allow purchases for home users? (upgrade to business version now to avoid pop-ups)
If they can use your computer to do these things remotely, and to do things against your wishes (e.g. DRM) - well, it's always going to be a race to prevent other, more malicous software writers from doing the same. And, can you ever really trust a computer you can not audit, or even completely direct?
I have come to a conclusion that one useless man is a shame, two is a law firm, and three or more is a congress -J Adams
You say you're a .NET developer, yet you think ruby on rails is way better than .NET? I'd say 99% of the real .NET developers would disagree with you on that. Do you guys really write n-tier'd code? Classes and everything? .NET 2.0 did bring about some changes to the architecture (duh, that's what different versions of anything tend to do.) But most applications can run with literally no changes in the new version of the framework. There are tools/converters to help with the process if anything more is involved-- but in the experiences I've had, it's been seamless. You also are not forced to upgrade your applications-- you can easily run multiple versions of .NET on a single machine/server, and they will liver happily together.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
Microsoft online Pizza delivery service... delivered to your house within 5 minutes of ordering or we will give you discount vouchers for your next purchase.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Most people, especially in North America, get to the Web through IE on Windows.
What does Google do--search. How hard would it be for Microsoft to put a search bar in IE and Windows Vista that hooks into their MSN search? No need to pull up a browser or a new Web site--just go to the always-there bar and type.
This is EXACTLY the same strategy that killed Netscape: develop a "good enough" competitor and then integrate it into your monopoly OS. In fact they did such a good job of it they were convicted to anti-competitive monopolist behavior. But color me shocked if the slap on the wrist they got for it fails to discourage them from doing it again.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
What you said is true, today. Tomorrow, it won't be. It's a toy? Don't care about the quality of the underlying techonology? If MS works in the "today", they are screwed. They are so huge, it takes them forever to react to what is going on today, let alone see what is going on in the near future. That is why they will fall. They ALL fall eventually.
Right now, there are millions and millions of people who can avoid using computers and the internet because they are scared of them, because they aren't familiar with them. That will change. Do you realize that in 50 (give or take) years there won't be anyone alive in the industrialized world who grew up not knowing about computers and the internet? (I'll be 85 and hopefullly still here) Kids won't know a world where cellphones and the internet didn't exist. Just as I grew up with televisions, but my parents didn't. The way they grew up with automobiles, but their parents didn't. The way they grew up with telephones, but their parents didn't. It is a shift in the mindset of the populace. The true quality of technology will have to improve, because it will be part of everyone's daily lives. Microsoft is short sighted, IMO. They forgot long ago about technology, and are solely concerned about making money. Period. It will be their downfall, because the demands of technology are only going to increase. I just hope I am alive to see it. I'll be the old coot listening to MP3s while everyone else is ... well, listening to whatever will be the hot technology of the day.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Step 1
Add Office features to I.E. and start charging for Internet Explorer Professional.
Step 2
I.E. Pro needs a few features that throw small errors with any google sevice. This is the hidden message from Bill's "This coming 'services wave' will be very disruptive."
Step3
Profit
Step 4 (optional)
Payoff the Government
They have "gadgets" and they're holding a development competition. I think getting more developers is part of their "live" web strategy.
As one earlier posters put it they will now be on a featuritis binge that made whe mess that is at the core of previous Windows but now probably for Longhorn. Just watch all the department head battle to get thier standardards standardized and how many last minute things get squeezed into their products.
I'm not the biggest fan of Microsoft, but I did have honest hopes they were going to get a lot of it fixed with Vista so my work, friends and family will stop calling me to clean up MSs mess. Now it kind of sounds like the mess will be there, though this time it will be on the ISPs...
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
The hardware (TV, PC, whatever) is just the vessel. If this is the case (and I tend to agree), then Apple seems to have the lead with distributing content over the PC.
Uh, not only is that four year old bug closed, but it wasn't even a bug in the first place.
Actually, most people -- adults especially -- tend to want to get things done on computers. They don't care about the fundamental security of their OS because that's not what's important just then: being able to use it easily to get their task done is. No one wants to be working on something that takes two hours, only to have the computer take them on a five-hour detour to figure out why the printer doesn't work. The average user finds that maddening. People who work in computers find it challenging, but fun.
I figure, whoever gets the most features, with the most DWIM(Do What I Mean)-like interface, will win.
When all OS's do that, then whichever one is more socially beneficial might get preference. Probably not, given how misleading adverts corrupt the direction of technology uptake.
Why should a company enter into every single profitable market? This doesn't make any sense to me. Just do one thing and do it really well, or do few things and do them really well. I think if you try to dominate every market known to man, then you'll just end up with failures and/or mediocrity in most of the markets.
It seems like every 6 months there is a news item about how Microsoft is going to enter this or that market.
In many markets, getting there early with a fat wad of cash is all that matters. That's why so much of everything is crap, because the profits dictate being there early, not taking the time to build a good product. Unfortunately, things move so fast nowadays the subsequent "maturation" phase never materializes.
AOL is a verb, oh wait, was a verb.
I remember hearing "You've got mail" in tons of movies, including James Bond flicks.
Today you think of AOL in a whole lot of trouble, tomorrow you may ask the question "Oh, AOL is still alive?, I thought they were gone already", when you hear the obscure voice of an rare AOL'er stuck in his contract he has trying to cancel for years.
Modesty is one of life's greatest attributes
Ozzies memo says >>> smaller, emerging companies that are developing software and services that use the Internet, rather than Windows, as their base platform.
His implication is that the internet itself is somehow a ccompetitor to windows, which is totally wrong.
The truth that he dare not speak is that most developers realise that making a windows-only app might have been ok a few years ago, but Linux and OS/X hare taking market share away from Microsoft at an accelerating rate. Furthermore Microsoft's OS's are going ever more bloated, expensive and limiting that even non-techincal people are starting to see Windows as the crazy option.
The real issue is that the easiest way to develop an app to support multiple and even future platforms is to make it browser-based rather than code for every OS natively. Ergo, if you're Microsoft, embrace and extend and assimilate.
You still cannot program a heavy application in it if you have to support IE. IE's script interpreter is so damn slow that loading a app is like watching paint dry.
Got Code?
This is gatespeak at its best. He retrospectivly remembers that they invented better search than Google despite the fact that they bought Inktomi post Google.
.. :)
.. Microsoft recognized the GUI transformative potential, and committed the organization to pursuit of the dream" Ray Ozzie
.NET, a transformative new generation of the platform and tools built around managed code" Ray Ozzie
.. this time around services"
..
.. with Spaces and .. active Messenger"
..
.. XHTML, CSS and JavaScript. JavaScript invented by Netscape, I wonder is MS in violation of any intellectual property laws.
He also seems to confuse past events with future intentions. Is he suffering from some kind of time related dyslexia. eg. Our future version of X has (had) more features than the past (current) version of Y and so on.
"This coming "services wave" will be very disruptive. We have competitors who will seize on these approaches and challenge us" Bill Gates
translation:
01. We actually invent things
02. Challenge will only occur by peoply trying to copy us.
03. Online services are nothing like Google is offering currently.
(despite the fact that we are desperately playing cachup with Google)
"Next year we have a double barreled release of our two largest products with Windows Vista and Office. It's a great time for customers, our partners, and for those at Microsoft who have put so much of themselves into these products"
Of course they must get the 'i` word a mention
"But we bring these innovations to market at a time of great turbulence and potential change in the industry." Ray Ozzie
Here's them trying to retrospectivly claim they pushed the GUI over market resistance. Despite the fact the copied it from Apple who copied it from Xerox PARC.
* Sixteen other innovations to be taken into account
"In 1990, there was actually a question about whether the graphical user interface had merit
"we reflected upon our dreams just five years later in 1995, the impetus for our new center of gravity came from the then-nascent web"
No ray, MS never saw the Internet coming. That's why they had to license a NCSA browser from Spyglass and buy in Hotmail.
"we embarked upon
No, you designed dot.NET after failing to take control of the Java Platform.
"It is now 2005, and the environment has changed yet again
You mean you finally noticed Google
"We've transformed Windows into best-of-breed infrastructure for internet applications and services"
By buying a seach engine from Inktomi and a desktop search engine from Lookout Software.
And you mean you finally figured out how to make it impossible to remove Internet Explorer by embedding the HTML engine into the OS and making it the help system renderer. With little thought as to what this would do to security.
"Our MSN team has demonstrated great innovation
You mean you copied Web Mail, the Web Blog and IRC
"harnessing the potential of AJAX, following our pioneering work in OWA"
A combination of three pre existing technologies
"RSS is the internet's answer to the notification"
Again, someone else invented RSS. All you are going to do is 'extend` the protocols and make it incompatible with everyone elses.
"yet only now are we surpassing the Blackberry"
Well, yea, you copied wireless-push-email and give it away with Exchange Server.
Notice how he drops in `only now' as if thay had a similar offering *before* the Blackburry and were somehow burrowing away trying to improve it.
This is so typical of how MS seek to pollute the public record with self serving marketing bumf.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
Only a monopoly could have this kind of logic..
PDF has become a ubiquitous standard for sharing documents on the Internet.
Conclusion for a normal business:
We better make sure we support PDF as well as possible and make sure our users can take advantage of this defacto standard.
Conclusion for a monopoly:
Some other company has managed to carve out a tiny stronghold in our otherwise impenetrable wall of power. We must use our power to overrun this foreign code with our proprietary replica of their technology.
Is this why they want to buy Claria?
I trust Microsoft to be responsible in their use of advertisements around as much as I trust, say, AOL to.
For that matter, why the Mickey Mouse fuck should a company primarily involved in operating systems, office suites, database systems, and video game systems be investigating advertisement?
I paid (sucker that I am) for Windows. Many times. I paid for Office too. I paid for my Xbox (Well, actually, I traded an old computer for it. I suppose I paid by proxy.). I paid for Microsoft Virtual PC.
Once I paid for these things, I have every reason in the world to expect that these things should not be used to feed me ads.
Then again, look at what happened with cable TV. The whole fucking IDEA of cable TV was that you pay for it and it's not broadcast, so therefore [A] people can say "fuck", "shit", "cock" and "motherfucker" on cable and [B] YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE ADS ON CABLE.
Well, [B] fell by the wayside pretty damned quick, and from what I've heard, the FCC's been trying very hard to destroy [A].
And people put up with this shit.
Prediction: Microsoft will experiment with offering a low-cost, ad-supported version of Windows. They may opt to make the 'Home' version of their software ad-supported. At first, it may be ridiculously cheap, or maybe even free (perhaps as a limited-time promotion); after a while, though, they'll find sneaky ways to work ads into all but the 'Corporate' editions of their products.
And people will just put up with it.
I wouldn't put that past them, would you?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Office 12 supports PDF as output format. Believe it or not.
Microsoft's innovation isn't necessarily about radical new ideas.
I don't think it means what you think it means...
Dictionary.com:
2 entries found for innovate.
innovate Audio pronunciation of "innovate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vt)
v. innovated, innovating, innovates
v. tr.
To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.
v. intr.
To begin or introduce something new.
Admittedly, Microsoft is good at throwing a ton of money at ideas that are already taking off and refining them into a marketable product, but they can't redefine common english words no matter how much they spend on PR.
-Ryan C.
"We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax" [says Ozzie]
Well duh! Microsoft invented "Ajax" (the technology, not the name) when they introduced the XmlHttpRequest ActiveX object with IE5. When I first found out about XmlHttpRequest and started using it in 1999 I thought it would revolutionize web programming. Web pages would become little client/server apps that would just sit there and make requests and update themselves. No more session state crapola from one page to the next.
IE had a huge lead in DHTML capabilities back then. Microsoft had all the pieces in place to give off-channel Http requests a nifty buzzword name and take the lead with it, but apparently nobody there had that inspiration. Or maybe something one MS manager told me when I asked him what kinds of new stuff would be in IE6 says it all. He said there wasn't much point in doing a whole lot with IE anymore because Netscape was pretty much dead. Yep, that's the Voice of Innovation alright!
Dang, from the headline I was thinking the article would be something like
"After a memo was leaked rwecently Microsoft is turning it's focus on securing..."
Wishful thinking I suppose...
Ok, that's a bit harsh, but one sentiment I got from RTA was that Microsoft has TOO much order now. It talks about competition against Skype, Google, Adobe, etc. using AJAX. The problem with a big company is that Gates needs to send a big message. That's fine. But Microsoft really seems to have this herd mentality.
Herds are a double-edged sword. While it gives you a lot of man power, it also prevents you from having small, able groups do their own things. Why would that be good? Because then you can have people do some things different that eventually leads to innovation. There's a cost associated with all of it though. But Microsoft clearly is lacking in the innovation dept due to herd mentality.
It's kind of weird but it's almost like Microsoft needs an internal, civil war. It might be bad for morale but nothing breeds innovation like competition. Making everyone play well together is very limiting, especially when the orders come from up top.
This sentiment is based on Gates mentioning AJAX. I can see the web people at Microsoft never using a technology unless it was sanctioned by someone higher up at Microsoft or if it's a commonly way things are done. Having been to Microsoft conferences, I get the impression that the employees are encouraged to work in a certain way which is the optimal route designed from years of experience (i could be totally wrong). Experience is good, and doing things in a way that works is fine, but it always guards you against doing things differently and innovating, imho.
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
RayOz: What are we going to do, we've got nothing to sell here...
BillG: I'll tell you what we're gonna have to do...
RayOz: What?
BillG: Jazz odyssey!
RayOz: We're not going about to do a free-form jazz, uh, exploration in front of a festival crowd!
--- Microsoft Mark II performs Jazz Odyssey ---
BillG: You are witnesess at the new birth of Microsoft Mark II, hope you enjoy our new direction...
(with due respects to Spinal Tap)
Microsoft has always had a hard-on for full desktop control. Their entry into the server market was as much to fight Novell (a cross-platform networking system) as it was to go after Unix. This is evident from the way the screwed over Novell*, as well as the general design of NT-- it essentially emulated Netware's capabilities.
The one single thing in which Microsoft has proven exceptional is controlling the market. From using the market against DR-DOS to bundling IE with MS-Windows 95, to forcing OEMs to bundle MS-Office instead of Wordperfect Office, Microsoft has controlled the market perfectly. At least, as perfectly as anyone can control the market.
These days, Microsoft is fighting not one, not two, but three major battles which they cannot control. First and foremost is Google, which is re-inventing information access by combining world-wide information access with an easy-to-use portal. Second is Apple, with the iPod. As Apple is currently the dominant distributor of on-line media, Apple is in a better position to control DRM. This could prove disasterous for Microsoft, as media distribution is going to be a huge market. Finally, the slow but invevitable move to open document standards is proving hard to manipulate, as it's hard to justify *not* moving to open standards.
As big of a Linux fanatic as I am (and oh, I am), I don't think Linux is a threat per se to Microsoft. I think as Microsoft loses its grip, Linux will be positioned to quickly become the platform of choice; but I do not believe Linux itself capable of toppling the giant. As open standards are adopted, I think Linux will have a better chance of becoming a problem for MS.
Unfortunately, I see Apple's control of the media market to be a potentially bigger issue in the next 5 years.
Anyway, that's why Microsoft is scared of Google. It means they are losing control, and mindshare, and like most bullies, they don't want to stop being the center of attention.
* Funny story. Ever wonder why MS-Windows NT was first released as MS-Windows NT 3.5, instead of NT 1.0 or MS-Windows 4.0? It seems the licensing agreement between Novell and Microsoft allowed Microsoft to ship Netware clients for any MS-Windows 3.x platform. When it came time for Microsoft to ship NT, they needed to have full compatibility with Netware, as that was the dominant networking architecture in most businesses. So, instead of re-negotiating with Novell (Microsoft knew Novell would not be happy about the competition), they simply dubbed their brand-new OS MS-Windows NT 3.5, sidestepping the problem entirely.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Yeah, but thankfully, PDF is based on kown standarts like PostScript.
Opensource alternative are almost trivial to create, so there are gazillons of software out there that can do the same job.
On Linux, for me, Xpdf is faster and more stable than Acrobat. On Windows, I use Ghostscript.
For creating, in Linux OpenOffice.org and Kprinter have built-in PDF capabilities (in fact, due to Linux architecture, almost any software that can print has a buil-in Post-Script output. And getting PDF from that isn't hard...)
In windows, there is PdfCreator.
On the other hand, I Microsoft designs a new portable format, you can be sure I will be something patent encumbered and proprietary. Basically outside Microsoft Products, nothing else will use it. It'll be hardly portable at all (except if you mean "portable between MS apps"). Just like Word ML vs. OpenDocuments.
You're confusing PDF and Open Document.
Open Document is about having a common editable format shared currently by StarOffice/OpenOffice.org, KOffice, AbiWord, Corel Word Perfect,
So a document created in one of them can be opened and edited using another one.
PDF is about having a "final" representation. Most "print" process is already done in a PDF document, the data need only to be sent to a printer or to a on-screen Post-Script interpreter. PDF is designed so you can see/print a document even if you don't have the original software. The document will look always the same everywhere.
So PDF *shouldn't* be opened in Word processing software. It should be opened in publishing software (and most of them can import PDF).
(But actually, you can still copy-past text to editing software, and there are bibliographical software that manage papers/publications in PDF format).
So if you want to have a portable document as in "can be edited by different word processors", use OpenDocument instead. PDF was designed in the "will show/get printed the same everywhere" perspective.
Every research lab at which I've worked kept a library of PDF files in their bibliographical manager.
Such program DO exist. They just aren't made by Adobe. And as a "archivable" / "ready-to-print" format, a PDF file can hold such data.
Though, most of scanners I've encountered only produce the "PDF with full page TIFFs" files. None of them has buil-in hardware OCR.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
What are the grounds for claiming that this is a leaked memo. The NY Times claims that it obtained this memo yesterday. ...The memos were obtained on Tuesday afternoon by The New York Times. A Microsoft spokesman confirmed their authenticity, but would not comment on their substance. ..
The substance is great though this does seem as though MS is trying to cash in on some of the vertical markets.
-Dickens
The ideas which result in Nobel Prizes are the same way.
First, WHAT THE F&)* DOES THAT MEAN? And what does that have anything to do with the fact that you are a loser with no money or any noticeable accomplishments calling a self-made billionaire a "retard" (and saying how easy it was for him to build his empire).
Second, I didn't realize that Dr. Watson was just retreading an idea that was invented "5000th" time before he discovered the structure of DNA (that won him his Nobel prize).
And we all know that Einstein was just a hack who just retreaded the same old tired idea of space-time continuum before he lucked out and won the Nobel prize.
What a retard...
Sounds like a newbie at a 12 step program.
The first step is admitting you have a problem.
A normal business wouldn't say "Everything they make, we're going to give away".
A normal business can have stable long-term partnerships without feeling the need to destroy the partners.
By making money without Microsoft's permission through a channel that Microsoft couldn't close off.It did not help that, in it's rush to capture income from WWW development tools, Microsoft abandoned 3 million VB6 developers and _all_ of their ASP developers [remember, the only Web toolkit Microsoft had prior to .NET was ASP and IIS, and there were millions of those developers too, now abandoned and totally pissed off].
The chickens are coming home to Redmond to roost. We're going to see a Microsoft stock meltdown and huge layoffs; many of the company's early developers may be lucky enough to cash out before the stock completely tanks. Glad I'm not working in the Redmond area. But the harm won't be limited to Redmond, as mutual funds and other financial firms heavily vested in Microsoft suffer.
Good news is that many of those leaving Microsoft will eventually take up non-Microsoft tools and perhaps do something truly useful for our economy.
success is measure by the bravery to speak as yourself.
-pyrrho
it's annihilating my free time... but with lots of results... of course.
who knew that wasn't hype?
holy hell!
-pyrrho
just to be clear... if you PAY me to use IE... I will!
I'll still hate you, but I will use IE for money.
-pyrrho
go forth and read.
I.E. is the perfect example of using their desktop monopoly.
Of course, Netscape sucking did help too.
-pyrrho
Here in the UK, there are numerous MS adverts with dinosaur headed people telling us that MS Office has evolved, because the new "Information Rights Management" can, apparently, prevent email leaks.
So, when "In the memo, Gates cites an earlier missive...", it clearly shows that Bill G does not use the Rights technology of his own company's software.
Or maybe, it's so complicated to use that not even MS can figure out how to get it to work.
"She's furniture with a pulse"
...and possibly slay them. Dream on geeks :)
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
I don't know how you got to the amazing, totally nonsequiter concept of "MS poisoning the executables" from there, but you might wanna check into how browsers, HTTP servers and AJAX actually work. HINT: the word "interpreter" in the original post ought to clue you in.
Microsoft may be able to succeed in this by rigging their OS so that it only works right with their ASP systems. But that didn't work for MSN. Nor was the Microsoft Connected Services Framework a success.