Microsoft Sees IBM as Biggest Threat

Anonycat writes "Bill Gates gave an interview at the Consumer Electronics Show, claiming that IBM is the rival company Microsoft has their sights set on. From the article: 'People tend to get over focused on one of our competitors ... We've always seen that ... I'm never going to change the press' view about what the cool company to write about is. That's Google number 1 and Apple number 2 ... [IBM has] four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have.'"

Comments

Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[ackthpt]

Begging Bill's pardon, but Microsoft's attitudes and practices are their own biggest threat.

Over the years, Microsoft's biggest threats have been:

• Apple Computer
• Sun
• Java
• Netscape
• Anyone who knows of a security hole in one of their operating systems.
• Oracle/Larry Ellison
• U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
• Linux
• The European Commission
• Sony Playstation
• Google

I've heard Bill talk at a CES a few years ago and between the words, you could most definitely hear him placing Microsoft as not a technology partner to consumer electronics firms, but as a direct or indirect threat to their product lines and/or ways of doing business. While he waxed enthusiastic about how Windows CE would be some great enabling force, you could almost hear people break out in a sweat wondering what "Microsoft-tax" they would encounter to hop on or compete with the Redmond bandwagon, whether it actually added anything truly positive. I'm positive more than a few show exhibitors could almost see him in a pinstripe suit with a couple gunsels behind him and a moll on his arm.

<James Cagney Voice>
"We're the new business men in town, see? And you're going to like doing business with us, see? Because when you do business with us nobody gets hurt, see? Yeah. I think you do see. That's very good. Very good for business."
</James Cagney Voice>

Bill most likely sees threats to his company because he cultivates them. Microsoft has profited at IBM's expense for the past 20 years. Why shouldn't IBM be competing with Microsoft?

"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[dc29A]

Begging Bill's pardon, but Microsoft's attitudes and practices are their own biggest threat.

While that's true to an extent, I think it's open source and innovation. Google innovated with search engines, now it's a word. IPod is almost a word, a huge trend. Open Source is an ideology. You can't fight ideologies and words from dictionnary. Open Source + Microsoft's reluctance to change their business model + lack of innovation on their part will be it's ultimate undoing.

Then again, that won't change jack in the big scheme of things. Yesterday was IBM, the big Monopolistic Empire of Evil(tm), today is Microsoft, tommorow it will be (fill in the blanks).

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[ackthpt]

While that's true to an extent,

Microsoft never had to work hard for the money. Everyone jumped on the Windows/Office bandwagon. Not necessarily the best product, but everyone else was doing it, like a bunch of lemmings.

Look at Windows. How it is set up, how you install software, what safeguards there are. If you ever had worked on a mainframe computer and knew the kernel inside out, and knew good shop practices, you would be shocked and appalled that businesses have so readily adopted this ridiculous platfrom which is effectively a black box. All the security flaws and exploits are just a symptom of what an absurd aggregate the Kernel/OS/UserInterface/Environment has become. Perhaps Vista will be better, but I don't hold my breath.

The core problem at Microsoft is the market and the money all came easily. Where giants Unisys, IBM, DEC et al used to slug it out week to week for market share, support contracts, etc. some outfit just threw the stuff on store shelves and everyone bought it. Do you think they learned anything this way? There may be some very bright people up there in Redmond, but to constantly expect they can just waltz into new markets and own them or expect a T. Rex like IBM to just whither away is naive at best.

Is there such a thing as a Microsoft Fellow?

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Pxtl]

Speaking of Words, you notice the inverse relationship? Word, Excel, Windows... MS turns dictionary words into trademarks, while their competators do the opposite.

And of course Microsoft's enemies will be talked about - that's what Microsoft does, they fight. They move into an industry with established technology companies with the expressed purpose of taking it over by dumping wads of development cash into it and making their product tightly interoperable with the rest of the MS family. Microsoft moving into a new niche is a full-fledge onslaught to everyone else in that niche. No wonder they're famous for their enemies.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[srock2588]

This reads more like a "People to Kill List"

Boy am I glad I called that guy!

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yesterday was IBM, the big Monopolistic Empire of Evil(tm), today is Microsoft, tommorow it will be (fill in the blanks).

Google.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[AKAImBatman]

Microsoft never had to work hard for the money. Everyone jumped on the Windows/Office bandwagon.

That's just simply not true. Microsoft has worked it ass off to convince the public it needs what its selling. That's been particularly difficult as Microsoft products have traditionally not been very innovative. So Microsoft has taken the tack of marketing the heck out of their product, and crushing the competition in the process.

Take the matter of the VisiOn GUI. Microsoft had nothing to compete. Zip, Zilch, Nada. So they see this VisiOn and realize that they'll soon be irrelevant. To counter this threat, Microsoft annouces that they will be releasing a product known as "Windows" Real Soon Now(TM). Everyone then puts off purchasing VisiOn while Microsoft goes and makes something up. Microsoft is late shipping (since they didn't actually have a product), and ends up bleeding Visi-Corp out of the market. Microsoft then delivers a steaming pile of software known as "Windows" which gains absolutely no foothold on the industry up until the point where it copies the Macintosh. Poorly.

Windows was then scheduled for demolition right up to the point where a couple of smart guys saved the company by getting Windows to run in 32 bit mode. Microsoft throws their marketing muscle behind this new version of "Windows", and the rest is history.

So in summary, Microsoft may be a lot of things. But lazy isn't one of them. Always give the devil his due, or you may get complacent.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[warsql]

and making their product tightly interoperable with the rest of the MS family.

That is exactly the strategy of IBM, at least in the java world.

Look at the Websphere family - portal, content management, business integrator, etc. They are all supposedly standards compliant, but try to use any of them with any other standards compliant software. And have fun trying to get them to support Websphere running on any jvm besides theirs.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[ackthpt]

Microsoft never had to work hard for the money. Everyone jumped on the Windows/Office bandwagon.

That's just simply not true. Microsoft has worked it ass off to convince the public it needs what its selling. ... So in summary, Microsoft may be a lot of things. But lazy isn't one of them. Always give the devil his due, or you may get complacent.

I never said they were lazy, I said they never had to work hard for what they got. They issued Windows 95 and the rest is history.

"you make a grown man cry"

Indeed they did. They said it would work fine on 4MB of memory, which was just enough to start it up but realistically a user had to have a minimum of 12MB to actually do anything otherwise paging to disk brought it to its knees. With (comparatively) less expensive memory the Windows PC market grew by leaps and bounds. Microsoft may have spent a lot of advertising dollars, but it was a pittance compared to what they raked in.

Keep in mind, to get and hold 1,000 minicomputer/mainframe customers DEC alone had an army of software and field service people, whose salaries, fringes, office space, transportation, etc. the company had to foot. Along come PC's which you could put DBase or RBase or any of the latter database servers on and you suddenly cut $100,000 a year in support to a couple thousand. Microsoft didn't even send us sales reps. People where I worked ordered PCs from the local clonemakers, RadioShack, some startup by a couple college students in Austin, TX, etc. When we had problems we, as the first line of tech support sat and listened to elevator music as Microsoft was swamped by calls and we could spend up to 4 hours waiting to talk to a trained parrot.

Success came so fast to Microsoft on the heels of Windows 95 they were ill equipped to support their rapidly growing customer base. Customers which DEC, IBM, Sperry/Univac, Burroghs, etc. all worked dilligently (well, maybe not in the case of Burroghs) to keep and fully support were leaving them for a bunch of businessmen in Redmond who couldn't believe their luck.

Microsoft, now is having to work for success. Further, they have to work hard to mop up the mess they have created on their way to today. Much of it is simply swept under the carpet. Burroghs was regularly the target of lawsuits when their systems failed to deliver on promises in contracts. Microsoft just points to the EULA.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[OreoCookie]

Begging your pardon but Microsoft's attitude is just fine. You and others here misunderstand MS's primary role. It it not to advance the state of technology or improve consumer's lives. Those are two potential paths to the goal, which is to optimize the financial return to it's stockholders. On that count they are extremely successfull. If you've been holding MS stock for a number of years you got huge stock price run-ups followed by record setting dividends.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[The Amazing Fish Boy]

Word, Excel, Windows... MS turns dictionary words into trademarks, while their competators do the opposite.

If I understand you correctly, I can think of a few counterexamples:

Powerpoint, Outlook, MSN (Messenger), Hotmail.

And on the Apple side, a lot of their apps are named just what they are:

Mail, Calculator, Address Book, etc.

I think it goes both ways.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[ackthpt]

You and others here misunderstand MS's primary role. It it not to advance the state of technology or improve consumer's lives. Those are two potential paths to the goal, which is to optimize the financial return to it's stockholders. On that count they are extremely successfull. If you've been holding MS stock for a number of years you got huge stock price run-ups followed by record setting dividends.

You don't know Bill.

Bill is like the world's most competitive businessman. He doesn't just sit on his laurels and secure his market, he attacks every other market in sight. Now Microsoft wants to be the technology behind everything, cars, cell phones, PDAs, workstations, television, music, movies, medical devices, etc. If there's software and a processor doing some work somewhere then it is in a market Microsoft wants to move into. Why? Because it's there and therefore can be taken.

Bill already has everything anyone could ever want. Ask yourself, what drives some like that onward? I have an Ex-Brother-in-law who started on a shoe-string. Today he's a millionaire, but somewhere along the way to financial success he already had home, financial security, family, etc., but couldn't take a rest and delegate, he kept on driving. It cost him his wife, my sister, because she was fed up with his relentless drive for success over time at home with the family. Obsessive/Compulsive something, but Bill strikes me as nearly the same thing. He doesn't need the money, now he just drives the thing along because he likes to and if he's going to keep driving the business then it needs new directions to go.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Phillup]

Everyone then puts off purchasing VisiOn while Microsoft goes and makes something up.

Why would they do this if they had not already jumped on the MS bandwagon?

Windows was then scheduled for demolition right up to the point where a couple of smart guys saved the company by getting Windows to run in 32 bit mode.

Um... OS/2? Those guys?

So in summary, Microsoft may be a lot of things. But lazy isn't one of them.

He didn't say they were lazy... he said they never had to work hard.

And... doing a lot of work isn't the same as working hard either. (for the record)

Hell, they may have even done a lot of hard work... but it wasn't on convincing people to use their product.

They simply took that choice away whenever they could. (Which says a lot of what they thought of the customers right to choose... or fighting to be the one choosen by the customer.)

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[marcello_dl]

Outlook is a common word. Or, the magic 8 ball was really prophetic...

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[c_forq]

First of all outlook and messenger are words. Microsoft didn't name hotmail, they bought it. PowerPoint is your only legit one on the MS side. On the Apple side it is iMail, but the rest are correct (I would like to note that Windows has Calculator too, so I wouldn't call that a trademarked name).

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[tradiuz]

Outlook is a dictionary term... one's view of the world. ie "He has a grim outlook on life". Messengers delivered mail between two points millenia before computers were ever built. Powerpoint and Hotmail are the only ones that arent directly from the dictionary, and even they are pretty easy to figgure where they came from. Hotmail = Mail so recent its Hot! Powerpoint, he has a powerful point with that presentation.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[c_forq]

I think everyone used Yahoo! before Google, and as I recall Yahoo's numbers are still above Google when it comes to visitors and front page hits. Before iTunes a lot of people used Windows Media Player, everyone I know currently uses iTunes or Windows Media Player.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[theguyfromsaturn]

Yeah, that's one thing. I thought you couldn't turn a dictionary term into a trademark. How come they get to do what others can't?

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[amightywind]

They move into an industry with established technology companies with the expressed purpose of taking it over by dumping wads of development cash into it and making their product tightly interoperable with the rest of the MS family.

Spare us the tripe about M$ outworking the rest of the world. And the wads of cash are a lot less of a factor than their ability to actively obstruct competition with their OS hegemony. The fact has been shown repeatedly in government anti-trust suit. Your statement is disingenuous.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[pizzaman100]

PowerPoint is your only legit one on the MS side.

Actually, they bought Powerpoint too - from a company called Forethought, back in 1987.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[c_forq]

I was suspected that PowerPoint was bought, but wasn't sure and too lazy to Google it. Thanks for the correction and information.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Zerathdune]

the USPTO handles both patent and trademarks... perhaps the patent side has taken a toll on the quality of trademarks as well? besides which, in some cases, they hold trademarks on the full product name, but not the short version, i.e. they have a trademark on microsoft windows, but now windows. if they tried to get people to pay royalties on using the term 'word' outside the context of the title of a product, they would not fare well.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[trevick]

They get to do it because others can.

You can register a dictionary word for something that doesn't meet the definition of that word. I'll just post this link since it probably explains it better than I can. [http://www.arvic.com/needhelp/TMfaqs.asp#Q26%5D

Anyway, most every company trademarks common words. Just glancing over this list of Apple trademarks (at http://www.apple.com/legal/trademark/appletmlist.h tml) I see plenty of dictionary words like Bonjour, Carbon, Charcoal, Keychain, Monaco, New York, Panther, Techno, and I'll stop here.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[theguyfromsaturn]

I hope you're right. Otherwise we might as well start inventing some new language just so we can talk without risk of being sued. But really, MS has no originality when it comes to product names.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[rjejr]

I don't think that's James Cagney's voice, I think it's the "Frog" (AKA Edward G. Robinson) from Courageous Cat and Minute Mouse.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[BitchKapoor]

It's not iMail, not anymore, anyway. It's just called "Mail" on my smackin' tush with 10.4.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Oliver Defacszio]

Maybe, I'm just one of those people, but it seems like a crime to me to not run with a good idea, no matter what kind of position you're in. Perhaps what keeps people like Gates pushing ahead is the idea of being able to lay on his deathbed with the knowledge that he did absolutely everything he could in his lifetime.

Anyone who has ever experienced a long-term romantic relationship knows the misery of laying there once it ends and imagining all the things that could have been said or done but weren't for whatever reason -- it's the regret of paths not explored. He has the resources to investigate virtually any business angle, so I would guess that it's mostly to prevent that same type of analytic unpleasantness once his life reaches its twilight.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[kgp]

Quote: Speaking of Words, you notice the inverse relationship? Word, Excel, Windows... MS turns dictionary words into trademarks, while their competators do the opposite.

Err, no.

As these are either generic words or have trademark collisions with others in a similar business they have never been trademarked. Ever since the fight over "Windows(TM)", that Microsoft lost, the trademarks Microsoft uses are compound ones.

The trademarks are "Microsoft Word", "Microsoft Excel", and "Microsoft Windows".

It's a general feature of Microsoft legal to use compund trademarks with components that are either generic or owned already by Microsoft.

This has lead to such memorable product names as:

"Microsoft Virtual Machine for Java for Windows CE, Handheld PC Edition" (TM)

replace "edition name" as needed.

I kid you not. I actually burst out laughing in the meeting that was announced. The longest product name for a think that took us 18 months to develop and lasted for 8 weeks on the web site before the Sun legal challenge.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[notasheep]

Word, Excel, Windows... are not Microsoft trademarks. Microsfot Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft Windows are Microsoft trademarks.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[LMariachi]

Uh huh. You try marketing a spreadsheet app called "Notasheep Excel" and see how far you get.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[glens]

Many of those things appear on Bill's own list, but the number one competitor is, well, read it for yourself, searching in the document for "number one".

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Richard Steiner]

Windows was then scheduled for demolition right up to the point where a couple of smart guys saved the company by getting Windows to run in 32 bit mode. Microsoft throws their marketing muscle behind this new version of "Windows", and the rest is history.

Windows NT (the first 32-bit Windows release) came out on March 1st, 1994, and it didn't do very well at all in the market. It took the Windows 95 release in late 1995 to finally make folks realize that 32-bit Windows was a good idea -- by taking all choice away from them and making the 16-versions obsolete.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[notasheep]

You caught the (not as rare as it should be) exception to rule...and I was wrong on the Windows trademark.

However, I could point out a few open source trademarks that also should be shunned in the same way: Red Hat(R), Fedora (R), GNU(R).

Others - Novell has: Ferret, Envoy. IBM has: Balance, Candle, Catapult, Current, Domino, Icing, Metaphor, etc.

Not excusing the lack of accurate information in my previous post - just pointing out that trademarking common words is something every corporation does and MS shouldn't be singled out for doing so.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Zerathdune]

perhaps this would revive esparanto?

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat?

[Destoo]

(people want information, not "look there, the answer is there")
but I think this issue has already been dealt with. That was 6 years ago.

Q: Global Linux 2000 is also being held here in Seoul. Is that why you are also here? What are your thoughts about Linux?

A: We even compete with our current installed base more than anything. These are people who say they just want to stay with their current version of Windows. That's our number one competitor. Linux might only be number two.

The goal we have is always to take software to a new level-whether it's the way we design software around XML, operating systems for tablet computing, handwriting or speech recognition. The way we think about it is in the days of MS-DOS, when that level of capability became unimportant. We came up with the Windows level, then with Windows NT. We've always come out with things we've done in the past and then making it obsolete.

That's how we compete with our installed base-by having these new breakthrough versions that people wanna buy.

(Incidentally, this revealing statement from Gates-that Microsoft ends up competing with its own installed base of customers and that it tries to force these customers to upgrade because their newer technologies are not backward compatible and the older versions become obsolete-was struck out from the official transcript forwarded to the press-Ed.)

awesome

[User 956]

Bill Gates gave an interview at the Consumer Electronics Show, claiming that IBM is the rival company Microsoft has their sights set on.

Sounds like Microsft needs to buy some glasses.

Re:awesome

[EraseEraseMe]

$600 a share? That's freaking ridiculous. Google, I like some of the stuff you're doing, but you're going to crash, and you're going to crash hard.

Re:awesome

[User 956]

$600 a share? That's freaking ridiculous. Google, I like some of the stuff you're doing, but you're going to crash, and you're going to crash hard.

Maybe, maybe not. Part of the reason it's so high is because Google refuses to split, a la Warren Buffett. This has its benefits, (for example, a higher level of institutional vs retail ownership)

Re:awesome

[cperciva]

The lack of splits is why the price of any individual share is so high; but it doesn't excuse the inflated total capitalization. According to the market, Google is worth 132.5 billion dollars; but is it really worth more than IBM or Coca-Cola, and almost three times as much as Disney?

Re:awesome

[EraseEraseMe]

Google is nothing more than a search engine IPO. It's an answer looking for a problem, and once investors wake up to where their money is being spent, they are going to pull out en masse and a lot of people are going to be hurt. Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it; the same "Oh, the stock price is high for a reason" were given as excuses for the dot.com bubble too.

Re:awesome

[User 956]

The lack of splits is why the price of any individual share is so high; but it doesn't excuse the inflated total capitalization. According to the market, Google is worth 132.5 billion dollars; but is it really worth more than IBM or Coca-Cola, and almost three times as much as Disney?

I see your point. I'm not sure that they are worth 132 billion dollars, no.

Re:awesome

[Gilmoure]

Have I got a tulip to sell you!

Re:awesome

[narsiman]

How many times did you use Disney today :) I know not an exact analogy but you see where it gets to ?

Re:awesome

[rbarreira]

I'm not sure that they are worth 132 billion dollars, no.

Look it up on Google :)

Re:awesome

[Red Flayer]

What? First off, an IPO is an event, not a thing.

Second, Google is not primarily a search engine (except to the end user), any more than Walmart is a producer of engine oil.

Google is an advertising placement agency, a marketing company, and an information broker. The search engine is just a delivery mechanism for their primary product, which is advertising and marketing for their clients.

Re:awesome

[sfjoe]

According to the market, Google is worth 132.5 billion dollars; but is it really worth more than IBM or Coca-Cola, and almost three times as much as Disney?

You answered your own question. If "the market" says Google is worth 3X that of Disney, then it actually is. It's the only metric that matters. You and I and Warren Buffet sitting at the bar telling each other that Google isn't really worth that much is irrelevant.

Re:awesome

[X0563511]

As per http://tinyurl.com/b6rym 3:42 EST, 01/05/2006

Google has a market value of 89,241,681,960 USD

Re:awesome

[EraseEraseMe]

Please tell me you're not honestly this dense. Google is a search engine, period. That's it, that's all. Everything is an off-shoot of that search engine. Ask people what Google is? They don't say advertising placement (If they are, they're still overvalued), or a marketing company (Making them HIGHLY overvalued) or an information broker (Extremely overvalued), they are a simple little text box with a neat little logo above it.

The only thing keeping Google afloat is 1) Investor Overexuberance 2) Using investment funds to hire people instead of buying Aeron chairs 3) Brand recognition.

Google will not be around in 10 years in any identifiable form comparable to today. They'll go hardware, they'll be bought up by a larger company, the little search engine that was will be laughed at.

Re:awesome

[StarWreck]

If you own shares of Google, do you get dividends? Coca-Cola is one of the few companies that pays regular dividends. IMHO shares in a company are just waiting to collapse from under you and become worthless if they don't pay dividends.

Since Coca-Cola dropped from $80 to $40 per share several years ago they haven't changed their dividends, so in fact I get more money the lower the stock price because I have it on automatic reinvestment right now.

Re:awesome

[clanky]

it doesn't matter what people think google is... it's about how they make their revenue. And they make their revenue through advertising. And they are wildly, wildly successful. Why? Beacause they have taken advantage of the internet to adopt a fundamentally different strategy than microsoft. Rather than relying upon customers to purchase software time and time again, leading to bloated unusable crap (i.e. virtually everything microsoft peddles to corporate users) Google writes incredibly useful and elegant web software which drives people towards its site, and then sells the fact that they are there (and the information it collects about them while they are there) to advertisers. That's great for two very important reasons -- the users (us) get great, useful tools for our day to day lives, and the advertisers reach, very effectively, the audiences they want to reach without pissing those audiences off in the process (er, banner ads/flash ads/ "click to skip this ad and continue to your article" anyone? Googles great innovation has been to put the consumer first, invest in talented developers to create great tools for the consumer, and in the process of actually generating revenue from all of this, not selling out to advertisers who, left to their own devices would shoot themselves in the foot by diluting the very tools which pull customers in (er, about.com anyone?)

Re:awesome

[sfjoe]

Nonsense. You don't trade stocks based on their current worth. You trade them based on your estimation of their future worth. Unless, of course, you don't understand the concept.

Re:awesome

[wargolem]

Actually, the article states that Google's market value is nearing that of IBM's, but let me answer your question with another question: Why shouldn't Google's market value be in the same ballpark as IBM, Coca-Cola, or Disney? In only 12 years, the Internet has become a global phenomenon, and Google is now standing pretty much at the center of it. What has Disney done that has been so outrageously popular in the last 12 years? The most notable thing I can think of was Disney lobbying hard for copyright extension, so their empire wouldn't vanish in a puff of public-domain smoke (at least, not for another 20 years). Given Google's current position, I see no reason why their market value shouldn't be competing with the likes of IBM, Coca-Cola, and Disney.

Re:awesome

[notaprguy]

Huh? Google's (overpriced?) stock price somehow makes them a more important competitor than IBM? That's a prettys illy argument if that's what you're trying to say. If MSFT let the market valuations of other companies drive their business strategy they'd be...what's the word...a bad company. Market valuation does not a good company make. Google might be a good company b/c they have a neat search engine that's driving a fast growing advertising business. Google competes with MSN Search which is a fraction of Microsoft's revenue and a smaller fraction of their profit. I'm sure MSFT will work hard to compete better in Search-based advertising. But until Google expands their business beyond Search-based advertising they're a blip on Microsoft's radar. IBM, on the other hand, competes with Microsoft in their core businesses - application servers, databases and operating systems.

I can hear the cries: "But wait! Google's building a platform for a 'new generation' of Web based applications that are going to eat away at Microsoft's core franchises! Just wait!" Ok, I'll wait and see when that actually happens. Kinda reminds me of Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy's brilliant predictions that the world is going to be taken over by dumb terminals.

PS. If Google hits $600...SHORT THE STOCK!

Re:awesome

[EraseEraseMe]

No, Google's great strategy is a scattershot "Make a whole bunch of beta crap and hope some early adopters see some use in it and make money on it" Seriously unsustainable.

Re:awesome

[clanky]

If you consider google's map implementation beta and microsoft's Windows various iterations since 95 "finished product" then I'm honestly at a loss as to how to continue this conversation without resorting to finger puppets.

Sustainable? They're growing, making money hand over fist each quarter, and the new products they introduce are being adopted by a much wider audience than your "early adopters" comment implies. In short, they're building a powerful brand by building things people want, and they're making money while doing it. Sounds pretty sustainable to me. Oh, and did I mention that all of the best young talent seems to want to work there?

Re:awesome

[Red Flayer]

Google's product is not a search engine. Google's main product is ad delivery. The search engine was just the first way that they used to deliver their product.

By your logic, television networks are broadcast towers, period. Magazine publishing companies are article publishers, period.

"Google will not be around in 10 years in any identifiable form comparable to today. They'll go hardware, they'll be bought up by a larger company, the little search engine that was will be laughed at."

Hah. That's pretty funny. Do you know how Google gets its revenue? All 1.6 bn of it in 3rd quarter 2005? Can you explain why that revenue model won't be just as applicable in ten years?

Re:awesome

[EraseEraseMe]

Windows is sold, for a profit. Google Maps? Not sold. Google maps? Not making a profit. How do you sustain that?

Could be true

[bblazer]

I can see Gates' point. If IBM continues to flex its muscle with OSS and releasing IP for OS use, it could have a very negative affect on Microsoft. But on the other hand, dismissing google is just FUD.

Re:Could be true

[KJE]

Do you know what FUD actually means?

Re:Could be true

[caffeineHacker]

The sad thing is this was Modded up, as informative even :(

The poster just restates what's in the article(Except added, with skillfull prose and diction, the fact that IBM uses OSS), and misuses a fairly common acronym. Why the hell isn't there a -50 Mod for Slashbots?

Re:Could be true

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

This is what FUD is. What you describe is not.

Re:Could be true

[bwt]

I think he's using it in a "F*cked Up Drivel" sense rather than the legacy "Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt" sense.

Hey, look over here!!!

[AKAImBatman]

Really! See the big shiny thing! Yes, ignore those other things. They're new, small, and boring. The Gigantasaurous Rex over there is the REAL threat! What's that? It's not moving you say? That's because it's... um... conserving its energy. Yea, that's it! It's like a crocodile. The moment you get too close, SNAP!

So look over that way. And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

(Sure Bill, we're all going to listen to you. *rolls eyes*)

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[ackthpt]

Sure Bill, we're all going to listen to you. *rolls eyes*

That's the thing. When Bill speaks at these shindigs, everyone listens. I was lucky to get a seat when I was there. I don't think people go to see what great marvels he and his people behind the curtain have rigged up (and whether or not it will fail most spectacularly at the worst moment [blame it on cell phones, nobody in a real business environment is going to have those] *snicker*) They go to hear whether or not Microsoft is going to make a move on their turf.

So look over that way. And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.

Yes, because the man behind the curtain has a chair and he's going to f**king kill you!

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[Drunken Priest]

Perhaps IBM really is a dynosaur, but it acquired 11 companies in 2005. It's eating to stay alive. (It lacks the culture for creative invention, but has power and runs a tight ship).

IBM more or less also considers Microsoft its biggest enemy.

I personally don't understand how Google is a big threat to MS so far...

They win much mindshare in the lucrative free search-engine business, but...

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[mysticgoat]

So Bill identifying IBM as his chief competitor is really a part of a smoke and mirrors game? Yeah, that's consistent with his past behavior.

So who IS Microsoft's most significant competitor? The Apache group? They've been encroaching on Microsoft turf for years, and just seem unstoppable. The Firefox people? They've only recently made any kind of dent in Microsoft's market share, but it has been a pretty big dent, and it is still getting bigger. How about OpenOffice.org? I've not seen any figures about market share, but with big corporations and governments going the OOo route I'm guessing that has to be making one of MS's chief officers want to throw a chair.

Funny thing, all these competitors that have measurably reduced Microsoft's turf are FOSS.

Could it be that FOSS is Microsoft's chief competitor?

Could there be some reason why Bill wouldn't want people to look at that?

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[ackthpt]

So Bill identifying IBM as his chief competitor is really a part of a smoke and mirrors game? Yeah, that's consistent with his past behavior.

I think 80% of what he says at a CES is just that. That's why you have to listen carefully, because there are hints in what he says about where they really are going tomorrow.

So who IS Microsoft's most significant competitor?

Like I said, they are their own greatest threat. All the things you mentioned are now serious threats to them because of the way they have done business. Why did Munich, Germany move to Linux/Open Source? Why do entire countries move to Open Source for goverment applications? Why is it so hard for Microsoft to break into the Chinese government as a vendor? Why does Massachusetts insist upon Open Source for state government? It has a lot to do with how responsive Microsoft actually is, who they are and what they are. The blush is off the rose and now Microsoft has to prove they can deliver the goods and protect their customers rather than, in a very RIAA-ish practice, blame their poor security on those banditos out there.

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[mysticgoat]

Like I said, they [Microsoft] are their own greatest threat. All the things you mentioned are now serious threats to them because of the way they have done business.

I couldn't agree more.

In my considered opinion, based on watching them since the days of MSDOS, Microsoft's management has never made the transition from thinking like a small scale entrepreneur to the deliberations that drive big business. That is a transition they should have made at least a decade ago. For it has been that long at least since Microsoft joined the ranks of major multinational corporations. Yet they take pride in not having properly diversified their holdings; they celebrate their inability to move billions of dollars of reserves from low yield liquidities into long term investments; they make stupid public remarks about being able to afford to be in contempt of court. They have at least one key officer whose foul-mouthed violent behavior would not be tolerated in high level management in any other corporation of comparable size.

Their strategies wrt XBox and software licensing agreements are the moral equivalent of kneecapping the competitor. They are certainly big enough now that as a corporation they should have risen above these behaviors.

I think the only hope for Microsoft's long term survival is to change its upper level management team. But of course that won't happen.

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[javaxman]

Could it be that FOSS is Microsoft's chief competitor?

Given IBM's use of FOSS and policies regarding OSS, if FOSS is the biggest MSFT threat, then IBM might just be their biggest competitor. People are thinking it was Google that was the threat, but they're keeping just enough of what runs Google Mail, Maps and Search private that they're not as big of a threat as a company that's not only constantly improving and adding to FOSS, but also marketing FOSS-based services and solutions to Microsoft's clients.

I think Bill may actually be speaking honestly, here. Possibly downplaying threats and competition from other companies as well, perhaps, though. I mean, think of Sony vs. Xbox ? Apple vs Urge? What business exactly is IBM stealing? Server OS licenses! Oh, I guess that's big, too. Perhaps he's being kind of truthful, but playing up what he wants the CES-centric folks ( read: real tech heads ) to think : that MSFT is focused like a laser on providing you with all of your IT datacenter needs, and that IBM is 'stealing' that market. We should ignore all the other stuff MSFT is involved in, an pretend they've focused their resources on *our* issues.

Because they need to keep selling OS server licenses to help fund their other less-profitable ventures, perhaps.

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[Doctor Memory]

It lacks the culture for creative invention

I'm not sure I can really support that. Seems to me IBM's given us:

* General-purpose operating systems (OS/360)
* Hard drives (RAMAC)
* Relational databases (System R)
* RISC architecture

and a ton of non-computer research (e.g., the scanning tunneling microscope). Hell, Mandelbrodt was an IBM researcher when he codified his fractal theories.

I don't know how many IBM researchers have won the Nobel Prize, but it's more than a couple.

Re:Hey, look over here!!!

[Bert64]

But FOSS isn't a single target microsoft can attack, they don't understand it..
So they attack the biggest FOSS supporting business they can find, IBM.

Revenue

[GoatMonkey2112]

They also have way more expenses than Microsoft from what I've heard.

Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[majjj]

I mean... how can he expect anyone to believe this. Just a month ago in an Television interview he accepted google as its main RIVAL in the coming times because of its high number and quality of innovations. He also vowed to beat google out of search engine market... I guess Bill is having Nightmare... amnesia these days.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[abertoll]

When you're Microsoft, everyone is your main rival.

By the way, why is Bill Gates still so involved? I thought he left Microsoft a long time ago.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[AKAImBatman]

By the way, why is Bill Gates still so involved? I thought he left Microsoft a long time ago.

You thought wrong. Bill Gates stepped down as CEO to "focus on being the Chief Engineer". Which is polito-speak for "there's too much attention/hated directed toward the CEO, so let's move him out of the way to give the company a new image". Gates pops out to give speeches whenever Microsoft wants to mislead the public. They probably figure that half the population listens to him because they hate him, and the other half listens because they think he's a genius.

Make no mistake, though. He's probably still the puppeteer running the show. We just don't see him at as many press conferences.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[undeadly]

When you're Microsoft, everyone is your main rival.

When you are Microsoft, everyone are your enemies, including your customers.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[EraserMouseMan]

Google is it's biggest rival in the Search Engine field. That's the only place. Google does not currently offer MS any competition in any of Microsoft's main software businesses (Operating Systems and Office Productivity).

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[Knara]

Where'd you get that idea?

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[JohnFluxx]

Or are afraid of him.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[ashSlash]

Well look at what Bill's had to say about speech recognition over the years!!

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[dcam]

Nup. They compete in other areas:

Hotmail vs gmail
google talk vs MSN
Desktop search (please note this is a different market to web searching)

Sure these aren't competition to Microsoft's main software business, but Microsoft tradionally needs to expand into new areas to generate more revenue. These are areas where they have tried to do that.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[T-Ranger]

You are incorrect. Google, with gmail, and maps, are demonstrating that the browser can be a valid platform, meaning the OS is irrelevent. Microsoft killed off Netscape-the-platform ten years ago, largly because there was no killer-app for that platform. Maps and GMail have spawned a rebirth of the web-platform concept. And that is the biggest threat MS has ever faced.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[js3]

if the os doesn't exist what's the browser going to run on? air? something ppl just make comments without thinking them through.. like yours.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[evilviper]

I thought he left Microsoft a long time ago.

Nope. During the first antitrust trial, when it looked like Microsoft was really going to be split into two different companies, Bill resigned as CEO and took the new job (that he had just created) of the "Chief Software Architect" or something very similar to that.

I was never entirely sure of the real reason for him doing that, but it seemed to me that he wanted to make very sure which of the two Microsoft companies he would be head of.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[bwt]

Google "competes" with MS in a sense because they are seeking to change the nature of computing from hardware/software based competition to network/information based competition. The problem I see with Google's strategy is that I don't see how anything they do locks customers in.

IBM is trying to change it to a services/problem solving based competition. IBM is spending lots of money trying to commoditize software because it is a complement to their services.

Of the three plans, I actually think IBM's is the most viable long term.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[T-Ranger]

The browser can run on any OS. Any of the Mozilla products are cross platform, as is Opera.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[ejp1082]

Google is directly competing with Microsoft by developing a competing operating system - it's called the web. Bill Gates was afraid of this back when he crushed Netscape - seems all he managed to do was delay the inevitable.

The web threatens to render Windows irrelevant, because the only thing you need to access web applications is a machine capable of running Firefox (or any other web browser).

Google currently dominates this space - its leading the way not only in developing these OS agnostic web applications, but is fast on its way to becoming the default "operating system" that the web runs on - just think of Google API's as DLL files.

And as more core applications move to this new operating system, the less it matters what operating system the local system is running - Gmail, Google Maps, or a hypothetical Google Office suite works exactly the same on a Macintosh as it does on Linux as it does on Windows XP or Vista. The local operating system becomes the equivalent of choosing between an HP or Dell.

That's why this "IBM is our biggest competitor" is a line of BS. Twenty years ago, Microsoft rendered the hardware (and therefore IBM) irrelevant by making the software all important and hardware agnostic. Now the network threatens to make the software irrelevant in exactly the same way.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[notaprguy]

Don't look now but server applications - including databases - are the fastest growing part of Microsoft's revenue and profit. SQL Server by itself would be one of the largest software companies in the world. Sure, operating systems and productivity software are still the biggest but they're growing more slowly.

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[el cisne]

yeah, the browser runs on the os, but the apps and functionality that are running on/in/through the browser, don't care about the os, necessarily; so you don't have to run windows to run google maps, etc etc etc; maybe the browser is not so much a platform here per se but it is a/the means to access the web-based functionality that is rich enough to amount to something that draws people;

Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ?

[Bert64]

Many browsers run on lots of different OS's.. In that respect which OS it runs on is largely irrelevant.
Microsoft rely on people depending on windows because of it's proprietary nature, and the fact they can't run the apps they have on other platforms because windows isn't compatible with anything else...
If the OS is unimportant, who will pay $100 for windows when they can get linux for free? You can even get distributions like knoppix which don't need to be installed, boot from CD just like a games console does, and include a browser.

For a company that hates IBM...

[Anonycat]

From page 2 of the article: Also, IBM -- along with Toshiba Corp. (6502.T: Quote, Profile, Research) and Sony -- has developed the Cell microprocessor that will power Sony's PlayStation 3 video game console, a competitor to the Xbox 360, Microsoft's next-generation gaming unit. Who makes the chips for the Xbox360, again?

Re:For a company that hates IBM...

[xero314]

It's been a ploy all alog. Microsoft gets IBM to make chips for thier latest venture. Microsoft uses questionable buisness practices to cause IBM to lose revenue (or increase expense), possibly by blaming thier up coming failure in the console world on IBM. IBM share holders become afraid of potential lose and sell shares. Microsoft purchases shares of IBM and becomes major share holder. New Microsoft microprocessor division is formed from the old IBM company. Microsoft claims Power architecture better and faster than x86 and drops support of x86. Apple and IBM continue as competitors (which isn't so bad actually) by swapping chip vendors.

Originally I thought this scenario was going to be a bad thing (even if it is just a joke), but after thinking about it, I like it. It could mean cell based PCs and a reworking of windows into something more secure and enjoyable to use. It would also force Sony to find a new chip manufacture for it's next console potentially creating a new and more powerful architecture.

This is all bullshit speculation, but fun to think about anyway.

Re:For a company that hates IBM...

[Slackdog]

Noone is your forever enemy! is that called "strategik allianz"?

Re:For a company that hates IBM...

[drinkypoo]

I sincerely doubt we'll be getting cell-based PCs what with PPC losing even more mindshare in the computer market, since Apple is going to Intel. Now, IBM will be the only guys making PCs (well, workstations) with POWER-based processors. PPC will more or less be only in game consoles and embedded systems.

Re:For a company that hates IBM...

[evilviper]

Who makes the chips for the Xbox360, again?

IBM... So what?

There are a great many conflicts of interest in the computer industry... While VIA makes chipsets for Intel/AMD, they are also trying to push their own CPU at the same time. Sony hates Microsoft more than any other company that comes to mind, but would you like to guess what operating system their PCs and Notebooks run?

So long as you aren't too dependant on a company, you can hate them all you want. Microsoft is only buying a product from IBM, they don't have to love them to do so.

Re:For a company that hates IBM...

[Shadarr]

It's not conflict of interest, it's just a business reality for companies that big. IBM competes with and partners with most other large tech companies, including Microsoft. Within the DB2 group they hate Oracle, but the Global Services group will happily build a system with Oracle as the backend if that's what the customer wants. They call this "co-opetition".

Oh noes!

[BlueScreenOfTOM]

(Sorry, this is required by law) ...meanwhile, Steve Ballmer as vowed to Fucking Kill (TM) IBM and all its partners.

Re:Oh noes!

[wangotango]

He pretty much already fucking did that, and more than once.

Why would he tell the truth?

[dubl-u]

Is there any reason to think that there's a correlation between who he says is the biggest threat and who he thinks is the biggest threat? I can see a lot of reasons to lie about this.

Re:Why would he tell the truth?

[laffer1]

Exactly. This is a classic Gates tactic. Get the price to ignore your real competition for a while and look at someone meaningless. It might be true that Bill Gates wants more employees at Microsoft and wants to be as big as IBM. He is very competitive. A real rival though? Apple said the same thing about IBM in the 80s. The real problem was Microsoft, a small company.

I watched about 2/3 of that CES disaster. Its obvious that Windows Vista is a catch-up release. Its aimed at Apple and the KDE project. Both Apple and KDE have most of those features or will have them before the Vista launch. I also watched a "kernel" architecture video on MSDN for Vista the other day. It was obvious Microsoft is using open source ideas for scheduling and several other ideas from unix and linux. They add a bad twist so they can say they weren't copying. The seperation they are so proud of reminds me of dos + windows 3.x running together. They had that when I got my first pc. Its like a step back in time. I'm not excited about windows gaming anymore. From what I saw, its like when windows 95 first came out. There were no native games for it. At least then, I could drop to dos to play. I may have to dual boot windows (xp and vista) for the first time in 5 years. On the up side, windows is getting almost all Mac OS X features except spotlight. They did improve search within the shell though so thats 10.3 at least. I can't wait to see what apple releases next so KDE and Microsoft can innovate. Soon all my computers will have dashboard.

Re:It's obviously Tux

[lawpoop]

"He's a public icon so people in the opposing camp like to use him at the butt end of the joke. That's called moral. "

I think it's called morale.

Services and consulting

[Anonymous Coward]

After you sell the big iron to run those enterprise apps, all those consultants are used to do that seemless integration and support. And those are billable long after the box is paid for. I suspect a significant number of IBM employees and revenues come from that. Is MS planning on becoming a service organization or selling big iron?

Re:Services and consulting

[argoff]

Agreed,
IBM is a hardware and services company, Microsoft is a proprietary software vendor. If you want to maximize your profits from service standpoint, the best route to go is to have a non-proprietary infrastructure ( like Linux .... hint ) so you don't bet bogged down with license costs while you get the maximim value for your service expenses. The consultants who got nailed during the dot com crash have already learned that lesson the hard way. Both Linux and MS professionals got nailed hard, but the Linux experts recovered while the MS ones never really did.

Re:Services and consulting

[leather_helmet]

Great point - It reminds me of a recent conversation I had with a good friend of mine who runs the IT department of an international drilling company - An IBM consultant visited his office to sell him websphere and othe 'collaborative' enterprise solutions - The interesting point my buddy made was that the consultant was selling 'services' over the actual product - The conversation was basically, 'buy websphere for $25,000 and our support and consultation for an additional $20k/year'

As an interesting side note, my buddy suggested that the consultant was high on something :) constantly fidgeting and talking a mile a minute...

Re:Services and consulting

[Pinback]

Microsoft and Intel are so tied into the channel that there isn't much margin left for BP/VARs.

If a customer pays 2k$ for a server, they're going to balk at a 5k$ services engagement.

Instead the Windows shops have their helpdesk MCSE 'tard play with the new server. In short order, every SMB has dozens of (whatever was cheapest that week) brand X systems running Exchange / SQL Server / IIS / Sharepoint / .Net or the like. Nothing is consistent, nothing is well managed, and everyone is convinced that "cheaper is better". At least until the data center gets full.

Yes, IBM leaves some margin on the table for VARs. But sometimes spending more than bare minimum for a project leads to a good outcome.

At one point, poor availability of mice limited Windows sales. So Microsoft made mice.
At one point, poor availability of motherboards limited Pentium sales. So Intel make motherboards.

If poor availability of OS limits services revenue, IBM will make alternative OS. IBM learned from the opportunity it missed with the OS/2 & Windows split. Keeping Linux on a back burner definately makes sense.

There isn't any black and white anywhere. But I get the impression that Microsoft would like to get into the grey. They'd like to see more well managed IT shops with happy desktop customers. If it means growth for Microsoft related services, it could be a good thing.

IBM the biggest threat...

[CodeShark]

Reasons?

• Perhaps because IBM has already successfully defended Linux from SCO?
• perhaps because IBM plays nice and has donated massive amounts of code to the OSS world?
• perhaps because IBM is comfortable with Novell, offering the only real competitor to Win NT networking?
• Perhaps because IBM offers a strong competitor to SQL Server, AKA DB-2, with a full stack including the web sphere stuff, etc. that doesn't need any MS components to run?

In other words, where Microsoft's bullying business tactics don't have a way in? What think ye all?

Re:IBM the biggest threat...

[LOTHAR, of the Hill]

IBM is untouchable. They have the largest patent portfolio and and one of the best IP Law programs around. You can't threaten it with a lawsuit.

IBM is very focused on what it wants, and what it doesn't want. I can't say that of Microsoft. IBM is also very disruptive in that is gives away lots of tech to customers, and even some competitors, in markets that IBM doesn't play in.

IBM is established, deeply, in one of Microsoft's main target markets, the Enterprise server space. IBM provides HW, SW, and services and has done so for better than 80 years (anti-trust limitatons nowithstanding). It's hard to compete with that with software products that come in a shrink wrapped box.

Re:IBM the biggest threat...

[justsomebody]

You can't threaten it with a lawsuit.

True, but there always squeaking SCO way.

IBMa threat, no...

[Ucklak]

Bills biggest threat is Chuck Norris.

Re:IBMa threat, no...

[Frag-A-Muffin]

I would have to concur.

Re:IBMa threat, no...

[theNOTO]

F***in Chuck Norris!

Re:IBMa threat, no...

[ScriptedReplay]

Bill's biggest threat is Chuck Norris.

Nah, that was long time ago. Nowadays it's Uma Thurman.

Re:IBMa threat, no...

[slashdotmsiriv]

Damn, you stole my joke :)

Re:IBMa threat, no...

[CharAznable]

In Soviet Russia, new internet memes roundhouse kick Bill Gates!!

Re:IBMa threat, no...

[level_headed_midwest]

Bill's biggest threat is accidentally getting hit with one of Steve Ballmer's Famous Flying Chairs.

AND IBM is a prime mover behind Linux

[darkonc]

This makes them something of a double threat. IF MS takes out IBM, they're probably gonna trash Linux with the bundle. IBM's support gives Linux a good deal of respect in the business world.
Then there's google.... Also a Linux user/proponent.
And apple insists on using Open Source (BSD) too....

So Microsoft's top-3 opponents are Open Source friendly companies.

See a pattern there?

Re:AND IBM is a prime mover behind Linux

[dwandy]

So Microsoft's top-3 opponents are Open Source friendly companies

Perhaps there is a pattern, but I don't know that we are drawing the same conclusion:
I think Google chose it's software based on an extreme need to customize and control their environment; They are not in the software sales/distribution/consulting game, and OSS offered them a stable vehicle with which to kick-start their development.
Of the three, I think only Apple and IBM are direct competitors, and I think their decision to use OSS comes from two close, but different perspectives.
IBM tried and completely failed to get any kind of foothold in the desktop OS market, and probably lost a bundle of money. The smart management realised that they could spend less on development of an existing product (OSS) and still be able to offer a non-MS alternative for their consultants to bill against.
Apple, while looking from a similar point of view, needs (not wants) to offer an alternative OS - that's a part of being Apple. But they're not really interested in using a GPLd product, since as far as I know they still need to sell the OS (i.e. not give away the source).
I think that it's interesting that the three competitors make use of OSS, but I think all three arrived at the decision for different reasons that made strategic sense - not out of some direct need to support OSS.
Sony, Oracle and a host of others have not made (the same) use of OSS and are nonetheless very big and very direct competitors for MS.

So, what I conclude is that there are a lot of companies out there that have decided that it makes business sense to make use of new technologies ...

Re:AND IBM is a prime mover behind Linux

[srite]

Then there's google.... Also a Linux user/proponent. And apple insists on using Open Source (BSD) too.... I dont agree with either of the above. This is one of the common misconceptions about google. Can any one point me to the google products that run on Linux ????? Yes google may run the linux inside their comapany but that does not say anything about google being a linux proponent to me . As far as the story with the spple goes they just were wise and tapped into the BSD. please tell me what is the road map on opening up the UI part that makes mac a mac ? Apple is just following the trend. In fact sun is more open source than the above 2 players and open source proponent. All the players want to make money and make money in the easiest way. Dont trust the corporations that are answerable to the share holders take a political stance. They have no permanent enemies and no permanent friends. They are entities that are out there to make money open source or not. Linux Proponents IBM Yes for now. Remember it can change in the future... Google Not now. May be in the future ... Apple No comments M$ I dont see that even in the distant future ...

Re:AND IBM is a prime mover behind Linux

[swillden]

But they're not really interested in using a GPLd product, since as far as I know they still need to sell the OS (i.e. not give away the source).

Apple does give away the source to the Darwin kernel. Apple could have used a GPL'd kernel, like Linux, and sold it just as they do now. They'd have to include an extra CD with a copy of the source, or else a written statement saying it can be downloaded from their web site, but that's not a problem.

Apple chose BSD for one very simple reason: OS X is heavily based on NeXTstep, which was built on BSD Unix. Linux didn't even exist at the time.

It's interesting to think about how the positions of Apple and Linux might have changed if Apple had (for some unfathomable reason) felt it worthwhile to replace BSD with Linux.

Envy

[oGMo]

"[IBM has] four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have."

And people wonder why we have a problem with happiness. This sort of envious greed is the main problem with Microsoft, and it looks like it goes all the way to the top.

Re:Envy

[theCat]

That whole "micro" and "soft" thing? I hear that now they have pills for that.

While I appreciate your point, Bill's biggest problem probably isn't envy as much as frustration that his company still hasn't become a recognized world power. MS might indeed operate on a par with the Standard Oil of the previous century, but apparently that level of play isn't enough to ensure global hegemony. Standard Oil had its head handed to it, and even mighty IBM still has to obey civil and criminal law. Is there no route to immortality these days other than to die on a cross?

I suspect that people like Bill Gates thought that riding the technology wave would bring them fabulous, even mythical, levels of personal influence more on a par with the kinds of old than modern CEOs. It must be hard to account for how Google and Linux can get more press than Bill Gates, in his thinking, given that he basically invented the playing field, in his thinking.

Re:Envy

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Gates has mythical levels of personal influence for the taking. The problem is him alone. He does not have the personality for it. He's no Rockefeller, and he never will be. He's a computer nerd. You can't fault him for that, it made him rich, but it does and forever will limit him socially.

Bryan

Re:Envy

[Overly Critical Guy]

So Bill Gates merely points out that IBM is a larger company, citing examples that illustrate such, and suddenly it's "envious greed" that casts a universal problem with happiness?

Dude...he was just trying to downplay Google and Apple by referencing IBM's size.

Re:Envy

[rajafarian]

... and suddenly it's "envious greed" that casts a universal problem with happiness?

Dude, how can you disagree? Let's see:

Q: Are you a totally happy person?

A: No.

Q: Why not?

A: Because I want to be as good looking as that person, I want his girlfriend, I want to make more money, I want better health, I want more power, I want a better car, I want a better job, I want immortality...

Q: In other words, you want something you don't have??

Yes, I call that envy/greed. (Most of us are not unhappy just because others are unhappy.)

Re:Envy

[Overly Critical Guy]

And once again, you miss the point, that Bill Gates was simply referencing IBM's size to downplay competitors Google and Apple, showing that IBM is actually a bigger company than those two. It was just PR talk. You're taking it as a bizarre universal observation on greed in society simply because you hate Bill Gates.

Re:Envy

[rajafarian]

Did I say anything about Gates in my post? I didn't think so.

pendejo

Is bill gates an ego-driven individual?

[inertialmatrix]

"The biggest company in the computer industry by far is IBM. They have the four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have. IBM has always been our biggest competitor. The press just doesn't like to write about IBM."

I find it fascinating how he uses the term "I" when referring to the company he founded. I wonder how much of his motivation to succeed is pure ego driven. I always found it interesting how all these iconic leaders in silicon valley all know each other, and have all had personal interactions going back 20 years. The old question of whether or not bill and steve really dislike each other, and if that dislike stems from some initial interaction at a computer show in SF back in the 70's.

Strange indeed.

Re:Is bill gates an ego-driven individual?

[Anonymous Coward]

I noticed that too, immediately. I'm not sure if it was a simple slip of the tongue but it still came across as glaring. Not We but I. And he didn't refer to Microsoft as a third party entity which it legally is. Very telling, it is clear he still even after all these years considers the whole corporate entity as an extension of himself.

Re:If I ran Microsoft

[GoatMonkey2112]

That's exactly their problem though. They don't know or care where they are in 20 years as long as it makes lots of money. This is exactly why they are dabbling in a little bit of everything.

MS doesn't want to be caught with their pants down the way they were with the internet in the 90's. They have big piles of cash and they're using it to avoid that situation again by doing everything instead of focusing. Only time can tell how this will turn out.

Bill knows all

[digitaldc]

"People tend to get over focused on one of our competitors. We've always seen that, said Gates...Too bad for Nokia, Sony and all those others...IBM has always been our biggest competitor. The press just doesn't like to write about IBM....reading everything online and new devices that enable that -- in five years, that will just be common sense...We're pretty simple, because 30 years ago we said we were a software company and five years, 10 years from now we will say we're a software company."

Does it annoy anyone else that as you read what Bill Gates says it tends to sound rather whiny and condescending? And what's with the waving of his hands in the air?
Why can't he just say that they have several strong competitors but they always try to do their best to create good products that will do A, B, and C?
Is there anything that Microsoft can't do, hasn't thought of, or has something in the works that is better than everyone else? Come on.

actual interview went like this:

[circletimessquare]

Reporter: Hi, Mr. Gates, I'd like to talk about the latest windows exploit...
Gates: [waving hands] You don't want to talk about that.
Reporter: I don't want to talk about that. Then how about your hottest competitors, Google, and Apple, and Linux is making inroads in...
Gates: Those aren't the companies you're looking for.
Reporter: Those aren't the companies I'm looking for.
Gates: Microsoft is a rock solid business. IBM is our competitor.
Reporter: Microsoft is a rock solid business. IBM is your competitor.
Gates: Move along. Next reporter.
Reporter: Move along... move along.

Re:actual interview went like this:

[Metroid72]

He could have answered:

Microsoft is releasing the following security bulletins for newly discovered vulnerabilities:

Microsoft is releasing the following security bulletin for newly discovered vulnerabilities:

Critical MS06-001 Microsoft Windows Remote Code Execution

Summaries for these new bulletins may be found at the following pages:

              http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /ms06-jan.mspx

MS06-001

Title: Vulnerability in Graphics Rendering Engine Could Allow Remote Code Execution (912919)

Affected Software:

              Microsoft Windows 2000 Service Pack 4

              Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 1 and Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2

              Microsoft Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

              Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1

              Microsoft Windows Server 2003 for Itanium-based Systems and Microsoft Windows Server 2003 with SP1 for Itanium-based Systems

                Microsoft Windows Server 2003 x64 Edition

              Microsoft Windows 98, Microsoft Windows 98 Second Edition (SE), and Microsoft Windows Millennium Edition (ME) - Review the FAQ section of the bulletin for details about these operating systems.

Impact of Vulnerability: Remote Code Execution

Maximum Severity Rating:

Restart required: Yes

Update can be uninstalled: Yes

More information on this vulnerability is available at: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security/bulletin /MS06-001.mspx

PLEASE VISIT http://www.microsoft.com/technet/security FOR THE MOST CURRENT INFORMATION ON THESE ALERTS.

Re:actual interview went like this:

[crimson30]

I nominate that for post of the day! :)

Give me a break.

[Pendersempai]

You guys actually think he is telling the truth?

What if he had said something simpler but equivalent: "We have nothing to fear from Google." Would you believe that?

In other news, the Information Minister of Iraq claims that there are no Americans in Bagdad...

And once trusted you...

[ivaldes3]

People tend to get over focused on one of our competitors ... We've always seen that ... I'm never going to change the press' view about what the cool company to write about is. That's Google number 1 and Apple number 2 ... [IBM has] four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have.'

And once trusted you as a business partner and gave you legitimacy when you most needed it and was directly responsible for handing you millions of dollars as the default operating system for the IBM-PC when your company was but a wee thing... -- IV

Re:And once trusted you...

[doug]

What does trust mean in this context? It was business, not friendship, that motivated both companies. We expect companies to be cutthroat, and this was no exception.

IBM didn't particularly care for Microsoft one way or another. With the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit and the lack of internal resources, IBM outsourced the OS of what they considered to be a low margin toy. There was no trust, nor friendship to betray. IBM used Microsoft, and Microsoft cashed some large checks.

IBM was in the driver's seat, but didn't get a contract that gave them exclusive access to DOS was the real undoing. The split betwen MS-DOS and PC-DOS gave Microsoft the chance to ween itself from IBM, and cozy up with other companies (the clone makers) and eventually stab IBM in the back.

As much as I prefer IBM to Microsoft (Dad worked there, so I'm an IBM brat), IBM blew it. Gates was just a good opportunist.

- doug

Re:And once trusted you...

[wardk]

IBM was in the driver's seat, but didn't get a contract that gave them exclusive access to DOS was the real undoing. The split betwen MS-DOS and PC-DOS gave Microsoft the chance to ween itself from IBM, and cozy up with other companies (the clone makers) and eventually stab IBM in the back.

I would say this is about the most perceptive paragraph in this entire thread

Size matters...

[hhr]

Wow. You have to wonder what all those people at IBM do and marvel at how efficient MSFT and Google are.

Google: Number of employees.. 4183 http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/facts.html
Net earnings: $1.297 billion.
Revenus $5.25 billion

IBM: Number of employees...369277 http://www.networkworld.com/news/financial/ibm.htm l
Net earnings: $7.797 billion.
Revenues: $94 billion

MSFT: Number of employees... 57000 http://www.networkworld.com/news/financial/microso ft.html
Net earnings: 12.867 billion.
Revenues $40.340 billion

Re:Size matters...

[imunfair]

It isn't so much efficiency as Hardware vs Software, imo.

Re:Size matters...

[Karma Farmer]

Good point... Google spends nearly a million dollars per employee per year. Microsoft spends about a half-million dollars per employee. IBM spends about a quarter-million dollars per employee per year.

Why is IBM so much more efficient than Microsoft and Google?

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

You're comparing apples to oranges.

Google and MS are software companies. All they need is a few programmers to write some software, and they can duplicate that software and minimal cost and sell it millions of times over.

IBM is a consulting, maintenance, and support business. If you're hired to consult for someone, you actually have to send people there. Problem is, people can only be at one place, or do one thing at a time. Unlike software, you can't copy or clone or consultants, or have them in two places at once. If you get a new support contract, you have to hire additional support staff. If you get a new maintenance contract, you have to hire additional maintainers.

IBM sells people's labor. If they sell additional product, they have to hire addtional people - the cost is almost directly proportional.

Google and MS sell software. If they sell more software, they just print up a few more copies, or purchase additional bandwidth for downloads. The additional costs are minimal.

Re:Size matters...

[KJE]

You have to sort of look at these numbers from the right point of view.

What is the marginal cost for one more product from each of these companies? For Google and Microsoft, one more ad served or one more cd pressed has a tiny marginal cost, once they hit a certain number, each sale is almost pure profit. Then look at IBM which actually sells expensive computers which have a significant marginal cost, and who also bring in huge amounts of revenue from their consulting divisions (IGS,BCS,...) which also have a significant marginal cost, paying the consultants.

Just my thoughts as to why these numbers aren't exactly comparable straight up.

Re:Size matters...

[David Leppik]

IBM is mostly a consulting firm, which is a fancy kind of temp agency. A programmer at Microsoft or Google writes some code once, gets paid once, and the company can glean profits from it indefinately. As soon as an IBM consultant goes home, IBM stops getting paid.

Microsoft and Google have little more than fixed costs, so once they pay off the initial development cost, it's pure profit. IBM will never have such a good earnings-to-revenue or earnings-to-employee ratio as long as they rely on consulting. The big money is (and always will be) in consulting, but not the big profits.

Re:Size matters...

[donnz]

Well, check out their respective revenues and profit margins. Only monopoloies make the sort of money Microsoft do, and the have to be using the monopolistic position to do so. I conclude from these figures that:

Microsoft is a monopoly
IBM is not.

This is unhealthy for our economies as it points to a huge waste of resources being spent on someone's software.

Re:Size matters...

[hackstraw]

Google and MS are software companies.

From my POV, Google is a service company. They may expand to a software company with the Google Desktop and Google Earth and the like, but I see them as an advertising magnet by having the most popular search capabilities in the world, and selling advertising is where they are currently making money, not software sales.

Re:Size matters...

[Jason Earl]

Microsoft has a pair of businesses that currently yield ridiculous profit margins, Windows and MS Office. IBM has quite a few businesses, some of which are also ridiculously profitable, but most of which are merely very profitable. The most important of these businesses, in recent years anyway, is IBM's service and support business. Service and support will never generate the profit margins that Windows and MS Office provide, but it's a good business nonetheless, and it is a business with critical strategic importance. Here's an example of why IBM is truly Microsoft's biggest threat.

Let's say, for example, that you are the CIO of a really big company or a large government institution, like a U.S. State, and you are concerned about what it is going to cost to upgrade 50,000 machines from Windows 2000 and Office 2003 to Windows Vista and MS Office 12. What's more, you would really like to have one central repository for all of your documents. Something that integrates with email, has a web portal, and is easily accessible to thousands of workers at the same time. So you talk to your service and support vendor (IBM), and you ask your rep what he can do for you. Well, it turns out that IBM has this nifty new portal software called IBM Workplace and it can be used with OpenOffice.org for a fraction of the cost of upgrading to Office 12. What's more, the software is compatible with Linux thin clients and so if you have desktops that don't need a lot of bells and whistles you can replace those expensive PCs with easy to manage thin clients and save a bundle. Not only do you end up with a better system overall, but you save millions of dollars in Microsoft upgrades in the process. What's more, IBM has the resources to guarantee that you don't have to worry about whether the system will work or not. The system is going to work slick. In fact, IBM is probably going to be willing to cut you a deal on the software so that IBM reps can use your installation as a showcase.

Part of the reason that Microsoft can make such ridiculous profit margins is that Microsoft relies on its partners (like IBM) to carry the expense of actually selling and supporting Microsoft software. Microsoft made a conscious choice to stay out of the sales, service, and support businesses for its software because these low margin businesses would have lowered Microsoft's aggregate profit margins dramatically. Microsoft could have become like IBM and built its own service and support arm, but instead it concentrated on the much higher margin business of selling software licenses. That worked fine in the past, but IBM makes software as well. Now IBM has every incentive to cut Microsoft out of the picture in every single one of IBM's many service contracts. Thanks to Microsoft's ridiculous profit margins there is even plenty of fat to cut.

That's why Microsoft has been concentrating so heavily on its service, support, and sales arms. Microsoft has finally realized that its primary customers (OEMs and sales and service organizations) all would be better off if there was a little more competition in the operating system and office suite markets. So now Microsoft wants to start dealing directly with end users. Unfortunately for Microsoft it can't move too quickly because if it does it risks alienating partners that it needs very badly. If Microsoft is successful the finished Microsoft product will look a lot more like the IBM of today. If Microsoft is unsuccessful then it will probably die.

Google is really in the same boat. It currently can demand high profit margins because of the amount of traffic that it can drive. However, Google's success is predicated entirely on Microsoft not using its desktop and web browser marketshare to drive more search results its way. To compete successfully with Microsoft (and Yahoo) in the long run term Google is going to have to invest plenty more.

Re:Size matters...

[dubl-u]

Google and MS are software companies. All they need is a few programmers to write some software, and they can duplicate that software and minimal cost and sell it millions of times over.

Close, but wrong.

Microsoft is a software business.

IBM sells services. Humans do the work.

Google also sells services, but servers do most of the work.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

Google is a software company that supports itself by running ads on their software, which they give away for free. MS is a software company that sells its software wholesale to retailers or directly to the consumer.

You say that google is a serice company because it 'does searches'. Well, I would argue that you can also say that MS is service company because it 'does word proceesing' or 'does desktop windowing'.

Bottom line, they are both in the business of writing and delivering software.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

Google is most certainly a software company, not an advertising company.

An advertising company hires sales & marketing people, and graphic designers. They create marketing campaigns and buy billboards, radio and TV spots for other companies.

Google is a software company. They hire programmers who write code. They don't sell that code directly to consumers, but they give it away. They make thier money buy having ads. While google does have a marketing staff, the product that the company actually churns out it is software.

It's like saying a radio station isn't really a radio station because they don't sell radio directly to the listeners. The radio station gives the content away, but you also have to put up with some advertising. You can argue that the marketing might have some bad influence on the content, but at the end of the day some entertaining content is pouring out of the transmitting tower. No one is oging to listen to an advertising-only station. Likewise, no one would do searches on google if they were only getting ads as results. People use google. and put up with its ads, because it's great software.

Re:Size matters...

[khallow]

Google doesn't sell software. When I use Google to look for a website (its key tool), I don't get a search engine, I get a search. That is a service. If I place an ad, that too is a service. A similar example is renting a car. You can argue that the car rental business didn't actually make the car, but there's several cases where the company is partly owned by a car manufacturer. That still doesn't mean that the car rental business is selling cars as its primary business.

Re:Size matters...

[ccmay]

Only monopoloies make the sort of money Microsoft do, and the have to be using the monopolistic position to do so.

Sorry, that is horse shit.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

"Google doesn't sell software."

Google *does* sell sofware.

"When I use Google to look for a website (its key tool), I don't get a search engine, I get a search. That is a service. "

That's like saying when you rent a car, you don't get a car, you get a ride. Which is wrong -- you get a car, or more precisely, use of the car. You don't have to drive it. A service is when someone does work for you -- like when you hire a cab driver to give you a ride. that's a service.

With google, you are getting a direct interface to their search engine. It's up to you to use it, or even let it sit there. You don't own googles' search enging when you use it, just like you don't own the rental car when you use it. But you are getting to use their search engine. A service is when *someone else actually does the work for you* -- like a cab driver, not a car rental. In google's example, if you were paying people do to the searches, that would be a service. So for example, Google Answers, where you pay a google employee to do the search for you (look up answers), is a service.

"If I place an ad, that too is a service."

How so? Can you then say that every business is a service?

A similar example [emphasis mine] is renting a car. You can argue that the car rental business didn't actually make the car, but there's several cases where the company is partly owned by a car manufacturer. That still doesn't mean that the car rental business is selling cars as its primary business."

So that's actually a dissimilar example. Google is like an automobile company that designs, manufactures, sells, leases, and rents their vehicles, and doesn't let anyone else sell or lease their vehicles. In the case of Ford, you have Ford who makes the cars, another company, the dealer, that sells them, and yet another company, Enterprise, that rents them. AFAIK there are no google franchisees or re-sellers.

Re:Size matters...

[HoneyBeeSpace]

Comparing apples and oranges is perfectly valid...

http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volum e1/v1i3/air-1-3-apples.html

http://www.darwinmag.com/read/0502/apples.html

Re:Size matters...

[donnz]

Oh, right then. I stand corrected, thanks.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

"Google's own mission statement as per their websites corporate overview states that they aim to "organise the worlds information". Their primary service is providing search functionality. These are services, not products. Google's revenue from these services is largely based around advertising."

That may be their mission statement, but that's not what they are doing right now. Their primary revenue stream is ads on their search pages. Like I said in another post, a car rental place is providing you a good, not a service. They give you a car, and it's up to you to operate it. Likewise, google provides you an interface to their search engine, it's up to you to operate it properly. In this example, the cab driver is providing a service. If a google employee actually did the searching for you, that would be a service.

Other revenue streams include services and also licensing software, but right now, that is not their main revenue stream.

Econ 101: A service is work that a *human being* does for you. If a machine or a computer or a tool does does work for you, the person who provides that machine, computer or tool is not doing you a service. They are providing a good for you. Even though the provisioning of the good might require the provisioner to do work to provide and maintain it, as long as they are not actually *operating* it, they are not providing you with a service.

A service is when a person does the work for you, like a tailor or a cabbie. If you are running the machine/computer/tool, you are not getting a service.

As long as the user actually enters the terms in the search box and hits the submit button, there is no google employee doing a service for the user.

"The fact that Google hire programmers who write code does not mean that Google are a software company. Millions of companies worldwide hire programmers to write code yet software is anything but their core business. By your line of reasoning, Ebay is also a software company." You are right. Companies have all sorts of employees. Google has accountants, but they are not an accounting business. MBNA has programmers, but they are not a software company.

You have to look at what the company is producing or providing. Google provides access to their proprietary search engine, just like a car rental place provides access to a vehicle. Ebay is a software company which provides access to a proprietary auction engine.

"Yes, Google do have other products which they sell - but these account for a much smaller portion of revenue."

Agreed.

Re:Size matters...

[khallow]

Google *does* sell sofware.

You're right. It's just a small part of their business model.

That's like saying when you rent a car, you don't get a car, you get a ride. Which is wrong -- you get a car, or more precisely, use of the car. You don't have to drive it. A service is when someone does work for you -- like when you hire a cab driver to give you a ride. that's a service.

The rental car business maintains and stores the car in a convenient location. They are doing work for you. Providing access to a good is a service.

How so? Can you then say that every business is a service?

What part of setting up a market for "placing an ad" makes it not a service? They are providing the advertising tools, they provide the tools to target your advertising, they can provide the customers who will view your ads.

Google is like an automobile company that designs, manufactures, sells, leases, and rents their vehicles, and doesn't let anyone else sell or lease their vehicles.

The key parts of google infrastructure are rented not sold. The exclusiveness of Google's products is irrelevant to whether they are providing a good, service, or some other beast. Absence of a "Google franchise" doesn't matter to our argument.

Further, we've ignored so far the massive collection of data that Google has built up on websites and their linkage to each other. The software isn't very useful without that data. If Google is a "software" company because it writes software, then it's even more so a "data" company.

So to return to the original point. Google may sell a minor amount of software, but that isn't it's core business. It maintains data on more than a billion websites. But selling that data isn't it's core business either. Instead, Google is selling services, access to this software, this data, and the people who use it. That is its core business.

Re:Size matters...

[khallow]

That may be their mission statement, but that's not what they are doing right now. Their primary revenue stream is ads on their search pages. Like I said in another post, a car rental place is providing you a good, not a service. They give you a car, and it's up to you to operate it. Likewise, google provides you an interface to their search engine, it's up to you to operate it properly. In this example, the cab driver is providing a service. If a google employee actually did the searching for you, that would be a service.

No, car rental places provide you access to a car. You can't sell the car. You don't own anything new. In a similar fashion, providing an interface to software you don't control is a service not a good.

Re:Size matters...

[notaprguy]

You're confused. Microsoft is a software company. Google is an advertising company. Big difference. Google makes just slightly over 0 percent of their revenue from selling software.

Re:Size matters...

[notaprguy]

No. You're referring to advertising agencies. They hire artists and copy writers. "Advertising company" may have confused you. Google is like a magazine. They sell advertising like a magazine does...albeit much more profitably and at greater scale.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

"No, car rental places provide you access to a car. You can't sell the car. You don't own anything new. In a similar fashion, providing an interface to software you don't control is a service not a good."

OK, then we have to make a new category besides goods and service, because a service is when a *person* does some work instead of you doing it yourself, in exchange for other goods or services.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

"The rental car business maintains and stores the car in a convenient location. They are doing work for you. Providing access to a good is a service."

Well, in that case, Best Buy is really a service company -- they store items for you before you are ready to come and pick them up. In fact, no one sells you goods; they just provide the service of storing it for you in a convenient location.

"What part of setting up a market for "placing an ad" makes it not a service? They are providing the advertising tools, they provide the tools to target your advertising, they can provide the customers who will view your ads."

If that's what Google were doing, then google would be in the advertising service industry. But google is providing a search engine. *That's* their business. Instead of selling it directly to customers, they have it financed through an advertising model, like a radio or TV station. By your argument, radio and TV companies aren't really entertainment companies, we just happen to get a few shows with our advertisements.

"Further, we've ignored so far the massive collection of data that Google has built up on websites and their linkage to each other. The software isn't very useful without that data. If Google is a "software" company because it writes software, then it's even more so a "data" company."

OK, so it's a software *and* data company. Are you about to tell me that data is not a good?

"So to return to the original point. Google may sell a minor amount of software, but that isn't it's core business. It maintains data on more than a billion websites. But selling that data isn't it's core business either. Instead, Google is selling services, access to this software, this data, and the people who use it. That is its core business."

Look, let me repeat myself: A service is work that somebody else does for you. That's my point. If someone is providing you with some kind of tool, machine or software which you in turn are using to do the work, they are not doing you a service. They are providing you a good with which you do the work. You said it yourself -- "The key parts of google infrastructure are rented not sold." -- legally, you can only rent *goods*, not labor. Software is a product, not a service.

Re:Size matters...

[khallow]

OK, then we have to make a new category besides goods and service, because a service is when a *person* does some work instead of you doing it yourself, in exchange for other goods or services.

Google is doing work for its customers. So it is a service.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

Well, then, every business is a service.

Best Buy is not a goods business, because its employees are doing the shipping and distributing that its customers would otherwise be doing themselves it Best Buy wasn't around. They aren't really selling anything -- Best Buy is a service business, because its employees are doing work for their customers.

Re:Size matters...

[khallow]

Ok, I give up. Even a seller of goods usually provides some degree of service. Google's main business doesn't sell a good. No matter how you spin it, when I conduct a search or place an ad, I don't get a good. As I understand it, you are claiming that because Google only does some of your work for you, that somehow means Google's effort is not a service. But as I repeatedly note, doing work even if it is minor is what a service is.

Google does provide services and that these services minor as they may be are the core of its business. That's the second point. The searches and ad placement is the lion's share of Google's revenue. Actual selling of goods (like dedicated machines for searching) form only a minor part of Google's revenue and of its business plan. IMHO that makes it solidly a service company.

Re:Size matters...

[lawpoop]

I know I'm coming off as a pendantic dick, but my point is that *technically*, according to traditional economics, google is not a service business.

In economics, there are goods and services. A service is when someone does labor that you would otherwise do yourself. For instance, a barber, a cabbie, or a landscaper are all in the service industry. Even though they have equipment (scissors, a cab, a lawnmower), you are not paying them directly for their equipment. You are paying them to do the work. They do factor the cost of their equipment into the price of the service, but still, you are paying for them to do the work, not for their equipment.

If you're paying for anything other than someone actually doing a job for you, you're buying a good. So even if the salesperson drives up with the lawnmower and even turns it on and teaches you how to use it, they are still selling you something rather than prodiving you a service.

There is labor involved in selling a good, and there are goods involved in doing work. The difference is what the buyer is paying for. If you are paying for someone to do work, you are buying a service, regardless that the cost of maintenance and repair of the lawnmower being built into the price. If you are paying for anything other than someone's completion of a job or their time and effort, you are buying a good, no matter how much time and effort they put into procuring that good and getting it to you.

Google answers is an example of a service, because there is actually a google employee doing the work of looking up an answer for you -- and that's what you are paying for -- a person doing the work for you.

The google search appliance is obviously a good, even though there were services involved in its design, manufacturing, marketing & promotion, and shipping. But you are paying for the item, regardless of the services built into the cost of the item.

The search engine might be a little confusing, because it's almost like someone is doing work for you. But it's not a person, it's a giant cluster of servers. So, as long as it's not actually a google engineer *operating the google search engine for you* you are buying a good (financed via advertising). It's like a lawn-mower rental guy delivering the lawn mower to you -- as long as he doesn't hop on it and start mowing your lawn for you, it's a good. The google engineers create, maintain, and deliver the search engine to you, just like the lawn mower rental guy, but they don't actually operate it for you. Thus, it's a goods business, not a service. Tools, machines and computers can all do work for us, but from an economics perspective, they are goods, not services. A service is when a *person* does something for you.

Re:Size matters...

[khallow]

I know I'm coming off as a pendantic dick, but my point is that *technically*, according to traditional economics, google is not a service business.

You say that like it is a bad thing. :-)

I'll try Just One More Time to explain my side of this.

First, let's discuss definitions. The whole argument between us seems hung up on competing definitions of goods and services. Here's the standard definitions according to traditional economics.

Goods are physical items that are created, traded, and consumed. Services are work or actions for which the same is done. What performs the work or actions or makes the good isn't a part of the definition. So automated massage chairs delivers a massage service just as a human masseur would. It is irrelevant that the former is an chair while the latter is a human. There are similar examples where machines or people can make particular goods (like cars). Also, it's irrelevant if the user has in addition to perform work or consume goods in order to acquire the good or use the service.

For example, typing in a search to google is work, but then you aren't actually searching through the billion or so webpages yourself. Google does that work and that is why you use Google. It is irrelevant how much infrastructure is in place to make that search available. The searcher at no time owns the search engine. Further it doesn't matter that the user has to perform some work, what's important is that the product that Google provides consists of work. Google provides searches.

Let's look at what happens. If you use Google's primary two things, you have the ability to make searches or to place ads showing on those searches. At no time, do you own anything you can sell later. There isn't a physical thing that you can point to and say that you own in any sense.

Let's look at the difference between buying and renting a lawnmower. If you buy a lawnmower, you have the ability to mow your lawn. You have to provide gasoline, oil, and maintenance on that lawnmower. You have to store the mower somewhere. If you get tired of it, you have to dispose of the lawnmower. Finally, you own the lawnmower. You can resell it, or use it in a pretty arbitrary way (eg as lawn art or destroy it with a sledgehammer).

If you rent a lawnmower, you get many of the same things. You have the ability to mow your lawn as long as you pay for the rental. You have to provide gas and perhaps oil. But you can hand off maintenance to the rental business by returning the mower and renting another. You only have to provide storage for the mower while you use it. It's even possible to rent and return the mower without ever having storage space available at your location! You don't have to dispose of a rental mower (aside from possibly returning it to the rental business). That is their job. Finally, you don't own the mower at any time.

The transaction costs and benefits of buying a mower. You have the mower and all the benefits and headaches of owning a mower. That is the physical thing which makings this a tranaction of a good.

The transaction costs and benefits of renting a mower. You get access to a mower. You don't have to pay for several mower related expenses. This is work performed by the rental business. The ownership of the mower or any other physical good doesn't change hands. That means right here that the transaction is of work not of a physical thing. There are goods involved in the transaction, but ownership of the goods doesn't change. To summarize, the mower is a good, but renting the mower is a service.

PS,

Google answers is an example of a service, because there is actually a google employee doing the work of looking up an answer for you -- and that's what you are paying for -- a person doing the work for you.

A small nit, but no Google employee actually is involved. It is done by other people who you pay directly.

Re:If I ran Microsoft

[ivan256]

If Microsoft were smart, they'd be spinning off profitable divisions to focus on their core business and new development. For the next 20 years they should be creating entities that feed investment cash back to the core instead of creating more and more divisions (yes, double meaning) that keep distracting them from what they used to be good at while they all battle for influence.

It would benefit them, and it would benefit the market. Everybody would be happy, except for all the execs that have gotten comfortable with winning by throwing money and unrelated market share at a problem instead of by creating the best solution to a given problem.

Diversification

[everphilski]

At the moment they seem to be heading towards content provision, games production, console production, OS production, Office Suite production and about a million other things. Perhaps they can pull it off and excel in all areas. I don't think so though and it's going to be an expensive lesson for them.

Unless you can predict the future this is a decent strategy. They are feeling out the market in a bunch of different areas and figuring out where to make a profit. You lose money on some ventures, gain money on others. And then you have your cash cows (like office). Who knows what the future holds...

-everphilski-

IBM makes for a convenient top competitor

[teslatug]

So anyone think that if Google or Apple were the top competitors Gates would acknowledge that and give a boost to the underdogs? It's more beneficial for MS to play the underdog itself and acknowledge IBM as the top competitor.

Why?

[Yahweh Doesn't Exist]

Why are MS's policies and strategies always based around "enemy lists" rather than actual products or services?

Re:Why?

[dubl-u]

Why are MS's policies and strategies always based around "enemy lists" rather than actual products or services?

It's a hardware problem.

One of the most interesting questions out there is, "Why did humans get so smart?" There are a number of plausible answers, and the truth probably involves several of them. But one that I think is probably a big contributor is an arms race competing with other humans for social advantage.

If evolution was driven by that, it could bias the hardware so that some people are more inclined to see things in those terms. For example, people might treat non-human things like trees, animals, and thunder as if they were people. They would find it easier to solve abstract problems when described in terms of people. And they would treat situations as tribal wars, even when you could look at them in other ways.

For some of these, there's good evidence of hardware bias. For example, if you take an abstract logic question and turn it into a question of figuring out who's cheating, people are much better at solving the latter. I assume that Bill's problem is a similar one: he's got a lot of hardware for playing zero-sum games, and consequently has a hard time playing positive-sum games.

Re:Why?

[star_aas]

Because they are on top, and it's harder to stay on top than to get there. Not that I'm saying it's the way to be.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[thaerin]

"[IBM has] four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have.'"

I can understand Bill being envious of the revenue stream of IBM, but the number of employees? My word he must be planning on world domination by being in every aspect of your life and to do so he's gonna need a lot larger of a workforce. I can just see Steve sitting in Bill's office with a conversation that hails from the days of the Animaniacs:

Bill: "Stevie, are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
Steve: "I think so Bill, but what are we going to after we Fucking Kill(TM) IBM?"
Bill: "The same thing we do every day Stevie. Try to take over the world!"
Steve: "Narf! Good one Bill."

Re:Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[askegg]

[Warning - off topic] Heh - Up until the "take over the world" bit I was reading it with "Bananas in pyjamas" voices.

Re:Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[nanter]

LOL!!!!!

Another Bananas in Pajamas fan!! woohoo!!!

Wrong threat model

[ka9dgx]

Microsoft's biggest threat is whoever solves the security problem. This involves researching improved security models to replace ACLs, such as capabilities.

ACLs don't cut it in an age of mobile code and 10,000,000 line programs. You can't trust applications, no matter how careful you are. You shouldn't have to, either.

--Mike--

Actually, he's probably right.

[ErichTheRed]

IBM today isn't the IBM it was in the 90s or 80s. They're still a technology company at the core, but they're doing a smart thing by becoming more of a services company. Lately, they've been turning themselves into another one of the "buzzword-compliant" consulting firms. Those companies (EDS, Accenture, BearingPoint, whatever) make boatloads of high-margin deals and huge profits...more than selling servers and mainframes could ever produce. Companies routinely cut multimillion-dollar checks for "strategic advice" from an army of new graduates who don't mind travelling 360 days of the year!!

Other things going for them:
- They killed their low-margin PC business. Love it or hate it, it definitely boosted their profit margin.
- IBM is one of the only companies still doing pure scientific/technology research. Microsoft is one of these companies too, but it's definitely time for the "next big thing." The PC revolution started in 1980, and it's 2005 now. If I were a technology company, especially one who wanted to keep their competitive edge, I'd be betting BIG on research. The only other big reseatch operations outside of universities that I know of are IBM, AT&T Labs and Microsoft. I'm sure there are other smaller operations, but not on the same grand scale.
- They still have one of the best server lines out there.
- They're big proponents of open source stuff. No matter how the whole OSS movement shakes out over the next few years, they're ideally positioned. Almost all their proprietary products can run on both closed- and open-source systems.

Re:Actually, he's probably right.

[JChung2006]

They didn't kill their low-margin PC business; they sold it. Check out Lenovo.

He is right

[FishandChips]

If you look at the totality of what Microsoft does, Gates is surely right. IBM is the 800lb gorilla of services (as distinct from software though IBM is huge in that too). Despite his claims about Microsoft just being a lil' old software house now and in future, my guess is that Gates sees services as the big one in the coming years. Yes, Google can hurt Microsoft a bit on the consumer desktop, and so can Apple and others, but the big money is in enterprise business.

If this is correct, then it follows that Microsoft may well have concluded that their cosy world of pay-for software has peaked and will now start to decline no matter what they do, so they are preparing to reposition themselves. Admittedly the great man's sour tone and strange diction don't help.

Naah....

[everphilski]

IBM is getting into the whole software as a service thing http://news.com.com/IBM+doubles+down+on+software+s ervices/2100-1014_3-5553386.html or http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/26/HNibmsof twareasservice_1.html which walks on Microsofts turf. IBM isnt all about open source and big mainframes anymore ... stuff like this squares them off as a direct competitor to where Microsoft wants to be in the near future.

This article http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/09/26/ibm-so ftware-investments-cz_qh_0926ibm.html states "In effect, giant IBM hopes this loosely allied swarm will overwhelm application offerings from the likes of Microsoft, Oracle and SAP. "This is about building out an ecosystem of partners to compete" ... IBM also figures watching the little guys is a good way to spot future trends early, he said..."

-everphilski-

Re:In all seriousness, his biggest threat is...

[gwait]

Exactly. Item 3 is what they want to avoid:

1. "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" (1980s)
   
2. "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft" (1990s)
   
3. "You should be fired for using Microsoft.." (Present virus infected atmosphere)
   

Microsoft's security hype is not solving the problem with real corporate down time due to the latest virus/worm/trojan. I think nobody seriously beleives Microsoft can solve their security issues, but so far they've managed to convince customers that this is the way computers are, that there are no better options.

Never mention the #2 competitor....

[Sublmnl]

that's industry standard. The number one guy must never acknowledge the threat from the #2 competitor.

Re:In all seriousness, his biggest threat is...

[fleaboy]

This IS an irrefutable truth, I am living proof. Microsoft will never get any of my professional time( I build custom computers-and I only install Linux based OS's-I will hire out the install of Licensed Microsoft products to people who do that sort of thing)or any of my personal time to fix their broken crippleware. Send Error Report? You've got to be kidding right? If you would like to see these computers check out my Opera page.

believe nothing he says

[penguin-collective]

Gates' motivation in everything he says and does is to increase revenue, nothing else; there are plenty of examples that Gates will tell blatant lies when it serves his company: he'll say that products will ship soon that don't even exist yet, he'll misdirect competitors about who they are targeting, he'll claim credit for technology the company doesn't develop. And Gates is hardly alone in this among corporate leaders either--most of them do it.

So, when Gates says that IBM is their biggest threat, it may just be an attempt to direct attention away from a planned attack on Google.

New religion

[rumblin'rabbit]

It's true that share price is arbitrary. That a share price is $20 or $200 really doesn't tell you anything.

I think the criticism of the $600 share price is that a hell of lot has to go right for a hell of a long time to justify it, given current revenue and earnings.

Google's market capitalization is now about 20 times annual revenue, based on last quarter's results. That's steep - most market cap's are between 1 and 3 times annual revenue. People must expect Google's revenue to increase by at least 10 times in fairly short order to justify the current price.

That's a tall order even for a great company. Judging from some of the comments by investors, Google has become more of a religion than an investment.

Re:xbox 360 cpu?

[chrismcdirty]

Seconded. I had a NetVista and the motherboard inexplicably died after a year or so.

Why is MS the customer of their biggest rival?

[assassinator42]

Microsoft is buying processors from IBM for the 360. I never understood why executives would put down their buisness partners. Like in the case of SBC saying Yahoo should pay, because their contents is going over "SBC's pipes". Did they forget one of their products was called "SBC Yahoo DSL"?

Re:Why is MS the customer of their biggest rival?

[javaxman]

Microsoft is buying processors from IBM for the 360. I never understood why executives would put down their buisness partners. Like in the case of SBC saying Yahoo should pay, because their contents is going over "SBC's pipes". Did they forget one of their products was called "SBC Yahoo DSL"?

MSFT doesn't mind IBM being in the chip fab business. More competition for chips makes hardware prices go down makes more money available to spend on software.

Similarly, SBC doesn't mind having Yahoo help to sell their DSL service. Having Yahoo do the selling is a little bit like Yahoo paying them, see ? Also, SBC doesn't have to come up with it's own portal and search page- they get to offer that service to their customers as well, so Yahoo paid them that way, too...

The long and short of it, though, is that these guys are ordinary human beings, and it's often amusing to see what comes out of their mouths.

Microsoft is being hit by a triple threat.

[jocknerd]

That triple threat consists of Google for Internet, Linux for servers and Apple for Desktops and Home Entertainment.

Biggest threat? Lack of diversification...

[HockeyPuck]

Look at how diversified IBM is... They survive disruptive technologies and paradigm switches. Switches like going from mainframe to client/server, windows to linux, even token ring to ethernet.

Also they bring in revenue from many many areas... when mainframes were threatened... they looked to PCs, as400, rs6000. How did they look to resurrect mainframes and as400? Introduce linux into their respective LPARs.

When customers talk about moving from one platform (windows) to the next (linux).. IBM says "no problem, use our hardware, and leverage our services." Getting rid of big iron unix boxes to go with hundreds of tiny 1U servers "how about using our blades..." Getting rid of your old SSA storage? "We'll help put in fibre channel switches..."

And don't forget about their microelectronics division... it's not just powerPC, but many companies send their designs to IBM for fabrication of custom ASICs.

IBM has always been a 'soup to nuts' company, MSFT on the other hand... is having trouble diversifying..

Their core business is windows and MSFT applications (office, SQL), but they are having trouble diversifying... They've gone to advertising (MSN), and home entertainment (Xbox), but they haven't had to survive losing one of their primary technologies (remember: IBM used to live off of mainframes). They do have services, and certifications, but I would guess those are pennies compared to OS and applications.

MSFT needs to diversify (yet we blame Google for not diversifying)...

Re:Biggest threat? Lack of diversification...

[Secrity]

A very early form of diversification for MS was in keyboards, mice, and game controllers. Microsoft always seemed to make very good mice. MS keyboards and game controllers never seemed to catch on, but for some reason MS mice have always been popular.

Re:Biggest threat? Lack of diversification...

[msi]

I agree with all of the above but feel I should add that IBM sold office equipment before the invention of computers (yes computers not PC's) IMB has been in operation since 1888 and incorporated on June 15th 1911, 118 years of experience means they know how to diversify.

To compete or not to compete.

[keilinw]

To begin with, please forgive me if I tread on a topic that someone else has already started... I just don't have time to read ALL of the threads before making my own argument.

First and foremost: competition is necessary. It breeds new products and forces companies to be innovative and resourceful. It is a necessary evil that no one would rather deal with if they had the choice.

However, the path to success nearly always encompasses ingenuity, innovation, originality, etc. Is it really necessary to think in such a negative way that other companies are outdoing another?

Perhaps its time for business to look past such negative outlooks and focus on the positive. Innovation and creativity is necessary. If someone is a threat then it is because you aren't doing your job correctly to begin with.

So, Kudo's to competition because it forces companies with a lack of insight to stay on track. HOWEVER, it is (theoretically) complete possible for a business to run without giving any thought to "competition". Yes, it still exists and it is a factor, but rather than putting energy into analyzing the competition shift that into improving creativity....

What does the Slashdot community think of this? Perhaps some will say that it is unrealistic and too theoretical, but I am firm believer that negative thought processes breed sloth and positive ones synergize the world.

--Matthew Wong P.S. I'm relatively new to Slashdot and am offended at some of the people's nastiness when it comes to posting. Is this considered normal etiquette here? Or are there really a bunch of lamos trying to use the message board to make up for a lack of friends?

If they TAKE OUT IBM???

[hellfire]

IF MS takes out IBM

This is an interesting statement. Not only is it absurd to think that anyone will "take out" IBM any time soon (IBM has weathered lots of storms, and has adapted to every one of them) this mentality is very common when talking about Microsoft.

Balmer wants to kill Google. darkonc talkes about taking out IBM. This is legal business, not the mafia. Microsoft is out to go after competition and kill it in order to win all the chips. Others might think about wanting to kill their competition, but no where is this sentiment more discussed when talking about Microsoft.

Killing competition! You know... what monopolies do??

And no one currently in the justice department wants to get the giant sized clue that is constantly being handed to them.

Edward G. Robinson

[xtermin8]

Ed G Robinson was the classic gangster voice of the movies. Cagney did a gangster in "White Heat" (Look ma...Top of the world) But Robinson was the one imitated in Bugs Bunny cartoons that most people are familiar with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G_Robinson

Re:Edward G. Robinson

[charlieOReilly]

"Key Largo", with Bogart, is one I'd definitely recommend.

Re:Edward G. Robinson

[hey!]

Classic scene from 1948 Key Largo, with two great actors in it. Johnny Rocco (Edward G) and his gang are holding the owners of a hotel and Frank McCloud (Humphrey Bogart), a drifter ex-solider, at gunpoint. Imagine Bill Gates as Rocco. You can imagine your self taking Bogey's part if you like.

Rocco:
              "He has a gun," you think, "I haven't."
                You figure it's the gun.
                Well, listen, soldier...
                thousands of guys got guns, but there's only one Johnny Rocco!

Thug (awed):
                How do you account for it?

McCloud (smirking):
                He knows what he wants...
                Don't you, Rocco?

Rocco:
                Sure!

Thug (a bit dim):
                What's that?

[Rocco is nonplussed]

McCloud (egging him on):
                Tell him, Rocco.

Rocco:
                Well, I want. . . .

[Rocco is unsure what to say]

McCloud (jumping in):
                He wants more. Don't you, Rocco?

Rocco (delighted):
                That's it! More.
                That's right, I want more!

McCloud:
                Will you ever get enough?
                Will you, Rocco?

Rocco (self-satisfied):
                Well, I never have.
                No, I guess I won't.

This is not entirely off-topic, because the scene makes it clear that Rocco is pursuing a kind of perverted version of the American dream, where winning money, status and influence excuses anything you do to get there. Of course making Bill into Johnny Rocco is an exaggeration. He doesn't kill people or fix elections; he also does important work through his foundation. But when it comes to violating commercial laws designed to protect consumers and small innovators, he's quite ruthless and probably pretty proud of it.

Re:If I ran Microsoft

[squoozer]

gotten comfortable with winning by throwing money and unrelated market share at a problem

Don't forget a few chairs were thrown at problems as well.

Put the crack pipe down and back away slowly . . .

[mmell]

Novell was before MS was ordered to pay them $500M: marginalized and supporting crap nobody really wants.

You mean like SuSE LINUX?

Attention Google Fanboys

[vectorian798]

I think most of you are failing to recognize that Google is competing against only a tiny sliver of Microsoft. Note that a large majority of Google's employees are devoted to their search engine technology, whereas Microsoft operates in MANY different markets, and MSN Search is only one of them with less than a tenth of Google's corresponding group in employee count. Seeing as how all the rumors about Google planning for their own office suite etc. have been debunked, I don't think Google is as big a threat as people think it is.

IBM on the other hand, is the largest service sector company and the largest IT company. IBM's rock solid line of servers provide a much larger push for Unix-based systems (not just IBM's AIX, but really any of them) than does Google's use of FOSS in their products, or Summer of Code. Furthermore, IBM is by far the strongest presence in the HPC market, which as Bill indicated previously, is something MS wants to get into. We've also seen that IBM consistently produces great software (DB2, Business and Commerce software, OS, Application Server, and much more) as well as hardware (their hardware line includes complete server solutions, processors, storage systems, etc.) and is capable of using only its own products end-to-end.

Thus, it is appropriate to say that IBM is a bigger threat to MS than is Google.

PS: Google's market cap is not a reflection on its strength or presence so don't bring that up as a figure plz.

Re:Attention Google Fanboys

[robertjw]

I think most of you are failing to recognize that Google is competing against only a tiny sliver of Microsoft.

I would say that Microsoft isn't effectively competing with Google at all. MSN search is pretty much a joke that, as you said Microsoft doesn't even take seriously. Conversly Microsoft is only competing against a tiny sliver of IBM. Microsoft's main market is in two areas, desktop OS and Office Suite. Apple and Linux are the only desktop OS's out there to compete against Microsoft and Open Office is the only serious threat to the Office Suite. Microsoft doesn't have a prayer of competing against IBM in the server or consulting market. Gates is, as ususal, blowing smoke. This is typical Microsoft nonsense. They are running around chasing their tail with no real focus or idea where they are going.

Looks to me like right now their main competitor should be Sony and the Playstation 3. Microsoft has sunk so much money into the Xbox they should be doing everything possible to make sure it's a success, rather than spouting off about how they are going to compete with IBM.

Re:Attention Google Fanboys

[NullProg]

I don't think Google is as big a threat as people think it is.

Then you don't understand the paranoia of Microsoft. To MSFT it is inconceivable that the general public sees any other company besides Microsoft as a computing company. They have worked hard for Fifteen years to be a better well-known brand than IBM. So here comes Google and it a has better brand name recognition than Microsoft right now.

So yes, while you are correct about the financial competition, Microsoft views Google as a serious threat to the Microsoft (TM) brand Name.

Enjoy,

Re:Attention Google Fanboys

[Pinback]

Google is showing that you can make money flogging a "we don't have to pay for it" OS. If enough large scale companies make a similar display, people will loose faith in the endless treadmill of Microsoft upgrades and virus scares.

Most people are too lazy to defect, but in general this can't be a good trend for Microsoft revenue.

threat to MSFT

[derniers]

the biggest threat to MSFT is that you don't need Windows or Office to do what most home computers are used for: web/photos/IM/music, occasional writing etc; somebody is going to be the next Dell by figuring out a package that many folks will buy and selling it at $100 or so- the MSFT tax- below Dell's price for equivalent hardware, it may not be this year (lots have already tried and failed) but sooner than later this is going to happen

Re:threat to MSFT

[xombo]

He's onto us *over*

Re:threat to MSFT

[dwayner79]

Do you really think Dell is paying the $80 for a home license... no. There is very little price power in the MS license. The only thing that will make home users drop MS, is when they stop using it at work.

"what they used to be good at"!??

[crovira]

Maybe if they developed an operating system that wasn't full of holes and ran over networks and allowed people to interoperate. Oh, that's Unix...

What Microsoft was really good at was strong-arming OEMs into selling their OS. That's it. Microsoft's a school yard bully.

They're aren't innovative.
They're aren't into quality. (They're products are always crap until version 3.1 anything. If they hadn't been able to strong-arm enough OEMs and build up a huge cash reserve, they would have been history back in the '90s.)

IBM is a support and service company

[Per Abrahamsen]

They do have profitable hardware and software units, but that is not where their core is. Support and service require more man power than selling ads or software, which is the core of the two other companies

what a stupid thing to say

[circletimessquare]

you can't fundamentally alter human nature. we all envy, including you. you can't win a game by suspending disbelief and imaging the rules of the game are not what they are

human nature has good apsects, bad aspects, and ugly aspects. if i were you, i'd familiarize myself with them, and accept them. but blissfully imagining you can ignore them doesn't have any value whatsoever to any discussion on the matter

it's like communism: it works fine, as long humans aren't greedy. except we are, so communism doesn't work, end of story

Re:what a stupid thing to say

[oGMo]

human nature has good apsects, bad aspects, and ugly aspects. if i were you, i'd familiarize myself with them, and accept them. but blissfully imagining you can ignore them doesn't have any value whatsoever to any discussion on the matter

They cannot be ignored; however, this does not mean they cannot be overcome or that it is not desirable to do so.

Or...

[hullabalucination]

An alternative scenario: IBM drags their feet just that little, itty bit on servicing Microsoft's Xbox development needs, makes MS's increasingly desparate attempts to break out of a stagnant PC market look pathetic, then WHAM! Playstation 3 shows up, making Xbox look like a doorstop; behind-the-back high fives between Big Blue and new best buddies Sony and Toshiba. Then the roundhouse: CELL enters, 8x the performance of any Windows box available and only runs: *NIX. Sony and Toshiba start producing CELL-based workstations for the high end (perhaps for media producers like me who have no attachments to Windows and can really use a box that's 8 times faster than anything I've currently got for pretty close to the same price) while IBM CELLs the datacenter, heading off Microsoft's ability to go upscale with Windows. Meanwhile, as all of developed Asia ditches desktops for 3G cell phones (don't laugh--today kids in Japan and Korea don't use and don't want a PC or laptop), MS's non-U.S. market dwindles and the Mobile division can't quite get the manufactures to stop using Symbian. Eventually, even the North American market collapses as U.S. home users (about 66% of MS's market, right?) discover that the 2 things they actually used a PC for (email and light-duty Web surfing) can be done just swell on their phones.

As you say, speculation is fun! :)

Foolishly Untrue Denunciation?

[rumblin'rabbit]

Of course he/she does! In modern parlance, FUD is anything you disagree with. Yelling FUD is so much easier than forming an intelligent counter-argument.

Re:Foolishly Untrue Denunciation?

[Zerathdune]

FUD was a terrible choice of a term, but I agree that ignoring goodle as a threat is foolish.

that said, yeah, IBM is probably a bigger threat. not because google isn't a tough competetor, but because right now, even if google knocks microsoft out of every they are competeing in, Microsoft is still the big bad evil OS monopoly, and they can still levarage that to get into new markets. IBM on the other hand, is heavily supporting linux, and if microsoft were knocked out of that market, they'd be fucked.

all out war

[javiercr]

Microsoft aims for world domination, therefore they are a fierce competitor to every other company. -Google is a competitor because they want to play the targeted ads game -IBM is a competitor because MS wants to get into more serious enterprise sofware -Sony is a competitor because they want to get into the games console game -Firefox (although not a company) pisses them off because they want to dominate the web browser market although there are only limited benefits in actually domination that market (if i was MS I would stop wasting money developing IE and ship Firefox with Windows) - Apple is a competitor because of iTunes because MS also wants to sell music. -Linux and Apache (although not a company) is a competitor for the medium size company market and seem to be able to scalate lo very large companies much better than windows (and this is going to go on for a long time, because Vista is not going to run a top of the line mainframe) MS wants to fight every battle and take no hostages, every battle has a biggest competitor.

Re:all out war

[SoulRider]

Let em go for world domination. The more fronts they fight on the faster their demise.

Re:xbox 360 cpu?

[not-enough-info]

That's why MS secured the rights to the design and manufacture of the chip. Basically all of the components in the xbox360 can be built by MS without the help of anyone else (albeit not as efficiently or cost-effectively). So if they want to ditch IBM, it's not really a big deal. Don't forget, IBM opened up the Power line. Future development of the xbox processor outside of IBM is perfectly doable, especially with the resources MS has.

Wrong question.

[ScentCone]

Why are MS's policies and strategies always based around "enemy lists" rather than actual products or services?

Maybe you should be asking why, of all the things that Bill Gates says in various interviews and public forums, the only ones that most slashdot readers pay attention to are his answers to reporters' questions about his company's rivals.

I've heard plenty of his comments about product changes, general technologies, and even cultural issues... but you'd have to go digging for more widely-published quotes along those lines. The "enemy" stuff shows up here on slashdot because Bill's the guy that so many hipper-than-thou nerds love to hate (in between Xbox sessions). Pretending that all he talks about is destroying enemies makes it easier to hate him, that's all.

I will.

[hullabalucination]

You're damned straight that I'll be standing in line to buy a CELL-based workstation if it's as fast as everybody thinks it will be, especially at the price points I'm hearing about. Every media producer on this planet will be lined up for one of these things. Hell, you'll be competitively dead in the water if CELL is even a quarter as good as the hype predicts and you don't have one, in my industry.

Consider: despite the lost "mindshare" of PPC, it still dominates one of the planet's largest industries (publishing/commercial printing/graphic arts...said to be third-largest industrial category in the U.S.) and has completely stumped Microsoft there. PPC-based servers completely killed a nascent movement towards NT servers back when Apple's OSX server first came out.

Further consider: since 2001, the only two major desktop builders to consistently turn a profit: Apple and Dell. That's it. Wanna lose your shirt? Get into building Intel/AMD-based systems running Windows. You'll be bleeding piles of money in short order, joining Tandy, Compaq, Gateway, Fujitsu, Sony, IBM, Acer, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Re:I will.

[drinkypoo]

Consider: despite the lost "mindshare" of PPC, it still dominates one of the planet's largest industries (publishing/commercial printing/graphic arts...said to be third-largest industrial category in the U.S.) and has completely stumped Microsoft there. PPC-based servers completely killed a nascent movement towards NT servers back when Apple's OSX server first came out.

Consider: That is about to change, since you won't be able to get PPC-based macs.

Further consider: since 2001, the only two major desktop builders to consistently turn a profit: Apple and Dell. That's it. Wanna lose your shirt? Get into building Intel/AMD-based systems running Windows. You'll be bleeding piles of money in short order, joining Tandy, Compaq, Gateway, Fujitsu, Sony, IBM, Acer, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Further consider: It's possible to run things other than Windows on x86[-64]. Soon, one of those things will be MacOSX. Apple was the only real hope for a Cell-based workstation, because they were the only PPC desktop manufacturer.

Granted, IBM may put one out, but what OS is it going to run? Linux? That won't help with mainstream desktop publishing. It will only help a little bit with video, namely those people who use filmgimp. It could be a great boon for 3d rendering. I see a market for rackmount renderfarm nodes with Cells, but that's about it.

Re:I will.

[hullabalucination]

Consider: That is about to change, since you won't be able to get PPC-based macs.

That won't change for at least 3 years. By that time, CELL will be out. Remember that Apple is only moving part of their line to Intel starting next year...the part that media producers like me don't really care about. Powerbooks? Minis? Blah.

Granted, IBM may put one out, but what OS is it going to run? Linux? That won't help with mainstream desktop publishing. It will only help a little bit with video, namely those people who use filmgimp.

Guess you've never heard of Scribus. Right now, my studio is doing over 60% of our publication work on it. It will run on PPC as well, but Linux/x86 is its main development platform and I'm moving my studio to Linux (only one Windows box left out of 4 previous, along with 4 Macs). And I'm getting a lot of interest and questions from colleagues in the industry. Oh, by the way--Scribus under Linux produces better PDF X/3 than even Adobe InDesign/Windows or QuarkXPress through Distiller. Go figure.

Guess you've never heard of Cinelerra, either, or Blender. Lots of folks in the less-than-huge-budget video production market (which is 95% of the market) are testing the waters with those apps as well. Along with Cinepaint and several other small but quite interesting projects.

And for my audio productions, I've already cut several radio spots in Audacity, and Stanford has a complete Fedora-based distro called Planet CCRMA with oodles of audio production apps. It's quite interesing.

Re:I will.

[drinkypoo]

Never heard of Cinewhatever, but I have heard of Blender. Last I checked it still had a suck-ass interface, but I admit it's been a little while. And audacity is great! Absolutely fantastic stuff. The noise removal plugin is almost as good as the one with CEP. And no, I never heard of Scribus either. I can't wait to try it.

Re:I will.

[petermgreen]

Further consider: since 2001, the only two major desktop builders to consistently turn a profit: Apple and Dell. That's it. Wanna lose your shirt? Get into building Intel/AMD-based systems running Windows. You'll be bleeding piles of money in short order, joining Tandy, Compaq, Gateway, Fujitsu, Sony, IBM, Acer, etc. etc. etc. ad nauseum.
yet the small local white box vendors don't exactly seem to be dissapearing either.

Hardware versus software

[sunderland56]

IBM is a fundamentally a hardware company.
Microsoft is fundamentally a software company.
Where, exactly, is the competition? Heck, they used to have a very cosy business relationship, precisely because they didn't compete, they complemented each other.

And what's this nonsense about IBM working on the Xbox 360 CPU? I assure you that an IBM 360 processor will NOT fit inside an Xbox case - although the two do seem to generate similar amounts of heat.

Re:Hardware versus software

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry if I come on a little harsh, but your post is completely uninformed:

"IBM is a fundamentally a hardware company."
Around 60% of IBM's revenue comes from Services. Hardaware stands for about 30%. That hardly qualifies as a Hardware Company.

"Microsoft is fundamentally a software company."
You could agree with this, but theyre trying to fend off that label, and thats why they identify more diverse companies as big threats.

"And what's this nonsense about IBM working on the Xbox 360 CPU? I assure you that an IBM 360 processor will NOT fit inside an Xbox case - although the two do seem to generate similar amounts of heat."

This comment was just outright a demonstration of ignorance. All three new mayor consoles (Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony) will be shipping with a new family of processors based on the CELL techonology, developed and manufactured by IBM.

Re:Hardware versus software

[megabyte405]

The XBox 360 Processor (as well as the CELL processor for the PS3) is based on IBM's POWER CPU architecture. In the Xbox case, it uses three PPE (PowerPC Processing Elements) as the processor.

The shipping name of Microsoft's console, Xbox 360, has absolutely no relation to the IBM System/360, except that they both used the common number 360.

(Oh, and IBM is now primarily a services company.)

Re:Hardware versus software

[nwbvt]

LOL. Hey, while you are over there in the 80's can you pick me up some Van Halen tapes? Oh yeah, and a tape player?

BTW, for the record I am not really a Van Halen fan, I just couldn't think of a less embarrassing band associated with the 1980s.

Re:If I ran Microsoft

[dioscaido]

They have the market sewn up but they are still losing corporate customers hand over fist (dispite what they tell us it is obvious people are dropping Windows for *nix).

I guess if we ignore the positive growth numbers for win2k3 server adoption, then we could arrive at your conclusion.

Of course IBM is the biggest threat ...

[DrJimbo]

They became so when they didn't fall for the bait and buy out SCO to stop the anti-Linux lawsuits and FUD.

The threat became apparent when IBM and/or Novell began asking for discovery regarding the Microsoft purchase of an "Unix" license from SCO to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

If IBM can prove that Microsoft funded the frivolous SCO lawsuits then Microsoft is in deep, deep trouble. It could easily cost them billions of dollars and some executives could see jail time.

overcome? how?

[circletimessquare]

do you respect free will? i don't see how you can overcome aspects of human nature that are disagreeable to you without introducing a police state into the picture

isn't it far superior to simply accept them and work with them? you spend all of your energies trying to overcome them, in vain. and your energies are better spend elsewhere

your idealism does not trump my pragmatism

Re:overcome? how?

[oGMo]

do you respect free will? i don't see how you can overcome aspects of human nature that are disagreeable to you without introducing a police state into the picture

You misinterpret. It's not that you should enforce these things on others. It's that you should struggle to overcome them in yourself; or more to the point: that I can strive to and succeed in overcoming them in myself.

I do not find these things as acceptable behavior for myself, therefore I strive to change, and I can ultimately succeed.

isn't it far superior to simply accept them and work with them? you spend all of your energies trying to overcome them, in vain. and your energies are better spend elsewhere

No, because they are not good things. They are detrimental to my life, and they are not truly that difficult to overcome.

your idealism does not trump my pragmatism

If I spend my life lusting after everything and envying anything that someone has and I don't, do you truly believe this is not a waste of life? Instead, I overcome my envy, and can therefore spend my time on constructive activity, not just trying to show others down.

This is not to say I have nothing. But I can limit what I want to what I need---I might have the best computer on the block because I need it, but I don't feel the need to get a fancy car just because my neighbor got one. Nor does it mean I am not inspired by others. If I see an artist, or a coder, or a musician who does something better than I, it can inspire me to become better myself... but not just so that I can take pride in being the best there is.

Life is not a zero-sum game. Nor does overcoming your bad attributes make you devoid of the good ones.

Xbox

[XMilkProject]

Didn't microsoft have IBM build all the cpu's for their Xbox360 platform? Those are powerPC chips in the xbox, so they must have come from IBM.

Seems odd they would partner and claim them as an enemy as the same time.

That brings me to another point, shouldn't IBM be suffering pretty hard now that Apple is moving to Intel for its chips? That must have been a large source of income for IBM.

Re:Xbox

[javaxman]

Didn't microsoft have IBM build all the cpu's for their Xbox360 platform? Those are powerPC chips in the xbox, so they must have come from IBM. Seems odd they would partner and claim them as an enemy as the same time.

Does MSFT make chips? No. Does MSFT make most of thier money from XBox? Any, even?

That brings me to another point, shouldn't IBM be suffering pretty hard now that Apple is moving to Intel for its chips? That must have been a large source of income for IBM

Not according to IBM, and it's probably true. They didn't even make all of the chips Apple uses/used... Freescale ( formerly of Motorola ) still makes the G4s that are in all Mac minis, iBooks and Powerbooks. IBM only supplied the desktop iMac and PowerMac G5 chips. IBM screwed up targets for the G5 badly enough ( remember they were supposed to be at 3 GHz *when*??? ) that they might not have been making much at all depending on what the Apple contract looked like. For whatever reason, volume or contracts, IBM by all accounts won't notice Apple is missing, at least not until Apple sells a lot more high-end desktops that might have used IBM chips.

MSFT properly sees IBM's software business as supporting it's chip business, not the other way around, and would be all too happy to see IBM shift toward the chip business... as a client of MSFT. They're not a competitor in that field. MSFT will not, however, be buying consulting services and Linux blade servers from IBM - they compete in the software and services fields. Apple needed a chip supplier motivated to create great laptop and desktop chips; buying from suppliers who are primarily invested in small devices ( like routers ) and room-warming servers ( like Power blades ) wasn't getting them what they wanted. By all accounts, IBM and Freescale lost a difficult customer and a little bit of clout, but not a lot of revenue, when Apple left ( or well, leaves, it hasn't actually happened yet ).

Re:If I ran Microsoft

[cmacb]

"If Microsoft were smart, they'd be spinning off profitable divisions to focus on their core business and new development."

You put your finger on the problem there. First they have to figure out what their core business is.

They seem to finally be figuring out that JUST doing an operating system won't last as a core business, ditto for and Office suite.

They recently figured out that they don't want to be in the online magazine business. In another year or so they will realize that the game console market is more trouble than it is worth.

They wisely passed up the chance to become a PC "manufacturer", and watching companies like HP, Dell and Gateway struggle will ensure that they don't change their minds about that.

Their anemic online offerings like Hotmail and Passport must have some admins screaming "Do we really HAVE to run this crap on Windows boxes?" and as usage grows for things like Virtual Earth and live.com they'll get slower and slower until the press start making jokes about them. To counter this, MS will run them at a loss (again) if necessary.

A large part of IBM's income comes from consulting services, and Microsoft has been claiming it does this too, but I've never heard of them running the same sort of development efforts that IBM is doing by the thousands, instead they seem to be confined to rescue efforts for projects that are already in failure mode: "You ned to defrag all your disks once a day, that'll be $3000 please."

I think they WILL make a more serious run at consulting services, but once they figure out how much work it is and how thin the margins can be they will slink back to their parents spare room to "think things over some more".

The company was born with a silver spoon in its mouth courtesy of IBM, and it is ironic that they have been chasing that IBM money model ever since. They just want to "be more like Dad." (Except they don't want to have to work as hard as he did).

Wish them luck. They will need it.

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? - Others!

[Markvs]

Erm... Apple and Sun come to mind as non-MS companies doing the same thing... at least MicroSoft is itself a non-dictionary name!

IBM has the "Chicklet" keyboard on the XT, which was funny if you like the Adams Gum.
DEC made the Rainbow.
Apple also made a PEAR. Not to mention the Lisa.
Coleco made the Adam.
Commodore is a naval rank... plus the Amiga is a friend. Hmm.
My cousin had an Odyssey video game system growing up.
How about Oracle?
Java?
Acrobat by Adobe?
Opera??
Oh, and bever mind the Palm Pilots!

It's hardly a one way street, IMHO....

you're a human being

[circletimessquare]

you eat, you sleep

you can no more overcome feeling envious than you can overcome the need to eat and sleep

when you rewire the mammalian brain to the point where envy is not something you feel, get back to me

until then, try a little pragmatism

You misinterpret. It's not that you should enforce these things on others. It's that you should struggle to overcome them in yourself; or more to the point: that I can strive to and succeed in overcoming them in myself. I do not find these things as acceptable behavior for myself, therefore I strive to change, and I can ultimately succeed.

you would only succeed in fooling yourself. you envy. everyone does. everyone always has. everyone always will. if you think you've overcome this basic facet of essential human nature, you've only fooled yourself into thinking you have. you haven't at all, and you never will

you simply don't understand what is essential to being human, and what is not

you have mislabelled that which is not optional as optional. but you can never remove that option, without reworking the human brain in impossible ways. and you would never want to rework the brain to do that either in some future sci fi world, unless you believe in an orwellian eugenics state

you don't understand what it means to be human. you don't recognize your own flaws. which makes you more dangerous than someone who recognizes their flaws and deals with it

it's like saying "i will never get in a car accident." as soon as you say that, you probably will, because you'll drive less carefully, believing yourself to be immune to something you're not. but if i say "i could very easily die in a car accident," my chances of actually doing so just wne todwn a lot. because i recognize the possibility, and driv emore carefully

you can pretty mcuh say the same thing about your feelings of envy

you suffer from arrogance and hubris about human nature, including your own

by saying you've overcome envy, your more dangerous to this world than someone who evnies

at least they are honest about themselves

Re:you're a human being

[oGMo]

you eat, you sleep
you can no more overcome feeling envious than you can overcome the need to eat and sleep
when you rewire the mammalian brain to the point where envy is not something you feel, get back to me
until then, try a little pragmatism

Are you equating a feeling with a physiological need? Feelings like envy are the equivalent of laying around and oversleeping all the time, or eating all the time and becoming overweight. These are not needs, they are overindulgence and they are harmful to your health.

you would only succeed in fooling yourself. you envy. everyone does. everyone always has. everyone always will. if you think you've overcome this basic facet of essential human nature, you've only fooled yourself into thinking you have. you haven't at all, and you never will

How is envy "essential"? The dictionary says "a feeling of discontent and resentment aroused by and in conjunction with desire for the possessions or qualities of another". How is "discontent and resentment" essential?

Are you saying that people cannot change? Do you believe in evolution? If so, that is directly contradictory. Most religions also promote self-change. Unless you're a complete nihilist, fatalist, or hedonist---and possibly even if you are---believing in the absolute inability to change is directly contradictory to everyday life.

you don't understand what it means to be human. you don't recognize your own flaws. which makes you more dangerous than someone who recognizes their flaws and deals with it

it's like saying "i will never get in a car accident." as soon as you say that, you probably will, because you'll drive less carefully, believing yourself to be immune to something you're not. but if i say "i could very easily die in a car accident," my chances of actually doing so just wne todwn a lot. because i recognize the possibility, and driv emore carefully

Again, you misinterpret. I am not saying "I never feel envy". I am saying that when I do feel envy, I will strive to refuse to act on it. If my neighbors get a new car, and I feel envious, I can quash the envy, and be content. Eventually, whether the feeling itself exists or not, I will have control over myself, and it will not matter. If I do give into it, I will try to change myself, to see what happened, and to strive to do what it takes to not let it happen the next time.

The same can be said for your car accident. Car accidents happen, but they can also be avoided with some discipline. You do not (or should not!) simply drive wrecklessly with the attitude that "oh, car accidents are essential an unavoidable, therefore I will do what I want and attempt nothing to avoid one". Instead you practice self-control, follow the rules of the road, and---though you may not drive exactly at the speed limit every day---you avoid accidents. If an accident happens (and it's your fault), you analyze what went wrong, and strive to avoid the same situation next time.

you can pretty mcuh say the same thing about your feelings of envy
you suffer from arrogance and hubris about human nature, including your own
by saying you've overcome envy, your more dangerous to this world than someone who evnies
at least they are honest about themselves

If I said that I do not envy, or even that I do not give into envy, or any other human failing, then I apologize; it was indeed arrogance and certainly incorrect. What I consider ultimate success is for envy, greed, and the like to become irrelevant. Whether they are felt or not, they do not dictate my actions.

This itself is a higher freedom: freedom from our own nature. If you dislike having someone else dictate what to do, how much less you should li

Re:you're a human being

[circletimessquare]

This itself is a higher freedom: freedom from our own nature. If you dislike having someone else dictate what to do, how much less you should like having your human condition dictate what you do. Are you free from yourself? If someone taunts you, are you forced by your anger to retort? Can they control you through your anger, your envy, or your greed? Or do you have true freedom?

if i believe i have overcome anger, i am more likely to get angry when taunted, because i believe i am somehow immune to it. but i'm not. no one is

and yet i am still free. because there are apsects of existence: gravity, dying, the need to eat and sleep, that are not valid aspects of exploring freedom. because i will die, or because when i jump i fall back to earth, or because i need to sleep and eat i am not free? huh? your assertion is the same absurdity: that because i get angry or envious i am not free. wrong, because you think as optional that which is not optional

if i believe i can get angry, i can control it better than you because i recognize it as a possibility. i am more free than you, because you are trapped by anger: you don't know how to control it. you merely think (snap fingers) it doesn't exist in you. therefore, when you get angry (and you will, because you're a human being, no matter what you say) you are more prone to do evil things than i am

dude, we're talking about the amygdala

i have one, you have one

the problem here is you think you can remove the impulses coming from this region. i am saying they will always be there, you merely recognize and mitigate the impulses. the only real option you have along your chosen course of thinking about human nature is to pick up a black and decker drill and start drilling ;-P

now who is better adjusted? someone like you who disavows the presence of basic human anatomy?

Are you saying that people cannot change? Do you believe in evolution?

ok, you win: given a couple of hundred million years, you can remove envy from the human mind. start changing (snicker)

wrong

[circletimessquare]

you're a human being

you eat, you sleep

you can no more overcome feeling envious than you can overcome the need to eat and sleep

when you rewire the mammalian brain to the point where envy is not something you feel, get back to me

otherwise, you have mislabelled that which is not optional as optional. but you can never remove that option, without reworking the human brain in impossible ways. and you would never want to rework the brain to do that either, in some future sci fi world, unless you believe in an orwellian eugenics state and wish to defy free will

you don't understand what it means to be human. you don't recognize your own flaws. which makes you more dangerous than someone who recognizes their flaws and deals with it

it's like saying "i will never get in a car accident." as soon as you say that, you probably will, because you'll drive less carefully, believing yourself to be immune to something you're not. but if you say "i could very easily die in a car accident," my chances of actually doing so just went down a lot. because i recognize the possibility, and drive more carefully

you can pretty mcuh say the same thing about your feelings of envy

you suffer from arrogance and hubris about human nature, including your own. by saying you've overcome envy, or are immune to it, your are more dangerous to this world than someone who actively envies. because at least they are honest about their nature

Re:In all seriousness, his biggest threat is...

[lowe0]

Is this actually the case, however? Is the average consumer really that fed up with MS? The average IT decision-maker? And if so, is it really altering their purchasing behavior?

A handful of people grumbling about MS is one thing. A full-fledged customer revolt is quite another.

Evil Impersonated

[hitokiri82]

It always strikes me whenever I read any post on the internet that relates in any way to Bill Gates of Micrsosoft, that they are always depicted as the quintessence of evil on earth. It even amazes me when i read comments like "The only real problem with Microsoft is that they have a dumb CEO". I mean, come on. How many other companies have you heard of, that went from being run in a small garage by a bunch of college droputs to being the number one Software Company in the world, whose founders were both in top ten list of Individual wealth before they were 50 years old, and did this in less than 20 years of operation. Excuse me, but if that could be accomplished by dumb people, america would be busting with multibillionaires. My point is, you can say whatever you want about the quality of their software or their business practices. But you cant deny, that Microsoft almost singlehandedly propelled the informatics business to the point where it is today (that is, in almost every minute, everyday of your life), and they managed to do this while at the sametime implementing a ridiculously succesful business model that allowed them to force their way to the top on every market that they have ventured in. If you consider BG and MCSFT your mortal enemies, you should at least be well informed, and recognize that no one gets to where they are by chance. Keep one thing in mind, we are talking business here, and businesses are measured only by their financial success. IBM has proved that it has the muscle to be measured with MCSFT in this field, and its up to GOOGLE to prove that theyre more than an overvalued bunch of new ideas with no real world value once the dust settles.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Long ago

[CBob]

IBM didn't know what to do with the "odd thing" that one of the research branches created. It was created as was ordered, but the Personal Computer thing didn't fit in. Off the shelf parts, an odd operating system thrown on it that some no-name company that IBM didn't even want to buy had cobbled together and it didn't fit in ANYWHERE in the business plan.

The research division went away a short time later and IBM's lack of flexibility launched MicroSoft and helped create Compaq.

For once, maybe ol' Bill's looking back and realizing the IBM does learn from some of it's errors. Slowly do the giant wheels turn.

IBM will never die

[alexborges]

Take:
- An army of undead lawyers
- 100 years developing marketing techniques
- 100 years worth of killing, mungering, partnering with nazis, giving illegal money to government officials in all the world
- A CEO a 100 years old
- 100 years worth of patents both ridicoulous and actually usefull, profitable ones.

What do you have? ..... IBM

Its never going to die, it has predicted most problems that have come its way and emerged victorious. Hell, even when they lost big time (MS-DOS, the PC...etc.), they recovered and theyre still much bigger than any other IT company. Even HP-Compaq.

I tell ya, IBM will never die. It may be bought by the chinnesse, but it will never die.

Huh?

[UnknowingFool]

[IBM has] four times the employees that I have, way more revenues than I have.

Why should the number of employees be important unless it's a personal ego trip for Bill? IBM does compete with MS in some areas like databases, but it does not in many fields. Also remembering that IBM supplies chips for the Xbox 360, isn't going after a supplier detrimental?

BillG used to be *nice* at IBM

[paj1234]

According to the book, "Barbarians Led By Bill Gates", Gates used to be horrible to everyone except IBM.

"Bill would go to a very senior person at these other OEMs, DEC or Tandy or Compaq or whoever, and yell at them or tell them it had to be this way, or if you don't do this we'll make sure our software doesn't run on your box. What do you do if you're one of these OEM guys? You're screwed. You can't have Microsoft not support your hardware, so you better do what they say.'

Ironically, McGregor also remembered the remarkable transformation of William Gates III in front of IBM.

'Bill was very humble and would speak softer (with IBM). There was a definite difference in the tone of his voice. You'd go in the meeting and it was just a fascinating contrast to see Bill at IBM versus Bill at any of the other companies.'"

How times have changed!

Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? - Others!

[BitchKapoor]

IBM has the "Chicklet" keyboard on the XT, which was funny if you like the Adams Gum.

The chiclet keyboard was on the PCjr; the XT had a real keyboard. Moreover, it was a colloquial discriptive term of the time for that sort of crappy keyboard, not an official IBM moniker. See the Wikipedia article.

Headless cattle...

[In Fraudem Legis]

Microsoft is just like a headless cattle, trying desperately to follow others and compete with them. It's just an agony of a fading company.

Re: IBM Lack Culture for Creative Invention?

[dakirw]

More likely, the GP meant that while IBM does a lot of research, it does a horrible job of putting together useful products in a timely manner.

Re:If I ran Microsoft

[Billly Gates]

It seems many businesses a few years ago switched to NT4 and W2k from mainframes only to be burned. W2k3 is for small to medium sized servers and many former large systems are going back to unix or linux running in a farm.

But MS has the advantage that the marketshare for department servers is alot bigger than a few datacenter mammoths.

Yet another Microsoft expose

[Hosiah]

seems topical enough: http://philip.greenspun.com/bg/ "How to become as rich as Bill Gates."

Re:xbox 360 cpu?

[Pinback]

Some of the middle age Netvistas suffered capacitor death.

Three Letters Baby!

[EraserMouseMan]

Beautiful! Alas, a /.er who uses their brain.

Your point about IBM's goal to commoditize software fits right in with their big OSS contributions. What better way to make something a commodity, than to make it free. Every percentage gain that Linux wins marginalizes every other OS so that nobody can make any money on selling the OS software. Then MS can't make money off of Windows. If OO.org succeeds at replacing MS Office, then MS isn't making money on office productivity either. At this point the only people making money are the ones whos consultants know how to implement and maintain the ultra-cheap but complex software/systems. And guess who's got the monopoly on that game?

You got it!

Re:Three Letters Baby!

[Bert64]

But there is no monopoly, because the code is open anyone can learn about it, contribute to it and make money supporting it.. Large companies may choose IBM because they're a large trusted name, but there's no reason why a lot of smaller shops couldn't exist, and competition would be good for the end user.

Re:Three Letters Baby!

[EraserMouseMan]

If you are a large company (1000+ employees) wishing to outsource your IT department and it's services to a consulting firm there is really only 1 company to go with. IBM.

Sure, you could interview 100 small consulting shops and take a chance on one of them. But who wants to do that?

And it's not about the source code. Who ever looks at the app's source code anyways (besides its developers)? If you wanted to learn a new feature of, say, OO.org, would you look to the source code? Heck no. You'd look at the help documentation or Google it. The availability of source code is way overrated for these types of things.

Not as stupid as it sounds

[petrus4]

IBM have taken hold of Linux with both hands. Not only that, it's worth remembering that people wanting to leave Microsoft can run Linux on the PC they've already got, whereas OSX is *still* on proprietary hardware, even if it's now x86 based.

IBM also have a tendency not to put all their eggs in one basket; they might have embraced Linux right now, but what happened with PCMCIA and OS/2 demonstrated to me that even if those things didn't work, IBM are still a company who are willing to look at unconventional things and take risks; and that's how companies move forward.

I don't care how much money Jobs makes from the iPod in the mobile space; Apple are still going to remain largely irrelevant, IMNSHO. Put OSX on *exactly* the same hardware as what Windows and Linux use, and that will change.

Jobs needs to abandon proprietary hardware once and for all...Until he does that, he can expect to remain on the fringe irrespective of anything else he might do.

Re:Not as stupid as it sounds

[joelsanda]

Jobs needs to abandon proprietary hardware once and for all...Until he does that, he can expect to remain on the fringe irrespective of anything else he might do.

Fringe? Did you really say "... he can expect to remain on the fringe ..."

• HTTP inventor endorses Safari browser
• Tim Berners Lee invents first web apps and server on a NeXT computer
• Apple stock trading at $74 and change as of writing this
• More than 10 million iPods sold
• Half way through 2005 500 million songs sold via iTunes

All of which is really consistent with your point "...Apple are still going to remain largely irrelevant."

If you call those achievemens 'largely irrelevant' and 'fringe' I'd love to see your resume!

eh?

[Stu Charlton]

It's very common for a Chairman / majority shareholder, or even maybe CEO to use personal pronouns when talking about business. I don't think it's glaring at all, but then again, this is Slashdot....

Re:Bwahahahahaha!

[drsmithy]

25 years ago they managed to steal someone else's product and hoodwink IBM with it.

Damn, I hope the next person who steals from me leaves $40,000 on the kitchen table when they leave !

Re:If I ran Microsoft

[squoozer]

Well first I would question where that data comes from (as I suspect it is Microsoft or one of it's paid lackys) and secondly I would question what that growth really is. My guess would be that the majority of the "growth" falls into one of two categories. Either it's companies upgrading machines from previous versions of Windows (not converting *nix machines to Windows) or new machines being installed as part of the over all growth in computer use.

Killing strategy is quite clear

[Device666]

Linux, and Free Software (as freedom and also free beer) is like the ring in Lord of the Rings: "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them". If microsoft would found one way to scrutinize Linux Development, IBM would feel it, Apple would feel it, Google would feel it, Sun would feel it, SGI would feel it. Bill is talking about IBM. But it's not so strange they suddenly changed their tone of voice about linux. They are talking about interoperatebility.. Yeah right, as they have a track record in that. They suddenly hired some folks from the Linux community. To keep their enemy close to them. They want to learn the weak spots to attack linux with laser point precision power and bring all their opponents and in the darkness bind them. Their tactics of embracing and their kiss of death is maybe a little stealthy but I am afraid this is what they will do now. When bill says IBM, he isn't talking about a bigger brother (because he knows how a small comapny can harness all the power to become a big monopolist. I think when Bill is talking about IBM, he is in fact talking about Linux. He knows he has to learn about the community to fight it. Bill would be stupid to not have some devious plan which I rather would not see to unfold. All the media fuzz about those companies, maybe Bill has finally found the problem that the community is not a business and there are weaknesses which could slow down the community from developing working stuff. I know that the Free Software is a hard to crack thing but don't we know Bill right now? Maybe not enough.

I'm not convinced.

[demiz]

You can make numbers to look almost exactly the way you want, depending on where you look, how you compare and the like. Seeing the comparison of Java / .NET with LAMP (which IMHO is ridiculous) makes it hard to be serious about the whole article. To me, this is all a mess-up of different things that don't really fit together well. What are we talking about? Building dynamic web sites? Creating small CRUD applications to hammer stuff into an SQL database using a web frontend? Building applications distributed across platforms and systems within both an internal network and "the internet" and yet being meant to interact and communicate? There are numbers and percentages written all across the article but the writes doesn't get clear about some basic assumptions. Otherwise, I'd like him to build a system to link CORBA, SOAP and possibly a bunch of other technologies using PHP, Perl, Python (even though I love the latter ones). Good luck.

--
Keylogger killed my marriage, but saved my life.

Re:And as a stockholder of both . . .

[gelfling]

ccxz cxz jxc xxzc xkx0rfewo cxz;