Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Masterpiece of FUD?

walterbyrd writes "Linux Journal has published an article by Glyn Moody, about the Microsoft sponsored study: The Economic Impact of Microsoft Windows Vista (pdf). Apparently Moody feels that the economic effects of MS-Vista being delayed in Europe would not be as dire as Microsoft would have the world believe." From the article: "The implication is that the European Commission would be crazy to jeopardize these wonderful benefits by clipping the wings of this digital golden goose, or even grounding it completely. The white paper looks tremendously professional, and is filled with tables, bar and pie charts; it has suitably serious discussions of methodology, and even introduces a few measured caveats: who could doubt its conclusions? What makes this FUD so impressive is that this attention to detail obscures the sleight of hand that is going on here. The white paper may predict sales by the "Microsoft ecosystem" of over $40 billion in six of Europe's biggest economies, but what this figure hides is the fact that income for Microsoft and its chums is a cost for the rest of Europe."

7 of 283 comments (clear)

  1. Yeah, someone should ban the term wealth creation by Colin+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's wealth movement.

    --
    Deleted
  2. Threat summarised... by MosesJones · · Score: 5, Insightful


    Microsoft will delay shipping Vista to the EU until after SP1 this means European organisations will
    1) Not have the "benefits" of learning about the early security holes
    2) Not have the "advantage" of paying the launch list price, they'll have to wait until Microsoft slash prices as Vista doesn't fly
    3) Have a mature support market to fall back on
    4) More time to work out if its actually worth it

    Brilliant, its like testing something dangerous on lab rats but we get to use Americans instead.

    --
    An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
  3. Reflection by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wow, hit Slashdot for the first time today and surprise surprise, its the daily MS bitching thread.

    I challenge everyone to take 80% of the time they spend complaining about Microsoft and devote it to something else such as contributing to an OSS project.

    --

    Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
  4. It's not a monopoly... by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...if everyone gets to own it in the FOSS way. Two different beasts in this discussion, even though it's all about software. There are just so many ways to build a system now with FOSS, and with various degrees of cost from free as in beer to expensive, that it is doubtful any one system or way or pricing level will ever become dominant like MS has become, and being open, you can't get locked in, in the same manner. Here's an opportunity for europe-say-to only drop 5 billion on mass adoption of FOSS, and save the other 35 billion to use in other areas.

          Open source leads to open standards as well, and that is a critical issue now, especially with governments and business. A document you make today with open standards will still be readable for free any number of years from now.

        Look at that reference in the latest vista candidate article, MS will still hose any other system you have on the disk, on purpose, if you go to install it(guru tweaking not applicable, I mean for joe regular). What would they do if it was the opposite on purpose? That's the different mindset we are facing, MS is their way or the highway,their monopoly status will remain and it will be serious folding money no matter what you are talking about, or FOSS which is primarily free and Free for the most part. A monopoly (note: a monopoly does not mean 100% when speaking legally) signifies abuse in the market place, as in "costs you money" with little recourse, then it becomes an abusive monopoly and starts to get into the illegal areas, which they have been provbven to have done. and it wasn't an accident either.

        That's one of the main issues if you use the word monopoly as it relates to current business practices, abusive behavior leading to your wallet getting lighter. MS is saying if you don't stick to their monopoly expensive products it will cost you serious money, that's the FUD part, because STICKING with them costs you serious folding money, and for most purposes today, there is no longer a need. For some, yes, for most, no.

    1. Re:It's not a monopoly... by zogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I made a point that I understand the difference with monopolies, but the past track record is more abusive than not once they become ingrained. Standard oil, AT&T, and now MS. There's some. Too big, too fat, too greedy, too abusive. Can't be content with "enough", got to go to the vomitorium, reguritate the last heaping helping of cash to make room for the next ladle full. Sorry, I just don't get greed like that and chronic bungholeness.

          I am more than familiar with the concepts and economics and laws involved, thanks for asking. I also am familiar with history, to see what happens, so yes, I'll stick with my over generalized opinion that monopolies usually evolve into an abusive situation, in the large and important industries anyway.

      As to apple, I don't use them any longer, nor would I buy an iPod, I think it's way over priced for what it does (I am not their target demographic anyway, I get by quite fine with a cheap FM portable radio). I used to be an apple fanboy from the late 80s to the late 90s, but not now. Too expensive for what they do.

      As to MS, I used to be a fanboy there as well, before I went to apple, I just stopped using them (3.11-95 era) when I saw their stuff was overpriced, insecure, buggy, and then I found out what a rat fink company they are. Their call to be nice and honest or be shady strong arm crooks,and I certainly didn't tell them to go down that path. They are convicted abusive monopolists, by various courts of laws in various jurisdictions, I think that's enough evidence to dis them and also to point out how incredibly greedy they are and that the abusive behavior never seems to end. I think some nice fat CEOs need to go to jail, but unfortunately our society concentrates on much lesser crimes when it comes to jail time. Personally, I think they should have had their corporate charter pulled long ago, along with any other company that accumulates a track record of serious large cash crimes. They'll chuck some common thief in jail after three felony convictions for *life*, yet corporations and their "leaders" seem to be able to just keep paying fines with corporate money,to the point now it's just a cost of doing business. Another example, I think whichever fatcat signed off on the sony rootkit should have faced however many thousands of counts of whatever computer hacking laws were violated in this or that area.

      I just think big corporate stuff like that is wrong. I have nothing, absolutely nothing, against any honest businessmen or corporations, not a blessed thing, I just don't care for the crooks and weasels and am not even close to being shy about saying it out loud.

  5. Lies, damned lies, and statistics by tb3 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've actually downloaded the PDF, and I've been reading through it. It's only 16 pages, and there's a hell of a lot of white space. There's also a lot of space taken up with a bunch of rather unimpressive bar charts.

    The problem is, they have absolutely no justification for any of their numbers. For instance, on page 5 they claim, "In 2008, IDC predicts that 80% of Microsoft client operating systems shipped into enterprises will be Windows Vista." But they can't back it up!

    They also admit they've only been looking at these numbers since 2002, so they've got no basis for comparison. In order for their 'study' to have any meaning, they'd have to compare it to the relative effects of the introduction of XP, compared to previous Microsoft operating systems. But they admit their data doesn't go back that far!

    Their 'predictions' have as much weight as those you'd get from your local psychic.

    --

    www.lucernesys.comHorizon: Calendar-based personal finance

  6. Re:ban the term wealth creation by IICV · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This won't get modded up since the article is too old, so I'm just posting it for your elucidation.

    Anyway, unlike energy, wealth can be created and destroyed. Consider cookies, for instance:
    I take some flour, sugar, butter, chocolate chips and other miscellaneous goods. The total value of these goods is only a bit more than a dollar.
    Using them in various arcane ways, I craft, say, a dozen chocolate chip cookies, the likes of which anyone would pay $.25 and think it was a good deal.
    So, we started out with about a dollar's worth of goods, and ended up with something like three dollars worth of cookies. There's now two more dollars worth of value in the economy, and it's all mine. This is what people mean when they say "wealth creation".

    If I were to, instead, just set all those ingredients aflame, the world's economy would be poorer by about a dollar. That would be the destruction of wealth.

    Of course, it's true that in a closed system, it would be impossible to create more than a certain amount of wealth. It's a good thing, then, that there's this big giant flaming ball of gas up in the sky spewing an unimaginable amount of energy in every direction, some of which fortunately falls on us.
    In a more universal sense, you could make the case that there's only a certain maximum amount of wealth possible; however, reaching that would involve things like dyson spheres and asteroid farms.