Slashdot Mirror


The Soul of A New Microsoft

BusinessWeek Online is running a front page story today about the new future of Microsoft. By 'looking beyond Windows', the company is utilizing fresh blood to come up with new products like the Zune, the Xbox 360, and various online sites. While the Zune probably isn't getting off to as successful a start as they might have liked, the article argues it's a positive sign that they're at least making the attempt. From the article: "The point is that Microsoft needs to find its un-Vista. Several of them, in fact. The software giant is entering perhaps the greatest upheaval in its 30-year history. New business models are emerging--from low-cost "open-source" software to advertising-supported Web services--that threaten Microsoft's core business like never before. For investors to care about the company, it needs to find new growth markets. Its $44.3 billion in annual sales are puttering along at an 11% growth pace. Its shares, which soared 9,560% throughout the 1990s, sunk 63% in 2000 when the Internet bubble burst, and they have yet to fully recover."

54 of 294 comments (clear)

  1. need to find their heart by yagu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The thesis is Microsoft needs to find their un-Vista? Hardly! Microsoft needs to find their heart. Or grow one.

    Their 30-year path is strewn with castoff competitors, and wannabe partners. Microsoft has sown nothing but ill-will for the duration of their tenure. I would welcome the change that shows Microsoft wants to be a good-citizen member of the IT community and market but the evidence isn't there, in fact there isn't even a glimmer of evidence, contrary to the article's these that things like "Zune" and "X-box" are starts in the right direction.

    Consider only the most recent step to re-invent, the Novell/Linux debacle. What many considered worth waiting for on good faith to be a positive step took only days to be revealed for what it was, more steps to stamp out any competition. As long as executives with the hubris of a Steve Ballmer control the direction of Microsoft, nothing positive will happen, period.

    And, what of the collaboration with Samsung, Creative and others? To what end other than wasted time and money for Microsoft's "partners"? Bah!

    An interesting quote from the article (Allard's response to bad words from Apple re: their Zune, and how Microsoft doesn't "get it"):

    Allard was using one of the oldest motivational tricks in the book--his version of a football coach posting an opponent's quote on the locker room wall. "I for one...want to see this guy eat his words," Allard wrote. "Those are fighting words. He is speaking to every one of us and saying that we don't get it."

    This only demonstrates how much Microsoft doesn't "get it". Microsoft benchmarks everything it does against perceived outside competition -- it'd be nice to see them invent their own cool stuff. Interestingly (to me), they had a chance to do just that with Zune, and completely blew it by trying to measure themselves against the ipod.

    I'm not saying Microsoft doesn't have the right to be a good tough business to make good products and good profits, but Microsoft has mostly been about making products barely clearing the bar while making usurious profits with (what eventually was ruled by DOJ, and the EU) illegal monopolistic leveraging.

    I know it's an old saw, but I've been waiting more than 20 years for market forces to take hold and allow technology to evolve in a marketplace that encourages competition, i.e., one that diminishes the Microsoft effect (how many company's do you know of whose business model included a goal or contingency to be bought out by Microsoft?). Microsoft may now reap what they've sown.

    1. Re:need to find their heart by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Microsoft didn't become a 300 billion dollar company by playing nice and innovating. They did it by figuring out where they needed to be after the innovators had already gotten there and done it first. They did this with operating systems, office software, and the world wide web. They got there second with a tolerable product and then marketed the hell out of it. Microsoft was rarely first, rarely best, and never nice, but they got the market share, and that's what made them a success. The Microsoft of old could sell snow to Alaskans (as an integral part of the Windows operating system, of course).


      As to whether Microsoft can get back in stride, hard to say. F. Scott Fitzgerald said that "There are no second acts in American lives", but as someone quipped, he was probably drunk when he said that. Steve Jobs managing to retake Apple and turn the company around shows that, but it also shows how important it is to have good leadership, and since Bill Gates has left, the company just hasn't been the ruthless, unstoppable, Borg-like entity it once was.

    2. Re:need to find their heart by NeoNastyNerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe that Microsoft is still being run by its original founders (Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer in particular), who still put forth the old Microsoft mentality. As new blood enters the company and the old (can I say "cancer?"), is finally evicted, they may actually turn into an ethical corporation. If you look at many of the MSDN blogs you can see that the developers coming into the company now are much more familiar with the FOSS and understand what it means. I see a sort of "grass roots" change going on within the company that will really take off once that loud mouth Ballmer finally lets go of his Empire mentality.

    3. Re:need to find their heart by QuietLagoon · · Score: 4, Insightful
      They got there second with a tolerable product and then marketed the hell out of it.

      Microsoft rose to the top by illegal business practices, from per-processor pricing to the illegal leveraging of their monopoly in order to get the marketshare. Read the trial transcripts where Microsoft execs admitted that they had to bundle second rate products with Windows in order to grab the marketshare.

    4. Re:need to find their heart by Taagehornet · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Microsoft has mostly been about making products barely clearing the bar
      Conveniently choosing to ignore the work done by Anders Hejlsberg & Co with the .net framework
      Conveniently choosing to ignore the groundbreaking research on language design and static code analysis done by the Spec# team
      Conveniently choosing to ignore that the debugger in Visual Studio stands head and shoulders above the competition
      Conveniently choosing to ignore how Microsoft has been able to establish itself as a major player in the game console world in surprisingly short time

      The list continues, but who am I kidding, could anyone here be bothered...
    5. Re:need to find their heart by NeoNastyNerd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess I would argue that the only reason the iPod has taken of is not because it is allowed to run on "other" operating systems but specifically because it will run on THE operating system: Windows. If you look at the MacOS market share vs iPod market share you will see that there just aren't enough Macs out there to match the 85% iPod market share. Microsoft does not have to make their music player run on other operating systems any more than Apple does; They just have to run on the dominant OS. I don't see Apple supporting the iPod on Linux...

      I strongly dislike the Zune but that is not what my posting was about. Microsoft is finally catching on that the OS of the future is going to be a web platform, and if they don't position themselves now they will very quickly be left behind as Google launches app after app that runs on any modern web browser. As far as the new blood not knowing how to make money, that is an unfair analysis of upcoming MBA students and youth in the workforce in general. I think there is a lot of hidden talent at Microsoft right now (business and technical), but the flowers are hidden behind an ugly rock (Ballmer), for the time being. Just wait for Ballmer to finally exit and the momentum will really take off. Just look at IBM of the 70's and 80's vs the IBM of today; corporations are made of people and people change. I believe Microsoft is in the process of transitioning from a "we do things our way or else," (see old IBM), to "we have no choice but to play fair," (see new IBM).

    6. Re:need to find their heart by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can't get to the top by leveraging a monopoly, because when you have a monopoly you're already at the top.

      There are so many valid criticisms it's a shame to make them up.

    7. Re:need to find their heart by oc255 · · Score: 2, Informative

      how many company's do you know of whose business model included a goal or contingency to be bought out by Microsoft?

      A couple. First, promised Unix integration in a domain. A product that would serve up /etc/passwd accounts to 2000 domains was brought to its knees by promised vaporware and then MS bought them out. Why would I buy a "Unix connector" when 2000 is promising to have it? Killed their revenue stream, was easy to make an offer. Classic vaporware, second-hand story.

      Next, not so harsh, MS approached our company saying they would develop their own cost auditing software for telcos. It didn't happen and I wonder if they were just willing to see how much we'd play ball. I don't have as much details on this one. But this was first-hand.
    8. Re:need to find their heart by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Win95 was barely on pare with Mac's System 6? Are you that ignorant?

      Win95 had pre-emptive multitasking and separate address spaces for each app. Mac OS used co-operative multitasking and shared memory space for all apps and the system until OSX. (I don't even know that System 6 had multitasking at all; iirc it had MultiFinder, which allowed the user to switch between multiple running tasks, but the tasks didn't run simultaneously. System 7 either introduced multitasking (co-operative) or at least vastly improved it over whatever System 6 had).

      And the api of Mac OS was horrible; horribly primitive. The api actually relied on publicly accessible system globals. Please!! The api relied on apps to explicitly manipulate fields of system data structures (Window and GrafPort structures, for example). It had ancient concepts like "hi" memory and "low" memory. It had "grow zones" to handle cases where an app used more memory than was allocated to it, which brings up another horrible aspect - the user actually had to explicitly tell the OS how much memory to allocate to each app. This is the system that you're praising! It was good when released in the 80's but by the 1991 and certainly 1995, it was horribly dated. Even Apple knew this, which is why they spent a few years trying to create a modern version of Mac OS in the failed Copland project (not to mention the Pink and Taligent fiascos, which were also failed attempts to create a modern OS). Classic Mac OS was NOT a good OS by any means when Win95 was released.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
    9. Re:need to find their heart by KDR_11k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yes but usually it's win on first try or die failing. MS is using their vast profit from their monopolies to force a console into the market against all forces of the market itself. The Xbox lost 5 billion dollars and sold barely more than the Gamecube. Only their monopolies kept it alive, everyone else would have thrown the towel after such a miserable bilance. Nintendo had reason to stay since the Gamecube was still profitable but the XBox was an utter failure by both metrics (sales and profit). MS is simply persistzent and rich enough to afford it. This is the brute force approach and the only way they can make their investment back is gaining a monopoly. Never mind that last I checked leveraging a monopoly you have to gain another monopoly is illegal (and I've seen a former monopoly telco get hit for "selling" phone time below cost to undercut competitors). While the razor and blade business model may be standard for the console market (although it was usually break even on the console instead of the huge losses we're seeing now) I'm not sure MS can do that as a convicted monopolist.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  2. Percent confusion by Nemetroid · · Score: 2, Informative
    Its shares, which soared 9,560% throughout the 1990s, sunk 63% in 2000 when the Internet bubble burst, and they have yet to fully recover."
    If there is someone out there that thinks this was a minor loss because of the strange wording, it wasn't.
    1. Re:Percent confusion by bmajik · · Score: 2, Funny

      As a resident of North Dakota, I take pleasure in frequently reminding those with disparaging remarks about ND of two "interesting" factoids:

      - ND has a sizeable portion of the worlds wheat
      - ND has a sizeable portion of the worlds nuclear weapons

      Oddly enough, MS has a development office in ND and employs around 1100 people here. None of them work on wheat or nuke distribution, to my knowledge :)

      --
      My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
  3. The market is crazy.. by LilWolf · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Its $44.3 billion in annual sales are puttering along at an 11% growth pace.
    Really, 11% growth is considered bad? That's 4,8 billion growth annually!
  4. Stories like this are perennial. by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "The software giant is entering perhaps the greatest upheaval in its 30-year history."

    Yeah, right. Like the upheaval when they announced a top-to-bottom-all-new-strategy named .NET, and the upheaval when they decided this Internet thing was really important and reorganized themselves top-to-bottom to take advantage of it, and the upheaval in 1995 when Bill Gates said that the "social interface" was the future of computing and introduced the all-new revolutionary Microsoft BOB.

    (Social interface? Come to think of it, where have I heard something like that out of Microsoft just recently...)

    Microsoft is always talking about upheavals, but meanwhile what they actually do is keep cranking out big bloated monolithic versions of Windows with badly-copied slightly-distorted features in other operating systems, and strong-arming PC vendors into preloading them.

    1. Re:Stories like this are perennial. by Kyokugenryu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know I'm going to get modded down for this, but I don't care. Why do people (in particular, *nix/Mac enthusiasts) love to simply rag on Microsoft SO much? There's a huge, huge, huge percentage of the computing world who's happy with Microsoft and would never DREAM of trying something else. I mean, I've run a myriad of OSes, like any good enthusiast, but aside from keeping BSD on my home server, I've always gone back to Windows. Why? They make the most intuitive products in the world. The Windows 95 GUI was amazing, which is why every major *nix distro worth its own weight uses a knockoff. In fact, the biggest thing I ever hear Mac/*nix guys say about the actual Windows GUI is that you have to press the "Start" button to shut down, which is the biggest nitpick I've ever seen. Microsoft does a lot, for a lot of consumers. Linux is clunky and extremely less intuitive than Windows, which is why I doubt this magical "Linux vs. Windows Desktop War" I always see being predicted here on /. will ever happen, let alone be won by Linux. Macs are very user friendly, I'll hand them that, and it now has the edge of running any software a PC can, but it still requires Windows (Another sale by MS) to do it, so it's a moot point. I think MS's target demo is Gamers and Newbies now, and they're doing a pretty good job pleasing the hell out of them.

    2. Re:Stories like this are perennial. by SeaFox · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot the upheaval to make security a top priority.

  5. Instead of luck, they'd need to compete by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Thing is, their success with Windows was being at the right place at the right time, utilizing ruthless business tactics and just being plain lucky.

    They could get away for a decade worth of half-assed technical side and marketing because of their monopoly. Thing is, whenever they tried to enter another market, it raised the question why. When looking at their attempts, many people drew the conclusion, that they wanted to compete at any price and that's why they threw their sometimes failing products out there. In retrospect I think we can say that they tried to perform their usual strategy, but without the backing of the monopoly they fell flat on their face. Of course, the notable exception is the Xbox 360. It might be luck, or that the Xbox division independent enough from the core MS that it can make itself work.

    Microsoft is not reinventing itself, at least not yet. Zune is an utter failure and I can't think of any single successful product apart from Xbox 360, Windows and Office that was a success. The last two wells are drying up.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:Instead of luck, they'd need to compete by I'm+Don+Giovanni · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "They never innovated a single thing."

      Weren't they the first to have a web browser component usable by other apps?
      And they have MCE, which Apple is copying with FrontRow. And now there are rumors that Apple will be copying Tablet PC.
      Excel had tabbed worksheets long before the concept was added to browsers.
      Excel introduced pivot tables.
      Microsoft introduced the "squiggly" line for on-the-fly spell check.
      Microsoft introduced the ability to embed one app's object into another app's document and allow the user to edit the object inplace using the object app's tools (I refer to OLE). Windows has had that since 1993 while Linux and Mac still have yet to have anything to rival it.
      Microsoft had Terraserver, which Google ripped off with Google Maps.
      Microsoft introduced the ability to edit and recompile C code while debugging it.
      Microsoft introduced the "floating pallette" of Mac Office.
      They have many innovations in Office 2007.

      Microsoft has had many innovations (they have the 2nd largest software patent portfolio (second to IBM)). I won't list them all (you're ignorant ass isn't worth the effort). They have a lot more innovations than does the Linux "community" or Apple.

      --
      -- "I never gave these stories much credence." - HAL 9000
  6. Tip to Microsoft, Sony and the media industry by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Tip to Microsoft, Sony and the media industry: Stop trying to control things absolutely and bullying anyone who doesn't play ball. These are actions of spoiled children and do everything to alienate the customer. The fact you still have customers is a testiment that many people don't realise how badly you are screwing them. The companies that end up getting the most support are those who have good balance of trying to be successful and appealing to the customers interests. Respect is earned not inforced.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
  7. Factoid by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Funny

    Factoid: Microsoft owns the domains www. anti zune.com / net / org. But they do not own www.zune.com.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  8. What The?!? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would think the Zune, which requires the use of its own piss poor (and proprietary) music format, it's crapload of DRM, and it's incompatability with EVERYTHING that came before it would indicate they are going in the exact same direction as always. The major problem with Ipod is DRM which doesn't allow me to do stuff I should legally have the right to do. Is Microsoft getting rusty and not even able to know WHAT to copy anymore. Anyway, I guess Zune is bed with the so-called "Music Industry" anyway, automatically meaning it is a product that faces backward and not forward.

    1. Re:What The?!? by ericdano · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The major problem with Ipod is DRM which doesn't allow me to do stuff I should legally have the right to do."

      Such as? Lets see, you can burn your purchases to CD. You can have them on multiple computers and iPods. What do you, legally, have the right to do with the songs that you cannot do?

      --
      It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
      I moderate therefore I rule!
      --
    2. Re:What The?!? by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, Apple has let you burn Audio CDs of purchases off the iTunes store since the beginning. I don't know where you came up with the idea that you cannot burn a CD.

      He's saying that yes, you can burn a CD - the capability is there and always has been there, but there never was the legal right that you may burn a CD - and thus Apple's DRM, in some ways at least, allows more abilities than the law protects rights.

  9. The Name is "Gary Kildall". by reporter · · Score: 5, Informative
    The name that you are seeking is "Gary Kildall". His work revolutionized the operating system (OS) on personal computers (PC), and many of his ideas survive into the modern PC OS.

    To summarize a very long story, an employee at Seattle Computer Products (SCP) cloned (i.e., ripped off) CP/M, which Kildall developed. Bill Gates, the young founder of Microsoft, licensed an OS to IBM, but this OS was not yet under the control of Gates. In other words, Gates sold a product that he did not actually have. After inking the deal with IBM, Gates then bought a permanent liftime license to SCP's OS. That OS morphed over a two decades into the infamous line of Windows OSes.

    As for Kildall, he understandably became very bitter. Kildall was financially well off, but he never achieved either the fame or the wealth that Gates achieved. If Gates had gotten the billion-dollar wealth but Kildall had gotten the fame (for his work on OSes), then Kildall would probably have accepted the outcome. However, Kildall achieved neither the fame nor the wealth. The bitterness drove Kildall to essentially commit suicide by drinking himself to death. He died in a bar.

    I understand Kildall's feelings. Someone had screwed me in the same way that Gates screwed Kildall.

    1. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "He died in a bar... I understand Kildall's feelings. Someone had screwed me in the same way that Gates screwed Kildall."

      The way you tell it, it sounds like Kildall screwed himself by measuring his success ("wealth and fame") against that of Gates.

      Bad idea. Envy is not only a shitty business model -- as one J Allard is currently discovering to his chagrin -- but it's also a crappy way to live your life.

    2. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by Sinbios · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If Kildall couldn't have made the business decision that Gates made with that first transaction, then he really doesn't deserve any of the fame or wealth of Microsoft today. If Gates hadn't done what he did, I really doubt Kildall could have taken the opportunity to go as far as Microsoft did, anyway.

      --
      Anyone can "stand up for what they believe", but it takes a very brave individual to change what they believe. - Loundry
    3. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by bogjobber · · Score: 5, Informative

      Why the hell does QDOS get such a bad rap for ripping off CP/M? As far as I understand it, all they did was clone the API. It had near-identical functionality as CP/M, but nobody working on QDOS had any knowledge of the actual CP/M code. When DRI stalled in discussions with IBM, Microsoft jumped on the opportunity to take their place. If Kildall really desired the fame and wealth, then he shouldn't have screwed up the business deal with IBM. What is wrong with that? Is there something I'm missing? I never hear people complaining about companies cloning IBM PC's. Am I just wildly misinformed?

    4. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by kabdib · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If Gary had been on the ball technically (instead of being self-absorbed and not seeming to worry about the company's long-term prospects) then utter disasters like GEM would never have happened.

      DRI became technically irrelevant around 1986. They could have saved things, they could have hired better people, done some decent UI design, gotten some apps together, done some decent technology, but they just pissed the opportunity away.

      Microsofties might have been arrogant, but at least they were willing to cut you some slack once they realized you knew what you were doing. The DRI folks never got past arrogance and a high-falutin' "we can't possibly be wrong" attitude. Found a bug in the linker, or CP/M, or GEMDOS? You had to prove it six different ways, then they'd fix it WRONG. (My apologies to the (few) DRI people who treated my team like human beings).

      If Killdall had seen the level at which his people were operating, if he'd seen how his company was being screwed up at its roots (quality of code, of design, of customer interaction) then DRI might have survived. They had their chance and blew it, and I don't miss them.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is insufficiently documented.
    5. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by westlake · · Score: 2, Informative
      the as-yet unreleased CP/M-86 was {IBM's] first choice for an operating system because CP/M had the most applications at the time. Negotiations between Digital Research and IBM quickly deteriorated over IBM's non-disclosure agreement and its insistence on a one-time fee rather than DRI's usual royalty licensing plan. After discussions with Microsoft, IBM licensed an operating system similar to CP/M that a Seattle area computer company had made for its own hardware. This system became PC-DOS. CP/M-86

      Gates gambled that he could deliver a serviceable OS in time for the scheduled release of the IBM PC. He kept the asking price low. He negotiated a non-exclusive license that helped open to door to the PC-clone.

      In entrepreneur capitalism this is what separates the men from the boys. You cut a deal and you make it work.

      Kidall mistakenly thought he had more time and a stronger position from which to bargain.

      CP/M-86 arrived too late and cost much more than people were willing to pay.

    6. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by westlake · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Am I just wildly misinformed?

      no. it's just that this bedtime tale of heroes and villains is easier to live with than the truth.

    7. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by mdfst13 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of all the people with whom Microsoft has dealt, they did well by Kildall. Since their software ran on CP/M, they kept sending him customers.

      IBM wanted software written to work with their new PC. A high ranking executive knew Gates' mom (Mary Gates). IBM approached Microsoft and asked for some help. As part of that talk, Microsoft told them that they were using CP/M as their OS and sent IBM to Kildall. Kildall almost screwed Microsoft here. IBM and Microsoft had a deal, which almost failed because of Kildall's failure to nail down a deal. Microsoft saved the deal by delivering a version of QDOS (which Patterson originally developed because Kildall didn't want to port CP/M to the 8088 chip). Why did they need a CP/M clone? Because their software ran on CP/M.

      Microsoft handed Kildall the biggest software deal ever, and he dropped it on the floor. Note that this is discussed in your wiki link. Check out the "Oral History" of Gordon Eubanks.

      Anytime Microsoft abuses its monopoly power, remember this. It's all Kildall's fault. Without him, Microsoft would never have entered the OS business. They would have stayed a compiler company and instead of using their PC OS (sales via IBM) to fund the development of Windows and Office, they would have had to have done so with just compiler sales.

      Microsoft had two major events that led to the current situation:

      1. Being forced to enter the OS market.
      2. Betting the farm on the Windows version of Office.

      Note that without the OS business, they might not have been in a financial position to develop Windows or Office. Businesses around the world might be using Word Perfect and 1-2-3 as the standards still.

    8. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by daviddennis · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think there's a little more to the story than this. Qdos had some features that made it distinctly superior to CP/M, and CP/M itself was largely based on an even more ancient operating system.

      For instance to copy a file, CP/M required that a program called PIP (Peripheral Interchange Program I think) be on a floppy disk in your computer. You could then use its arcane syntax:

      A> pip
      *a:=b:foo.txt

      Qdos had a copy command in memory so it didn't have to be ondisk. The syntax was also a little more intuitive:

      A> copy foo.txt b:

      I might add that if my memory serves the PIP command and CP/M's 6+3 file structure were copied from DEC's RT/11 operating system. Essentially, CP/M was RT/11 for microcomputers except it left out some of RT/11's nicer features, like background processing.

      Qdos was a solid incremental improvement then. It added commands like 'copy', replaced the 6+3 file system with an 8+3 file system, and I'm sure there were other improvements I know little about.

      The original developer of QDOS worked on and off for Microsoft for over a decade in total. He also founded other companies. It doesn't look like he's mad at Bill most likely because in the aggregate Bill paid him quite a bit of money as an employee, and by taking over one of his later companies. Although not as rich as Bill Gates, I'm sure he's very comfortable.

      D

    9. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Microsoft is currently busy Zuning themselves to death because of iPod envy.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    10. Re:The Name is "Gary Kildall". by Bamafan77 · · Score: 2, Informative
      "Kildall was financially well off, but he never achieved either the fame or the wealth that Gates achieved. If Gates had gotten the billion-dollar wealth but Kildall had gotten the fame (for his work on OSes), then Kildall would probably have accepted the outcome. However, Kildall achieved neither the fame nor the wealth. The bitterness drove Kildall to essentially commit suicide by drinking himself to death. He died in a bar."
      Anyone one who kills himself for not being rich or famous enough (especially if he's already rich and very famous in certain circles as was Kildall) probably is a miserable person anyway and in need of psychiatric help.

      Additionally,from your linked Wikipedia entry:

      When the IBM PC was introduced, IBM sold the operating system as an unbundled (but necessary) option. One of the operating system options was PC-DOS, priced at US$60. A new port of CP/M, called CP/M-86, was offered a few months later and priced at $240. Largely due to its early availability and the substantial price difference, PC-DOS became the preferred operating system.
      You say Gates "ripped off" Kildall. It sounds to me that Gates sold a compelling alternative that was 4 times cheaper and did the job well enough that users didn't care. Kildall was a rich guy who got beat in business by someone who was smarter in this specific instance. Hardly worth killing yourself over. It's time we stopped feeling so sorry for this guy (outside of his obvious need for psychiatric help).
  10. Open source isn't a business model by Ant+P. · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a concept someone found a way to profit off of. It can exist just fine without business, so MS are pretty much screwed if they try competing with it.

    1. Re:Open source isn't a business model by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's because the people that write these articles are just like Microsoft... they see computers as money making machines and only the computer's ability to improve people's lives secondarily or if all.

      Everything related to computers has to be "business" to these people... it has nothing to do with providing good products or changing the world in any sort of good way.

      And, and it's a common theme around here, the population is too dumb to know any difference...

  11. You can draw comparisons with another company... by Aphrika · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Apple.

    Seriously, in 1997 Apple was on the brink of extermination. It had a stale product line, and abortive OS update (Copland) begun in 1994 which was eventually canned, it's replacement to appear a massive 7 years later as OS X. And you think MS's handling of Vista was bad...

    Them boom! Jobs is back, the iMac appears, OS X appears, the iPod appears, switches to Intel, Apple reinvents itself again - successfully. You could argue that Jobs is pretty much the heart and soul of Apple.

    Microsoft don't have anyone like that. You could argue that Bill Gates is, but most of the projects he's personally championed have been niche markets. Sure, they've had their successful market areas; Windows Mobile, Xbox, Windows Mediacenter, Auto PCs, but you kind of wish they'd look again at what people want.

    Apple get it; get a person iTunes, an iPod and a Mac and they're sorted for most of their entertainment needs. Want it around the house? Get an Airtunes adaptor.

    Sony don't get it; PSP speaks to PS3, and um... ATRAC? Minidisc? Er... Memory Stick slots? Their idea of a digital home doesn't incorporate other vendors and isn't feature-complete. On its own, Sony stuff doesn't make you go 'wow'.

    Microsoft desperately need to get it and the thing they have going in their favour is - ironically - interoperability. Apple and Sony are stuck in lock-in land - our kit, our standards, our profit. If Microsoft took their head out of the sand for a moment and realised this, bit their lip and went with something a bit more open-minded, then they could really make a difference. However, like Sony and Apple, I think they'll be putting their bottom line/market share first, and what consumers want second. It's nice that we're seeing a change though and that they're having a shot at trying new stuff with the Xbox 360 (definitely a great console, no matter how you cut it) and Zune (average first try), but they need to try a bit harder...

  12. Re:In Todays News.. by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 2, Funny

    > Microsoft ponders acquisition of a Soul

    I always thought they were into stealing souls.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
  13. Re:I have an idea for Microsoft... by bogaboga · · Score: 3, Insightful
    No thanks. I'm sick of Microsoft assuming they own my bloody computer! It's mine, not theirs! The way IE7 is foisted on us whether we like it or not - that's just plain arrogant. Microsoft doesn't get this either - it's MY BLOODY COMPUTER!

    But it's Microsoft's Operating System. You are just a licensee! And Microsoft could choose to withdraw its license at anytime. Microsoft could argue that it has a right to to the "necessary" with its software. After all you agreed to its licensing terms when you installed it.

  14. Am I the only one getting mixed messages? by MMaestro · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Its shares, which soared 9,560% throughout the 1990s, sunk 63% in 2000 when the Internet bubble burst, and they have yet to fully recover.

    So Microsoft's stock flies to Mars in the 90's and then comes back to the moon in 2000 after the .com bubble? Someone wanna tell me why Microsoft should take its eyes off the OS market? Sounds like they're not the uber juggernaut they once were, but they're not exactly going to declare bankruptcy anytime soon.

  15. The parallels are almost perfect by tkrotchko · · Score: 2, Interesting

    .NET = SAA
    Vista = OS/2

    Proving the computer industry is like a Saturday afternoon matinee...if you hang around long enough, things start repeating themselves.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
  16. Re:You can draw comparisons with another company.. by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Them boom! Jobs is back, the iMac appears, OS X appears, the iPod appears, switches to Intel, Apple reinvents itself again - successfully. You could argue that Jobs is pretty much the heart and soul of Apple.

    Which goes to show how good Apple's marketing really is. Apple has exactly one undebatably successful product: the iPod. The Mac's marketshare is (still) microscopic and irrelevent, and not even growing significantly (in fact, I think marketshare may have fallen, but I'm not up on recent stats). You could possibly argue iTunes is a success, but again, their marketshare of music in general is nothing.

    Jobs' real genius is in -- I hate to say it -- lying. He can twist facts around to convince people of nearly the opposite (this is infamously called the "reality distortion field" by the employees, though to be fair, his salesmanship can also be inspiring as well). He's basically a high-level slick used-car salesman.

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  17. How the Zune Compares by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Here's some insight on how they holidays are looking so far. I know the scale is terrible so here's another that shows how things haven't changed much after the original (notice that the Sansa didn't even have that much excitment) announcement- not even for the release date. Also notice the lack of recent news releases for Zune- Google conspiracy? I think Not.

    Finally, something a little more objective.

    As far as Windows goes, if MS wants to make real progress they'd break binary compatibility (san virtualization per "Classic"), get rid of legacy hardware support and depreciate/destroy old APIs. 'Course my theory is that Microsoft isn't interested in progress. That said, I'm bit jealous of Picasa and the Filmstrip view.

  18. Aren't these all by Colin+Smith · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just innovative ways of making a loss?

    --
    Deleted
  19. Zune exposes the true heart of Microsoft by hmbcarol · · Score: 3, Insightful

    While the Zune hardware is not bad, the execution of the whole package lays bare the heart of Microsoft.

    Having DRM I can deal with because I can choose to not purchase music from their store. I can obtain it elsewhere. But the fact they send money to Universal Music just from selling the hardware exposes whose side they are on. Even if I never buy from the RIAA they get their pound of flesh. Buyers are forced to pay the "music thief" tax.

    Buy a Zune and send money to the people who will sue you or some old lady next year.

    I also find it astounding people fall for their "point" scheme. Buy points now and leave a few dozen on the table each time you buy music. They make interest from all those points and mock you with it. It's anti-consumer like 10 hotdogs in a package versus 8 buns in a pack. It forces you to buy more than you want.

    The faux-cool of the "it's got wifi and it's not an iPod" crowd astounds me. They are so eager to be "so cool they can't sell out by owning an iPod" are the very same people causing money to go to the RIAA and buying into the very vender who will enslave their music and hardware later.

    Make no mistake. The reason MS sends money to Universal Music is to make it harder for all of the other hardware venders to avoid it. It sets up MS as the only people who will be able to do this. To borrow a bad line, "in the future all MP3 players are Microsoft".

    BTW, and who thought of the "squirting music" to a Brown Zune bit? Probably the same one who thought "Welcome to the Social" was as sophisticated as the Dr Scholls "I'm Gelli'n, are you Gelli'n" ads. Ecch.

    The only one who deserves a Brown Zune for Christmas is Bill Gates.

  20. It's a problem of large numbers by gelfling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order for MS to grow and for its stock to grow it has to create the equivalent of a Fortune 200 company every year. This is simply not feasible via internal organic growth. So MS has to do both of the following: it has to acquire companies ASAP and it has to grow into new markets. The problem with acquisition is that MS is a victim of their own success. There aren't that many companies left to buy. With 90% of the market, who is there left to vanquish? The problem with new markets is that it places them in the same crap shoot as everyone else. They have to be willing to bet a lot of money on projects that have a high likelihood of failure.

  21. This article gets it totally wrong by Overly+Critical+Guy · · Score: 5, Interesting
    By 'looking beyond Windows', the company is utilizing fresh blood to come up with new products like the Zune, the Xbox 360, and various online sites.

    Wow, totally wrong. Microsoft is always focused on the Windows platform. What the hell do you think the Zune and the XBox 360 exist for? The Zune only runs on Windows and uses Windows audio formats, and the XBox 360 runs Windows and uses DirectX.

    This author is arguing that Microsoft is going outside of Windows with these devices, when Microsoft is actually using them to drive even more dependency on Windows and its related technologies. Every single thing Microsoft does can be viewed through the prism of preserving or extending their platform in some way. The Zune is a response to the iPod's Windows-independent digital media, and the XBox was a response to the Playstation's gobbling up of the PC gaming market, .NET and web services was a response to Java, and so forth. The company exhibits a sort of reactionary paranoia to everything that is always intended to preserve the Windows platform.
    --
    "Sufferin' succotash."
  22. a radical idea that will never happen by sepharious · · Score: 2, Interesting

    make windows open-source and sell support for it, the user-base is already there, the software support is there and contrary to what alot of /. thinks, there are good ideas and features of Windows that could be further developed by the inclusion of a wider development audience. this may not be the cash cow that Microsoft is used to, but its better than dying off from a lack of creativity and vision. and maybe, just maybe, they'd get some of their more elusive projects out of the door (WinFS anyone?)

    --
    Did you know that you can be apathetic to apathy? Not that I give a shit...
  23. Re:In Todays News.. by Headcase88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn those EULAs!

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  24. We're funding Microsoft's "ventures" by gamer4Life · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We're the ones that are funding all of Microsoft's foray into console development and digital music players. We pay the Windows tax which gets funnelled into these worthless products of theirs. Not much of what Microsoft does is innovative. XBox? Zune? They do nothing for the advancement of technology. At least with Sony, they innovate somewhat. From the Cell to Blu-ray, at least that's new. Microsoft just takes a market segment and uses it's Windows monopoly to dominate.

    Boycott the Zune and the XBox - get them to do something innovative for once.

  25. Re:You forgot ... by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Informative

    They paid that to get Apple to drop the lawsuits they had going for Microsoft stealing the source code for QuickTime and putting it into Video for Windows, plus a license on all of Apple's patents.

    --
    Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
  26. The way out is in your hands. by slapys · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Recently we have seen many examples of unethical business behavior from Microsoft Corp. Readers of this website respond like they are surprised.

    Microsoft is just another company with an obligation to its shareholders to continually increase profits. The tactics it has used to do so have hardly been ethical, but the company is financially successful. What would you do in an authoritative position in Microsoft? Open Office's document format? Issue a press release to all major PC manufacturers that they are freely allowed to install other operating systems? Of course you wouldn't. You would use your authoritative position to make decisions that maximize profits. Just because none of you would ever enter such a position due to your beliefs does not matter.

    What did you expect? Stop sitting around hoping that Microsoft will behave ethically and change its ways. It will not. The only way out is for a competitive (powerful, robust, and cost-effective) alternative to exist. Slashdot enjoys an educated readership. If you want to see this company's market share shrink for the benefit of the computing world, make a contribution of time and effort to Microsoft Windows' most cost-effective competitor. Join the Ubuntu Linux community.

  27. Your comment is a bit unfair to Bill Gates. by master_p · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think your comment is a little unfair towards Bill Gates. CP/M was a very limited operating system, compared to MS-DOS 2.0 and later versions...and Windows NT has nothing to do with CP/M!

    Lots of people are bitter towards Bill Gates, but the fact is that he was the one that saw the business opportunities and therefore got a chance to shape the future...

  28. Re:The name actually is "Tim Paterson". by C0rinthian · · Score: 2, Funny
    There is no moral or legal president (and never will be)
    I'm amazed noone caught this politically charged typo.