Slashdot Mirror
Bill Gates Reveals Secret of Microsoft's Success
Hugh Pickens writes "Bill Gates, in a interview with the BBC, revealed the secret of Microsoft's success: 'Most of our competitors were very poorly run. They did not understand how to bring in people with business experience and people with engineering experience and put them together,' said Gates. 'They did not think about software in this broad way. They did not think about tools or efficiency. They would therefore do one product, but would not renew it to get it to the next generation.' Mitch Kapor, founder of the Lotus Corporation, has a different view: 'Claims by Microsoft that people were buying the software because it was good are pretty self-serving. I'd like to smoke what he's smoking.' Gates also said that he took a 'conservative balance sheet approach' to running Microsoft explaining that he wanted 'great financial strength so we would have the flexibility to do software in the new way, or whatever we wanted to do.'"
Look at some of Open Source's so called success projects - Apache, it sucks to get locked down and requires a lot of technical knowledge to get properly setup.
Another one...OpenOffice.org. This one also sucks big time. After almost a decade in development, guys in the OSS wprld have not figured how to get the beast fast, and beautiful enough to grab one's attention.
I am happy to say that the KDE folks appear to get it with KDE 4.0. For the first time, I am happy to note that I will abandon Gnome for KDE after all, even staunch GNOME fan boys have pointed out that Gnome is living in an age of decadence.
Bill Gates is a Jew.
Michael Dell is a Jew.
there you go. That is why there are so successful.
--
[twitter: Erris Mactrope gnutoo inTheLoo willeyhill westbake Odder ibane deadzero freenix] See my homepage for info
-- [twitter: Erris Mactrope gnutoo inTheLoo willeyhill westbake Odder ibane deadzero freenix] See my homepage for info
I'm finding I don't have many options for choosing a laptop that doesn't come with Windows... I guess I'll have to hold out for the Linux abacus port.
--
cake or death?
I've not extensively used OS X, no. I think its ugly, plus i'm not cool and trendy enough to not be called gay for using it.
I like real BSD anyway.
IBM PC compatible operating systems.
How can you have a monopoly over a market you create ?
Other companies tried to compete with far superior products, but had their contracts dry up when Microsoft enforced per-processor liscensing.
Clearly they weren't "far superior", or customers would have preferred them.
If a company did choose to go with DR-DOS, MS would dump MS-DOS on the market at below market prices to lock out the competition.
I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about the timeframe when "IBM handed Microsoft a monopoly", not 7 years after that when DR-DOS was released.
Whine some more won't you?
I used to beat up people like you.
Don't break your wrist patting yourself on the back...
you fucking asshole.
Windows is unmitigated shit - and so is your company - and so are you.
Have a nice day.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
One thing I don't know is how much of the market you have to control to be a monopoly.
Becoming a monopoly does not happen at a particularly market share - indeed, market share is not really a factor.
In fact, one of the rather large problems with antitrust law is that a company has no way of knowing whether or not it is a monopoly until a court has ruled it as one.
But remember, being a monopoly doesn't have to be an issue, its only a problem if you use that power to eliminate competitors or to build a monopoly in another market.
No, you have to worry if you "abuse" your monopoly. Given that many perfectly normal business practices become "abusive" once you are a monopoly, it is - for all intents and purposes - impossible be a monopoly and not "abuse" it.
The simple fact is there has never been any point where you have not been able to easily buy a functionally equivalent alternative (where the "functions" are broad concepts like "spreadsheets" rather than specific applications) to a Windows PC. Which is I why I don't consider Microsoft to have _ever_ had a monopoly.
Although Microsoft has techincal talent, the business talent runs the show, charges the money...etc. The technical talent tries hard, releases poor products...etc...etc.
The real genuis and sucesss of microsoft is that the Marketing department is able to sell junk, and have the business talent to back it up. Too bad the technical talent again takes a back seat.
( They are very talented, they just dont get a chance to show it )
For instance: Excel 2003, latest update: ( Oh I didnt know they now longer supported it :( Nice business decision there..)
Math in the real world: 285,355.80+14,135.80=299,490.80
Math in Redmond Washington:
285,355.80+14,135.80=305,990.80 ( inflation of 10,600.00. ).
So, on a multi-million dollar contract bid, I now have a purhcase order for hard disks for the entire company, as well as a DVD burner to burn ISOs of open office. ( The sales guy at the local computer store quoted us the list price for Office Upgrades...)
As Bill Gates was saying in so many words: the secret to Microsoft's success is lying.
So? Why didn't your particular "hero" - "Steve"? "Linus"? Have HIS dear li'l mommy on the board that that you hate with so much passion?
In fact.. where was YOU "mommy"?
Out selling copies of CP/M?
Geez.. go give yer mommy a kick in the ass, Loser!
.
- aqk
F U