That simply isn't the case. IE is free of charge, VS is free of charge (for all intents and purposes), UI does not have to be the prettiest to be effective. There is a pattern in leading and following. MSFT reacts to the little things like browsers and refactoring because there aren't billions to be made from it. As an investor I applaud those sound business practices. Even Search, while intesting from Ad Revenue perspective is only interesting; the stickiness is what sells Ads....not the technology. Look at XBOX and Zune. Combined I doubt those two brands are going to make enough to justify themselves. But five years from now the convergence (yea, that's an overused term) of these brands will surprise many people and MSFT will be viewed as an innovator.
I fully anticipate that the next computing revolution will happen because of two companies: MSFT and IBM. Everyone else will be playing catch up....including Google.
I don't think the computing public (and some analysts for that matter) understand how Microsoft and Google differ WRT innovation. Microsoft spends $6B annual on R&D. They own patents that currently aren't reasonable to move to production because of hardware and network limitations. I fully expect these innovations are going to once again revolutionize software in less than 20 years. Google, OTOH, is working on catching Microsoft in software as a service. They are also working to adopt a Web 2.0 (is there anything more overhped than Web 2.0?) business strategy.....as is MSFT. The difference is GOOG is building out the corporate infrastructure for 2.0 while MSFT already has it.
After 2.0 collapses with massive investments made by tech companies (not dissimilar to the network upgrades made by MCI, ATT, et al) each of these companies will be measured by the ongoing success of their core businesses. One is still a software vendor and one is still an advertising company. Investors will decide what's worth more to them. The short term answer is clear but I wonder what the long term answer is?
The real question is, if I went to Wharton, Kellog, HU, SU, Yale, etc....why would I want to work at Google? If I went to MIT I would want to compete against Google. They should focus on getting the best employee they can, while they can, regardless of education.
Google is at it's peak right now. The employees should enjoy it. Eventually, they are going to enter the Consumer Support game and they will also have to start selling into Corporations and then Small/medium sized businesses. When that happens they are going to be hiring from ITT and every other vocational school there is. Companies like MSFT, IBM, ACN, HP et al are getting the large numbers of "above the mean" kids. They might not be getting the top 1% but they don't need to. History repeats itself and Google will make the same mistake of arrogance these other companies have made.
Great point! But here's the rub.
To sell ANYTHING in a B2B relationship you need to get the product message in front of the buyer. And that's where shit breaks down. Lazy executives need cues and they don't know how to manage email (or their people) and need to be reminded about everything. And that's where PPT and paper comes in. I hate it...maybe we could fire them?
Bravo.
Also, I think we should consider disposable time for entertainment and home theaters.
I have kids, a job, a wife, etc. I have zero time to invest on the weekends for movies. Then, considering these movies are rehashes I certainly won't waste valuable time on them.
Secondly, there is an explosion of home theaters and "large televisions" in this country. Those are large budget items that likely reduce the budget for entertainment like movies. And, as mentioned above, if I can sit in my basement home theater with my family or just my wife without any outside interfence and watch a movie with cheap popcorn, why woulndn't I do it? Plus...I can always pause for a bathroom break. And...I can watch a movie at home in a shorter time that I can at Regal.
Waaaaaaaaay more than one table. This is actually a project unto itself. It looks easy but it ain't. Also, the Guide, as it were, is patented by the company that owns TV Guide. I think it might be Gemstar?
The market that determines these things is not interested in the 5K twentysomethings that edit video....Apple can handle that. See those funny commercials?
However, for most of the computing world a central desktop publisher is totally viable and totally a great business model. Put your head in the sand if you like, but it is coming. The software (at least from MSFT) is not ready yet but it is getting there.
FYI...I program & compile & debug apps on VMs in the Cloud. No problems at all.
Many, many, many of Microsoft's largest customers want an easy to manage, easy to migrate, cost contolled solution that is an alternative to the "desktop".
Additonally, many, many, many of the Microsoft's largest customers want someone else to Host Exchange for them. It has a HUGE number of features that bring value to IT but it is difficult to maintain for several reasons.
Beyond those two reasons, there are many, many, many small to medium sized companies that can't afford IT...they are also good candidates.
Come on, aren't you guys supposed to understand the Business of IT? Rather than just blindly bashing MSFT, take some time to learn how business works.
Interesting...I suppose those French that are actually employed work harder. Probably to keep their jobs because of the 24% unemployment rate.
I just don't understand why the Europeans don't develop a BETTER OS and Productivity Suite?
Disagree. The 360 is more "MEdia Center" than the PS3.
It is an MCX (Media Center Extender (DVR)), DVD player, HDDVD Player, internet radio, gaming console, etc.
What exactly is the problem here? They want on Open Standard. Why? Nearly everyone already uses.DOC.
If they don't like it why not author their own OS or Productivity Suite? Why not buy one from IBM or Sun or some Unix derivative. Ohhhh, that's right...they can't make it work as well as those authored by Microsoft.
So, instead of innovating, they are going to litigate and legislate the hard working Americans in Redmond to GIVE IT TO THEM. That's so European...let's whine until somebody else does it for us.
Slashdot Mirror
That simply isn't the case. IE is free of charge, VS is free of charge (for all intents and purposes), UI does not have to be the prettiest to be effective. There is a pattern in leading and following. MSFT reacts to the little things like browsers and refactoring because there aren't billions to be made from it. As an investor I applaud those sound business practices. Even Search, while intesting from Ad Revenue perspective is only interesting; the stickiness is what sells Ads....not the technology. Look at XBOX and Zune. Combined I doubt those two brands are going to make enough to justify themselves. But five years from now the convergence (yea, that's an overused term) of these brands will surprise many people and MSFT will be viewed as an innovator. I fully anticipate that the next computing revolution will happen because of two companies: MSFT and IBM. Everyone else will be playing catch up....including Google.
I don't think the computing public (and some analysts for that matter) understand how Microsoft and Google differ WRT innovation. Microsoft spends $6B annual on R&D. They own patents that currently aren't reasonable to move to production because of hardware and network limitations. I fully expect these innovations are going to once again revolutionize software in less than 20 years. Google, OTOH, is working on catching Microsoft in software as a service. They are also working to adopt a Web 2.0 (is there anything more overhped than Web 2.0?) business strategy.....as is MSFT. The difference is GOOG is building out the corporate infrastructure for 2.0 while MSFT already has it. After 2.0 collapses with massive investments made by tech companies (not dissimilar to the network upgrades made by MCI, ATT, et al) each of these companies will be measured by the ongoing success of their core businesses. One is still a software vendor and one is still an advertising company. Investors will decide what's worth more to them. The short term answer is clear but I wonder what the long term answer is?
The real question is, if I went to Wharton, Kellog, HU, SU, Yale, etc....why would I want to work at Google? If I went to MIT I would want to compete against Google. They should focus on getting the best employee they can, while they can, regardless of education. Google is at it's peak right now. The employees should enjoy it. Eventually, they are going to enter the Consumer Support game and they will also have to start selling into Corporations and then Small/medium sized businesses. When that happens they are going to be hiring from ITT and every other vocational school there is. Companies like MSFT, IBM, ACN, HP et al are getting the large numbers of "above the mean" kids. They might not be getting the top 1% but they don't need to. History repeats itself and Google will make the same mistake of arrogance these other companies have made.
Great point! But here's the rub. To sell ANYTHING in a B2B relationship you need to get the product message in front of the buyer. And that's where shit breaks down. Lazy executives need cues and they don't know how to manage email (or their people) and need to be reminded about everything. And that's where PPT and paper comes in. I hate it...maybe we could fire them?
Great idea....and we'll call it InfoCard.
Next/.
I apologize for not being clear. I meant better...that Linux thing is really grabbing market share!
Bravo. Also, I think we should consider disposable time for entertainment and home theaters. I have kids, a job, a wife, etc. I have zero time to invest on the weekends for movies. Then, considering these movies are rehashes I certainly won't waste valuable time on them. Secondly, there is an explosion of home theaters and "large televisions" in this country. Those are large budget items that likely reduce the budget for entertainment like movies. And, as mentioned above, if I can sit in my basement home theater with my family or just my wife without any outside interfence and watch a movie with cheap popcorn, why woulndn't I do it? Plus...I can always pause for a bathroom break. And...I can watch a movie at home in a shorter time that I can at Regal.
Waaaaaaaaay more than one table. This is actually a project unto itself. It looks easy but it ain't. Also, the Guide, as it were, is patented by the company that owns TV Guide. I think it might be Gemstar?
The market that determines these things is not interested in the 5K twentysomethings that edit video....Apple can handle that. See those funny commercials? However, for most of the computing world a central desktop publisher is totally viable and totally a great business model. Put your head in the sand if you like, but it is coming. The software (at least from MSFT) is not ready yet but it is getting there. FYI...I program & compile & debug apps on VMs in the Cloud. No problems at all.
Many, many, many of Microsoft's largest customers want an easy to manage, easy to migrate, cost contolled solution that is an alternative to the "desktop". Additonally, many, many, many of the Microsoft's largest customers want someone else to Host Exchange for them. It has a HUGE number of features that bring value to IT but it is difficult to maintain for several reasons. Beyond those two reasons, there are many, many, many small to medium sized companies that can't afford IT...they are also good candidates. Come on, aren't you guys supposed to understand the Business of IT? Rather than just blindly bashing MSFT, take some time to learn how business works.
Interesting...I suppose those French that are actually employed work harder. Probably to keep their jobs because of the 24% unemployment rate. I just don't understand why the Europeans don't develop a BETTER OS and Productivity Suite?
Disagree. The 360 is more "MEdia Center" than the PS3. It is an MCX (Media Center Extender (DVR)), DVD player, HDDVD Player, internet radio, gaming console, etc.
What exactly is the problem here? They want on Open Standard. Why? Nearly everyone already uses .DOC.
If they don't like it why not author their own OS or Productivity Suite? Why not buy one from IBM or Sun or some Unix derivative. Ohhhh, that's right...they can't make it work as well as those authored by Microsoft.
So, instead of innovating, they are going to litigate and legislate the hard working Americans in Redmond to GIVE IT TO THEM. That's so European...let's whine until somebody else does it for us.