Well, i think the insight that it is not that microsoft is so smart- rather that its competition is so stupid, insipid and unable to market their ware... i think that is informative.
I read this book last night and today. the book is pretty much in touch with reality.
Overall view of the author, yes MSFT is big, bad and pretty much unethical. But so are other software companies. Oracle and larry ellison are not exactly saints.
But MSFT could have been defeated not for the shortsightedness and downright stupidity of other software companies.
It was their battles to lose and they lost.
Netscape could have beaten MSFT. Borland could have beaten MSFT. Apple could have beaten MSFT.
The book I think focuses are more pervasive mistakes. Not bad ad campaigns.
Re:If the review is accurate, the book is revision
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 1
>>>Microsoft already had almost complete control over the desktop before Windows 95 was released.
True. But Win 95 was soooo bad, and crashed sooooo often- that Apple still could have taken the lead, had they not been (and still are) sooooo short sighted and not licensing the mac OS.
Re:Apple not licensing is not a Marketing mistake
on
In Search of Stupidity
·
· Score: 1
>>Market share is just one of many factors determining the success of a company, but it's not the only one. Apple has higher revenues than Dell right now, and is making sweet profits, which is an even bigger factor in success.
What a short sided comment. Apple could have made tens of billions more had they opened up their OS.
Most of their profits are from the ipod.
>>Licensing, I agree, would be a great boon for consumers, but there is no evidence than it would have been good for Apple
Are you out of your mind? Why does Apple have 4% of the market now? They are such a non-entity. They are only making money off their ipods.
Licensing would have been the ultimate difference and they blew it.
Slashdot Mirror
>>>The book never says Macintosh had 30%; Apple had 30%.
Help me out.
Isn't Macintosh and Apple synonymous?
Rick - your book rocks! thanx!
Well, i think the insight that it is not that microsoft is so smart- rather that its competition is so stupid, insipid and unable to market their ware... i think that is informative.
>>constant, relentless footnotes
Get a grip fella. They were not constant.
And what then are relentless footnotes????????
I read this book last night and today. the book is pretty much in touch with reality.
Overall view of the author, yes MSFT is big, bad and pretty much unethical. But so are other software companies.
Oracle and larry ellison are not exactly saints.
But MSFT could have been defeated not for the shortsightedness and downright stupidity of other software companies.
It was their battles to lose and they lost.
Netscape could have beaten MSFT.
Borland could have beaten MSFT.
Apple could have beaten MSFT.
etc. etc. etc.
Could have, should have.
But they did not.
Exactly!!!!
NetWare at the time was the NOS!!
NT 3.1 vs. NetWare was a joke.
But Novell was so arrogant that they lost the war.
If Novell would have been smart, they STILL could have owned the NOS market.
But they are like Apple, has beens.
You know what they said about IBM in selling os/2 ---
So bad that IBM could not give away pardons in a prison.
The book I think focuses are more pervasive mistakes. Not bad ad campaigns.
>>>Microsoft already had almost complete control over the desktop before Windows 95 was released.
True. But Win 95 was soooo bad, and crashed sooooo often- that Apple still could have taken the lead, had they not been (and still are) sooooo short sighted and not licensing the mac OS.
>>Market share is just one of many factors determining the success of a company, but it's not the only one. Apple has higher revenues than Dell right now, and is making sweet profits, which is an even bigger factor in success.
What a short sided comment. Apple could have made tens of billions more had they opened up their OS.
Most of their profits are from the ipod.
>>Licensing, I agree, would be a great boon for consumers, but there is no evidence than it would have been good for Apple
Are you out of your mind? Why does Apple have 4% of the market now? They are such a non-entity. They are only making money off their ipods.
Licensing would have been the ultimate difference and they blew it.
IBM hires thousands and spends millions to develop OS/2. It is a complete failure. Hell- if that ain't a catastrophe, I dont know what is.
>>This barely qualifies as a review.
Hell, this is a review!
Is there an RFC on how to write a review?