If they're selling your product then yes, in a lot of cases, they should punish the company because MS doesn't just sell something to retailers and then disappear. They have input on how their product is sold and probably certain requirements that retailers must abide by. This is supposedly to keep things fair so retailer A doesn't get upset by retailer B and his better deals for your product.
Sure the retailer sold the product but almost certainly under MS' terms so MS is the one at fault.
It's even more embarrassing for Microsoft when you realize the Wii has forced them to cut the price of the Xbox 360 just to remain competitive saleswise - and they're still sliding into 2nd place in this generation for overall sales, in spite of having a year's headstart.
They've already slid into second place awhile ago. The Wii has been number 1 in all markets for awhile and even Sony isn't *that* far off from the 360 despite the higher price and fewer games.
Nintendo has always had a good business model where they've always made a profit on the hardware unlike everyone else and as a result even their so called failures made them money. This is why they're not cutting jobs and in fact will be building a new R&D building.
It's caught up with, at most a 8 million unit difference despite being more expensive, having fewer games (and fewer exclusive games) and the 360 being a out a year early.
Sony isn't in that bad of a position considering all of that.
Sony is more popular across the whole globe where as MS' only strong market is the US and if they lose that they're dead.
MS has a bad position of having a console with no real exclusive developers (so once the 3rd parties leave they have nothing) and having help kill of PC gaming by releasing a console which gives people less of a reason to have a Windows PC.
That's why they've attempted to console-ize PC gaming with gaming for Windows but that failed and I think they are afraid that PC gaming will become more browser based and OS neutral as Windows is their big cash cow not the 360. But it's their fault. But moving more resources to the PC side will also hurt the xbox. They've screwed up, imo.
Saying that the Wii is in a different market is "core gamer" BS to explain why they can say the 360 is number 1 despite the fact the Wii and the DS are blowing it out of the water.
As far as growing fast, forget the propganda, the 360 is not blowing the PS3 out of the water. It's only, at best, 8 million units ahead according to the stats and that's with a year's head start, a cheaper price and more exclusives.
PS3:
21.3 million (as of December 31, 2008)- wikipedia
20.22M - vgchartz
360:
Worldwide: 27.93 million (as of January 14, 2009)-Wikipedia
28.22M - vgchartz
MS only achieved profitability near the end mid/end of last year. They could have done it sooner but they were so afraid of getting beaten again that they release the hardware far too early and ended up losing a boat load of money over the RRoD issue.
They're in a weak position by having nearly no first party developers. It's only the kindness of the 3rd parties that they have decent games and as history has proven that can quickly disappear.
Their only strong markets are the US and the UK. The rest of Europe doesn't really care for the 360 and neither does Japan. If they leave Japan that looks bad and they'll lose some key developers (like Square and Capcom) and they can't leave Europe because they can't just release games in the UK. So they're stuck with those losing markets and if the US changes their mind on MS they're done for.
The only difference between the Wii and the 360 is that the 360 uses the old outdated model for running a console and the Wii does not. This is why MS is laying off people and dumping development houses while Nintendo will be expanding its R&D and laying off no one.
Lastly if they're such different markets then why is MS trying to grow their base by stealing Nintendo's ideas by creating very Mii-like avatars and casual games? That shouldn't work in MS' very different market.
They are in the same market and the fact is the Wii is kicking everyone's butt and despite the 360's numerous advantages in price, timing and software even the PS3 is catching it up. Mainly due to the fact it does a lot better in Japan and Europe and having a more international appeal will help Sony in the long run.
As an investor I'd be very concerned about how much money can be lost in the console market and how fragile MS' position is.
Re:OP is a condescending asshole, and it shows...
on
I'm a PC and I'm 4-1/2
·
· Score: 1
Yea plugin in my camera and having an icon appear that takes me to my picture folder is so hard. I'm going to write those Ubuntu guys and tell them to quite being so lame and wasting my time.
You're posting as an AC because you're full of it. There is a lot of things companies can do to increase their competitiveness or add functionality to a product. That doesn't make them legal.
The mere fact you said "browser and OS" means you're acknowledging that they're separate items and when a company is a monopoly and well known for doing things wrong then you don't let them tie their software into the OS more so when they write other software that will ignore your default browser choice. Ignoring a user's choice isn't added functionality. It's call pushing your shit software on someone.
You uninstall Firefox and install the browser of your choice including IE and then you don't have to worry about any other browser trying to take over or wasting space that could be filled with something else.
Mind you may not be able to install something newer than IE but that's down to MS and not Linux.
But will they use alternatives when other programs keep forcing IE on you. MSN Messanger does it. If someone wants to browse the internet from one program they either have to give up certain programs or go with IE because some of their applications don't care what they've chosen as the default browser.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to publish it or publish a book as stupid as a book about staring at the wall. I'm saying it's not really necessary. Running a forum, like anything takes some time to read through the options and keep a watchful eye over the place.
I've been running a VB forum for years. When I initially installed it I did nothing more than went through all the options carefully. I've never had spam, thank to moderated registration, and if you don't want a huge hassle then make it more private and invite those who you've met from other forums.
Moderated registration. Spammers do register at my forum but I've never had spam. It's easy to tell who is a bot and who isn't because I've added simple but uncommon questions to the registration process and bots don't know what to do so they type 1 into it. If it happens to be a real people simple enough to just type one into a field then I don't want them posting there anyway.
I'm genuinely surprised how many simpletons are confused because Mozilla claimed they don't want to be bundled and then the other people wondering how to get online without IE being tied into Windows.
The situation is not black and white. It's not a case of tying IE to Windows or bundling Mozilla. They're right that in both instances. Mozilla shouldn't be forced on people as well. Nor should IE be tied to the OS. The solution should be that the consumer gets to choose.
This can be achieved by making IE uninstallable for those that don't want it on their system and by not having it tied to the system the OEM can give consumers a choice in a browser.
It's not enough to just say "oh well OEMs can just install Firefox now". That is true but it doesn't factor in the fact IE is setup to try to take over as your default browser and it's not even a case that you can to never open IE because even if you don't want to open IE but use something like MSN messenger then it ignores your browser choice and uses IE anyway which will, by default, ask you to change your default browser settings.
If your parents are too dumb to sort out getting a browser themselves then how are they going to handle the constant nagging from applications to use IE . If half their applications make them use IE anyway then where is their incentive to use something else and put up with the constant changing of the interface depending on how the browser was launched?
If IE is untied from Windows there is no way OEMs will ship a system without a browser. So I dunno why people worry about that. It'll be better because they'll be able to give people a choice.
And again Mozilla wanting to see an end to MS' deceptive tactics does not automatically mean they want to bundled. The amount of options as to what people can do will be much larger if no browser is forced on people and they know this. For once a company is being good and why not? They know they have a superior product and don't need to force it on people.
But they do know there are a lot of people that can't use computers that well and when their PC keeps saying "hey don't you wanna use IE instead?" then they probably will because people hate to be nagged and in the end their choice is limited.
I would have thought this would be obvious to people on a geeky website.
Who is going to take time to read this and miss out on American Idol?
A lot of people go on about government conspiracies but there is no reason for the government to do anything in secret because it can be done out in the open and most people won't take notice and if they do find out odds are they won't care enough to do anything about it.
And by your logic the mere fact of moving from the US to the UK where my money was worth half it's value just when converted, I had to go 6 months without work and everything is over priced (especially) house means I shouldn't be in a position where I'm above the average wage, have a fairly decent sized house and savings.
Going from a cheap country to an expensive once isn't the end of your life. Loads of people do it.
You said nothing to convince me that the thousands, if not millions of Americans that already go to poorer countries to work some how have it worse when coming back home.
Not all Indians come to the US on an H1-B visa. A lot of people on the UK's rich list are foreigners and come from Asia.
While it's not perfect for everyone, anyone willing to have the vision to take advantage of the situation will come out better off in the end.
Who said Argentina is a good way to gauge the rest of the world? I've seen quite a few Poles working near minimum wage to get a house in a few years.
That's ignoring the experience you'll gain from working in India which will make you more valuable when you come back because you'll likely be able to communicate better with any company's outsourced employees.
And I'm not suggesting this is ideal for everyone or that they should do it without researching it. That would just be stupid.
Yet a lot of Americans do manage to work in foreign countries and come back home without living on the streets when they get back and of course all Indians coming to the US are poor.
Yes India does have poor areas but do you honestly think IBM operates in the backwoods areas of India? They're in the good areas, like Mumbai and if you looked at that picture you can see it's not exactly a shit hole.
The wages can't be that bad if Indians are willing to do things like English to take on support roles and thinking that programmers in India some how make minimum wage is silly. In fact some are claiming that India is losing its edge because of wage inflation due to foreign companies sending so much work over there.
If you have a home you rent it out and you come back and have your home and everything else. Then you only need money to live on day to day while in India and you get that from your wage so where's the problem?
No one is saying you go to India to bring money back home. The point is that, yes the wage will be lower, but you'll also pay a lot less for things. So it's not like you're losing out by doing a stint in India and in fact if you stay within the company you'll probably become more valuable by making connections in India and perhaps even picking up the local language which will mean a higher wage on the states side.
To be fair countries that have lower wages also have lower costs of living so it balances out. This is why Polish people can come to the UK and live and send what would be considered a decent amount of cash back home.
I would consider taking on the offer. Keeping a job with a view of coming back when the economy is better and getting to see the world isn't a bad deal.
Regarding the comment above saying this proves that Americans have the skills but IBM is just being cheap. That could be but companies do have to lay off people with valuable skills sometimes like when the economy is on life support.
Slashdot Mirror
It was a civil war, of course it would have the most American deaths what with Americans being on both sides of the battle.
The only down side to the civil war is, upon reflection, we probably would be better off without those dead weight southern states.
If they're selling your product then yes, in a lot of cases, they should punish the company because MS doesn't just sell something to retailers and then disappear. They have input on how their product is sold and probably certain requirements that retailers must abide by. This is supposedly to keep things fair so retailer A doesn't get upset by retailer B and his better deals for your product.
Sure the retailer sold the product but almost certainly under MS' terms so MS is the one at fault.
It's even more embarrassing for Microsoft when you realize the Wii has forced them to cut the price of the Xbox 360 just to remain competitive saleswise - and they're still sliding into 2nd place in this generation for overall sales, in spite of having a year's headstart.
They've already slid into second place awhile ago. The Wii has been number 1 in all markets for awhile and even Sony isn't *that* far off from the 360 despite the higher price and fewer games.
Nintendo has always had a good business model where they've always made a profit on the hardware unlike everyone else and as a result even their so called failures made them money. This is why they're not cutting jobs and in fact will be building a new R&D building.
It's caught up with, at most a 8 million unit difference despite being more expensive, having fewer games (and fewer exclusive games) and the 360 being a out a year early.
Sony isn't in that bad of a position considering all of that.
Sony is more popular across the whole globe where as MS' only strong market is the US and if they lose that they're dead.
MS has a bad position of having a console with no real exclusive developers (so once the 3rd parties leave they have nothing) and having help kill of PC gaming by releasing a console which gives people less of a reason to have a Windows PC.
That's why they've attempted to console-ize PC gaming with gaming for Windows but that failed and I think they are afraid that PC gaming will become more browser based and OS neutral as Windows is their big cash cow not the 360. But it's their fault. But moving more resources to the PC side will also hurt the xbox. They've screwed up, imo.
Saying that the Wii is in a different market is "core gamer" BS to explain why they can say the 360 is number 1 despite the fact the Wii and the DS are blowing it out of the water.
As far as growing fast, forget the propganda, the 360 is not blowing the PS3 out of the water. It's only, at best, 8 million units ahead according to the stats and that's with a year's head start, a cheaper price and more exclusives.
PS3:
21.3 million (as of December 31, 2008)- wikipedia
20.22M - vgchartz
360:
Worldwide: 27.93 million (as of January 14, 2009)-Wikipedia
28.22M - vgchartz
MS only achieved profitability near the end mid/end of last year. They could have done it sooner but they were so afraid of getting beaten again that they release the hardware far too early and ended up losing a boat load of money over the RRoD issue.
They're in a weak position by having nearly no first party developers. It's only the kindness of the 3rd parties that they have decent games and as history has proven that can quickly disappear.
Their only strong markets are the US and the UK. The rest of Europe doesn't really care for the 360 and neither does Japan. If they leave Japan that looks bad and they'll lose some key developers (like Square and Capcom) and they can't leave Europe because they can't just release games in the UK. So they're stuck with those losing markets and if the US changes their mind on MS they're done for.
The only difference between the Wii and the 360 is that the 360 uses the old outdated model for running a console and the Wii does not. This is why MS is laying off people and dumping development houses while Nintendo will be expanding its R&D and laying off no one.
Lastly if they're such different markets then why is MS trying to grow their base by stealing Nintendo's ideas by creating very Mii-like avatars and casual games? That shouldn't work in MS' very different market.
They are in the same market and the fact is the Wii is kicking everyone's butt and despite the 360's numerous advantages in price, timing and software even the PS3 is catching it up. Mainly due to the fact it does a lot better in Japan and Europe and having a more international appeal will help Sony in the long run.
As an investor I'd be very concerned about how much money can be lost in the console market and how fragile MS' position is.
Yea plugin in my camera and having an icon appear that takes me to my picture folder is so hard. I'm going to write those Ubuntu guys and tell them to quite being so lame and wasting my time.
You're posting as an AC because you're full of it. There is a lot of things companies can do to increase their competitiveness or add functionality to a product. That doesn't make them legal.
The mere fact you said "browser and OS" means you're acknowledging that they're separate items and when a company is a monopoly and well known for doing things wrong then you don't let them tie their software into the OS more so when they write other software that will ignore your default browser choice. Ignoring a user's choice isn't added functionality. It's call pushing your shit software on someone.
You uninstall Firefox and install the browser of your choice including IE and then you don't have to worry about any other browser trying to take over or wasting space that could be filled with something else.
Mind you may not be able to install something newer than IE but that's down to MS and not Linux.
That is choice and one you don't get on Windows.
But will they use alternatives when other programs keep forcing IE on you. MSN Messanger does it. If someone wants to browse the internet from one program they either have to give up certain programs or go with IE because some of their applications don't care what they've chosen as the default browser.
I'm not saying they shouldn't have the right to publish it or publish a book as stupid as a book about staring at the wall. I'm saying it's not really necessary. Running a forum, like anything takes some time to read through the options and keep a watchful eye over the place.
I've been running a VB forum for years. When I initially installed it I did nothing more than went through all the options carefully. I've never had spam, thank to moderated registration, and if you don't want a huge hassle then make it more private and invite those who you've met from other forums.
Moderated registration. Spammers do register at my forum but I've never had spam. It's easy to tell who is a bot and who isn't because I've added simple but uncommon questions to the registration process and bots don't know what to do so they type 1 into it. If it happens to be a real people simple enough to just type one into a field then I don't want them posting there anyway.
The question is can you uninstall Safari from OSX? If not then Apple should, as well, be forced to rectify that.
I'm genuinely surprised how many simpletons are confused because Mozilla claimed they don't want to be bundled and then the other people wondering how to get online without IE being tied into Windows.
The situation is not black and white. It's not a case of tying IE to Windows or bundling Mozilla. They're right that in both instances. Mozilla shouldn't be forced on people as well. Nor should IE be tied to the OS. The solution should be that the consumer gets to choose.
This can be achieved by making IE uninstallable for those that don't want it on their system and by not having it tied to the system the OEM can give consumers a choice in a browser.
It's not enough to just say "oh well OEMs can just install Firefox now". That is true but it doesn't factor in the fact IE is setup to try to take over as your default browser and it's not even a case that you can to never open IE because even if you don't want to open IE but use something like MSN messenger then it ignores your browser choice and uses IE anyway which will, by default, ask you to change your default browser settings.
If your parents are too dumb to sort out getting a browser themselves then how are they going to handle the constant nagging from applications to use IE . If half their applications make them use IE anyway then where is their incentive to use something else and put up with the constant changing of the interface depending on how the browser was launched?
If IE is untied from Windows there is no way OEMs will ship a system without a browser. So I dunno why people worry about that. It'll be better because they'll be able to give people a choice.
And again Mozilla wanting to see an end to MS' deceptive tactics does not automatically mean they want to bundled. The amount of options as to what people can do will be much larger if no browser is forced on people and they know this. For once a company is being good and why not? They know they have a superior product and don't need to force it on people.
But they do know there are a lot of people that can't use computers that well and when their PC keeps saying "hey don't you wanna use IE instead?" then they probably will because people hate to be nagged and in the end their choice is limited.
I would have thought this would be obvious to people on a geeky website.
Just because they don't want to be bundled doesn't mean that MS isn't damaging the market by tying something unnecessary to the OS.
Perhaps Mozilla is just being fair and thinking a single company or court shouldn't decide which browser the consumer gets.
Because we know OEMs never install software on top of the default OS.
It's not rocket science.
Who is going to take time to read this and miss out on American Idol?
A lot of people go on about government conspiracies but there is no reason for the government to do anything in secret because it can be done out in the open and most people won't take notice and if they do find out odds are they won't care enough to do anything about it.
And by your logic the mere fact of moving from the US to the UK where my money was worth half it's value just when converted, I had to go 6 months without work and everything is over priced (especially) house means I shouldn't be in a position where I'm above the average wage, have a fairly decent sized house and savings.
Going from a cheap country to an expensive once isn't the end of your life. Loads of people do it.
Every lefty I know uses theur left hand including one dim enough to have bought a right handed mouse.
You said nothing to convince me that the thousands, if not millions of Americans that already go to poorer countries to work some how have it worse when coming back home.
Not all Indians come to the US on an H1-B visa. A lot of people on the UK's rich list are foreigners and come from Asia.
While it's not perfect for everyone, anyone willing to have the vision to take advantage of the situation will come out better off in the end.
Who said Argentina is a good way to gauge the rest of the world? I've seen quite a few Poles working near minimum wage to get a house in a few years.
That's ignoring the experience you'll gain from working in India which will make you more valuable when you come back because you'll likely be able to communicate better with any company's outsourced employees.
And I'm not suggesting this is ideal for everyone or that they should do it without researching it. That would just be stupid.
Yet a lot of Americans do manage to work in foreign countries and come back home without living on the streets when they get back and of course all Indians coming to the US are poor.
Yeah all of India is a shit hole where people have to eat their own feces to survive. I mean look at all the dirt streets and disease! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mumbai_Downtown.jpg
Yes India does have poor areas but do you honestly think IBM operates in the backwoods areas of India? They're in the good areas, like Mumbai and if you looked at that picture you can see it's not exactly a shit hole.
The wages can't be that bad if Indians are willing to do things like English to take on support roles and thinking that programmers in India some how make minimum wage is silly. In fact some are claiming that India is losing its edge because of wage inflation due to foreign companies sending so much work over there.
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/IT-Management/Is-India-Losing-Its-Wage-Edge/
http://news.ncmonline.com/news/view_article.html?article_id=167d1c86c1d28e7607c942fd9891938e
http://www.sharedxpertise.org/file/2070/rising-wages-likely-to-blunt-indias-bpo-edge-deloitte.html
If you have a home you rent it out and you come back and have your home and everything else. Then you only need money to live on day to day while in India and you get that from your wage so where's the problem?
No one is saying you go to India to bring money back home. The point is that, yes the wage will be lower, but you'll also pay a lot less for things. So it's not like you're losing out by doing a stint in India and in fact if you stay within the company you'll probably become more valuable by making connections in India and perhaps even picking up the local language which will mean a higher wage on the states side.
To be fair countries that have lower wages also have lower costs of living so it balances out. This is why Polish people can come to the UK and live and send what would be considered a decent amount of cash back home.
I would consider taking on the offer. Keeping a job with a view of coming back when the economy is better and getting to see the world isn't a bad deal.
Regarding the comment above saying this proves that Americans have the skills but IBM is just being cheap. That could be but companies do have to lay off people with valuable skills sometimes like when the economy is on life support.