Just musing...
-MS practically foreclosed Netscape's OEM distribution, limiting them for the most part to download distribution. Telling Compaq that if they wanted to still put Windows on their machines, then Netscape was going to have to come off. That is one case, but there were others.
-"Everything Netscape is selling we're going to give away for free." Netscape bus. model was to sell webserver licenses, etc, browser licenses, (yeah, I know, I didn't buy one either, but still). "Our business model works even if all internet software is free. How does Netscape's business model look? Not so good." -Gates.
-Windows 98, basically Windows 95 with IE laced in. I remember them rushing to get that out before the judge told them not to do it, in which case it would be too late. Recall Jim Alchin's quote about not leveraging their Windows desktop strength in their battle to kill NS, and the need to do this if they were serious about it. That matching them feature for feature wasn't going to cut it. So they bolted the SOB in.
I think the above tactics are principally what helped MS get going against NS, and they can't do the same things to GOOG. Yes, MS busted ass and built on what they licensed from Spyglass, and over time it was the better product, in the opinion of many. Also, NS started to suck more and these all combined and you could watch the number on BrowserWatch slide for NS and climb for MS/IE. (Maybe this was Instant Karma for NS as for the karmic debt incurred for the blink tag.) But the things they did to fight NS, they can't do with GOOG. Ok, of course won't apply the SAME things. But where does GOOG get its money? Not predominantly from selling a software product. How is GOOG's product distributed? Well, it sort of isn't...it's a website, and you just go to it. I'm not including the Google bar, their engine products, etc. How does MS tell advertisers that if they want to buy ad space from MS they can't buy ad space from GOOG?? Advertisers will just tell them to piss off. How does MS use its Windows leverage against Google?? By putting MSN links all over Windows and MS apps??? I don't think that will do it. MS can't lean on the OEMs to do anything about it. They can't block people from going to Google's site. About all they can do their is make it super easy to go to MSN instead.
MS can't cut off Google's air supply, and they will find it difficult to leverage their Windows position against Google to gain share. They can't steal their talent, because the talent leak is already going the other way. What other weapons does MS have? I don't know. But their tried and true never-fail tricks don't apply or don't apply as well. Same sort of thing fighting FOSS/Linux, BTW. One weapon they have is money, but what to spend it on?? So long as Google keeps grinding it out, MS will have to play catch up, and develop and deliver a better product, that is usually the last thing they try, and only when they have to. If MS kicks Google's ass fair and square, more power to them. But do they know how? CAN they develop and deliver a better product??, and do so at a rate faster than Google??, since Google is already a couple of years ahead. I don't know, it's up to them, but I'm not convinced they've got it. Google has by some fate of the universe got a game going where the only way to beat them is to beat them at their own game. I think Google's got some 'magic' inside their walls that is missing from MS, and they are capitalizing on that. Play a game where to win you have to have something that your competition doesn't have. Set it up so that what you have (that your competitor doesn't) is a necessary advantage to win.
Offtopic ????!!!!! Where do you get Offtopic ?? I suggested they let the spammer burn, using a somewhat well known, in some parts, lyric quote. Shoot, I was hoping for +1 Funny, but Offtopic?? sigh.........
Ah, good point. Must have equal time in both places.
In the interest of equal time, I propose, nay, I demand that the TRUE history of the creation of the world be taught in addition to these other "theories". To wit:
The story, er, FACT of the Dreamtime:
(Ripped from here.)
When the earth was new-born, it was plain and without any features or life. Waking time and sleeping time were the same. There were only hollows on the surface of the Earth which, one day, would become waterholes. Around the waterholes were the ingredients of life.
Underneath the crust of the earth were the stars and the sky, the sun and the moon, as well as all the forms of life, all sleeping. The tiniest details of life were present yet dormant: the head feathers of a cockatoo, the thump of a kangaroo's tail, the gleam of an insect's wing.
A time came when time itself split apart, and sleeping time separated from waking time. This moment was called the Dreamtime. At this moment everything started to burst into life.
The sun rose through the surface of the Earth and shone warm rays onto the hollows which became waterholes. Under each waterhole lay an Ancestor, an ancient man or woman who had been asleep through the ages. The sun filled the bodies of each Ancestor with light and life, and the Ancestors began to give birth to children. Their children were all the living things of the world, from the tiniest grub wriggling on a eucalyptus leaf to the broadest-singed eagle soaring in the blue sky.
Rising from the waterholes, the Ancestors stood up with mud falling from their bodies. As the mud slipped away, the sun opened their eyelids and they saw the creatures they had made from their own bodies. Each Ancestor gazed at his creation in pride and wonderment. Each Ancestor sang out with joy: "I am!". One Ancestor sang "I am kangaroo!" Another sang "I am Cockatoo!" The next sang "I am Honey-Ant!" and the next sang "I am Lizard!"
As they sang, naming their own creations, they began to walk. Their footsteps and their music became one, calling all living things into being and weaving them into life with song. The ancestors sang their way all around the world. They sang the rivers to the valleys and the sand into dunes, the trees into leaf and the mountains to rise above the plain. As they walked they left a trail of music.
Then they were exhausted. They had shown all living things how to live, and they returned into the Earth itself to sleep. And, in honour of their Ancestors, the Aborigines still go Walkabout, retracing the steps and singing the songs that tell the story of life.
That's exactly what I remember. Later the "undisclosed amount" was sussed out to be $200 million, to settle out the QT and other claims. I think part of the QT thing, from what I recall reading, was that Apple had at least at some part, contracted out to some company to do the actual coding, after they did the design, specs, etc., and then MS came along and hired them also, later. Later comma they found non-trivial line by line copying in MS code that went into QT.
"3. they sue google for hiring him even though they knew of the contract (helping him break the law)"
And what "law", pray tell, was that? Didn't know MS was writing laws now. Well, actually,....indirectly.....
Son, this stuff happens all the time. Execs get pissed after some reorg, or they didn't get the sweet office suite, or some company likes their face, or wants to stick to the competitor and they make 'em an offer they really can't refuse. What do you really think these people are going to do? Tell them:
"Gee, you guys are really swell and all, but gosh darn it, I signed this NDA thingy and I promised I wouldn't go leave and go work for anybody else, and, well, these guys are like my bestest friends, and...well, sorry, I just can't go. Maybe in a few years. Can we still be friends?"
Yeah, right. It's you that needs to wake up, sonny.
Right on. Step into the wayback machine a few years back. That great sucking sound was the human assets of Borland being sucked out the front door into MS-supplied limos waiting in front with trunks full-o-cash.
This toss up of suing Google is just so much dodgeball. They both know nothing will come of it. MS is just farking with them.
The interesting part is, near as I can tell, MS hasn't done this with any other company, sued them for poaching, at least with such visibility, nor in some time. It is interesting that someone could hire away some exec from MS, and not just someone, but Google. MS might not give a rat's ass if it was some otherwise unknown, but Google?...they gotta hate that. That perhaps stung a bit.
Well so much for getting a new G5 this year. Don't know if I will atisfy that jones now, if new machines are in two years' time that have different base cpu arch -- or does it make a diff? Just feels like a bad idea -- of course a new G5 now will work just fine for years to come, but....
"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And oh yeah, Apple shall moveth to Intel x86."
Well, maybe it would be a Good Thing(tm), then, if MSFT withdrew from the EU market??, (in suggested response here to the impending possible EU antitrust fine).
And here's a catalog of what they've bought, influenced, cannibalized and what products they later became. The (Nearly) Whole Microsoft Catalog. So much of what they sell was done by others and engulfed. Freedom to innovate, my ass -- it's obscene when they say the word.
I think that people are looking at this the wrong way... It's about discovering new music, not a replacement for buying music.
Yer a friggin' genious. No, really. I'm dense, so maybe I haven't heard/read that before. Or maybe I'm senile and don't remember. Whatever.
Anyway, Good point. Now it looks like there are really two markets being served here, by two different solutions. And neither of them is all that great at serving the other market, type of customer. If I want to be exploring a lot of stuff, and hopfully the spectrum of new stuff every month is broad enough to warrant it, then making do with the 30-second previews on sites like iTMS ain't gonna cut it. But if I want to keep the ones, the few, I like, and I don't care THAT much about exploration to the degree that the 30-second clip won't do, and I have no need to have relatively unlimited access to thousands of cuts every month, then iTMS is going to be a better fit for me. About the exploration thing, there are other ways to do that -- streaming itnernet radio, through various services -- for example I like to go to a couple of sites that are organized by country, so I can listen to internet radio from different countries. Some of these are snaggable and apps will even break them up into their respective mp3 chunks complete with meta info. Granted I have no control over what is played, but it is dipping one's toe, er, ear, into the stream, and if I hear something I like I can find out more about it or them, whatever. The point is that even I want to explore more, there are ways to meet some of that need without a monthly fee. Personally, I abhor the idea of paying $15 (plus whatever they raise it to later) a month, for now until I die or otherwise no longer care, for music I want to keep. That just ain't gonna fly. But I can see it as a way to have a high degree of access to a very broad and rapidly evolving spectrum of music if that is what you want. But, does napster or any of these others offer such a very broad and rapidly evolving spectrum of music?
Paying for a subscription to a music service doesn't tie you into one particular vendor, provided that there are others to switch to.
Yeah, and that is a big "provided". And even then, just because they would hopefully exist doesn't mean these alternatives won't suck mightily. Maybe I already picked the best one for me and it just tanked and I am stuck with what I consider sorry ass also-rans.
If you decided to switch providers, assuming they have the same songs in their library, you haven't really lost access to any of your songs.
And another big "provided"/"assuming". I haven't lost access to any of "my" songs. Wait, I thought they weren't my songs. Oh, you mean the ones I didn't pay the EXTRA money for to be able to call them "my" songs. Well if company X goes tits up, and I paid extra, above the monthly fee, to be able to keep this one, I don't think company Y has much incentive to honor what I gave company X for it. So on that I am screwed. Sure I can download the shitload of tracks all freaking over again, but that would be a PITA, and although I don't have to pay anyone for that, it is something I would rather not do -- repopulate my entire downloaded music database.
If you switch cable providers, you haven't suddenly lost access to all the channels you had before, because they all have the same channels.
Well, actually they don't have ALL the channels I had before, and there are other factors, and how many cable providers are available to me unless I move to another area. Further, I am not going to have all my recorded programs library go poof when I do change, and then have to re-record them all.
If you switch ISPs, you haven't lost any part of the internet, you're just getting it from someone else. Right. And that's why you have stayed with AOL for 10 years, right? Oh, you don't use AOL? Why? Aren't they all the same? They are all just providing access to the internets, right?
In fact this could cause a war of music service providers whereby each one tries to outdo the other to see who can make more music available to you.
People really like to have their bills planned out for them, even if it may cost them a little bit more some months. This is why natural gas providers have offer to average your costs out over the year, so you don't have massive bills in the winter.
Ok, this is what got me. Yeah, people do want to be able to plan, but damn, how much money are you spending on music purchases that you can't fucking budget for it? First and foremost, this shit is not something I want a bill for. This is not electricity, or gas, or food -- its music, i.e. for me, entertainment, i.e. discretionary spending, i.e. not a necessity for life. Some people, the way they do their music, ok, maybe, but damn sure not me, and I am apparently not in left field on that. For some people, money they spend on music could practically and conveniently be a bill for a service, but I don't think for most people that is the case. I never want to have yet another bill, just to listen to what ever is being called "new".
Slashdot Mirror
"more familiar with newer technologies at the same time"
true, but "familiar" may not get it. "familiar" results in replacing all the occurences of 'CString' with 'char *', and without doing anything else.
"She's a curator at a Museum now."
Hey, depending on where you work, that might be the same thing as programming. Can I get a witness!!
But this one goes to 11 !
HA!!! YOU were the guy who wrote this code I am having to work on now!!! ;-)
Why would anyone PAY for something they can't have?
So you've never seen a guy pay for a lap dance, eh?
HA. Nor has he been married. Apparently.
sigh....
Just musing...
-MS practically foreclosed Netscape's OEM distribution, limiting them for the most part to download distribution. Telling Compaq that if they wanted to still put Windows on their machines, then Netscape was going to have to come off. That is one case, but there were others.
-"Everything Netscape is selling we're going to give away for free." Netscape bus. model was to sell webserver licenses, etc, browser licenses, (yeah, I know, I didn't buy one either, but still). "Our business model works even if all internet software is free. How does Netscape's business model look? Not so good." -Gates.
-Windows 98, basically Windows 95 with IE laced in. I remember them rushing to get that out before the judge told them not to do it, in which case it would be too late. Recall Jim Alchin's quote about not leveraging their Windows desktop strength in their battle to kill NS, and the need to do this if they were serious about it. That matching them feature for feature wasn't going to cut it. So they bolted the SOB in.
I think the above tactics are principally what helped MS get going against NS, and they can't do the same things to GOOG. Yes, MS busted ass and built on what they licensed from Spyglass, and over time it was the better product, in the opinion of many. Also, NS started to suck more and these all combined and you could watch the number on BrowserWatch slide for NS and climb for MS/IE. (Maybe this was Instant Karma for NS as for the karmic debt incurred for the blink tag.) But the things they did to fight NS, they can't do with GOOG. Ok, of course won't apply the SAME things. But where does GOOG get its money? Not predominantly from selling a software product. How is GOOG's product distributed? Well, it sort of isn't...it's a website, and you just go to it. I'm not including the Google bar, their engine products, etc. How does MS tell advertisers that if they want to buy ad space from MS they can't buy ad space from GOOG?? Advertisers will just tell them to piss off. How does MS use its Windows leverage against Google?? By putting MSN links all over Windows and MS apps??? I don't think that will do it. MS can't lean on the OEMs to do anything about it. They can't block people from going to Google's site. About all they can do their is make it super easy to go to MSN instead.
MS can't cut off Google's air supply, and they will find it difficult to leverage their Windows position against Google to gain share. They can't steal their talent, because the talent leak is already going the other way. What other weapons does MS have? I don't know. But their tried and true never-fail tricks don't apply or don't apply as well. Same sort of thing fighting FOSS/Linux, BTW. One weapon they have is money, but what to spend it on?? So long as Google keeps grinding it out, MS will have to play catch up, and develop and deliver a better product, that is usually the last thing they try, and only when they have to. If MS kicks Google's ass fair and square, more power to them. But do they know how? CAN they develop and deliver a better product??, and do so at a rate faster than Google??, since Google is already a couple of years ahead. I don't know, it's up to them, but I'm not convinced they've got it. Google has by some fate of the universe got a game going where the only way to beat them is to beat them at their own game. I think Google's got some 'magic' inside their walls that is missing from MS, and they are capitalizing on that. Play a game where to win you have to have something that your competition doesn't have. Set it up so that what you have (that your competitor doesn't) is a necessary advantage to win.
yeah, sure, I'll give you perfect, bug free, bullet-proof code. You're gonna have to adjust that project timeline out a bit, though...
ok, that was good. I liked the parent, but this was doubly apropo wrt RIAA (Matrix/Machines) and Ms Anderson (Neo).
"Vista may be a nice Mustang. "
If so, it appears it will be a gelding.
hell, man, that right there would have been worth the price of the ticket, for me; screw the movie, that would have been REAL entertainmnent!
Mods are not EVEN on crack! How in the 7 hells is the parent Offtopic??
Offtopic ????!!!!! Where do you get Offtopic ?? I suggested they let the spammer burn, using a somewhat well known, in some parts, lyric quote. Shoot, I was hoping for +1 Funny, but Offtopic?? sigh.........
We don't need to water, let the motherf*cker burn, Burn motherf*cker, burn.
Ah, good point. Must have equal time in both places.
:
In the interest of equal time, I propose, nay, I demand that the TRUE history of the creation of the world be taught in addition to these other "theories". To wit
The story, er, FACT of the Dreamtime:
(Ripped from here.)
When the earth was new-born, it was plain and without any features or life. Waking time and sleeping time were the same. There were only hollows on the surface of the Earth which, one day, would become waterholes. Around the waterholes were the ingredients of life.
Underneath the crust of the earth were the stars and the sky, the sun and the moon, as well as all the forms of life, all sleeping. The tiniest details of life were present yet dormant: the head feathers of a cockatoo, the thump of a kangaroo's tail, the gleam of an insect's wing.
A time came when time itself split apart, and sleeping time separated from waking time. This moment was called the Dreamtime. At this moment everything started to burst into life.
The sun rose through the surface of the Earth and shone warm rays onto the hollows which became waterholes. Under each waterhole lay an Ancestor, an ancient man or woman who had been asleep through the ages. The sun filled the bodies of each Ancestor with light and life, and the Ancestors began to give birth to children. Their children were all the living things of the world, from the tiniest grub wriggling on a eucalyptus leaf to the broadest-singed eagle soaring in the blue sky.
Rising from the waterholes, the Ancestors stood up with mud falling from their bodies. As the mud slipped away, the sun opened their eyelids and they saw the creatures they had made from their own bodies. Each Ancestor gazed at his creation in pride and wonderment. Each Ancestor sang out with joy: "I am!". One Ancestor sang "I am kangaroo!" Another sang "I am Cockatoo!" The next sang "I am Honey-Ant!" and the next sang "I am Lizard!"
As they sang, naming their own creations, they began to walk. Their footsteps and their music became one, calling all living things into being and weaving them into life with song. The ancestors sang their way all around the world. They sang the rivers to the valleys and the sand into dunes, the trees into leaf and the mountains to rise above the plain. As they walked they left a trail of music.
Then they were exhausted. They had shown all living things how to live, and they returned into the Earth itself to sleep. And, in honour of their Ancestors, the Aborigines still go Walkabout, retracing the steps and singing the songs that tell the story of life.
That's exactly what I remember. Later the "undisclosed amount" was sussed out to be $200 million, to settle out the QT and other claims. I think part of the QT thing, from what I recall reading, was that Apple had at least at some part, contracted out to some company to do the actual coding, after they did the design, specs, etc., and then MS came along and hired them also, later. Later comma they found non-trivial line by line copying in MS code that went into QT.
"3. they sue google for hiring him even though they knew of the contract (helping him break the law)"
And what "law", pray tell, was that? Didn't know MS was writing laws now. Well, actually,....indirectly.....
Son, this stuff happens all the time. Execs get pissed after some reorg, or they didn't get the sweet office suite, or some company likes their face, or wants to stick to the competitor and they make 'em an offer they really can't refuse. What do you really think these people are going to do? Tell them:
"Gee, you guys are really swell and all, but gosh darn it, I signed this NDA thingy and I promised I wouldn't go leave and go work for anybody else, and, well, these guys are like my bestest friends, and...well, sorry, I just can't go. Maybe in a few years. Can we still be friends?"
Yeah, right. It's you that needs to wake up, sonny.
Right on. Step into the wayback machine a few years back. That great sucking sound was the human assets of Borland being sucked out the front door into MS-supplied limos waiting in front with trunks full-o-cash.
This toss up of suing Google is just so much dodgeball. They both know nothing will come of it. MS is just farking with them.
The interesting part is, near as I can tell, MS hasn't done this with any other company, sued them for poaching, at least with such visibility, nor in some time. It is interesting that someone could hire away some exec from MS, and not just someone, but Google. MS might not give a rat's ass if it was some otherwise unknown, but Google?...they gotta hate that. That perhaps stung a bit.
OMFGWTF!! RIP PPC-MAC
"-10 Redundant ad absurdium"
Well so much for getting a new G5 this year. Don't know if I will atisfy that jones now, if new machines are in two years' time that have different base cpu arch -- or does it make a diff? Just feels like a bad idea -- of course a new G5 now will work just fine for years to come, but....
"And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood; And the stars of heaven fell unto the earth, even as a fig tree casteth her untimely figs, when she is shaken of a mighty wind. And the heaven departed as a scroll when it is rolled together; and every mountain and island were moved out of their places. And oh yeah, Apple shall moveth to Intel x86."
Well, maybe it would be a Good Thing(tm), then, if MSFT withdrew from the EU market??, (in suggested response here to the impending possible EU antitrust fine).
"RTFA: The red box indicates the threat level on a scale of 1-10"
But sometimes we need to be just a little more threatening, so this one goes to 11.
Here's a place you might like:
Microsoft Hall of Innovation
And here's a catalog of what they've bought, influenced, cannibalized and what products they later became. The (Nearly) Whole Microsoft Catalog. So much of what they sell was done by others and engulfed. Freedom to innovate, my ass -- it's obscene when they say the word.
"...then the vendors in this space cannot act like a bunch of hippies in a '60s commune or ashram."
She says that like its a BAD thing....
I think that people are looking at this the wrong way... It's about discovering new music, not a replacement for buying music.
Yer a friggin' genious. No, really. I'm dense, so maybe I haven't heard/read that before. Or maybe I'm senile and don't remember. Whatever.
Anyway, Good point. Now it looks like there are really two markets being served here, by two different solutions. And neither of them is all that great at serving the other market, type of customer. If I want to be exploring a lot of stuff, and hopfully the spectrum of new stuff every month is broad enough to warrant it, then making do with the 30-second previews on sites like iTMS ain't gonna cut it. But if I want to keep the ones, the few, I like, and I don't care THAT much about exploration to the degree that the 30-second clip won't do, and I have no need to have relatively unlimited access to thousands of cuts every month, then iTMS is going to be a better fit for me. About the exploration thing, there are other ways to do that -- streaming itnernet radio, through various services -- for example I like to go to a couple of sites that are organized by country, so I can listen to internet radio from different countries. Some of these are snaggable and apps will even break them up into their respective mp3 chunks complete with meta info. Granted I have no control over what is played, but it is dipping one's toe, er, ear, into the stream, and if I hear something I like I can find out more about it or them, whatever. The point is that even I want to explore more, there are ways to meet some of that need without a monthly fee. Personally, I abhor the idea of paying $15 (plus whatever they raise it to later) a month, for now until I die or otherwise no longer care, for music I want to keep. That just ain't gonna fly. But I can see it as a way to have a high degree of access to a very broad and rapidly evolving spectrum of music if that is what you want. But, does napster or any of these others offer such a very broad and rapidly evolving spectrum of music?
Paying for a subscription to a music service doesn't tie you into one particular vendor, provided that there are others to switch to.
Yeah, and that is a big "provided". And even then, just because they would hopefully exist doesn't mean these alternatives won't suck mightily. Maybe I already picked the best one for me and it just tanked and I am stuck with what I consider sorry ass also-rans.
If you decided to switch providers, assuming they have the same songs in their library, you haven't really lost access to any of your songs.
And another big "provided"/"assuming". I haven't lost access to any of "my" songs. Wait, I thought they weren't my songs. Oh, you mean the ones I didn't pay the EXTRA money for to be able to call them "my" songs. Well if company X goes tits up, and I paid extra, above the monthly fee, to be able to keep this one, I don't think company Y has much incentive to honor what I gave company X for it. So on that I am screwed. Sure I can download the shitload of tracks all freaking over again, but that would be a PITA, and although I don't have to pay anyone for that, it is something I would rather not do -- repopulate my entire downloaded music database.
If you switch cable providers, you haven't suddenly lost access to all the channels you had before, because they all have the same channels.
Well, actually they don't have ALL the channels I had before, and there are other factors, and how many cable providers are available to me unless I move to another area. Further, I am not going to have all my recorded programs library go poof when I do change, and then have to re-record them all.
If you switch ISPs, you haven't lost any part of the internet, you're just getting it from someone else. Right. And that's why you have stayed with AOL for 10 years, right? Oh, you don't use AOL? Why? Aren't they all the same? They are all just providing access to the internets, right?
In fact this could cause a war of music service providers whereby each one tries to outdo the other to see who can make more music available to you.
People really like to have their bills planned out for them, even if it may cost them a little bit more some months. This is why natural gas providers have offer to average your costs out over the year, so you don't have massive bills in the winter.
Ok, this is what got me. Yeah, people do want to be able to plan, but damn, how much money are you spending on music purchases that you can't fucking budget for it? First and foremost, this shit is not something I want a bill for. This is not electricity, or gas, or food -- its music, i.e. for me, entertainment, i.e. discretionary spending, i.e. not a necessity for life. Some people, the way they do their music, ok, maybe, but damn sure not me, and I am apparently not in left field on that. For some people, money they spend on music could practically and conveniently be a bill for a service, but I don't think for most people that is the case. I never want to have yet another bill, just to listen to what ever is being called "new".