I noticed in the article that it mentioned that Google ran a heavily customized version of the Linux Kernel. I'm no expert on the GPL, but doesn't that mean that Google is required to release the source code for those modifications? Has it been posted anywhere?
Given that a small % of their business produces the most profit (more than their services business that everyone keeps touting), it will likely be a few product cycles until that happens.
I'm not griping. I'm just pointing out that this article seems to hype IBM's usage of open source, but that they don't open source everything and probably won't until their software is completely commoditized.
IBM's approach is to sell you the whole thing: servers, software, and services. They'll give you a good price on one to make a profit on the others. Open Source might be a piece of the software, but rarely is it the whole thing. WebSphere, Notes/Domino, DB2 and MQSeries all generate good money for IBM. Don't confuse IBM w/Red Hat or a services-only company b/c they're not.
When companies start an outsourcing deal w/IBM, IBM comes in and replaces all the hardware, and migrates as much of the software to their stuff that they can.
Lets see IBM release bits of WebSphere, DB2, MQSeries or Notes to Open Source. IBM likes open source as much as it is detrimental to their competitors, but you'll be unlikely to see them open source their big moneymakers.
Software theft is bad; so is misstating the evidence
IT SOUNDS too bad to be true; but, then, it might not be true. Up to 35% of all PC software installed in 2004 was pirated, resulting in a staggering $33 billion loss to the industry, according to an annual study released this week by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade association and lobby group.
Such jaw-dropping figures are regularly cited in government documents and used to justify new laws and tough penalties for pirates--this month in Britain, for example, two people convicted of piracy got lengthy prison sentences, even though they had not sought to earn money. The BSA provided its data. The judge chose to describe the effects of piracy as nothing less than "catastrophic".
Intellectual property
But while the losses due to software copyright violations are large and serious, the crime is certainly not as costly as the BSA portrays. The association's figures rely on sample data that may not be representative, assumptions about the average amount of software on PCs and, for some countries, guesses rather than hard data. Moreover, the figures are presented in an exaggerated way by the BSA and International Data Corporation (IDC), a research firm that conducts the study. They dubiously presume that each piece of software pirated equals a direct loss of revenue to software firms.
To derive its piracy rate, IDC estimates the average amount of software that is installed on a PC per country, using data from surveys, interviews and other studies. That figure is then reduced by the known quantity of software sold per country--a calculation in which IDC specialises. The result: a (supposed) amount of piracy per country. Multiplying that figure by the revenue from legitimate sales thus yields the retail value of the unpaid-for software. This, IDC and BSA claim, equals the amount of lost revenue.
The problem is that the economic impact of global software piracy is far harder to calculate. Some academics have shown that some piracy actually increases software sales, by introducing products to people who would not otherwise become customers. Indeed, Bill Gates chirped in the 1990s that piracy in China was useful to Microsoft, because once the nation was hooked, the software giant would eventually figure out a way to monetise the trend. (Lately Microsoft has kept quiet on this issue.)
The BSA's bold claims are surprising, given that last year the group was severely criticised for inflating its figures to suit its political aims. "Absurd on its face" and "patently obscene" is how Gary Shapiro, boss of the Consumer Electronics Association, another lobby group, describes the new ranking.
Microsoft aims with XNA is to offload a lot of hardware features into software.
From what I understand, the goal of XNA is to create an abstraction layer that allows game developers to build against instead of specifically for XBOX360 or WinXP. In the past, XBOX's similarities to the PC didn't need this layer, but now that they're using PowerPC it makes some sense to add that abstraction. I think Microsoft has been trying to get some synergy between PC game devs and console game devs...especially given the PC game quality.
Thanks, that is helpful. I would be interested in seeing the article w/o the personal information (not that I would even care about the personal info in the first place).
Anyone have a link to the original story? I couldn't seem to find it on Google, and everyone seems to have consistently not included the link in their stories.
I don't know why I even both to post this b/c I haven't posted in months, but can't this site be just tiny, itsy bit less slanted? I understand that MS is the antithesis of Open Source and that is what this site is about, but please spare me this type of story.
No one here would give a crap about MS corporate results, but b/c they miss by a couple percent it becomes a story. Can't there be a little bit more reason? Not everything in the Windows world is terrible and every aspect of Open Source is not perfect. Maybe that is why I like Ars Technica better, b/c they are much more reasonable...
I have a machine that is in terrible shape including some sort of registry corruption and ati driver issues. I installed SP2 last night and the machine was actually in better shape after the install...no more registry issues and less ati issues.
Just because people here think that Red Hat is a good company doesn't mean that Red Hat is held to a lower standard. An earnings restatement is an earnings restatement. If they did wrong they should suffer the paint that other "restaters" have felt. Subscription accounting models are very difficult to account for and have caused problems for many in the past.
Unfortunately I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence. I work for a company that often competes with IBM's services group and we generally beat them on price...not to say that we always win.
Don't fool yourself though, IBM may not charge you much for the O/S, but they are busy selling you hardware, WebSphere software, and consulting services which are very expensive. When you price out all of that an IBM solution is very often one of your most expensive options.
This was a fine on Gates personal investments, so why is this even/. news worthy? Yes, it is peripherally related to anti-trust matters, but it is still pointless.
I love all the conspiracy theory that pops up right away how MS is going to be selling drugs and other bs. A common investing strategy is to have a diverse portfolio and this is clearly part of that for Bill.
I agree about Sun's market is in the high end, but the issue is that much of that market is being cannibalized by cheaper technologies. Yes, part of that market will always exist, but the big growth area in servers for the last several years has been the 2-way x86 Linux/Windows boxes. Sun has not part of that market and has suffered b/c of it.
I understand the skepticism about Microsoft's position in this situation, but you also have to take a look at what Baystar does as a hedge fund. In general, these types of funds are involved in higher risk investing in order to get much higher returns than the general market or S&P 500. $20 million is probably not a significant sum to these people as many hedge funds only allow investment at the $1M level and up. If SCO was to win a couple billion in lawsuits Baystar would stand to make a massive profit.
Retailers generally have two choices when discounting an item. They can either take it out of their own margin or they can get the manufacturer to authorize a price break. In the second case, the manufacturer shares the burden of discount which also allows often for better discounts. Clearly Apple isn't authorizing anyone to discount their stuff. Theoretically, retailers could discount iPod out of their own margin, but Apple is holding the reigns tight. Sounds like Amazon might have one of the better discounts around.
Slashdot Mirror
I noticed in the article that it mentioned that Google ran a heavily customized version of the Linux Kernel. I'm no expert on the GPL, but doesn't that mean that Google is required to release the source code for those modifications? Has it been posted anywhere?
ummm, ever heard of Mac Office? http://www.microsoft.com/mac/products/office2004/o ffice2004.aspx?pid=office2004
or maybe Virtual PC for the Mac?
Monad has been rumored to be out of Vista for quite a while:
2 6007,00.asp?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535
/. filter.
http://www.microsoft-watch.com/article2/0,1995,18
If you read the text of the story from the MS guy, he never implies that it was removed b/c of security breaches. Oh wait, forgot about the
Given that a small % of their business produces the most profit (more than their services business that everyone keeps touting), it will likely be a few product cycles until that happens.
Again, this is not completely true. In their last 10k, here is the breakdown of revenue for 2004:
Services 48%
Hardware 32%
Software 15%
The rest is financing and investments. Not to mentioned that their profit margins were as follows:
Services 25%
Hardware 30%
Software 87%
So, that software revenue is very profitable. Don't expect them to give away Notes, DB2, or WebSphere any time soon.
I'm not griping. I'm just pointing out that this article seems to hype IBM's usage of open source, but that they don't open source everything and probably won't until their software is completely commoditized.
IBM's approach is to sell you the whole thing: servers, software, and services. They'll give you a good price on one to make a profit on the others. Open Source might be a piece of the software, but rarely is it the whole thing. WebSphere, Notes/Domino, DB2 and MQSeries all generate good money for IBM. Don't confuse IBM w/Red Hat or a services-only company b/c they're not.
When companies start an outsourcing deal w/IBM, IBM comes in and replaces all the hardware, and migrates as much of the software to their stuff that they can.
Lets see IBM release bits of WebSphere, DB2, MQSeries or Notes to Open Source. IBM likes open source as much as it is detrimental to their competitors, but you'll be unlikely to see them open source their big moneymakers.
BSA or just BS?
May 19th 2005
From The Economist print edition
Software theft is bad; so is misstating the evidence
IT SOUNDS too bad to be true; but, then, it might not be true. Up to 35% of all PC software installed in 2004 was pirated, resulting in a staggering $33 billion loss to the industry, according to an annual study released this week by the Business Software Alliance (BSA), a trade association and lobby group.
Such jaw-dropping figures are regularly cited in government documents and used to justify new laws and tough penalties for pirates--this month in Britain, for example, two people convicted of piracy got lengthy prison sentences, even though they had not sought to earn money. The BSA provided its data. The judge chose to describe the effects of piracy as nothing less than "catastrophic".
Intellectual property
But while the losses due to software copyright violations are large and serious, the crime is certainly not as costly as the BSA portrays. The association's figures rely on sample data that may not be representative, assumptions about the average amount of software on PCs and, for some countries, guesses rather than hard data. Moreover, the figures are presented in an exaggerated way by the BSA and International Data Corporation (IDC), a research firm that conducts the study. They dubiously presume that each piece of software pirated equals a direct loss of revenue to software firms.
To derive its piracy rate, IDC estimates the average amount of software that is installed on a PC per country, using data from surveys, interviews and other studies. That figure is then reduced by the known quantity of software sold per country--a calculation in which IDC specialises. The result: a (supposed) amount of piracy per country. Multiplying that figure by the revenue from legitimate sales thus yields the retail value of the unpaid-for software. This, IDC and BSA claim, equals the amount of lost revenue.
The problem is that the economic impact of global software piracy is far harder to calculate. Some academics have shown that some piracy actually increases software sales, by introducing products to people who would not otherwise become customers. Indeed, Bill Gates chirped in the 1990s that piracy in China was useful to Microsoft, because once the nation was hooked, the software giant would eventually figure out a way to monetise the trend. (Lately Microsoft has kept quiet on this issue.)
The BSA's bold claims are surprising, given that last year the group was severely criticised for inflating its figures to suit its political aims. "Absurd on its face" and "patently obscene" is how Gary Shapiro, boss of the Consumer Electronics Association, another lobby group, describes the new ranking.
From what I understand, the goal of XNA is to create an abstraction layer that allows game developers to build against instead of specifically for XBOX360 or WinXP. In the past, XBOX's similarities to the PC didn't need this layer, but now that they're using PowerPC it makes some sense to add that abstraction. I think Microsoft has been trying to get some synergy between PC game devs and console game devs...especially given the PC game quality.
Thanks, that is helpful. I would be interested in seeing the article w/o the personal information (not that I would even care about the personal info in the first place).
Anyone have a link to the original story? I couldn't seem to find it on Google, and everyone seems to have consistently not included the link in their stories.
I don't know why I even both to post this b/c I haven't posted in months, but can't this site be just tiny, itsy bit less slanted? I understand that MS is the antithesis of Open Source and that is what this site is about, but please spare me this type of story.
No one here would give a crap about MS corporate results, but b/c they miss by a couple percent it becomes a story. Can't there be a little bit more reason? Not everything in the Windows world is terrible and every aspect of Open Source is not perfect. Maybe that is why I like Ars Technica better, b/c they are much more reasonable...
But IBM would love to have Microsoft's profit marging. IBM made $7B in profit on $89B in revenue. MS had $8B in profit on $36B in revenue.
IBM's not too worried about staying in the black. For some reason, some people seem to confuse IBM with a struggling OSS supporting company.
I have a machine that is in terrible shape including some sort of registry corruption and ati driver issues. I installed SP2 last night and the machine was actually in better shape after the install...no more registry issues and less ati issues.
Just because people here think that Red Hat is a good company doesn't mean that Red Hat is held to a lower standard. An earnings restatement is an earnings restatement. If they did wrong they should suffer the paint that other "restaters" have felt. Subscription accounting models are very difficult to account for and have caused problems for many in the past.
I lost all of my bookmarks. That was pretty disappointing.
Unfortunately I don't have anything other than anecdotal evidence. I work for a company that often competes with IBM's services group and we generally beat them on price...not to say that we always win.
using the free operating system as a lure.
Don't fool yourself though, IBM may not charge you much for the O/S, but they are busy selling you hardware, WebSphere software, and consulting services which are very expensive. When you price out all of that an IBM solution is very often one of your most expensive options.
This was a fine on Gates personal investments, so why is this even /. news worthy? Yes, it is peripherally related to anti-trust matters, but it is still pointless.
I love all the conspiracy theory that pops up right away how MS is going to be selling drugs and other bs. A common investing strategy is to have a diverse portfolio and this is clearly part of that for Bill.
I agree about Sun's market is in the high end, but the issue is that much of that market is being cannibalized by cheaper technologies. Yes, part of that market will always exist, but the big growth area in servers for the last several years has been the 2-way x86 Linux/Windows boxes. Sun has not part of that market and has suffered b/c of it.
I understand the skepticism about Microsoft's position in this situation, but you also have to take a look at what Baystar does as a hedge fund. In general, these types of funds are involved in higher risk investing in order to get much higher returns than the general market or S&P 500. $20 million is probably not a significant sum to these people as many hedge funds only allow investment at the $1M level and up. If SCO was to win a couple billion in lawsuits Baystar would stand to make a massive profit.
I know people here will find it hard to believe, but Outlook 2003 has most of the IBM's concepts already incorporated.
Retailers generally have two choices when discounting an item. They can either take it out of their own margin or they can get the manufacturer to authorize a price break. In the second case, the manufacturer shares the burden of discount which also allows often for better discounts. Clearly Apple isn't authorizing anyone to discount their stuff. Theoretically, retailers could discount iPod out of their own margin, but Apple is holding the reigns tight. Sounds like Amazon might have one of the better discounts around.