Hey. I gave you your props for posting the article. But I started them trolling. And I gave you props for posting my personal info. Don't try and take credit for what you didn't do. Thanks.
May I have a good example of something that has come to help the masses that didn't require capital? Linux isn't a good example. It is hardly helping the masses, and it isn't that good. Capital leads to innovation. There are probably 100,000 examples of this. I am not saying that innovation can't come without capital, I am saying that most innovation comes because of capital.
I might have misread - my comprehension isn't what it used to be - but I believe that the point he was making is Linux is a threat to innovation, and a threat to intellectual property right, but not a threat to Microsoft. I think that statement can be true. At this point, in most places, Linux isn't a Microsoft competitor. Linux tries to be something that Windows 2000 doesn't, namely free.
Suppose a salesperson for Little Guy software walks into a Massive Enterprise, Inc. and demonstrates a product. That product does everything the Massive Enterprise needs, and the product costs $50,000. Now suppose that a salesperson for Super Goliath software walks into Massive Enterprise, Inc., and demonstrates their product. That product also does everything the Massive Enterprise needs, but because Super Goliath is the market leader, the software costs $500,000. Who do you think wins the contract? Well, almost always it is Super Goliath. Why? Even though Little Guy Software may be cheaper, even though it may do the same thing as Super Goliath's software - hell, it may even be better - by going with Super Goliath, and paying an extra $450,000, Massive Enterprise, Inc. is buying insurance. They are going with a known entity. They may like Little Guy Software, and may hate Super Goliath, and they may know that Super Goliath is charging too much, but because Massive Enterprise, Inc. can't easily quantify the risk assoicated with buying from Little Guy Software, Super Goliath Software wins the contract.
It is very hard for business people - simply because they are business people - to understand how something for free from a band of volunteers can be as good an investment as something that costs money from a large, established company. And that is why Linux is not really a competitor to Microsoft at this time. That may change, I don't know, but I believe that Microsoft is somewhat accurate in saying that they don't view Linux as a competitor.
Is Microsoft accurate in saying that Linux is a threat to intellectual property rights? I don't know. I think I would need a more persuassive argument, since my initial reaction is that the argument is counter-intuitive. But, lots of things seem counter-intuitive, but are still accurate.
Is Microsoft accurate in saying that Linux is a threat to innovation? I think that holds some water. For many people, money is incentive. Many, many innovations come out of people's desire to make money. I know there are many open source projects, but let's consider Linux. Let's say that Linux does one day become the defacto standard operating system, and it is available for free from everywhere. Do you think that Microsoft (Sun, IBM, etc.) would continue to be in the OS business? No. Since those companies are in business to make profits, if OS development wasn't profitable, they would abandon that line of business. It really is that simple. Well, that would leave Linux as an open-source monopoly who's directed, focused R&D ability would be very limited. There are no financial resources to do the types of things that go into building a system as complex as an operating system. No one would be around to do the market research to find out the new features that people/business want/need. If no one is doing the market research, than you can be confident that needs are going unmet.
Say what you want about Microsoft / Apple and innovation, but the only reason the internet is such a success is because of their advances in the OS. I know they both stole it from PARC, but the point remains. If it wasn't for them, or some other company in their place, we would all still be using command line OS - because "it works." This is the type of stagnation you have when there is no R&D capital being poured into a project. OS development requires R&D. R&D requires money, money for R&D comes from companies willing to make an investment in order to turn a profit, and I don't believe that a band of volunteers could make up the gapping hole in R&D spending if every for-profit OS maker were to abandon the line of business.
As an example, consider The Internet. The internet was invented in the late 60's, right? Over the course of about 25 years, not much about the internet changed, because not much R&D was put into it. It had a purpose (research/communication between academics), and for 25 years it served that purpose well. Because it worked so well, and because it had so little capital, in 25 years there was very little innovation from the original TCP/IP stack. (Obviously I am kicking aside such advances as sendmail, BIND, etc., but I think my point will soon become eveident). But, in 1994 - the year of the internet - business discovered that the internet might be a good investment that would return a profit in the future. So, what happened? Well, in just about 7 years (can you believe it has been that long?), for-profit internet R&D has probably lead to a quantity of innovation that is on the scale of 2 or 3 orders of magnitude over the amount of innovation that occured in the first 25 years of the internet.
My thesis is that no opportunity for profit leads to no desire to invest R&D capital, and no R&D capital leads to a stiffling of innovation, and I believe that is what Allchin was saying in his comments about open source being a hinderance to innovation.
Flame away.
Are we supposed to believe this guy? He can't even write a sentence in proper English. Sounds like he is just upset because Intel doesn't take him seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey. I gave you your props for posting the article. But I started them trolling. And I gave you props for posting my personal info. Don't try and take credit for what you didn't do. Thanks.
Spanky
May I have a good example of something that has come to help the masses that didn't require capital? Linux isn't a good example. It is hardly helping the masses, and it isn't that good. Capital leads to innovation. There are probably 100,000 examples of this. I am not saying that innovation can't come without capital, I am saying that most innovation comes because of capital.
I might have misread - my comprehension isn't what it used to be - but I believe that the point he was making is Linux is a threat to innovation, and a threat to intellectual property right, but not a threat to Microsoft. I think that statement can be true. At this point, in most places, Linux isn't a Microsoft competitor. Linux tries to be something that Windows 2000 doesn't, namely free. Suppose a salesperson for Little Guy software walks into a Massive Enterprise, Inc. and demonstrates a product. That product does everything the Massive Enterprise needs, and the product costs $50,000. Now suppose that a salesperson for Super Goliath software walks into Massive Enterprise, Inc., and demonstrates their product. That product also does everything the Massive Enterprise needs, but because Super Goliath is the market leader, the software costs $500,000. Who do you think wins the contract? Well, almost always it is Super Goliath. Why? Even though Little Guy Software may be cheaper, even though it may do the same thing as Super Goliath's software - hell, it may even be better - by going with Super Goliath, and paying an extra $450,000, Massive Enterprise, Inc. is buying insurance. They are going with a known entity. They may like Little Guy Software, and may hate Super Goliath, and they may know that Super Goliath is charging too much, but because Massive Enterprise, Inc. can't easily quantify the risk assoicated with buying from Little Guy Software, Super Goliath Software wins the contract. It is very hard for business people - simply because they are business people - to understand how something for free from a band of volunteers can be as good an investment as something that costs money from a large, established company. And that is why Linux is not really a competitor to Microsoft at this time. That may change, I don't know, but I believe that Microsoft is somewhat accurate in saying that they don't view Linux as a competitor. Is Microsoft accurate in saying that Linux is a threat to intellectual property rights? I don't know. I think I would need a more persuassive argument, since my initial reaction is that the argument is counter-intuitive. But, lots of things seem counter-intuitive, but are still accurate. Is Microsoft accurate in saying that Linux is a threat to innovation? I think that holds some water. For many people, money is incentive. Many, many innovations come out of people's desire to make money. I know there are many open source projects, but let's consider Linux. Let's say that Linux does one day become the defacto standard operating system, and it is available for free from everywhere. Do you think that Microsoft (Sun, IBM, etc.) would continue to be in the OS business? No. Since those companies are in business to make profits, if OS development wasn't profitable, they would abandon that line of business. It really is that simple. Well, that would leave Linux as an open-source monopoly who's directed, focused R&D ability would be very limited. There are no financial resources to do the types of things that go into building a system as complex as an operating system. No one would be around to do the market research to find out the new features that people/business want/need. If no one is doing the market research, than you can be confident that needs are going unmet. Say what you want about Microsoft / Apple and innovation, but the only reason the internet is such a success is because of their advances in the OS. I know they both stole it from PARC, but the point remains. If it wasn't for them, or some other company in their place, we would all still be using command line OS - because "it works." This is the type of stagnation you have when there is no R&D capital being poured into a project. OS development requires R&D. R&D requires money, money for R&D comes from companies willing to make an investment in order to turn a profit, and I don't believe that a band of volunteers could make up the gapping hole in R&D spending if every for-profit OS maker were to abandon the line of business. As an example, consider The Internet. The internet was invented in the late 60's, right? Over the course of about 25 years, not much about the internet changed, because not much R&D was put into it. It had a purpose (research/communication between academics), and for 25 years it served that purpose well. Because it worked so well, and because it had so little capital, in 25 years there was very little innovation from the original TCP/IP stack. (Obviously I am kicking aside such advances as sendmail, BIND, etc., but I think my point will soon become eveident). But, in 1994 - the year of the internet - business discovered that the internet might be a good investment that would return a profit in the future. So, what happened? Well, in just about 7 years (can you believe it has been that long?), for-profit internet R&D has probably lead to a quantity of innovation that is on the scale of 2 or 3 orders of magnitude over the amount of innovation that occured in the first 25 years of the internet. My thesis is that no opportunity for profit leads to no desire to invest R&D capital, and no R&D capital leads to a stiffling of innovation, and I believe that is what Allchin was saying in his comments about open source being a hinderance to innovation. Flame away.
Are we supposed to believe this guy? He can't even write a sentence in proper English. Sounds like he is just upset because Intel doesn't take him seriously.