i walk by that guy downtown like every day at lunch...he's an old chinese guy with funny flip-up shades on his glasses. the sign says something like 'impeach clinton reagan ford bush for violating the gamma-mega treaties of zialon'...
look at least four different people have refuted you already - can you please just admit you're wrong about the apple tcp/ip stack??? otherwise you have no credibility.
my friend works and 3dfx and basically the word is that tom is on the payroll of nvidia....3dfx gave him a look at one of their marketing docs and he went and leaked it to the world. 3dfx is not angelic but tom essentially is biased due to getting sponsored by nvdia
a REALLY good example of what oreilly is talking about is the current ebay vs. the world scenario where ebay is preventing crawlers such as auctionwatch and biddersedge from indexing their site, and also were lycos, msn, and other portals are creating an auction network using fairmarket as infrastructure.
essentially ebay has a proprietary interface to the person-to-person auction market, something that is literally worth hundreds of billions of dollars. if they win by imposing their "ui" on the auction market within ~ the next five years, they can sit back and own one of the most valuable franchises around...kind of like microsoft.
this still doesn't address the direct question at hand - how exactly does opening the source to my software product make me more money? i think the difference is this: if you're starting out fresh, open-source is a nice way to outsource some of the development to other minds. but if you (like, say microsoft) have an existing product and have millions of r&d/acquisition capital invested in it, open-sourcing it is NOT more profitable! companies aren't generally worried about making "better" software, they're worried about making more money. if making better software (sun) is a requirement, they'll do it. if they have a monopoly (microsoft) they are generally less inclined to do it...
look there IS no long term. understanding that is the difference from 90% (m$) desktop share and 3-5% (apple). there's no real advantage in being technically superior, bill knew that if he came out with NT that didn't have backwards compatibility that vendors would all have to recompile for new target, users couldnt use their visicalc spreadsheets, and a HUGE opportunity for someone like apple to come in would appear out of nowhere. i mean, if "windows 93" can't run my old apps, i might as well look at other os's out there??? granted apple made a nice leap to ppc architecture...but if bill could do it all over again, would he do it different? not likely.
how do you feel about the net becoming a tool of greedy mba's? looking back what would you say we as an online bbs community should have done around 89-93 to prevent or coopt this process? or do you feel that its ok and that the net is all about choice i.e. if you want to participate in the selling of the net you can if you don't you don't have to?
just to elaborate, my basic point is this: when you as a technology company are faced with a "disruptive" threat, trying to fight it often ends in disaster. ebay might be an exception because of their market strenght ( ~ 70% of all auction listings) but with distribution like msn, excite, lycos etc. the competition is bound to grow. ebay needs to offer listers and bidders the best auction experience - even if part of it isn't on ebay.com.
>Pursglove said that, although it's not yet occurred, search queries from outside engines could potentially slow down eBay's database.
hm...they seems to be having enough problems as it is. seriously, ebay should be doing their own meta-auction service. this would be the smart way to do it...
Slashdot Mirror
i walk by that guy downtown like every day at lunch...he's an old chinese guy with funny flip-up shades on his glasses. the sign says something like 'impeach clinton reagan ford bush for violating the gamma-mega treaties of zialon' ...
of course!
who is suns visionary? joy or mcneily?
i think bill's mind is just a hallway.
look at least four different people have refuted you already - can you please just admit you're wrong about the apple tcp/ip stack??? otherwise you have no credibility.
no taste...waitafrigginminit! steve, i know thats you! does woz read slashdot too?
war is peace. love is hate. windows is stable.
my friend works and 3dfx and basically the word is that tom is on the payroll of nvidia....3dfx gave him a look at one of their marketing docs and he went and leaked it to the world. 3dfx is not angelic but tom essentially is biased due to getting sponsored by nvdia
you like that free netcenter email address, don't ya?
why is this a zero???? i really don't understand the moderation around here...
a REALLY good example of what oreilly is talking about is the current ebay vs. the world scenario where ebay is preventing crawlers such as auctionwatch and biddersedge from indexing their site, and also were lycos, msn, and other portals are creating an auction network using fairmarket as infrastructure.
essentially ebay has a proprietary interface to the person-to-person auction market, something that is literally worth hundreds of billions of dollars. if they win by imposing their "ui" on the auction market within ~ the next five years, they can sit back and own one of the most valuable franchises around...kind of like microsoft.
perens gets high scores for any comment
this still doesn't address the direct question at hand - how exactly does opening the source to my software product make me more money? i think the difference is this: if you're starting out fresh, open-source is a nice way to outsource some of the development to other minds. but if you (like, say microsoft) have an existing product and have millions of r&d/acquisition capital invested in it, open-sourcing it is NOT more profitable!
companies aren't generally worried about making "better" software, they're worried about making more money. if making better software (sun) is a requirement, they'll do it. if they have a monopoly (microsoft) they are generally less inclined to do it...
good point, wouldnt it be funny if they os'd pieces and someone found gpl code in there and they had to open the whole thing!
cant believe they went there
look there IS no long term. understanding that is the difference from 90% (m$) desktop share and 3-5% (apple). there's no real advantage in being technically superior, bill knew that if he came out with NT that didn't have backwards compatibility that vendors would all have to recompile for new target, users couldnt use their visicalc spreadsheets, and a HUGE opportunity for someone like apple to come in would appear out of nowhere. i mean, if "windows 93" can't run my old apps, i might as well look at other os's out there??? granted apple made a nice leap to ppc architecture...but if bill could do it all over again, would he do it different? not likely.
the funny part of this thing is ms whining about linux people's fud by promising things in the future that nt has today!!!
seriously once ms starts to compete on product quality theyre in SERIOUS trouble -- their whole model is leverage
of course, bill was RIGHT from a biz standpoint..
how do you feel about the net becoming a tool of greedy mba's? looking back what would you say we as an online bbs community should have done around 89-93 to prevent or coopt this process? or do you feel that its ok and that the net is all about choice i.e. if you want to participate in the selling of the net you can if you don't you don't have to?
if you use a G3 how do u feel about apple preventing you from upgrading your CPU?
thirds
open source continues to climb up the value chain...
sorry, couldnt resisit...
just to elaborate, my basic point is this: when you as a technology company are faced with a "disruptive" threat, trying to fight it often ends in disaster. ebay might be an exception because of their market strenght ( ~ 70% of all auction listings) but with distribution like msn, excite, lycos etc. the competition is bound to grow. ebay needs to offer listers and bidders the best auction experience - even if part of it isn't on ebay.com.
>Pursglove said that, although it's not yet occurred, search queries from outside engines could potentially slow down eBay's database.
hm...they seems to be having enough problems as it is. seriously, ebay should be doing their own meta-auction service. this would be the smart way to do it...
i'll bet digi could get some pretty good lawyers to work pro bono...