Most businesses won't risk ANY chance of losing access to those formats. Why risk losing access to a document containing your project that costs $500K if you only need to spend $500 to guarantee access?
This point is so moot, it's no longer funny. Office doesn't guarantee access at all. Every new Office-version means new formats and all the problems that come with them. Because there is no easy way to figure out the version of a.doc,.xls or.ppt, matters become even worse.
Hell, I had documents that were "broken" for Office97 and 2K, and could only be read by StarOffice. I had.docs created by Word97 that were messed up in Word97 on another computer.
If you think the Windows-world is perfect, you live in a dream-world. Windows/Office is a horrible environment to work in, the only thing that keeps people using it is the delusion that there are no alternatives. (Just look at your pathetic, uninformed post.)
And if you really need Office you can also use Crossover-Office to run it on Linux (and: yes, the installation is very easy and it's usable and very stable)
And it's not only MS Office documents. What about AutoCAD, 3d Studio Max or other Windows only software?
At least here you got a point. But there are lots of CAD-software on Linux, and lately every major 3D-software (except 3D-studio - yikes) seems to have been ported to Linux. Maya, for example. Shrek was created on Linux, StarWars2 was created on Linux.
Take that case and try to tell common user why this is bad and you'll understand difficulty of the job.
"No more mp3s, warez, moviez" - Easy to understand, easy to be against.
Microsoft will have a lot harder time telling the common user why this is a GOOD thing. And no, not all the money in Microsoft's basement invested in marketing will convince people.
What I've said is: Don't buy from Microsoft. If you do buy from Microsoft you'll end up with abridged liberties and reduced personal choice, because in that case Microsoft will succeed.
I have not said that XBox will win. If you believe that is what I've said, you either can't read, or want to misinterpret what I'm saying.
How can the first paragraph be not interpretet as claim that XBox will win?
Essentially, you say: "If you buy XBox, it will win"
Because one customer is irrelevant, this essentially means "XBox will probably win" which is exactly what Micrsoft wanted to be the public's opinion (and failed, thankfully).
So instead of telling people that Microsoft is a threat, I should tell them that ooh, Linux is making such great progress?
Exactly, what's wrong with that?
"Company xy employed Linux and saved xy thousand $, it could work for you, too." is much more effective than "Fight Microsoft to protect your freedom."
And it's true, too. No other OS has established itself so fast on servers and embedded systems. You really think that happened because somebody wanted to fight Microsoft? You are wrong. It happened because Linux is a good product, that's the *ONLY* reason. If you want to help Linux adoption, convince people that Linux is a good product, not that Microsoft is an evil company. People don't care about Microsoft's evilness - they only care if the MSFT's evilness is personally and DIRECTLY affecting them by disturbing them downloading mp3s for example.
The end result of that is making people complacent, instead of fighting back.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If people are convinced that Linux will win, they will look into it right now because they don't want to be left behind. They will get curious about what's so successful.
Ten users actually using and supporting (buy bying distros, helping other Linux users or even only by generating non-IE hits on webpages) Linux are worth more than a thousand using IE on Windows whining about how evil and scary Micrsoft is.
No, I talk like Microsoft is a serious threat to free competition, so they need to be fought, not ignored. And their 30 billion USD in the bank DOES make them a serious threat.
MSFT is a software company. If people start to ignore them (= not buy their products) they will start making losses.
One of the principles of good marketing is not to talk about competitor's products (MSFT's). Instead talk about our own solutions.
You don't win a war by pretending the enemy isn't particularly dangerous to avoid scaring people.
This is software, and it works fundamentally different than "a war". Ignorance is the WORST what can happen to software. Yes, you read that right: Ignorance is much worse for a product than "fighting against it".
In other words: If you actively oppose Microsoft now, by choosing a competitor instead, there's a greater chance that you will still have a choice in five years time.
One customumer alone can't change things, so *NO* there isn't a greater chance.
You just spread FUD, which does translate into:"Don't buy from Microsoft competitors. Their products are doomed, you will end up with an unsupported product. Buy an XBox, it will stay around forever."
Nobody wants to risk their money "so there's a greater chance that you will still have a choice in five years time", they will buy a product where they are *SURE* it's supported in five years. Thankfully, that's PS2 and NOT XBox which will be discontinued before PS3 or soon after PS3-launch.
However what I'm saying is that to ensure that Microsoft lose, you must fight them every step of the way, because the consequences you'll suffer if you allow them to win will be bad for all of us.
I know damn well what you *WANT* to say. You want to say "let's start a collective effort to mantain competition". Sorry to tell you, but collective efforts just don't work, everybody will do what is good for himself, not what is good for the collective. By claiming that such a collective effort is needed you imply that without it, the products are doomed -> don't buy competitor's products.
The IT industry is in the sorry state it is exactly because so many companies believed that Microsoft wouldn't be a threat to them. You don't fight Microsoft just with a better product, you need to counter their marketing, counter their FUD, counter their illegal monopolistic activities, fight them in court and in general fight them on all fronts.
Exactly, you need to counter their FUD.
Tell people the truth, that XBox is losing them billions, that it will never make money for Microsoft and that it's likely that it will be dropped without warning and they will be left out in the cold without any support just like the poor souls who bought in Windows/Alpha and Hailstorm.
What you do, is hype up XBox. I say it again: PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT MORALS. They will buy the winning product. Period. If you make them believe that XBox will win, they will buy XBox.
Since when did it become impossible to give hardware away? Funny, I've received hardware for free as part of promotions more than once in the past (though nothing as expensive as a games console, granted).
A XBox costs 350$, if you give it away, you give it to a lot of people who will never buy any games, so you waste it completely. For example if we assume that 1/4 of XBox receivers actually use it and buy games (I would certainly get one and let it collect dust - and lots of others too, so 1/4 is probably very optimistic) - so to reach an effective penetration like PS2 will have the end of the year, they would have to give away 40 million * 4 = 160 million, which would cost them 160m * 350$ = 56 billions.
They would waste all their money just to get on par with PS2. That will just not happen. Also their stock price would go down and Bill Gates valuable stock would become worthless.
You only demonstrate that you don't know the console market.
Anybody claiming the XBox to be a success does so. Everybody thinking XBox live will be a success, does so. (Broadband-only -> doomed, too few have broadband and those who do have all computers which are better for online-gaming.)
Funny, actually I've speaken to MSFT-shareholders and they have come up with exactly the same arguments like you: That MSFT is sooo strong, that they can push around competition and that they know what they are doing. Yes, MSFT is proud of being able to bully other companies.
No company has managed to maintain dominance for extended periods of time - dominance has shifted back and forth between multiple players so many time it's getting ridiculous.
You want to know why? Because so far nobody included backward-compatibility. Just like Microsoft currently has the lock on desktop-software, Sony has it on consoles and Nintendo has it on portable consoles.
That Microsoft don't care about the console market, because if they did they would have spent real money on it, and followed their usual tactics: Aquisitions, agressive price cuts on key products to establish a market hold, and bullying OEMs.
Well, they were willing to spend 30 billion to purchase Nintendo, did you forget that? They can't bully OEMs in consoles, how should that work?
Oh and everybody seems to forget that their first console (WinCE on Dreamcast) was a huge failure, too.
To sum up: Alerting people to the threat that Microsoft is is not providing marketing for Microsoft any more than claiming that saying people need to fight to overthrow a dictator would be providing marketing for that dictator.
All revolutions had a positive goal, like "We will win, we can make it, we will change it for the better", not "the dictator will win anyway, and a lot of us will die for nothing."
Revolutions were won by LEADERS and not whiners.
If you want to help Linux, tell people about Linux-success-stories, not about Microsoft success-stories.
Tell them that XBox is doomed because it is doomed. Tell Webdesigners that Mozilla will become an unavoidable browser because 30 million AOL customers and 50 million future PS3 users will use it. Never mind those who like it's features. Tell them that resistance against Microsoft is NOT futile because so far Microsoft has failed every time trying to destroy the Internet (proprietary MSN, Hailstorm). Tell them that Microsoft is trapped in their own stock-option house of cards. Tell Microsoft shareholders that Microsoft has a worse P/E than a savings book.
But, yes, your talk like "Microsoft has soooooo much money in the bank, they are sooo powerful, competing against MSFT is soo hard" and your refusal to accept any Microsoft-failure does lead to capitulation.
Do you seriously think that people shouldn't fight out of fear for making people capitulate?
No, and I already said so.
It's just that you are fighting in the wrong direction.
As with most Slashdot weenies, you're confusing yourself with "people". Most people buy CDs and DVDs. Any system that has looked like it might reach too many people has been ruthlessly destroyed (Napster, AudioGalaxy, Kazaa, DeCSS, net radio,...).
... and every system that included "pay-per-view" or subscription was not accepted by the market. Which was my main point (which you didn't quote - oh how I love selective quoting)
No, you're confusing "free beer" with "free speech".
Huh? OpenSource enabled the Internet, it would be impossible without it. That was my point. Maybe you should answer to my point instead of switching topics.
You have to snap out of your complacency. Freedom isn't something that you can sit around and wait for, it's something you have to fight for.
Yes. But helping Microsoft by sprewing FUD ("Microsoft has 40$ in cash and can destroy Sony and Nintendo - whohooo") is a bit counter-productive, don't you think?
I'm not going to hold my breath on that one. Especially since Apple has a substantially higher percentage of the desktop market than Linux and Apple has apparently been "replaced".
Well, in Europe Linux already overtook Apple by a large margin. On many German sites, people browsing with Linux already make up 10% or more.
I still don't get it why Walmart is selling their Linux-PCs exclusively in the weakest Linux-market on the planet (USA)
This is foolish in the extreme. People pay ridiculous subscriptions and fees everytime they buy a CD, a DVD, or a player for either of those media.
What? DVDs and CDs are popular because there is absolutely NO subscription involved. Because you "OWN" the movie/music (yes I do know that it's just a license in court).
Every scheme that takes away ownership from the user has failed so far, I don't think that a scheme that takes away ownership of the PC (which is even more severe) will succeed. Yes ownership includes the "doing what the hell I want with it" - factor.
It is because of this that P2P scares the media industry so badly. They currently make vast profits out of people who don't realise that they are being ripped off. They will do - and already are doing - anything to protect that.
... and continue failing...
The media companies have already managed to come up with a film format that only their approved players can play (DVD) and make it illegal for you to reverse engineer your own (DMCA). Just how stupid do you have to be to think that they won't do the same for music and broadcast video.
How stupid do you have to be to think people care about what's illegal?
You can get almost any movie on the net you can get in stores. Correction: You can get A LOT MORE movies on the net than you can get in stores. That's a fact.
Sorry, exactly when is Linux or the open source movement going to change anything?
Well, Opensource made it possible that you can spread your "Microsoft will win - FUD" here. Because if it were not for Linux, Apache and BSD, we would all run proprietary MSN connections and only big corporations could afford going online with webpages. (Big corps don't like discussion, so there would simply be no such thing as slashdot.)
Opensource has already destroyed Microsoft's plans. Microsoft is fighting a losing battle.
If Microsoft is the most incompetent company in IT, then how come they have 40 billion USD in the bank, and by market cap is still the largest company in the world?
I knew that would come.
They have the DOS/Windows-domination that gets them bilions of $ per year. It's natural that you become lazy, incompetent and ignorant when you get so much money "automatically". In the 70's and early 80's they were not like that, but right now, they are.
And thanks to people LIKE ME, Microsoft doesn't always succeed with their most outrageous ideas, because people are made aware that Microsoft isn't looking out for their interests, but are trying their best to screw them.
You are funny. You really think that anybody believes that MS is looking for their interests. People are not that dumb. Get off your high horse.
That's bullshit. People telling consumers that what Microsoft does will infringe on their freedoms and take away their options is not good marketing for Microsoft.
That depends on what freedom. If it's freedom to choose competition, it's the best marketing Microsoft can get. People like choosing from multiple vendors, yes, but they don't like being left in the cold with an unsupported product. So when you convince somebody that product xy will monopolize the market, it's a *PRO* argument to buy it. Even if the customer would like competition. (It's a prisoner's dilemma)
What is much better for Microsoft are people like you trying to discount the concerns by saying it won't be a problem. That leave people open to believe Microsofts marketing, because they see no vocal opposition.
I'm not saying "it won't be a problem when you use it", I'm saying "it will be irrelevant and not become a standard". Big difference.
Microsoft has had tons of mediocre performing products and services, and has sunk hundreds of millions into failed ventures before, including a series of dot-coms. Some of them were quite high profile failures. X-Box won't be the first, and unlikely the last.
But it will be the first one visible by the public. All other failures are usually known only by IT-experts, but XBox will be a failure EVERYBODY will know about.
Even so, I doubt XBox will flop if Microsoft really care about it. Microsoft make enough money to give the damn thing away for free, and still stay in the black. They can easily destroy the console market and crush both Sony and Nintendo in a price war if they see the game console market as important enough to justify it - 40 billion USD could cover quite an amount of free XBox units.
Translation: Don't buy from Microsoft competitors. Their products are doomed, you will end up with an unsupported product. Buy an XBox, it will stay around forever.
You did it again. You might hate Microsoft, but Microsoft loves people like you because of the FUD you spread about non-Microsoft products. Ever heard of self-fullfilling prophecy?
You know what FUD is, right?
Fear about no more games, Uncertainity about the platform being available, Doubt about the company being able to compete with the allmighty Microsoft empire. People give shit about morals. They don't care about the point you are trying to make, they only see the FUD you spread about non-MS products.
And the best thing is that Microsoft doesn't even have to pay you.
Fact remains that
- They can't give away XBox because it's hardware.
- Even if it were available for free, people would still prefer the PS2 because it has more, cheaper and better games
- The PS3 is coming and will take away the only thing going for the XBox (technical advances in the 2 years it came out after the PS2). And MS can't release a new console every 2 years because that would piss off customers even more. So when the PS3 comes and XBox hasn't reached more marketshare than PS2, the game is over.
So, no, Microsoft can't destroy the console market. PS2 sales didn't even slow down during the XBox release and XBox is essentially dead in Japan (They will sell the 250000 units they wanted to sell in the first month in the first YEAR) and dying in Europe.
Microsoft makes more losses per unit than expected and sells less units than expected. XBox has failed against PS2 and PS2/3 is threatening the low-end Home Windows-PC.
No, they can't.
Linux will replace Windows just like the open PC-platform replaced Apple and Amiga.
It's just a matter of time, but it already started to happen. Walmart selling Linux-PCs and South-Korea deploying Linux on 1/4 of their desktops is just the beginning.
Microsoft knows that, even when the average slashdotter is busy whining about the evil Microsoft-monopoly which no longer exists anyway.
The biggest driving force of Palladium/Longhorn will be the DRM technology.
This is a contradiction in itself. DRM is no driving force, it's a roadblock.
It has been tried. Remember the hardware "DivX" player?
People want to consume media and
Wait, there is no "and" in this sentence. People want to consume media, their interest end after that. They don't want to pay ridiculous amounts for subscriptions and fees.
the media companies will require rights management.
Well, and I demand a million $ from you.
Sometimes you don't get what you demand. Especially when you make unrealistic requirements. I would guess the chances of the media companies getting bullet-proof DRM is about as high as I getting a million from you.
Of course they won't make new PCs refuse to run unauthenticated binaries right away. That would of course kill them.
The "safer" way for Microsoft, is to make their next version of Windows warn you whenever you try to do something "unsafe". Imagine if each time you connect to a webserver not running this security stuff, you get a window saying that you are connecting to an insecure site and that you should ask the site operator to upgrade to a secure system.
I imagine lots of pissed users and lots of suspicious users and lots of users who have lost their confidence that the next Windows will allow them to pirate.
A message like this can be translated to: "Microsoft is watching you" - Thing is, people don't like to be watched when they download warez, mp3s, porn and divx-movies.
People will avoid any system that has sub-par mp3/porn/divx/warez capabilities and will switch to something else (*gasp* Linux) if Windows loses these capabilities or gives hints that the next version will lose them.
And as for switching to Linux, you might not have that option, as the entire point about Palladium was that it is mean to be enforced in hardware via alliances with Intel and AMD (for now).
Linux runs the majority of servers, so Intel and AMD will support Linux, no matter what Microsoft sais.
Microsoft may be evil, but they aren't stupid...
LOL. Yeah, that's why I see Hailstorm-websites all over the web.
And Bill Gates surely didn't say anything stupid when he claimed "Internet will never be popular [and will get killed by proprietary MSN]". Or look at XBox which is the most innefficient and expensive gaming system on the planet. Microsoft is the only one losing huge amounts of money, yet they are at last position compared to Gamecube and PS2.
Face it: Microsoft is probably the most incompetent company in IT. The only thing that gets them going is endless backwards-compatibility with their x86-desktop domination. (which dates back to 1981)
People can't afford to take the risk of discounting their ideas.
Wrong, people should start discounting their ideas.
Microsoft marketing works like this:
"We will release product xy next year"
Then people LIKE YOU come around and scream "the sky is falling!", "Microsoft is evil", "boycott this product, it will destroy competition!"
To Joe Average this all sounds like "Product xy will become the standard and all alternatives will become unsupported." -> Joe buys product xy. I wonder how many people have bought a XBox because they thought it would become "the standard" which was told so often all over the net. It's amazing how XBox sales figures dropped after it became clear that PS2 won't be dethrowned. Even in the USA XBox fell behind Gamecube.
Nobody likes to be a mayrtyr, people like you are Microsoft's greatest marketing asset. Actually they don't have to do much marketing, people like you do it for them.
I'm very thankful for Microsoft releasing the XBox, because it will fail so badly that Microsoft will lose their standard-setting image. (Microsoft had many blunders in the past like Windows/Alpha, MS Bob, Hailstorm, etc. But XBox will be first the average customer will know about) In the post-XBox era, Microsoft will have to actually deliver something more than a press release to convince people of future standards.
If your new PC refuded to run unauthenticated binaries, that would pretty much kill Windows.
Let me explain:
IMO, the only thing that keeps Windows going is that people have so much software lying around that they have a hard time switching.
Now if the first PCs with this limitation come to the market that force you to replace all your software many would just switch to Linux because your software will become worthless sooner or later if you stay on Windows.
And if Microsoft is stupid enough to enforce Palladium in their OS, Wine/Linux will have BETTER WINDOWS COMPATIBILITY than Windows itself.
Not only Open-Source is too big, their own installed base is too big, too.
The majority of users still use Win98, a 4 year old OS - which is only a minor step up of Win95, a 7 year old OS. (And Win95 is also still used by over 10% of users.)
So if we extrapolate this figures:
If MS starts this scheme in 2 years, it will take another 7 years until 90% of their users have it (and that's still not enough because 10% is still too much to lose).
And because Linux is starting to make inroads (Governments of South-Korea, Germany, France, Israel and many other organizations are getting Linux on desktops) it will be too late for them in a couple of years anyway. Even if Linux only captures 10% within the next 5 years, this is enough to make such schemes fail.
I don't even have to talk about the server-side because you already did.
First of all, it's not at all about the GPL. MS may want to lock out everything non-Windows, but that would include the BSDs and BeOS or OS/2 if they were alive. (none are under the GPL)
Then, people just don't want this. They did not ask for it, they will not pay for it and they will not buy it. It does not add any value to the product.
Then, Linux will adapt fast enough. If this really affects internet-applications, then it wouldn't be viable without Linux, Linux runs the majority of Webservers, remember?
I dismiss this thing as "Microsoft strategy of the week". It's the next Hailstorm.
boa is right, it's not really useful if it's not there by default. (It doesn't have to be enabled, but the plugin should be in the default distro)
I always wanted that feature and if I haven't read this thread on slashdot, I would have never known that the problem is already solved. Put it in the default distro, only the most esoteric/unstable plugins should not be included.
Everything you said is also true for OS-free PCs, even more so, because for basic email, websurfing etc. Lindows is just fine.
So obviously your statement "These machines aren't destined to be a big hit." is wrong as the OS-free PCs seem to sell quite well.
This elitism on slashdot is starting to annoy me. The average computer user knows very well what an OS is and can understand the concept of Lindows not being 100% compatible. Yes, there are people who don't, but those are clearly much, much BELOW average and don't shop cheap no-name computers.
Slashdot Mirror
1) LSB is formed
2) SuSE implements it, nobody else cares (especially RedHat and Mandrake)
3) SuSE forms United Linux with Caldera and some others.
4) All of the sudden Mandrake likes the LSB.
But I still don't believe Mandrake being compliant unless I see it.
This point is so moot, it's no longer funny. Office doesn't guarantee access at all. Every new Office-version means new formats and all the problems that come with them. Because there is no easy way to figure out the version of a .doc, .xls or .ppt, matters become even worse.
Hell, I had documents that were "broken" for Office97 and 2K, and could only be read by StarOffice. I had .docs created by Word97 that were messed up in Word97 on another computer.
If you think the Windows-world is perfect, you live in a dream-world. Windows/Office is a horrible environment to work in, the only thing that keeps people using it is the delusion that there are no alternatives. (Just look at your pathetic, uninformed post.)
And if you really need Office you can also use Crossover-Office to run it on Linux (and: yes, the installation is very easy and it's usable and very stable)
And it's not only MS Office documents. What about AutoCAD, 3d Studio Max or other Windows only software?
At least here you got a point. But there are lots of CAD-software on Linux, and lately every major 3D-software (except 3D-studio - yikes) seems to have been ported to Linux. Maya, for example. Shrek was created on Linux, StarWars2 was created on Linux.
It's OK if you release a new box every 5-6 years, but releasing a new one every 2 years will not work.
Finally! World domination! ;-)
Yes, and the one big partner/customer who does switch, will lose *ALL* their partners/supplyers, not only one.
You just perfectly illustrated why Palladium won't work.
"No more mp3s, warez, moviez" - Easy to understand, easy to be against.
Microsoft will have a lot harder time telling the common user why this is a GOOD thing. And no, not all the money in Microsoft's basement invested in marketing will convince people.
I have not said that XBox will win. If you believe that is what I've said, you either can't read, or want to misinterpret what I'm saying.
How can the first paragraph be not interpretet as claim that XBox will win?
Essentially, you say: "If you buy XBox, it will win"
Because one customer is irrelevant, this essentially means "XBox will probably win" which is exactly what Micrsoft wanted to be the public's opinion (and failed, thankfully).
So instead of telling people that Microsoft is a threat, I should tell them that ooh, Linux is making such great progress?
Exactly, what's wrong with that?
"Company xy employed Linux and saved xy thousand $, it could work for you, too." is much more effective than "Fight Microsoft to protect your freedom."
And it's true, too. No other OS has established itself so fast on servers and embedded systems. You really think that happened because somebody wanted to fight Microsoft? You are wrong. It happened because Linux is a good product, that's the *ONLY* reason. If you want to help Linux adoption, convince people that Linux is a good product, not that Microsoft is an evil company. People don't care about Microsoft's evilness - they only care if the MSFT's evilness is personally and DIRECTLY affecting them by disturbing them downloading mp3s for example.
The end result of that is making people complacent, instead of fighting back.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
If people are convinced that Linux will win, they will look into it right now because they don't want to be left behind. They will get curious about what's so successful.
Ten users actually using and supporting (buy bying distros, helping other Linux users or even only by generating non-IE hits on webpages) Linux are worth more than a thousand using IE on Windows whining about how evil and scary Micrsoft is.
No, I talk like Microsoft is a serious threat to free competition, so they need to be fought, not ignored. And their 30 billion USD in the bank DOES make them a serious threat.
MSFT is a software company. If people start to ignore them (= not buy their products) they will start making losses.
One of the principles of good marketing is not to talk about competitor's products (MSFT's). Instead talk about our own solutions.
You don't win a war by pretending the enemy isn't particularly dangerous to avoid scaring people.
This is software, and it works fundamentally different than "a war". Ignorance is the WORST what can happen to software. Yes, you read that right: Ignorance is much worse for a product than "fighting against it".
One customumer alone can't change things, so *NO* there isn't a greater chance.
You just spread FUD, which does translate into:"Don't buy from Microsoft competitors. Their products are doomed, you will end up with an unsupported product. Buy an XBox, it will stay around forever."
Nobody wants to risk their money "so there's a greater chance that you will still have a choice in five years time", they will buy a product where they are *SURE* it's supported in five years. Thankfully, that's PS2 and NOT XBox which will be discontinued before PS3 or soon after PS3-launch.
However what I'm saying is that to ensure that Microsoft lose, you must fight them every step of the way, because the consequences you'll suffer if you allow them to win will be bad for all of us.
I know damn well what you *WANT* to say. You want to say "let's start a collective effort to mantain competition". Sorry to tell you, but collective efforts just don't work, everybody will do what is good for himself, not what is good for the collective. By claiming that such a collective effort is needed you imply that without it, the products are doomed -> don't buy competitor's products.
The IT industry is in the sorry state it is exactly because so many companies believed that Microsoft wouldn't be a threat to them. You don't fight Microsoft just with a better product, you need to counter their marketing, counter their FUD, counter their illegal monopolistic activities, fight them in court and in general fight them on all fronts.
Exactly, you need to counter their FUD.
Tell people the truth, that XBox is losing them billions, that it will never make money for Microsoft and that it's likely that it will be dropped without warning and they will be left out in the cold without any support just like the poor souls who bought in Windows/Alpha and Hailstorm.
What you do, is hype up XBox. I say it again: PEOPLE DON'T CARE ABOUT MORALS. They will buy the winning product. Period. If you make them believe that XBox will win, they will buy XBox.
Since when did it become impossible to give hardware away? Funny, I've received hardware for free as part of promotions more than once in the past (though nothing as expensive as a games console, granted).
A XBox costs 350$, if you give it away, you give it to a lot of people who will never buy any games, so you waste it completely. For example if we assume that 1/4 of XBox receivers actually use it and buy games (I would certainly get one and let it collect dust - and lots of others too, so 1/4 is probably very optimistic) - so to reach an effective penetration like PS2 will have the end of the year, they would have to give away 40 million * 4 = 160 million, which would cost them 160m * 350$ = 56 billions.
They would waste all their money just to get on par with PS2. That will just not happen. Also their stock price would go down and Bill Gates valuable stock would become worthless.
You only demonstrate that you don't know the console market.
Anybody claiming the XBox to be a success does so. Everybody thinking XBox live will be a success, does so. (Broadband-only -> doomed, too few have broadband and those who do have all computers which are better for online-gaming.)
Funny, actually I've speaken to MSFT-shareholders and they have come up with exactly the same arguments like you: That MSFT is sooo strong, that they can push around competition and that they know what they are doing. Yes, MSFT is proud of being able to bully other companies.
No company has managed to maintain dominance for extended periods of time - dominance has shifted back and forth between multiple players so many time it's getting ridiculous.
You want to know why? Because so far nobody included backward-compatibility. Just like Microsoft currently has the lock on desktop-software, Sony has it on consoles and Nintendo has it on portable consoles.
That Microsoft don't care about the console market, because if they did they would have spent real money on it, and followed their usual tactics: Aquisitions, agressive price cuts on key products to establish a market hold, and bullying OEMs.
Well, they were willing to spend 30 billion to purchase Nintendo, did you forget that? They can't bully OEMs in consoles, how should that work?
Oh and everybody seems to forget that their first console (WinCE on Dreamcast) was a huge failure, too.
To sum up: Alerting people to the threat that Microsoft is is not providing marketing for Microsoft any more than claiming that saying people need to fight to overthrow a dictator would be providing marketing for that dictator.
All revolutions had a positive goal, like "We will win, we can make it, we will change it for the better", not "the dictator will win anyway, and a lot of us will die for nothing."
Revolutions were won by LEADERS and not whiners.
If you want to help Linux, tell people about Linux-success-stories, not about Microsoft success-stories.
Tell them that XBox is doomed because it is doomed. Tell Webdesigners that Mozilla will become an unavoidable browser because 30 million AOL customers and 50 million future PS3 users will use it. Never mind those who like it's features. Tell them that resistance against Microsoft is NOT futile because so far Microsoft has failed every time trying to destroy the Internet (proprietary MSN, Hailstorm). Tell them that Microsoft is trapped in their own stock-option house of cards. Tell Microsoft shareholders that Microsoft has a worse P/E than a savings book.
But, yes, your talk like "Microsoft has soooooo much money in the bank, they are sooo powerful, competing against MSFT is soo hard" and your refusal to accept any Microsoft-failure does lead to capitulation.
Do you seriously think that people shouldn't fight out of fear for making people capitulate?
No, and I already said so.
It's just that you are fighting in the wrong direction.
No, you're confusing "free beer" with "free speech".
Huh? OpenSource enabled the Internet, it would be impossible without it. That was my point. Maybe you should answer to my point instead of switching topics.
You have to snap out of your complacency. Freedom isn't something that you can sit around and wait for, it's something you have to fight for.
Yes. But helping Microsoft by sprewing FUD ("Microsoft has 40$ in cash and can destroy Sony and Nintendo - whohooo") is a bit counter-productive, don't you think?
Well, in Europe Linux already overtook Apple by a large margin. On many German sites, people browsing with Linux already make up 10% or more.
I still don't get it why Walmart is selling their Linux-PCs exclusively in the weakest Linux-market on the planet (USA)
This is foolish in the extreme. People pay ridiculous subscriptions and fees everytime they buy a CD, a DVD, or a player for either of those media.
What? DVDs and CDs are popular because there is absolutely NO subscription involved. Because you "OWN" the movie/music (yes I do know that it's just a license in court).
Every scheme that takes away ownership from the user has failed so far, I don't think that a scheme that takes away ownership of the PC (which is even more severe) will succeed. Yes ownership includes the "doing what the hell I want with it" - factor.
It is because of this that P2P scares the media industry so badly. They currently make vast profits out of people who don't realise that they are being ripped off. They will do - and already are doing - anything to protect that.
The media companies have already managed to come up with a film format that only their approved players can play (DVD) and make it illegal for you to reverse engineer your own (DMCA). Just how stupid do you have to be to think that they won't do the same for music and broadcast video.
How stupid do you have to be to think people care about what's illegal?
You can get almost any movie on the net you can get in stores. Correction: You can get A LOT MORE movies on the net than you can get in stores. That's a fact.
Sorry, exactly when is Linux or the open source movement going to change anything?
Well, Opensource made it possible that you can spread your "Microsoft will win - FUD" here. Because if it were not for Linux, Apache and BSD, we would all run proprietary MSN connections and only big corporations could afford going online with webpages. (Big corps don't like discussion, so there would simply be no such thing as slashdot.)
Opensource has already destroyed Microsoft's plans. Microsoft is fighting a losing battle.
I knew that would come.
They have the DOS/Windows-domination that gets them bilions of $ per year. It's natural that you become lazy, incompetent and ignorant when you get so much money "automatically". In the 70's and early 80's they were not like that, but right now, they are.
And thanks to people LIKE ME, Microsoft doesn't always succeed with their most outrageous ideas, because people are made aware that Microsoft isn't looking out for their interests, but are trying their best to screw them.
You are funny. You really think that anybody believes that MS is looking for their interests. People are not that dumb. Get off your high horse.
That's bullshit. People telling consumers that what Microsoft does will infringe on their freedoms and take away their options is not good marketing for Microsoft.
That depends on what freedom. If it's freedom to choose competition, it's the best marketing Microsoft can get. People like choosing from multiple vendors, yes, but they don't like being left in the cold with an unsupported product. So when you convince somebody that product xy will monopolize the market, it's a *PRO* argument to buy it. Even if the customer would like competition. (It's a prisoner's dilemma)
What is much better for Microsoft are people like you trying to discount the concerns by saying it won't be a problem. That leave people open to believe Microsofts marketing, because they see no vocal opposition.
I'm not saying "it won't be a problem when you use it", I'm saying "it will be irrelevant and not become a standard". Big difference.
Microsoft has had tons of mediocre performing products and services, and has sunk hundreds of millions into failed ventures before, including a series of dot-coms. Some of them were quite high profile failures. X-Box won't be the first, and unlikely the last.
But it will be the first one visible by the public. All other failures are usually known only by IT-experts, but XBox will be a failure EVERYBODY will know about.
Even so, I doubt XBox will flop if Microsoft really care about it. Microsoft make enough money to give the damn thing away for free, and still stay in the black. They can easily destroy the console market and crush both Sony and Nintendo in a price war if they see the game console market as important enough to justify it - 40 billion USD could cover quite an amount of free XBox units.
Translation: Don't buy from Microsoft competitors. Their products are doomed, you will end up with an unsupported product. Buy an XBox, it will stay around forever.
You did it again. You might hate Microsoft, but Microsoft loves people like you because of the FUD you spread about non-Microsoft products. Ever heard of self-fullfilling prophecy?
You know what FUD is, right?
Fear about no more games, Uncertainity about the platform being available, Doubt about the company being able to compete with the allmighty Microsoft empire. People give shit about morals. They don't care about the point you are trying to make, they only see the FUD you spread about non-MS products.
And the best thing is that Microsoft doesn't even have to pay you.
Fact remains that
- They can't give away XBox because it's hardware.
- Even if it were available for free, people would still prefer the PS2 because it has more, cheaper and better games
- The PS3 is coming and will take away the only thing going for the XBox (technical advances in the 2 years it came out after the PS2). And MS can't release a new console every 2 years because that would piss off customers even more. So when the PS3 comes and XBox hasn't reached more marketshare than PS2, the game is over.
So, no, Microsoft can't destroy the console market. PS2 sales didn't even slow down during the XBox release and XBox is essentially dead in Japan (They will sell the 250000 units they wanted to sell in the first month in the first YEAR) and dying in Europe.
Microsoft makes more losses per unit than expected and sells less units than expected. XBox has failed against PS2 and PS2/3 is threatening the low-end Home Windows-PC.
What Internet are you talking about?
http, ftp, nntp, smtp, tcp, udp, ip, html - everything from Microsoft, right?
Face it: proprietary MSN failed. And it's not because Microsoft didn't try.
No, they can't.
Linux will replace Windows just like the open PC-platform replaced Apple and Amiga.
It's just a matter of time, but it already started to happen. Walmart selling Linux-PCs and South-Korea deploying Linux on 1/4 of their desktops is just the beginning.
Microsoft knows that, even when the average slashdotter is busy whining about the evil Microsoft-monopoly which no longer exists anyway.
The biggest driving force of Palladium/Longhorn will be the DRM technology.
This is a contradiction in itself. DRM is no driving force, it's a roadblock.
It has been tried. Remember the hardware "DivX" player?
People want to consume media and
Wait, there is no "and" in this sentence. People want to consume media, their interest end after that. They don't want to pay ridiculous amounts for subscriptions and fees.
the media companies will require rights management.
Well, and I demand a million $ from you.
Sometimes you don't get what you demand. Especially when you make unrealistic requirements. I would guess the chances of the media companies getting bullet-proof DRM is about as high as I getting a million from you.
Oh really?
Of course they won't make new PCs refuse to run unauthenticated binaries right away. That would of course kill them. The "safer" way for Microsoft, is to make their next version of Windows warn you whenever you try to do something "unsafe". Imagine if each time you connect to a webserver not running this security stuff, you get a window saying that you are connecting to an insecure site and that you should ask the site operator to upgrade to a secure system.
I imagine lots of pissed users and lots of suspicious users and lots of users who have lost their confidence that the next Windows will allow them to pirate.
A message like this can be translated to: "Microsoft is watching you" - Thing is, people don't like to be watched when they download warez, mp3s, porn and divx-movies.
People will avoid any system that has sub-par mp3/porn/divx/warez capabilities and will switch to something else (*gasp* Linux) if Windows loses these capabilities or gives hints that the next version will lose them.
And as for switching to Linux, you might not have that option, as the entire point about Palladium was that it is mean to be enforced in hardware via alliances with Intel and AMD (for now).
Linux runs the majority of servers, so Intel and AMD will support Linux, no matter what Microsoft sais.
Microsoft may be evil, but they aren't stupid...
LOL. Yeah, that's why I see Hailstorm-websites all over the web. And Bill Gates surely didn't say anything stupid when he claimed "Internet will never be popular [and will get killed by proprietary MSN]". Or look at XBox which is the most innefficient and expensive gaming system on the planet. Microsoft is the only one losing huge amounts of money, yet they are at last position compared to Gamecube and PS2.
Face it: Microsoft is probably the most incompetent company in IT. The only thing that gets them going is endless backwards-compatibility with their x86-desktop domination. (which dates back to 1981)
People can't afford to take the risk of discounting their ideas.
Wrong, people should start discounting their ideas.
Microsoft marketing works like this:
"We will release product xy next year"
Then people LIKE YOU come around and scream "the sky is falling!", "Microsoft is evil", "boycott this product, it will destroy competition!"
To Joe Average this all sounds like "Product xy will become the standard and all alternatives will become unsupported." -> Joe buys product xy. I wonder how many people have bought a XBox because they thought it would become "the standard" which was told so often all over the net. It's amazing how XBox sales figures dropped after it became clear that PS2 won't be dethrowned. Even in the USA XBox fell behind Gamecube.
Nobody likes to be a mayrtyr, people like you are Microsoft's greatest marketing asset. Actually they don't have to do much marketing, people like you do it for them.
I'm very thankful for Microsoft releasing the XBox, because it will fail so badly that Microsoft will lose their standard-setting image. (Microsoft had many blunders in the past like Windows/Alpha, MS Bob, Hailstorm, etc. But XBox will be first the average customer will know about) In the post-XBox era, Microsoft will have to actually deliver something more than a press release to convince people of future standards.
AMD/Intel-marketing: "Yeah, sure."
Oh and to fuel the flame-fest:
Bill Gates early 90's: "Internet will never be popular"
Bill Gates early 00's: "Linux will never be popular"
Let me explain:
IMO, the only thing that keeps Windows going is that people have so much software lying around that they have a hard time switching.
Now if the first PCs with this limitation come to the market that force you to replace all your software many would just switch to Linux because your software will become worthless sooner or later if you stay on Windows.
And if Microsoft is stupid enough to enforce Palladium in their OS, Wine/Linux will have BETTER WINDOWS COMPATIBILITY than Windows itself.
It's more the other way around, 1/3 are NOT running Apache:
May 2002 stats
The majority of users still use Win98, a 4 year old OS - which is only a minor step up of Win95, a 7 year old OS. (And Win95 is also still used by over 10% of users.)
So if we extrapolate this figures:
If MS starts this scheme in 2 years, it will take another 7 years until 90% of their users have it (and that's still not enough because 10% is still too much to lose).
And because Linux is starting to make inroads (Governments of South-Korea, Germany, France, Israel and many other organizations are getting Linux on desktops) it will be too late for them in a couple of years anyway. Even if Linux only captures 10% within the next 5 years, this is enough to make such schemes fail.
I don't even have to talk about the server-side because you already did.
So, yes I agree, let them try.
This will be the next Hailstorm.
Then, people just don't want this. They did not ask for it, they will not pay for it and they will not buy it. It does not add any value to the product.
Then, Linux will adapt fast enough. If this really affects internet-applications, then it wouldn't be viable without Linux, Linux runs the majority of Webservers, remember?
I dismiss this thing as "Microsoft strategy of the week". It's the next Hailstorm.
I always wanted that feature and if I haven't read this thread on slashdot, I would have never known that the problem is already solved. Put it in the default distro, only the most esoteric/unstable plugins should not be included.
Thanks for the tip, by the way :-)
In the worst case, the customer will do the same what he would do with an OS-free PC, in the best case the customer will use Lindows and be happy.
If there is a market for OS-free PCs (and there is), there is also a market for Linux-preinstalled PCs.
That was my point.
So obviously your statement "These machines aren't destined to be a big hit." is wrong as the OS-free PCs seem to sell quite well.
This elitism on slashdot is starting to annoy me. The average computer user knows very well what an OS is and can understand the concept of Lindows not being 100% compatible. Yes, there are people who don't, but those are clearly much, much BELOW average and don't shop cheap no-name computers.
Wrong.
Walmart has sold OS-free PCs for several months now.
Obviously somebody has bought them, otherwise they would have been discontinued by now.
Somebody who buys OS-free PCs knows what an OS is, that it has to be installed etc.
I've seen the AOL-icon on some Lindows-screenshots, so maybe AOL does work just fine in Wine/Lindows?