Just think of all the good you could do with that money. That good is worth more than your silly M$ hate...
Just think of all the good users could do with the money they save when they use the OSS-product you programmed, that good is worth much more than what you could do with a single salary.
In the end, what CS students want to use really makes no difference. Businesses will continue to purchase and implement M$ products because they have been used for so long. (Don't flame for this) They are a proven technology.
Just like businesses continued to use Macintoshes because they were a proven technology?
The IT-world doesn't stay the same forever. Get used to it.
A part from that, businesses come and go and switching is not the only way to "Linux domination"
So, you were pretty close on the 1/3 bit, but it is MORE than one third of their revenue, not less than. And, more importantly, you go tell any business person on this planet that they are going to lose one third of their REVENUE and see what kind of reaction you'll get. I'm not talking profit. I'm talking base revenue.
Exactly. Microsoft's net profits has declined from about 40% to 30% (probably because of XBox)
Losing 35% of revenue would mean losses for Microsoft.
I think Eric is misreading the situation. If a PC goes below 350 bucks, people will be willing to spend much more for the OS. The reason for this is simple, 350 bucks is nothing relative to today's cost of a PC, thus $350 + OS
Because sending more than 10% of their revenue directly to Microsoft isn't that cool.
People won't move away from Windows for 1 of 2 simple reasons, "I don't have time to learn something new" or "I can't transfer my MS Office documents to ". While there are falacies in both arguments, end users are a stubborn ignorant bunch for the most part.
But most people stop being ignorant subborn bastards as soon as it saves them money.
If they bought a PC without Windows (see above), Windows @ 200$ suddently doesn't sound that attractive.
One, which has already been noted here, is that Microsoft can just lower their own prices.
Can they?
Well, they could. But what most people forget is:
Microsoft is lead by the big stockholders.
So Bill Gates has 2 options:
1) Continue selling stock (he sold more than half of his already) and keep rising prices and revenues short-term.
2) Save Windows-long term, but ruin the next income statements and transferring HIS OWN STOCK into worthless piece of paper.
For the last 5 years, Bill Gates has done strategy 1) and there is no sign he'll change his mind until he has sold the rest he is still holding. (Hell, can't anybody do some research?)
But two, and most importantly: What ELSE are you going to install on that computer if not Windows? Linux? Then we get into the 'is Linux ready for the desktop' thing. It doesn't matter if Microsoft charges your first born son, if they're the only viable, usable OS available for Joe Q. User to check their e-mail and read the web with, they'll still get payment even with ultra-cheap computers.
I know this is heard so often that most people think it's true. But it's not.
MS DOS replaced Apple Macintosh, remember?
Because it was easier to use? I don't think so.
User-friendliness isn't as important as people think, but it's an useless debate anyway, because SuSE which has all OS-configuartion nicely integrated in KDE is more easily usable than Windows TODAY.
I bought my PC in parts from the store and I still use Windows. Not everyone will "move away from windows" even if windows doesn't come with their PC.
True, not every computer. But many.
For example, here at the university, we have a lot of computer that run the whole day Internet Explorer to display ONE SINGLE website. (It's for administration)
Yeh, whatever. I'm like so sure that microsoft wouldn't lower their prices or anything like that if the alternative was loss of their monopoly.
Wrong, the alternative is Bill Gates selling the other half of his stock and buying his own island.
No microsoftie so far could explain to me why Bill Gates himself sold more than half of his stock already and is continuing to sell thousands of shares every week.
'Free' software only really appeals to those people that refuse to pirate...
I've "discovered" the fact that i can't switch many people to Linux because they better like pirating Windows stuff. The very second things become unpirateable, they'll start bitching like babies and will run to Linux OR pay for cheap alternatives to the defacto standards of today.
Somebody please mod that up, it's the most insightful post I've seen around here for a couple of *months*.
Slashdot Mirror
Just think of all the good you could do with that money. That good is worth more than your silly M$ hate...
Just think of all the good users could do with the money they save when they use the OSS-product you programmed, that good is worth much more than what you could do with a single salary.
Just like businesses continued to use Macintoshes because they were a proven technology?
The IT-world doesn't stay the same forever. Get used to it.
A part from that, businesses come and go and switching is not the only way to "Linux domination"
WPA is there to make it impossible to keep using an OEM-version on a new computer and really forcing to upgrade.
And if somebody sais: "Yes, but the switching costs!" I reply: "... are the best reason to switch now, not later when switching costs are even higher"
No comment.
Less than 5 hours!
Wow, I'm impressed.
I'll buy an iPod as soon as they add PDA or cell-phone (or both!) functionality. Firewire has its uses.
If Bill Gates does that (destroying MSFT stock price short term) a lot of employees would quit.
I don't say it's impossible that Microsoft significantly lowers the prices, but very unlikely.
So you would sell your stock for money because you don't need any more money?
What you do is a redefinition of the word.
Microsoft *had* a monopoly on x86 about 15 years ago, but today, I'd call it market domination.
Exactly. Microsoft's net profits has declined from about 40% to 30% (probably because of XBox)
Losing 35% of revenue would mean losses for Microsoft.
Wrong, first PC-makers will stop force-bundling Windows
Because sending more than 10% of their revenue directly to Microsoft isn't that cool.
People won't move away from Windows for 1 of 2 simple reasons, "I don't have time to learn something new" or "I can't transfer my MS Office documents to ". While there are falacies in both arguments, end users are a stubborn ignorant bunch for the most part.
But most people stop being ignorant subborn bastards as soon as it saves them money.
If they bought a PC without Windows (see above), Windows @ 200$ suddently doesn't sound that attractive.
Can they?
Well, they could. But what most people forget is:
Microsoft is lead by the big stockholders.
So Bill Gates has 2 options:
1) Continue selling stock (he sold more than half of his already) and keep rising prices and revenues short-term.
2) Save Windows-long term, but ruin the next income statements and transferring HIS OWN STOCK into worthless piece of paper.
For the last 5 years, Bill Gates has done strategy 1) and there is no sign he'll change his mind until he has sold the rest he is still holding. (Hell, can't anybody do some research?)
But two, and most importantly: What ELSE are you going to install on that computer if not Windows? Linux? Then we get into the 'is Linux ready for the desktop' thing. It doesn't matter if Microsoft charges your first born son, if they're the only viable, usable OS available for Joe Q. User to check their e-mail and read the web with, they'll still get payment even with ultra-cheap computers.
I know this is heard so often that most people think it's true. But it's not.
MS DOS replaced Apple Macintosh, remember?
Because it was easier to use? I don't think so.
User-friendliness isn't as important as people think, but it's an useless debate anyway, because SuSE which has all OS-configuartion nicely integrated in KDE is more easily usable than Windows TODAY.
And with KDE3 coming out next month...
Or the even cheaper and more useful (than MS Works) StarOffice/OpenOffice....
Yeah, I know: Oh my god! It's not from Microsoft! THE HORROR!!!
I think Sun should change their company name to "Master Sun" and start selling "MS StarOffice".
People like sql*kitten would fall for it, I'm sure about that.
True, not every computer. But many.
For example, here at the university, we have a lot of computer that run the whole day Internet Explorer to display ONE SINGLE website. (It's for administration)
And yes, the site works fine in all browsers.
You really think anybody would pay 100$ for that?
Linux will benefit a lot when PC-vendors don't force-bundle Windows anymore.
Not anymore
ESR is one of the 1% of the population that can actually thing farther ahead than 2 weeks.
Microsoft the percentage of PC-maker's revenues that go directly to Microsoft has multiplied by at least 10 in the last 10 years.
Do you really think that PC-makers don't react?
Wrong, the alternative is Bill Gates selling the other half of his stock and buying his own island.
No microsoftie so far could explain to me why Bill Gates himself sold more than half of his stock already and is continuing to sell thousands of shares every week.
In one statement, ESR just poked a hole in his own argument without even realizing it.
Wrong, he sais that Microsoft can't sustain it, not that it doesn't exist.
And if you ask me, I always said that Microsoft had market-domination and not monopoly.
They lost their domination on servers already - desktops are next.
Controlling *ALL* devices....
I think Orwell was right with 1984 - only a bit early...
I said Windows, not IE.
The successor of DOS which now costs 10 - 20% of desktop system revenues and costs more each year.
The only reason why PC-makers ship it is because of the apps.
I use it on a regular basis and it never crashed (but I only used it to watch trailers etc.)
'Free' software only really appeals to those people that refuse to pirate...
I've "discovered" the fact that i can't switch many people to Linux because they better like pirating Windows stuff. The very second things become unpirateable, they'll start bitching like babies and will run to Linux OR pay for cheap alternatives to the defacto standards of today.
Somebody please mod that up, it's the most insightful post I've seen around here for a couple of *months*.
Correct, but Apple's Quicktime player which is supported by crossover (and downloaded and installed automagically) does.
Put up or shut up.
Damn, those links didn't work:
l l
http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/index-200007.htm
http://www.netcraft.com/Survey/index-200106.htm
link
Webserver machines, Linux being second with 29% share: link
Domains hosted: Linux being number one with 35%/30%: link
Can you post any statistic where Linux is not second on servers?
On the desktop it is beginning