Re:MS doesn't actually turn a profit.
on
Microsoft's Future
·
· Score: 2
Your post also highlights something else I've always thought - when Microsoft drops, it's going to drop really hard. Why? - because so many of its staff are only really paper rich, but are brainwashed by Microsoft internal propaganda into thinking that they are rich and going to get richer and richer. When reality hits it's going to be really painful for many Microsofties, which in turn will make the situation even worse for Microsoft.
I think people have a basic misunderstanding about Microsoft. They think:
Microsoft makes lots of money. Therefore it must be a good, strong company.
However, I believe if you ignore the profits, Microsoft is actually a very weak company. Crazy point of view? My logic:
Ignore for a moment the size of Microsoft's profits, and look at where they come from. A hugely disproportionate amount come from Microsoft Office. It's worth thinking about this a moment - despite Microsoft's multiheaded and complex strategy at the moment, a significant proportion of its profits come from a product the functionality of which isn't that difficult to copy. A bunch of people in their spare time have put together software that has much of the same functionality. Sun has a nearly equivalent product that they are giving away for free. Is MS Office really a sound basis for a strong company? Similarly with its operating systems - Linux is an increasingly tough competitor, and it's free. Much of it was originally developed by a bunch of students and enthusiasts (absolutely no disrespect intendended).
Now look at IBM. Increasingly its profits come from providing complex bespoke services at enterprise level to global companies. It also creates hardware, from breakthough advances at the molecular level to the worlds fastest supercomputers. Try copying that.
Bill Gates says he doesn't want Microsoft to become another IBM. I say, Microsoft is a pathetic company in comparision.
Microsoft will beat Linux on the desktop because they control the way PC's are installed at the manufacturer.
This is currently true. But can you confidently say that this will always be the case?
The reason that PC manufacturers haven't put Linux on the desktop before now is I believe simple - it hasn't been good enough. However, it is now very nearly good enough, give it just a few more months and it will be. All many people need is a web browser, email, basic office apps. Nearly all of these are now available for free OSS. It's only a matter of a relatively short time before they are good enough.
Imagine you are a PC manufacturer. You have two options (I'm making these figures up):
1) Sell a box for $500 dollars including all the basic software that most people will need. Configure it, brand it, do whatever you like with it. Your costs are $400, you make a profit of $100.
2) Sell a computer for $650. $150 dollars of that goes to Microsoft. Your profit stays the same at $100. Microsofts profit is close to $150. You have to configure it how Microsoft tells you to.
Which would you prefer? Of course, Microsoft will try to strong-arm manufacterers into not doing number 2, but to misuse someone elses words, you can do that to some OEMs some of the time, but you can't do it to all OEMs all of the time.
It's just a question of time. Once the change starts, it will be like a damn bursting - it will start as a trickle but turn into an unstoppable flood.
I read the original article (bigger than the online version) and I can only say it was a very flawed piece.
He started of recounting the story of some jerk tech. admin that deleted Windows and all other files off one of his companies staff laptops and installed linux. He then used this as one of his arguments as to why Linux wasn't going to succeed. How clever is that?
These are the facts as far as I can see them:
A new process has come in to the world. That process is called the open source development model. This allows commercial quality software to be developed by diverse entities around the world. These entities can be individuals, public bodies and governments or companies with an interest in the particular piece of software. Each can make a small contribution to a larger project. The software created is often distributed for free.
Because of this, it is very unlikely that there will ever be an Open Source software company with Microsoft's level of turnover. However, Open Source Software is not dependent upon any particular company for its success and is not reliant on anyone making a particularly great profit from it. More important are the savings that people can make from it.
The Open Source Development model has only really gained momentum over the last few years. In that time, some projects have demonstrated an increadible rate of development. Although it is true to say that many Open Source project still lag behind their commercial equivalents, the rate of progress of these projects suggests that this won't be the case for long.
Microsoft makes the majority of its profits selling an office suite and several operating systems.
It is now trying to change its licensing model to one of rental, rather than one-off payment, because the software is just about mature and there is increasingly little incentive for most businesses and organisations to upgade. The change makes Microsoft software an on-going cost for businesses, even though new releases do not add much in terms of essential new functionality for most busnesses.
Therefore, Microsoft's core business - the products that make most of its profits - are under threat from a new process. Just as new processes during the industrial revolution completely destroyed certain previously profitable businesses, so will new processes, such as the Open Source Development model, destroy certain types of buiness. Microsoft is likely to be one of those buinesss. In the long term, it is impossible for any business to seriously compete with free equivalent products.
Arguments like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", "Dell decided not to ship Linux on the desktop", "What about support?" are all short term issues. Think big picture. Think long term. Think worldwide. Think fundamentals.
Microsoft is doomed unless it can radically change its business to something completely different, and maintain it current turnover levels, which from where I'm sitting looks like a practically impossible trick to pull off.
And hey, I'm typing this in IE on Windows 2000, I'm not a Microsoft hater. It's just I think the world is changing and there's not much Microsoft can do about it.
this is one of the few rays of light with regards to any kind of widespread adoption of mozilla.
Bullsh*t.
Mozilla is being used in the Intel Dot.station, Nokia Media Terminal, Instant AOL Touchpad, Printer assistant from HP, IBM web browser for OS2, Redhat, Debian and a bunch of other Linux distributions, and a lot of other places besides. Not bad for an application that hasn't even got to 1.0 yet. And we can expect to see adoption of it really pick up speed since it has become really stable over the last couple of months.
There is discussion about the box on Barriopunto (Spain's version of Slashdot) here.
Comments on it vary. Some people say it's OK for Joe Public. Others say it sucks and hangs up. One says that the Mozilla and Linux distribution is very heavily modified and it is difficult to tell which versions they are using.
Someone points out that the box is basically the Intel Dot.Station Web Appliance. The spec. for the box is here.
The spec. says:
* Custom Intel browser based on Mozilla-- the world's most standards-compliant browser technology.
And later:
* Custom Linux operating system for increased flexibility and innovation.
More information about AOL avant from Intel's web site here.
Here in Spain AOL has just launched a service called AOL avant.
It is a iMac type box which you can have for about 20 dollars a month with internet connection. It uses Linux with Mozilla as the web browser. It's made so your grandma can use it.
They are looking for an inital roll-out of 500,000 units, moving up to about a million. They are doing this in conjunction with a national bank.
So, AOL is already using Gecko/Mozilla, maybe just not in the USA.
Personally I believe that this is a trial of a service that they wish to rollout in many other countries. I think they choose Spain to try not to generate too attention on it. It wouldn't suprise me if they had plans to roll this out in many other European countries, and perhaps Latin America.
Products that are free don't need the same type of marketing as products that you have to pay for.
Look how far Linux has gone with hardly anyone spending a cent on marketing it. It really is quite increadible when you think about it.
The other day, I was talking to a client about Linux. He said that he thought his company would never use it. I was able to tell him that he did use it already - his company web site runs on it. He didn't realise that. The point is, he's a Linux user without any Linux marketing ever getting anywhere near him.
There will be more and more products with Linux embedded - people won't know it, and that's the way it should be. I don't know who manufacturers the spark plugs in my car. Why should I care?
The problem for Microsoft is (at least outside the USA) organisations increasingly understand Microsoft's game, and are refusing to play. They understand that it is dangerous to let Microsoft get a headlock on you, and so are starting to wriggle out of it.
Once you make the change from Microsoft to another format, then Microsoft's file formats just become a legacy problem.
What I don't get is why so many people are so stubborn in the belief that OSS cannot do serious damage to Microsoft.
Do this mental exercise. Imagine any real-world product. Cars for example. Then image that there was some magical new process that meant they could be manufactured for free. Shareholders would be saying, "Holy f**k! Sell General Motors! Sell Ford! Sell Honda!"
Sure, current OSS isn't quite as good as Microsoft products yet, as I keep repeating. But they're not far off, and are catching up really fast. What I'm really trying to say is: "Holy f**k! Sell Microsoft!"
The cost of this software is insignificant when compared to the salary of the worker who uses it.
That's true, just as the cost of a hammer is insignificant compaired to the salary or the worker that uses it. However, if I was a hammer manufacturer, I'd be more than a bit worried if people started to give them away for free.
Microsoft would like to be a post-internet company and they are working hard on it.
Of course. The question is, can they do it fast enough?
It is true that people have been predicting Microsofts demise for years. However, that doesn't mean that it is not going to happen. I personally believe that they conditions today mean that Microsoft is in a position that it is practically impossible to get out of, at least maintaining its current turnover.
I believe American English and British English are slightly different in this. In British English, "it's" is a contraction of "it is". Then again, perhaps it's not. Whatever.
microsoft is continuing to develop it's products - it's not standing still
True.
oss will always play catchup
OSS is playing catchup at the moment. It doesn't follow that that will always be the case. The fact is that there isn't much more Microsoft can add to Office - it hasn't changed that much for the last four years or so. Just adding stuff for the sake of it won't do it much good.
free != free: there's still support
True.
who do you call when you can't get staroffice to stop crashing?
Sun Microsystems, or the Openoffice developers. Does it do you any good to call Microsoft when Windows crashes? I think you'll get a much better response from the OSS developers.
Microsoft office stuff will not be unthroned simply because too many people rely on it
Microsoft does have quite a lot of lock-in with its Office suite. Is it impossible to undo this? No. Is it in Microsoft's customers interest to do so? Yes, I think it is, or at least it will become increasly so.
What I believe will happen is that over the next few years certainly businesses and organisations, probably mostly outside the USA, will make the move to OSS software. They'll find the move not as painful as they thought it would be, and they'll save quite a bit of cash in the process. Others will look at them and say "we should be doing that".
Anyway, I'm taking big picture, you're talking details. I didn't mean this to turn into a "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" debate. My point is larger than that.
I've just re-read my post and think it would perhaps be better if all instances of "Linux" were replaced with "Open Source". It's really Open Source which is the long term threat to Microsoft, rather than Linux, although Linux might be what makes the giant fall.
They're in almost every country, and have the lead in a lot of them.
Do you have statistics to prove this? I know internet users in lots of different EU countries, and I don't know of anyone that uses AOL. They may be in lots of countries, but they have a tiny presence as far as I can see.
I have a mental image of Microsoft as a huge giant, running ahead of the IT pack at top speed. It's moving faster than ever before and most people think it is still easily winning the race. "Look, it's going faster and faster!" But what they don't notice is that it is stumbling forward, waving it's arms trying to stay stable, and at any moment could fall flat on its face.
I predict this will happen within about three years, perhaps even sooner. Remember when IBM stumbled, in about 1993? Well, when Microsoft does it, it's gonna be a whole lot worse. The reasons are simple. The majority of its profits come from basically two product lines - its operating systems and its office suite. Both of these are under threat from free products. Sure, they're not as good as Microsoft products, yet. But they're improving at an increadible rate - anyone who has assessed Linux for desktop use a couple of years ago, and has done the same recently, will agree with that. One day soon its going to be really hard for a CTO of a small or medium sized company to justify buying Microsoft rather than using a free, similar product.
People say Microsoft's.NET strategy is complex. Technically it might be, but strategicly it's not. The strategy is simple - try to get as much customer 'lock-in' as possible as quickly as possible. To do this, they need to get everyone moving to XP as soon as they can - which I believe is one of the main reasons they've changed their licensing model. Companies that update their software only every three or four years - for instance, companies using Windows 2000 but probably won't do a complete update until 2003 or 2004 - are customers that Microsoft might loose unless they get them locked-in before then.
One of the biggest mistakes that Microsoft has made recently is to make their software more expensive for exactly those businesses they need to get on board quickest - the companies that only upgrade every three to four years. It's exactly those customers that are most likely to move to Linux, and Microsoft has just given them much more motivation to do so. And when they start to move, the development momentum of Linux will increase even more, and larger enterprises won't be far behind. This process is I believe probably more noticable in 'the rest of the world' before it becomes very evident in the USA.
Microsoft is in many ways a pre-Internet company. The internet has caused changes to the way software is developed and distributed. There is nothing Microsoft can do about this. It's demise is inevitable, the only question is when.
C|Net is admitting that AOL already practically owns the Internet
Not from where I'm sitting. AOL may be popular in the USA, but in the rest of the world very few people use it to access the 'net. And the rest of the world is quite a big place, you know.
Sorry if you were offended by my comments. But what I said was:
What struck me then was what a bunch of dunderheads the computer scientists where.
I was talking about the computer scientist at the university I attended. They were, in general, a bunch of dunderheads. Some of them weren't, but then that's generalisation for you. It does not mean, however, that I think you are one.
Slashdot Mirror
Your post also highlights something else I've always thought - when Microsoft drops, it's going to drop really hard. Why? - because so many of its staff are only really paper rich, but are brainwashed by Microsoft internal propaganda into thinking that they are rich and going to get richer and richer. When reality hits it's going to be really painful for many Microsofties, which in turn will make the situation even worse for Microsoft.
I think people have a basic misunderstanding about Microsoft. They think:
Microsoft makes lots of money. Therefore it must be a good, strong company.
However, I believe if you ignore the profits, Microsoft is actually a very weak company. Crazy point of view? My logic:
Ignore for a moment the size of Microsoft's profits, and look at where they come from. A hugely disproportionate amount come from Microsoft Office. It's worth thinking about this a moment - despite Microsoft's multiheaded and complex strategy at the moment, a significant proportion of its profits come from a product the functionality of which isn't that difficult to copy. A bunch of people in their spare time have put together software that has much of the same functionality. Sun has a nearly equivalent product that they are giving away for free. Is MS Office really a sound basis for a strong company? Similarly with its operating systems - Linux is an increasingly tough competitor, and it's free. Much of it was originally developed by a bunch of students and enthusiasts (absolutely no disrespect intendended).
Now look at IBM. Increasingly its profits come from providing complex bespoke services at enterprise level to global companies. It also creates hardware, from breakthough advances at the molecular level to the worlds fastest supercomputers. Try copying that.
Bill Gates says he doesn't want Microsoft to become another IBM. I say, Microsoft is a pathetic company in comparision.
Summary of article : Linux is great, but the long haired freaks are gonna make it lose.
Yes, that's a good summary. Rubbish, isn't it?
Wired has really gone down the toilet. I used to love it. Can anyone recommend a replacement?
Microsoft will beat Linux on the desktop because they control the way PC's are installed at the manufacturer.
This is currently true. But can you confidently say that this will always be the case?
The reason that PC manufacturers haven't put Linux on the desktop before now is I believe simple - it hasn't been good enough. However, it is now very nearly good enough, give it just a few more months and it will be. All many people need is a web browser, email, basic office apps. Nearly all of these are now available for free OSS. It's only a matter of a relatively short time before they are good enough.
Imagine you are a PC manufacturer. You have two options (I'm making these figures up):
1) Sell a box for $500 dollars including all the basic software that most people will need. Configure it, brand it, do whatever you like with it. Your costs are $400, you make a profit of $100.
2) Sell a computer for $650. $150 dollars of that goes to Microsoft. Your profit stays the same at $100. Microsofts profit is close to $150. You have to configure it how Microsoft tells you to.
Which would you prefer? Of course, Microsoft will try to strong-arm manufacterers into not doing number 2, but to misuse someone elses words, you can do that to some OEMs some of the time, but you can't do it to all OEMs all of the time.
It's just a question of time. Once the change starts, it will be like a damn bursting - it will start as a trickle but turn into an unstoppable flood.
I read the original article (bigger than the online version) and I can only say it was a very flawed piece.
He started of recounting the story of some jerk tech. admin that deleted Windows and all other files off one of his companies staff laptops and installed linux. He then used this as one of his arguments as to why Linux wasn't going to succeed. How clever is that?
These are the facts as far as I can see them:
A new process has come in to the world. That process is called the open source development model. This allows commercial quality software to be developed by diverse entities around the world. These entities can be individuals, public bodies and governments or companies with an interest in the particular piece of software. Each can make a small contribution to a larger project. The software created is often distributed for free.
Because of this, it is very unlikely that there will ever be an Open Source software company with Microsoft's level of turnover. However, Open Source Software is not dependent upon any particular company for its success and is not reliant on anyone making a particularly great profit from it. More important are the savings that people can make from it.
The Open Source Development model has only really gained momentum over the last few years. In that time, some projects have demonstrated an increadible rate of development. Although it is true to say that many Open Source project still lag behind their commercial equivalents, the rate of progress of these projects suggests that this won't be the case for long.
Microsoft makes the majority of its profits selling an office suite and several operating systems.
It is now trying to change its licensing model to one of rental, rather than one-off payment, because the software is just about mature and there is increasingly little incentive for most businesses and organisations to upgade. The change makes Microsoft software an on-going cost for businesses, even though new releases do not add much in terms of essential new functionality for most busnesses.
Therefore, Microsoft's core business - the products that make most of its profits - are under threat from a new process. Just as new processes during the industrial revolution completely destroyed certain previously profitable businesses, so will new processes, such as the Open Source Development model, destroy certain types of buiness. Microsoft is likely to be one of those buinesss. In the long term, it is impossible for any business to seriously compete with free equivalent products.
Arguments like "Linux isn't ready for the desktop", "Dell decided not to ship Linux on the desktop", "What about support?" are all short term issues. Think big picture. Think long term. Think worldwide. Think fundamentals.
Microsoft is doomed unless it can radically change its business to something completely different, and maintain it current turnover levels, which from where I'm sitting looks like a practically impossible trick to pull off.
And hey, I'm typing this in IE on Windows 2000, I'm not a Microsoft hater. It's just I think the world is changing and there's not much Microsoft can do about it.
this is one of the few rays of light with regards to any kind of widespread adoption of mozilla.
Bullsh*t.
Mozilla is being used in the Intel Dot.station, Nokia Media Terminal, Instant AOL Touchpad, Printer assistant from HP, IBM web browser for OS2, Redhat, Debian and a bunch of other Linux distributions, and a lot of other places besides. Not bad for an application that hasn't even got to 1.0 yet. And we can expect to see adoption of it really pick up speed since it has become really stable over the last couple of months.
Interesting...
So do you think my theory (that this is a trial for rollout in other countries) is correct?
Where are you based? In Madrid? I can't get anything out of your web site (carotena.net)
There is discussion about the box on Barriopunto (Spain's version of Slashdot) here.
Comments on it vary. Some people say it's OK for Joe Public. Others say it sucks and hangs up. One says that the Mozilla and Linux distribution is very heavily modified and it is difficult to tell which versions they are using.
Someone points out that the box is basically the Intel Dot.Station Web Appliance. The spec. for the box is here.
The spec. says:
* Custom Intel browser based on Mozilla-- the world's most standards-compliant browser technology.
And later:
* Custom Linux operating system for increased flexibility and innovation.
More information about AOL avant from Intel's web site here.
Here in Spain AOL has just launched a service called AOL avant.
It is a iMac type box which you can have for about 20 dollars a month with internet connection. It uses Linux with Mozilla as the web browser. It's made so your grandma can use it.
They are looking for an inital roll-out of 500,000 units, moving up to about a million. They are doing this in conjunction with a national bank.
So, AOL is already using Gecko/Mozilla, maybe just not in the USA.
Personally I believe that this is a trial of a service that they wish to rollout in many other countries. I think they choose Spain to try not to generate too attention on it. It wouldn't suprise me if they had plans to roll this out in many other European countries, and perhaps Latin America.
More here
if you use RoadRunner cable access
i.e. if you live in the USA
Ever hear of a little channel called CNN
i.e. if you live in the USA (CNN isn't that popular outside of the USA except on the TVs in hotel bedrooms)
Like I said, the world's a big place, and AOL is far from 'owning the Internet'. But perhaps it does in the USA.
Products that are free don't need the same type of marketing as products that you have to pay for.
Look how far Linux has gone with hardly anyone spending a cent on marketing it. It really is quite increadible when you think about it.
The other day, I was talking to a client about Linux. He said that he thought his company would never use it. I was able to tell him that he did use it already - his company web site runs on it. He didn't realise that. The point is, he's a Linux user without any Linux marketing ever getting anywhere near him.
There will be more and more products with Linux embedded - people won't know it, and that's the way it should be. I don't know who manufacturers the spark plugs in my car. Why should I care?
The problem for Microsoft is (at least outside the USA) organisations increasingly understand Microsoft's game, and are refusing to play. They understand that it is dangerous to let Microsoft get a headlock on you, and so are starting to wriggle out of it.
Once you make the change from Microsoft to another format, then Microsoft's file formats just become a legacy problem.
What I don't get is why so many people are so stubborn in the belief that OSS cannot do serious damage to Microsoft.
Do this mental exercise. Imagine any real-world product. Cars for example. Then image that there was some magical new process that meant they could be manufactured for free. Shareholders would be saying, "Holy f**k! Sell General Motors! Sell Ford! Sell Honda!"
Sure, current OSS isn't quite as good as Microsoft products yet, as I keep repeating. But they're not far off, and are catching up really fast. What I'm really trying to say is: "Holy f**k! Sell Microsoft!"
The cost of this software is insignificant when compared to the salary of the worker who uses it.
That's true, just as the cost of a hammer is insignificant compaired to the salary or the worker that uses it. However, if I was a hammer manufacturer, I'd be more than a bit worried if people started to give them away for free.
Oh, yes, I've just spotted the mistake in my original post. My mistake.
Microsoft would like to be a post-internet company and they are working hard on it.
Of course. The question is, can they do it fast enough?
It is true that people have been predicting Microsofts demise for years. However, that doesn't mean that it is not going to happen. I personally believe that they conditions today mean that Microsoft is in a position that it is practically impossible to get out of, at least maintaining its current turnover.
I believe American English and British English are slightly different in this. In British English, "it's" is a contraction of "it is". Then again, perhaps it's not. Whatever.
microsoft is continuing to develop it's products - it's not standing still
True.
oss will always play catchup
OSS is playing catchup at the moment. It doesn't follow that that will always be the case. The fact is that there isn't much more Microsoft can add to Office - it hasn't changed that much for the last four years or so. Just adding stuff for the sake of it won't do it much good.
free != free: there's still support
True.
who do you call when you can't get staroffice to stop crashing?
Sun Microsystems, or the Openoffice developers. Does it do you any good to call Microsoft when Windows crashes? I think you'll get a much better response from the OSS developers.
Microsoft office stuff will not be unthroned simply because too many people rely on it
Microsoft does have quite a lot of lock-in with its Office suite. Is it impossible to undo this? No. Is it in Microsoft's customers interest to do so? Yes, I think it is, or at least it will become increasly so.
What I believe will happen is that over the next few years certainly businesses and organisations, probably mostly outside the USA, will make the move to OSS software. They'll find the move not as painful as they thought it would be, and they'll save quite a bit of cash in the process. Others will look at them and say "we should be doing that".
Anyway, I'm taking big picture, you're talking details. I didn't mean this to turn into a "Linux isn't ready for the desktop" debate. My point is larger than that.
I've just re-read my post and think it would perhaps be better if all instances of "Linux" were replaced with "Open Source". It's really Open Source which is the long term threat to Microsoft, rather than Linux, although Linux might be what makes the giant fall.
They're in almost every country, and have the lead in a lot of them.
Do you have statistics to prove this? I know internet users in lots of different EU countries, and I don't know of anyone that uses AOL. They may be in lots of countries, but they have a tiny presence as far as I can see.
I have a mental image of Microsoft as a huge giant, running ahead of the IT pack at top speed. It's moving faster than ever before and most people think it is still easily winning the race. "Look, it's going faster and faster!" But what they don't notice is that it is stumbling forward, waving it's arms trying to stay stable, and at any moment could fall flat on its face.
.NET strategy is complex. Technically it might be, but strategicly it's not. The strategy is simple - try to get as much customer 'lock-in' as possible as quickly as possible. To do this, they need to get everyone moving to XP as soon as they can - which I believe is one of the main reasons they've changed their licensing model. Companies that update their software only every three or four years - for instance, companies using Windows 2000 but probably won't do a complete update until 2003 or 2004 - are customers that Microsoft might loose unless they get them locked-in before then.
I predict this will happen within about three years, perhaps even sooner. Remember when IBM stumbled, in about 1993? Well, when Microsoft does it, it's gonna be a whole lot worse. The reasons are simple. The majority of its profits come from basically two product lines - its operating systems and its office suite. Both of these are under threat from free products. Sure, they're not as good as Microsoft products, yet. But they're improving at an increadible rate - anyone who has assessed Linux for desktop use a couple of years ago, and has done the same recently, will agree with that. One day soon its going to be really hard for a CTO of a small or medium sized company to justify buying Microsoft rather than using a free, similar product.
People say Microsoft's
One of the biggest mistakes that Microsoft has made recently is to make their software more expensive for exactly those businesses they need to get on board quickest - the companies that only upgrade every three to four years. It's exactly those customers that are most likely to move to Linux, and Microsoft has just given them much more motivation to do so. And when they start to move, the development momentum of Linux will increase even more, and larger enterprises won't be far behind. This process is I believe probably more noticable in 'the rest of the world' before it becomes very evident in the USA.
Microsoft is in many ways a pre-Internet company. The internet has caused changes to the way software is developed and distributed. There is nothing Microsoft can do about this. It's demise is inevitable, the only question is when.
C|Net is admitting that AOL already practically owns the Internet
Not from where I'm sitting. AOL may be popular in the USA, but in the rest of the world very few people use it to access the 'net. And the rest of the world is quite a big place, you know.
Yes, I did say that. It is a generalisation. One that I believe to be true. Sorry if you can't cope with it.
What strikes me is your generalisations; more characteristic of a liberal arts student than scientist of any subject.
Funny! I didn't see your amusing irony the first time I read this. Well done!
Sorry if you were offended by my comments. But what I said was:
What struck me then was what a bunch of dunderheads the computer scientists where.
I was talking about the computer scientist at the university I attended. They were, in general, a bunch of dunderheads. Some of them weren't, but then that's generalisation for you. It does not mean, however, that I think you are one.