Your argument is that by making QT streaming servers more prevalent (by letting you do it on Win/Lin for free), you'd make QT content more ubiquitous.
That's not an awful argument, but it's still not an argument about profitability.
Your strategy has them losing money (for every Mac box not sold) in exchange for ubiquity.
But...Apple could be the #1 media format, and if it's not growing its OS share and not making fat profits, it will still still get pummeled for "dying".
Seems to me like a bad argument in the big picture.
The *real* strategy is making both QT *and* Mac boxen attractive to other users, and that seems to be what they're doing here.
Lots of smaller applications companies that are just hanging on right now will die if strict standards are put in place.
Development companies are already in trouble: fewer applications are being built and sold today, there are no new "killer app" categories and Microsoft tends to embrace and extend any new features customers might want. Lots of companies are just making it by.
Do they deserve to die? Many do, since they're being run just as badly as the article states.
But I wonder how many will survive. Will we just get a few huge BigCo's that have the deep pockets for the kind of remedies suggested? Won't be as interesting to be a software engineer then, I think.
"If they gave a damn about you, why didn't they pay you more before?"
Waiting for a company to treat you "fair" is ludicrous. They're there to make money! This means minimizing expenses!
They won't help you over the long haul, they won't sacrifice their own goals/profits just to make you happy. They're not your friend. And they probably won't be around in 5 years anyway.
It's an inherently antagonistic relationship. Get all you can, and then get out.
Yes, you'll probably leave sooner rather than later even if you take the counter-offer. Just by forcing the issue you're showing you'll probably leave anyway, since going to a new job is the main way to make more money. So any "survey" that tries to show taking a counter-offer is the *cause* of people leaving afterward is stupid -- it depends on who it is.
And if they give you a counter offer in the first place, you're valuable enough to not be a complete wage slave. Take advantage of it while you can!
Why not stay 6 more months at a higher salary, then move again to an even *higher* salary?
Slashdot Mirror
Your argument is that by making QT streaming servers more prevalent (by letting you do it on Win/Lin for free), you'd make QT content more ubiquitous.
That's not an awful argument, but it's still not an argument about profitability.
Your strategy has them losing money (for every Mac box not sold) in exchange for ubiquity.
But...Apple could be the #1 media format, and if it's not growing its OS share and not making fat profits, it will still still get pummeled for "dying".
Seems to me like a bad argument in the big picture.
The *real* strategy is making both QT *and* Mac boxen attractive to other users, and that seems to be what they're doing here.
Lots of smaller applications companies that are just hanging on right now will die if strict standards are put in place.
Development companies are already in trouble: fewer applications are being built and sold today, there are no new "killer app" categories and Microsoft tends to embrace and extend any new features customers might want. Lots of companies are just making it by.
Do they deserve to die? Many do, since they're being run just as badly as the article states.
But I wonder how many will survive. Will we just get a few huge BigCo's that have the deep pockets for the kind of remedies suggested? Won't be as interesting to be a software engineer then, I think.
Joel says Sun made a mistake in releasing Java, which makes hardware a commodity.
I say the reason Sun released Java was to allow all the Windows app programmers to make apps that work on SPARC chips and Solaris as well as Windows.
It was a strategy of weakness, a "Me too" strategy. Not aimed at promoting their hardware, but demoting the more numerous boxen of their competitor.
*And* demoting their competitor's OS, which also had far more apps.
And Microsoft was very afraid of this possibility.
Still is (C#, anyone?).
"If they gave a damn about you, why didn't they pay you more before?"
Waiting for a company to treat you "fair" is ludicrous. They're there to make money! This means minimizing expenses!
They won't help you over the long haul, they won't sacrifice their own goals/profits just to make you happy. They're not your friend. And they probably won't be around in 5 years anyway.
It's an inherently antagonistic relationship. Get all you can, and then get out.
Yes, you'll probably leave sooner rather than later even if you take the counter-offer. Just by forcing the issue you're showing you'll probably leave anyway, since going to a new job is the main way to make more money. So any "survey" that tries to show taking a counter-offer is the *cause* of people leaving afterward is stupid -- it depends on who it is.
And if they give you a counter offer in the first place, you're valuable enough to not be a complete wage slave. Take advantage of it while you can!
Why not stay 6 more months at a higher salary, then move again to an even *higher* salary?