I mostly agree with this post. VCs are a greedy bunch. Greed at its greatest actually. They'll have you do all the work for your business and then take an incredibly high percentage of your profits or incredibly high stake in your company. How's that for greed? Greed at its finest.
However, they do this because they ARE risk takers. They're offering up loads of capital on your idea. Hopefully your idea works. If not, well those VCs have the possibiliy of getting screwed over. Thus their insanely high take from your hard work.
Work your ass off. Research your ass off. See who you know and what they can do. Network like your life depends on it. In a way, it does, because if your idea is to the point where you think you need a VC, then this business that you are starting up pretty much IS your life and will be your life for a couple years. If you find you still need that couple million dollar infusion (which admittedly is rather hard to get for the average Joe) to get that manufacturing started or what-not, then find that VC and hope for the best.
This story seems like a prime candidate for "Microsoft is setting up for a perfect 'switch to Mac' campaign here". Just how much backlash will there be when everyday Ma and Pa PC users are forced to either stick with their current Windows OS because their computer won't upgrade to Vista or buy a complete new system? It appears to be yet another opportunity for Apple to say "bleh...buy a Mac. They just work".
But...as stated above, I guess it all breaks down to users. Corporate users, everyday users, power users. I for one (why do/.ers use that phrase so much? Ack!) would be pretty annoyed if I had to buy yet another machine just to run the new OS. Let's see if Apple will take advantage of this or not.
Forget the phone for a bit, think about service
on
iCell in the Works?
·
· Score: 1
Everyone seems to be focusing on the phone itself. Yeah sure, Apple designers could probably develop one snazzy phone. Let's think about the service for a minute though. Virgin Mobile, not really one that we'd consider a powerhouse (Verizion, Cingular, etc) is doing pretty damn good. Now imagine Apple coming in and doing the same thing. Of course, Apple would have SOOOOO much more to offer...a stylish phone, iTunes integration, ease of use...all things that could quickly add to more profit for Apple.
Let's also not forget the intangibles. Just having the Apple name would allow Apple to charge quite a premium, just as they do for their computers and iPods. We saw when the iPod first came out that people would pay more for that mp3 player rather than other ones that had more features and higher capacities. And let's not forget how loyal Apple fans are. So now we've got the trendy factor in addition to the loyalty factor. All of a sudden it doesn't sound like such a bad idea, does it? Apple makes money on the product AND the service.
Being that it's all mp3 technology, the difference should be negligible. And trust me...if the sound was THAT much different from one generation to another, we'd definitely hear about it. Apple can't even fart now without it being all over the Internet. A screen on the iPod scratches easily? Class action suits abound! If the sound had deteriorated, there would be hell to pay. Thus...go buy it and enjoy your new iPod.
Look at what Microsoft did with Windows: they let Windows be freely pirated, and now they dominate the desktop.
Do you really think that's why MS dominates the desktop? You don't think it's because of all the licensing deals MS had with all the PC makers? And the fact PCs had become a commodity item long ago and were cheaper than Macs, thus Joe Blow would buy the PC based solely on price (thus, getting Windows)? Or maybe that the common (incorrect) perception for a long time was that PCs were for business, Macs for designers...so people kept buying the PCs. Why didn't OS/2 make it? Couldn't that be pirated? Wait...I do recall people loading up Mac OS on machines all around school. I don't think Microsoft dominates the desktop because they let Windows be pirated.
Like most things, it will only be a matter of time before Steve Job's greed and closed circuit mentality has them loose market share.
Ah...but that isn't Steve's way. That may have been Apple's way in the past, but Steve doesn't let Apple rest on its laurels. Remember when the first iMac came out? It was a big hit. He didn't just be happy with the gum drops though while imitation after imitation came out. He came out with the new iMac. And then the completely redesigned iMac again.
He did the same thing with the iPod. The iPod came out, competitors gunned for it. Then came the Mini. Then the Shuffle. Then the Nano. Then the Video. When everyone thought HD based mp3 players would give way to flash-based ones, they came out with one. Apple isn't resting and that's how and why they own the market right now in that particular field. And as far as computer market share goes...yeah, Apple f'd up back in the day. But since Steve has took the helm and decided not to ride the success of any one product, they've been doing fairly well for themselves.
The iPod, obviously. But what exactly are they going after? The interface? That's it? Whoopty do. When the iPod first came out, there were bunches of mp3 players on the market. People thought the iPod was too expensive and thus would fail. Yet here we are now. Why did it succeed? Simple use (an Apple hallmark), iTunes was amazingly easy to use (an Apple hallmark), but mainly because iTunes had the support of the major labels while no other service really did. So why would a MAINSTREAM consumer buy anything but an iPod? They have more LEGAL music choices and something easy to use. Here we are now with the iPod and iTunes dominating the market. Competitors tried fighting on price (both with player and song). That didn't work. They tried fighting with design. Nope. So just how in the hell do they think they'll win over Average Joe consumer and his three kids on an open source product that may change with each revision? Plus...I think with Apple adding video to both iTunes and the iPod pretty much sealed the fate of all the competitors.
WTF? People have been using their tape decks to record off the radio for years. And then maybe a few more years. And then a few years more. They've recorded top 40 countdowns. Just recorded songs. Recorded tapes full of radio play and then made mixed tapes. Hell...before I even had a ghetto blaster (or boom box depending on where you're from...that's a debate for another time) I took a big clunky tape recorder (kinda like the ones you see in old police movies where they stick the tape recorder in front of the suspect in the interrogation room) in front of the speaker on the TV to record a top 40 countdown. That's right, I got Survivor and "Eye of the Tiger" in all its glory, taped on a crappy old tape recorder sitting next to the TV. And I liked it! We played that tape all around the neighborhood.
The point is this: People have been recording from the radio, from TV, from their friend's records, from their parent's tapes, from their own CDs for about as long as there has been recordable media. The RIAA needs to realize that nothing they do will keep people from recording what they want. What they NEED to do is work on their business model, their distribution model, licensing models, etc and figure out how to make money from the products they sell instead of trying to rape the living crap out of the artists while also gouging the consumer.
Flock hopes to turn the browser into a dashboard for collaborating, blogging, sharing photos, reveling in a raft of other group activities that have recently caught fire online.
And then you can open up the "blogging widget", the "photo sharing widget", the "FlogTunes widget"...
A dashboard, huh? Interesting...It'll be like the digital hub of 2005.
I hear ya. Sheesh, mine just automatically renewed in the past week and I almost had a coronary. It's not a small chunk of change to have disappearing from your wallet suddenly.
I'd like more free things. Little apps here and there keep me interested. I will admit that iDisk comes in handy at times (like when I'm at work and I need something). It seems to be a good central spot for email, the new groups, backup, etc. Of course you can get all that free from other sources (gmail, yahoo groups, etc). That's the price you pay for convenience. Then again, people have been making money for decades simply by "making it easier" or "putting it all together".
And has anyone noticed how.Mac account holders were pleasantly awarded with more storage space now? Hmmmm...I wonder why? Possibly to hold video files? Hmmm...
If anyone can do it...it's Mr. Jobs
on
Video iPod Oct 12?
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I think the studios would be more inclined to go with a tried and true distribution system, ala iTunes, than just dabbling with however many companies are trying to get into this. Apple got the record labels to sign on beforehand and thus had a load of available titles when iTunes was released. I can see him doing the same thing with the studios. Plus, having Pixar as a company and rubbing elbows with the industry can't hurt either. It just seems that the studios would feel much safer knowing Apple has a way to distribute and has such a large following already. Why risk having a myriad of formats, pricing, distribution sources, etc?
That's a pretty good description of why people use iTunes. I completely forgot that I did the same thing with iTunes. I just wanted to put all my CDs somewhere and have a central repository. And then the joys of the iPod came about but I still chose to "stick" myself with iTunes. And now it has a store. To be honest, I use iTMS radio more than anything right now, except when I'm traveling in which case I have my whole library with me to groove along.
The funny thing about being an industry leader is that everyone is gunning for you. You can be 99% perfect but they'll tear you apart on that last 1%. Meanwhile, the "industry pundits" will give praise to the horribly faulty alternatives because "they are making progress".
I've tried the other services. I'm one of those guys that shops for the best available so if I have to build a weird hybrid of a network, I will. However, after trying all the other services, I'm fine with being "stuck" with iTunes.
If you're an iPod owner... then you're stuck with iTunes.
Yeah..."stuck". With over 350 million sales, I can see people are hating the fact they're "stuck" with iTunes. And with a prediction 23 million iPods sold by 2006, I can see people are using their dollars to show Apple they don't want to be "stuck" with iTunes anymore.
There's a big difference in the sources where people get their virus news. On the Windows side, you see it in trade journals, on news sites, even on TV when there's a big virus making Windows machines crap out left and right. Yet...you only hear about Mac viruses from companies (Symantec?) who are trying to make a buck. Maybe when I read about Mac viruses in InfoWorld or some other news source I'll be mildly concerned.
The arrogance of the music industry is just plain sickening. I'm coming at it from so many different angles. I've got loads of friends in bands, technology, law, and business. The labels will rape the poor artists blind if they don't have a good lawyer. The fact the artist barely sees any money from a CD sale is sad. Then you've got the RIAA who is still stuck in the Bronze Age, dragging their clubs around thinking they can do business now as they have in the past. If they don't see what they like, they sue instead of changing their business practices.
I almost want the labels to pull out. I want their arrogant plan to blow up in their face as they watch iPod owners burn the CDs they already own and purchase less music online. You know piracy will go up again and the labels will see 0% profit as opposed to the hundreds of thousands they've made BECAUSE of Apple and iPod sales. As Red from "That 70's Show" so eloquently states..."dumbasses".
Seems to me that this an article about Korea. Where does China come in?
Very observant. However, that would blow away the "stereotypical, generalized" parts of the statements. You know at some point China will be brought up in this discussion, or how the US is getting lax, and so forth...People tend to generalize everything nowadays anyway so I was simply stating the obvious generalizations and wondering what kinds of discussions would spawn from that. Thoughts? Discussions?
And here is what the general population will say when they think of all the "China vs. the US" statements they can.
US has free trade and China won't open up.
US won't allow stem cell research
China is growing by leaps and bounds in technology.
China opresses their people, America is free.
Then there will be a firestorm of "you're wrong" and "China is going to blow past the US while the US sits and fights wars in Iraq". I do find it interesting however that the US has so many regulations in the medical and drug field that it's almost impossible to move forward at any practical pace. If those fields were allowed to grow as technology has been allowed to grow and innovate (I wonder what regulations they have in China) as they were in technology, perhaps the US would have papers touting new cures for these diseases and injuries. The US prides itself in its innovative capabilities but is getting bogged down by legislation. Meanwhile, China has learned the technology and is running wild with it. The combination of all the red tape in the US and the desire to be a dominant force in the global market, it's only a matter of time (approaching rather quickly I may add) that China surpasses the US...in many many fields.
Weigh your values carefully
on
Pay vs. Happiness
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I just came across a proposition to change my career yet again. When I was in Philly (ick) I was installing wifi all around the country. I dug the hell out of it but I really missed everything Santa Cruz, CA had to offer me. So I quit what I was doing and moved out to the west coast. I still had my consulting company out here but it wasn't a steady paycheck and bringing me the big bucks.
So here I am in CA, doing tech support for the courthouse (we let our consulting company slowly fold as my biz partner headed off to law school and I sought a bit more stability). I get to ride my bike to work every day (about 10 miles each), have great weather, good people all around, the ocean here, the mtns, etc. However, just recently I was offered the chance to do the wifi stuff again with a 50% raise. I pondered it for about a week and realized it wasn't a lifestyle I wanted. 50% wasn't enough to travel all the time, have instability, won't get to ride all the time, etc. Paying the bills would be awesome, but it's just not worth the sacrifice. Apply this to all your job decisions and man...it's interesting what you can come up with.
It'll be interesting to watch this unfold. When we do get to that point...the point where the desktop OS doesn't matter that much, where will the people go? Right now, the two mainstream OS choices are Mac and Windows. Price-conscious and total-mainstreamers (ie, "everyone else has Windows...") will go Windows. More security-minded or people who don't feel like dealing with Windows headaches (that is, if they're just beyond the mainstream Windows people that actually think about security and know that there is an alternative to Windows out there) will go Mac. Then you have Linux...right now it's still just outside the reach of mainstreamers. But when the world is connected, will it still be outside, or will it be the third main option? And at that point, that's when it's more of a hardware issue.
People will still rely on desktop apps and the desktop OS no matter how connected we get, but that reliance on the desktop will diminish. You are absolutely right though...and good googly this will be interesting to watch. I'll just have to become proficient on all three and then use the best one.
I'd like to point out the obvious. You know...that Microsoft and Google are two completely different companies with two totally different ways of doing things. Microsoft has been mainly concerned with protecting its desktop dominance, mostly with Windows and Office. Google, which started as an Internet (search) company is continuing to grow in Internet-based outreaches. So if we truly are heading toward the web as a platform, yes, Microsoft should be scared and Google is probably sitting pretty.
I'd point that out, but I'm sure I'll get the people screaming at me going "why is it when Microsoft does something, it's bad, but when Google does something, it's good?" Simmer down people...I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Yeah, I guess the web could be its own platform and ultimately give Windows (and Macs and Linux and...) a run for their money. Of course, that's assuming everyone with a computer has access to the Internet. Having your computer and running it purely as a web platform will do you no good if you don't have connectivity. The world isn't THAT connected yet. And even worse...just because you're connected doesn't mean you've got a broadband connection.
I guess in a way, Microsoft doesn't have that much to worry about. Not now at least. But they'd better start planning for the future for when we do get world-wide broadband Internet access.
Slashdot Mirror
I mostly agree with this post. VCs are a greedy bunch. Greed at its greatest actually. They'll have you do all the work for your business and then take an incredibly high percentage of your profits or incredibly high stake in your company. How's that for greed? Greed at its finest.
However, they do this because they ARE risk takers. They're offering up loads of capital on your idea. Hopefully your idea works. If not, well those VCs have the possibiliy of getting screwed over. Thus their insanely high take from your hard work.
Work your ass off. Research your ass off. See who you know and what they can do. Network like your life depends on it. In a way, it does, because if your idea is to the point where you think you need a VC, then this business that you are starting up pretty much IS your life and will be your life for a couple years. If you find you still need that couple million dollar infusion (which admittedly is rather hard to get for the average Joe) to get that manufacturing started or what-not, then find that VC and hope for the best.
This story seems like a prime candidate for "Microsoft is setting up for a perfect 'switch to Mac' campaign here". Just how much backlash will there be when everyday Ma and Pa PC users are forced to either stick with their current Windows OS because their computer won't upgrade to Vista or buy a complete new system? It appears to be yet another opportunity for Apple to say "bleh...buy a Mac. They just work".
/.ers use that phrase so much? Ack!) would be pretty annoyed if I had to buy yet another machine just to run the new OS. Let's see if Apple will take advantage of this or not.
But...as stated above, I guess it all breaks down to users. Corporate users, everyday users, power users. I for one (why do
Everyone seems to be focusing on the phone itself. Yeah sure, Apple designers could probably develop one snazzy phone. Let's think about the service for a minute though. Virgin Mobile, not really one that we'd consider a powerhouse (Verizion, Cingular, etc) is doing pretty damn good. Now imagine Apple coming in and doing the same thing. Of course, Apple would have SOOOOO much more to offer...a stylish phone, iTunes integration, ease of use...all things that could quickly add to more profit for Apple.
Let's also not forget the intangibles. Just having the Apple name would allow Apple to charge quite a premium, just as they do for their computers and iPods. We saw when the iPod first came out that people would pay more for that mp3 player rather than other ones that had more features and higher capacities. And let's not forget how loyal Apple fans are. So now we've got the trendy factor in addition to the loyalty factor. All of a sudden it doesn't sound like such a bad idea, does it? Apple makes money on the product AND the service.
Being that it's all mp3 technology, the difference should be negligible. And trust me...if the sound was THAT much different from one generation to another, we'd definitely hear about it. Apple can't even fart now without it being all over the Internet. A screen on the iPod scratches easily? Class action suits abound! If the sound had deteriorated, there would be hell to pay. Thus...go buy it and enjoy your new iPod.
Well when you cram us in the bowels of the building, WTF do you expect? Sheeeeeit...
Look at what Microsoft did with Windows: they let Windows be freely pirated, and now they dominate the desktop.
Do you really think that's why MS dominates the desktop? You don't think it's because of all the licensing deals MS had with all the PC makers? And the fact PCs had become a commodity item long ago and were cheaper than Macs, thus Joe Blow would buy the PC based solely on price (thus, getting Windows)? Or maybe that the common (incorrect) perception for a long time was that PCs were for business, Macs for designers...so people kept buying the PCs. Why didn't OS/2 make it? Couldn't that be pirated? Wait...I do recall people loading up Mac OS on machines all around school. I don't think Microsoft dominates the desktop because they let Windows be pirated.
Like most things, it will only be a matter of time before Steve Job's greed and closed circuit mentality has them loose market share.
Ah...but that isn't Steve's way. That may have been Apple's way in the past, but Steve doesn't let Apple rest on its laurels. Remember when the first iMac came out? It was a big hit. He didn't just be happy with the gum drops though while imitation after imitation came out. He came out with the new iMac. And then the completely redesigned iMac again.
He did the same thing with the iPod. The iPod came out, competitors gunned for it. Then came the Mini. Then the Shuffle. Then the Nano. Then the Video. When everyone thought HD based mp3 players would give way to flash-based ones, they came out with one. Apple isn't resting and that's how and why they own the market right now in that particular field. And as far as computer market share goes...yeah, Apple f'd up back in the day. But since Steve has took the helm and decided not to ride the success of any one product, they've been doing fairly well for themselves.
The iPod, obviously. But what exactly are they going after? The interface? That's it? Whoopty do. When the iPod first came out, there were bunches of mp3 players on the market. People thought the iPod was too expensive and thus would fail. Yet here we are now. Why did it succeed? Simple use (an Apple hallmark), iTunes was amazingly easy to use (an Apple hallmark), but mainly because iTunes had the support of the major labels while no other service really did. So why would a MAINSTREAM consumer buy anything but an iPod? They have more LEGAL music choices and something easy to use. Here we are now with the iPod and iTunes dominating the market. Competitors tried fighting on price (both with player and song). That didn't work. They tried fighting with design. Nope. So just how in the hell do they think they'll win over Average Joe consumer and his three kids on an open source product that may change with each revision? Plus...I think with Apple adding video to both iTunes and the iPod pretty much sealed the fate of all the competitors.
there were about 340 items there, as it's both my default download folder and the place I drag images and clippings to from Safari.
Only 340? That's just one night of pr0n surfin' for me! And now I gotta put it all in a folder? Sheesh.
WTF? People have been using their tape decks to record off the radio for years. And then maybe a few more years. And then a few years more. They've recorded top 40 countdowns. Just recorded songs. Recorded tapes full of radio play and then made mixed tapes. Hell...before I even had a ghetto blaster (or boom box depending on where you're from...that's a debate for another time) I took a big clunky tape recorder (kinda like the ones you see in old police movies where they stick the tape recorder in front of the suspect in the interrogation room) in front of the speaker on the TV to record a top 40 countdown. That's right, I got Survivor and "Eye of the Tiger" in all its glory, taped on a crappy old tape recorder sitting next to the TV. And I liked it! We played that tape all around the neighborhood.
The point is this: People have been recording from the radio, from TV, from their friend's records, from their parent's tapes, from their own CDs for about as long as there has been recordable media. The RIAA needs to realize that nothing they do will keep people from recording what they want. What they NEED to do is work on their business model, their distribution model, licensing models, etc and figure out how to make money from the products they sell instead of trying to rape the living crap out of the artists while also gouging the consumer.
Flock hopes to turn the browser into a dashboard for collaborating, blogging, sharing photos, reveling in a raft of other group activities that have recently caught fire online.
And then you can open up the "blogging widget", the "photo sharing widget", the "FlogTunes widget"...
A dashboard, huh? Interesting...It'll be like the digital hub of 2005.
I hear ya. Sheesh, mine just automatically renewed in the past week and I almost had a coronary. It's not a small chunk of change to have disappearing from your wallet suddenly.
I'd like more free things. Little apps here and there keep me interested. I will admit that iDisk comes in handy at times (like when I'm at work and I need something). It seems to be a good central spot for email, the new groups, backup, etc. Of course you can get all that free from other sources (gmail, yahoo groups, etc). That's the price you pay for convenience. Then again, people have been making money for decades simply by "making it easier" or "putting it all together".
And has anyone noticed how .Mac account holders were pleasantly awarded with more storage space now? Hmmmm...I wonder why? Possibly to hold video files? Hmmm...
I think the studios would be more inclined to go with a tried and true distribution system, ala iTunes, than just dabbling with however many companies are trying to get into this. Apple got the record labels to sign on beforehand and thus had a load of available titles when iTunes was released. I can see him doing the same thing with the studios. Plus, having Pixar as a company and rubbing elbows with the industry can't hurt either. It just seems that the studios would feel much safer knowing Apple has a way to distribute and has such a large following already. Why risk having a myriad of formats, pricing, distribution sources, etc?
That's a pretty good description of why people use iTunes. I completely forgot that I did the same thing with iTunes. I just wanted to put all my CDs somewhere and have a central repository. And then the joys of the iPod came about but I still chose to "stick" myself with iTunes. And now it has a store. To be honest, I use iTMS radio more than anything right now, except when I'm traveling in which case I have my whole library with me to groove along.
The funny thing about being an industry leader is that everyone is gunning for you. You can be 99% perfect but they'll tear you apart on that last 1%. Meanwhile, the "industry pundits" will give praise to the horribly faulty alternatives because "they are making progress".
I've tried the other services. I'm one of those guys that shops for the best available so if I have to build a weird hybrid of a network, I will. However, after trying all the other services, I'm fine with being "stuck" with iTunes.
If you're an iPod owner... then you're stuck with iTunes.
Yeah..."stuck". With over 350 million sales, I can see people are hating the fact they're "stuck" with iTunes. And with a prediction 23 million iPods sold by 2006, I can see people are using their dollars to show Apple they don't want to be "stuck" with iTunes anymore.
Can we say "biased reporting" anyone?
There's a big difference in the sources where people get their virus news. On the Windows side, you see it in trade journals, on news sites, even on TV when there's a big virus making Windows machines crap out left and right. Yet...you only hear about Mac viruses from companies (Symantec?) who are trying to make a buck. Maybe when I read about Mac viruses in InfoWorld or some other news source I'll be mildly concerned.
Uh oh!
Looks like members of the RIAA and other music industry execs have mod points. Zoiks!
The arrogance of the music industry is just plain sickening. I'm coming at it from so many different angles. I've got loads of friends in bands, technology, law, and business. The labels will rape the poor artists blind if they don't have a good lawyer. The fact the artist barely sees any money from a CD sale is sad. Then you've got the RIAA who is still stuck in the Bronze Age, dragging their clubs around thinking they can do business now as they have in the past. If they don't see what they like, they sue instead of changing their business practices.
I almost want the labels to pull out. I want their arrogant plan to blow up in their face as they watch iPod owners burn the CDs they already own and purchase less music online. You know piracy will go up again and the labels will see 0% profit as opposed to the hundreds of thousands they've made BECAUSE of Apple and iPod sales. As Red from "That 70's Show" so eloquently states..."dumbasses".
Seems to me that this an article about Korea. Where does China come in?
Very observant. However, that would blow away the "stereotypical, generalized" parts of the statements. You know at some point China will be brought up in this discussion, or how the US is getting lax, and so forth...People tend to generalize everything nowadays anyway so I was simply stating the obvious generalizations and wondering what kinds of discussions would spawn from that. Thoughts? Discussions?
And here is what the general population will say when they think of all the "China vs. the US" statements they can.
US has free trade and China won't open up.
US won't allow stem cell research
China is growing by leaps and bounds in technology.
China opresses their people, America is free.
Then there will be a firestorm of "you're wrong" and "China is going to blow past the US while the US sits and fights wars in Iraq". I do find it interesting however that the US has so many regulations in the medical and drug field that it's almost impossible to move forward at any practical pace. If those fields were allowed to grow as technology has been allowed to grow and innovate (I wonder what regulations they have in China) as they were in technology, perhaps the US would have papers touting new cures for these diseases and injuries. The US prides itself in its innovative capabilities but is getting bogged down by legislation. Meanwhile, China has learned the technology and is running wild with it. The combination of all the red tape in the US and the desire to be a dominant force in the global market, it's only a matter of time (approaching rather quickly I may add) that China surpasses the US...in many many fields.
I just came across a proposition to change my career yet again. When I was in Philly (ick) I was installing wifi all around the country. I dug the hell out of it but I really missed everything Santa Cruz, CA had to offer me. So I quit what I was doing and moved out to the west coast. I still had my consulting company out here but it wasn't a steady paycheck and bringing me the big bucks.
So here I am in CA, doing tech support for the courthouse (we let our consulting company slowly fold as my biz partner headed off to law school and I sought a bit more stability). I get to ride my bike to work every day (about 10 miles each), have great weather, good people all around, the ocean here, the mtns, etc. However, just recently I was offered the chance to do the wifi stuff again with a 50% raise. I pondered it for about a week and realized it wasn't a lifestyle I wanted. 50% wasn't enough to travel all the time, have instability, won't get to ride all the time, etc. Paying the bills would be awesome, but it's just not worth the sacrifice. Apply this to all your job decisions and man...it's interesting what you can come up with.
It'll be interesting to watch this unfold. When we do get to that point...the point where the desktop OS doesn't matter that much, where will the people go? Right now, the two mainstream OS choices are Mac and Windows. Price-conscious and total-mainstreamers (ie, "everyone else has Windows...") will go Windows. More security-minded or people who don't feel like dealing with Windows headaches (that is, if they're just beyond the mainstream Windows people that actually think about security and know that there is an alternative to Windows out there) will go Mac. Then you have Linux...right now it's still just outside the reach of mainstreamers. But when the world is connected, will it still be outside, or will it be the third main option? And at that point, that's when it's more of a hardware issue.
People will still rely on desktop apps and the desktop OS no matter how connected we get, but that reliance on the desktop will diminish. You are absolutely right though...and good googly this will be interesting to watch. I'll just have to become proficient on all three and then use the best one.
I'd like to point out the obvious. You know...that Microsoft and Google are two completely different companies with two totally different ways of doing things. Microsoft has been mainly concerned with protecting its desktop dominance, mostly with Windows and Office. Google, which started as an Internet (search) company is continuing to grow in Internet-based outreaches. So if we truly are heading toward the web as a platform, yes, Microsoft should be scared and Google is probably sitting pretty.
I'd point that out, but I'm sure I'll get the people screaming at me going "why is it when Microsoft does something, it's bad, but when Google does something, it's good?" Simmer down people...I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Yeah, I guess the web could be its own platform and ultimately give Windows (and Macs and Linux and...) a run for their money. Of course, that's assuming everyone with a computer has access to the Internet. Having your computer and running it purely as a web platform will do you no good if you don't have connectivity. The world isn't THAT connected yet. And even worse...just because you're connected doesn't mean you've got a broadband connection.
I guess in a way, Microsoft doesn't have that much to worry about. Not now at least. But they'd better start planning for the future for when we do get world-wide broadband Internet access.