It doesn't make a real difference wether they give windows for free or they charge for it. Well a few more $ for them but that's really not the point.
What Microsoft wants is to keep CONTROL of the desktop.
Their target is more like: "90% of the desktop market" than "99999999$". So they will be selling Windows as long as they can, they will give it for free when they have to and they could even pay a fee to hardware vendors for having Windows pre-installed.
As long as they keep control of the desktop base, they can sell any related product they want to. A competitor is doing better for a given product? Ok, screw them by adding that functionality in the next version of the OS. This application has better performance than Office? No problem, new version, new API and New Office -always first to market because they're developing Windows and Office in parallel...
At some point in the future they might have to give Office for free. But there will ALWAYS be NEW applications to sell and they'll always have an important COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.
And think also of DRM, propietary technologies and file formats....they will always be able to impose the standard.
No, the job of the government is not to tell you what operating system to use -though US government seems to have told you exactly that.
But it's the job of the government: - To save costs in administration. - To make sure citizens are given options in a free market. - To worry about the security of the data they manage and be sure software they use makes exactly what it's intended to do. - Anything that can benefit the community as a whole...
Q: Do you think citizens should have the right to decide which software they use?
1. No, I prefer a propietary software already predefined. 2. Yes, Knowledge must belong to everybody. 3. If everybody makes a choice, isn't it going to be a mess? 4. Sure, freedom relies on diversity.
Slashdot Mirror
It doesn't make a real difference wether they give windows for free or they charge for it. Well a few more $ for them but that's really not the point.
What Microsoft wants is to keep CONTROL of the desktop.
Their target is more like: "90% of the desktop market" than "99999999$". So they will be selling Windows as long as they can, they will give it for free when they have to and they could even pay a fee to hardware vendors for having Windows pre-installed.
As long as they keep control of the desktop base, they can sell any related product they want to. A competitor is doing better for a given product? Ok, screw them by adding that functionality in the next version of the OS. This application has better performance than Office? No problem, new version, new API and New Office -always first to market because they're developing Windows and Office in parallel...
At some point in the future they might have to give Office for free. But there will ALWAYS be NEW applications to sell and they'll always have an important COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE.
And think also of DRM, propietary technologies and file formats....they will always be able to impose the standard.
Are those upside-down question marks the cutest little things you've ever seen, or what?
:-)
Errr, yes, they're cool, arent they?
Sorry. Misspelling. We use them a lot in spanish -just to mark the starting of a question.
thx for the comment
I think it's not about economics. Couldn't it be about national "security"?
See things this way:
US govt --(controls or is in bed with)-->Microsoft
Microsoft --(controls)--->Every desktop in the world.
So you could say that US govt somehow controls every desktop system in the world.
(ok, call me paranoid)
No, the job of the government is not to tell you what operating system to use -though US government seems to have told you exactly that.
But it's the job of the government:
- To save costs in administration.
- To make sure citizens are given options in a free market.
- To worry about the security of the data they manage and be sure software they use makes exactly what it's intended to do.
- Anything that can benefit the community as a whole...
Here you are:
:-)
Q: Do you think citizens should have the right to decide which software they use?
1. No, I prefer a propietary software already predefined.
2. Yes, Knowledge must belong to everybody.
3. If everybody makes a choice, isn't it going to be a mess?
4. Sure, freedom relies on diversity.
(As you can see, a bit biased...funny anyway
Not too much, as most of the MS software used in Spain is pirated.
But he should start being worried about Europe...
Don't worry, we'll do better in Europe.
Specially, because the perspective is slightly different here:
Is ok for us an american company to have so much power in Europe?