How much father ahead is the software industry because of Microsoft?
Regardless of how it got there, having a mass market platform to develop against surely made many projects feasible that would otherwise have cost too much for niche markets.
Java is a tragic missed opportunity. A great idea but too slow in practice until other options had already surpassed it.
Buying up experts and stuffing them into R&D is always hit and miss. Generally you'll take a lot of misses to get the one big hit though. It takes time and even with the recession Microsoft is still spending over 9 billion on R&D this year.. one of the biggest R&D budgets in the world. This is the sort of company that is thinking long term instead of short term. That is rare these days and it is most likely the reason why they will be strong for decades to come.
I can honestly say that I don't think anyone cared much that Microsoft was backing HD-DVD. I have to agree though that two competing but very similar standards on something as insignificant as storage media at this point in our digital lives is a complete waste of time.
Ray Ozzie is the tech guy and the chief software architect.
Bill Gates was actually replaced by the two of them working in tandem.
Do these guys even research a little before they make these retarded articles about how an already huge company that tripled its revenue in 10 years is doing poorly?
The people who own and run Microsoft know that they won't benefit from radical development in the product line. Not in their lifetimes anyway. So the engineering side goes business as usual. Marketing gets a boost. And profits go in the bank.
Microsoft is spending $9.5 Billion on R&D this coming year. Now as usual with R&D it is somewhat of a crapshoot. Sometimes you'll hire bright talent and throw a lot of money into R&D and get nothing for it. Eventually though, those two in combination are going to come up with something that is going to give you an edge on your competition.
I put forward that you cannot survive a year without touching/using a google technology. If you truely believe google tech is mediocre.. go a year without google search/mail/reader/youtube/maps/docs/books/code/chrome/images/news/android and of course.. no clicking google ads.
You can't be serious.
I didn't realize the dawn of humanity was 1998 when Google came around.
I disagree with you as far as the online music sales monopoly goes: Apple's real interest isn't in dominating the online music store business as much as it is maintaining dominance in the music player business. They want to sell iPods first, and the online store is merely an accessory. So no, I don't think Apple would retaliate by banning Google apps, especially if it could hurt sales of iPhones and iPods in any way. The music store is a valuable chess piece, but one Apple would sacrifice to protect the more important pieces on the board.
I would put forward that with the music player industry reaching saturation the focus is shifting from the iTunes store being a vehicle for selling iPods to the other way around. That is why they have been focused on adding more types of content to iTunes (tv shows, movies, etc).
That way they have repeatable sales to people who already have a device.
It isn't that people can't buy music somewhere else. It is that they are already familiar with iTunes and iTunes has such a huge mindshare that 90% of new competitors in this arena are left fighting over the scraps.
With IBM and Google giving big-name credence to Linux on the HOME and BUSINESS DESKTOP, Microsoft should start quaking in their boots. IBM and Google have all the pieces to put together to deliver a really killer experience.
As long as Microsoft Office is the defacto standard for office documents Linux is a non-starter on the business desktop. Period. End of story. And with Microsoft responding to the online office suite threat in their next release, I imagine most people will take the easier transition to that instead of Google Docs.
I overheard someone once say they want an OS that they can use in their car, in their phone, and on their desktop. They want it to be consistent, minimal, easy to use, and provide them seamless access to their data wherever they go. I suggested Google online services mixed with Chrome OS, and Android may deliver that to them within a year.
Microsoft has most of the pieces of this puzzle already as well. They have already got SYNC in Ford cars, the admittedly terrible (but being rewritten) Windows Mobile and of course Windows on the desktop. In addition to this Microsoft also has a good share of the living room with Xbox Live. Do you really think they are asleep at the wheel expecting they can milk only Windows/Office on desktop computers forever?
Microsoft better wake up real quick with a real, next-generation operating system of the future. It needs to be secure, flexible, low-latency, scalable, modular and customizable. It needs to be their Unix. Only, Steve Jobs beat them to the punch with OS X.
Actually despite the fact that Microsoft botched the Vista development/release I think that the Vista/Windows 7 codebase is a legitimate step forward for Windows. Windows is now much more secure and stable than it has ever been, they have taken a lot of crude out of the OS in 7 so that it does perform well on netbooks all the way up to CAD workstations or servers and they have maintained most of the software compatibility.
The only reason why Apple was able to jettison its legacy software base when they moved to OS X was that the base was so small in the first place. They would have a much harder time telling their current (and more numerous) customers that they would have to update all their software or buy new versions to move to a new OS kernel.
And if Microsoft tried what Apple had done while moving to OS X (either purchase new or run in "Classic") I think my computer would melt from the amount of flaming on slashdot.
The reality is that Microsoft is fighting on a lot of fronts and I agree absolutely that they aren't the best at everything. That being said they have some very bright people, a whole ton of cash, $9 billion a year in R&D and a lot of the pieces of the puzzle that seem to be coming together in near future. I think that anyone underestimating that is most likely in for some disappointment.
It is funny that the record and movie companies are constantly ridiculed on slashdot for not "getting with the program" as far as internet distribution goes... being continuously dumped on for not changing their business model.. but no one can suggest an alternative that actually makes sense..
Now that the numbers are actually coming in we find that a company that actually makes most of their money digitally is finding that they are trading dollars for cents... so what do we ridicule them for now? Or are we really advocating that everyone should just be an indie act?
Exactly.. the supply is"LIMITLESS" only AFTER the work is created.
This is where the typical slashdot groupthink falls very flat on this issue. There is typically a huge investment in time/money up front on all these works that are protected by copyright. The supply is definitely NOT unlimited despite the pro-piracy for whatever dumb excuse crowd's efforts at propaganda.
The only problem is how do you reward the creativity without controlling the distribution of the work?
A lot of these games/movies/software products have enormous up front costs that become affordable only because distribution is controlled and on a massive scale in terms of numbers.
I'm not the one being thick. I understand the literal definition of the laws my point is that you are using semantics to skirt the moral issue. Despite what the law says in black in white anyone with a brain can see that it is stealing at the end of the day.
It is quite simple to see the end result of this..
Lets try:
You claim that taking your copy isn't stealing because it isn't depriving them of their copy that they can still sell to others.
So I should take a copy for free and the next person and the next.. and so should everyone else because why would you pay for it if you could get it for free and it hurts no one.. right?
Now the studio has no revenue and has no money to reinvest in new projects and everyone is out of work. The only new movies you get to watch are home made or under such crazy security it will make your head spin.
Darn.. I guess having progressively less money to reinvest really DOES affect people.
Music/software/film doesn't magically appear out of thin air despite your arguments to the contrary.
Do you people really believe the bullshit you are spouting? You think that semantic arguments are a good excuse to steal from people?
Yes, under the law it is technically copyright infringement but do you seriously think that what is being "stolen" is the digital copy? The whole reason copyright exists is to protect the work of people whose products at the end of their work is easily reproduced.
What is being "stolen" is the reimbursement that the owner wants for the time/investment/inspiration that it took to MAKE the product in the first place. ie. The WORK.
If you really do believe that line of crap slashdot propaganda you regurgitated, I hope that you spend tons of time/money on a project that you hope will financially benefit you and then someone takes your work and gives it to everyone for free. Semantics won't do you so well at that point.
PS: No, all these movies don't make millions in profit. It is a risky business with very high up front costs.
In the former case, you deprive the owner use of said property. In the latter, the owner still has the property.
And whenever someone uses this stupid statement I always like to point out that if this was truly the case, why do the geeks get mad when someone takes the code to Linux and uses it in an appliance without posting modified source? Can't have it both ways.. sorry.
In both the case of the car being stolen and the 100 million dollar movie being pirated what is REALLY being stolen is the time and money of the people who made them/owned them. You don't get a free pass just because you can easily make a copy.
Developers would quickly realize that selling copies is no way to make money. But -- and this is a fallacy that nearly every copyright advocate seems to commit -- that doesn't mean they'd be left without a way to make money!
In the new mythical fantasy world of the future (with unicorns and fairies) where no one charges anything for digital media of any sort, these development costs would be paid for out of the wizard's treasure chest. Or by some new business model if gosh, anyone could figure out what that is... in the meantime yay everyone pirate what they want for free!
My favourites are also raiders and last crusade. Temple of Doom I have always found to be the weakest of the first three.
Maybe odd-numbered Indiana Jones movies are the winners.:)
I really enjoyed The Last Crusade.
Everything was firing on all cylinders and because the sequel came close enough to the other movies they could use "in" jokes that made it a lot of fun.
Also the dynamic between Sean Connery and Harrison Ford was really good.
That old fart had two really good film ideas. With the first idea he got two really good films, Star Wars and Empire, and then 4 (soon 5) crappy empty sequels. The second idea, Raiders, resulted in one really good movie and one passable movie out of 3 sequels. I feel sorry for the sad joke he's become.
I largely agree with you.. I especially can't imagine how movies as bad as the 3 prequels got made without someone telling him that some of the scenes/characters/actors/dialog were terrible. That and the Shia of the jungle scenes in the new IJ movie just make me laugh considering how the discussion for the development of something so stupid could have gone..
On the other hand.. having two unique and enormously successful ideas isn't all that bad and I give him credit for creating those worlds that I so enjoyed. Self-made billionaires who pioneered a lot of the technology that everyone from independent filmmakers to crews working on large blockbuster projects rely on daily are hardly a joke.
I just do the same thing with Star Wars and Indiana Jones that I do with the Matrix series.. I leave the terrible pre/sequels out of my collection and largely forget about them.
Slashdot Mirror
How much father ahead is the software industry because of Microsoft?
Regardless of how it got there, having a mass market platform to develop against surely made many projects feasible that would otherwise have cost too much for niche markets.
Java is a tragic missed opportunity. A great idea but too slow in practice until other options had already surpassed it.
Buying up experts and stuffing them into R&D is always hit and miss. Generally you'll take a lot of misses to get the one big hit though. It takes time and even with the recession Microsoft is still spending over 9 billion on R&D this year.. one of the biggest R&D budgets in the world. This is the sort of company that is thinking long term instead of short term. That is rare these days and it is most likely the reason why they will be strong for decades to come.
I can honestly say that I don't think anyone cared much that Microsoft was backing HD-DVD. I have to agree though that two competing but very similar standards on something as insignificant as storage media at this point in our digital lives is a complete waste of time.
Steve Ballmer is a business guy and the CEO.
Ray Ozzie is the tech guy and the chief software architect.
Bill Gates was actually replaced by the two of them working in tandem.
Do these guys even research a little before they make these retarded articles about how an already huge company that tripled its revenue in 10 years is doing poorly?
The people who own and run Microsoft know that they won't benefit from radical development in the product line. Not in their lifetimes anyway. So the engineering side goes business as usual. Marketing gets a boost. And profits go in the bank.
Microsoft is spending $9.5 Billion on R&D this coming year. Now as usual with R&D it is somewhat of a crapshoot. Sometimes you'll hire bright talent and throw a lot of money into R&D and get nothing for it. Eventually though, those two in combination are going to come up with something that is going to give you an edge on your competition.
That is when the radical development comes in.
And the earlier announcement that Bing has also signed a Twitter & Facebook search deal??
Oh right, slashdot.
I put forward that you cannot survive a year without touching/using a google technology. If you truely believe google tech is mediocre.. go a year without google search/mail/reader/youtube/maps/docs/books/code/chrome/images/news/android and of course.. no clicking google ads.
You can't be serious.
I didn't realize the dawn of humanity was 1998 when Google came around.
I disagree with you as far as the online music sales monopoly goes: Apple's real interest isn't in dominating the online music store business as much as it is maintaining dominance in the music player business. They want to sell iPods first, and the online store is merely an accessory. So no, I don't think Apple would retaliate by banning Google apps, especially if it could hurt sales of iPhones and iPods in any way. The music store is a valuable chess piece, but one Apple would sacrifice to protect the more important pieces on the board.
I would put forward that with the music player industry reaching saturation the focus is shifting from the iTunes store being a vehicle for selling iPods to the other way around. That is why they have been focused on adding more types of content to iTunes (tv shows, movies, etc).
That way they have repeatable sales to people who already have a device.
I think you need to look up de facto.
It isn't that people can't buy music somewhere else. It is that they are already familiar with iTunes and iTunes has such a huge mindshare that 90% of new competitors in this arena are left fighting over the scraps.
Agreed. A 17% reduction in power consumption doing the same tasks is nothing to scoff at...
Wing Commander and Privateer were two of my favourites. Great mesh of story and action.
With IBM and Google giving big-name credence to Linux on the HOME and BUSINESS DESKTOP, Microsoft should start quaking in their boots. IBM and Google have all the pieces to put together to deliver a really killer experience.
As long as Microsoft Office is the defacto standard for office documents Linux is a non-starter on the business desktop. Period. End of story. And with Microsoft responding to the online office suite threat in their next release, I imagine most people will take the easier transition to that instead of Google Docs.
I overheard someone once say they want an OS that they can use in their car, in their phone, and on their desktop. They want it to be consistent, minimal, easy to use, and provide them seamless access to their data wherever they go. I suggested Google online services mixed with Chrome OS, and Android may deliver that to them within a year.
Microsoft has most of the pieces of this puzzle already as well. They have already got SYNC in Ford cars, the admittedly terrible (but being rewritten) Windows Mobile and of course Windows on the desktop. In addition to this Microsoft also has a good share of the living room with Xbox Live. Do you really think they are asleep at the wheel expecting they can milk only Windows/Office on desktop computers forever?
Microsoft better wake up real quick with a real, next-generation operating system of the future. It needs to be secure, flexible, low-latency, scalable, modular and customizable. It needs to be their Unix. Only, Steve Jobs beat them to the punch with OS X.
Actually despite the fact that Microsoft botched the Vista development/release I think that the Vista/Windows 7 codebase is a legitimate step forward for Windows. Windows is now much more secure and stable than it has ever been, they have taken a lot of crude out of the OS in 7 so that it does perform well on netbooks all the way up to CAD workstations or servers and they have maintained most of the software compatibility.
The only reason why Apple was able to jettison its legacy software base when they moved to OS X was that the base was so small in the first place. They would have a much harder time telling their current (and more numerous) customers that they would have to update all their software or buy new versions to move to a new OS kernel.
And if Microsoft tried what Apple had done while moving to OS X (either purchase new or run in "Classic") I think my computer would melt from the amount of flaming on slashdot.
The reality is that Microsoft is fighting on a lot of fronts and I agree absolutely that they aren't the best at everything. That being said they have some very bright people, a whole ton of cash, $9 billion a year in R&D and a lot of the pieces of the puzzle that seem to be coming together in near future. I think that anyone underestimating that is most likely in for some disappointment.
How is a day trader insulated from risk? How can a day trader ruin a company? How can they create risk for a company?
You do realize that the share price in general has nothing to do with the day to day operations of the company, right?
1) Darwin is already open source as we all know.
2) Apple would LOVE LOVE LOVE to be in the position that Microsoft is in today. Billions of net profit every year.
It is funny that the record and movie companies are constantly ridiculed on slashdot for not "getting with the program" as far as internet distribution goes... being continuously dumped on for not changing their business model.. but no one can suggest an alternative that actually makes sense..
Now that the numbers are actually coming in we find that a company that actually makes most of their money digitally is finding that they are trading dollars for cents... so what do we ridicule them for now? Or are we really advocating that everyone should just be an indie act?
No, Doom was pirated and BOUGHT a lot.. and that made it a big hit.
I have a feeling if they didn't sell any legitimate copies things might not have been so rosy for id.
Exactly.. the supply is"LIMITLESS" only AFTER the work is created.
This is where the typical slashdot groupthink falls very flat on this issue. There is typically a huge investment in time/money up front on all these works that are protected by copyright. The supply is definitely NOT unlimited despite the pro-piracy for whatever dumb excuse crowd's efforts at propaganda.
The only problem is how do you reward the creativity without controlling the distribution of the work?
A lot of these games/movies/software products have enormous up front costs that become affordable only because distribution is controlled and on a massive scale in terms of numbers.
I'm not the one being thick. I understand the literal definition of the laws my point is that you are using semantics to skirt the moral issue. Despite what the law says in black in white anyone with a brain can see that it is stealing at the end of the day.
It is quite simple to see the end result of this..
Lets try:
You claim that taking your copy isn't stealing because it isn't depriving them of their copy that they can still sell to others.
So I should take a copy for free and the next person and the next.. and so should everyone else because why would you pay for it if you could get it for free and it hurts no one.. right?
Now the studio has no revenue and has no money to reinvest in new projects and everyone is out of work. The only new movies you get to watch are home made or under such crazy security it will make your head spin.
Darn.. I guess having progressively less money to reinvest really DOES affect people.
Music/software/film doesn't magically appear out of thin air despite your arguments to the contrary.
Did you know that in most places now you don't have to carry money around but you can still buy things using electronic funds?
I didn't realize all this time I was getting something for nothing and that things that aren't physical have no value.
Whoops...
Do you people really believe the bullshit you are spouting? You think that semantic arguments are a good excuse to steal from people?
Yes, under the law it is technically copyright infringement but do you seriously think that what is being "stolen" is the digital copy? The whole reason copyright exists is to protect the work of people whose products at the end of their work is easily reproduced.
What is being "stolen" is the reimbursement that the owner wants for the time/investment/inspiration that it took to MAKE the product in the first place. ie. The WORK.
If you really do believe that line of crap slashdot propaganda you regurgitated, I hope that you spend tons of time/money on a project that you hope will financially benefit you and then someone takes your work and gives it to everyone for free. Semantics won't do you so well at that point.
PS: No, all these movies don't make millions in profit. It is a risky business with very high up front costs.
In the former case, you deprive the owner use of said property. In the latter, the owner still has the property.
And whenever someone uses this stupid statement I always like to point out that if this was truly the case, why do the geeks get mad when someone takes the code to Linux and uses it in an appliance without posting modified source? Can't have it both ways.. sorry.
In both the case of the car being stolen and the 100 million dollar movie being pirated what is REALLY being stolen is the time and money of the people who made them/owned them. You don't get a free pass just because you can easily make a copy.
Developers would quickly realize that selling copies is no way to make money. But -- and this is a fallacy that nearly every copyright advocate seems to commit -- that doesn't mean they'd be left without a way to make money!
Please enlighten me.. I'd love to know how.
So who pays for the initial development costs?
Yup.. you caught the problem.
In the new mythical fantasy world of the future (with unicorns and fairies) where no one charges anything for digital media of any sort, these development costs would be paid for out of the wizard's treasure chest. Or by some new business model if gosh, anyone could figure out what that is... in the meantime yay everyone pirate what they want for free!
Makes me laugh.
My favourites are also raiders and last crusade. Temple of Doom I have always found to be the weakest of the first three.
Maybe odd-numbered Indiana Jones movies are the winners. :)
I really enjoyed The Last Crusade.
Everything was firing on all cylinders and because the sequel came close enough to the other movies they could use "in" jokes that made it a lot of fun.
Also the dynamic between Sean Connery and Harrison Ford was really good.
That old fart had two really good film ideas. With the first idea he got two really good films, Star Wars and Empire, and then 4 (soon 5) crappy empty sequels. The second idea, Raiders, resulted in one really good movie and one passable movie out of 3 sequels. I feel sorry for the sad joke he's become.
I largely agree with you.. I especially can't imagine how movies as bad as the 3 prequels got made without someone telling him that some of the scenes/characters/actors/dialog were terrible. That and the Shia of the jungle scenes in the new IJ movie just make me laugh considering how the discussion for the development of something so stupid could have gone..
On the other hand.. having two unique and enormously successful ideas isn't all that bad and I give him credit for creating those worlds that I so enjoyed. Self-made billionaires who pioneered a lot of the technology that everyone from independent filmmakers to crews working on large blockbuster projects rely on daily are hardly a joke.
I just do the same thing with Star Wars and Indiana Jones that I do with the Matrix series.. I leave the terrible pre/sequels out of my collection and largely forget about them.
It would also help if Google even *remotely* competed with MS Office on a feature basis.
This is a case where you do get what you pay for thus far in the game..