This is a little off topic, but important none the less. As we all know, Amazon has thus far made no money. That doesn't mean they won't in the future. In fact, Amazon stands to make a tremendous amount in the near (3-5yr) future, and here is why: Amazon is investing in market and mindshare right now. Their strategy is to lure customers to them with ease of use and heavy-duty personalization features. Currently, it costs Amazon somewhere in the $20-30 range to secure a customer. On the average it costs around $7-10 to get a customer to purchase something from you (note, these costs refer to the book-selling world). Amazon's plan is to implement the technologies to do personalization as well as gain the market share. Then they are going to dial back the amount of money they spend on getting people to purchase because they will have a sort of captive market. All this being said, the reason they have such a great stock price is that the majority of stocks are not purchased by you or me. They are purchased by huge brokerages with smart guys and gals running them. They know the score and they know that Amazon will be profitable in the long run. So, you see maybe they aren't so dumb after all. Sure its a risk, but Amazon is in it for the long haul, not immediate profit.
One of the sad and little known phenomenon of the robotic pet market is that of unwanted and abandonded robopets. If you have ever seen one of these poor creatures low on power and wandering in an alley waiting for someone to stimulate its pressure sensors, you would understand the seriousness of this problem. The most common violators are young college age men and women who purchase these poor creatures in a vain attempt to attract members of the opposite sex. It is a tradegy that these individuals see these robopets as only a tool to be discarded. Please join our fight to keep these adorable and vulnerable pets out of the pound and off the streets. Adopt an abandonded robopet. Thank you for your time.
Poo-Bah President Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to RoboPets
This subject has interested me for a long time. Why is it that so many people completely lose thier civility once they access online discussion? As Katz touched on, I think that the reason is lack of consequence for what you say. I am NOT proposing that there be consequence but I do find it interesting that many of the people that are active flame writers wouldn't say anything insulting if the same discussion were to take place on the street or at a bar. In general as a culture we are uncomfortable with events that put us at odds with other people in social situations. The internet has changed that attitude because there is no price to pay for being a jerk. There is absolutely no chance that I will punch you in the nose for insulting me when you do it over the internet. This of course creates even more insulting flames as the faux courage of the flamer rises after each successful rant. The internet is not the culprit for this phenomenon, however. It is simply the release mechanism. People in general are put in situations where they are not able to vent out frustrations as they need to. At work with the boss, at home with a spouse/sibling. In social situations with friends. Most people are not willing to address their problems with other people because they don't want to cause a scene. More importantly they rarely do it rationally when they finally have too. This all being said you can see why internet discussions are a release valve for frustrations. You can vent your anger for free. I personally would rather not subject other unrelated people to my pent up anger but whatever floats your boat. Sure not all flames fall into the frustration venting category. As was once said in The Simpsons: "Well Mrs Simpson, some elephants,like people, are just jerks."
I'm a market research analyst(thats analyst, not marketer) for one of the big 5 computer hardware and software companies. My organization works extensively with Gartner Group (and about 20 other research vendors) and I thought I'd make a few comments here.
1)Remember, when dealing with research companies that they generally are very conservative in their analyses. I can't tell you how many times I've had some project manager question the data that comes out of a Gartner/IDC/Forrester report because the report was incredibly conservative.
2) As another general rule, Gartner et. al. are concerned with large trends. I realize that Linux and the open source movement is a larger trend than they want to give credit for but it still does not account for much of the market. That IMHO is one of the reasons they feel safe giving it a less than stellar outlook.
3)Regarding standards, applications, and support, Gartner is correct on an Enterprise basis. Linux is still a risky proposition for most enterprise. BUT, everyday there are more apps and support for Linux, not to mention the open source community. It will just take time for the large enterprise market to embrace it more enthusiastically. We all know how fast multinationals move (can anybody say molasses in January!)
4)As has been said many times here, better does not always win. Linux may be the best thing there is but that doesn't matter if no one knows or cares. In some ways this article is a good thing because it shows that the vendors are (and have been) talking about Linux. That, of course means that it is having some impact.
5) "HP says other inhibitors to Linux's growth include general industry mistrust of freeware, difficulty in installing and configuring it, lack of scalability beyond four processors and the scalability of its development and support model."
This is a crucial quote in the article. I know that you have all heard it before, but it is a pivotal set of problems. I realize that some of these problems have been addressed, but it is a question of education. The open source community needs to have a voice that will be heard by enterprise. Slamming articles that do not paint a rosy picture of Linux does no good whatsoever. As important as the open source movement is, its really too bad that SOME of the most vocal supporters have nothing constructive to say. "You're a stupid @#$&^!!!" goes nowhere for converting the masses.
Okay so I got a little off the subject, sorry anyhow thats my 2 pesos
Slashdot Mirror
This is a little off topic, but important none the less. As we all know, Amazon has thus far made no money. That doesn't mean they won't in the future. In fact, Amazon stands to make a tremendous amount in the near (3-5yr) future, and here is why: Amazon is investing in market and mindshare right now. Their strategy is to lure customers to them with ease of use and heavy-duty personalization features. Currently, it costs Amazon somewhere in the $20-30 range to secure a customer. On the average it costs around $7-10 to get a customer to purchase something from you (note, these costs refer to the book-selling world). Amazon's plan is to implement the technologies to do personalization as well as gain the market share. Then they are going to dial back the amount of money they spend on getting people to purchase because they will have a sort of captive market.
All this being said, the reason they have such a great stock price is that the majority of stocks are not purchased by you or me. They are purchased by huge brokerages with smart guys and gals running them. They know the score and they know that Amazon will be profitable in the long run. So, you see maybe they aren't so dumb after all. Sure its a risk, but Amazon is in it for the long haul, not immediate profit.
Poo-Bah
One of the sad and little known phenomenon of the robotic pet market is that of unwanted and abandonded robopets. If you have ever seen one of these poor creatures low on power and wandering in an alley waiting for someone to stimulate its pressure sensors, you would understand the seriousness of this problem. The most common violators are young college age men and women who purchase these poor creatures in a vain attempt to attract members of the opposite sex. It is a tradegy that these individuals see these robopets as only a tool to be discarded. Please join our fight to keep these adorable and vulnerable pets out of the pound and off the streets. Adopt an abandonded robopet. Thank you for your time.
Poo-Bah
President
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to RoboPets
This subject has interested me for a long time. Why is it that so many people completely lose thier civility once they access online discussion? As Katz touched on, I think that the reason is lack of consequence for what you say. I am NOT proposing that there be consequence but I do find it interesting that many of the people that are active flame writers wouldn't say anything insulting if the same discussion were to take place on the street or at a bar. In general as a culture we are uncomfortable with events that put us at odds with other people in social situations. The internet has changed that attitude because there is no price to pay for being a jerk. There is absolutely no chance that I will punch you in the nose for insulting me when you do it over the internet. This of course creates even more insulting flames as the faux courage of the flamer rises after each successful rant.
The internet is not the culprit for this phenomenon, however. It is simply the release mechanism. People in general are put in situations where they are not able to vent out frustrations as they need to. At work with the boss, at home with a spouse/sibling. In social situations with friends. Most people are not willing to address their problems with other people because they don't want to cause a scene. More importantly they rarely do it rationally when they finally have too. This all being said you can see why internet discussions are a release valve for frustrations. You can vent your anger for free. I personally would rather not subject other unrelated people to my pent up anger but whatever floats your boat.
Sure not all flames fall into the frustration venting category. As was once said in The Simpsons: "Well Mrs Simpson, some elephants,like people, are just jerks."
The Grand Poo-Bah
I'm a market research analyst(thats analyst, not marketer) for one of the big 5 computer hardware and software companies. My organization works extensively with Gartner Group (and about 20 other research vendors) and I thought I'd make a few comments here.
1)Remember, when dealing with research companies that they generally are very conservative in their analyses. I can't tell you how many times I've had some project manager question the data that comes out of a Gartner/IDC/Forrester report because the report was incredibly conservative.
2) As another general rule, Gartner et. al. are concerned with large trends. I realize that Linux and the open source movement is a larger trend than they want to give credit for but it still does not account for much of the market. That IMHO is one of the reasons they feel safe giving it a less than stellar outlook.
3)Regarding standards, applications, and support, Gartner is correct on an Enterprise basis. Linux is still a risky proposition for most enterprise. BUT, everyday there are more apps and support for Linux, not to mention the open source community. It will just take time for the large enterprise market to embrace it more enthusiastically. We all know how fast multinationals move (can anybody say molasses in January!)
4)As has been said many times here, better does not always win. Linux may be the best thing there is but that doesn't matter if no one knows or cares. In some ways this article is a good thing because it shows that the vendors are (and have been) talking about Linux. That, of course means that it is having some impact.
5) "HP says other inhibitors to Linux's growth include general industry mistrust of freeware, difficulty in installing and configuring it, lack of scalability beyond four processors and the scalability of its development and support model."
This is a crucial quote in the article. I know that you have all heard it before, but it is a pivotal set of problems. I realize that some of these problems have been addressed, but it is a question of education. The open source community needs to have a voice that will be heard by enterprise. Slamming articles that do not paint a rosy picture of Linux does no good whatsoever. As important as the open source movement is, its really too bad that SOME of the most vocal supporters have nothing constructive to say. "You're a stupid @#$&^!!!" goes nowhere for converting the masses.
Okay so I got a little off the subject, sorry anyhow thats my 2 pesos
Poo-Bah
I know Kung-Fu! -Neo
matt@swo.com