Well, I have left many messages in this discussion, and I mentioned that we develop software.
We go after the biggest market, which is Windows. We need to use the same software as 90% of the world for many reasons.
1 - we develop for it
2 - Even ONE file compatibility issue, or font problem would cost more in time, effort, good-will and money than the XP + Office setup costs. We need to be compatible with our clientele.
Whether or not software is a direct cost, or overhead depends on quite a few factors, and is an accounting discussion.
But 'spend money to make money' means a lot of things.
Rent is overhead. If you want to make money you probably need to rent a good/better location. You *could* try to run a business out of your house, but chances are, you won't be nearly as successful.
You *could* rent a warehouse in some back-water town, and throw some desks in, and call it your 'office'. But most successful companies see the value in locating to nice (expensive) facilities, because thier customers will be more likely to spend money- and that is the key.
Software is similar. Companies that make money, know they need to spend money, and not settle for something 'second best' just to save a little bit of money.
I'm not sure what business you are in...but we are in the business of creating applications, and supporting 'other party' applications for our customers.
So, if we decide to support some 'open' version of Exchange, we would be addressing about.01% of the market. On the other hand, if we use our resources to support Exchange, we are hitting about 65% of that market.
Also, if we are developing an application, we can choose which market to develop for.
#1 - we can develop for Linux. That way our potential customer base will be about 5% (being charitable) of the companies out there. And these people have proven to prefer Free/OSS software.
#2 - we can target the Windows market. Which is used in 99.9% of the companies we are interested in. (Fortune 1000)
So the bottomline is: we want customers. The customers are running Windows. If we support them, we can make money. If we take another path, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.
I disagree regarding your comment: "opposing something in the technology world because of the culture surrounding it, and not because of any concrete technical reason, is simply irrational."
If I am at a meeting, and a few projects are being presented, the typically come in three flavors:
1 - This project may not be exciting, but it is based on technology that is popular (Microsoft), and we haven't been burned by this yet. This project will be probably be successful. "Okay...sounds good, let's do it"
2 - We need to stop using Microsoft! We shouldn't support Exchange! There is this really great project on Sourceforge, it is at a.6 release, but it will be going beta soon. We should scrap our current plans and use this, because Microsoft is Evil! "umm..okay, let's move on"
3 - Umm...I just need to go to the bathroom.
I have been VERY successful in getting my projects accepted. Because they may not be exciting, and they may cost us a little bit of money...but a proven track-record goes a long way.
I made the choice to base most of my development around SQL Server, back when MySQL was being pushed, but the tools just weren't there. Now we have so many projects using SQL Server, it is sick. And when we are looking for things from outside vendors...lo and behold, many are written on top of SQL Server (yes...stored procedures really are a good thing.)
So my projects are considered 'solid'. I want to disassociate myself from the OSS camp as much as possible, because they are seen as a bunch of people more concerned about the technology (and culture) than the bottom line. And the people who make the decisions on where to spend the money? Well, they ONLY care about the bottom line.
I think it is a good thing, and high time that this subject was approached in an intelligent manner.
Personally, I am no fan of Linux/OSS. One of my main oppositions to it has always been the 'culture' surrounding it, and the way they grate on my nerves with their nouveau-hippy attitude.
I really wouldn't mind taking time to look into what is going on, and possibly presenting OSS software at work. Recently I did recommend Thunderbird as a Eudora alternative, when they raised the Eudora license fee, and that was seen as a real 'stretch'.
But, I don't want to be associated with the rabid fans of OSS...the ones who talk about how Microsoft is 'evil' in our planning meetings. See, it is really hard to be taken seriously when you are calling a company 'evil' for trying to make money...when we are sitting around a table talking about how WE can make money. That is what businesses do...and rather than looking at an extremely successfull business as 'evil' we see it as something to emulate.
Before we will use it extensively, it has to change to be something that is supported by professionals...not nut-cases with their anti-Microsoft fire and brimstone speeches.
So you might be barking up the wrong tree with the Halo 2 release date. They told us 6 months ahead of time the DAY it would be released. And they hit it.
If it's worth having a server, it's worth doing it right. If the server is something that multiple people depend on, then having some redundancy is important.
Okay, I really don't like the idea of mobile homes, but I have to say that they are no longer 'aluminum boxes'.
They actually build a lot of them in the city I live in, and the entire process was just like building a regular home. Better in many regards. take a look.
Sorry to respond to my own post- but here is a perfect example of what I am talking about, that was attached to another story.
Real quote from Slashdotter:
"I totally agree (Don't buy EA games, because they are evil). My wife likes to surprise me with games, and last night I went though an Electronic Botique with her and pointed out what games were made by EA, and that I made it clear I didn't want any of them."
You know...if someone wants to surprise you with a game, freakin' take the game and be happy with it. Shut up, and thank them for it.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I have left many messages in this discussion, and I mentioned that we develop software.
We go after the biggest market, which is Windows. We need to use the same software as 90% of the world for many reasons.
1 - we develop for it
2 - Even ONE file compatibility issue, or font problem would cost more in time, effort, good-will and money than the XP + Office setup costs. We need to be compatible with our clientele.
Almost...
Whether or not software is a direct cost, or overhead depends on quite a few factors, and is an accounting discussion.
But 'spend money to make money' means a lot of things.
Rent is overhead. If you want to make money you probably need to rent a good/better location. You *could* try to run a business out of your house, but chances are, you won't be nearly as successful.
You *could* rent a warehouse in some back-water town, and throw some desks in, and call it your 'office'. But most successful companies see the value in locating to nice (expensive) facilities, because thier customers will be more likely to spend money- and that is the key.
Software is similar. Companies that make money, know they need to spend money, and not settle for something 'second best' just to save a little bit of money.
I'm assuming you are not a business professional in any way.
Making money doesn't mean you avoid spending money.
Another trite saying would be: "You have to spend money to make money."
Think big.
I'm not sure what business you are in...but we are in the business of creating applications, and supporting 'other party' applications for our customers.
.01% of the market. On the other hand, if we use our resources to support Exchange, we are hitting about 65% of that market.
So, if we decide to support some 'open' version of Exchange, we would be addressing about
Also, if we are developing an application, we can choose which market to develop for.
#1 - we can develop for Linux. That way our potential customer base will be about 5% (being charitable) of the companies out there. And these people have proven to prefer Free/OSS software.
#2 - we can target the Windows market. Which is used in 99.9% of the companies we are interested in. (Fortune 1000)
So the bottomline is: we want customers. The customers are running Windows. If we support them, we can make money. If we take another path, we will be shooting ourselves in the foot.
Matt,
You may not care about my feedback...
But you gave one of the clearest, insightful, and fair analysis of the situation I have seen.
I disagree regarding your comment: "opposing something in the technology world because of the culture surrounding it, and not because of any concrete technical reason, is simply irrational."
.6 release, but it will be going beta soon. We should scrap our current plans and use this, because Microsoft is Evil! "umm..okay, let's move on"
If I am at a meeting, and a few projects are being presented, the typically come in three flavors:
1 - This project may not be exciting, but it is based on technology that is popular (Microsoft), and we haven't been burned by this yet. This project will be probably be successful. "Okay...sounds good, let's do it"
2 - We need to stop using Microsoft! We shouldn't support Exchange! There is this really great project on Sourceforge, it is at a
3 - Umm...I just need to go to the bathroom.
I have been VERY successful in getting my projects accepted. Because they may not be exciting, and they may cost us a little bit of money...but a proven track-record goes a long way.
I made the choice to base most of my development around SQL Server, back when MySQL was being pushed, but the tools just weren't there. Now we have so many projects using SQL Server, it is sick. And when we are looking for things from outside vendors...lo and behold, many are written on top of SQL Server (yes...stored procedures really are a good thing.)
So my projects are considered 'solid'. I want to disassociate myself from the OSS camp as much as possible, because they are seen as a bunch of people more concerned about the technology (and culture) than the bottom line. And the people who make the decisions on where to spend the money? Well, they ONLY care about the bottom line.
I think it is a good thing, and high time that this subject was approached in an intelligent manner.
Personally, I am no fan of Linux/OSS. One of my main oppositions to it has always been the 'culture' surrounding it, and the way they grate on my nerves with their nouveau-hippy attitude.
I really wouldn't mind taking time to look into what is going on, and possibly presenting OSS software at work. Recently I did recommend Thunderbird as a Eudora alternative, when they raised the Eudora license fee, and that was seen as a real 'stretch'.
But, I don't want to be associated with the rabid fans of OSS...the ones who talk about how Microsoft is 'evil' in our planning meetings. See, it is really hard to be taken seriously when you are calling a company 'evil' for trying to make money...when we are sitting around a table talking about how WE can make money. That is what businesses do...and rather than looking at an extremely successfull business as 'evil' we see it as something to emulate.
Before we will use it extensively, it has to change to be something that is supported by professionals...not nut-cases with their anti-Microsoft fire and brimstone speeches.
That was coke with a 'little' c, right? Because I get be productive for DAYS on that stuff. The other junk just makes me want to pee.
Yes...especially if your target audience is kids with iPods.
And where exactly did you hear '2003'? Was that from Microsoft, or Bungie?
Back in January of 2004, they first announced the 'fall 2004' date. Prior to that, it was just "when it is done."
Then, in May, they gave the November 9th date.
So you might be barking up the wrong tree with the Halo 2 release date. They told us 6 months ahead of time the DAY it would be released. And they hit it.
Yeah..because Sony has a great track record of getting games like Gran Turismo delivered on time.
Hey- Rallisport Challenge brings up a good point...
That is the game that FORCED me to buy an Xbox. Went to a friends house, played Rallisport on his Xbox, loved it.
Went out and bought it for my PC. It crashed...a lot. Bought a new graphics card, still crashed. Bought a new motherboard...still crashed (less).
Eventually I just bought a damn Xbox, and I have stopped playing on my PC completely.
I work on a fairly large campus, with wireless access in a lot of places.
When I am there, I turn on my Pocket PC just to see who is accessing the network at the time.
It usually looks like this:
Jenny Chu
M. Choi
Lynn Park
Yokomoto Comp
Sun Yee
MaXHaXoR
Martin Wong
Gee...I wonder who that nerdy looking white guy over in the corner is...
Google-> define: havoc
"violent and needless disturbance"
Saying that Katamari Damarcy got lost is nuts. Katamari Damarcy is the most hyped up 'sleeper' of the year. You can read about it everywhere.
Not saying it isn't a good game, but it sure as heck isn't 'lost.'
Except that the system was running on php. What MCSE worth his certificate would be running php?
And the directory structure was not standard for Windows.
No Penguinoflight, you need to claim this as one of your people.
Well, I assume they will have to buy one of the studios that Sony doesn't own yet.
If it's worth having a server, it's worth doing it right. If the server is something that multiple people depend on, then having some redundancy is important.
Yes, the people who think they can get by with just one server deserve what they get. No matter what OS they are running.
Show me 7 people who like old-style adventure games....
And I'll show you 7 people who won't buy any new games, because "the old ones were better."
So yes, those genres are just about extinct. People won't buy them, so they don't make them.
Yes, you might be right.
Slashdot should block out anybody using an IE browser, or anyone on a microsoft platform.
The other 5% can have a big party.
Because the people interviewed were the ORGANIZERS.
The money is coming from the PARTICIPANTS.
The participants make no claim (in the article) to giving a crap about the tsunami victims. They only want to play Halo 2.
The organizers are the ones who are doing it because they (supposedly) care.
Okay, I really don't like the idea of mobile homes, but I have to say that they are no longer 'aluminum boxes'.
They actually build a lot of them in the city I live in, and the entire process was just like building a regular home. Better in many regards.
take a look.
Sorry to respond to my own post- but here is a perfect example of what I am talking about, that was attached to another story.
Real quote from Slashdotter:
"I totally agree (Don't buy EA games, because they are evil). My wife likes to surprise me with games, and last night I went though an Electronic Botique with her and pointed out what games were made by EA, and that I made it clear I didn't want any of them."
You know...if someone wants to surprise you with a game, freakin' take the game and be happy with it. Shut up, and thank them for it.
Okay, my big question on the party crash thing...
Why do we have to PASS the controller?
When I play this with 4 people, we should each be able to use our own controllers- so we don't have to pass anything.
Passing is for:
Gas
Potatoes
Joints
Not controllers!
Oh well, great game.