I agree with much of what you say, and I have not missed that Microsoft is not an innovator, nor have I missed how Microsoft treats parters, competitors and others in the tech field.
But I would say that PPC and Xbox are examples of what I am talking about, they are still pushing those forward and trying. They are persistant. I am not looking at success from a financial standpoint, simply from the standpoint that they have not abandoned things.
Note, that does not mean that I like it.
And I fully concur that Microsoft's main strenght is their sales and marketing arm.
A company I used to work at was victim of their vaporware, so I know what you mean. But with Office and NT/200x, ( their core business, in my mind ), they have ridden out some hard times, and perservered to see it through.
I dont think it is romanticism. And stockholders can want what they want, it is not nessesarily smart to give in to their demands. Enron comes to mine. I can appreciate that some diversification can be good, but it has to be smart.
if you don't keep moving as a corporation, you lose investors.
I always thought the name of the game was to keep your focus and not dilute your efforts. And as far as I can tell, the only reason Google is everywhere that Microsoft wants to go is because they see what Google does, and want to emulate that. That is reactive, and seems like a sure way to lose your way. I dont like Microsoft much as a company, but in the past you had to give them credit for not losing focus. They kept after things they started until they got it basically usable, and mostly solid. And did a better job of that than many other companies. Microsoft should be concerned with finding the ( lawful ) strategies and tactics that get them where they want to be, and stop letting other companies define so much of thier roadmap.
Well, if they already purchased it, it just works - it's not like they can modify the disc media from a distance. Those people have nothing to worry about.
Until they purchase a new player and expect to play the old media on it....
Google didnt compete with Microsoft, not until Microsoft decided to compete. I worked for iFusion, they did not compete with Microsoft, not until Microsoft decided to get into that market. Netscape would be another good example.
My point? You dont have to compete with one of Microsoft's existing products to have them notice what you are doing, decide it is either a good idea, or an idea they want to see killed or controled to their benefit. And then, they will start "innovating" you out of the market you defined.
All it would take is one gas station selling gas at a lower price...
And I think I have the counter example to your telephone system story. The computer industry. Used to be pretty open. Lots of players. Now, there are many fewer, and larger corporations involved. Almost like it was natural for them to do this.
The telephone system example is not a very good one, in my opinion. According to wikipedia, AT&T had competitors in the very early days and ( I presume ) no regulations aside those any company might have. Then they bought out competitors until they became regarded as a monopoly. Then came the regulations and government interference.
On the SEC, I take it you disagree with the assessment that rules and regulations bring additional investor confidence, increasing investment and growth for everyone? What happened in the depression? People put their money in their mattresses. Why? Lack of confidence in financial systems.
And on the government schools, it almost sounds like a conspiracy. They control the schools so they can control the curriculum with the intent of making good little socialists out of everyone? They are doing a remarkably bad job of it, considering how many conservatives there are.
I suspect that you are correct, that it is not illegal for the police to compile information on people. I dont think it is a good use of tax dollars to do so when it becomes clear that there is no criminal intent. Also, not being illegal does mean that all is well and "good".
You tell your wife you are visiting your mistress, you tell your mistress you are meeting some other woman, you tell your kids to mind their own business, and get off my lawn!
Slashdot Mirror
We are changing the price to two ( 2 ) arms.
That way we will not have to build in the fingerpaint detection
system, saving us, and you money.
Apple.
How are you going to get the finger print off the device
so that it authenticates the device?
Yes, but if you had done *all* I told you to do, Adobe would be yours.
Many people on campus at MIT viewed her as a lightweight. She kept trying to portray herself as a "Dean Mother."
There, fixed that for you.
Is this the same dean that was the subject of some news articles
on the subject of promoting getting women into MIT ( preferentially )?
What makes you think it hasnt?
You have to google for it.
I agree with much of what you say, and I have not missed
that Microsoft is not an innovator, nor have I missed how
Microsoft treats parters, competitors and others in the
tech field.
But I would say that PPC and Xbox are examples of what I am
talking about, they are still pushing those forward and
trying. They are persistant. I am not looking at success
from a financial standpoint, simply from the standpoint that
they have not abandoned things.
Note, that does not mean that I like it.
And I fully concur that Microsoft's main strenght is their
sales and marketing arm.
A company I used to work at was victim of their vaporware,
so I know what you mean. But with Office and NT/200x,
( their core business, in my mind ), they have ridden
out some hard times, and perservered to see it through.
I dont think it is romanticism. And stockholders can want what they
want, it is not nessesarily smart to give in to their demands.
Enron comes to mine. I can appreciate that some diversification
can be good, but it has to be smart.
I always thought the name of the game was to keep your focus
and not dilute your efforts. And as far as I can tell,
the only reason Google is everywhere that Microsoft wants to
go is because they see what Google does, and want to emulate
that. That is reactive, and seems like a sure way to lose
your way. I dont like Microsoft much as a company, but
in the past you had to give them credit for not losing
focus. They kept after things they started until they got
it basically usable, and mostly solid. And did a better
job of that than many other companies. Microsoft should
be concerned with finding the ( lawful ) strategies and
tactics that get them where they want to be, and stop letting
other companies define so much of thier roadmap.
Yes
Cool!
In *every* crime, there are shades of grey, and a need to
determine the severity of the issue. And then the
punishment.
Fraud is something that both corporations and individuals
can engage in. Should we eliminate jail time for that also?
Well, OK.
You learn something old every day. Well, I do anyway.
Until they purchase a new player and expect to play the old
media on it....
That "flaw" being fixed...
How does that work for the people that purchased media that
used the keys which are now expired....
Google didnt compete with Microsoft, not until Microsoft
decided to compete. I worked for iFusion, they did not
compete with Microsoft, not until Microsoft decided to
get into that market. Netscape would be another good
example.
My point? You dont have to compete with one of Microsoft's
existing products to have them notice what you are doing,
decide it is either a good idea, or an idea they want to
see killed or controled to their benefit.
And then, they will start "innovating" you out of the market
you defined.
#define WORK_WORK_WORK ( while ( 1 ) { work( ); } )
You are assuming that there is no middle ground between
"work work work" and unemployment.
Output device(s).
You (well, not *you*) usually kneed a matched set.
Part numbers 717R and 717L.
Pick up the catalog, there are attachments.
Anyone who would trust anything other than a trivial app to what
is decribed therein would be a fool.
There is nothing ongoing out of this, no maintainance.
What would I call rotor? Handwaving that does nothing and
goes nowhere.
All it would take is one gas station selling gas at a lower price...
And I think I have the counter example to your telephone system
story. The computer industry. Used to be pretty open.
Lots of players. Now, there are many fewer, and larger
corporations involved. Almost like it was natural for them
to do this.
The telephone system example is not a very good one, in my
opinion. According to wikipedia, AT&T had competitors in
the very early days and ( I presume ) no regulations aside
those any company might have. Then they bought out competitors
until they became regarded as a monopoly. Then came the
regulations and government interference.
On the SEC, I take it you disagree with the assessment that
rules and regulations bring additional investor confidence,
increasing investment and growth for everyone? What happened
in the depression? People put their money in their mattresses.
Why? Lack of confidence in financial systems.
And on the government schools, it almost sounds like a conspiracy.
They control the schools so they can control the curriculum with
the intent of making good little socialists out of everyone?
They are doing a remarkably bad job of it, considering how many
conservatives there are.
I suspect that you are correct, that it is not illegal for
the police to compile information on people. I dont think
it is a good use of tax dollars to do so when it becomes
clear that there is no criminal intent. Also, not being
illegal does mean that all is well and "good".
You tell your wife you are visiting your mistress,
you tell your mistress you are meeting some other woman,
you tell your kids to mind their own business, and get off my lawn!