Of course it is, because Microsoft is a software company.
So what? It doens't matter why the margins are different, just that they are. It's all dollars and yen when on the bottom line.
Tell that to their shareholders. What do you think they would say if Microsoft said it would blow it's cash on hand, and it's profits to chase a new segment that is lucky to see 4% margins.
And what makes Sony shareholders so much different? I don't doubt that in either case they wouldn't be happy, but I was specifically disputing your contention that Sony is in a better position than Microsoft to weather potentially staggering losses in their gaming division. Neither would like it, but Microsoft can afford it. Sony can't. That's what the numbers tell me.
Looks to me like Sony has twice the revenue and twice the quarterly growth of Microsoft, and is turning a healthy profit.
"Healthy," maybe, but only about half the gross profit of Microsoft. And only about a tenth of the cash in the bank. And it's the margins where MS is killing them.
With the PS2 still outselling the 360, they could lose as much money as Microsoft did over the entire life of the original Xbox every year on the PS3 and still have their heads above water.
Take another look at those margins. Sony's profit margin is 1.83% - that means that they are within a only couple of percentage points of breaking even. Microsoft's margin is a ridiculous %31.57! They could spend as much as they do now, make almost a third less revenues, and still break even. Generously, Microsoft has fifteen times the capacity to burden itself with money-losers that Sony has, and that's not even taking into account its ability to weather really bad quarters with its huge supply of cash on-hand.
You're confusing HD-DVD with HD DVD-9 (admittedly an easy thing to do.) HD DVD-9, which uses MPEG4 based encoding on standard DVD, is pretty much moot. HD-DVD is an actual physical media format that uses a blue laser and can hold more physical bits.
Correcting myself: I misremembered - while HD-DVD will can use a single-lens assembly with both red and blue for backwards-compatibility, the HD laser is actually blue. So you were right about the laser!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that HD-DVD uses a tightly-focused traditional red laser, while Blu-Ray uses, um, a blue one. So actually they do use two different lasers, lenses, and probably mechanicals.
It's a legitimate question. The security of PSH is mainly two-pronged: first, as in every other console/shell, including cmd.exe, commands and scripts can only act with the permissions that the current user has. This is the standard *nix way of doing things, and it should be far more effective in Vista once proper LUA is finally well-implemented. The other prong is a combination of security features. First, there will be no default associated file type for PSH scripts, meaning that by default, it is not possible to double click a script file and have it run, like you currently can with.BAT files. You can always create an association, but the default behavior is to instatiate the shell first, then run the script with a command-line command. Second, by default, scripts in the current director must be explicitly invoked (equivalent to not having "./" in your PATH). Third, PSH will support code signing, so that scripts must be digitally signed by a trusted publisher. This can, of course, be yourself, because you can easily enough create a cert and trust your own certificate. But it would prevent a lot of trojan attacks.
I don't believe that is entirely correct. I believe you are referring to the addition to 18 USC 2801, which creates a five-year penalty enhancer for the willful encryption of information or incriminating evidence relating to a felony. As an enhancer, however, this would only applicable to somebody who is also convicted of a federal felony.
and you seem not to understand that Microsoft and Bill Gates admitted to its basic functionallity being built into the kernel.
Then surely you can provide me with a link to a transcript showing such a statement, or at least a citation to a source. Because I don't believe he ever said that. He DID testify that IE is a critical dependency of explorer.exe (the Windows shell), and that removing it and all its libraries cripples the user interface. That is true, as you can demonstrate by setting deny all permissions on the applicable DLL files. That does not mean it is in the NT kernel! The same is true for WMP. Explorer.exe depends on the WMP libraries to do various tasks. But WMP is not in the NT kernel.
It does that only if it needs to locate the drivers - obviously it can't automatically install devices for which drivers are non-existent. Things for which it already has does have drivers, like mass storage devices and known printers, automagically appear. Available network resources also automagically show up under Printers or My Network Places with no user intervention.
You don't seem to understand that software can be a dependancy yet not be built into the kernel. Yes, you cannot (easily) remove the WMP libraries because the shell depends on them. That does not mean the libraries are built into the kernel! (And in fact, it runs completely in user mode AFAIK.) Just like you libc is not in the linux kernel, but you still need it to run almost any dynamically linked code!
The difference is that the entire market is centered around compatibility with Windows
That's obviously not true, though, given the existence of rivals and plenty of software that runs across more than one platform - even MS Office! - and also the existence of lots of software that doesn't run on Windows.
The 'abuse' comes from using the monopoly to expand into other markets, eg Microsoft with IE, Media Player, etc.
Are those really "other markets"? If every other desktop OS bundles those apps, and consumers expect those apps to come with the OS, then aren't they really a part of the "OS market?"
So under this analogy, Microsoft has a monopoly not on operating systems, but specifically on Windows? They have a monopoly on their own product? By your own definition, OSX is a monopoly, regardless of the fact that other OSs exist because none of the alternatives have 100% (or even close to it) compatibility with OSX applications, making them not adequate substitutes for OSX. Brilliant!
Slashdot Mirror
So what? It doens't matter why the margins are different, just that they are. It's all dollars and yen when on the bottom line.
Tell that to their shareholders. What do you think they would say if Microsoft said it would blow it's cash on hand, and it's profits to chase a new segment that is lucky to see 4% margins.
And what makes Sony shareholders so much different? I don't doubt that in either case they wouldn't be happy, but I was specifically disputing your contention that Sony is in a better position than Microsoft to weather potentially staggering losses in their gaming division. Neither would like it, but Microsoft can afford it. Sony can't. That's what the numbers tell me.
What a stupid concept.
"Healthy," maybe, but only about half the gross profit of Microsoft. And only about a tenth of the cash in the bank. And it's the margins where MS is killing them.
With the PS2 still outselling the 360, they could lose as much money as Microsoft did over the entire life of the original Xbox every year on the PS3 and still have their heads above water.
Take another look at those margins. Sony's profit margin is 1.83% - that means that they are within a only couple of percentage points of breaking even. Microsoft's margin is a ridiculous %31.57! They could spend as much as they do now, make almost a third less revenues, and still break even. Generously, Microsoft has fifteen times the capacity to burden itself with money-losers that Sony has, and that's not even taking into account its ability to weather really bad quarters with its huge supply of cash on-hand.
Yeah, pretty much the golden rule of brand names is that it should at least be somewhat obvious how to pronounce it.
You're confusing HD-DVD with HD DVD-9 (admittedly an easy thing to do.) HD DVD-9, which uses MPEG4 based encoding on standard DVD, is pretty much moot. HD-DVD is an actual physical media format that uses a blue laser and can hold more physical bits.
Correcting myself: I misremembered - while HD-DVD will can use a single-lens assembly with both red and blue for backwards-compatibility, the HD laser is actually blue. So you were right about the laser!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that HD-DVD uses a tightly-focused traditional red laser, while Blu-Ray uses, um, a blue one. So actually they do use two different lasers, lenses, and probably mechanicals.
Cripes, it hasn't done that in at least half a decade. Get with the times, man.
It's a legitimate question. The security of PSH is mainly two-pronged: first, as in every other console/shell, including cmd.exe, commands and scripts can only act with the permissions that the current user has. This is the standard *nix way of doing things, and it should be far more effective in Vista once proper LUA is finally well-implemented. The other prong is a combination of security features. First, there will be no default associated file type for PSH scripts, meaning that by default, it is not possible to double click a script file and have it run, like you currently can with .BAT files. You can always create an association, but the default behavior is to instatiate the shell first, then run the script with a command-line command. Second, by default, scripts in the current director must be explicitly invoked (equivalent to not having "./" in your PATH). Third, PSH will support code signing, so that scripts must be digitally signed by a trusted publisher. This can, of course, be yourself, because you can easily enough create a cert and trust your own certificate. But it would prevent a lot of trojan attacks.
Also, that was a proposed part of Patriot II, and is not AFAIK actually law.
I don't believe that is entirely correct. I believe you are referring to the addition to 18 USC 2801, which creates a five-year penalty enhancer for the willful encryption of information or incriminating evidence relating to a felony. As an enhancer, however, this would only applicable to somebody who is also convicted of a federal felony.
Exactly what law do you figure you'd be breaking by uploading encrypted file?
Then surely you can provide me with a link to a transcript showing such a statement, or at least a citation to a source. Because I don't believe he ever said that. He DID testify that IE is a critical dependency of explorer.exe (the Windows shell), and that removing it and all its libraries cripples the user interface. That is true, as you can demonstrate by setting deny all permissions on the applicable DLL files. That does not mean it is in the NT kernel! The same is true for WMP. Explorer.exe depends on the WMP libraries to do various tasks. But WMP is not in the NT kernel.
It does that only if it needs to locate the drivers - obviously it can't automatically install devices for which drivers are non-existent. Things for which it already has does have drivers, like mass storage devices and known printers, automagically appear. Available network resources also automagically show up under Printers or My Network Places with no user intervention.
Windows does that too, just FYI.
That's not true, and even if it were, it would not change the fact that a corporation is not actually a person, and should not be anthropomorphized.
You don't seem to understand that software can be a dependancy yet not be built into the kernel. Yes, you cannot (easily) remove the WMP libraries because the shell depends on them. That does not mean the libraries are built into the kernel! (And in fact, it runs completely in user mode AFAIK.) Just like you libc is not in the linux kernel, but you still need it to run almost any dynamically linked code!
It's still well into the "trillions" range.
That's obviously not true, though, given the existence of rivals and plenty of software that runs across more than one platform - even MS Office! - and also the existence of lots of software that doesn't run on Windows.
Are those really "other markets"? If every other desktop OS bundles those apps, and consumers expect those apps to come with the OS, then aren't they really a part of the "OS market?"
Cite please? According to my information, the UK and France alone have more external debt than the U.S. does.
You're using the "new math," aren't you?
Which is to say, not at all. HINT: There is a difference between kernel-mode execution and being compiled into the kernel.
So under this analogy, Microsoft has a monopoly not on operating systems, but specifically on Windows? They have a monopoly on their own product? By your own definition, OSX is a monopoly, regardless of the fact that other OSs exist because none of the alternatives have 100% (or even close to it) compatibility with OSX applications, making them not adequate substitutes for OSX. Brilliant!
So now Microsoft is preventing them from voting, too?