I'll explain how Windows share of netbooks can go up but sales go down using very simple numbers for math challenged/. readers. Microsoft likes to sell higher priced versions of Windows Vista...Home Premium, Ultimate and Enterprise...more than they like to sell Vista Home Basic or Windows XP. Netbooks are often (but not always) low-powered machines that run OS's with lower system requiremetns. If the percentage of PC's running more expensive versions of Windows Vista decreases in favor of netbooks - which tend to run Windows XP or Windows Vista Home Basic then Microsoft's revenue (and presumably profit) decreases, even if they have a larger percentage of netbook sales year over year.
My inclination is to say yes, Google shoud be required to compensate news producers because they're monetizing their content. Google is sort of the ultimate bottom feeder. Their only money-making product produces value - making it easier to find stuff - but all built on the back of other people and companies. If the New York Times or your local paper are going out of busienss because you and I are finding our news on Google News then either we should pay or Google should pay. I vote for Google.
On the other hand, you have to wonder whether this is really something that could be implemented in a reasonable way and whether there would be unintended consequences. How will it impact the economics of news gathering? One would hope for the better but I could be wrong.
You're mistaken. I'd venture that the reason most people buy Apple hardware is because of the hardware, not the software. My survey, while not scientific, has a pretty large sample of friends, relatives and colleagues...and myself. I've owned many Macs (and iPods) and the major reason I purchased the products in every case was the hardware design. Macs look good. Mac OS is...ok. Overrated in many ways, nice in others. Not the bee's knees. iPods are an even better example. The iPod hardware is awesome...easy to use, look great, good ergonomics (except that the wheel can be overly sensitive). But iTunes is a total abomination. The only reason I use it is because Apple requires it. I don't own a Zune but have used the Zune software on PC's and it is FAR superior to iTunes. Just try it and see for yourself.
That's not the question. Your note suggested that MSFT had something to do with asking employees to "vote" on the paycut. That's almost certainly not the case. But that would involve objective thinking.
Did you even read the posting? It wasn't Microsoft that did this. It was a vendor that contracts with Microsoft. But framing this as a Microsoft is evil topic gets it on to the/. home page because everyone gets their panties in a twist and drives/. traffic up. Dumb.
How well did it sell? From what I understand, Windows Server 2008 has sold incredibly well, faster than any other server OS in history in its first year. That's certainly one measure of success.
Seems like nit-picking to me but that's what/. is all about, isnt' it? Columbia's clean room bios is an interesting bit of trivia but ultimately a small footnote in the history of computing...hard to compare that to Microsoft's smarts/luck in getting IBM to sign a non-exclusive license for their version of DOS. Then Microsoft was smart enought to license it to anyone that wanted it.
Yes, the principles of open source software have been around a very long time. But it wasn't until the 90's that it became maintream due to Linux and other open source software.
Still, good nit-picking! Keep up the good work!
People (especially those who were born after 1985 forget that Microsoft entire business model was founded on principles of openness. They were smart enough to get IBM to agree to a non-exclusive license for early versions of DOS so they could then license it to Compaq and, eventually, hundreds of other PC manufacturers. They build Windows in a way that made it incredibly easy to build hardware and software that worked on it. They provided tools...and encouarged other companies to develop their own tools, that helped developers take advantage of the platform. While the OP can point to XBOX and Zune as examples of vertical integration between HW and SW, those are edge cases. The bulk of Microsoft success has come from opening up their API's to anyone who wanted to use them. Even Office and SharePoint and all of there other client and server software are designed to be extensible.
It was only in the 1990's that "open" came to mean something different...open sourcecode. Microsoft has generally not opened up their sourcecode but have done so in some cases. But by historical standards they've been incredibly open.
Compared to Apple, Microsoft is the bastion of transparancy and openness. Apple controls everything as much as they can...and sue's those who try to build PC's that run MacOS.
Insightful? Wow.
If you knew anything about what's going on at Microsoft and how development of major products like Windows works you'd eat those words. Windows 7 is not a "marketing play." Windows 7 reflects a pretty fundamental shift in the way the company does product planing, development and test. They did what they used to do years go: plan the product and feature set and then stick to it. Gone are the days of individual developers or small teams deciding to add the next "cool feature" just because. They turned the formerly ad-hoc planning process into a pretty nice machine. The result is not mind-blowing - they released the first (significantly) public milestone version at PDC last fall as largely feature complete. It lacked some of the UI updates but in terms of the core OS it was done. Then when they released the beta early in January it was essentially a done product. Yes, there are bugs. I've seen some of them in action. But they seem to be relatively minor.
So my point is that while you could argue that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been (I sort of agree), it is a product that was developed under completely different leadership with completely different processes and, apparently, completely different results. Is it a good idea to not name it Windows Vista 2009? Duh.
You don't seem to know much about software development. There is no such thing as bug free software. Every piece of software ever written has bugs. Every single piece of software ever released as a final product has bugs. The question is whether or not those bugs are show stoppers...meaning they break something critical to the functionality of the product.
In the case of Windows 7...I'd venture to guess that more people will have beta tested the product than any other single release in the history of software. More people are probably running Windows 7 now than are running Linux...at least on desktop machines.
I have Win7 running on two machines. Is it the perfect product? No but I'd challenge you to show me one that is. I have Ubuntu running on two machines and I can assure you that Ubuntu is far form perfect. Drivers problems galore. Lots of software incompatibility. Quirks. Slowdowns. The myth of Linux being somehow above reproach is just that: a myth.
My impression of Win7 is that it is head and shoulders better than Windows XP and Windows Vista. All devices the devices I have that work with Windows Vista work with Windows 7. The system is snappy...something Windows Vista could never claim. The user experience improvements are subtle enough to not require major re-learning but significant enough that I appreciate (most of) them. When I installed Win7 on my first machines I assumed I'd try it out for a few weeks and then rebuilt the systems with an earlier version of Windows or another Linux distro. Since the install the thought never crossed my mind(of course, I'm fortunate enough to have a bunch of old machines around).
Besides search, GMAIL (sort of...) and Google Maps, what has Google done that has been successful. Even Google Maps and GMAIL are distant 2nd or 3rd in their categories. Most of their non-search efforts have failed - or at least haven't done a hell of a lot. Lively dead. Picasa forgotten. Google Apps...trying hard but no significant share. All their other experiments? Intersting toys. Perhaps this is why their stock deserves to be $250/share instead of $500/share like it was earlier this year. Search is a KILLER business but eventually Microsoft or someone else will make progress and catch up with them. The 'switching cost' for a search engine is zero.
Microsoft is good at making things pretty easy for developers. No, not as easy as being a script/HTML monkey but if you want to build an application for Windows using VB or build a Web site using ASP.NET, Microsoft makes it easier for their platform(s) than any other platform. A mediocre developer can fire up Visual Studio and do something pretty cool. A good developer can do really cool things.
My expectation is that they'll do the same thing in the (buzzword alert) 'cloud.'
Spoken like a true Mac-o-lite...your opinion is always the right one and everyone else is drinking kool-aide. Gee...who's the one drinking the the Kool-Aide?
By the way, I've owned many Macs, starting with a MacSE that I UPGRADED to 8MB RAM a MacFX (remember that one?, a Quadra 650 (wohoo!) and most recently an iMac. I speak from experience: Mac Hardware is NOT over-rated. MacOS IS over-rated.
They could easily create an obnoxious sterotype of the Mac users that we've all met. Turtleneck dude. Graphic artist dude. Web scripter dude who really uses a PC for work but Mac for status.
I agree. Apple can choose to respond in some snarky way as others have suggested but I think this essentially kills the Mac vs. PC campaign. It makes it seem snide and narrowminded.
You realize you missed his point entirely? The Apple commercials were NEVER talking about identifying with the users. It's personifying the OS itself, as if it has a personality.
I think that's one person's interpretation. There is no mention of the OS in Apple's ads. They mention PC's and use Hodgeman as a personification of PC's...and by extension the people that use them. If that wasn't your interpretation then that's fine but I have spoken to many many people who basically think that Apple is slamming them...and trying to entice them to becoming cool if they start using Macs.
The smart thing about MSFT's ads is that they don't even mention the Mac. They just make a positive statement about PC's and the wide variety of people from all walks of life who use them to do cool things. It's very democratic.
Give me a break. It's clearly a personification of the PC and the people that use them. There's nothing inherently evil about what Apple is doing - it plays into their brand which has a certain amount of exclusivity. What's different about Microsoft's ads is that they don't make any direct slam on Mac users. They're just showing that there are millions of PC users from all walks of life and certainly different than the Hodgeman character. It's a pretty good campaign in my mind. Very empowering and positive and true to what PC's are about.
Your dad must have a short memory. There are many examples of direct competition in advertising including some very famous campaigns including the Pepsi Challenge.
This whole debate on one TV ad is really funny. We have hundreds of tech journalists and geeks trolling blogs providing their insightful commentary on whether the ad is effective or not. Ever pause to wonder whether (1) tech journalists or geeks are good judges of advertising and (2) whether tech journalists and geeks are the target audience for the ads?
To me the ads are mildly funny but that's really not the point. The point, I'm guessing, is to show Microsoft's human side. Most consumers experience Microsoft only through products, features, technology. This is a way of showing a different side of the company. They're also telling a fairly subtle story around PC's as a device for the people...not the elites. I'm sure they'll go on to show some of the ways that people can use PC's to do interesting things and actually mention Windows. But if you wanted or expected them to start talking speeds and feeds then you're clearly missing the point.
Regarding direct compete with Apple...Microsoft would have been really dumb to try to out-cool Apple. Nobody can do that. Apple is a company of cool people making products for people who are or who think they're cool. Apple produces great products that are used by a relatively small number of people. Microsoft is a company of geeks producing products that are used by the masses...hundreds of milliions or billions of people. Microsoft is not trying to be cool. They're trying to be relevant. Whether they'll be successful is hard to say.
The IW article you reference was from 2005 dude. You can try out hosted Exchange, SharePoint etc. today at http://www.mosbeta.com/Welcome.asp. Their pricing is pricing is pretty competitive. For a basic version of Exchange Online mail they charege $3/user/month. A suite that includes Exchange, SharePoint, IM and LiveMeeting is $15/user/month. They provide SLA's on everything, not just mail like Google does with GMAIL. They also provide https support for everything vs. Google which only uses https for GMAIl. Details at http://www.mspmentor.net/2008/07/08/microsoft-online-services-saas-pricing-partner-strategy-announced/
Google only has SLA's on GMAIL, not the rest of the Google Apps "bundle."
Also, they only provide https support for GMAIL, not Docs and spreadsheets etc.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll explain how Windows share of netbooks can go up but sales go down using very simple numbers for math challenged /. readers. Microsoft likes to sell higher priced versions of Windows Vista...Home Premium, Ultimate and Enterprise...more than they like to sell Vista Home Basic or Windows XP. Netbooks are often (but not always) low-powered machines that run OS's with lower system requiremetns. If the percentage of PC's running more expensive versions of Windows Vista decreases in favor of netbooks - which tend to run Windows XP or Windows Vista Home Basic then Microsoft's revenue (and presumably profit) decreases, even if they have a larger percentage of netbook sales year over year.
How do you figure anyone is making money except Google in the pages I linked to?
You're assuming that most people look for news on Google by doing to http://news.google.com/. Most people go directly to www.google.com and search. For example, I'm looking for news about the death of extreme skier Shane McConkey so I do this: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Shane+McConkey&aq=f&oq= At the top of that page is a news link (with ads to the right). When I click on the news link I'm taken here: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=Shane+McConkey&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=pUfSSarBE52ctgOA8PjHAw&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title That's a Google News page with a summary of a wide range of news topics on Shane McConkey...including ads to the right. Hence, Google is monetizing news content that they don't pay for.
My inclination is to say yes, Google shoud be required to compensate news producers because they're monetizing their content. Google is sort of the ultimate bottom feeder. Their only money-making product produces value - making it easier to find stuff - but all built on the back of other people and companies. If the New York Times or your local paper are going out of busienss because you and I are finding our news on Google News then either we should pay or Google should pay. I vote for Google. On the other hand, you have to wonder whether this is really something that could be implemented in a reasonable way and whether there would be unintended consequences. How will it impact the economics of news gathering? One would hope for the better but I could be wrong.
You're mistaken. I'd venture that the reason most people buy Apple hardware is because of the hardware, not the software. My survey, while not scientific, has a pretty large sample of friends, relatives and colleagues...and myself. I've owned many Macs (and iPods) and the major reason I purchased the products in every case was the hardware design. Macs look good. Mac OS is...ok. Overrated in many ways, nice in others. Not the bee's knees. iPods are an even better example. The iPod hardware is awesome...easy to use, look great, good ergonomics (except that the wheel can be overly sensitive). But iTunes is a total abomination. The only reason I use it is because Apple requires it. I don't own a Zune but have used the Zune software on PC's and it is FAR superior to iTunes. Just try it and see for yourself.
That's not the question. Your note suggested that MSFT had something to do with asking employees to "vote" on the paycut. That's almost certainly not the case. But that would involve objective thinking.
Did you even read the posting? It wasn't Microsoft that did this. It was a vendor that contracts with Microsoft. But framing this as a Microsoft is evil topic gets it on to the /. home page because everyone gets their panties in a twist and drives /. traffic up. Dumb.
How well did it sell? From what I understand, Windows Server 2008 has sold incredibly well, faster than any other server OS in history in its first year. That's certainly one measure of success.
Seems like nit-picking to me but that's what /. is all about, isnt' it? Columbia's clean room bios is an interesting bit of trivia but ultimately a small footnote in the history of computing...hard to compare that to Microsoft's smarts/luck in getting IBM to sign a non-exclusive license for their version of DOS. Then Microsoft was smart enought to license it to anyone that wanted it.
Yes, the principles of open source software have been around a very long time. But it wasn't until the 90's that it became maintream due to Linux and other open source software.
Still, good nit-picking! Keep up the good work!
People (especially those who were born after 1985 forget that Microsoft entire business model was founded on principles of openness. They were smart enough to get IBM to agree to a non-exclusive license for early versions of DOS so they could then license it to Compaq and, eventually, hundreds of other PC manufacturers. They build Windows in a way that made it incredibly easy to build hardware and software that worked on it. They provided tools...and encouarged other companies to develop their own tools, that helped developers take advantage of the platform. While the OP can point to XBOX and Zune as examples of vertical integration between HW and SW, those are edge cases. The bulk of Microsoft success has come from opening up their API's to anyone who wanted to use them. Even Office and SharePoint and all of there other client and server software are designed to be extensible. It was only in the 1990's that "open" came to mean something different...open sourcecode. Microsoft has generally not opened up their sourcecode but have done so in some cases. But by historical standards they've been incredibly open. Compared to Apple, Microsoft is the bastion of transparancy and openness. Apple controls everything as much as they can...and sue's those who try to build PC's that run MacOS.
Questioning whether a 4 year old can enter into a contract? Really? Perhaps her parents did it for her? Who cares? Lame /. post.
Perhaps her parents took care of that for her? Is that really the best you've got? Wow.
Insightful? Wow. If you knew anything about what's going on at Microsoft and how development of major products like Windows works you'd eat those words. Windows 7 is not a "marketing play." Windows 7 reflects a pretty fundamental shift in the way the company does product planing, development and test. They did what they used to do years go: plan the product and feature set and then stick to it. Gone are the days of individual developers or small teams deciding to add the next "cool feature" just because. They turned the formerly ad-hoc planning process into a pretty nice machine. The result is not mind-blowing - they released the first (significantly) public milestone version at PDC last fall as largely feature complete. It lacked some of the UI updates but in terms of the core OS it was done. Then when they released the beta early in January it was essentially a done product. Yes, there are bugs. I've seen some of them in action. But they seem to be relatively minor. So my point is that while you could argue that Windows 7 is what Vista should have been (I sort of agree), it is a product that was developed under completely different leadership with completely different processes and, apparently, completely different results. Is it a good idea to not name it Windows Vista 2009? Duh.
You don't seem to know much about software development. There is no such thing as bug free software. Every piece of software ever written has bugs. Every single piece of software ever released as a final product has bugs. The question is whether or not those bugs are show stoppers...meaning they break something critical to the functionality of the product. In the case of Windows 7...I'd venture to guess that more people will have beta tested the product than any other single release in the history of software. More people are probably running Windows 7 now than are running Linux...at least on desktop machines. I have Win7 running on two machines. Is it the perfect product? No but I'd challenge you to show me one that is. I have Ubuntu running on two machines and I can assure you that Ubuntu is far form perfect. Drivers problems galore. Lots of software incompatibility. Quirks. Slowdowns. The myth of Linux being somehow above reproach is just that: a myth. My impression of Win7 is that it is head and shoulders better than Windows XP and Windows Vista. All devices the devices I have that work with Windows Vista work with Windows 7. The system is snappy...something Windows Vista could never claim. The user experience improvements are subtle enough to not require major re-learning but significant enough that I appreciate (most of) them. When I installed Win7 on my first machines I assumed I'd try it out for a few weeks and then rebuilt the systems with an earlier version of Windows or another Linux distro. Since the install the thought never crossed my mind(of course, I'm fortunate enough to have a bunch of old machines around).
Besides search, GMAIL (sort of...) and Google Maps, what has Google done that has been successful. Even Google Maps and GMAIL are distant 2nd or 3rd in their categories. Most of their non-search efforts have failed - or at least haven't done a hell of a lot. Lively dead. Picasa forgotten. Google Apps...trying hard but no significant share. All their other experiments? Intersting toys. Perhaps this is why their stock deserves to be $250/share instead of $500/share like it was earlier this year. Search is a KILLER business but eventually Microsoft or someone else will make progress and catch up with them. The 'switching cost' for a search engine is zero.
Microsoft is good at making things pretty easy for developers. No, not as easy as being a script/HTML monkey but if you want to build an application for Windows using VB or build a Web site using ASP.NET, Microsoft makes it easier for their platform(s) than any other platform. A mediocre developer can fire up Visual Studio and do something pretty cool. A good developer can do really cool things. My expectation is that they'll do the same thing in the (buzzword alert) 'cloud.'
Spoken like a true Mac-o-lite...your opinion is always the right one and everyone else is drinking kool-aide. Gee...who's the one drinking the the Kool-Aide? By the way, I've owned many Macs, starting with a MacSE that I UPGRADED to 8MB RAM a MacFX (remember that one?, a Quadra 650 (wohoo!) and most recently an iMac. I speak from experience: Mac Hardware is NOT over-rated. MacOS IS over-rated.
They could easily create an obnoxious sterotype of the Mac users that we've all met. Turtleneck dude. Graphic artist dude. Web scripter dude who really uses a PC for work but Mac for status.
I agree. Apple can choose to respond in some snarky way as others have suggested but I think this essentially kills the Mac vs. PC campaign. It makes it seem snide and narrowminded.
You realize you missed his point entirely? The Apple commercials were NEVER talking about identifying with the users. It's personifying the OS itself, as if it has a personality.
I think that's one person's interpretation. There is no mention of the OS in Apple's ads. They mention PC's and use Hodgeman as a personification of PC's...and by extension the people that use them. If that wasn't your interpretation then that's fine but I have spoken to many many people who basically think that Apple is slamming them...and trying to entice them to becoming cool if they start using Macs. The smart thing about MSFT's ads is that they don't even mention the Mac. They just make a positive statement about PC's and the wide variety of people from all walks of life who use them to do cool things. It's very democratic.
Give me a break. It's clearly a personification of the PC and the people that use them. There's nothing inherently evil about what Apple is doing - it plays into their brand which has a certain amount of exclusivity. What's different about Microsoft's ads is that they don't make any direct slam on Mac users. They're just showing that there are millions of PC users from all walks of life and certainly different than the Hodgeman character. It's a pretty good campaign in my mind. Very empowering and positive and true to what PC's are about.
Your dad must have a short memory. There are many examples of direct competition in advertising including some very famous campaigns including the Pepsi Challenge.
This whole debate on one TV ad is really funny. We have hundreds of tech journalists and geeks trolling blogs providing their insightful commentary on whether the ad is effective or not. Ever pause to wonder whether (1) tech journalists or geeks are good judges of advertising and (2) whether tech journalists and geeks are the target audience for the ads? To me the ads are mildly funny but that's really not the point. The point, I'm guessing, is to show Microsoft's human side. Most consumers experience Microsoft only through products, features, technology. This is a way of showing a different side of the company. They're also telling a fairly subtle story around PC's as a device for the people...not the elites. I'm sure they'll go on to show some of the ways that people can use PC's to do interesting things and actually mention Windows. But if you wanted or expected them to start talking speeds and feeds then you're clearly missing the point. Regarding direct compete with Apple...Microsoft would have been really dumb to try to out-cool Apple. Nobody can do that. Apple is a company of cool people making products for people who are or who think they're cool. Apple produces great products that are used by a relatively small number of people. Microsoft is a company of geeks producing products that are used by the masses...hundreds of milliions or billions of people. Microsoft is not trying to be cool. They're trying to be relevant. Whether they'll be successful is hard to say.
The IW article you reference was from 2005 dude. You can try out hosted Exchange, SharePoint etc. today at http://www.mosbeta.com/Welcome.asp. Their pricing is pricing is pretty competitive. For a basic version of Exchange Online mail they charege $3/user/month. A suite that includes Exchange, SharePoint, IM and LiveMeeting is $15/user/month. They provide SLA's on everything, not just mail like Google does with GMAIL. They also provide https support for everything vs. Google which only uses https for GMAIl. Details at http://www.mspmentor.net/2008/07/08/microsoft-online-services-saas-pricing-partner-strategy-announced/
Google only has SLA's on GMAIL, not the rest of the Google Apps "bundle." Also, they only provide https support for GMAIL, not Docs and spreadsheets etc.