It's sort of cool. I tap on a link on the map and it shows me where the nearest gas stations are with the latest prices. It also shows the movie times for the nearest movie theaters and local weather. It's inherently an "embedded" type of technology - a feature of something rather than a product on its own. I can't imagine wearing one of those watches.
So then I'd ask what does it mean to be "quite close?" I don't expect you to have all the details but I always wonder if/. postings like the parent slamming MSFT could just as easily be relabled. In this case, the headling might have been: OpenOffice fails ODF Test with 3224 Errors
When you own the hardware and the OS it's a lot easier. There's some irony in Red Hat saying taht they don't (or aren't capable) of doing what Microsoft has tried to do which is build an operating system that works on almost infinitive combinations of hardware and software.
I've posted on/. for a few years and have generally recieved pretty good mods. This is probably a case where I got what I deserved because of the tone of my post. Mea culpa. But I believe that more core point - however clumsily made - holds true. Bureaucrats provide valuable services. But managing the way markets work is not one of them. Setting up arbitrary rules to prevent any company from doing business is not going to work in the long run.
They're feeling their oats. Feeling rich. Feeling powerful. But look what happened to Japan eventually...they entered into a long period of stagnation that they haven't really gotten out of yet. The European's love of regulation will eventually cause them the same problems. When that happens it'll be interesting to see how they react when the countries/companies that actually drive the world economy fail to come to their rescue like we have to every 50 years or so.
At risk of adding even more politics to this comment, I'm a hard-core democratic. Far from a flaming right-winger. I belive government plays an important role in society. But nothing is more wrong-headed than government that tries to do things they're simply not capable of doing. Regulating markets is generally one of those. Sure, if Microsoft broke antitrust laws then they should penalized. Last time I checked they were...to the tune of about $1 billion and counting. Trying to prevent them from freely participating in commerce in Europe is just plain stupid.
"The only way I'll believe that MS will actually succeed in creating a successful OS..." Well, let's see. I guess that depends on what you mean by "successful." If by successful you mean building an OS tha is widely used or that has a huge number of applications written for it or that a huge number of hardware devices work with and that almost anyone with half a brain can use then I guess Windows might fit the bill. Linux, on the other hand, has comparatively little software desigend for it, relatively few hardware devices that work with it well and that is fairly hard for mere mortals to use.
You go on to say that the only way they'll be successful if they throw out "their old OS completely and start again from scratch. This is exactly what Apple did." Well, Apple did - essentially - throw out their old OS but they didn't start from scratch. They stated with UNIX. Perhaps a smart thing but far from starting from scratch. Whether MacOS is stable is in the eye of the beholder. I found my most recent Mac (sold in Craigslist) to be...fairly flakey. Not always stable, applications didn't always work, dropped wireless network connections.
Making Google apps available offline is not particularly interesting. Wow...local storage...you mean like a decent Mac or Windows application offers? Syncrhonizing files up to a Web site is fairly trivial. In terms of offering the ability to synchronize files from a local store up to "cloud storage" Microsoft acquired Groove 3-4 years ago which was doing that years before. Not news.
I'm no expert with inside information but if I know Microsoft I'd guess that they're thinking about making "mesh" into a platform for applications by anybody, not just Microsoft. That's what Microsoft is (usually) pretty good at. Providing a capability that would allow appliations and data to "roam" with the user as they move from device to device would be neat. Then I can use high fidelity applications on a Mac or PC when I have access to one or I can access degared versions of the apps (AJAX, Silverlight, Flash blah blah blah) when I don't have access to local applications.
You're half right. SharePoint is designed more for business use whereas Google apps are designed more for geek's trying to organize a geek party. Office Live offers much of the same of the same functionality as SharePoint in a more simplified version. In terms of making apps available offline...I have this new fangled thing called Office that works reallyh well regardless of whether I'm connected or not. I can even set it up so that when I re-connect that the file is synchronized up to a Web site. Amazing stuff!
The methodology for this is pretty silly. Interbrand is the known leader in research-based brand valuation and brand strength. Check out their reports at the links below. Also, note that other famous technology brand names aren't even on the list-including the beloved Apple and Google.
that Apple doesn't have security breaches. Steve says that they're called features exploited by evil-doers. Steve also says that it doesn't matter if they fix their security holes quickly because the hackers don't care about tareting MacOS. Steve assures us that if we just keep buying new Macs that we'll be fine.
Thanks and well said. I agree with most of your points but one person's "lock-in" is another person's benefit from having a consistent programming model, good libraries (and good security model) for writing Web apps, Windows apps, mobile apps etc. My hope is that Silverlight will extend the same programming model onto other platforms so I can, if I choose, use the same model and skills to build apps that run on Mac and Linux. To me the benefit of a rational/consistent programming model and all of the benefits that brings vastly outweights the alternatives.
I think Adobe concerns itself with security. I just think that AIR does not have a well developed security model. Check it out yourself and see whtat you find. There's no question that.NET has a better security model than AIR. AIR will probably improve over time. What Ballmer FUD? Show me a link. No, every computer doesn't run.NET. Most do but not all. The full.NET framework doesn't run on Mac or Linux. Silverlight uses/will use the same basic programming model and does run on Mac and will run on Linux.
By the way, yes, I am a.NET guy. I'm not trying to hide that.
Yes, AIR is a desktop runtime...for a Web-based application. There's a lot of risk in letting Web apps loose outside of the browser security sandbox. It seems like a better choice would be to use Flash or Silverlight which run withint the browser security sandbox or run a "real" desktop application using.NET/WPF which uses the.NET security model.
Wow, what a bitter man. I'll refute a couple of your points.
1. Your reference to Bill Gates "scolding" people for copying Basic is probably a reference to his famous letter to the software development community. In that letter he basically made the point that stealing the intellectual property of others is not only wrong but also harmful to the software industry. While things have changed some since then, the majority of people who write software for a living like to get paid for what they do. What's wrong with that? Without some incentive in the form of $$ a lot of great software would have never been created.
2. Saying that Gates only gives money away if he thinks he can get more back is...nonsensical. At least in terms of his foundation he'll clearly not get back anything from that work. Microsoft as a company and the employees of Microsoft give away a lot of pure cash where there's no pay-back.
3. I'm not sure how much you know about Gate's politics. He's pretty secretive about it. But he has given some hints that lead me to believe he leans toward more liberal, Democratic principles. Examples include his support of inheritance taxes and his support of gun control in the past. He's far froma rabid republican.
One small problem with your point: Microsoft does not have a monopoly in developer tools. Visual Studio has decent marketshare...probably about 25% of professional developers use Visual Studio. That's hardly a monopoly.
Slow downward spiral? Might I suggest you learn how to read an income statement: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q2_08.mspx#income. Microsoft revenue grew 30% in the last quarter. Operating income grew 87%. Earnings/share grew 92%. On top of that, they raised their estimates for the rest of the year. It's worth noting for the mathematically challenged that all of those growth numbers were on top of very large bases. Thier net income was $4 billion and change on $15 billion in revenue. Let's compare that to another company on a downward spiral: General Electric. In GE's most recent quarter had net income of $6.8 billion on revenue of $48 billion. Revenue grew at 18% and earnings grew at 16%.
Man, talk about two HOSED companies.
Good point. Yahoo trying to harken back to when their price was $31 is not a good negotiating tactic. Hell, Google is down $200/share since December and yahoo is no google. MSFT will get them either way without paying more than your guestimates.
You're on track for exctly one sentence. The rest is mostly drivel. Microsoft is in the drivers seat. They have a lot of options. One is certainly to increase their bid - most reasonable people would expect them to. Who is dumb enough to offer top dollar at the beginning of a negotiation? On the other hand, they could decide to put forward a slate for Yahoo's board that would be voted on proportionally to share ownership. Guess what? More than 60% of Yahoo shares are owned by institutional investors who want to get paid. They'd certainly do what they can to get MSFT to up their bid but the last thing they want is for them to walk away and see Yahoo's share price drop to about $10/share. I have no idea how you come to the rationalization that that taking over by proxy is "nullified." MSFT gets the company either way - by making a slightly larger bid for the company at which point Yahoo shareholders demand that they sell or taking over by proxy.
Calling Yahoo a failing company is just ignorant. They have lots of amazing assets that a company like Microsoft could use. Their brand is worth a lot. Which Web site is the most visited site in the US? Yahoo (if you exclude search page results from Google). They are #1 or 2 in mail and IM. They have Flickr and many other valuable tools and content properties. Yahoo is worth more to Microsoft than they are as an independent company.
Comparing this to AOL/Time Warner is also just ignorant. Time Warner...while a big company...was not a Microsoft. They don't have nearly the profitability in their core businesses, the case flow or the long-term prospects for growth. Microsoft is a large company that is growing very fast.
I find it very hard to believe that Eric Schmidt's comments on the Microsoft/Yahoo deal are all about what's best for the Internet. Give me a break. This seems to be the first time that I sense any vulnerability from Google. They've had a very long honeymoon. Perhaps it's over? GOOG is down another $12 today and more than $200/share since mid-December. That'll put a crimp in Schmidt's airplane buying plans. Well...probalby not...but it will put a crimp in Google's ability to buy innovation.
His salary has always been modest by CEO/Chairman standards. His wealth is almost entirely from his equaity int he company - which he started with one other person 30 years ago. The fact that the part of the company he owned became so valuable isn't about "compensation." It's about owning part of a company that he started.
Killed the market for 3rd parties? There are thousands of companies that live by building products and offering services around the "Microsoft ecosystem." Did they eventually compete with some of those companies? Duh. But the vast majority stay in business (or not) on their own merits.
Brought the price of software UP? Are you living in a reality-distortion field? As the previous poster noted, softare used to be highly specialized - built for one hardware platform - and incredibly expensive. Microsoft has the smarts to realize that they could have a nice business by buidling a "standardized" operating system that worked on a huge variety of hardware platforms and selling it at comparatively low cost.
Slashdot Mirror
It's sort of cool. I tap on a link on the map and it shows me where the nearest gas stations are with the latest prices. It also shows the movie times for the nearest movie theaters and local weather. It's inherently an "embedded" type of technology - a feature of something rather than a product on its own. I can't imagine wearing one of those watches.
Ummmm....wrong. MESH will work with non-Windows OS's.
So then I'd ask what does it mean to be "quite close?" I don't expect you to have all the details but I always wonder if /. postings like the parent slamming MSFT could just as easily be relabled. In this case, the headling might have been: OpenOffice fails ODF Test with 3224 Errors
Anon, let me introduce you to stupid. You have a lot in common.
the Open Document Format? Just curious.
When you own the hardware and the OS it's a lot easier. There's some irony in Red Hat saying taht they don't (or aren't capable) of doing what Microsoft has tried to do which is build an operating system that works on almost infinitive combinations of hardware and software.
I've posted on /. for a few years and have generally recieved pretty good mods. This is probably a case where I got what I deserved because of the tone of my post. Mea culpa. But I believe that more core point - however clumsily made - holds true. Bureaucrats provide valuable services. But managing the way markets work is not one of them. Setting up arbitrary rules to prevent any company from doing business is not going to work in the long run.
They're feeling their oats. Feeling rich. Feeling powerful. But look what happened to Japan eventually...they entered into a long period of stagnation that they haven't really gotten out of yet. The European's love of regulation will eventually cause them the same problems. When that happens it'll be interesting to see how they react when the countries/companies that actually drive the world economy fail to come to their rescue like we have to every 50 years or so. At risk of adding even more politics to this comment, I'm a hard-core democratic. Far from a flaming right-winger. I belive government plays an important role in society. But nothing is more wrong-headed than government that tries to do things they're simply not capable of doing. Regulating markets is generally one of those. Sure, if Microsoft broke antitrust laws then they should penalized. Last time I checked they were...to the tune of about $1 billion and counting. Trying to prevent them from freely participating in commerce in Europe is just plain stupid.
"The only way I'll believe that MS will actually succeed in creating a successful OS..." Well, let's see. I guess that depends on what you mean by "successful." If by successful you mean building an OS tha is widely used or that has a huge number of applications written for it or that a huge number of hardware devices work with and that almost anyone with half a brain can use then I guess Windows might fit the bill. Linux, on the other hand, has comparatively little software desigend for it, relatively few hardware devices that work with it well and that is fairly hard for mere mortals to use. You go on to say that the only way they'll be successful if they throw out "their old OS completely and start again from scratch. This is exactly what Apple did." Well, Apple did - essentially - throw out their old OS but they didn't start from scratch. They stated with UNIX. Perhaps a smart thing but far from starting from scratch. Whether MacOS is stable is in the eye of the beholder. I found my most recent Mac (sold in Craigslist) to be...fairly flakey. Not always stable, applications didn't always work, dropped wireless network connections.
Making Google apps available offline is not particularly interesting. Wow...local storage...you mean like a decent Mac or Windows application offers? Syncrhonizing files up to a Web site is fairly trivial. In terms of offering the ability to synchronize files from a local store up to "cloud storage" Microsoft acquired Groove 3-4 years ago which was doing that years before. Not news. I'm no expert with inside information but if I know Microsoft I'd guess that they're thinking about making "mesh" into a platform for applications by anybody, not just Microsoft. That's what Microsoft is (usually) pretty good at. Providing a capability that would allow appliations and data to "roam" with the user as they move from device to device would be neat. Then I can use high fidelity applications on a Mac or PC when I have access to one or I can access degared versions of the apps (AJAX, Silverlight, Flash blah blah blah) when I don't have access to local applications.
You're half right. SharePoint is designed more for business use whereas Google apps are designed more for geek's trying to organize a geek party. Office Live offers much of the same of the same functionality as SharePoint in a more simplified version. In terms of making apps available offline...I have this new fangled thing called Office that works reallyh well regardless of whether I'm connected or not. I can even set it up so that when I re-connect that the file is synchronized up to a Web site. Amazing stuff!
The methodology for this is pretty silly. Interbrand is the known leader in research-based brand valuation and brand strength. Check out their reports at the links below. Also, note that other famous technology brand names aren't even on the list-including the beloved Apple and Google.
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/brand/2006/
http://www.interbrand.com/surveys.asp (source for the Business Week report)
http://www.ourfishbowl.com/images/surveys/Interbrand_BGB_2007.pdf
that Apple doesn't have security breaches. Steve says that they're called features exploited by evil-doers. Steve also says that it doesn't matter if they fix their security holes quickly because the hackers don't care about tareting MacOS. Steve assures us that if we just keep buying new Macs that we'll be fine.
Thanks and well said. I agree with most of your points but one person's "lock-in" is another person's benefit from having a consistent programming model, good libraries (and good security model) for writing Web apps, Windows apps, mobile apps etc. My hope is that Silverlight will extend the same programming model onto other platforms so I can, if I choose, use the same model and skills to build apps that run on Mac and Linux. To me the benefit of a rational/consistent programming model and all of the benefits that brings vastly outweights the alternatives.
I think Adobe concerns itself with security. I just think that AIR does not have a well developed security model. Check it out yourself and see whtat you find. There's no question that .NET has a better security model than AIR. AIR will probably improve over time. What Ballmer FUD? Show me a link. No, every computer doesn't run .NET. Most do but not all. The full .NET framework doesn't run on Mac or Linux. Silverlight uses/will use the same basic programming model and does run on Mac and will run on Linux.
By the way, yes, I am a .NET guy. I'm not trying to hide that.
Yes, AIR is a desktop runtime...for a Web-based application. There's a lot of risk in letting Web apps loose outside of the browser security sandbox. It seems like a better choice would be to use Flash or Silverlight which run withint the browser security sandbox or run a "real" desktop application using .NET/WPF which uses the .NET security model.
more power to you. Is it just me or is AIR basically just another browser with full file system access? Seems like a pretty big security risk to me.
Ok, I'll bite. Show me one example of a Gates Foundation "act" that corresponds to where "Microsoft needs pressure." I'm all ears.
Wow, what a bitter man. I'll refute a couple of your points. 1. Your reference to Bill Gates "scolding" people for copying Basic is probably a reference to his famous letter to the software development community. In that letter he basically made the point that stealing the intellectual property of others is not only wrong but also harmful to the software industry. While things have changed some since then, the majority of people who write software for a living like to get paid for what they do. What's wrong with that? Without some incentive in the form of $$ a lot of great software would have never been created. 2. Saying that Gates only gives money away if he thinks he can get more back is...nonsensical. At least in terms of his foundation he'll clearly not get back anything from that work. Microsoft as a company and the employees of Microsoft give away a lot of pure cash where there's no pay-back. 3. I'm not sure how much you know about Gate's politics. He's pretty secretive about it. But he has given some hints that lead me to believe he leans toward more liberal, Democratic principles. Examples include his support of inheritance taxes and his support of gun control in the past. He's far froma rabid republican.
One small problem with your point: Microsoft does not have a monopoly in developer tools. Visual Studio has decent marketshare...probably about 25% of professional developers use Visual Studio. That's hardly a monopoly.
Slow downward spiral? Might I suggest you learn how to read an income statement: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY08/earn_rel_q2_08.mspx#income. Microsoft revenue grew 30% in the last quarter. Operating income grew 87%. Earnings/share grew 92%. On top of that, they raised their estimates for the rest of the year. It's worth noting for the mathematically challenged that all of those growth numbers were on top of very large bases. Thier net income was $4 billion and change on $15 billion in revenue. Let's compare that to another company on a downward spiral: General Electric. In GE's most recent quarter had net income of $6.8 billion on revenue of $48 billion. Revenue grew at 18% and earnings grew at 16%. Man, talk about two HOSED companies.
Good point. Yahoo trying to harken back to when their price was $31 is not a good negotiating tactic. Hell, Google is down $200/share since December and yahoo is no google. MSFT will get them either way without paying more than your guestimates.
You're on track for exctly one sentence. The rest is mostly drivel. Microsoft is in the drivers seat. They have a lot of options. One is certainly to increase their bid - most reasonable people would expect them to. Who is dumb enough to offer top dollar at the beginning of a negotiation? On the other hand, they could decide to put forward a slate for Yahoo's board that would be voted on proportionally to share ownership. Guess what? More than 60% of Yahoo shares are owned by institutional investors who want to get paid. They'd certainly do what they can to get MSFT to up their bid but the last thing they want is for them to walk away and see Yahoo's share price drop to about $10/share. I have no idea how you come to the rationalization that that taking over by proxy is "nullified." MSFT gets the company either way - by making a slightly larger bid for the company at which point Yahoo shareholders demand that they sell or taking over by proxy. Calling Yahoo a failing company is just ignorant. They have lots of amazing assets that a company like Microsoft could use. Their brand is worth a lot. Which Web site is the most visited site in the US? Yahoo (if you exclude search page results from Google). They are #1 or 2 in mail and IM. They have Flickr and many other valuable tools and content properties. Yahoo is worth more to Microsoft than they are as an independent company. Comparing this to AOL/Time Warner is also just ignorant. Time Warner...while a big company...was not a Microsoft. They don't have nearly the profitability in their core businesses, the case flow or the long-term prospects for growth. Microsoft is a large company that is growing very fast.
I find it very hard to believe that Eric Schmidt's comments on the Microsoft/Yahoo deal are all about what's best for the Internet. Give me a break. This seems to be the first time that I sense any vulnerability from Google. They've had a very long honeymoon. Perhaps it's over? GOOG is down another $12 today and more than $200/share since mid-December. That'll put a crimp in Schmidt's airplane buying plans. Well...probalby not...but it will put a crimp in Google's ability to buy innovation.
His salary has always been modest by CEO/Chairman standards. His wealth is almost entirely from his equaity int he company - which he started with one other person 30 years ago. The fact that the part of the company he owned became so valuable isn't about "compensation." It's about owning part of a company that he started. Killed the market for 3rd parties? There are thousands of companies that live by building products and offering services around the "Microsoft ecosystem." Did they eventually compete with some of those companies? Duh. But the vast majority stay in business (or not) on their own merits. Brought the price of software UP? Are you living in a reality-distortion field? As the previous poster noted, softare used to be highly specialized - built for one hardware platform - and incredibly expensive. Microsoft has the smarts to realize that they could have a nice business by buidling a "standardized" operating system that worked on a huge variety of hardware platforms and selling it at comparatively low cost.