I think there is an important underlying point that a lot of us are missing in this discussion (and related ones.) That is that, like many posters have correctly mentioned above, early Microsoft execs were not so concerned with making the greatest product in the world. They knew this, and all of there competitors knew as well. This is entirely unimportant though. The important question to ask is "Why were they so unconcerned with generating quality products?" The answer is that, again, like many people have noted above, they didn't need to. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are two of the most influencial execs in modern business, and two of the most moving and convincing speakers to date. Because of this they were able to secure contracts and agreements that other, more abrasive, potential partners were unable to grasp hold of.
This brings me to my next point: Because of this advantage over its competitors Microsoft was able to spend less time inovating, and generating truely quality material and more time securing its place as the near overwhelming tech giant it is today. What is important here is that if you fast-forward twenty years or so you see that we're still using Microsoft products in more places than anyone (even MS) would have thought.
A lot of people like to go open source with their OS becuase they think it's cool to hate "the Man". The same goes with browsers; sure Firebird, or Firefox, or Firehippo, whatever it is this week, is a neat little browser, but the security risks make one ask if it's really worth it right now. I hate using gay analogies, but if you use Pantene ProV shampoo, what kind of conditioner are you going to use? The same kind... now is that a consipiracy? Do you purposfully go out and buy differing hair products just so "the Man" (the hair care product mfg.) doesn't get his extra dime? No, that's silly. The same goes with MS. As a developer for the Marines I am surrounded by MS products. Everyone in the military and government employment offices uses it, and it's all over organizations and corporations across the world. It doesn't matter if it's easier to use, or if it more fun, or if it looks better, or if it's the most popular, or if it does your homework; what matters is at the end of the day, how much time did you spend rewriting a document because your coworker's MS Word program couldn't understand your format. How much time (and stress, ultimately) could you have avoided by realizing, sometimes it's OK to "give in to the Man."
Slashdot Mirror
I think there is an important underlying point that a lot of us are missing in this discussion (and related ones.) That is that, like many posters have correctly mentioned above, early Microsoft execs were not so concerned with making the greatest product in the world. They knew this, and all of there competitors knew as well. This is entirely unimportant though. The important question to ask is "Why were they so unconcerned with generating quality products?" The answer is that, again, like many people have noted above, they didn't need to. Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer are two of the most influencial execs in modern business, and two of the most moving and convincing speakers to date. Because of this they were able to secure contracts and agreements that other, more abrasive, potential partners were unable to grasp hold of. This brings me to my next point: Because of this advantage over its competitors Microsoft was able to spend less time inovating, and generating truely quality material and more time securing its place as the near overwhelming tech giant it is today. What is important here is that if you fast-forward twenty years or so you see that we're still using Microsoft products in more places than anyone (even MS) would have thought. A lot of people like to go open source with their OS becuase they think it's cool to hate "the Man". The same goes with browsers; sure Firebird, or Firefox, or Firehippo, whatever it is this week, is a neat little browser, but the security risks make one ask if it's really worth it right now. I hate using gay analogies, but if you use Pantene ProV shampoo, what kind of conditioner are you going to use? The same kind... now is that a consipiracy? Do you purposfully go out and buy differing hair products just so "the Man" (the hair care product mfg.) doesn't get his extra dime? No, that's silly. The same goes with MS. As a developer for the Marines I am surrounded by MS products. Everyone in the military and government employment offices uses it, and it's all over organizations and corporations across the world. It doesn't matter if it's easier to use, or if it more fun, or if it looks better, or if it's the most popular, or if it does your homework; what matters is at the end of the day, how much time did you spend rewriting a document because your coworker's MS Word program couldn't understand your format. How much time (and stress, ultimately) could you have avoided by realizing, sometimes it's OK to "give in to the Man."