If it isn't the year of desktop linux yet, it's definitly the year of pocket linux, I mean look at the market share of google android. It's linux powering smart phones in most pockets
But it's not always about direct sales or revenues as well. It's also about the network effect that the xbox can have on customers. Someone satisfied by the xbox is a bit more likely to trust windows phones.
It's also about creating an ecosystem with devices and services being integrated. With the install base of the xbox, they can easily upgrade them in iptv set top boxes, and gain more mindshare as a company
I knew from the begining that this was the reason MS got into game consoles. They probably told themselves that they should hedge their bets in case another device than the PC gets more popular in homes. Their rational might have been: We stay aside, and sony and/or nitento might win this a make a ton of money; the pc being a mature market with limited growth, or consoles geting so powerful that they can just accomplish well enough most domestic computing tasks...
Or, we can get involved. Best case scenario: we will make some money, or at least break even. we will leverage our expertise in game and framework designing to port and creat new games for the xbox...
worst case, we slow down sony by vigourously competing with them. Nitendo being less and less relevent each day (mind you this is before the wii) We cannot afford to leave this market to sony only. If all we do is lose money on the project, it'll be considered as insurance for protecting our cash cow windows from an emerging competitor: sony..
You do realise that linux is always provided below cost, as nothing is free... The programers donnate their time. With the talent they have, I seriously doubt that their time is free.
This is out right false. The contract requires them to sell all computers with an os installed, any os. And hp and dell have sold computers with linux installed. Dell gave up selling linux to customers because of very low demande for it. They use to also sell computers with just a copy of open dos on a disquette, package with the pc to comply with the ms contract.
This is totally stupid. The best thing MS can do for its competitors is to increase its prices. For every price increase, they potentially lose custormer who would not accept the extra increase. Yet competitors complain when they decrease price because that make it more likely that customers will choose ms's product instead of theirs. Just look at how mcfee and symantec are freaking out because a basic av product such as onecare. People also complained that they gave the browser and the media player away, for free.
What about Media Player? It's been part of windows since at least windows 3.x. So it was bundled well before windows came to dominate. How is it wrong then that now that they have a bigger market share, they should remove it? how about notepad? I dont see any difference in bundling notepad, or paint with bundling media plyaer. It could be argued that neither of them has much to do with an operating system. Real demise had nothing to do with ms including media player with windows. Same goes for Netscape. MS simply offered a superior product at the time. Just look at how well Itunes and firefox have done. I don't see them being bundled with windows. If you want to argue that the windows users are too lazy or ignorant to go find alternatives, then that's the perfect argument for bundling stuff in windows anyways, because those customers would not be exposed to those features if it weren't for their inclusion...
YOu're wrong about them having no maping software. What do you call their terraserver in the mid 90's? how about ms street that they've had for a long time? about games, xbox is basicaly a pc and ms has been present in the gaming world for a long time as well, Cf direct X....they were also in the pda market before palm, with their pen computing initiative. Off course it was to bloated for the hardware of the time, kind of like the origami is today...People perpetuate that idea that ms does not innovate, eventhough they have on of the biggest r&d budget in the industry. Also to say that they don't take any risk is a lie. Just look at all the faillures they've had. Also look at the end to end solutions that they've been creating in the iptv market since the late 90's. There has been a lot of resistance from the tv companies scared that ms would hold a chock hold on the delivery of tv over ip so they did all they could not to adopt their technology but now, they're all reconsidering it since it seems to be the easiest and cheaper tech to implement. Same goes for the cell phone.
How many times have you updated win serv 2003? It's not always that you have to restart after installing new software or updates. Also don't confuse xp with server 03.
Most cosoles sellers lose money on the console for the first years until manufacturing costs come down enough for them to break even. In return, they make money on the games they sell either directly or licensing fees from outside publishers. So it's misleading to just mention the lost on the harware sales without the mentionning the mitigating factor of the sales of software.
Another thing we should keep in mind is the absence of Microsoft in the living room and console arena. Even if MS was loosing money in absolute terms, I could make sense for them to incure those lost, if they estimate that in the long term, those console and/or dvr would start incorporating features that might make the pc, hence windows less relevent. So it's better for them to be in it so they can react fast enough if need be. This can be perceived as some kind of insurance cost:). Unlike an insurrance cost, there is quite an upside profit potential with a console as well, and it can also be lost leader for additional sales of windows especially MCE. Let's look at windows smartphones and their iptv initiative. For years they've lost money on those. Still, they perseviered and it's starting to pay off now with all the contracts they're signing with partners. Had they been absent from the begining it coulb be more expensive to enter those game this late, gain the institutional knowledge, and fix the quirks....Not only these venture can be profitable in their own rights, but increase sales of windows as well
nffs acl is far superior and granular to the one in unix and linux. Now are the windows users as knowledgealbe to use the power they have compare to linux users? I don't think so. And a linux user will be just as secure if she was using a windows computer. Still Microsoft is still at fault for not implementing features they already have in their operating system. None the recent memory worms would have spread, patched or not, simply if the rudimentary inbound firewall in windows 2000 was set on "on" by default. As simple as that. That would have stoped nimbda, code red and most of the rest. The other thing is seting every user as an admin by default. Although true that that's convenient and that lots of sofware require that you be an admin to properly run, ms should force users to be limited users by default. that would force isv to apply more care when coding. NT is build on security from the beginning. Most of windows faults are not so much technical, at least compared to others os's on the market, as it is due to bad policies...
That something we tend to forgt. Viruses are simply software. They instruct hardware to do some thing. You don't need any vulnerability to run them. Write a script that says select all in such folder and apply the delete command to it. Don't ask for confirmation before deleting any file...now you get the user to do that and voila....
About corelation between popularity and exploits, we only need look at Apache vs iis 6. Appache is more popular and has more exploits than iis6. Also look at how many new exploits there are for win 95? I am sure there far less than what we have for xp. Does that mean that 95 is more secure?
Not to say anything about the fact that macs being more expensive, scrip kiddies don't always have their hands on one to learn to to exploit the system....so unfamiliarity with and os X and the g4 processor. I am not a programer but I believe I can safely assume that you have to have some intimate knowledge the of the target system hardware to take advantage of things such as buffer overflows and the likes. Most people who use the ibm power processor are likely to be professionals, not some one in some basement.
abusing a monopoly? only the windows monopoly. Not the ie7 monopoly. Remember that it was about them tying ie 6 to windows that they sell you. You had no choice in accepting or not acceting ie6 when bundled. Their argument was that it wasn't bundled, but part of the os, in wich case their not breaking the law anymore. Now, they're not selling you ie7 for one thing, they don't even have a monopoly with ie7 unless they force you to install it one way or another such as tying it with a critical patch for windows.
In the online world, the bundling issue is totaly moot. Many of ms competitors that have gone out of business simply shot themselves in the feet rather than any illegal actions ms may have taken. there's always been a media player with windows since 3.11. Bundling wmp with windows is not what's killing real, but the fact that media player is superior. The same is true for ie and nestcape. Netscape was my first browser and I like it. Then it became one the buggiest piece of software ever written. It took a long while to load compare to ie (and that's before integration), and it was so crash prone that I switched. I alwase came back and tried the new realeases, but IE was simply better. It's funny, FF is just the way ie was then, fast and numerous realeases, with tons of features added each time. That's ultimatly what make the products succesfull, features, and responsiveness, not bundling. I actualy believe that if a user is too lethargic or does not know better to switch to a better product, one should be installe by default for him anyway so he/she can learn using that default and eventually see its shortcomings and ask for a better one. The worse thing you can do in that situation for that user is not to install anything at all. We should all keep in mind that both java, real, and quicktime were first spread to the masses by them being bundled with windows.
You're slightly mistaken. What is forbiden for monopolies is bundling. Ie7 is in no way bundled to windows. You go out of your way and choose to install ie7. ie6 is bundled with the os, not 7. So you can't really complain that their taking customers choice away. You're free not you install ie7 at all.
You see, the funny thing is that Microsoft does not have a monopoly with ie7. IE6 comes preinstalled. You have got out of your way to install ie7. I don't see how you would know how to download ie7 and not know how to set your default search engine in ie 7. If it has not already defaulted to google, because it does not change your previous default, the first time you go to google.com, a prominent pop up ask you if you want to defautl to google. Same goes for yahoo and I am sure many other search engines. They really made it easy for you to choose.
Slashdot Mirror
If it isn't the year of desktop linux yet, it's definitly the year of pocket linux, I mean look at the market share of google android. It's linux powering smart phones in most pockets
But it's not always about direct sales or revenues as well. It's also about the network effect that the xbox can have on customers. Someone satisfied by the xbox is a bit more likely to trust windows phones. It's also about creating an ecosystem with devices and services being integrated. With the install base of the xbox, they can easily upgrade them in iptv set top boxes, and gain more mindshare as a company
The same is true for operationg systems, where nobody can force you to buy Apple or linux or windows.
I knew from the begining that this was the reason MS got into game consoles. They probably told themselves that they should hedge their bets in case another device than the PC gets more popular in homes. Their rational might have been: We stay aside, and sony and/or nitento might win this a make a ton of money; the pc being a mature market with limited growth, or consoles geting so powerful that they can just accomplish well enough most domestic computing tasks... Or, we can get involved. Best case scenario: we will make some money, or at least break even. we will leverage our expertise in game and framework designing to port and creat new games for the xbox... worst case, we slow down sony by vigourously competing with them. Nitendo being less and less relevent each day (mind you this is before the wii) We cannot afford to leave this market to sony only. If all we do is lose money on the project, it'll be considered as insurance for protecting our cash cow windows from an emerging competitor: sony..
You did not thorough read his post. Killing accidentaly is not murder, but manslaughter as he said in his post...
You do realise that linux is always provided below cost, as nothing is free... The programers donnate their time. With the talent they have, I seriously doubt that their time is free.
This is out right false. The contract requires them to sell all computers with an os installed, any os. And hp and dell have sold computers with linux installed. Dell gave up selling linux to customers because of very low demande for it. They use to also sell computers with just a copy of open dos on a disquette, package with the pc to comply with the ms contract.
This is totally stupid. The best thing MS can do for its competitors is to increase its prices. For every price increase, they potentially lose custormer who would not accept the extra increase. Yet competitors complain when they decrease price because that make it more likely that customers will choose ms's product instead of theirs. Just look at how mcfee and symantec are freaking out because a basic av product such as onecare. People also complained that they gave the browser and the media player away, for free.
What about Media Player? It's been part of windows since at least windows 3.x. So it was bundled well before windows came to dominate. How is it wrong then that now that they have a bigger market share, they should remove it? how about notepad? I dont see any difference in bundling notepad, or paint with bundling media plyaer. It could be argued that neither of them has much to do with an operating system. Real demise had nothing to do with ms including media player with windows. Same goes for Netscape. MS simply offered a superior product at the time. Just look at how well Itunes and firefox have done. I don't see them being bundled with windows. If you want to argue that the windows users are too lazy or ignorant to go find alternatives, then that's the perfect argument for bundling stuff in windows anyways, because those customers would not be exposed to those features if it weren't for their inclusion...
YOu're wrong about them having no maping software. What do you call their terraserver in the mid 90's? how about ms street that they've had for a long time? about games, xbox is basicaly a pc and ms has been present in the gaming world for a long time as well, Cf direct X....they were also in the pda market before palm, with their pen computing initiative. Off course it was to bloated for the hardware of the time, kind of like the origami is today...People perpetuate that idea that ms does not innovate, eventhough they have on of the biggest r&d budget in the industry. Also to say that they don't take any risk is a lie. Just look at all the faillures they've had. Also look at the end to end solutions that they've been creating in the iptv market since the late 90's. There has been a lot of resistance from the tv companies scared that ms would hold a chock hold on the delivery of tv over ip so they did all they could not to adopt their technology but now, they're all reconsidering it since it seems to be the easiest and cheaper tech to implement. Same goes for the cell phone.
How many times have you updated win serv 2003? It's not always that you have to restart after installing new software or updates. Also don't confuse xp with server 03.
You are forgeting that the consoles are sold at a loss, so the coponents makers make more money than the revenues from sales of the consoles
Most cosoles sellers lose money on the console for the first years until manufacturing costs come down enough for them to break even. In return, they make money on the games they sell either directly or licensing fees from outside publishers. So it's misleading to just mention the lost on the harware sales without the mentionning the mitigating factor of the sales of software. Another thing we should keep in mind is the absence of Microsoft in the living room and console arena. Even if MS was loosing money in absolute terms, I could make sense for them to incure those lost, if they estimate that in the long term, those console and/or dvr would start incorporating features that might make the pc, hence windows less relevent. So it's better for them to be in it so they can react fast enough if need be. This can be perceived as some kind of insurance cost :). Unlike an insurrance cost, there is quite an upside profit potential with a console as well, and it can also be lost leader for additional sales of windows especially MCE. Let's look at windows smartphones and their iptv initiative. For years they've lost money on those. Still, they perseviered and it's starting to pay off now with all the contracts they're signing with partners. Had they been absent from the begining it coulb be more expensive to enter those game this late, gain the institutional knowledge, and fix the quirks....Not only these venture can be profitable in their own rights, but increase sales of windows as well
nffs acl is far superior and granular to the one in unix and linux. Now are the windows users as knowledgealbe to use the power they have compare to linux users? I don't think so. And a linux user will be just as secure if she was using a windows computer. Still Microsoft is still at fault for not implementing features they already have in their operating system. None the recent memory worms would have spread, patched or not, simply if the rudimentary inbound firewall in windows 2000 was set on "on" by default. As simple as that. That would have stoped nimbda, code red and most of the rest. The other thing is seting every user as an admin by default. Although true that that's convenient and that lots of sofware require that you be an admin to properly run, ms should force users to be limited users by default. that would force isv to apply more care when coding. NT is build on security from the beginning. Most of windows faults are not so much technical, at least compared to others os's on the market, as it is due to bad policies...
That something we tend to forgt. Viruses are simply software. They instruct hardware to do some thing. You don't need any vulnerability to run them. Write a script that says select all in such folder and apply the delete command to it. Don't ask for confirmation before deleting any file...now you get the user to do that and voila.... About corelation between popularity and exploits, we only need look at Apache vs iis 6. Appache is more popular and has more exploits than iis6. Also look at how many new exploits there are for win 95? I am sure there far less than what we have for xp. Does that mean that 95 is more secure?
Not to say anything about the fact that macs being more expensive, scrip kiddies don't always have their hands on one to learn to to exploit the system....so unfamiliarity with and os X and the g4 processor. I am not a programer but I believe I can safely assume that you have to have some intimate knowledge the of the target system hardware to take advantage of things such as buffer overflows and the likes. Most people who use the ibm power processor are likely to be professionals, not some one in some basement.
abusing a monopoly? only the windows monopoly. Not the ie7 monopoly. Remember that it was about them tying ie 6 to windows that they sell you. You had no choice in accepting or not acceting ie6 when bundled. Their argument was that it wasn't bundled, but part of the os, in wich case their not breaking the law anymore. Now, they're not selling you ie7 for one thing, they don't even have a monopoly with ie7 unless they force you to install it one way or another such as tying it with a critical patch for windows.
In the online world, the bundling issue is totaly moot. Many of ms competitors that have gone out of business simply shot themselves in the feet rather than any illegal actions ms may have taken. there's always been a media player with windows since 3.11. Bundling wmp with windows is not what's killing real, but the fact that media player is superior. The same is true for ie and nestcape. Netscape was my first browser and I like it. Then it became one the buggiest piece of software ever written. It took a long while to load compare to ie (and that's before integration), and it was so crash prone that I switched. I alwase came back and tried the new realeases, but IE was simply better. It's funny, FF is just the way ie was then, fast and numerous realeases, with tons of features added each time. That's ultimatly what make the products succesfull, features, and responsiveness, not bundling. I actualy believe that if a user is too lethargic or does not know better to switch to a better product, one should be installe by default for him anyway so he/she can learn using that default and eventually see its shortcomings and ask for a better one. The worse thing you can do in that situation for that user is not to install anything at all. We should all keep in mind that both java, real, and quicktime were first spread to the masses by them being bundled with windows.
You're slightly mistaken. What is forbiden for monopolies is bundling. Ie7 is in no way bundled to windows. You go out of your way and choose to install ie7. ie6 is bundled with the os, not 7. So you can't really complain that their taking customers choice away. You're free not you install ie7 at all.
You see, the funny thing is that Microsoft does not have a monopoly with ie7. IE6 comes preinstalled. You have got out of your way to install ie7. I don't see how you would know how to download ie7 and not know how to set your default search engine in ie 7. If it has not already defaulted to google, because it does not change your previous default, the first time you go to google.com, a prominent pop up ask you if you want to defautl to google. Same goes for yahoo and I am sure many other search engines. They really made it easy for you to choose.