Microsoft Sees IBM as Biggest Threat 328
Anonycat writes "Bill Gates gave an interview at the Consumer Electronics Show, claiming that IBM is the rival company Microsoft has their sights set on. From the article: 'People tend to get over focused on one of our competitors ... We've always seen that ... I'm never going to change the press' view
about what the cool company to write about is. That's Google number 1 and
Apple number 2 ... [IBM has] four times the employees that I have,
way more revenues than I have.'"
Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:5, Insightful)
Begging Bill's pardon, but Microsoft's attitudes and practices are their own biggest threat.
Over the years, Microsoft's biggest threats have been:
I've heard Bill talk at a CES a few years ago and between the words, you could most definitely hear him placing Microsoft as not a technology partner to consumer electronics firms, but as a direct or indirect threat to their product lines and/or ways of doing business. While he waxed enthusiastic about how Windows CE would be some great enabling force, you could almost hear people break out in a sweat wondering what "Microsoft-tax" they would encounter to hop on or compete with the Redmond bandwagon, whether it actually added anything truly positive. I'm positive more than a few show exhibitors could almost see him in a pinstripe suit with a couple gunsels behind him and a moll on his arm.
<James Cagney Voice>
"We're the new business men in town, see? And you're going to like doing business with us, see? Because when you do business with us nobody gets hurt, see? Yeah. I think you do see. That's very good. Very good for business."
</James Cagney Voice>
Bill most likely sees threats to his company because he cultivates them. Microsoft has profited at IBM's expense for the past 20 years. Why shouldn't IBM be competing with Microsoft?
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:5, Insightful)
While that's true to an extent, I think it's open source and innovation. Google innovated with search engines, now it's a word. IPod is almost a word, a huge trend. Open Source is an ideology. You can't fight ideologies and words from dictionnary. Open Source + Microsoft's reluctance to change their business model + lack of innovation on their part will be it's ultimate undoing.
Then again, that won't change jack in the big scheme of things. Yesterday was IBM, the big Monopolistic Empire of Evil(tm), today is Microsoft, tommorow it will be (fill in the blanks).
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft never had to work hard for the money. Everyone jumped on the Windows/Office bandwagon. Not necessarily the best product, but everyone else was doing it, like a bunch of lemmings.
Look at Windows. How it is set up, how you install software, what safeguards there are. If you ever had worked on a mainframe computer and knew the kernel inside out, and knew good shop practices, you would be shocked and appalled that businesses have so readily adopted this ridiculous
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just simply not true. Microsoft has worked it ass off to convince the public it needs what its selling. That's been particularly difficult as Microsoft products have traditionally not been very innovative. So Microsoft has taken the tack of marketing the heck out of their product, and crushing the competition in the process.
Take the matter of the VisiOn GUI. Microsoft had nothing to compete. Zip, Zilch, Nada. So they see this VisiOn and realize that they'll soon be irrelevant. To counter this threat, Microsoft annouces that they will be releasing a product known as "Windows" Real Soon Now(TM). Everyone then puts off purchasing VisiOn while Microsoft goes and makes something up. Microsoft is late shipping (since they didn't actually have a product), and ends up bleeding Visi-Corp out of the market. Microsoft then delivers a steaming pile of software known as "Windows" which gains absolutely no foothold on the industry up until the point where it copies the Macintosh. Poorly.
Windows was then scheduled for demolition right up to the point where a couple of smart guys saved the company by getting Windows to run in 32 bit mode. Microsoft throws their marketing muscle behind this new version of "Windows", and the rest is history.
So in summary, Microsoft may be a lot of things. But lazy isn't one of them. Always give the devil his due, or you may get complacent.
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2)
That's just simply not true. Microsoft has worked it ass off to convince the public it needs what its selling. ... So in summary, Microsoft may be a lot of things. But lazy isn't one of them. Always give the devil his due, or you may get complacent.
I never said they were lazy, I said they never had to work hard for what they got. They issued Windows 95 and the rest is history.
"you make a grown man cry"
In
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2)
Why would they do this if they had not already jumped on the MS bandwagon?
Windows was then scheduled for demolition right up to the point where a couple of smart guys saved the company by getting Windows to run in 32 bit mode.
Um... OS/2? Those guys?
So in summary, Microsoft may be a lot of things. But lazy isn't one of them.
He didn't say they were lazy... he said they never had to work hard.
And... doing a lot of work isn't t
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:5, Interesting)
And of course Microsoft's enemies will be talked about - that's what Microsoft does, they fight. They move into an industry with established technology companies with the expressed purpose of taking it over by dumping wads of development cash into it and making their product tightly interoperable with the rest of the MS family. Microsoft moving into a new niche is a full-fledge onslaught to everyone else in that niche. No wonder they're famous for their enemies.
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is exactly the strategy of IBM, at least in the java world.
Look at the Websphere family - portal, content management, business integrator, etc. They are all supposedly standards compliant, but try to use any of them with any other standards compliant software. And have fun trying to get them to support Websphere running on any jvm besides theirs.
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2)
If I understand you correctly, I can think of a few counterexamples:
Powerpoint, Outlook, MSN (Messenger), Hotmail.
And on the Apple side, a lot of their apps are named just what they are:
Mail, Calculator, Address Book, etc.
I think it goes both ways.
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, they bought Powerpoint too - from a company called Forethought, back in 1987.
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? - Others! (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM has the "Chicklet" keyboard on the XT, which was funny if you like the Adams Gum.
DEC made the Rainbow.
Apple also made a PEAR. Not to mention the Lisa.
Coleco made the Adam.
Commodore is a naval rank... plus the Amiga is a friend. Hmm.
My cousin had an Odyssey video game system growing up.
How about Oracle?
Java?
Acrobat by Adobe?
Opera??
Oh, and bever mind the Palm Pilots!
It's hardly
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? - Others! (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM has the "Chicklet" keyboard on the XT, which was funny if you like the Adams Gum.
The chiclet keyboard was on the PCjr; the XT had a real keyboard. Moreover, it was a colloquial discriptive term of the time for that sort of crappy keyboard, not an official IBM moniker. See the Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org].
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2, Funny)
Boy am I glad I called that guy!
Edward G. Robinson (Score:4, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_G_Robinson [wikipedia.org]
Re:Microsoft's Biggest Threat? (Score:2, Interesting)
You don't know Bill.
Bill is like the world's most competitive businessman. He doesn't just sit on his la
Could be true (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Could be true (Score:5, Funny)
Foolishly Untrue Denunciation? (Score:2)
Hey, look over here!!! (Score:5, Funny)
So look over that way. And pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
(Sure Bill, we're all going to listen to you. *rolls eyes*)
Re:Hey, look over here!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the thing. When Bill speaks at these shindigs, everyone listens. I was lucky to get a seat when I was there. I don't think people go to see what great marvels he and his people behind the curtain have rigged up (and whether or not it will fail most spectacularly at the worst moment [blame it on cell phones, nobody in a real business environment is going to have those] *snicker*) They go to hear whether or not Microsoft is going to make a
Re:Hey, look over here!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
So Bill identifying IBM as his chief competitor is really a part of a smoke and mirrors game? Yeah, that's consistent with his past behavior.
So who IS Microsoft's most significant competitor? The Apache group? They've been encroaching on Microsoft turf for years, and just seem unstoppable. The Firefox people? They've only recently made any kind of dent in Microsoft's market share, but it has been a pretty big dent, and it is still getting bigger. How about OpenOffice.org? I've not seen any figures about m
Re:Hey, look over here!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Given IBM's use of FOSS and policies regarding OSS, if FOSS is the biggest MSFT threat, then IBM might just be their biggest competitor. People are thinking it was Google that was the threat, but they're keeping just enough of what runs Google Mail, Maps and Search private that they're not as big of a threat as a company that's not only constantly improving and adding to FOSS, but also marketing FOSS-based services and solutions to Microsoft's clients.
I
Re:Hey, look over here!!! (Score:3, Interesting)
Like I said, they [Microsoft] are their own greatest threat. All the things you mentioned are now serious threats to them because of the way they have done business.
I couldn't agree more.
In my considered opinion, based on watching them since the days of MSDOS, Microsoft's management has never made the transition from thinking like a small scale entrepreneur to the deliberations that drive big business. That is a transition they should have made at least a decade ago. For it has been that long at least
Revenue (Score:4, Insightful)
Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ? (Score:3, Insightful)
By the way, why is Bill Gates still so involved? I thought he left Microsoft a long time ago.
Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ? (Score:2)
You thought wrong. Bill Gates stepped down as CEO to "focus on being the Chief Engineer". Which is polito-speak for "there's too much attention/hated directed toward the CEO, so let's move him out of the way to give the company a new image". Gates pops out to give speeches whenever Microsoft wants to mislead the public. They probably figure that half the population listens to him because they hate him, and the other
Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ? (Score:2)
Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ? (Score:2, Insightful)
When you are Microsoft, everyone are your enemies, including your customers.
Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ? (Score:2)
Re:Does Bill think Everyone is a Fool ? (Score:5, Informative)
For a company that hates IBM... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For a company that hates IBM... (Score:2)
Oh noes! (Score:3, Funny)
Why would he tell the truth? (Score:2, Interesting)
Services and consulting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Services and consulting (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM is a hardware and services company, Microsoft is a proprietary software vendor. If you want to maximize your profits from service standpoint, the best route to go is to have a non-proprietary infrastructure ( like Linux
IBM the biggest threat... (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, where Microsoft's bullying business tactics don't have a way in? What think ye all?
Naah.... (Score:3)
This article http://www.forbes.com/technology/2005/09/26/ibm-so ftware-investments-cz_qh_092 [forbes.com]
Re:IBM the biggest threat... (Score:2)
IBM is very focused on what it wants, and what it doesn't want. I can't say that of Microsoft. IBM is also very disruptive in that is gives away lots of tech to customers, and even some competitors, in markets that IBM doesn't play in.
IBM is established, deeply, in one of Microsoft's main target markets, the Enterprise server space. IBM provides HW, SW, and servi
Re:IBM the biggest threat... (Score:2)
True, but there always squeaking SCO way.
IBMa threat, no... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:IBMa threat, no... (Score:2)
AND IBM is a prime mover behind Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
Then there's google.... Also a Linux user/proponent.
And apple insists on using Open Source (BSD) too....
So Microsoft's top-3 opponents are Open Source friendly companies.
See a pattern there?
If they TAKE OUT IBM??? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an interesting statement. Not only is it absurd to think that anyone will "take out" IBM any time soon (IBM has weathered lots of storms, and has adapted to every one of them) this mentality is very common when talking about Microsoft.
Balmer wants to kill Google. darkonc talkes about taking out IBM. This is legal business, not the mafia. Microsoft is out to go after competition and kill it in order to win all the chips. Others might think about wanting to kill their competiti
Re:AND IBM is a prime mover behind Linux (Score:2)
Perhaps there is a pattern, but I don't know that we are drawing the same conclusion:
I think Google chose it's software based on an extreme need to customize and control their environment; They are not in the software sales/distribution/consulting game, and OSS offered them a stable vehicle with which to kick-start their development.
Of the three, I think only Apple and IBM are direct competitors, and I think their decision to use OSS come
Envy (Score:5, Interesting)
And people wonder why we have a problem with happiness. This sort of envious greed is the main problem with Microsoft, and it looks like it goes all the way to the top.
Re:Envy (Score:2)
While I appreciate your point, Bill's biggest problem probably isn't envy as much as frustration that his company still hasn't become a recognized world power. MS might indeed operate on a par with the Standard Oil of the previous century, but apparently that level of play isn't enough to ensure global hegemony. Standard Oil had its head handed to it, and even mighty IBM still has to obey civil and criminal law. Is there no route
what a stupid thing to say (Score:2)
human nature has good apsects, bad aspects, and ugly aspects. if i were you, i'd familiarize myself with them, and accept them. but blissfully imagining you can ignore them doesn't have any value whatsoever to any discussion on the matter
it's like communism: it works fine, as long humans aren't greedy. except we are, so communism doesn't
Is bill gates an ego-driven individual? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it fascinating how he uses the term "I" when referring to the company he founded. I wonder how much of his motivation to succeed is pure ego driven. I always found it interesting how all these iconic leaders in silicon valley all know each other, and have all had personal interactions going back 20 years. The old question of whether or not bill and steve really dislike each other, and if that dislike stems from some initial interaction at a computer show in SF back in the 70's.
Strange indeed.
Bill knows all (Score:3, Insightful)
Does it annoy anyone else that as you read what Bill Gates says it tends to sound rather whiny and condescending? And what's with the waving of his hands in the air?
Why can't he just say that they have several strong competitors but they always try to do their best to create good products that will do A, B, and C?
Is there anything that Microsoft can't do, hasn't thought of, or has something in the works that is better than everyone else? Come on.
actual interview went like this: (Score:5, Funny)
Gates: [waving hands] You don't want to talk about that.
Reporter: I don't want to talk about that. Then how about your hottest competitors, Google, and Apple, and Linux is making inroads in...
Gates: Those aren't the companies you're looking for.
Reporter: Those aren't the companies I'm looking for.
Gates: Microsoft is a rock solid business. IBM is our competitor.
Reporter: Microsoft is a rock solid business. IBM is your competitor.
Gates: Move along. Next reporter.
Reporter: Move along... move along.
Give me a break. (Score:3, Insightful)
What if he had said something simpler but equivalent: "We have nothing to fear from Google." Would you believe that?
In other news, the Information Minister of Iraq claims that there are no Americans in Bagdad...
Size matters... (Score:5, Informative)
Google: Number of employees.. 4183 http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/facts.html [google.com]
Net earnings: $1.297 billion.
Revenus $5.25 billion
IBM: Number of employees...369277 http://www.networkworld.com/news/financial/ibm.htm l [networkworld.com]
Net earnings: $7.797 billion.
Revenues: $94 billion
MSFT: Number of employees... 57000 http://www.networkworld.com/news/financial/microso ft.html [networkworld.com]
Net earnings: 12.867 billion.
Revenues $40.340 billion
Re:Size matters... (Score:2)
Why is IBM so much more efficient than Microsoft and Google?
Re:Size matters... (Score:5, Interesting)
Google and MS are software companies. All they need is a few programmers to write some software, and they can duplicate that software and minimal cost and sell it millions of times over.
IBM is a consulting, maintenance, and support business. If you're hired to consult for someone, you actually have to send people there. Problem is, people can only be at one place, or do one thing at a time. Unlike software, you can't copy or clone or consultants, or have them in two places at once. If you get a new support contract, you have to hire additional support staff. If you get a new maintenance contract, you have to hire additional maintainers.
IBM sells people's labor. If they sell additional product, they have to hire addtional people - the cost is almost directly proportional.
Google and MS sell software. If they sell more software, they just print up a few more copies, or purchase additional bandwidth for downloads. The additional costs are minimal.
Re:Size matters... (Score:2)
From my POV, Google is a service company. They may expand to a software company with the Google Desktop and Google Earth and the like, but I see them as an advertising magnet by having the most popular search capabilities in the world, and selling advertising is where they are currently making money, not software sales.
Re:Size matters... (Score:2)
What is the marginal cost for one more product from each of these companies? For Google and Microsoft, one more ad served or one more cd pressed has a tiny marginal cost, once they hit a certain number, each sale is almost pure profit. Then look at IBM which actually sells expensive computers which have a significant marginal cost, and who also bring in huge amounts of revenue from their consulting divisions (IGS,BCS,...) which also h
IBM is a support and service company (Score:2)
Re:Size matters... (Score:2)
Microsoft and Google have little more than fixed costs, so once they pay off the initial development cost, it's pure profit. IBM will never have such a good earnings-to-revenue or earnings-to-employee ratio as long as they rely on consulting.
Re:Size matters... (Score:2)
Microsoft is a monopoly
IBM is not.
This is unhealthy for our economies as it points to a huge waste of resources being spent on someone's software.
Re:Size matters... (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft has a pair of businesses that currently yield ridiculous profit margins, Windows and MS Office. IBM has quite a few businesses, some of which are also ridiculously profitable, but most of which are merely very profitable. The most important of these businesses, in recent years anyway, is IBM's service and support business. Service and support will never generate the profit margins that Windows and MS Office provide, but it's a good business nonetheless, and it is a business with critical strategic importance. Here's an example of why IBM is truly Microsoft's biggest threat.
Let's say, for example, that you are the CIO of a really big company or a large government institution, like a U.S. State, and you are concerned about what it is going to cost to upgrade 50,000 machines from Windows 2000 and Office 2003 to Windows Vista and MS Office 12. What's more, you would really like to have one central repository for all of your documents. Something that integrates with email, has a web portal, and is easily accessible to thousands of workers at the same time. So you talk to your service and support vendor (IBM), and you ask your rep what he can do for you. Well, it turns out that IBM has this nifty new portal software called IBM Workplace and it can be used with OpenOffice.org for a fraction of the cost of upgrading to Office 12. What's more, the software is compatible with Linux thin clients and so if you have desktops that don't need a lot of bells and whistles you can replace those expensive PCs with easy to manage thin clients and save a bundle. Not only do you end up with a better system overall, but you save millions of dollars in Microsoft upgrades in the process. What's more, IBM has the resources to guarantee that you don't have to worry about whether the system will work or not. The system is going to work slick. In fact, IBM is probably going to be willing to cut you a deal on the software so that IBM reps can use your installation as a showcase.
Part of the reason that Microsoft can make such ridiculous profit margins is that Microsoft relies on its partners (like IBM) to carry the expense of actually selling and supporting Microsoft software. Microsoft made a conscious choice to stay out of the sales, service, and support businesses for its software because these low margin businesses would have lowered Microsoft's aggregate profit margins dramatically. Microsoft could have become like IBM and built its own service and support arm, but instead it concentrated on the much higher margin business of selling software licenses. That worked fine in the past, but IBM makes software as well. Now IBM has every incentive to cut Microsoft out of the picture in every single one of IBM's many service contracts. Thanks to Microsoft's ridiculous profit margins there is even plenty of fat to cut.
That's why Microsoft has been concentrating so heavily on its service, support, and sales arms. Microsoft has finally realized that its primary customers (OEMs and sales and service organizations) all would be better off if there was a little more competition in the operating system and office suite markets. So now Microsoft wants to start dealing directly with end users. Unfortunately for Microsoft it can't move too quickly because if it does it risks alienating partners that it needs very badly. If Microsoft is successful the finished Microsoft product will look a lot more like the IBM of today. If Microsoft is unsuccessful then it will probably die.
Google is really in the same boat. It currently can demand high profit margins because of the amount of traffic that it can drive. However, Google's success is predicated entirely on Microsoft not using its desktop and web browser marketshare to drive more search results its way. To compete successfully with Microsoft (and Yahoo) in the long run term Google is going to have to invest plenty more.
IBM makes for a convenient top competitor (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can understand Bill being envious of the revenue stream of IBM, but the number of employees? My word he must be planning on world domination by being in every aspect of your life and to do so he's gonna need a lot larger of a workforce. I can just see Steve sitting in Bill's office with a conversation that hails from the days of the Animaniacs:
Bill: "Stevie, are you thinking what I'm thinking?"
Steve: "I think so Bill, b
Wrong threat model (Score:3, Insightful)
ACLs don't cut it in an age of mobile code and 10,000,000 line programs. You can't trust applications, no matter how careful you are. You shouldn't have to, either.
--Mike--
Actually, he's probably right. (Score:5, Informative)
Other things going for them:
- They killed their low-margin PC business. Love it or hate it, it definitely boosted their profit margin.
- IBM is one of the only companies still doing pure scientific/technology research. Microsoft is one of these companies too, but it's definitely time for the "next big thing." The PC revolution started in 1980, and it's 2005 now. If I were a technology company, especially one who wanted to keep their competitive edge, I'd be betting BIG on research. The only other big reseatch operations outside of universities that I know of are IBM, AT&T Labs and Microsoft. I'm sure there are other smaller operations, but not on the same grand scale.
- They still have one of the best server lines out there.
- They're big proponents of open source stuff. No matter how the whole OSS movement shakes out over the next few years, they're ideally positioned. Almost all their proprietary products can run on both closed- and open-source systems.
He is right (Score:5, Interesting)
If this is correct, then it follows that Microsoft may well have concluded that their cosy world of pay-for software has peaked and will now start to decline no matter what they do, so they are preparing to reposition themselves. Admittedly the great man's sour tone and strange diction don't help.
believe nothing he says (Score:2)
So, when Gates says that IBM is their biggest threat, it may
Why is MS the customer of their biggest rival? (Score:2)
Microsoft is being hit by a triple threat. (Score:5, Interesting)
Biggest threat? Lack of diversification... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also they bring in revenue from many many areas... when mainframes were threatened... they looked to PCs, as400, rs6000. How did they look to resurrect mainframes and as400? Introduce linux into their respective LPARs.
When customers talk about moving from one platform (windows) to the next (linux).. IBM says "no problem, use our hardware, and leverage our services." Getting rid of big iron unix boxes to go with hundreds of tiny 1U servers "how about using our blades..." Getting rid of your old SSA storage? "We'll help put in fibre channel switches..."
And don't forget about their microelectronics division... it's not just powerPC, but many companies send their designs to IBM for fabrication of custom ASICs.
IBM has always been a 'soup to nuts' company, MSFT on the other hand... is having trouble diversifying..
Their core business is windows and MSFT applications (office, SQL), but they are having trouble diversifying... They've gone to advertising (MSN), and home entertainment (Xbox), but they haven't had to survive losing one of their primary technologies (remember: IBM used to live off of mainframes). They do have services, and certifications, but I would guess those are pennies compared to OS and applications.
MSFT needs to diversify (yet we blame Google for not diversifying)...
Attention Google Fanboys (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM on the other hand, is the largest service sector company and the largest IT company. IBM's rock solid line of servers provide a much larger push for Unix-based systems (not just IBM's AIX, but really any of them) than does Google's use of FOSS in their products, or Summer of Code. Furthermore, IBM is by far the strongest presence in the HPC market, which as Bill indicated previously, is something MS wants to get into. We've also seen that IBM consistently produces great software (DB2, Business and Commerce software, OS, Application Server, and much more) as well as hardware (their hardware line includes complete server solutions, processors, storage systems, etc.) and is capable of using only its own products end-to-end.
Thus, it is appropriate to say that IBM is a bigger threat to MS than is Google.
PS: Google's market cap is not a reflection on its strength or presence so don't bring that up as a figure plz.
Re:Attention Google Fanboys (Score:3, Interesting)
I would say that Microsoft isn't effectively competing with Google at all. MSN search is pretty much a joke that, as you said Microsoft doesn't even take seriously. Conversly Microsoft is only competing against a tiny sliver of IBM. Microsoft's main market is in two areas, desktop OS and Office Suite. Apple and Linux are the only desktop OS's out there to compete against Microsoft and Open Of
all out war (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course IBM is the biggest threat ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The threat became apparent when IBM and/or Novell began asking for discovery regarding the Microsoft purchase of an "Unix" license from SCO to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.
If IBM can prove that Microsoft funded the frivolous SCO lawsuits then Microsoft is in deep, deep trouble. It could easily cost them billions of dollars and some executives could see jail time.
BillG used to be *nice* at IBM (Score:3, Informative)
Re:awesome (Score:2)
Re:awesome (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. Part of the reason it's so high is because Google refuses to split, a la Warren Buffett. This has its benefits, (for example, a higher level of institutional vs retail ownership) [bloomberg.com]
Re:awesome (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:awesome (Score:2)
I see your point. I'm not sure that they are worth 132 billion dollars, no.
Re:awesome (Score:2)
Look it up on Google
Re:awesome (Score:2)
Re:awesome (Score:2)
Re:awesome (Score:2)
Second, Google is not primarily a search engine (except to the end user), any more than Walmart is a producer of engine oil.
Google is an advertising placement agency, a marketing company, and an information broker. The search engine is just a delivery mechanism for their primary product, which is advertising and marketing for their clients.
New religion (Score:2)
I think the criticism of the $600 share price is that a hell of lot has to go right for a hell of a long time to justify it, given current revenue and earnings.
Google's market capitalization is now about 20 times annual revenue, based on last quarter's results. That's steep - most market cap's are between 1 and 3 times annual revenue. People must expect Google's revenue to increase by at least 10
Re:It's obviously Tux (Score:2)
I think it's called morale.
Re:If I ran Microsoft (Score:2)
It would benefit them, and it would benefit the market. Everybody would be happy, except for all the execs that have gotten comfo
Re:If I ran Microsoft (Score:2)
gotten comfortable with winning by throwing money and unrelated market share at a problem
Don't forget a few chairs were thrown at problems as well.
"what they used to be good at"!?? (Score:2)
What Microsoft was really good at was strong-arming OEMs into selling their OS. That's it. Microsoft's a school yard bully.
They're aren't innovative.
They're aren't into quality. (They're products are always crap until version 3.1 anything. If they hadn't been able to strong-arm enough OEMs and build up a huge cash reserve, they would have been history back in the
Diversification (Score:2)
Unless you can predict the future this is a decent strategy. They are feeling out the market in a bunch of different areas and figuring out where to make a profit. You lose money on some ventures, gain money
Re:In all seriousness, his biggest threat is... (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft's security hype is not solving the problem with real corporate down time due to the latest virus/worm/trojan. I think nobody seriously beleives Microsoft can solve their security issues, but so far they've managed to convince customers that this is the way computers are, that th
Re:xbox 360 cpu? (Score:2)
Put the crack pipe down and back away slowly . . . (Score:2)
You mean like SuSE LINUX?
Re:And once trusted you... (Score:2)
IBM didn't particularly care for Microsoft one way or another. With the DOJ's antitrust lawsuit and the lack of internal resources, IBM outsourced the OS of what they considered to be a low margin toy. There was no trust, nor friendship to betray. IBM used Microsoft, and Microsoft cashed some large checks.
IBM was in the driver's seat, but
Re:threat to MSFT (Score:2)
Re:threat to MSFT (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Xbox (Score:4, Insightful)
Does MSFT make chips? No. Does MSFT make most of thier money from XBox? Any, even?
That brings me to another point, shouldn't IBM be suffering pretty hard now that Apple is moving to Intel for its chips? That must have been a large source of income for IBM
Not according to IBM, and it's probably true. They didn't even make all of the chips Apple uses/used... Freescale ( formerly of Motorola ) still makes the G4s that are in all Mac minis, iBooks and Powerbooks. IBM only supplied the desktop iMac and PowerMac G5 chips. IBM screwed up targets for the G5 badly enough ( remember they were supposed to be at 3 GHz *when*??? ) that they might not have been making much at all depending on what the Apple contract looked like. For whatever reason, volume or contracts, IBM by all accounts won't notice Apple is missing, at least not until Apple sells a lot more high-end desktops that might have used IBM chips.
MSFT properly sees IBM's software business as supporting it's chip business, not the other way around, and would be all too happy to see IBM shift toward the chip business... as a client of MSFT. They're not a competitor in that field. MSFT will not, however, be buying consulting services and Linux blade servers from IBM - they compete in the software and services fields. Apple needed a chip supplier motivated to create great laptop and desktop chips; buying from suppliers who are primarily invested in small devices ( like routers ) and room-warming servers ( like Power blades ) wasn't getting them what they wanted. By all accounts, IBM and Freescale lost a difficult customer and a little bit of clout, but not a lot of revenue, when Apple left ( or well, leaves, it hasn't actually happened yet ).