Be:Niche or Competitor? 99
Aaron Tunnell writes
"Once again Microsoft has used Be and BeOS as a answer
for the governments continued attack on the software giant,
Be has had enough and in a public statement
reaffirmed that
it is not marketing nor does it strive to be a Microsoft
replacement, but a niche market product for digital media
creation. It also said that it would like Microsoft to
stop its continued references to Be as a rival to the OS
giant. Read more link "
Be good (Score:1)
l
Will anyone buy this? (Score:1)
Off topic...is there a way to edit may account? If I could I'd use it again. Maybe I should just make a new one.
Robert Dowden wishing he wasn't an AC
Linux community needs to make a similar statement (Score:1)
Be would be a threat to M$ in a fair market (Score:1)
In a sense, MS is right, as the technology of BeOS would annihilate Windows if all other factors were equal (public visibility, cooperation from hardware vendors, availability of applications, etc.)
However, at this time MS is just using Be as part of a lame "Windows isn't a monopoly" excuse.
Oh, I feel soooo sorrrrry for MS - their "nice, friendly OS" is in such grave danger of being eliminated by a BIG, BAD competitor (never mind that Be only has 80 employees).
M$ is the epitome of sleaze. I'm sure their company includes plenty of smart, nice people, but many of their business practices are unconscionable. I hope the DOJ nails 'em to the wall.
Dashing my hopes (Score:1)
I spent 4 hours this weekend trying to hunt down a retail copy of R4, but no one has it.
BeOS a contender? Not even remotely.
Regards,
Anonymous "Bucky" Coward, III
BeOS, Gassee, and CRAP (Score:1)
Point 2: BeOS sucks.
"Oh look, it doesn't crash! Those guys at BeOS are so cool!!!" Yeah, and it's a single user only system. "But it's only meant to be a single user system!!" Fine, cut yourself at the knees; take away choice. Forget about a clean permissions system to allow your buddy at the office to use your machine. And your kid. And any network user. In a rapidly networking world. Yup, BeOS is just cool enough to implement an early 1960's OS design. For fuck's sake, they could just license the BSD source and write their own graphics libs -- but you can't do that when you're the old school, closed-source mindset("must own everything... must own everything...").
Point 3: Gassee's a dork
He was one the chosen few allowed to play around with Apple in it's dying days. The CEO, Scully, was like, "hey, I don't know anything about this business. want the reins for 6 months?" Gassee made the brilliant business decision of telling Apple to ignore the home market, to focus the business market. This was a _*bad*_ idea; check the context.
Point 4: Fanatics.
Don't get me started.
Going about this all wrong. (Score:1)
What if the government required all OEMs which sold over a particular number, say $10 million in sales, of computers each year to carry at least two operating systems, available to consumers at the same price. The OEMs could choose whatever OSs they want, as long as they come from different vendors. For example, Windows95, WindowsNT, and Red Hat Linux (or Be, DrDOS, whatever).
Of course, that won't solve it there, but since Microsoft hasn't changed it's prices for a *long* time, the government can force Microsoft (and all vendors for that matter) to charge a certain amount. Just like Airline regulation in the 70s! No seriously, obviously Microsoft isn't forcing down prices so why don't we just make them not force prices down?
Obviously it needs work, but what do y'all think?
disable HTML reading... (Score:1)
What's going to happen if Microsfot loses anyways? (Score:1)
I mean, what? Microsfot will ship an IE-less Windows 98/Win2k? That doesn't hurt them, Netscape is already dead(err..bought by AOL..same thing). I just don't see what could really happen that would make Microsoft a "loser" in this trial.
If Microsoft loses, there will be no "punishment" -- Microsoft is not a person, so the action, government will take, is not predefined by any law, it can be anything that fixes the damage, and damage is enormous, it can be evaluated as more than Microsoft, Gates, or whatever else can pay in any form. The goal is the elimination of Microsoft's current position on the market because there is no reasonable way to fix situation while keeping Microsoft continuing this practice, and it will make no point for government to do anything less than that.
However if it will be done, Microsoft will be unable to compete at all -- it will either die (what will be well deserved), or become completely different, and definitely not as powerful kind of company (what will be enough to bring enough sanity back into the situation to let others fix things).
Be:Honest and Cynical (Score:1)
I'm sorry, Be is a real competitor? Isn't that a little like the local electric company calling the
guy with the bike generator real competition? I don't think Be qualifies as a real competitor. They do make a real nifty OS, but if microsoft is going to highlight them on center stage, then they should also add the little asterix that indicates market share. From that perspective Be isn't even a blip on the horizon compared to microsoft. As far as competitors are concerned I doubt Microsoft even knew they existed before they desperately needed to find some evidence that they did have competition to support their "we are not a monopoly" case.
Guess that means I weigh in on the real cynical side of this equation. If Be was truly a competitor, Microsoft would already have invested a boatload of money in them to help keep them alive (SEE APPLE). And those cute blue boxes that used to pepper the original Be site would at least be recognized by the non high-geek population.
Way to go Be... (Score:1)
Tell 'em...
--
Chris Stoffel
Webmaster - Positively Pixar [ourfamily.nu]
Of course they're a competitor to Microsoft (Score:1)
hell microsoft wants a computer in every bedroom and shower stall, not just every desk... but screw microsoft. im glad Be is telling it how it is.
Game Machine... Emulators are the future (Score:1)
Funny, I'm running UltraHLE in Linux as I write this, with perfect sound and visual quality.
Ah, the wonders of WINE.
-W.W.
Linux community needs to make a similar statement (Score:1)
OTOH, we do aim to be a MS competitor in every way possible, with servers being our current forte. But it says a lot that one of the only viable all-around competitors to Windows is completely free and is the labor of love of thousands of programmars who are rarely compensated in a direct monetary fashion for their work.
Linux community needs to make a similar statement (Score:1)
Already, this proves that shells are not integrated into the OS. True, in almost all cases they are a necessary application, but it's not saying that bash and not tcsh is THE only shell you can use with Linux and work.
Microsoft is saying that their OS won't work without IE. They're not saying it's useless w/o a browser, they're saying IE. Plus, you should be able to remove your browser if you don't care about reading HTML. MS says you cannot do this with IE because it's integrated.
Linux community needs to make a similar statement (Score:1)
Microsoft's creating trouble for itself (Score:1)
Microsoft is digging itself a HUGE hole, and one of these days, it's going to fall in. IMHO, that kind of fall would be undeserved, but entirely self-inflicted.
*SIGH*
Be would be a threat to M$ in a fair market (Score:1)
scottwimer
Of course they're a competitor to Microsoft (Score:1)
Of course, the judge would do well to keep in mind that "victory" for Be constitutes grabbing and holding that 5% market niche, not dethroning MS.
BeOS, Gassee, and CRAP (Score:1)
BeOS, Gassee, and CRAP (Score:1)
You fuckstain. It figures you would ignore all the content and skip to the iMac slam. Don't call Apple's current situation a Comeback in any way/shape/form. Very few people, including their stockholders, believe that their little sliver of marketshare will last at all..
Of course the Mac devotees are going to say "People have said that Apple has been going out of business for 10 years.."
Not just the GUI... (Score:1)
If we had the Be object tree on Linux, it would be something I'd be interested in developing for.
Take it back (Score:1)
R4 is a great improvement over R3.2, and as an R3.2 owner, you can get an upgrade for less than $30.
However, we are the first to admit that not everyone will have a smooth experience with BeOS. This is why we offer a no-questions-asked money-back guarantee. If you don't like BeOS for any reason, return it, and we'll give you your money back. (We won't even make you play legal games with the license.) Whether our product addresses our customer's needs or not, we want them in any case to get a fair deal.
Schwab
(not really speaking for Be)
Game Machine... Emulators are the future (Score:1)
Web browser in the OS. (Score:1)
1. Replaced their per CPU licenses with per model licenses.
2. Intentionally polluted Java in an attempt to lock developers to the Win32 environment.
3. Forced OEMs to bundle IE with Windows 95, which clearly did not require IE.
4. Prior to #3, MS explicitly told Netscape that if they didn't play ball, MS would crush Netscape.
The list goes on, but I it seems clear to me that MS illegally exploits their monopoly position.
I don't think the major issue in the DOJ case is that MS "gave away" the browser. The issue is that MS forced OEMs to use IE as the primary browser on the desktop (especially for Windows 95 OSR2). Microsoft's assertion that IE is part of the OS is absurd, IE is an application that is used by the desktop and other MS applications. It would be fine to say that in order for the MS desktop to work, you need these IE DLLs, but that's not what MS did. They said "if you don't configure windows to use IE as the default browser, you can't ship Windows." Compaq, Dell, etc., should be allowed to ship Netscape as the primary browser if they choose.
I need Gtk+ to run Gnome, that does not make Gimp "part of the OS." I hope MS is found guilty of exploiting their position and I hope the US government stays out of the OS design business...
Déja vu, but... (Score:1)
We've already seen the Be press release on /.
However... Many people have long thought that ZD was in Bill Gates' hip pocket. This article would tend to corroborate that. ZD hack. On MSNBC. Mmm hmm.
And did you get a load of the first sentence?
Oh, I don't think so. "A little attention" means that Bill is toying with "embrace, extend, extinguish".
Linux community needs to make a similar statement (Score:1)
Maybe the government should stop chasing this goddam RED HERRING and concentrate on the OEM lockins, vaporware strikes, and strategic buyouts and STOP TELLING ANYONE HOW TO BUILD THE GODDAM OS.
But of course as long as they're after The Enemy, the government is The Good Guy. What simpletons.
Going about this all wrong. (Score:1)
Stop right there. The OEMs are not on trial here. The day Linux is put under a mandatory quota to "help it out" is the day I club the penguin over the head and toss his sorry fdisked carcass off my drive forever.
Be:Honest and Cynical (Score:2)
The cynical answer is that Be is nothing more than a catalyst to get the OS market to mature. With nonexistant market share, and press and brainshare moving towards linux, its nearly impossible for them to get much attention these days.
Biggest computer lie ever (Score:1)
May I politely say, bull****. That desktop computers don't need to be reliable and fail to crash is the biggest computing lie ever inflicted on the public. There is no reason that ANY computer should spontaniously crash, shy of electrical failure or component malfunction.
Why Be? (Score:1)
Won't MacOS X/Rhapsody eat it for lunch? Thanks to Carbon, Apple should have a strong, stable "Media OS" with an excellent track record and tons of applications.
BeOS sounds like a great system, but I don't see how it can beat the one-two punch of MacOS X (for the Media People) and Linux (for the geeks).
D
Maybe that is their reason for Be-ing? (Score:1)
I would *LOVE* to see the BeOS running on G3's! I was never a big PowerPC fan because the only OS that really ran on them was the bloated MacOS, which I would Insanely Hate to use that much. (I know, don't start pestering me about Linux...)
So, due to Apple's fear of competition, I doubt that BeOS/PPC has much of a future. This irks me beyond belief. The BeOS is really really cool... why does Be's future have to be on an architecture that so clearly belongs in the past?
- Slarty
BeOS is not still in development (Beta) phase. (Score:1)
Other than that, it's rock solid. I can crash NetPositive reliably by opening up the admin stats page on Legions and resizing it... that page has LOTS of tables. But it never takes the OS down.
I do lots of BeOS dev work, and my programs have had their share of nasty crashes... I think that I can claim to have stress tested it more than the average user.
- Slarty
What's going to happen if Microsfot loses anyways? (Score:1)
I mean, Windows in STILL going to be on 9 out of 10 desktops, it's STILL going to be a monopoly. So take out the bad press(and any press is good press) and it's a win-win situation for Microsoft.
I mean, what? Microsfot will ship an IE-less Windows 98/Win2k? That doesn't hurt them, Netscape is already dead(err..bought by AOL..same thing). I just don't see what could really happen that would make Microsoft a "loser" in this trial.
And for everyone that says they will open-source Windows, it's not going to happen.
Stability (Score:1)
Under normal use, BeOS won't destabilize. Applications also have a very hard time taking down the entire OS, unlike Windows.
However, if you start calling drivers directly, you can wedge the system fairly easily by tying up semaphores. A fork bomb also works quite well. I'm told that memory protection leaves a bit to be desired too, though it certainly seems more stable than Windows in that regard (it survives segmentation faults).
Bear in mind that BeOS is still an OS in development. All of the "R#" releases are preludes to version 1.0. That having been said, however, I doubt that it will ever have quite as much bulletproofing as a good Unix variant, because it's intended for the single user/home user market (as opposed to servers).
I personally think that it looks neat, has a nice interface, is easy to write applications for, and is reasonably efficient. SMP was also handled quite well on the machines that I've tested it with (negligeable overhead, unlike Windows). Unix is still my environment of choice for stability, but I think that BeOS would be a wonderful replacement for Windows for the average home user, once the 3D drivers are finished and there are more 3rd-party applications available (there are still several now).
Games on BeOS (Score:1)
Anything that has source available could be ported fairly easily, as the BeOS graphics API is reasonably nice and quite easy to use. There's even software OpenGL if you want it.
I doubt that Be will be doing ports itself, as they are all quite busy developing the OS, and this is a relatively low-priority item. However, they seem to actively embrace third-party software for their system (check the BeWare pages on their web site), so any game ports should be welcome.
Hardware OpenGL support would make porting 3D games extremely easy. R5 is probably a good estimate for the timeline for this, as someone already posted.
Be as a contender (Score:1)
Re. open source for development, from what I've seen Be is actively embracing third-party developers, for applications, at least. Check out the BeWare pages on their site for a list of third-party applications. The API is quite easy to write for, is reasonably clean, and isn't hidden (heck, all of the headers are in
IMO, forcing the OS itself to be open source would just remove the ability of BeOS to develop it, as they'd have trouble finding investors if the product isn't going to produce revenue.
Re. driver development, that's being worked on by both internal and external developers. Development could be faster, but it's adequate IMO.
Re. being a contender in the desktop market, I think that BeOS most certainly is. The interface is nice-looking and easy to use. There aren't any obvious drains on processing performance that I can find. The API is reasonably clean and is easy to write for. All you need is 3D accelleration, and you have the perfect platform for Joe Average User. Hardware accellerated 3D will probably be out for R5.x, IMO. You can already call a software OpenGL library as it stands.
I agree that Be is probably being wise in not calling this a competitor to Windows, but IMO it's still a very good one (though hard-core programmers will still prefer Linux).
Linux community would be lying. (Score:1)
So, I'd rather that the Linux community leave perjury to Microsoft
Yes, it's single-user. (Score:1)
MS is trying to win a PR battle.... (Score:2)
MS has a couple major things going for them. One of which is that since Windows is the standard desktop OS and most consumers demand it from OEMs, they are able to exert a great deal of influence over those OEMs. The OEMs' profit margins these days are very thin, and everyone knows that they can't sell if they don't preinstall Windows. MS basically tells these OEMs what they should do, or MS will charge them more then their competitors. A couple bucks might not sound like much, but to these OEMs it is a big deal. Like it or not, few people are going to spend money to try installing an operating system on their own with unknown results.
Another advantage is that MS also has control over most of the standard applications. People want and need these applications. It is very hard for competitors because MS doesn't disclose their entire API. In fact, MS does just the opposite. They alter windows in little undisclosed ways to make the competitors products crash and operate slower. Companies like Be may have a superior OS, but they simply don't have the applications yet. Without a significant market share no one is going to develop strong applications for the alternative platforms. Also, without well recognized competitive applications to Office* and the like, there is no competitor who can port their killer app and lend clout to the likes of BeOS.
MS has their competitors by the balls in significant ways. These are just two barriers to entry. If I were the DoJ, I would demand the following:
a) If MS wishes to produce both applications and the operating system that they run on, they should be forced to fully disclose their API and the like. Furthermore, MS should have to pay for a full time arbritation board composed of people who are familiar with the software industry and who have full legal authority to make key decisions. My reasoning for this is simple. I do think government regulation of the software industry could indeed be very harmful. MS can argue this effectively. For example, lets say if the government introduces a new law that seperates software application firms from operating system firms. There is a strong argument that it is neccessary for the operating system firm to produce applications for their OS initially. To both demonstrate the potential of the OS, and to provide atleast some reasonably productive products. My proposal would atleast level the playing field for the most part.
b) That MS be prohibited from using any discriminative pricing amongst OEMs. The argument of economies of scale simply do not apply to such software distribution. The ability to price OEMs differently, with little to no immediate regulation, allows MS to use the stick and carrot approach with OEMs such that the OEMs sell as they wish. This simply can not be allowed. Whatever arguments can be made for such pricing, pales in comparison to the draw backs for society and for the OEMs.
Although this does not address every problem with the beast that is MS. It addresses two of the most significant problems with MS.
Maybe that is their reason for Be-ing? (Score:1)
Now MS is paying for Apple's SuperBowl ad, and Be says it is NOT a contender.
Methinks the alternative OS doth protest too much.
Another solution idea. (Score:1)
What if the Feds were to step up to the plate again with a new initiative; All operating systems on Federal purchase orders must have a retail shelf price of $30.00 or less. Already Linux and *BSD are freebies, and I'm certain Be would negotiate with a bonanza like that offered.
If Microsoft does play ball; The prices come crashing down to Earth! MS would start unbundling their OSes to make money the stuff that should be separate in the first place, best of breed software returns. OEMs have a set low price no matter which OS they choose to offer. MS loses it's ability to threaten price increases.
If Microsoft doesn't play ball; Linux, BeOS and their ilk start appearing on lots of computers. With a huge market created, it's fair to assume that many new programmers (plus the reassigned Government coders) and companies will release more applications and drivers. It would be the snowball effect that Windows currently benefits from.
Either way; Other countries and Fortune 500s, would monitor the outcome closely. A major precedent will have been made and it would only be a matter of time before the world followed. This defiantly would need to be a phased in program, (unless Microsoft agreed the same day) and there would still be teething problems, but a lot of Taxpayers money would be saved.
There would be no need for Government regulation. If Microsoft (or any other vender) doesn't wish to sell at that price, then they should leave to tender bidding to competitors that will. US Capitalism would have an opportunity to save face.
Mainframes would be a harder lot to lump into this equation, but with the value of service contracts spanning over several years, IBM could probably give the OS away.
More stable than Linux? (Score:1)
Lack of apps (Score:1)
I would be truely sad if Be went down....it would be nice to see them open source it if it died, but thats still a hollow win. I would rather them OS it and still keep activly developing it....but that might not be fesable. I'm just sick of seing superior technologies die due to the mass stupidity of the average buyer, and lets face it, if the average buyer is not using an OS, then it will be religated to a niche role, always playing second fiddle in terms of applications and the like (though linux seem to be changing this somewhat)....it really would be nice to be able to run everything I do one one os....curretnly I'm booting between three. Windoze for games, Linux for actually doing stuff and Be for shits and giggles. I've said it before and I'll say it again....if Be and Linux could somehow be merged....than the resulting combo would simply take over the world.
I actually think that Be is striking a good median between OSS and propiratory. Some of its code and much of its developement community is OSS, and the API is open (I don't code, probably the only
BeOS, Gassee, and CRAP (Score:1)
Point 2: Stability is only on of Be's strenghs, it is also extremely fast, has an extremely clean interface, and supposadly has a great API. Multiuser is nice, but really not needed for most people. I, for instance, have almost no need for it. BTW, at some point I believe Be was intended to be multiuser, the home directory remains, but I think they ditched mutiuser plans....anyone know more about this?
Point 3: Who cares the CEO, its the product that counts. Yeah, I've heard bad things about Gassee too, there was a Wired article several years ago that was scathing...hey, maybe he learned from his mistakes.
Point 4: Well, yeah, fanatics suck....but most Be users are, in my experience, far more reasonable than most fanatics....all OS's, even the crappy ones, have fanatics......and their annoyingness transcends to OS.
Be as a contender (Score:2)
None of this matters, if the superior product would have one in the market place, the world would be running OS/2 right now rather than windows.
Be would make a better destop os than any windows products, however I have a feeling that Be calls itself a niche as it is trying to avoid falling under the wanton eyes of Microsoft. But lets fact it, what desktop application would not benefit from the advantages of a mediaOS....basically means it runs stuff faster than hell (no, it is not a good server OS)
I just really with it was open source, not that I think that everything in this world has to be open source, but being open source would solve many of Be's problems, such as lack of HW support and a more active developor community creating and porting software to it. There already is a certain OSS feel to alot of Be software, alot of it is open, however it definetly lacks the vigor of something like Linux...
I'm not sure of the dates, but Be was around long before MS started investing in Apple...I think its atleast acouple years old. Its CEO and founder used to be an Apple bigwig...I dont know about the rest of the people there though.
Brian
Go Be Inc! (Score:1)
Folks, if you are gonna buy a commercial os (No, Linux will NEVER fully cover the world), buy BeOS, AmigaOS, or OS-X/server.
P.S. Remember how much money Standard Oil gained FULLY after dividing? Yeah, MS is an even bigger threat...
BeOS (Score:1)
Dashing my hopes (Score:1)
Linux community needs to make a similar statement (Score:1)
Dear Mr. Bill, (Score:1)