Ballmer, Gates on Microsoft's Future 582
RoadFever writes: "At the Microsoft shareholders meeting, CEO Ballmer acknowledged they may have a popularity bug. "We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry," Ballmer said.
There's a summary article in the Seattle Times and more stuff on the Microsoft investor relations page.
Will words translate to action? Well, the company might want to start by toning down the habit of taking credit for every innovation: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines," Gates said." The question-and-answer session near the end of the meeting has the most juicy quotes.
innovation? (Score:2, Insightful)
The Internet... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The Internet... (Score:3, Interesting)
It makes me remember when Mr. Gates said that internet is too dumb to be successful.
Tell me do you remember?
It also remembers me when Mr. Gates stole Pen-Computing technology from a young-innocent-guy who thought he could trust a company like Microsoft
Yep, there are lots of stories about these things.
Driving people to open source (Score:5, Insightful)
So wat he's saying is that the mass adoption of their inflexible software has driven people to create open products that will meet their needs, or am I misinterpreting him ? ;)
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:5, Insightful)
I was trying to figure this one out myself. My best guess is that thinks Open Source requires commodity hardware, and figures that Microsoft helped to create the commodity PC platform.
I'll grant that MS helped to create the PC (although it wasn't entirely their doing by any means - Intel and IBM certainly had a role to play), I'm at a loss as to why this would be relavent to Open Source. Free/Open Source software tends to be much more cross-platform than proprietary stuff, so it's a pretty bizarre statement.
Could it be that Bill still doesn't get this whole Free Software thing? Can he really be that clueless about the non-Wintel universe?
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as Bill being clueless- remember any large Corporation's PR stuff is like a big card game. Bill and Co. are very, very smart no matter how evil they may or may not be. Don't think for a second that Bill hasn't thought through the whole OSS movement.
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:4, Funny)
standards-based system of software (Office, Windows, etc)
Something in this sentence does not beling.
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:3, Flamebait)
That is exactly what he's saying. What astoundingly large cajones on that filthy bastard. He must have his Armani trousers specially fitted.
If OSS rides on the coat-tails of anything, it's the global collaboration that the Internet makes possible - and we all know how large a role Microsoft played in that.
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:2)
Fortunately for him, he has done a number of things to overcome these issues. He's usually burried the people that don't like his company, and improved his product so that most people like it.
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:3, Insightful)
As most people would agree, it was the Internet that commoditized network service protocols, and OSS that built on that base to offer true cross-platform compatibility. Bill's products discourage the use of non-Intel processors, whereas OSS works on just about anything.
Of course, Bill neglects to mention that Microsoft was slow to adopt the Internet, at a time when OSS was already there. Who is imitating who?
When I hear Bill take credit for industry standardization it's like having Osama bin Laden take credit for world peace or Al Gore inventing the Internet.
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:2, Interesting)
Surely one of the main reasons for open source is because there is such a diversity of similar but not identical hardware, having the source code means you can probably get it to run.
In fact, he was talking complete and utter crap. The PC is the least standard platform available. the only parts that are consistent are the CPU instruction set (which is hardly relevent since virtually everything is written in C and can be recompiled), and the VGA registers - which are now pretty much obsolete and used only as a fallback. There are at least a dozen different types of network hardware, a vast number of sound cards, a quite a lot of different quirks in the motherboards. Identical? Like hell!
Microsoft wants to destroy Open Source!! (Score:2, Insightful)
Come on people, what GPL projects have you contributed to? File a bug report, write a patch, help with the documentation, write a HOWTO, anything. Help make Linux strong!
Re:Microsoft wants to destroy Open Source!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The perfect example of this is how Microsoft hijacked the TCP/IP stack from BSD. However, I argue that this is a good thing. If they just take the code verbatim, then it most likely is going to be very compatible with everything else, unless they specifically go out of their way to break compatability. Notice that Microsoft is not planning to introduce a new .TCP/IP#, their use of the BSD code has shifted the issue to other things. They won't release any improvements back to the community, but they won't go out of their way to break a working system either.
Take the primary example used by most people against the BSD licence, that of Microsoft `stealing' an entire BSD system (whether FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, or whatever) and releasing it as their operating system. I argue that this would be a good thing, both for Microsoft and for everybody else, although I seriously doubt that it would ever happen. A few people who work on the BSD stuff would be annoyed, but most would not mind, only the Linux crowd would raise a real stink about it. Think about it: Apple is doing it (MacOS-X) and all that is going to do is help the BSD software community. Sure, OS-X has a lot of unnecessary differences from any standard BSD, but nothing that isn't just a matter of minor re-configuration, small shell scripts, and carefully placed symbolic links. If Microsoft were to release Windows-X, or MS-BSD, or whatever stupid name their marketing division thought up, while they would make a lot of stupid changes just to be different, it would still fundamentally be a BSD system at its heart, and that would be a good thing for Microsoft, a good thing for the purchasers of Microsoft software, and a good thing for the BSD community.
The BSD license is not about insuring that oh-so-evil Bill Gates finally gets his company destroyed. It is not about insuring that I can read the source code to every single piece of software on the planet. It is not about world domination. It is about insuring that quality, compatible systems exist everywhere.
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:5, Funny)
So wat he's saying is that the mass adoption of their inflexible software has driven people to create open products that will meet their needs, or am I misinterpreting him ? ;)
Yeah, that's kinda like Osama bin Laden patting himself on the back for doing his part to beef up airport security.
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:3, Insightful)
You then totally misread his posting and used it as an excuse to attack "linux zealots" - maybe you come from that parallel universe
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:4, Interesting)
Until this admission, Compaq had been credited with clean-room reverse-engineering the PC bios. IBM had outsourced the CPU and OS thinking that control over the proprietary BIOS gave them comntrol over manufacture of the system.
Since Gates signed many NDA's with IBM, I wonder if this admission might get him into any trouble.
Anyway, a more complete quote:
"really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there." -- Bill Gates
Re:Driving people to open source (Score:2)
You said:
Yes, you are misinterpreting him. What he is referring to is the wide availability of standards-based hardware due to the Microsoft-Intel alliance that, like it or not, brought computing out of the hobbyist and into the business world. They accomplished this despite their crappy software (compare: Macintosh), and probably because IBM fudged the attempted hardware-monopoly thing.
The emergence of Linux as a (cool)UNIX-like OS that runs on consumer hardware then lead to the explosion of interest in all things Open Source. Of course, the FSF and the GPL was around way before Open Source, so Gates knows his terminology here.
So, despite the contempt people have for Microsoft, you have them (and Intel, and IBM(for fucking up)) to thank for the cheap (relatively speaking) x86 hardware that Linux runs so happily on.
Take a look at In the beginning was the command line [cryptonomicon.com], by Neal Stephenson, for another take on the matter.
Microsoft and Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)
However, let us look at the economics for a moment. Microsoft is a company with very little technical innovation but one world-shattering contribution-- the introduction of a multi-vendor OS manufacturer. This really does not seem like much but it really is. Microsoft's contribution really HAS resulted in lower prices for the consumer because they were able to help more companies sell their products hence spreading more of the cost of development around rather than letting it land on a comparitively few customers. This has allowed many more people to use computers because they can now afford to do so.
The ubiquity of the computer which really IS Microsoft's legacy is the driving factor of Open Source and Free Software because it allows a much greater number of developers to work on projects. Open Source has an economy of scale too. Would Linux have existed if Linus had not been able to afford a 386?
BUT: Open source then takes Microsoft's edge and makes it sustainable. It is a market innovation which beats Microsoft's market innovation. In this war, Microsoft cannot win.
DUH!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Like they haven't already killed off a lot of competitors, knifed in the back a lot of partners, and set their sights on other industries, which BTW could be customers of partners and competitors? The problem with being an 357.142851428 Kg. gorilla is, you can sit anywhere you like, but after you've done so, who's willing to be their friend and stick their neck out for you? Even some things PR can't fix.
Re:Knifed in the back? (Score:2)
There are lots of small examples: Borland, Netscape, Intel (when they tried to produce media software or something like that), pretty much every PC manufacturer. But the really big obvious one is IBM with OS/2.
Microsoft started working on OS/2 with IBM. Then they essentially sabotaged the project while working on NT behind the scenes. By the time IBM figured out what was going on and took over the development on their own, it was too late.
I have a sneaking suspician that IBM's conversion to the Linux religion is partially due to bitter IBM execs who finally see a chance to settle an old score with Microsoft.
Popularity bug? (Score:5, Funny)
(Madonna music in background)
Q: With XP, can I burn CD's?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I send email?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I create an internet virus?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I download female-on-female animal porn?
A: Yes, you can.
Q: Can I install XP myself without help?
A: Not f***in' likely!
Internet virus? (Score:5, Funny)
Repeat after me. MSTDs. Lets get it to catch on. Just imagine how pissed Bill will be.
Re:Popularity bug? (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe if you open the box and take the computer out...
Hard to install? Hah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Are you sure you don't have it backwards? For me installing Mandrake 8.1 or RedHat 7.2 is like a warm and pleasant dream. I honestly believe a total Linux newbie could manage it.
When I protestingly installed XP on a friend's machine last week (me: "I don't wanna touch Windows, I'm a Linux geek!" him: "But I want it *professionally* installed!") I was floored by the requisite 3 reboots and by major portions of the install being in text mode. It brought back a dusty old memory of installing NT4 before I discovered the Goodness of the Penguin.
No modern Linux distro would be caught with such a clunky setup. It would *immediately* be flamed for being too hard to install. I think it is time to have the "Linux is hard to install" FUD declared obsolete. Anyone who can install XP can certainly install a current Linux distro.
Juicy Excerpt (Score:2, Redundant)
MR. GATES: Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that. We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.
There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL that is not worth getting into today, but I don't think there is much awareness about how so-called free software foundations designed that to break that cycle.
In terms of getting people excited about software and building communities around them, yes, that is a key to success. Nobody has done that more effectively than we have with Windows. Are there ways that we can do that better? Are there aspects of this where we're actually learning from all our different competitors out there? I think it's fair to say yes.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion. So I certainly don't agree with the full sort of free software foundation view that there should be no jobs in this area, and that the kind of commercial advances and risk taking that we've been able to do you can't get that, you can't get things like speech recognition on a tablet computer coming out of that kind of a paradigm. You can get things that follow along, you can get some smaller software, and so we embraced the idea of the free software paradigm and the commercial software paradigm moving forward in really a self-reinforcing way.
MR. BALLMER: I just want to add one thing, echo what Bill said, but encourage you to go to our web site. If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software, it's kind of inconsistent with the goals of most people in the room. We recognize it, it probably doesn't fit in most of these people's mind's eye, so we're not going to embrace that. But there is something about the way the community works to support itself which is brilliant, and which we've done many good things, but we think we've seen some good things sort of in the Linux, et cetera, world, and I encourage you to go up to Microsoft.com and check out our community areas. It's an area where we have sort of massively mobilized. It's still in the early phases, but we are massively mobilizing to try to stimulate communities, support communities, and really, if you will, borrow one from their playbook.
Re:Juicy Excerpt (Score:2)
Here Bill Gates shows how much of a politician he is, and how MS hasn't really changed, however it wants to spin things. MS by itself was never the key driving force for the standardization of BIOS, and the millions of PC Clones. For that, IBM's blindspot, Compaq's reverse-engineering of the BIOS, the Taiwanese Motherboard manufacturers all shared part of the responsibility. MS never really drove the market in this direction, unless you consider anticompetitive OEM licensing deals as a Good Thing. Is MS taking credit for this?
As universities taking and buying up cheaper alternatives to the workstation, you can directly blame their tightening budgets, and the market-unaware Unix vendors for that.
How is this Juicy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How is this Juicy? (Score:2, Interesting)
From the transcript: "As in prior years, we have the company store here in an adjoining room, so that you have an opportunity to go in and purchase Microsoft products."
But I thought they OWNED the company? They have to purchase products that were the fruit of intellectual property that they OWN?
Did you happen to read the "owners" question? It seemed they thought the open-source model was better, and that Microsoft was "maybe on the wrong side of that trend of long-term?" Seems juicy to me.
Re:Juicy Excerpt (Score:2)
Re:Juicy Excerpt (Score:5, Insightful)
This is so funny. These guys really don't get it at all, do they? Dangerous for them.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
Well Bill, all of those things can still exist under an open source model, but it's a different model to yours. Can't you see that?
If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software,
So, Steve, you're saying you're older and wiser than IBM? Than HP? Than Compaq, Sun, Dell, Intel and all the other companies that are contributing to the Open Source community and releaseing code under the GPL? I think not. They get it, you don't.
It's still in the early phases, but we are massively mobilizing to try to stimulate communities, support communities, and really, if you will, borrow one from their playbook.
Can anyone point me to any evidence of this? Really? I've honestly tried to find it. Are there disussion boards where developers can openly discuss Microsoft technologies, and MS engineers will chip in with comments? I've looked for that, couldn't find it.
The clock is ticking Steve, Bill. Let me spell it out for you: YOU DON'T GET IT! If you don't get it soon, you're going to slowly die. Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock.
Wow, he admitted it. (Score:2, Insightful)
"All your base are belong to us". Amazing! He's addmitted that he thinks his company should be free to exploit the labor of others without compensation and be the only conduit of that free effort in any "adequate" form. This does not do much for my view of M$. I'm waiting for anything M$ that is the equal of Debian, Red Hat or OpenBSD, and therefore adequate.
It's the blind leading the blind. Bill, where is your mind?
Re:Juicy Excerpt (Score:4, Insightful)
we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use
I kind of see what BG is saying here, that the free software movement couldn't have taken off without open, commodity hardware. This is wrong. The free software movement, as it came out of RMS and the MIT AI lab was a direct response to proprietary, closed hardware and software. The free software movement grew out of the tradition of open access to software and tools on very non-standard mini computer hardware.
In the early 80s when the FSF was founded, it was not clear yet that the IBM PC would be such a dominant force in the computing world. Commodity home machines aren't even mentioned in RMS's initial announcement [gnu.org]. In fact, he is talking about replacing the system on very expensive, practically custom built machines, which were only found in universities and big businesses.
Sure, the pervasiveness of computing has been a major boost for free software, but this is a base rate issue (i.e., there are x free software users out of n*x computer users).
Pay a g**d damn dividend. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's what's driving their licensing debacle, BSA audits, etc. They've hit the wall in terms of market penitration on the desktop, they never achieved the "slam dunk/home run" domination of the server market they thought they would (not to mention where they do dominate there-- small print, file, web servers they've got linux/BSD nipping at their heels) and the X-box is going to put a hit on revenues for the next few years even if its a runaway success. Other than Web Sevices, which at best are a few years away, they have no room for massive growth.
So, if the stockprice ain't going up all that much they better start paying out on all that cash they're sitting on, or some investers are going to be none too happy.
(then again, I'm a code jockey, what the f**k do I know about finance)
Why there is no g**d damn dividend. (Score:5, Interesting)
Look, MSFT is a shell company, one that permits Bill and Paul and a few other major shareholders to buy other companies. By maximizing the capital growth and having no dividends, they reduce their effective tax rate to 8 to 10 percent. Then they sell off a few shares and pay the 5 year capital gains tax on them, or sell the high purchase shares and keep the low purchase shares, thus getting a capital loss.
That's why there's no dividend.
Until MSFT becomes more like GE, where no single shareholder owns more than 20 percent of the stock, this will never change.
This is their way of avoiding taxes. People like me buy a mix of stocks - some dividend and some non-dividend - we use the non-dividend stock to go long on capital gains and thus reduce our tax hit (realized income) and use the dividends from the other stock (or bonds, PERQs, SPARQs, money market) to provide enough cash flow for expenses.
Thus we pay less tax than the working poor do. My realized income is very small. And so is Bill's and Paul's.
Unless you change the tax system, we'll keep doing things like that. There is no incentive to realize earned income, under the current system.
-
Re:Why there is no g**d damn dividend. (Score:4, Interesting)
Once the price of the stock no longer goes up and levels off its a whole new ballgame. Those institutional investers are going to want to see some return on investment. MS has a killer revenue source due to their entrenchment of Windows/MSOffice. But stock price is corrolated with growth, and there's stagnation in the market where MS dominates. If the stock price also stagnates then large investors are going to demand a piece of the revenue pie (in the form of dividends) or are going to get the hell out of dodge.
Re:Pay a g**d damn dividend. (Score:2, Interesting)
Uh...M$ is many things, but they're aren't mature yet...they're still a company that's being run by teenage geeks who are enacting their competitive revenge against all the jocks whoever put them down in grade school and high school, or are still trying to shove their attitude to their parents that, "hey, i can do this my own damn way and don't have to follow your rules anymore."
M$ is going to act like immature little teenagers sticking their collective middle fingers to any form of authority for as long as those two are still in charge of the company.
Re:Pay a g**d damn dividend. (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, afaik MS can't think of anything better either. They're just sitting on a mountain of cash. So, if they're not going to do anything better with it then the investors should get it. An investor only invests to make money. MS is no longer on the rapid upward growth they were. That's not a bad reflection on them, they've just become "big." They're a big, extablished company, and their stock price is going to reflect that from now on. I'd wager the days of its valuaton doubling every 18 months or so are GONE. So, if I've got $$$ in MS, and their growth is at a pedestrian level (and thus their stock price) AND they're just sitting on a mountain of cash, then they better a) use that cash to rekindle double digit growth (which at their size ain't going to last too long anyway) or b) start handing it over.
Re:Pay a g**d damn dividend. (Score:2, Insightful)
The whole point of owning shares in a company is to get dividends (i.e., cash payouts) for your investment. The silly idea that the company will keep growing so much that the stock price will go up indefinitely is bent, and is the reason so many dotcoms died.
Re:Pay a g**d damn dividend. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pay a g**d damn dividend. (Score:5, Informative)
1. Paying a dividend is not required by the IRS, the SEC or any federal law, as far as I know.
2. Paying a dividend exposes your money to double taxation: the standard corporate rate (paid at the time the profit was earned), and then your personal tax rate (including city, state, and federal). This is money out of your pocket as much as Bill's.
3. Whether Bill Gates ownes 25% of MSFT is irrelevant to the decision to pay a dividend. If I own one share, I'd rather receive the full value of my 1/# shares ownership of Microsoft's cash assets, rather than shave off an additional percentage to go to the government. Paying more taxes is not in the interest of Microsoft's shareholders, no matter how large their holdings. If anything, more stock held by management is a good thing--it aligns the incentives of the managers with the incentives of the stockholders. In a company where the management owns very little of the shares, you are far more likely to see decisions made that sell out shareholders (the owners) to the benefit of the current management (with foolhardy acquisitions, for example). This is a classic problem in economics, and it's why you rarely see small, owner-managed companies being as stupid with their money as large companies often are.
4. If Microsoft can't find profitable uses for the cash, it should buy back its stock. That, as one poster wisely pointed out, will increase the value of each share, as the same pie is divided by a smaller number of shares. Besides, the value of the cash on hand increases the book value of a single share of Microsoft--in other words, each share of ownership now entitles you to your proportional share of each additional dollar in MSFT's bank account, a gain in value that cost you nothing.
5. For most stockholders, the capital gains tax rate is lower (often far lower) than the personal income tax rate. As a result, you'd rather get paid back for your investment in Microsoft in stock price appreciation than tax-affected cash.
6. People buy equities (shares of stock) because they represent a future stream of cash flows generated from a business. In this way, buying the stock of a business is no different than buying a bond: both represent a stream of future payments, and the price you pay now depends on the magnitude, frequency, and likelihood of those payments. Thus, buying the stock of a company that doesn't pay dividends is like buying a zero-coupon bond (a bond that doesn't pay periodic interest, but that reaches full face value at maturity). The net result is that market adjusts the price you paid for the stock or bond to account for the nature of the payouts. Instead of valuing the stream of cash payments you receive in the form of dividends, you value the discounted cash flows that Microsoft retains.
But Microsoft shouldn't just sock away money in a money market account. If it can't find opportunities that offer a greater rate of return than a money market account or bonds (both vehicles which are available to individual stockholders as well), then it should buy back stock. (Technically, the rate-of-return hurdle for new lines of business or new acquisitions should be Microsoft's cost of capital, the rate at which it can "borrow" money from the capital markets.)
I hope that helps.
Re:Pay a g**d damn dividend. (Score:2)
Give credit where due (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, give credit to IBM (Score:5, Interesting)
But Microsoft's position in that domination was, at best, an accident. They were in the right place at the right time and did a good job of screwing IBM. Credit to them for that, but not much else.
Give credit to those who reverse engineered... (Score:2)
ostiguy
Re:Yup, give credit to IBM (Score:2)
<overstatement>
The only thing that IBM really did for the industry was standardize the disk drive, making sneakernet possible.
</overstatement>
If not IBM, then probably somebody else (Intel?) would have gotten all the hardware details standardized. The industry's been fine since IBM dropped out of the picture in the 80s.
Microsoft was positioned in the right place. If there was no IBM PC, Microsoft would probably still dominate the industry in 2001. Extending into micro applications was a no brainer for them. Trying to control the API is a no brainer from there.
Anyway, they aren't directly responsible, but their spot sure wasn't accidential.
You forgot the What If part of it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Ya know, I do agree with you to a point: MS did push/prode some for of standards on personal computers back in the day. The merits of their system (I hated DOS then too) can be debated elsewhere.
Now, that said...
What if there had never been Microsoft? What if Bill Gates had decided to sell insurance and then get into designing role-playing games instead?
Would we not have PC's today? Would we still be in the 70's era of computers?
I highly doubt it. Somehow, we would have stilled ended up with PCs today, probably just with another OS and such. (Like OS Warp or even a true desktop *nix, who knows?)
So, arguing that MS is responsible for where we are today is kinda pointless and giving them lots of credit for it is just as so. They were in the right place, pushed the right buttons, and did so at the right time. Nothing more.
Re:Give credit where due (Score:2)
While MS may have been *founded* in '75, the first product they made which acted as a significant force towards unifying the PC market was DOS (and later Windows), so any prior history was frankly irrelevant. The number of BASIC interpreters available on the market makes theirs really quite insignificant as a history-altering force.
The IBM PC predated Windows, and if Microsoft hadn't made MS-DOS, IBM would have simply licensed a different operating system. Perhaps if it weren't for Windows something like OS/2 or Desqview would have taken off, but the end result would have been the same -- a single dominating platform.
However, open source (much more than closed development) doesn't need a single dominating platform to thrive. I say this as someone working for an embedded systems company -- supporting Linux means we can take advantage of the ports done by entities motivated by their own internal needs rather than only those the marketing and engineering folks at OS Vendor, Inc. decide to support.
Thus, unless you're able to provide further evidence, I can't really see any reason to find your argument supportable.
Microsoft didn't "make" MS-DOS... (Score:2, Informative)
All Microsoft did was the same thing they always did... sold something that someone else invented after sticking their name on it.
Re:Give credit where due (Score:2, Interesting)
Is it just me or was Visicalc [bricklin.com] the killer app that drove mass adoption of consumer PCs? Thank them for the use of computers in the office and in homes, along with games and the human friendly hardware ideas implemented by Woz. And after that the desktop publishing revolution drove creative professionals to adopt computers, thank Adobe. You can argue that MS software creates standardization and makes PCs cheaper, but that is a very weak argument because of how the ridiculous prices they can set for their software through their monopoly powers (don't argue that point, it has been proven in court) inflates the price of PCs. It seems to me that YOUR computer history starts in the 80s, when MS was a real force and not yet another developer.
I am not a MS basher, I use Office 10 [microsoft.com] and it is a good product. I don't conisder it innovative or great however, and it didn't drive my computer purchase; programs from companies that innovate, not standardize, did that.
Yep, that was the only computer. (Score:2)
Re:Give credit where due (Score:2)
As far as Microsoft being responsible for the standard platform, what a crock. For a long while the OS on a machine was hardly considered a key feature and no one much cared if they typed DIR or LOAD"$",8; LIST to see what files were on a disk. I suppose those with more hacker instinct leaned to the Apple, with it's modifiable DOS and more open architecture.
In fact, it was Apple with their first editions of Mac OS (and earlier prototypes) that really put the OS in the forefront on PCs. Prior to that the OS was a very small set of command line tools that really didn't do much other than provide a way to (maybe) write some BASIC, manage filesystems, and load/run applications. You found your applications you wanted to run and then you bought a computer that could run them, or you bought a computer suited to a certain type of applications. And yes, MS did write a lot of that early software, even for non-Intel platforms, but even without MS most everything would have happened. Sorry.
So if you're done with the ad hominem attacks, you can prove that you *were* born before 1975, because your little history lesson is sorely lacking.
Re:Give credit where due (Score:2, Insightful)
Anybody who knew anything KNEW the PC would be HUGE. Go back and read Byte Magazine or Dr Dobbs Journal.
Before MS, you always got the source code when you paid for software. (Well from DEC or IBM, anyway.)
And there was a big free software community eg DECUS the DEC user group. I still have DECUS tapes with Free software on. Including the ORIGINAL COLOSSAL CAVE Adventure game. (I ported a later, better, version to FreeBSD.)
And a Pascal compiler.AFAICR, Even Richard Stallman was around.
MS Stuffed the industry, and shafted the customer.
Free Software, and mass machines were around before MS. The scale was smaller, but then, lots of us were smaller.
Re:There really is credit due, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
That contribution? Convincing IBM to license PC-DOS on a non-exclusive basis. That left Microsoft free to sell MS-DOS to clone makers.
With the same OS available, only the BIOS needed cloning in order to produce IBM compatible machines.
No noble intentions, but a very powerful coup.
Gates invented Open Source (Score:3, Redundant)
Why, he's the Al Gore of Open Source!
Wrong again (Score:4, Redundant)
No, the reason you see open source is because people want the ability to customize code to their own personal needs without having to license said code from a monolithic company known for overcharging. Mr. Gates needs get rid of the god complex. Open source has nothing to do with identical desktops and everything to do with control of the code. This statement is just more overgrandizing and makes him look even more out of touch with the industry than he already is.
Re:Wrong again (Score:2)
Weren't these the folks who took credit for TrueType fonts? Who now claim they were hip to the internet back in 95 when they were really banking on CDRom subscriptions and a closed MSN?
And when the hell did MS demand an open platform? In the history of the PC I remember I don't recall MS being in the design meetings with the IBM guys.
I often wonder if those boneheads actually believe their PR.
Developers! (Score:4, Funny)
A: Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers! Developers!
Q: Uh, never mind... please stop dancing around, Mr. Ballmer, and for god's sake, man, use some fuckin' anti-perspirant!
Re:Developers! (Score:4, Informative)
I take no responsibility for any emotional damage you suffer from these videos.
Re:Developers! (Score:2)
Popularity bug? (Score:5, Funny)
Ballmer sums it up... (Score:4, Insightful)
"Second, we know we need to continue to focus in on our relationship with our customers. This is an area where we need to be ever vigilant. Certainly, as Bill talked about, we have opportunities for improvement in security, in virus protection, in the way we license and sell our products, and the reminders on that are always in front of us." --Steve Ballmer
I think this pretty much sums up a lot of what is wrong with Microsoft:
1) Security
2) The way they license and sell products.
At least they are realizing that market opinion is starting to go against them, and are trying to change this. I don't love Microsoft, but if they started to change their licensing tactics, I would be more inclined to buy their products.
Re:Ballmer sums it up... (Score:2)
Freedom to Innovate Network (Score:2, Interesting)
When asked what members of the Freedom to innovate network can do to help Microsoft now that the trial is winding down. Did that sound like a planted question or what?! And they didn't answer the question at all. They just said the FTIN is a lobby organization that's been useful to us, so join the FTIN!
I had a good laugh anyway...
Women? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Women? (Score:2)
Apparently 1/23 isn't a good enough number for them.
Well, for whatever reason, software is currently dominated by men. GE, on the other hand, has 3 women out of 17 people on their board [ge.com]
Just one thought (Score:5, Interesting)
If you were to distill the -essence- of what was said (especially on women on the Board and in the company), you'd end up with exactly nothing. Sure, they may be concerned about this, or feel strongly about that. I'll allow for that possibility. But feelings don't equate to action. They're just feelings, the same as "happy" and "sad".
Even the sweeping apparently-grandiose statements made wrt "Open Source" and "Free Software" really reduce to nil. Sure, they may have been a factor in the popularity of "Open Source". But there are probably as many coders inspired by a rainbow, or a fascinating geological formation.
In short, I have to give credit for an amazing non-statement, which said exactly nothing and offered nothing. However, the credit has a value of $0.00.
Re:Just one thought (Score:2)
Well, it seems to be a fairly typical example of CorpSpeak to me. If they're true to form, most of their effort will go into trying to change their image rather than into making any substantive changes.
Q&A: Open source, women, and China (Score:4, Interesting)
The issue of women execs was also something you could tell they weren't going to address, which is very strange, in that most of Bill Gates foundation work has focussed on educating women and providing contraceptive measures for women in third-world countries.
As to China, this again was something that didn't seem to be that interesting to the execs.
Very disappointing responses, overall. One related news item in the Seattle P-I [seattle-pi.com] business section today noted that many MSFT employees have picked up their purchases of stock recently.
Does this mean we're nearing the bottom of the market, or that they know something we don't?
-
That's not a publicity bug... (Score:2, Funny)
TGFM (Score:2, Funny)
I, for one, am glad that Microsoft came along. After all, what would we do without the universities?
Where is the logic? (Score:2)
I mean, sure, open source might not even be an issue if companies like MS weren't hell-bent on performing in monopolistic ways. But him saying MS is responsible for the open source movement is like saying the Romans who persecuted the early Christians should have credit for it's spread.
Gates: "Well, shareholders, I know the world thinks I'm an evil son-of-a-bitch, but if I wasn't an evil son-of-a-bitch, there wouldn't be this great open source movement going on!"
Gorism? (Score:2, Funny)
Wow, thanks for the info Bill. I didn't know you guys did hardware! And open source was your creation? Really! Did you invent the internet also, or was Al Gore lying to us?
Interesting question: (Score:4, Insightful)
Bill's Right (Score:5, Funny)
Gates also took some credit for the genesis of open-source software. He said Microsoft made it possible by standardizing
computers: "Really, the reason you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's
identical with millions and millions of machines," he said.
Well Bill, you're right. You are the reason for open-source software. Just not for the reasons you think you are.
Dick.
Microsoft invented the PC? (Score:3, Insightful)
How very droll.
Arrogance (Score:2, Interesting)
Gee, I didn't know Gates was responsible for all that free software I used to use back in the CPM days before M$ even existed. Even the stuff I wrote too! Thank you, Bill Gates! Without you, I wouldn't exist today!
Future of MS (Score:3, Funny)
Mennonite church? (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know a whole lot about Mennonite churches, but isn't this a little liberal for them?
No Mor Mr. Nice Microsoft (Score:2, Interesting)
"We understand, based upon the fact that our industry didn't rally to support us, that we need to change the way we interact and relate to our industry."
Translation: "No more Mr. Nice Microsoft. From now on we will use stronger threats."
Unamerican? (Score:2)
Hmmm, you know, this IS a time of war. Maybe the new Ashcroft HUAC would be interested...
Ultimate summary (Score:4, Interesting)
It's quite simple really. They tell shareholders what they want to hear and their shareholders don't want to hear about free software.. Yet! I've said it a hundred times: the free software revolution is in its infancy. When the 'critical mass' of OSS code base is reached, which is inevitable, Microsoft is going to have to innovate or die. Free and proprietary software are not complementary and they will not peacefully co-exist for much longer.
Ominous: Gates mentions "TAXES" twice (Score:2, Offtopic)
I don't think this holds any water whatsoever but it might serve as the thread of a pretext to unravel the warm snug cozy wool poncho we all call open source. There are several dozen ways you spin this to make it look like those damnable hackers and terrorists aren't paying their taxes like everyone else has to.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy." - Some dude whose quote I haven't given much thought to until recently
Interesting since M$ paid no taxes... (Score:2, Informative)
Boy, they *do* take credit for everything! (Score:2)
Bill's right. We should be nicer to Microsoft. The universities are flourishing, fer chrissakes!!
Does "we" include Bill Gates? (Score:2, Interesting)
Billy is Afraid of the GPL!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a gander at this excerpt: (emphasis added)
Sounds like ol' Billy has seen his doom coming, and it's the GPL!
Take a good hard look at that rambling morass of a quote, and you see the strategy (and the enormous depth of self-delusion) that will be driving Microsoft forward. Free-as-in-Beer, Good! Free-as-in-Speech, Bad!
In Bill's world, Free Software is fine as a toy, an interim solution, and educational tool, but it takes a company to turn it into something useful! Nothing good ever comes out of the commons!
Except, of course, the "Microsoft Commons". Funny, when was the last time community work became part of Microsoft, except by force?
And gee, where have we seen this attitude before?
How about in the actions of every tin-pot political dictator who tried to buy off the goodwill of his oppressed subjects with free goodies! The barbarians are howling at the Gates, and Bill is offering Microsoft's shareholders bread and circuses!
Funny thing Bill, those dictators don't have much of a track record....
Stallman (for all his faults and foibles) is the Martin Luther of the information age, and bill is the Pope. Quick - who can name the Pope who was in service when Luther nailed his manifesto to the door of the cathedral?
Me neither.
Re:Billy is Afraid of the GPL!! (Score:4, Insightful)
>very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and
>turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the
>commercial software existing together.
I'm sure that Bill Gates thinks the idea of selling software he obtained that was written by the sweat of people that he doesn't have to pay is extremely virtuous. But let's put that to one side for the moment.
He also seems to be implying to politicians that they should outlaw the GPL licence so that Microsoft can steal open source software and charge for it, and pay more taxes- this would be a good thing- right?
Of course the fact that this would allow him to sack quite a lot of Microsoft and would end up reducing the taxes that he pays.
>In the free-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no
>taxes paid, or anything of that notion. So I certainly don't agree with the full sort of free software foundation view that there
>should be no jobs in this area, and that the kind of commercial advances and risk taking that we've been able to do you can't
>get that, you can't get things like speech recognition on a tablet computer coming out of that kind of a paradigm.
Actually, this is extremely not clear. There's nothing to stop companies financing software that they need for their business and paying for it; and having the software remain open source. After all if one company has the software that it needs, it doesn't mean that its competitor can even use the same software that they use; and to the extent that their competitors can; they both benefit, and each can end up contributing improvements back.
That's where IBM is coming from- the fact that their main competitors SUN and Micro$oft can't use Linux much doesn't hurt.
Rhetorically impressive, most impressive (Score:4, Insightful)
It occurs to me that maybe he should run for public office. His debate skills are most impressive. But then he'd probably find some way to oust the Chancellor, hunt down all the Jedi, and disband the Imperial Senate. (Can't you just see Ballmer jumping up and down in Vader's outfit? Tee hee hee.)
New Windows "Community" (Score:5, Funny)
I can see it now... Microsoft meets Slashdot... Microdot, news for sheep, stuff that we think matters
Broadband penetration - nit pick Gates figures (Score:2, Informative)
I don't know where Gates gets his figures, but Google [google.com] tells me that Canada is up there with South Korea with penetrations of around 40-50%. This neat page of summary stats [internet.com] shows Denmark and Sweden at around 14% and I suspect many Scandinavian and other European countries are on par with the US's 11% broadband penetration rate. Sounds to me like the US is fighting for fifth at best. Articles at Newsbytes, and [newsbytes.com] Broadband week [broadbandweek.com] both refer to a study by eMarketer that seems to says similar things.
An older report by the Strategis Group referred to in this [cnn.com] CNN article names Australia, Canada, The Netherlands, Singapore, and Sweden as likely to lead broadband penetration.
A kinder gentler (insert entity here) (Score:2)
A precursor (Score:2)
But all this shareholder crap is just a smoke screen for the coming
what has microsoft learned? (Score:2, Interesting)
first, Mr. Ballmer says: "The last three years, the period of the lawsuits, people ask us what we've learned. From the lawsuit itself, I don't know exactly how to answer that question from time to time..."
and shortly afterwards: "We need to expand the range of companies, bigger companies, established companies that we have relationships with, in the telecommunications industry, in the media industry..."
i thought that if they were a monopoly that they were not allowed to do precisely this type of thing. indeed, it would appear that Mr. Ballmer hasn't learned anything from the law suits.
The Open Source comments (Score:5, Insightful)
Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines,
This is laughably wrong. RMS made the GPL and the Free Software movement in the early 80s, when Gates was still piddling around with DOS and saying that 640K should be enough for anybody. The actual movement started even earlier; the concept of open source predated commercial software.
In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together. There is a particular approach that breaks the cycle called the GPL
Gates apparently doesn't know what a "cycle" is. A cycle, by definition, has to link back up again with its origins, in this case, free software. Microsoft breaks the cycle by incorporating open source code into, for example, its TCP/IP stack. The GPL restores the cycle by requiring developers to give their changes back to the community.
In the pre-software vision is that there would be no jobs in the software industry, there would be no testers, no engineers, no taxes paid, or anything of that notion.
Tell that to Red Hat.
Here's a telling quote from Ballmer:
If there's a key learning for us, we can't have free software, it's kind of inconsistent with the goals of most people in the room.
In other words, Microsoft is against freedom in software. Remember, we're talking free speech, not free beer. So all this stuff about "Freedom to Innovate" is nothing more than a thinly veiled apologetic for Microsoft's business practices.
Maybe what really happened was this... (Score:5, Funny)
BALLMER: After 20 years of backstabing, copying other's innovations, playing Mafia-games with IT companies, abusing our consumers and stealing children's bubblegum, we have gotten a slap on the wrist by the DoJ. Surely this means something.
GATES: If I might add a few words...
BALLMER:, Sure, Bill, go on.
GATES: Our impressive innovation Laboratories -MS-iLabs , (c) (R) - show that actualy being nice to customers can help selling our product...
AUDIENCE: (gasps, mutted comments of surprise, a few horror screams)
BALLMER: Be quiet back there! It is true! You can get the results in ExcelXP format at dubya-dubya-dubya-microsoft-dot-com-slash-ilabs-s
GATES: In fact, in a demo-test carried over at Poukeespie-upon-Avon (Yorkshire, UK) with a cautive population, we discovered that WindowsXP-SE was being bought by people that had no history of verbal-and-phisycal abuse by part of our marketing representatives.
SOMEONE IN THE AUDIENCE: Don't you think that having both legs not-broken could help? I mean, last year, in the ASF file that you showed us about training methods for Microsoft Certified Marketing Representatives , they were being trained in "MS-Leg-Breaking-As-A-Buying-Stimulous 101". Maybe we should change this module to "MS-**ARM-TWISTING**-As-A-Buying-Stimulous 101" instead of playing nice...
AUDIENCE: Yeah! yeah! that sounds more sensible!
GATES: Please! Calm down! I personally worked with the MS-iLabs environment definition and I can assure you that the results are true!
AUDIENCE: but... but.... We Want Blood! We Want Blood! We Want Blood!
CATS: All Your Base Are Belong To Us!
CATS: Make Your Time!
BILL: HAHAHAHA
BALMER: Take Off Every ZiggyXP!!!!
Human Rights Abuse - Microsoft Complicit (Score:4, Interesting)
The attitude at the meeting seemed to me to be that "as long as we make a buck, we don't care."
Re:BWAHH HAHHAHA....... (Score:2)
They have to care. (Score:2)
Re:Im so tired of Capitalism (Score:2)
Re:Bill Gates on the usefulness of open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course there's the inconvenient fact that they would end up paying less taxes that way... but perhaps your average politician won't notice.
I've always disliked Gates, but here he is so unbelievably slimy.