Microsoft's Worst Enemy: Themselves 579
KobyBoy writes "Saw this story posted on OSnews this morning. "Microsoft's biggest threat isn't Linux, OpenOffice, or any piece of software at all--its themselves. Over the last eighteen months two distinctly different Microsoft cultures have emerged, often in opposition to each other." You can get the full article at Sudhian Media."
Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Control (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Control (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes and no. The dissonance between the two cultures could be a sign that the "cult of Bill" is waning. An autocratic leader can only be effective if everyone "drinks the koolaid". It's very hard to fight an entrenched culture, and many CEOs have failed because they couldn't get buy-in from the rank and file. I've seen this first hand, when ordinary staffers made no secret of their contempt for senior management... it's the death knell for a company.
Perhaps Microsoft are running out of the old-skool staff and the new blood they're hiring doesn't automatically defer to Bill on every decision. I'd imagine that Microsoft people are very poor at playing the sort of corporate political games that are taken for granted elsewhere, the old Microsoft culture actively discouraged it. If they've hired a bunch of people who are politically adept, they will be very difficult to control.
Re:Control (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft's problems do not stem from some sort of corporate culture clash, and I can guarantee you that when Bill speaks people working at Microsoft still jump.
The problem at Microsoft is that the people running the show (and that includes most Microsoft developers) are more concerned about Microsoft's stock price than the long term survival of the company. Microsoft stock is still priced for rapid growth, and so Microsoft has to come up with a way to provide that growth or Microsoft shares will eventually lose a significant portion of their present value. If you think that Microsoft's $40 Billion is an impressive number calculate what Bill Gates would lose personally if Microsoft's stock lost half of its value.
The question then becomes where does Microsoft hope to gain its future growth. Linux is cutting deeply into Microsoft on the server side, and there is fierce competition (and very low margins) on the embedded front. That leaves Windows and MS Office, as all of Microsoft's other business units are actually losing money. The XBox is Microsoft's best bet for a new significant revenue stream, but Sony appears to be taking Microsof to lunch on this front.
That's not all of Microsoft's problems either. The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.
So what does Microsoft do to keep growing their revenue? They raise prices, that's what. Microsoft knows that their existing customers have large investments in their Microsoft software. Replacing this software would be very difficult, and so Microsoft is making these customers pay the price of their misplaced loyalty.
Bill Gates' Money (Score:5, Informative)
His fortune is less tied to MS than you might think. Gates has diversified his holdings over the past several years and as of Sept. 9th of this year [nwsource.com] only held 11.6% of the company's stock. I believe his current net holdings are worth $43 billion. MSFT has 5,346,449,872 shares as of Sept. 30th [sec.gov], and it closed on that day at $43.74. On that day, MS stock was worth $223 billion, and he held only $27 billion in MS stock. If he lost half that, he'd go from $43 billion to $29.5 billion (ignoring the fact that an MS crash would take down the whole market). Boo hoo. He'd still have over 100 times what he was worth back in 1986.
Of course, this in no way invalidates your argument which is 100% correct. MS is a very stock price-obsessed company, and a lot of mutual funds invest so much money into it because it's preceived as a stable growth company. A major Enron-like shake-up like Bill Parish [billparish.com] has been hoping for would devistate the market as badly as Enron's did. MS's business personnel are wholy obsessed with keeping this growth stable, and it's been well documented that MS uses tricky accounting to smooth losses from one quarter to the next by storing up money from good quarters and counting it as "earnings" later.
Incidentally, the Bill Gates Net Worth Page [quuxuum.org] is an amusing collection of statistics and extrapolations about his wealth, though its data is a little out of date. It shows things like how long he could buy off every major official in the government (if he stopped earning money), how fast you'd have to go picking up dollar bills from end to end to earn money as fast as he has since MS went public (35+ MPH), and how if he can maintain his current rate of growth per year (over 35%!), he'll be a trillionaire by 2014.
Re:Bill Gates' Money (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Bill Gates' Money (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh yeah, that's that "Club of Rome" thing I remember from economics back in the 80's
Don't get me wrong
Re:Control (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really, Microsoft marketshare is still growing. In 2001 it grew by 3%.
The PC market continues to be soft, and MS Office is being replaced on the low-end models of nearly every major manufacturer with Corel's PerfectOffice.
Again, this isn't all that critical either.
Like you said, the problem is that in order for Microsoft to show rapid growth they need to be able to expand markets. That's difficult to do, Linux isn't cutting into Microsoft's server market, it's cutting into Microsoft's server growth potential markets by replacing Unix. If not for Linux, those Unix servers would be replaced by Win2k servers.
Similarly with the low priced machines. If not for Corel, chances are those machines would sell with no bundled software in order to keep prices down. It just cuts into the potential sales.
This isn't just a problem for Microsoft, it's a problem for many companies. One of the challenges the stock market gives is that there is an expectation for growth. Companies that hit a plataeu usually get hammered in the markets.
Re:Control (Score:5, Informative)
If I may summarize, MS faces enormous problems in the not-so-distant future in transforming themselves from a hot-shot growth company into a mature firm. Their share price will not continue to double, so they won't be able to use options as currency (how would you like to be a relatively new hire with MS options at $120?). Some of their newer ventures may end up being profitable -- I would bet on MSN, particularly if AOL continues to screw up -- but the profit margins will not be nearly as good as those for Windows or Office. They have been unsuccessful, so far, in finding the next big thing in software that everyone wants.
MS is not the only firm with this problem. I would also add Intel and Cisco to the list of large successful tech companies whose share price is way too high for their realistic growth prospects. I have a friend at Intel who reported a rumor that Intel's upper management was shocked at a recent meeting with investment bankers who told them that they were a mature firm, not a growth company, and their share price would adjust downwards drastically as the stock market realized that fact.
May be a little more complicated (Score:3, Interesting)
Enter Microsoft's Enemy #2--
These are mutually exclusive goals. The anti-Java camp wants to see the
The other camp is the one currently pressing for subscription licensing of Windows, Office, etc. They believe in the market power (i.e. monopoly) of Microsoft and believe that few people can turn to competing products successfully. Most fo them don't understand the
The real problem is that Bill has not tried to reconcile these camps, and this is a serius problem, but the root cause is from external economic factors.
Re:Control (Score:5, Interesting)
Differing ideas are one thing, differing cultures are something else. Traditionally, Microsoft have had a reputation for being very adademic and meritocratic in their decision making. Ideas are exchanged and debated, and eventually the best one wins (in theory at least). That assumes that everyone is basically moving towards the same goal, and while they have their own ideas on how to get there, their egos aren't tied up in having their personal idea be the chosen one. What matters is the goal.
But what if some people aren't so much interested in the goal per se, as they are in building their own little empire on the way to the goal? An old-skool Microserf will fully expect to argue the case, then sit back, and let the idea be considered on its merits. They won't be able to cope with a senior manager who does not have the best interests of the organization as a whole in mind. That's what I mean by a culture clash.
Possibly one of their biggest strengths (other than their monopoly) would be differing ideas among upper management.
It was when the senior management was largely comprised of Microsoft lifers who joined in the early days of the company and had worked their way up. But it's very different when those people find themselves competing with professional managers brought in as lateral hires.
Re:Control (Score:3, Insightful)
So now, M$ is in the same position -- it happens when you have divisions compared to and fighting themselves, which always happens when you run out of serious outside competition. Office competes internally for resources with Windows, competing with XBox, competing with the languages and Visual Studio, competing with .NET (until .NET gets eaten up by libraries, which results in it being divided up between Windows, Office, and VS). You aren't really judged within M$ by how well you do against the competition (outside of XBox, there really still isn't any -- M$'s press department, marketting, and legal teams and the board take care of that issue which isn't a technical issue to them, its a PR issue, and their PR is again IBM's -- nobody got fired for buying IBM, so now nobody gets fired for buying Microsoft).
Yes, M$ is competing within itself, because to them there's no other competition. And its been like that within the company for almost a decade now. And like IBM in the 70s and 80s, each division is in that tricky position of competing with other divisions in size, market share, and profit share, while at the same time doing nothing that potentially damages another core business (e.g., the Visual Studio team can't do anything that might break .NET or .NET integration, or come up with a better .NET than .NET does). Just like IBM crippled their PCs with no networking or terminal emulation, because doing so would have hurt their cash cow of a mainframe terminal business.
Re:Control (Score:3, Interesting)
Without a legal mandate, DRM will fail due to customer rejection. Customers will not like DRM raking up charges on their credit card quietly like Microsoft believes it should. They will not like loosing all their licenses in a computer malfunction and having to obtain or buy new ones.
The next few years are going to be a bit messy, with Microsoft and the media sharks trying all sorts of stunts. But unless they can somehow hook into the "War on Terror", Microsoft won't be getting their kingdom, and they and the media sharks may not survive the wrath of their customers.
Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
Godzilla: Stomp!
Court order not needed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Court order not needed (Score:4, Insightful)
Imagine, if you will, that CmdrTaco's little icon joke about the Borg is indeed correct. OK, now, imagine that we manage to insert a little bit of autonomy (by college education, for example) into one of the drones. Remember Hugh [caltech.edu]? Seems OSS has hurt Microsoft in ways that can't be measured quite yet on the balance sheet.
I've always thought that the best way to dismantle a machine is from the inside. Here's more credence to that thought, IMHO. Actually, my first thought when I read the article was "Merry Christmas, Soko - there really is a Windows user with a clue."
Soko
You Need Only Consider IIS... (Score:4, Funny)
Of course Microsoft is their own worst enemy. Who else would allow IIS or Outlook - a security hole which masquerades as an e-mail client - to be some of their flagship products?
The security holes are even more annoying than the damned animated paperclip.
Re:You Need Only Consider IIS... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:You Need Only Consider IIS... (Score:5, Funny)
My animated paperclip went on a bender and refuses to speak to me.
The last time I heard mine was a dying scream as I mounted my FAT32 partition, navigated to it, and typed the magic letters:
# rm -rf *
It was high, blood-curdling, but strangely satisfying. Like the sound of the welds in a Honda's body popping as the car crusher takes it down to 3 apples tall, then the wet thunk of a cast-aluminum engine block cracking like a flowerpot in a vise.
Mercifully, when I had to install Excel on Wine because OpenOffice doesn't do something as fscking simple as a polynomial regression, the damned paperclip didn't work.
well, (Score:5, Funny)
Eugenia (Score:3, Funny)
Be wary!
Reminds me of another company (Score:5, Insightful)
When a Time Warner executive stated that using PVR technology was stealing, right as AOL Time Warner dumped tons of money into Tivo, should indicate a lot about corporate culture these days.
That Time Warner executive should have been fired. He could have even faced lawsuits by AOL Time Warner stockholders, for directly going against (and possibly reducing value) of the parent company.
Re:Reminds me of another company (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's be rhetorical for a minute:
What's more valuable to AOL/Time Warner and its shareholders? A billion dollar entertainment industry or a million dollar PVR industry that may be dead in a few years?
Re:Reminds me of another company (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reminds me of another company (Score:2)
If the media industries that are still 'safe' invest in technology that will do some of the neat things that we as consumers want, but still leave them in ultimate control, they'll be happy. They won't go away. AOL Time Warner investing in Tivo gives AOL Time Warner some input into the future functionality of the device. This lets them shape what happens, before everyone and their brother has 1,000 movies in divx format on their hard drives.
Mac vs Apple ][ (Score:5, Insightful)
Creative destruction anyone?
Excellent article (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Excellent article (Score:2)
And Jonas Salk ruined polio.
Send in John Stossel (Score:2)
Stossel the Libertarian? (Score:2)
He's a worthless hack. Has been for years. Remember his insecticide claims?
Stossel the Liar (Score:3, Interesting)
The report was aired twice before Stossel was forced to retract the statements which were patently false because the group that supposedly did the tests kept complaining that the tests described had never been done.
The first actual study of the issue was completed in May and showed that organically grown produce contained a third as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods.
Stossel knew there was no study to support his ridiculous claims, but it meshed with his political beliefs and he didn't think anyone would call him on it.
More details about the real study are here [omri.org]. More about Stossel's junk science can be found here [junkscience.com].
So open source isn't good enough... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So open source isn't good enough... (Score:5, Informative)
Did you read the same article as I did???
The point of the article had very little to do with the merits of OS software. He was merely stating the fact that he himself had very little experience with Linux.
The point of the article was that, no matter how good or bad your product is, or how firmly entrenched you monopoly may be, if you piss off your customers long enough, you will eventually strangle yourself to death.
Or, to put it another way, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall..."
Re:So open source isn't good enough... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ummmm.... yea. The other point of the article, interestingly enough, is that Microsoft doesn't seem to get it. In fact, it seems to be a pretty common trait among large corporations that a large fraction of their top level executives seem to get so wrapped up in themselves that they don't seem to be able to comprehend simple relationships like this. They have been so successful wringing every last cent out of their customers that they don't even notice when they start to flee in droves, and when they do notice, they respond by simply turning up the pressure, which in turn, accelerates the hemoraging
Re:So open source isn't good enough... (Score:2)
As *soon* as Linux give him a reason to go through the hassle of installing and learning a new OS environment, he'd easily do that and (quote) "unlike two years ago, I can see it potentially occuring today".
So he's definitely not telling us open source operating systems aren't "worthy competitors", but more like closer to make the Windows user base switch than ever due to the "attidue, lying and marketing BS" of Microsoft.
Note to self (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, wait, I forgot. The good judge's decision has assured us that Microsoft doesn't really need to change the way the do business all that much because they've promised to be good from now on, cross their crooked little hearts...
...sigh...
preach to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:preach to the choir (Score:3, Insightful)
there's been plenty of bad press about Microsoft all over all the news palces. and it keeps coming on over and over and over again. somehow their stock continues to prevail and is extremely strong even in these economicly weak times. i think it works something like this:
1) write extremely buggy and non-origional Operating System.
2) force all hardware manufactures into exclusive contracts. our OS or no OS!
3) ?????
4) Profit!!!
Re:preach to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
When will you all get it? WE (meaning the tech/IT industry and community) are the ONLY people that care about our OS being buggy. The fact that #2 has happened makes it irrelevant to complain about the lack of reliability in Windows. And we are DEFINITELY the only people that care about it not being original (don't bring up the Apple/Xerox lawsuits, those have been settled now meaning that we are the only people that ever bring it up). My mom doesn't give a shit if the concept Windows was stolen from a Xerox PARC prototype or a mac or from Bill Gates' college roommate or whoever, she cares about whether her email works or not, and guess what? it does. Not the way you'd like it to, but it's email and it works. Who gives a fuck. The world is not made up of sysadmins.
The way you beat microsoft is to make a superior product, and market it better. The government has shown that they won't help level the playing field for any competitors to MS, so that's the world anyone taking them on has to work in.
Linux is not superior to Windows yet. It's more reliable, on the right hardware. It's got that cool CLI geek cred going for it. So does OSX. The GUIs for Linux plainly suck.
The legal remedy in the DOJ case should have involved abolishing all copyrights MS has to their interface so that KDE or (god forbid) the GNOME folks could clone the Chicago GUI. People would be comfortable with using Linux if it looked just like Windows.
This is around the point in this discussion where someone whines that "we can't take on microsoft, they have [insert ridiculously huge corporate asset here]!!!" If you feel that way, then stop bitching about what you've got. The glory is in the fight, anyway.
Which brings me to my next point. Once the fight is won, then you have to manage what you win. The OSS community couldn't handle being in control of the #1 OS in the world. It's too fragmented and too immature. To handle something with the market share and pervasiveness of Windows would take an infrastructure the size of Microsoft. So, build one. Stop whining about losing and go make yourself into a winner.
Re:preach to the choir (Score:5, Insightful)
This is simply untrue. Anybody who has ever lost a half-hour's work on a project, has had their system hosed by a virus, or worse - had porn spam sent out to their coworkers in their name, they care, believe me. The list goes on and on.
The problem is that the people I talk to don't understand that it can be different. They think it's the computer in some vague, "all computers need to be rebooted every few hours" sort of way. They don't seem to really believe me when I tell them to use a different operating system with different programs that aren't so buggy or virus prone.
I think anyone who uses a computer to do something that they either care about or are paid by someone else who cares, DO care about buggy code. They just don't know it. They think computers are just like that.
Re:preach to the choir (Score:4, Interesting)
Then I sat down with a regular computer user. He asked why I had "Don't use this" underneath the "E" on my desktop (Crossover Office, Internet Explorer icon on Windows desktop). I explained that the browser was insecure due to some recent security exploits, and that I only had that particular browser installed so my wife would be able to do online ordering for one particular business she runs.
"So, you mean, you don't use the Internet?" he asked.
"No, we just don't use Internet Explorer here due to security problems." I responded.
"But when I click on the Internet, it still works," replied he.
I shortly thereafter realized, this kid thought the "e" on the desktop WAS THE INTERNET. He had no idea that it is a network of high-speed fibre circumnavigating the globe, carrying terabytes of information. He had no clue what a web browser or email reader was. He had no idea what a protocol was, or even the concept of security beyond it being what those guys in uniforms in the mall do.
This is the state of the average computer user. We either educate them, or dumb the computer down enough that they can use it. So I have to agree that it seems that only the "geekier" chunk of society even understands what a computer bug is, much less why we'd want few of them...
Re:preach to the choir (Score:3, Insightful)
To handle something with the market share and pervasiveness of Windows would take an infrastructure the size of Microsoft.
By many measures, the OSS infrastructure is already far larger than Microsoft. Number of developers, or developer FTEs? Not even close. Number of lines of source? Again, not close.
The fair comparison, of course, isn't Microsoft and OSS: it's OSS and the Microsoft community. What even MS seems not to understand is that their monopoly-producing asset is the result of maybe the largest first-mover advantage in the history of the world. The biggest advantage of the first mover is that the community tends to form around them. As someone who bought one of the first IBM PCs off the line, I recall perfectly well the reasons why I bought PC-DOS for it rather than the obviously technically superior CPM/86: one of them was that it was clear that PC-DOS would win, and I wanted to be part of the PC community.
(The other was price. folks forget that while both CPM/86 and PC-DOS were available for PCs in retail computer stores, CPM/86 was a lot more expensive. If DR hadn't priced themselves out of the market, they still might have won.)
In short, OSS vs MS is first and foremost a contest in community building and maintenance. The MS community began with an enormous headstart, but so far seem to have done a good job of squandering it. It will be interesting to see whether this trend continues to hold.
Re:preach to the choir (Score:2)
Sure. But times have changed.
It used to be a small group of advocates would compare notes and bitch in their own little confines, well seperated from the mainstream business and tech press. Slashdot is a prime example of one such enclave. And whatever message preached to the choir would stop at the confines of that site... or at least the advocate community if some linking happened.
And then Linux and Microsoft's bad behavior both became big news. Slashdot started showing up more and more in spurious mainstream articles. And its not just Slashdot. Other sources for various advocate groups are more common in an increasing number of non-Microsoft (or Microsoft-critical) articles.
Once an idea, or a particularly well-written article (and even some not-so-well-written), make it in to the advocacy community there's now a good chance some reporter for the mainstream business and tech press will pick it up. Granted - its not the same article. And sometimes the message gets garbled going through that filter. But the idea is still making it where those outside the advocacy group are exposed to it - and with any luck, they get a link to the origional article and the unfiltered message.
Yes. This is no Wall Street Journal expose on why Microsoft is bad for your business. But then, its note entirely a message doomed to obscurity either.
perspectives (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:perspectives (Score:2)
This is typified, in a similar vein, in the Patriot Act. For many decades, immigrants and foriegners, were granted carte-blanche access to the US, and citizens, likewise were finding that we were unable to find a middle ground on the appropriate amount of inalienable rights -- letting therefore the courts to define what that really is (for anyone who cared to sue somebody). Now I think the pendulum has swung the other way.
Now as I step down from my soap box, I leave you with this: your rights end where the rights of the next person's start. It ends up being a small circle.
The answer to the article as to MS's greatest threat: nothing (with a GDP of a small country, they can buy away any threat).
Happy New Year
Re:perspectives (Score:2, Interesting)
So, um where do the other person's rights start? I keep running into people that try to lay claim to rights I have no interest in, that interfere with rights I want.
I remember in Dragonball where Goku asked a policeman where Bulma lived and the policeman could call up a picture for every person named Bulma in the city and helped him find her. Impossible with the rights some people want. But then, some people want to be afraid of their government.
Re:perspectives (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is my formulation: As the number of idiots posting in a thread increases, the chance of a Dragonball reference increases accordingly. In case of said event, the person who made the comment will have everything he has said or ever will say forever invalidated.
Re:perspectives (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice to say, but few politicians are practicing. The last year has been about removing all our rights to have oversight of our government. Many things that required full public access is now conducted behind doors. The funny thing is that W. started all that Before 9/11.
How fortutious for Bush that 9/11 happened when it did. I have always that it strange that Clinton could protect our shores with the CIA/FBI while Bush blames them.
Re:perspectives (Score:2, Insightful)
I for one can not think of a single non-politician that I have met who has supported the Patriot Act or it's relatives. Most people are neutral pending seeing it's results and more than a few are actively against it.
It will take awhile, the voting public still seems to be in shell shock, but when enough people become active again the Patriot Act will be fixed/removed. I wouldn't be surprised to see it essentially nullified within 5-10 years, and probably the same with the DMCA. I wish it would take less time, but that's the way things work. The population mass has reached a point where turn-on-a-dime democracy is very hard to do.
As for you ignoring people's opinions based on the laws that their government enacts, well, that seems rather ignorant.
Re:perspectives (Score:2)
I was merely pointing out that this specific opinion parallels problems in society as a whole, or at least with the government. I completely agree with this guy's opinions.
Re:perspectives (Score:5, Insightful)
Add it all up and what you have is a company (country) that, at the least, displays a profound level of arrogance coupled with the unshakable belief that they have not only the ability, but the right to dictate to the rest of the world, from charities to corporations, (to governments) how the world should look....
Guess Microsoft is succeeding in the American Way. (sigh)
Re:perspectives (Score:3, Funny)
As a New American I'm forced to ask you the following questions:
(1) why do you hate america so much? that is, what is it that you despise about freedom?
(2) if other countries are so great, why is America the only democracy in the world?
(3) how do YOU know what's going on in American society... are you some sort of SPY!?!?!?!
Have a nice day.
PS: satire+cynicism+sarcasm
Re:perspectives (Score:3, Insightful)
1] You preach freedom, but practice intolerance of any economic system other than capitalism. You are so free, that you made it illegal to vote communist. (As a Canadian, I enjoy federal and provincial elections featuring "commies" who get just slightly fewer votes than the lunatic right wing). You are also so "free" that you think its ok to tell other countries how much they should spend on their military.
2] You are not a democracy, you are a representative republic. There have been very few direct democracies since the times of the Ancient Athens.
3] CNN, Time mag, etc... tell me what is going on. In fact, it takes abit of effort to get good local news as we are swamped by USA news.
The most annoying things about the USA is its complete inability to understand why anyone would not want to instantly make their country over in the image of the USA.
Straddling the Fence (Score:5, Insightful)
While ppl will argue linux gives you both, if you are a computer geek, this isn't a valid solution for the average home user. While linux may be secure enough for them, if purely because linux isn't a target platform for widescale hackers and virus writters, the average person will never make use of the flexibility in linux.
"And you can make kernel modifications as you want them"
"What's a kernel?"
"err well you can download other peoples kernel mods off the internet, compile them and add them to your kernel"
"Uhh What's a compile"?
MS is in the unfortunate position of catering to a large diverse market, and I don't really think there is a unified theory of doing so. I run w2k because it is stable. It may not be as flexible as say XP, but it suffices for me and what I want to do. And I have a win98 parition if a game won't work under 2k.
Split Indeed (Score:2, Interesting)
People are fearful of and distrustful of MS the same way they have been of the government since the LBJ days (I'm thinking Vietnam here)-- and many before then (I'm thinking Ralph Waldo Emerson types here).
Now if only.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Now if only.... (Score:2)
I can just here Judge Jackson saying, "Ha! told-ya-so! It was for your own good!"
This guy has no point (Score:5, Insightful)
- Microsoft put little more than a CDDB lookup into their player. Since everyone freaked out they've made it very very obvious during the install what gets sent. Take a look at everyone else's player and you'll see they are not trying to take over the world in some sinister plot. And product activation sucks but so does having perhaps the most pirated piece of software in the world so you really can't blame them.
- Microsoft lobbies. Welcome to the united states of america.
- Attacking microsoft because the PCs it donates aren't good enough? Come on! Donations are voluntary and should be welcomed no matter what they are. Don't forget Gates does some serious giving-back. Funny how he forgets to mention this..
I'm tired of reading this poorly thought out crap. People will find any excuse to rag on Microsoft. News flash: it's 2002, not 1992. Microsoft-bashing is getting a little old.
Re:This guy has no point (Score:5, Interesting)
No, because the donated PC's are simply blatant attempt to supplant Apple's dominance in the educational market, and to generate more license revenue for Microsoft. Who do you think pays to upgrade those PCs when people realize that Windows 3.1 doesn't run any real software?
(Also, when another independent company tried to do the same thing, MS took them to court because they couldn't prove they had valid licenses for all the copies of Windows 95 that the used computers were running. They ended up having to trash several thousand used computers because they didn't have enough money to buy all brand new licenses for them.)
Re:This guy has no point (Score:3, Informative)
Also, you can find information on "safe" donations of computers (and why it is dangerous to donate computers running old copies of Windows) on the SchoolForge [schoolforge.net] site.
Saying "thousands of computers" is an overstatement for this particular incident, but if you count the number of "illegally" donated computers (i.e., ones donated to schools where they have not paid the $100 to $200 each for new licenses), then the number probably pretty close. Microsoft has shown repeatedly that they are ready, willing and able to drag school systems through the courts to prevent them from using these systems.
Re:This guy has no point (Score:5, Informative)
Too bad you have no idea what you're talking about.
You should read more about what media player really does:
Media Player sends a unique id number along with the info about what you're watching.
Are you an astroturfer or something or are you just clueless/insane? I don't need to even get into your other points as they're just ridiculous.
News flash: MS is worse now than they've even been.
Why exactly should I pretend they aren't?
Re:This guy has no point (Score:3, Informative)
Oh no! Oh my God!
I don't need to even get into your other points as they're just ridiculous.
Uh huh.
News flash: MS is worse now than they've even been.
No, you've just proven the anything-but-Microsoft astroturfers are more insane than they've ever been.
Christ, next you'll be claiming the government puts flouride in our water supply for mind control.
Re:This guy has no point (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: Writer should get his facts straight (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM sure ain't dead ...
Revenues last quarter:
- Microsoft:
- IBM:
Interestingly, IBM made more GROSS PROFIT the last quarter ($8,094,000,000) than Microsoft's total revenues.$7,746,000,000
$20,592,000,00
Contrary to popular belief, IBM, not Microsoft, is the worlds' largest software company. IBM just happens to bundle a computer with many of their offerings.
Re: Writer should get his facts straight (Score:2)
Re: Writer should get his facts straight (Score:2)
Perhaps you should too. (Score:4, Interesting)
MSFT:
Revenue - $7,746,000
Net Income - $2,726, 000
IBM:
Revenue - $19,821,000
Net Income - $1,694,000
And also from Quicken:
What is Net Income?
The amount of a company's total sales (revenue) remaining after subtracting all of its costs, in a given period of time (also referred to as "net earnings"). This very important figure (literally the source of the term "the bottom line" for where you find it on an income statement) is the best measure of the current operating state of a company.
Re:Perhaps you should too. (Score:5, Insightful)
Overpriced? With respect to what measure? Most of the people who use IBM hardware do so because they can't find alternatives that provide the stability and service provided with an IBM solution. When you get me a PC platform where I can hot swap memory modules and CPUs we can talk. Plus make sure that the OS that it's running supports such usage. Self monitoring so that I don't have 75% of my scheduled jobs crashing before I found out CPU 3 has crashed would be nice, too. People who use these machines might find them overpriced if you want to talk MIPS, but most have other, very rational reasons to use these machines.
Re:Perhaps you should too. (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.ibm.com/investor/3q02/3q02earnings.p
The line that is most relevent is how much they paid in federal taxes. Microsoft does not pay any taxes. Nor do they pay investor dividends (IBM Does).I don't think we can call Microsoft just a software company with the introduction of X Box.
I also would not trust any earnings report from Microsoft. Like Enron, standard accounting practices do not apply. Read some of these articles:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/business/DailyNe
http://finance.pro2net.com/x34261.xml
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit199905
http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html
Enjoy,
Greek Saying (Score:3, Insightful)
My own $0.02 is that M$'s hubris will eventually provide the catalyst for their decline and eventual demise.
Re:Greek Saying (Score:2)
I think it was "they first drive mad". Hubris is what brought a mortal to their attention in the first place. Didn't like the competition, see.
I agree. Microsoft is self-destructive: (Score:2)
I agree. Microsoft is self-destructive:
Windows XP Shows the Direction Microsoft is Going. [hevanet.com]
Windows XP montre la direction que prend Microsoft. [hevanet.com]
Windows XP muestra la dirección que Microsoft está tomando. [hevanet.com]
Were the counties looking into switching to OSS? (Score:2)
is anyone else tired of this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Potential libel? (or is that slander...) (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I do think he went out on a limb with the following comment:
"The recently-revealed fact that Microsoft, in effect, offered states a bribe in order to drop their anti-trust suits against the Redmond giant. While I hold the states equally responsible for accepting the money in the first place, Redmond is known for displaying a remarkable level of NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here) perhaps only equaled by Steve Job's unparalleled Reality Distortion Field."
I haven't heard about any of this bribe business, but if it isn't true and if he is exaggerating, I think the writer has really set himself up for a potential lawsuit. To accuse someone of committing a felony like that in this day-and-age when it hasn't been proven is kind of stupid, and I would have changed the wording around if I were him.
It is all bullshit and I am sick of it (Score:3, Interesting)
The article wants MS not to donate any machine or Windows to poor schools for competitive issues, to protect Apple's interests, but yet at the same time it critizes MS because it donates old technology.
The article accuses MS of bribing, yet there is no known evidence of such a criminal conduct. If the bribe means here a settlement, it is a legal move. There is nothing to talk about here.
Licensing program is not a good move, but let's talk about Oracle's licensing practices. Let's talk about other licensing plans out there in the industry. If you are going to critize MS for this and not others, you are just plain lying about your facts
It is also unbelievable that any person who bullshits to bash MS can get this much of attention. It doesn't even matter what you say anymore, as long as you bash MS. The facts mentioned in the article are all very well known, but still we see it here because it is yet another MS bashing article.
I just hope the real workers behind the open source are not following this stupid trend. Otherwise open source movement is doomed.
What if... (Score:5, Informative)
What if this type of thinking begins to really penetrate MS's customer base? If Joe User (think of all of your friends and family who use you as their technical support hotline) starts to believe that Microsoft is taking them to the cleaners - not just believe it, but become convinced of the fact - and is willing to make the jump to an alternative OS, what then? What if the tools to make the switch are easy enough for anyone's grandparents to freely obtain and use? (Today, most of these kinds of users don't even know how to locate an ISO, let alone download & burn it! I'm also assuming they don't want to pay for the software from a vendor or store)
What would MS do if their customer base starts to erode noticeably? Will we see more "Satanic" actions to lock in their customers, or will MS respond in a way that will benefit the overall user community?
Perhaps this would be a good followup "Ask Slashdot", but I'd love to see people's thoughts on this.
-Lokatana
Things are not what they appear (Score:2, Interesting)
As to them, well, Bill is needing to change the strategy to survive. He was able to buy off states and even our current administration without too much repercussion. This shows that MS can adopt. What is happening behind other scences is what ppl should notice. From what I understand, there are a number of start-ups by bill that are designed to push MS. These are targeted towards unique niches. 2 companies are directed at Intuit to compete against TurboTax.
While I am a Linux developer, I do forsee that we have a rough road ahead of us. MS should never be underestimated.
Garbage editorialism. (Score:5, Insightful)
Then he goes on to say, a paragrah later, "Right now, Linux has yet to offer me any reason why I should go to the monumental hassle of switching and re-training myself to the new OS..."
You must NOT be all that concerned about your privacy, the right to use the OS as you see fit (Click on Agree or Decline after reading the EULA? A thought), or your rights of fair use if you blindly click through the EULA and install their product.
RTFEULA. Worried about all that and still agreeing to MS's EULA and being too lazy to learn an OS that's free from all that just befuddles me.
And since when did learning Linux become a monumental effort? Rocketing into space is a monumental effort. Learning Linux is akin to Bellybutton Lint Removal 101.
How does this crap make the news, anyhow?
Re:Garbage editorialism. (Score:3, Insightful)
I have been using Linux for only 1 year after using windows very heavily since windows 3.1, and I would say I am more proficient at linux admin than windows after just that year.
Why? Because alot of windows admin stuff is really just knowledge about computers and how they work, applying that knowledge to linux/unix/macos/any platform is simple and trivial. Sure there are things that are different about Linux, or MacOS or whatever, and it takes a little while to learn it, but switching from Windows to Linux is not switching from being a programmer to being a nude model. In other words, you don't throw out an entire toolset and start over fresh (I would have to do alot of working out if I wanted to make that switch, not to mention some plastic surgery, and other enhancements, and all my programming languages would be useless), you can take alot of things from windows and they translate directly into linux, and the things that don't I've found generally are easier to do in linux... So, no you don't have to throw away thousands of hours to switch to linux, just the hundreds you spent saying "Why the hell did they do it like this??!!"
Another way Microsoft contradicts itself... (Score:4, Interesting)
So which is it? I administer a nice big AD domain on w2k servers and I personally am insulted that Microsoft is doing their best to convince my administrators as well as others that Windows administration can be done by a non-expert. How long before CFOs believe this and wonder why they are paying for all of these expensive personnel down in IT? It's bad enough they don't understand the complexity of our jobs, now Microsoft is telling them it doesn't require an "expert" to administer Windows servers. :-(
Re:Another way Microsoft contradicts itself... (Score:3, Interesting)
Pick up a copy of the windows 2000 server resource kit, read it, and then get back to me. (I realize you may be being sarcastic or trolling here, but still... :)
I will give you an example, point and click just doesn't work in a large environment. I have 13,000 users in my Active Directory for example. To administer a Windows environment successfully, you need to be able to script everything you can in ADSI, WMI, etc... Otherwise you'll spend all your life pointing and clicking or running out to visit client PCs. Let's say your company gets bought out and everyone's e-mail address gets changed. Are you going to sit there and point and click 13,000 accounts in Active Directory Users and Groups and manually type in the new e-mail domain name into each account? If you have to deploy a program to 2,000 desktops, are you going to run around to each PC, stick in a CD and run setup, or are you going to try to figure out how to use GPOs and msi packages to deploy it automatically?
Having Microsoft say that running a Windows environment doesn't take any real (ie, expensive) expertise is an insult to all of us who administer the things.
Why regular people won't switch to Linux (Score:2)
Right now, Linux has yet to offer me any reason why I should go to the monumental hassle of switching and re-training myself to the new OS environment...
This explains in a nutshell why Linux developers should concentrate, at least in the short term, on recreating the look and feel of the MS Windows desktop.
Microsoft has always had major internal fights (Score:2)
Some of the more public ones that I've heard about include
Battle between the VMS guys and the rest of management and the Windows squad (covered in the book Fumbling the Future)
Battle between the Windows manager and the standalone IE manager during Win98's browser integration. Forgot which book that was in
I'm sure that Microsoft Research creating new technologies largely independently of the product teams also creates PARC-style battles as well.
Parallels (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft and the US government are in very similar situations.
Here, we have two extremely powerful entities that are very prone to extend beyond their reasonable range of influence to make everything go exactly the way they want it to.
Both are facing enemies (the US against terrorists, and Microsoft against Linux) that have emerged as a decentralized and nearly attack-proof.
Both have earned a good deal of resentment from the communities which they supposedly serve (MS has people like us constantly bitching while President Bush's approval rating has dropped below 50% this December: and both rightfully so).
Both, despite the great amount of disapproval, appear to be doing nothing to change their situation (except for Bush's recent decision to back down on threats of attacking North Korea, though he intends to push for isolating them economically).
Could a few good leaders in Washington clear this whole mess up? I think so. Now if only such people existed... -sigh-
utter nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
Beyond that, it is nonsense. My experience with XP is that is more stable than any other consumer MS OS, but not as good as 2000. For one thing, the adaptive GUI just gets in the way. The market has spoken on XBox. It is a good machine, but not good enough. Without the benefit of monopoly, MS was not able to set the price on the product, and had to do several price reduction in order to get the results it wanted. This would also be the case with it's OS and apps if competition exists. In countries that aren't MS hostages, the XBox is not doing well. As for the tablet PC, it is not yet a product. We do not how exactly it will act. It is probably as good as XBox, which may not be good enough.
The problem with MS is that it does not have to innovate. It does not have to create great products. Without competition, there is no need to excel. It can steal , cajole, and threaten. The creativity is limited to calling the OS 'Windows'. The charity is limited to giving kids junk and then taking a writeoff for the inflated value. The programming wonders are limited to creating a paperclip that you can't get rid of, or wizards that won't let you get back to the menu. I find the culture to be pretty unified.
Predictions of Microsoft decline (Score:3, Interesting)
Absolutely Correct (Score:5, Interesting)
I watch this board closely to try to gauge perception. (I watch lots of other things too, because everything has some inherent bias, borg toon anyone?) I want to know where the industry is headed. In the past I've felt the pain of backing the wrong technology and after many years have come to appreciate such an error's effect on my families ability to do things they enjoy, like eat and sleep inside.
For the last several years the food on my table has come from a deep knowledge of many of Microsoft's products. At the end of the day, I really don't care what tools I used to create a new system. What I care about is that I can do what I love (design and build software) for someone who appreciates the effort enough to pay me a decent sum of money.
I view many of the arguments on this site with mild amusement (open vs. closed source) as the ravings of modern-day hippies or the very young. Unfortunately, I am constrained by certain requirements in my life and I doubt very much that my wife or my children would care about free-as-in-speech vs. free-as-in-beer, and as such care much more about the bottom-line than high-minded principals, no matter how appealing.
That said, I am starting to study and use Linux and other offerings of this community. Some of it is very impressive and some of it, I must say, is promising but primitive crap. I do not believe that the movement will overthrow Microsoft on its own merit. I do believe that Microsoft is creating enough incentive for the market to make this a commercially viable alternative.
The PS2's were awesome and reliable machines. They were probably worth the additional price. But, by the time IBM really tried to strong-arm the market, the IT buying community was pissed off enough that the platform's relative merits meant nothing. I believe that OS/2 was equally affected by this, although it's terrible setup procedure hurt it as well. Microsoft is today's IBM. I hope they get their heads out of their asses soon, but they'd better do it quickly.
Pots and Kettles (Score:2, Interesting)
Listen folks, if this is a problem, then the Open Source movement might as well quit while the quitting is good. If you can get N OSS developers in a room, you're guaranteed to have N completely different opinions on what should be done in terms of any software strategy: technical, marketing, or other. And why should it be any different? After all, projects are done ostensibly for fun and self-improvement. No one should be allowed to tell me what to do with my code! Multiply this logic by a million and you have a good handle on the swarming behavior of the Open Source community.
Besides, if I am to read the article correctly, the main problem with Microsoft is that they are making better products while they still haven't cleaned their act up in terms of being a "good corporate citizen."
This isn't really grounds for celebration. If anything, it should be a wake up call that Linux on the desktop is becoming less competetive by the day in terms of functionality and 'meeting the consumers needs.'
Dumb and Dumber (Score:4, Interesting)
What do I mean by that? If you judge Microsoft's management by the universal business scorecard - money - then no one can argue that they are doing a bad job.
From a technical viewpoint Microsoft's managers are clueless idiots, from an ethical standpoint they are amoral cretins who barely qualify as human; but from a business standpoint - the company has made a lot of money on their watch.
In reality Microsoft's management is a lot like a defensive lineman who gets a pass stuck in his face guard - then stumbles blindly into the end zone to score a game winning touchdown; they were in the right place at the right time - every thing else was pure dumb luck.
Of course, Microsoft's management believes that their brilliant business decisions are responsible for Microsoft's success; but then I have already written about their technical judgment.
Just to give you an idea.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Hits the Nail Right on the Head (Score:4, Interesting)
Um. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the very idea that someone in the mainstream has gotten the idea that we are anti-business/anti-profit is very BAD, as it constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement behind free software and the open source development model.
Who in the mainstream is going to align themselves with us, if we give them the impression that we're anarchists and commies?
Re:Um. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the contrary it shows that they have a very good understanding of the movement behind free software. [fsf.org]
Who in the mainstream is going to align themselves with us, if we give them the impression that we're anarchists and commies?
They are not. But if you want to shed that image you need to stop acting like Software Communists.
Communism == EVIL (Score:3, Interesting)
If the maximum leader actually responds to the wishes of the lead, he isn't a maximum leader anymore and the government drifts away from communism because 'the people' never actually want communism. They might SAY they want some of the trappings of it, but offer them the whole package and as soon as they figure out how badly they get screwed along with 'the evil rich' they want nothing to do with it. Then it's either popular rule or rule from the muzzle of a gun. Popular rule means slide towards a European style Welfare State Socialism with a stagnant economy or keep going towards a full Free Market. The other option is for starry eyed communism to turn into Stalinism, which is historically the more popular choice since those in power never want to give it up without a fight. After all, they have convinced themselves they are the most wise and enlightened leaders in the land and are most fit to rule.
Re:Communism == EVIL (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides. "Kill counts" are almost always exaggerated when presented from a "communist country" as part of common propaganda. When Ceucescu was overthrown in Rumania he was presented as a communist dictator, when in fact he was largely supported by the west, and was much more of a facist than a communist. The kill numbers where presented in the scale of 50.000 when in fact they were less than 1000.
At the same time USA attacked Panama in a "clean, precision attack to take down an evil communist dictator", when in fact he came to power supported by the US, and the kill numbers (civilians) where actually larger than in the revolt in Rumenia.
I would not trust for instance CNN, NBC or CBS to give you an objective view on communism.
Red Khmer in Cambodia was supported by the west until he got troublesome.
Communism in it's basic idea is "provide what you can, and receive what you need" and the idea that the people shall own the means of production.
I'm not saying that it has been a raging success so far, although Cuba seems to work pretty well right now, apart from the ridiculous ban by their biggest potential market (USA). The implementation of Communism has so far been flawed. Their are lots of elements to change in the idea, but it has not at all been proven that the basic idea is evil. Perhaps it is not a good idea to give too much power to a leader, that can be changed.
The notion that "capitalism works" is equally ridiculous. It might work for you, but there are huge masses of people being hurt by capitalism every day.
I'm just "nearly" a communist, and I think there is a better way than capitalism. If you disagree, that is fine, but the whole "communism is evil" mantra of Western Capitalism is basically flawed and makes arguments useless.
Microsoft success or faliure, so what? (Score:5, Interesting)
They are hurt if linux makes a success, we shouldnt care less if Microsoft do. Lets focus at linux and let Microsoft play in their own little pond by themselves.
Know your history (Score:3, Insightful)
The saddest part of all this is the new generation of "programmers" who don't really seem to understand that stability and performance have NEVER been platform or hardware dependent. The new breed of developers as well as users has been conditioned to accept failure and mediocre performance as the status quo. Microsoft, Oracle, and other companies have shifted their business model to exploit the instability of their own products to create entirely new (support) industries from which to profit. It's like they're selling you tainted food and offering health insurance at the same time.
With few exceptions, Microsoft puts out crap. They don't even spray it with perfume any more.. The computing public has learned to enjoy the taste of crap, and they'll serve you a bigger pile of crap each season and you'll love it. What else are you going to do?
I would really like to see OSS take over, and I do my part, but I see an increasingly lazy, uneducated and unmotivated public that is becoming more and more difficult to reason with. I am at a loss how to knock some sense into the public without an ad budget of less than many millions of dollars. Welcome to the new millennium. It looks like it will have to get much worse before it gets better.
The Greatest Gamble (Score:3, Insightful)
I look at the tech industry, that I am preparing to enter, and I see my life ahead of me as a great gamble. I have to pick what platform to develop for, who to develop for, and where to develop at. All of these choices will seriously affect my life, my earning value, and the future of my family. This is scary! Five years ago, I was still in high school. If someone asked me then what platform I would develop on I would say, "The newest Win32 of course!" In a perfect world I would have wanted to work for my MS. Now though, there is no guarantee. I honestly believe linux is the future of computing, but I have no idea what business model is best to use with it! OSS is new territory in the business world. The GPL is a big question mark! I am pretty damn good at poker, but I don't enjoy the prospect of gambling with my life. Oh well, here it comes.
Re:And open source's demon? (Score:2)
What if we can do both? Everybdy's got to hvae a hoby after all.
Re:THE SAME COULD BE SAID FOR LINUX (Score:2)