Is Microsoft Money Crushing Microsoft? 390
JoshuaDFranklin writes "The latest Seattle Weekly has an article by a former Microsoft project manager titled Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow. It argues that Microsoft, addicted to its Windows and Office revenue, is stifling innovation within the company: 'new, better ideas that would take business away from Windows or Office don't really have a chance at Microsoft.' Apple, in contrast, has embraced Open Source and is delivering a better consumer experience." Update: 06/06 21:24 GMT by T : Sorry, it's a dupe.
I'm not even registered an I know this is a dupe (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm not even registered an I know this is a dup (Score:5, Funny)
It's the bias that pays.
Re:I'm not even registered an I know this is a dup (Score:3, Funny)
Only six zillion more /. dupe's to go to catch up to the Microsoft advertising dupe's. We're on track!
---
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Isn't that what subscribers were for? (Score:2, Interesting)
We get dupes just as before, at an alarmingly increasing rate.
What are you talking about? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, a recycler, how novel!
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously, there's nothing I want to extract and reuse from my unwanted data. Don't confuse me with different names just because you're trying to be "different
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft didn't change the trash can because they were trying to "be different". The court decided in the Apple-vs-MS copyright-infringement case [fact-index.com] that the image of the Trash Can was pretty much the only copyrightable aspect of the Mac UI.
You're absolutely right! (Score:4, Insightful)
Hang on while I go install KDE with a taskbar, start menu, integrated filesystem/net browser, Mono, etc....
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that you mention it, Microsoft may well have been the first to use the task bar window switching concept. Well, bravo Microsoft! Too bad it isn't a terribly good concept. And come to think of it, it isn't one that many linux/unix GUIs actually use.
The fact that KDE was even later with some concepts than Microsoft does not make Microsoft creative. Last I checked KDE was a very small-scale project struggling just to stay alive. I don't see anyone promoting them as harbringers of innovation, making your attack on them really something of a straw man.
Re:No. (Score:3, Informative)
And despite that, they still are. They're one of the few desktop environments that supports Mac OR Windows style menus out of the box, and a host of other things that just plain Make Life Easier.
Oh, and Microsoft didn't do the taskbar window-switching concept first. OS/2 and a number of commercial Windows enhancement shells (all long-since dead) all used it. A bunch of programs also used it for MDI stuff.
Innovation (Score:5, Funny)
That might be true, but lately I'm actually starting to see some signs of innovation and creative thinking coming from MS. The new "pop-up blocking" technology in Internet Explorer is a very good example.
Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't stand the way that KDE and most (if not all) Linux apps handle task-bar-like functionality. For example....if I click on a window that belongs to the Gimp, only that one window is made active. The Gimp is an app, and an app usually consists of a collection of windows, palettes, etc - when I activate an app, ALL of the associated windows should be brought forward, not just the one. The way it is now, I have to fish each window out of the pile separately, and that is a pain.
Re:To be fair... (Score:3, Informative)
if I click on a window that belongs to the Gimp, only that one window is made active. The Gimp is an app, and an app usually consists of a collection of windows, palettes, etc - when I activate an app, ALL of the associated windows should be brought forward, not just the one.
Right-click the GIMP windows (you are running a KDE that groups all windows from one app together, right?) select "MOve all to Desktop->pick an empty desktop". Now when you want to bring the GIMP to the front, click on the desktop
Re:You're absolutely right! (Score:5, Informative)
those are not MS innovations. There were number of different docks, launchpads, root menus etc. in X, OS/2, MacOS, taskbar and start menu are nothing new (i.e. not significantly different from the others). You could do cd ftp://ftp.uu.net in midnight commander since before MS new Netscape would be a threat.
erik
Re:You're absolutely right! (Score:2, Insightful)
They're not Linux innovations either.
It's okay for KDE/GNOME to shamelessly rip everything off, but not Microsoft?
The point still stands. Windows 95 popularized the taskbar, start menu, and more. Windows 98 popularized the integrated filesystem/net browser. All are used in KDE, and most in GNOME.
Re:You're absolutely right! (Score:5, Insightful)
Now for some sanity: Microsoft DID invent some stuff, there are ideas in Windows 95 that I have not seen elsewhere before it, except in some of my own experiments (I did the exact same divider-less graphics for window borders in the "ViewKit" I wrote for NeXT, but I doubt Microsoft stole it from me).
1. The "taskbar" contained both opened and closed windows. All systems I have seen before then only showed closed windows, opened windows were either not represented or where in a different navigator.
2. The "taskbar" was the first indication that somebody has realized that text is important. They shrunk down the "icon" as small as possible (probably somebody at Microsoft tried to get rid of them, but was stopped by the "experts" who think easy-to-use == pictures). And they made the text in the taskbar icon prominent.
3. They got rid of the divider line between the window borders and the contents and made thw windows look a lot more like unified objects. (for some reason they have reverted to old-fashioned graphics today, unfortunatly the good graphic desiginers they had on Windows95 have apparently been replaced by Enlightenment geeks with no clean graphic sense whatsoever).
4. They supported drag-resize of windows, and hacked their system so it was fast enough to draw this on existing machines, rather than punting like far faster Unix machines were doing.
5. I belive Microsoft is responsible for a lot of the linking of "program to run" to the file itself. Every system I have ever seen before that required an explicit indicator as to the program to run. Apple's files contained this indication (the creator id) and is thus not exactly what Microsoft did. Now this could be done a whole lot better, such as using a program like Unix "file" to figure it out, and there is ZERO support at an os level (why isn't there a system call to exec a file?), but before Windows this idea did not exist.
Some other microsoft "inventions" are amusing... (Score:3, Funny)
* A bold new method of shutting down a PC--After all, it's completely logical that the first step in the shutdown process should be to click the "Start" button.
* The system registry--because everybody system needs a single point of failure stored in an opaque, obsfucated, hidden file accessible only through special utilities. You have the choice of getting lost in a giant tree of settings of a "friendly" user interface, with no "undo" button and the ability to cause
Re:You're absolutely right! (Score:5, Informative)
Oh where do I start. ;)
The "taskbar" contained both opened and closed windows. All systems I have seen before then only showed closed windows, opened windows were either not represented or where in a different navigator.
Didn't Commodore's 2.0 version of Amiga Workbench support this? I recall it working as you describe...
The "taskbar" was the first indication that somebody has realized that text is important. They shrunk down the "icon" as small as possible (probably somebody at Microsoft tried to get rid of them, but was stopped by the "experts" who think easy-to-use == pictures). And they made the text in the taskbar icon prominent.
I don't see how this is invention. It's just a graphical design choice. Also a choice made by Commodore, where icons weren't always huge (unless you ran 3rd party software that made huge icons, which you could) and were always accompanied by text. The icon was supposed to be for quick usage, i.e. you could recognize a picture faster than you can read, but was never intended to stand on its own without text.
They got rid of the divider line between the window borders and the contents and made thw windows look a lot more like unified objects. (for some reason they have reverted to old-fashioned graphics today, unfortunatly the good graphic desiginers they had on Windows95 have apparently been replaced by Enlightenment geeks with no clean graphic sense whatsoever).
Aesthetic enhancements != invention
They supported drag-resize of windows, and hacked their system so it was fast enough to draw this on existing machines, rather than punting like far faster Unix machines were doing.
Quite the contrary, you needed a pretty fast 486 to do this. 33mhz at least, iirc, may have required Pentiums (although I knew people that ran win95 on 486s). On the other hand, Commodore Amiga also supported drag-resize of windows, and there was third-party software that would make it redraw the contents while resizing (I recall Macs at the time doing it too, and this was 1988), and they could do it on 7 mhz 68000 machines.
I belive Microsoft is responsible for a lot of the linking of "program to run" to the file itself. Every system I have ever seen before that required an explicit indicator as to the program to run. Apple's files contained this indication (the creator id) and is thus not exactly what Microsoft did. Now this could be done a whole lot better, such as using a program like Unix "file" to figure it out, and there is ZERO support at an os level (why isn't there a system call to exec a file?), but before Windows this idea did not exist.
Um, there is a system call to exec a file, assuming you're talking about executing a file. All Microsoft did was attach extensions to filenames. UNIX has always had MIME types, as far as I know, that define what content is in the file. More recently MIME types include extensions as part of the definition, but not always. There're headers in files that tell you what kind of content it is.
As far as opening a data file and it automatically opening the application that created it (or at least *an* application the user has installed that can open that type of file), um, again Commodore Amiga had this in, what, 1986? Yeah, that sounds about right. ;)
Commodore's Amiga was a very innovative machine, but even then the OS just ripped a number of things from previous existing work, because the OS was just thrown together to get the box out the door and into people's houses. I'm not claiming that Commodore or the Amiga folks innovated these things we're discussing, I'm only pointing out where it was already being used before Microsoft "innovated" it. ;)
Re:You're absolutely right! (Score:5, Informative)
I can't speak for GNOME, but I am a KDE developer, and I don't know of any KDE devs whose motivation is that they want to "steal market share from MS". KDE is not a company; therefore we are not "competing" with MS. We're just trying to build a very useable desktop on un*x. You can argue all you want about whether the fact that we use the WIMP desktop model represents a massive failure of imagination, or a simple recognition of a system that works. I just wanted to object to your wrong assumption about the motivation of KDE devs.
Re:You're absolutely right! (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is that there's nothing wrong with the "If it works..." model.
Bashing MS for 'lack of innovation' is rather tired these days. They have their moments. They have their blunders. So does every other industry leading company out there. Nobody spews innovation from every pore, especailly the Open Source Community. (Note: That's a reference to the previous post, not some blind cheap shot.)
Frankly, innovation can be just as much about implementation as it is ab
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
For a geek, this is as far as innovation goes
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:3, Informative)
Microsoft innovates, their employees innovate.
Only in the US version of English (and maybe in Canadian English as well, not sure). In UK and Australian English, the name of a corporation, or any group of people, is a plural noun, and the verb is conjugated appropriately.
Both approaches make sense when viewed from the appropriate perspective, and neither is inherently correct. It's just a cultural difference.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:3, Funny)
One word - Bob
I agree. (Score:3, Insightful)
You hit it right on the head.
Is Microsoft Money Crushing Microsoft?
No, it's crushing me and everyone else who wants innovation, artistry and quality.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2, Interesting)
Regardless, didn't MS try to emulate Emac's scriptability when they made VB6?
How about the Nautilus interface? MP3 preview feature? SAMBA? The ability to lay firewalls at the kernel level? Support for multiple desktops, with single-click changeability?
I could go on, but I won't. Just look at some of the stuff gAIM has done if you want to see a common example of open source innovation.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, GAIM is pretty retro, at least on Windows. Crashing 8 times a day for no visible reason, crashing on attempting to recieve a file, no file send capability. All in the pursuit to emulate a current product from AOL. Yeah, there's some real innovation.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:2)
If you want some real examples, how about the web and internet email, both of which were first implemented in open source before the term had even been invented?
Anyway the post you followed up said nothing about open source. It was arguing that Microsoft--not Apple, IBM, or Xerox--eschews innovation in favor o
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft got its start in the 1970's. Its first product was a BASIC interpreter. BASIC had been developed in the 1960's at Dartmouth and made public-domain; Microsoft announced an interpreter for the Altair, then started actually working on it (using "borrowed" time on someone else's minicomputer), missed a bunch of delivery dates, and shipped a buggy product.
Then, IBM was looking for a PC OS and programming language. BillG's mom suggested they talk to him about BASIC; IBM's chat with Digital Research (makers of CP/M) didn't go well, BillG said "sure I can give you an OS" despite not having an OS, then ran out, bought a CP/M ripoff called QDOS, and tried to get it finished up in time...
Sounds pretty much like the recent history. What was it you were trying to have as a point, again?
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:3, Funny)
You left out the part where Bill wrote a letter to a computer magazine crying about people passing it around instead of sending him money. I don't think that had ever been done before, so I think we have to concede that some innovation did indeed come from Microsoft.
Re:What are you talking about? (Score:5, Interesting)
AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS
By William Henry Gates III
February 3, 1976
An Open Letter to Hobbyists
To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands
programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?
Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two
months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC.
The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.
The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these
"users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time
spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.
Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people
who worked on it get paid?
Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to
us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional
work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has
invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software
available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.
What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the
ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.
I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write to me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108.
Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software. Bill Gates General Partner, Micro-Soft
Yet Another Duplicated Story (Score:5, Funny)
The guy may well have worked at MS once, but it didn't take long for him to become a Born Again Mac User.
Re:Yet Another Duplicated Story (Score:2)
then you wouldn't mind pointing out the specific arguments with which you disagree?
Here's my thought on the editors (Score:4, Funny)
I mean, what other way to explain the fact that stories get repeated again and again?
Re:Here's my thought on the editors (Score:3, Funny)
Re:You should (Score:2)
Almost as many idiots as on
Less interesting stories, too.
Microsoft doesn't want to innovate (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft doesn't want to innovate (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux started off with a fairly conservative goal: implement the UNIX syscall interface. I'm not saying this is easy, I'm just saying that it is not particularly innovative from a technical perspective. (The open source model and development methodology were a bit more innovative, but not unique.) And Linux succeeded for the same reason that MS succeeds -- it let other companies take the risk of figuring out what should and shouldn't be in the kernel, and leveraged the GNU suite of apps to create a complete, usable system. The time was right and there was very little risk.
At present, Linux is a bit more innovative; people use it as a platform for research, and that research (when it works out) finds its way back into the kernel. But again there is little risk-taking because nobody really wants there to be -- nobody wants to break the world. As a result, you can still use your first edition of "The UNIX Programming Environment" (circa Seventh Edition) as a useful reference to programming on Linux. I don't expect that to ever change.
customer experience (Score:5, Interesting)
what open source did for apple was that they could provide a whole bunch of services in a compatible, attractive fashion that would have been very costly to develop. M$ doesn't really need that, they have their own services (web server, file server, databases etc) already.
Well.... (Score:5, Funny)
C'mon... honestly. (Score:5, Interesting)
Last I checked, they were the one of the largest proponents of proprietary software/hardware. Granted, they have let up a little bit in releasing development tools for packages like iTunes. But all the same, that's a long ways from embracing free and open source code.
Also, Apple tends to lean HARD on Microsoft for office tools. In that vein, can you really say Apple has diverged from the path Microsoft set? I'd argue no.
Re:C'mon... honestly. (Score:2)
Apple is fighting the uphill battle of, "But there's no software for Mac." When in reality there isn't a ton of crap to choose from, more or less decent titles. By adopting Office as a proponant for purchasing a Mac they're saying to businesses that you can do everything on a
Examples of Apple embracing and helping OSS (Score:2, Informative)
Apple's Web Kit [apple.com] is the only way that KHTML would have be on millions of Macs and PCs. Additionally, Apple commits changes back to the KHTML project. It's entirely symbiotic. Apple gets to use it in iTunes and Safari, and KDE gets the changes.
Apple's Darwin Streaming Server [apple.com] is the OSS port of their QuickTime Streaming Server. Apple even provides binaries for Red Hat and Solaris. It is trivial to port.
Apple was the first to throw major suppor
Why Apple is Right (Score:3, Insightful)
1. They now have a super-computer ranked within the top 5 fastest systems in the world. Before osX, they weren't even on the list.
2. They have a true multi-user operating system that has 30 + years of R&D behind it. Unlike Windows which began as a game-playing, home-using OS and has been modified into something it was never designed to be. Talk about baggag
Re:C'mon... honestly. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:C'mon... honestly. (Score:2, Interesting)
Apple floundered for years trying to create a modern OS. Finally they latched on to BSD and had much more success appending a nice UI layer instead of starting from scratch.
Well, that's the history as I see it. If you see it differently I'd be interested in factual corrections rather than flames.
Anyways I don't think it's bad that they latched on to BSD. The license allows it, and UNIX is one of many possible good OS designs
You know... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dupe (Score:2, Insightful)
Posted by michael on 03/06/04 13:13
from the watch-out-for-cacodemon-bob dept.
Mr. Reifman still does not explain (Score:2)
MacOS saved the planet! (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, MacOS can even interface with alien technologies and introduce a virus into the alien technologies to save the Earth!
Brent Spiner (Score:2)
Changing brands doesn't fix problems... (Score:2, Funny)
You rate your entire OS of the 5-minute out of box experience!? You can get the same effect by changing shampoo...
Micro$oft is not the first (Score:4, Insightful)
My own former employer, Amdahl, held on, right along with the IBM company to that same cash cow model. Amdahl was not as resilient as IBM and now is gone.
I got mine. You get yours.
Apple's embraced open source? (Score:4, Insightful)
When Apple Opens Aqua, or iTunes/iMove/etc. Then you might be able to claim they've embraced it. Until then, they're just using OSS as a tool, same as many other companies. Microsoft on the other hand is trying as hard as they can, and coming off rather insane (just listen to their GPL == teh eval rants).
----
Anyway, the premise of this story is rather laughable. What sane company would "innovate" their way out of the products that actually make them the most money. It would be suicidal, and the stockholders would kick your ass to the curb (or sue you if they couldn't). Also, those products allow Microsoft to peruse innovation in other areas, which they wouldn't be able to if they didn't have the cash.
Re:Apple's embraced open source? (Score:2)
For that matter, Netscape took the Mosaic code, improved it, and (eventually) gave all their browser source code to the open-source community, which is why we have Mozilla and Firefox and Camino and all those others.
I don?t remember Microsoft givi
Re:Apple's embraced open source? (Score:2)
fanboys just aint cool (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple, in contrast, has embraced Open Source and is delivering a better consumer experience."
What is up with you people and Apple?!!
My God! Give it a rest.... Please. You're killing us here!
I can't get away from the Apple worship even if I block apple stories. It's everyway.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against Apple. But Apple is just another Corporation who's goal, as with all other corporations is to, *gasp*, maximize profits for its shareholders.
Ironically Sun ( http://sunsource.net [sunsource.net] ) and IBM has done orders of magnitude more for Open source than Apple. And at least Sun gets beaten up everyday here. Apple though is worshipped to the point that it is frickin' nauseating to the rest of us.
Come on guys, fanboys just aint cool.
Apple religion TOTALLY out of hand, and NOT Open (Score:2, Insightful)
Offbase comments & Apple Haters (Score:3, Insightful)
"...yes, Apple actually DOES innovate on occasion!"
Occasion? Are you kidding? Try every couple of 4-8 weeks. If not hardware, then software, if not software then delivery or distribution, if not delivery or distribution, then something completely off the wall comes out.
You took the context of the article wrong too. It said Apple has embraced open source - and it was referring to the fact that Microsoft is fighting it. That has no c
Re:fanboys just aint cool (Score:4, Interesting)
(1) Apple has embraced open source (they use it where it is appropriate, and often give back (KHTML, gcc))
(2) Apple is delivering a better consumer experience.
Sun gets beaten up because they are schizophrenic and have no clear vision.
Apple is often praised because they build things that people want and enjoy using (they have to because Microsoft is the default choice unless something else wins them away). Not because people think they are selfless angels.
Toby the troll. (Score:2)
What is up with you people and Apple?!! ... My God! Give it a rest.... Please. You're killing us here! ... I can't get away from the Apple worship even if I block apple stories. ... Apple though is worshipped to the point that it is frickin' nauseating to the rest of us.
I'm getting tired of such accusations. Realizing that someone else does something better than Microsoft does it does not make someone a fanboy. Only a M$ fanboy would think something
Maximizing profit & open source (Score:2)
Open Source (and especially Free Software) advocates do serious damage to their cause when they conflate maximizing profit with evil intentions, and proclaim open source as some sort of cure.
IMHO, the BSD license is used by programmers who want to see their implementation used in the widest possible applications, because they believe that progress comes
Microsoft's Lack of Innovation (Score:5, Interesting)
This makes a lot of sense. Microsoft hasn't innovated anything for years, if at all. After crushing its competitors (Netscape, WordPerfect, etc.), Microsoft hasn't really made any viable updates to its software. Take Windows for example. The first few versions of Windows were bad and it didn't take until Windows 3.0 until Microsoft finally made it usable enough for developers to develop on it. Windows 95 was probably at Windows's peak. It's interface was very usable, didn't really get in the way, and had a lot of developers.
But then, Windows's quality deteriorated beginning with Windows 98, when Microsoft integrated Internet Explorer as a means to kill Netscape (and when Windows now had a 95% market share). However, as many people on this board know, integrating a browser to an operating system causes all sorts of problems, and Windows has gone downhill ever since. Windows XP, for example, is more stable than Windows 95/98, but it suffers from more worms than those operating systems, it's "eye candy" (if that's what you call it) is really an eye sore, and the interface gets in the way (compare the Find dialog in Windows 95/98 to the Find command in Windows XP, you'll see a difference). Ditto for Office, last time I checked, Clippy is still there. Microsoft Word has a lot of other annoyances (ever tried outlining there? It's a pain).
Now, look at Apple. Apple has made a lot of innovations within its whole lifetime. It was the first to bring the graphical user interface to the secretary's desk (Apple Lisa and Apple Macintosh). Apple has made a lot of innovations that make many processes very easy (for example, in the old days, all you needed to do to network two Macs together was to connect a printer cable to each other, and then use Chooser to share files. No network configuration or anything. Try that on an old PC.). Finally, Apple took UNIX and fused the Mac OS with UNIX to make, after a long process that includes NeXT and Rhapsody, to create Mac OS X. Mac OS X is the only UNIX-based operating system where it is so easy for a non-geek to use without much difficulty, yet the UNIX pro could access the core using a few mouse clicks.
Apple could be considered one of the masters of usability. The operating system never gets in the way of your work, you control the computer. This is different from the Microsoft approach, which is the computer controls what you do. This is exactly why Apple hasn't came out with something annoying like Clippy or that dog in the Find box in Windows XP.
Microsoft needs to do something drastic with Windows and Office. Microsoft needs to start innovating, make Windows and Office user-friendly again, and finally make a stable version of Windows. Windows doesn't need a UNIX core (Microsoft spent tons of money on NT; besides, Microsoft adopting a UNIX core wouldn't be innovation), but Windows should be stable enough to use on a regular basis without any problems. Microsoft should also fix many of its other applications, such as the rapidly deteriorating and antiquated Internet Explorer, and not integrate the browser with the operating system. Isn't it about time that Microsoft should learn that integrating a browser with an operating system causes instability within the operating system? It's like, whenever Microsoft finally takes control of something, they sit on their couches, raise the prices, and the quality of their applications deteriorate with each and every new release. Microsoft needs to innovate fast here, and improve its products.
Re:Microsoft's Lack of Innovation (Score:2, Insightful)
I think it's safe to say that as far as Windows goes, XP is my favorite. Sure I hate the integrated firewall and I am the first to turn of MDM and about 10 other worthless se
Re:Microsoft's Lack of Innovation (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that sometimes big things start small. Look at the PC industry. It really started with home hardware kits, and now look where it's at. This shouldn't be a problem, but Micro
Right to Profit (Score:3, Insightful)
However, a "perfect market" limits profits to near zero. With no barriers to entry in a business, which is a lot like "neglecting friction", competition will force prices down toward costs.
A 100% markup is only possible if the barriers to entry in the field are high, which they are in this case.
However, the barriers to entry are falling also. Once the OS or Office suite, or whatever are "good enough", the impetus for upgrades evaporate. At that point, competing products have a chance to catch up to the target of "good enough".
Microsoft is suffering from "good enough" now. As are hardware makers. Most people don't use much, if any, more capabiity than was available in computers/software in 2000. Microsoft is dependent on people buying a new computer (and, implied, a new OS and Office suite) every couple of years. This was a workable model until the computers got "good enough", and has been suffering since then.
Re:Right to Profit (Score:2, Insightful)
It's Not Money Crushing Them (Score:3, Insightful)
I saw a line recently that said, "The only thing of value passing through a politician's mind is a bullet."
Same applies to Bill.
Get rid of Gates and his toadies like Ballmer and Microsoft might use its 56 billion in cash to amount to something.
As it stands, Longhorn is going to be a disaster and Linux is going to destroy Windows within the next ten or fifteen years - even though Linux really only has one major advantage - it's being worked on by people who at least care a little - people with at least some personal motivation - and it's cheap.
Re:It's Not Money Crushing Them (Score:2)
Both more than mere rhetoric, but neither has the sound-bite feel of a good, improbable oracular vision. Rhetoric and accuracy are antonyms. We're sorry this has ruined your life.
MacOS X is not "open source" (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, it's no accident that Apple has "embraced open source" because the open source movement's philosophy and criteria for license acceptance was crafted to cater to business.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:MacOS X is not "open source" (Score:3, Insightful)
But instead of having programmers in India write their code for $3/hour, Apple gets the open source community to write it for $0 per hour/day/week/month/year.
Only one problem: you can't tell them what to write. If they make something you can use, then that's great. Otherwise, it's no help. You also can't really sell a GPLed program or something based on a GPL application, as the comingling will force your code to be open. BSD is different, but the way OSS works, the OS layers are well suited to being pac
Late in the thread to post this, but . . . (Score:3, Funny)
The other person was saying to Bill, "so, if you woke up one day and discovered you were gay, who would your boyfriend be?" Various hunky idols were tossed out, but Bill was obviously uncomfortable with the topic.
Then I said, "I would go out with Ronald Reagan. Because if I woke up straight the next day, he wouldn't remember a thing !"
I thought of that conversation when I saw Bill's deposition on TV.
I could help them (Score:3, Funny)
Duh (Score:4, Insightful)
Gate's Mistakes (Score:4, Interesting)
The likely next step for Google is to offer its customers remote storage space, a virtual hard drive on which to store all of your files, share them with friends and colleagues, and access them from anywhere.
Reifman suggests that Microsoft's salvation lies in signing up portions of the Windows user base for services (20 million x $19.95), but they've already been beaten to the punch on this one. Check out Novell's Virtual Office. Not only can you do these things with virtual office but you control the information because it's hosted on your own servers. This was the failing that Reifman pointed out for Microsoft's Passport service. Evidently Novell has learned from Gate's mistakes.
Microsoft Money (Score:2)
Re:Microsoft Money (Score:3, Insightful)
The article never mentions the financial software anywhere. They do talk about Microsoft's cash on hand.
Even if it's a re-post from last week (Score:2, Insightful)
Up to now.
When I was moving from VC++/MFC, there was no Eclipse plattform, it just begun. The only Java IDE that would have been appropriate for the project I'm now working on was JBuilder - but we didn't have got enough money to equip a whole team of developers with JBuild
It's worse than that... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well a few hours later we had the 182 MB SLAX distibution up on his thinkpad and he's overjoyed with the functionality. Once we score a 1 GB drive we're putting a compressed Knoppix distro on.
The point of thos story is that when a free as in beer and speech mini live-cd distro of open source gives you the majority of XP's vaunted capability we are approaching a tipping point.
In a similar vein, my Zippo lighter friend is seriously considering using the Quantian Live CD distro for teaching his college courses.
My third friend runs a mini-ITX system with WiFi I built for Christmas. Just to illustrate the point about the thinkpad I booted the SLAX distro on her system. It installed flawlessly and she couldn't find any difference from the Win 2k on the hard drive for her purposes.
So fast forward to 1-2 years from now when nano-itx PCs with Knoppix burnt into ROM sell for $99 in bubble packs in Target and Wal Mart. Where does M$ stand then?
Microsoft hasn't innovated.. but they CAN (Score:3, Interesting)
It means that what they have chosen to release into the public, to market, has not been innovative.. and has often been mediocre. We don't really respect them for it at all, right?
That doesn't mean that internally there is no innovation.. microsoft has a LOT of good programmers, and developers, and so-on... not everyone at microsoft is an MCSE know-it-all.. many are very talented, learned people.
Given that, and given some examples that slip through (like Office for the mac.. it's actually quite a bit nicer than the windows version)... you can see that they are capable of producing good software that plays nice.
The question is whether, as a company, they will choose to market such software.
If most of their solid income is from corporate windows workstation & server licensing... a model that requires lock-in and a fairly closed minded development model to continue generating revenue from... then they will naturally persue that over, say, writing good mac software that everyone likes, yet making far less money.
The problem, in short, is that they make the most money from their sleaziest practices...
Long-term stragegy (Score:3, Funny)
IBMs Cash Cow (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple and open source (Score:3, Informative)
The trouble with Apple is that they are probably drawing the line in the wrong place. Apple seems to seriously believe that there is value in Quartz and Cocoa and they are spending a lot of engineering effort on it. But, in reality, there are no graphics capabilities in Quartz that aren't present in modern X11 systems, and an Objective-C based toolkit is merely a burden these days. You could easily create a GUI that looked and felt just like Aqua on top of X11, and ran faster to boot.
That leaves me wondering: is Apple doing this deliberately? Maybe they do want to "own the platform" after all, not for technical reasons but for the same reasons as Microsoft and Sun: to control it and entangle their developers in proprietary APIs. Maybe Apple figured out that you don't have to be 100% proprietary in order to have a captive audience, 50% proprietary is enough. Or can they really be so confused that they think Quartz and Cocoa add value to the platform? And how "open source" are the open source components of OS X anyway--I don't mean legally, but I mean in terms of development--Darwin isn't exactly a hot, widely used open source project.
Altogether, it's unclear to me that Apple really has changed so much. They are, of course, under no obligation to use an open source desktop or open source toolkits, but as long as they don't, they are still delivering a proprietary system with all the consequences that that entails; in particular, if you develop for the Macintosh GUI, your software will not run on any other platform without a lot of porting efforts.
Re:Deja Vu? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Deja Vu? (Score:2, Interesting)
Obligatory Matrix rip. (Score:5, Funny)
"What was that?"
"Nothing, I just saw an article on Slashdot, and then I an article just like it again."
"Was it the same article?"
"Could've been, yeah."
"Deja vu is when something changes in the Matrix."
"Oh no, the way is blocked..."
"...and there are Penguins coming after us!"
-- n
Re:Deja Vu? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait, then we wouldn't be hypocrites. Sorry.
Not really (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not really (Score:2)
Is that why they spend so much on new projects!? (Score:3, Informative)
You seem to be implying that Microsoft doesn't spend money on new projects and ventures, but they do. I don't know what numbers he used to make the comparison, but at TechEd Steve Balmer said that Microsoft's budget on R&D each year is second only to Pfizer's. I believe MS spends tens of billions of dollars annually on research.
If they don't "get it" (Score:2, Insightful)
Seems to me they certainly got something right.
Re:If they don't "get it" (Score:2)
Not an LCD (Score:3, Informative)
Not a bad CRT as CRTs go, but still a CRT.
Re:how ironic (Score:2)
Sorry, I had to!
How is this a counterpoint? (Score:2)
What of all the great developments of Xerox PARC did Xerox bring to market?
The question is whether innovation produced by Microsoft researchers' admittedly-brilliant people in the labs is permitted to become innovative new products. Innovation is by it's nature disruptive.
It's true (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, I've noticed that Blinn and Kajiya lack an entourage at SIGGRAPH. There was a time when if they projected an image of Blinn at SIGGRAPH, everybody cheered. Not any m