 |
Pegasus3d.com
Discussions on multiple topics, open to all
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
 Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
Good point, I agree. Still, I have to wonder what would have happened if we had as many OS distributors as we do global automobile producers?
|
We did. Don't you remember? It was in the early 80's. People writing computer games had to think about ports to:
1. IBM PC and clones (with anaemic CGA, but still a large market)
2. Apple II (still going strong)
3. C=64
4. Atari 400/800
5. Amiga
6. Atari ST
7. ZX Spectrum
8. BBC for weird English people
9. Trash-80's
10. Osborne shit
11. Tandy Coco
12. TI 99/4a
13. don't forget the VIC-20!
14. etc. etc.
The big software houses (like EA) would do 4-5 ports maximum. Everyone else was stuck-- if you wanted to play, say, Star Blazer or Kareteka (sp?) you had to get a Apple ][, if you wanted to play Shadow of the Beast, you needed an Amiga, etc, etc.
It was horrible and the market wasn't big enough to support more complicated games because the porting costs were enormous-- this isn't like recompiling C++ code, it was all hand-optimized ASM writing to bare metal video hardware!
In these enlightened days of 95% Windows PC saturation where you get one CD and it works on dozens of video and sound cards and joysticks through DirectX, it's hard to believe that the world used to be so fragmented. But it was.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The thing is, Madan, that Microsoft spends billions of dollars each year in R&D to try to figure out what the next big paradigm is so they can dominate that as well. |
No. The R&D is simply *how* to get there. *Where* they're going is called Marketing.
Grafting the UI above a cl OS? Decision? Marketing.
Implementing an NT-based OS for more business-oriented demands? Decision? Marketing.
Deciding to include IE and IIS/PWS in each OS as a means of establishing a mini web "revolution". Decision? Marketing.
Moving over to ClearType and other graphical technologies? Decision? Marketing.
The attempt at securing the average family living room by insinuating the Xbox as a starting point/diving board. Decision? Marketing.
R&D doesn't tell MS where to go. It tells them HOW to get there, once the big wigs use customer demand/research as advisors.
| Quote: |
That's why we have things like the XBox and .NET and Mira and PocketPC and the like. It's all strategic. |
Marketing.
It was a Marketing ploy to release a relatively low->enough< cost(price) item that served a popular purpose(product) with features that were superior/comparable to PS2 and that could be purchased just about anywhere...etc.
| Quote: |
| People make fun of the XBox but given the total entrenchment and domination of Sony and the PS2, they've done incredibly well in a very short time, and they are in this for the long haul. |
I don't entirely disagree.
My question is, will MS stick to their guns and continue to use a methodical market capture strategy, like they've done with products like IE or will they pull a TiVO pullout?
A good question seeing as how they have a history of doing both.
| Quote: |
Microsoft knows that they were lucky. That's what makes them different from all the other tech companies (save, perhaps, for Intel) There's probably stuff in Microsoft research labs today that will blow the world away in a few years (as well as a bunch of stuff that will bomb as bad as Microsoft Bob) |
I think most companies can fit within this category.
I think what differentiates MS from other companies is that they're able to *execute* and capitalize off of said technologies upon imminent release. Others can't because of, again, bad marketing through either poor market selection/stratification, pricing, promotions, placement..etc.
| Quote: |
Anyway, the PC desktop isn't going away any time soon. It was supposed to be killed by:
1. "Interactive Multiplayers" ala 3DO
2. Set-top boxes ala CD32, Phillips CDI, WebTV
3. Network computers ala Sun Rays
4. Internet appliances ala Sony eVilla
5. Next-gen consoles ala Playstation 2 |
I never said PC desktops are going anywhere but their place in society might chance and that paradigm shift could be enough to spell trouble for MS. Moreover, with the advent of wireless connections and the use of pocket PCs and phones, I do see the PC's use as a communication's tool, minimized somewhat. I don't think ppl will use a phone for Photoshop but, again, PCs aren't indestructible either.
Look at the VCR. Beta was "supposed to knock it out". Primitive flash disks were "supposed to knock it out". Compressed discs were ditto.
Little by little ppl kept noticing VHS longevity extending.
Until one day: DVD.
Goodbye VHS. Relegated to tape casette status.
| Quote: |
And good riddance. They can have my PC when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. And Microsoft won the war for the PC. Period. |
Noone is arguing getting rid of the PC.
Granted, every time you buy one, you'll be participating in a Marketing operation. 
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm.
Your definition of marketing seems logical enough, but I'm not sure it fits in with what the majority of people in the world think of when they think of marketing... and as you know, the majority of people shape language through their own usage. Let's check dictionary.com..
| Quote: |
mar·ket·ing Pronunciation Key (märk-tng)
n.
The act or process of buying and selling in a market.
The commercial functions involved in transferring goods from producer to consumer.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
marketing
\Mar"ket*ing\, n. 1. The act of selling or of purchasing in, or as in, a market.
2. Articles in, or from, a market; supplies.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
|
Hmm. Seems a little vague.
Anyway, back to Microsoft. You seem convinced that they will fall from their lofty position. I think they might slide a little, but not fall outright, at least not for the forseeable future. Mainly because of Bill Gates' paranoia and competitive drive-- once he's dead, all bets are off, but his personality permeates the entire company and it won't die easily.
Your VHS and DVD analogy is a good one-- but I have yet to see anything even remotely approaching the cost/benefit ratio of DVD over VHS when it comes to replacing personal computers. Have you seen the prices on handhelds these days? You can get a kickass PC for what you're paying for a crappy little organizer!
DVD was immediately and obviously superior to VHS, with the exception of recording abilities (which are going away-- companies are even starting to sell standalone DVD "recorders") I have yet to see any product that can do the same to PCs, which, we must remember, are constantly evolving, unlike VHS which stopped improving years ago.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Hmmm.
Your definition of marketing seems logical enough, but I'm not sure it fits in with what the majority of people in the world think of when they think of marketing... and as you know, the majority of people shape language through their own usage. Let's check dictionary.com.. |
Are you kidding me?
A dictionary? 
Look, it's very simple. Do you want to know what Marketing is? Walk into a university and buy some Marketing text books. Read. Read again.
To say that "the majority of the world disagrees with your definition of Marketing" is pointless because:
A. Most people weren't Marketing majors in college. I was(BBA).
B. Most people don't know what Marketing is and pull out the lame:"Marketing is whatever it means to me" crap out of their ass. That doesn't mean they're right.
I told you what Marketing is, take it anyway you like.
| Quote: |
Quote:
mar·ket·ing Pronunciation Key (märk-tng)
n.
The act or process of buying and selling in a market.
The commercial functions involved in transferring goods from producer to consumer. |
Precisely. The functon of deriving an appropriate price for both the buyer and seller through pricing, while establishing product identity and knowledge via promotions and utilizing channels for the placement of the item.
Buying/Selling. Notice how it says functionS. Not function. Not only advertising. It doesn't even intimate to advertising only.
| Quote: |
Hmm. Seems a little vague. |
| Quote: |
Anyway, back to Microsoft. You seem convinced that they will fall from their lofty position. I think they might slide a little, but not fall outright, at least not for the forseeable future. Mainly because of Bill Gates' paranoia and competitive drive-- once he's dead, all bets are off, but his personality permeates the entire company and it won't die easily. |
I indicated that they will not always be the "top dog", yes. I never intimated that this would happen overnight, nor that they would fully disappear.
| Quote: |
| Your VHS and DVD analogy is a good one-- but I have yet to see anything even remotely approaching the cost/benefit ratio of DVD over VHS when it comes to replacing personal computers. Have you seen the prices on handhelds these days? You can get a kickass PC for what you're paying for a crappy little organizer! |
DVD started at an average price per disk of 30 dollars, American. Now, you can get DVDs for ten bucks. Ten years makes a difference.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, a dictionary. You know, what human beings use as the single accepted reference for the language they speak.
| Quote: |
Look, it's very simple. Do you want to know what Marketing is? Walk into a university and buy some Marketing text books. Read. Read again.
To say that "the majority of the world disagrees with your definition of Marketing" is pointless because:
A. Most people weren't Marketing majors in college. I was(BBA).
B. Most people don't know what Marketing is and pull out the lame:"Marketing is whatever it means to me" crap out of their ass. That doesn't mean they're right.
|
Whoop-de-shit, you were a marketing major. You do not define the language. The dictionary does, based on what the majority of the public defines the word to mean through their usage of said word. That is how language works.
| Quote: |
I told you what Marketing is, take it anyway you like.
|
Based on the dictionary definition (which is the accepted source for language definitions in this universe) marketing is indeed more than just advertising, but precisely what is open for debate (as the dictionary definition is quite vague and broad-- anything to do with buying and selling a product? ooookay....)
I don't want this to get into a pissing match, so I'll leave the matter for the moment. I have my own feelings about the actual value of marketing versus the amount of money and time spent on it, but I don't want to get into that right now either.
Let's get back to Microsoft.
You say they will lose their top spot. Okay, so who is going to replace them?
Netscape tried and got killed.
Sun thought they could, and they are almost dead.
Apple wanted to, but never mounted much of a challenge, and now exist at Microsoft's sufferance.
Palm thought they could go from the bottom up with handhelds, but they're getting killed now by PocketPCs.
IBM can't seem to fire people fast enough. They're completely useless.
AOL is even more useless, and their sagging online division is dragging the whole AOL-TW partnership down.
So who then?
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 3:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Whoop-de-shit, you were a marketing major. You do not define the language. The dictionary does, based on what the majority of the public defines the word to mean through their usage of said word. That is how language works. |
No. The dictionary doesn't define a damn thing. The dictionary simply provides a universal report of how the word is presently used. That's why you find slang and incorrect uses of words creeping into dictionaries nowadays but that's besides the point. Dictionaries USED to establish *some* of the vocabulary but never technical jargon. Marketing is business-jargon.
The Websters language commission doesn't decide what Marketing means. Marketing was a term created by the businesspeople that developed the career/study. The dictionaries simply reported on that word after it was created.
And yes, it is pretty ridiculous to look up Marketing in the dictionary if you're attempting to carry on a heavy conversation about its merits and correlation in modern business operations.
And yes, my Marketing BBA *is* a "whoop-dee shit" as it were, because it means a person has spent years studying the subject and that the individual has been exposed to its history, trends and general practices.
But again, you take whatever information I gave you anyway you want.
| Quote: |
Quote:
I told you what Marketing is, take it anyway you like.
Based on the dictionary definition (which is the accepted source for language definitions in this universe) marketing is indeed more than just advertising, but precisely what is open for debate (as the dictionary definition is quite vague and broad-- anything to do with buying and selling a product? ooookay....) |
Now you're just being plain difficult. Seriously. If you want to turn this into a semantics debate fine. But you KNOW I'm right. The definition even jives with what I told you. Moreso, what did you expect from the dictionary? A five page analysis? A hundred page discertation? Did you find the explanation ambiguous? That's because you're using the dictionary incorrectly.
Again, if you want to learn about Marketing, ask other people or read a book. No, you don't even have to ask me. Just go to a university and sit down with the dean and some professors, bullshit them about you considering enrollment and listen to what they tell you.
But don't read the dictionary, which amounts to a two line explanation and then basically pull a "well it doesn't say EXACTLY what you said and the dictionary is the foremost delineation of all information"...
| Quote: |
I don't want this to get into a pissing match, |
It's too late for that. Up to this point, I was actually fine with everything but I have to admit that you've repsonded pretty aggressively simply because I explained the difference between two fields, that quite frankly, get confused and switched far too often. On here and Ars, anyone making an affirmation that goes to the contrary of technical knowledge, like RR's "OSX is built from scratch." is corrected immediately. Both to avoid confusion and to preserve education. Simply because Marketing is a non-computing topic, doesn't mean it's any less useful or widely practiced or deserving of efficacy. If you like, I can mail you some of my notes from college or one of my old text books but, again, if all you're going by is the dictionary, you're missing out.
| Quote: |
so I'll leave the matter for the moment. I have my own feelings about the actual value of marketing versus the amount of money and time spent on it, but I don't want to get into that right now either.
|
?? Marketing isn't something that is based on your opinion. That's like my making affirmations about the usefulness/functions of a computer judging from what I discover in the dictionary.
The dictionary is pretty ambiguous about computers. In fact, it mentions:
1 entry found for Computers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
com·put·er Pronunciation Key (km-pytr)
n.
A device that computes, especially a programmable electronic machine that performs high-speed mathematical or logical operations or that assembles, stores, correlates, or otherwise processes information.
One who computes.
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
It doesn't mention networking or graphics or games *specifically*? No? I can then safely assume that this definition is the end all be all of computers and that computers have no such features, correct?
No? OF COURSE NOT.
Marketing is a field of study that cannot be quantified in two sentences. If you want to try and you want to define Marketing as advertising, then you'd be wrong and that'd be your problem but it's endemic to say that up front: you'd be *wrong*.
| Quote: |
Let's get back to Microsoft.
You say they will lose their top spot. Okay, so who is going to replace them? |
I don't know. That's what's difficult about business. Even the greatest business thinkers have been blindsided and, me, I'm no "great business thinker". However, what I can affirm with reasonable veracity is that, just like all of its predecessors within/out it's industry, MS *will* be supplanted by a more capable/flexible/different competitor.
To affirm otherwise would be folly.
| Quote: |
Netscape tried and got killed.
Sun thought they could, and they are almost dead.
Apple wanted to, but never mounted much of a challenge, and now exist at Microsoft's sufferance.
Palm thought they could go from the bottom up with handhelds, but they're getting killed now by PocketPCs.
IBM can't seem to fire people fast enough. They're completely useless.
AOL is even more useless, and their sagging online division is dragging the whole AOL-TW partnership down. |
This doesn't mean anything.
Logic:
MS has never been successfully challenged.
Therefore, MS will never be successfully challenged.
Sorry, that don't fly. While I don't know *who* it'll be, because I left my psychic turban at home, I CAN say that it will happen eventually.
Or maybe MS is just magical and beyond the realms of business practice, which, coincidentally affects *all* other business on this planet.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacUser3of5
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 498
Location: Centralia, Washington, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry that you thought I was referring to you Madan, with that zealot comment because I wasn't... 
Anyway, the problem with the theories of a post-MS world are twofold, and they make it much different then anything else:
1) PC's are a LOT more commonplace then 10, even 5 years ago. With that comes the greater need for recognizable/familiar systems. This isn't 1989, when the only people running computers were geeks/etc. 'The Average Joe' can't deal with learning one system, let alone two or three, and certain can not/will not support (read: buy) more than what is necessary. This sets up a problem for Apple and Linux, because (although linux is free), a lot of people either don't know it exists, or are not willing to drop the system (windows) they currently have. Windows is everywhere, it's impossible to ignore. Hell, everyone who has used a computer has used Windows at one point. That is near total market saturation, and a lot of name recognition. It's a household name. Because of this
2) It is nearly impossible to leverage an assault on their dominance without looking like just another 'alternative' (read: minority). Look at Apple. Their 'switch' campaign gives them some brand recognition, but still appears as an alternative, rather than an acceptably mainstream, choice product. There is the mind-set of users (maybe MS' doing, probably not) that Windows is safe, and other things are scary and unfamiliar. It's isn't like a car (whoops! ) where they all have a steering wheel, brakes, etc, and these are all in the same place... we're talking major differences in functionality in the eyes of most users. Plus, the additional hit of having to buy new applications, etc... I know people who have Win XP and are using apps for 95 simply because they are familiar with them. MS has a serious (for better or worse) stranglehold on the image of what a computer is and should be, not just as an operating system. It's the image of windows == computer that is going to be nearly impossible to wipe away for the majority of people out there.
-Andrew |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No need to get your knickers in a twist over the marketing issue. I'm just saying that schools and institutions don't get to define language, the common people do that and the dictionary is a record of current usage.
I mean, business schools come up with a lot of bullshit stuff. Calling people "resources" and talking about "buy-in" and "synergy" and all kinds of other crap. It doesn't redefine the actual words in the English language one bit. I could open Jeremy's School Of Business and declare that "Snertle" is the new word for a leveraged buyout, but it wouldn't make that actually the case.
As far as Microsoft goes, I don't think this decline you speak of will happen while Bill Gates is still alive, and may not happen in our lifetimes. Obviously it will happen eventually, but the Linux zealots running around talking about the End of MS are kind of like the Judean People's Front in AD 0 talking about how the Roman Empire is about to collapse... yeah... 400 years later!!! I mean, in 5 billion years the sun will become a red giant and extinguish all life on earth, but that doesn't mean we can't say that human beings have won the battle for domination of this planet.
For a company to unseat Microsoft any time soon, I'd wager that company would have to actually exist today. Assuming that it already exists, what company is it? Anyone? Anyone?
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 5:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:28 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyway, the problem with the theories of a post-MS world are twofold, and they make it much different then anything else:
1) PC's are a LOT more commonplace then 10, even 5 years ago. With that comes the greater need for recognizable/familiar systems. This isn't 1989, when the only people running computers were geeks/etc. 'The Average Joe' can't deal with learning one system, let alone two or three, and certain can not/will not support (read: buy) more than what is necessary. |
And? How different is it for "Joe Schmoe" to use Windows vs. Mac for easy functions?
Not very.
| Quote: |
| This sets up a problem for Apple and Linux, because (although linux is free), a lot of people either don't know it exists, or are not willing to drop the system (windows) they currently have. Windows is everywhere, it's impossible to ignore. Hell, everyone who has used a computer has used Windows at one point. That is near total market saturation, and a lot of name recognition. It's a household name. Because of this |
Ubiquity doesn't guarantee survival. The horse and buggy was ubiquitous. Along came the "horseless carriage" a more confusing and technically complex solution with a completely different set of limitations and requirements.
But the horse and buggy were burried anyways.
| Quote: |
2) It is nearly impossible to leverage an assault on their dominance without looking like just another 'alternative' (read: minority). Look at Apple. Their 'switch' campaign gives them some brand recognition, but still appears as an alternative, rather than an acceptably mainstream, choice product. There is the mind-set of users (maybe MS' doing, probably not) that Windows is safe, and other things are scary and unfamiliar. It's isn't like a car (whoops! ) where they all have a steering wheel, brakes, etc, and these are all in the same place... we're talking major differences in functionality in the eyes of most users. Plus, the additional hit of having to buy new applications, etc... I know people who have Win XP and are using apps for 95 simply because they are familiar with them. MS has a serious (for better or worse) stranglehold on the image of what a computer is and should be, not just as an operating system. It's the image of windows == computer that is going to be nearly impossible to wipe away for the majority of people out there. |
I disagree. While the transition will be a slow one, like the progression from VHS to DVD or from carriages to cars, the change *will* happen eventually.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 12:31 pm Post subject:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No need to get your knickers in a twist over the marketing issue. I'm just saying that schools and institutions don't get to define language, the common people do that and the dictionary is a record of current usage.
I mean, business schools come up with a lot of bullshit stuff. Calling people "resources" and talking about "buy-in" and "synergy" and all kinds of other crap. It doesn't redefine the actual words in the English language one bit. I could open Jeremy's School Of Business and declare that "Snertle" is the new word for a leveraged buyout, but it wouldn't make that actually the case. |
?
Synergy isn't a business term. You're talking about advert sell lines.
| Quote: |
As far as Microsoft goes, I don't think this decline you speak of will happen while Bill Gates is still alive, and may not happen in our lifetimes. Obviously it will happen eventually, but the Linux zealots running around talking about the End of MS are kind of like the Judean People's Front in AD 0 talking about how the Roman Empire is about to collapse... yeah... 400 years later!!! I mean, in 5 billion years the sun will become a red giant and extinguish all life on earth, but that doesn't mean we can't say that human beings have won the battle for domination of this planet.
For a company to unseat Microsoft any time soon, I'd wager that company would have to actually exist today. Assuming that it already exists, what company is it? Anyone? Anyone?
|
I don't think it exists yet.
Not in the way we think.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacUser3of5
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 498
Location: Centralia, Washington, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
the horse and carriage is a poor analogy, at best... Microsoft is a company, not a technology. Microsoft has and will evolve along with technological progress, and they can easily afford to do so.
It isn't a matter of technological complexity, it is more of a matter with the perception of the masses/public towards a given platform. If people don't care to switch to Apple or Linux, then they will undoubtedly go with Windows... it is extremely difficult to counteract this mind-set*.
Also, I have seen people (Windows users, albeit neophytes/non-techies) get completely lost in the Finder. Seriously.
But anyway, feel free to disagree
*unless, of course, they go to TacOS... or Be (er, wait, nevermind...  ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
the horse and carriage is a poor analogy, at best... Microsoft is a company, not a technology. Microsoft has and will evolve along with technological progress, and they can easily afford to do so. |
They have?
Their web initiatives, like the operations portion of .NET has flopped.
Their Xbox console has flopped.
Their webTV webputer alternative has flopped.
Their TiVO services have flopped.
Only their OS and critical server software have done well and those have been around forever.
That's evolving? No, MS' technology, for their OS, has it's fifteen min. of fame quickly expiring.
| Quote: |
It isn't a matter of technological complexity, it is more of a matter with the perception of the masses/public towards a given platform. If people don't care to switch to Apple or Linux, then they will undoubtedly go with Windows... it is extremely difficult to counteract this mind-set*. |
I'm not talking about Apple OR Linux. I'm talking about something *new*.
| Quote: |
Also, I have seen people (Windows users, albeit neophytes/non-techies) get completely lost in the Finder. Seriously.
|
How is that possible? The finder is a list of open applications. I find that highly suspect, to say the least.
Finder is App status + Find pane.
Compared to Mac OS, Windows is Japanese.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacUser3of5
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 498
Location: Centralia, Washington, USA
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh... by finder I meant the OS X version (in other words, OS X navigation), which is the method to browse the desktop system... it isn't a matter of ease-of-use, it is an issue of familiarity. Windows has an extreme advantage in this arena, which is the crux of my argument. Horses and carriages are stuck being horses and carriages... that's like saying Microsoft should have died along with DOS.
So... apparently in computer years converted to our calendar, fifteen minutes is a really long time. Many years, even!
| Quote: |
Only their OS and critical server software have done well and those have been around forever.
|
Yes, that is my point. They have been around forever. And they will continue to be. And what about Office? Internet Explorer? Visual Studio? Media Player? Hotmail? Are those failures? Do you see what I am getting at? The computer industry is saturated with Microsoft products/services. Walk into a local PC store. Go online. Hell, go into Walmart. Guess what is the vast majority of what's being sold? Windows-based computers. Do you honestly think a new system/something can break this? I personally do not think it is very likely at all.
If Apple or Linux, two of the premiere alternatives right now are having difficulty break through the Microsoft hold on the desktop... how do you expect a magical new startup/something to do this? It takes more than technology/wonderful products to win the market share battle, especially against something as dominant as Windows. It may have been possible 8 years ago, but really isn't anymore.
I'm not saying we should all give in and just by PCs and use XP. That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I AM saying is that the idea that one day Windows will no longer be a majority player is a complete and utter pipe dream brought upon by alternative platform zealotry, perhaps even jealously in some circumstances.
I won't be holding my breath for this mysterious *new*, whatever it is/will be. I really hope you don't either... I think it will be a disappointing wait.
-Andrew
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
So... apparently in computer years converted to our calendar, fifteen minutes is a really long time. Many years, even! |
Being around for 20 years, 10 of which include market dominance, seeing as how their product mix is almost identical, except for feature alterations, is not evolution....it's inertia.
| Quote: |
Yes, that is my point. They have been around forever. And they will continue to be. |
They haven't been around "forever". They haven't been around even a fraction of the time a company like GE, Ford or IBM have been.
And all of them have had falls from grace in one industry or another. MS will be no different.
| Quote: |
| And what about Office? Internet Explorer? Visual Studio? Media Player? Hotmail? Are those failures? Do you see what I am getting at? The computer industry is saturated with Microsoft products/services. Walk into a local PC store. Go online. Hell, go into Walmart. Guess what is the vast majority of what's being sold? Windows-based computers. Do you honestly think a new system/something can break this? I personally do not think it is very likely at all. |
Let's get something straight.
Logic:
MS sells more OS/software than any other company by almost 8 to 1.
MS will always sell more OS/software than any other company by almost...
Doesn't fly. Ford dominated the car industry early last century. They did so for over a decade but eventually lost their purchase as more competitors come out of the woodwork. That's what we're starting to see.
Sure, Reimer mentioned the profusion of competitors during the 80's but during the early-mid nineties, competition was pretty tame.
Now there's Linux, BSD, OSX and a slew of other new OSes by the likes of AOL, IBM and Sony right around the corner.
Moreover, cell phones are packaging their own OSes: Verizon, Sprint and even AT&T.
Nevermind the fact that Be was purchased by Palm and that Palm has begun integration of Be into its palmtop OS.
And these are only visible contenders... When MS took the OS market, they were practically non-issues because they were a small, comparably fragile-looking company.
If a company released a cheap, stable, 3D-based OS that was easier or more powerful than MS tomorrow, for the same price as Windows and it was completely compatible with all MS documents and functions, MS Windows would be a world of trouble.
And you know what? It's happened before.
But let's address those products above.
IE? A feature in their OS. Not evolution, inertia.
WMP? Ditto.
Hotmail. MS makes no money off of Hotmail. It's STILL a losing proposition. They also purchased an online business network: bCentral. Another colossal flop that hasn't panned out. MSN(online media) is gasping for breath too, despite backing from news and media giants. Only MSN the ISP is doing well and even then, well is a subjective term...
And what of Visual Studio? It's certainly covering it's development costs...for now. But how prevalent is it...really?
How many web developers on here or Ars use Visual Studio/InterDev 6 on thier pages?
A handful? Outnumbered ridiculously by the Homesite/Dreamweaver/Metapad/Evrsoft users on the same boards, who can create dynamic pages with other platforms like ColdFusion, PHP, PERL or etc.
ASP has been successul. SQL Server has been successful but the former is a feature of PWS/IIS, which itself is just a feature of their OS...their only *real* winner. And SQL is just an "add on" to their servers.
| Quote: |
If Apple or Linux, two of the premiere alternatives right now are having difficulty break through the Microsoft hold on the desktop... how do you expect a magical new startup/something to do this? |
I've never alluded to me breaking their grip. I simply said someone would. It's a rule of basic business. It's a rule of basic capitalism.
You can argue with basic tenets of business all you like but it will happen eventually.
Your argument and, to an extent, Reimer's is:
"Look at how powerful Windows is! Look at how prevent it is! No other company has an even marginally comperable market share in the OS market!"
My response is and will continue to be:
MS owned the desktop/business market.
MS will always own the desktop/business market.
That-don't-fly.
Rome was the most powerful civilization on the planet for a long time. They owned a large portion of Africa, Asia and almost all of Europe. For a time, noone doubted that the Roman empire was invincible.
Now all we have is some bronze armor, transcripts and pots left...
In short, you're allowing your admiration for their core product to cloud your judgment.
Moreover, you're convinced that I'm doing the same for Apple but, to nip that in the bud once and for all, let me say that I don't think Apple will be the userper.
| Quote: |
I'm not saying we should all give in and just by PCs and use XP. That isn't what I'm saying at all. What I AM saying is that the idea that one day Windows will no longer be a majority player is a complete and utter pipe dream brought upon by alternative platform zealotry, perhaps even jealously in some circumstances.
I won't be holding my breath for this mysterious *new*, whatever it is/will be. I really hope you don't either... I think it will be a disappointing wait. |
And this pretty much sums up the debate.
Looking at MS' past will NOT indicate its future. Even moreso, while I don't doubt you have an affection for their product, MS has its days numbered because business has operated in this fashion for centuries.
If you're indicating that MS will never lose its dominance of the OS market because their product has always been better and will *always* be better...that, THAT is the pipe dream. And, quite possibly, to assume that the MS core product is the pinnacle of its craft, over anything that is released, no matter what, is the greatest example of zealotry...
J.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Thundar
Insert Custom Title Here
Commodore
Joined: 25 Jan 2002
Posts: 4525
Location: Fugue Plane, South Side
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Okay, let me double-check.
/me looks at the top of the page... okay, I'm not in the Battlefront...
_________________
In theory, practice and theory are the same. In practice, they are not.
| MasterOfTheHat wrote: |
Well, if you'd quit sacrificing the virgins and screwing the livestock, you wouldn't be in such a predicament!
|
if you are wondering what smam is, just stick around, it is more a sort of zen than something that a mere definition with mortal words cannot comprehend. You will get the picture of what smam is in short order. It will change your life! -Smamta Clause
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
longmarch
Estate Bottled
Captain
Joined: 20 May 2002
Posts: 2430
Location: 921-2
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 8:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Maximus wrote: |
Okay, let me double-check.
/me looks at the top of the page... okay, I'm not in the Battlefront... |
Quite.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MacUser3of5
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 27 Jul 2002
Posts: 498
Location: Centralia, Washington, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 9:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
I was never arguing the quality of windows, simply the fact that microsoft is so very much a large computer culture... not just what is being sold, but what people think of when the think 'computer'. By the way, I don't even use windows, so your assertions that I am a MS fanboy and I love their products is silly and erroneous.
| Quote: |
If a company released a cheap, stable, 3D-based OS that was easier or more powerful than MS tomorrow, for the same price as Windows and it was completely compatible with all MS documents and functions, MS Windows would be a world of trouble.
|
I see, the future is a 3D os... heh, ok... beside the fact that if it were to copy windows functionality indentically, um, that would be a legal problem, don't you think? Microsoft didn't like Lindows, do you think they will like this new OS?
| Quote: |
Now there's Linux, BSD, OSX and a slew of other new OSes by the likes of AOL, IBM and Sony right around the corner.
Moreover, cell phones are packaging their own OSes: Verizon, Sprint and even AT&T.
Nevermind the fact that Be was purchased by Palm and that Palm has begun integration of Be into its palmtop OS.
|
Linux isn't exactly winning any desktop wars, either is OS X or BSD.
cellphones/PDAs != desktop/business software.
| Quote: |
MS sells more OS/software than any other company by almost 8 to 1.
|
On the desktop? If that's what you are referring to, try a higher ratio. Much higher. Guess what? People like having only to buy one program. Companies like having a large corporation on which to rely on for business software. Few like having to choose between many operating systems (I'm referring to a desktop consumers). Computers are scary and intimidating to many people, and they certainly are not capable of truly deciding, which is why having one company dominate is essential. Maybe in the next generation, people won't be as intimidated, and we will see alternative systems gain a footing, I don't know...
I wasn't speaking of technological evolution in the sense of they are creation new amazing faster better products that will wow and amaze the skeptical! What I mean is that they have such a large revenue that they can afford to stay current with modern trends, whatever they are. They aren't going to sit around and enjoy their success, like many other companies do. They've seen the business history. They've seen other companies fuck it up big time. Bill is paranoid enough not to let that happen. When Bill goes away (no less than 30 years from now), their dominance might slip.
This isn't Rome anymore, I personally can't honestly compare this to the Roman Empire. We aren't slashing each other with spears, and certainly aren't crossing rivers, metaphorically speaking. The world is a little bit different now than it was then, wouldn't you agree? Unless of course, Linus and Steve will gather their armies, march to Redmond, and set the place on fire...
In the end, I think you are being unrealistic by foretelling of a world sans Microsoft.
But anyway, I digress, this is getting us nowhere, except louder and more intense. I'm done.
But you can have the last word, if you want
#Special note: the OS X system spell-check doesn't know what Microsoft is, but knows what a Powerbook, PowerMac, Ibook, and Imac are... hmm...
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PaoloM
The King Of Crap
Captain
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 1706
Location: Up, up, up... there.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 10:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Madan wrote: |
Now there's Linux, BSD, OSX and a slew of other new OSes by the likes of AOL, IBM and Sony right around the corner. |
That nobody cares about. Linux is at 1% steady and OSX is even lower. Sure, OSX will increase with all the MacOS users upgrading, but it will reach a plateau alongside with Mac hardware sales (unless OSX on x86).
| Quote: |
| Moreover, cell phones are packaging their own OSes: Verizon, Sprint and even AT&T. |
Microsoft is positioned as well as any other competitor in that space. It's too early in the game to declare winners and losers, and honestly, the need for an ubiquitos and compatible OS on connected devices is much lower than for desktop machines.
| Quote: |
| Nevermind the fact that Be was purchased by Palm and that Palm has begun integration of Be into its palmtop OS. |
Palm won't be around by next year. I wouldn't put too much faith in their capability to survive.
| Quote: |
| If a company released a cheap, stable, 3D-based OS |
Why 3D?
| Quote: |
| that was easier or more powerful than MS tomorrow, for the same price as Windows and it was completely compatible with all MS documents and functions, MS Windows would be a world of trouble. |
This is something that always amazes me. To be perfectly compatible with Windows, to the point where all the applications run unchanged, this new OS should emulate ALL the bugs and issues that are present in Windows today. Now, tell me how this new OS would be "better" than Windows? Why a user should choose it instead of the real thing?
| Quote: |
| IE? A feature in their OS. Not evolution, inertia. |
It's nice to see you recognize that IE is a feature of the OS 
| Quote: |
| Hotmail. MS makes no money off of Hotmail. It's STILL a losing proposition. |
Really? Any proof?
| Quote: |
| They also purchased an online business network: bCentral. Another colossal flop that hasn't panned out. |
Really? Any proof?
| Quote: |
| MSN(online media) is gasping for breath too, despite backing from news and media giants. Only MSN the ISP is doing well and even then, well is a subjective term... |
These are all opinions and armchair CIO evaluations. It's normal for a company to have more and less successful divisions. They can compensate for each other. Notable of Microsoft is the ability and will to stick in the long run to strategic ventures and drop ruthlessly fads and trends.
| Quote: |
| And what of Visual Studio? It's certainly covering it's development costs...for now. But how prevalent is it...really? |
Ahem.
| Quote: |
| How many web developers on here or Ars use Visual Studio/InterDev 6 on thier pages? |
Newsflash: the web means nothing (in revenues).
| Quote: |
| A handful? Outnumbered ridiculously by the Homesite/Dreamweaver/Metapad/Evrsoft users on the same boards, who can create dynamic pages with other platforms like ColdFusion, PHP, PERL or etc. |
Guess what? Nobody cares. Well, at least Microsoft does not care, it seems.
Visual Studio is not a web development tool (well, until VS.NET). It is an application development tool. The vast majority of the software you use on a Windows machine has been designed, coded, debugged, tested and packaged with Visual Studio. It's a safe bet to say that almost every Windows developer owns one or another version of Visual Studio. The only real contender would be Borland Delphi and that's not exactly a wild success...
| Quote: |
| And SQL is just an "add on" to their servers. |
I can't believe I'm reading this...
Madan, I agree with you that nothing is eternal and eventually Microsoft will not be numero uno anymore. What I do not see is who or how this dominance could be toppled in the short term (meaning the next 10 to 20 years). None of the current player have a valid alternative and revolutionary concepts are impossible to predict by their very own nature.
Sure, it can happen, but it will require something we haven't seen today.
_________________
This is not a signature
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
I was never arguing the quality of windows, simply the fact that microsoft is so very much a large computer culture... not just what is being sold, but what people think of when the think 'computer'. By the way, I don't even use windows, so your assertions that I am a MS fanboy and I love their products is silly and erroneous. |
I was never arguing that you were a MS fanboy, simply the fact that Microsoft products hold a very large regard in your admiration and in your general concepts of computing culture...
I will say that you, by your own admission, indicated that MS has a reputation for great products. That doesn't happen without some definition concerning the "quality of Windows".
| Quote: |
Quote:
If a company released a cheap, stable, 3D-based OS that was easier or more powerful than MS tomorrow, for the same price as Windows and it was completely compatible with all MS documents and functions, MS Windows would be a world of trouble.
I see, the future is a 3D os... heh, ok... beside the fact that if it were to copy windows functionality indentically, um, that would be a legal problem, don't you think? Microsoft didn't like Lindows, do you think they will like this new OS? |
I didn't say "same UI", I said the same functionality. Mac, Win or Lin, they ALL have comparable functionality. The only real difference is how they accomplish said functionality.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Now there's Linux, BSD, OSX and a slew of other new OSes by the likes of AOL, IBM and Sony right around the corner.
Moreover, cell phones are packaging their own OSes: Verizon, Sprint and even AT&T.
Nevermind the fact that Be was purchased by Palm and that Palm has begun integration of Be into its palmtop OS.
Linux isn't exactly winning any desktop wars, either is OS X or BSD.
cellphones/PDAs != desktop/business software. |
And, again, we come to the same fallacious argument.
"I really can't think of anyone beating MS, so noone can."
OR
"MS has been dominant for so long...it'll be dominant forever."
It-don't-fly.
And *THAT's* been your argument for the last couple of posts, so don't bother denying it because what you've been doing is trying to gauge the possibility of MS' decline by forecasting the strength of current competitors' past performance against the OS behemoth.
Which is fallacious, to say the least.
| Quote: |
Quote:
On the desktop? If that's what you are referring to, try a higher ratio. Much higher. Guess what? People like having only to buy one program. Companies like having a large corporation on which to rely on for business software. Few like having to choose between many operating systems (I'm referring to a desktop consumers). Computers are scary and intimidating to many people, and they certainly are not capable of truly deciding, which is why having one company dominate is essential. Maybe in the next generation, people won't be as intimidated, and we will see alternative systems gain a footing, I don't know... |
LOL! I'll remember that the next time some Windroid on Ars bitches about the Mac's competent but small selection of application titles...
I'd love to see actual evidence that ppl prefer ONE solution. We have, after all, how many global providers for computer technology? Dozens? For automobiles? Dozens?
Heck, even for electricity or oil? Dozens?
I'm sorry but I disagree with your supposition.
| Quote: |
I wasn't speaking of technological evolution in the sense of they are creation new amazing faster better products that will wow and amaze the skeptical! What I mean is that they have such a large revenue that they can afford to stay current with modern trends, whatever they are. They aren't going to sit around and enjoy their success, like many other companies do. They've seen the business history. They've seen other companies fuck it up big time. Bill is paranoid enough not to let that happen. When Bill goes away (no less than 30 years from now), their dominance might slip. |
Won't matter. Plenty of well-managed companies get one-upped. While I've stated often that MS(and not just Gates...MS is a CORPORATION of people, not one big spunk-fest over a computer nerd) has done much to mold their environment in their favor and that they've done an excellent job of adapting to markets, no corporation has done so flawlessly.
MS, as previous failed endeavors illustrate, is not special in that respect.
| Quote: |
This isn't Rome anymore, I personally can't honestly compare this to the Roman Empire. We aren't slashing each other with spears, and certainly aren't crossing rivers, metaphorically speaking. The world is a little bit different now than it was then, wouldn't you agree? Unless of course, Linus and Steve will gather their armies, march to Redmond, and set the place on fire... |
No, I don't agree. Sociology has certain immutable principles that continue to be disregarded. Business practice has coda that are being brushed aside because "Bill is in charge". That's asinine, imo.
The comparison between Rome and MS is eminently logical. Noone foretold that a disorganized, internal failure would eventually destroy an empire that had no viable opponent for over several centuries...
The idea that "I can't see anyone beating them" means nothing because, guess what? You normally don't see the axe drop anyways.
A much more fallacious argument is to propose that MS is doing well at branching out because they've managed to participate in substantially deleterious projects(continue to participate?) that have lost money at a ridiculous speed. Can they afford it? Sure.
Are they in financial peril? Opposite day.
But have they been successful at finding revenue or paradigms for existing products OUTSIDE their specialty?
NO. Will they be in the future? Maybe.
Will that save them from eventually getting "bumped off the perch"? Not unless they've got "lucky charms".
| Quote: |
In the end, I think you are being unrealistic by foretelling of a world sans Microsoft.
|
In the end, you should read my post more carefully because I never said this.
I never said MS had to disappear. I simply mentioned that their command of the market wouldn't be nigh-monopolistic, like it is now and that others would do better.
| Quote: |
But anyway, I digress, this is getting us nowhere, except louder and more intense. I'm done.
But you can have the last word, if you want
#Special note: the OS X system spell-check doesn't know what Microsoft is, but knows what a Powerbook, PowerMac, Ibook, and Imac are... hmm... Back to top |
And of course that means that of course MS will *NEVER* fall.
Next...
| Quote: |
PaoloM
Commander
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 304
Location: How do I change this?
Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 5:01 am Post subject:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madan wrote:
Now there's Linux, BSD, OSX and a slew of other new OSes by the likes of AOL, IBM and Sony right around the corner.
That nobody cares about. Linux is at 1% steady and OSX is even lower. Sure, OSX will increase with all the MacOS users upgrading, but it will reach a plateau alongside with Mac hardware sales (unless OSX on x86). |
Thank you for your psychic report. Noone thought that a little Unix-based OS, called Linux had a chance against juggernauts like MS in the web-hosting arena.
But I guess that was just a fluke.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Moreover, cell phones are packaging their own OSes: Verizon, Sprint and even AT&T.
Microsoft is positioned as well as any other competitor in that space. It's too early in the game to declare winners and losers, and honestly, the need for an ubiquitos and compatible OS on connected devices is much lower than for desktop machines. |
"MS is pos. well for cell"? Really? Care to explain in detail?
| Quote: |
Quote:
Nevermind the fact that Be was purchased by Palm and that Palm has begun integration of Be into its palmtop OS.
Palm won't be around by next year. I wouldn't put too much faith in their capability to survive.
|
We'll see. It must be nice to have foretelling powers.
Of course, by now most readers can see the difference between my prognostications and others.
Me: Business practice history has yet to yield an organization that can remain inifinitely primary in the owning of an industry. Basic economic principles and history indicate that MS *must* eventually lose it's nigh-monopoly.
Others: I/we like MS' products/Bill Gates etc, therefore, they'll never fail.
One has basics behind it. Another is wishful thinking.
| Quote: |
Quote:
If a company released a cheap, stable, 3D-based OS
Why 3D? |
It's a paradigm that is more natural to us. We operate in a 3D environment and tactile learners can learn better in a multiple dimension environment. Learning Psychologists/Experts like Vygotsky have indicated that humans learn and operate more quickly when the paradigm matches their natural default.
It's also a paradigm that MS has yet to wade deeply into.
| Quote: |
Quote:
that was easier or more powerful than MS tomorrow, for the same price as Windows and it was completely compatible with all MS documents and functions, MS Windows would be a world of trouble.
This is something that always amazes me. To be perfectly compatible with Windows, to the point where all the applications run unchanged, |
Yet another comment that functions off of improper reading of my comment.
I said compatible with .EXEs? No. I said compatible with documents(like Macs already are) and functions(like networking).
| Quote: |
| this new OS should emulate ALL the bugs and issues that are present in Windows today. Now, tell me how this new OS would be "better" than Windows? Why a user should choose it instead of the real thing? |
I never said emulate Windows. I said allow Windows to effectively integrate. For two reasons:
A. To employ flexibility for the user.
B. To convince the purchaser that the system will operate normally with existing setups. Something that many Windroids attempt to prevent, when novices ask about Mac/Win interoperability.
| Quote: |
Quote:
IE? A feature in their OS. Not evolution, inertia.
It's nice to see you recognize that IE is a feature of the OS |
??? I've ALWAYS said it's a feature of the OS?
PLEASE don't confuse me with RR. You're acting like I'm some kind of hardcore Mac Zealot...
I'm using a (plug: from longmarch who is kick butt ) an XP box to host my site and play games. Why would you be surprised that I consider the browser as an OS app?
Granted, I think they were pretty slimy integrating it at negative gain.
Then again, I think Apple's pretty slimy for doing the same with apps. like Sherlock/Watson...etc.
| Quote: |
Quote:
Hotmail. MS makes no money off of Hotmail. It's STILL a losing proposition.
Really? Any proof? |
Sure. I'll get you some by 7 pm today. It was in the associated press. In fact, I reported it on Ars several weeks ago.
| Quote: |
Quote:
They also purchased an online business network: bCentral. Another colossal flop that hasn't panned out.
Really? Any proof? |
Ditto.
| Quote: |
Quote:
MSN(online media) is gasping for breath too, despite backing from news and media giants. Only MSN the ISP is doing well and even then, well is a subjective term...
These are all opinions and armchair CIO evaluations. |
No, these are all reports from business and economic entities, like journals and I'd appreciate it if you kept the pointless evaluations of my comments to a minimum, at least until I've had a chance to answer questions and demands for evidence that YOU posted. That would be eminently fair.
| Quote: |
It's normal for a company to have more and less successful divisions. They can compensate for each other. Notable of Microsoft is the ability and will to stick in the long run to strategic ventures and drop ruthlessly fads and trends.
|
This is moot. I'm not saying MS is profitable. They're EXTREMELY profitable. Good for them.
What I am saying is that their profitability does't come from media/web/console/services...
No, it comes almost completely from OS sales(and related software), which doesn't show adaptation, evolution or development.
They're barely better than a one-hit-wonder. Oh sure, a wildly popular one-hit-wonder...but still...
| Quote: |
Quote:
And what of Visual Studio? It's certainly covering it's development costs...for now. But how prevalent is it...really?
Ahem.
Quote:
How many web developers on here or Ars use Visual Studio/InterDev 6 on thier pages?
Newsflash: the web means nothing (in revenues). |
? Really? Because according to the AP, the web is the fastest growing business channel(segment) on Earth...
Hm. Ok.
| Quote: |
Quote:
A handful? Outnumbered ridiculously by the Homesite/Dreamweaver/Metapad/Evrsoft users on the same boards, who can create dynamic pages with other platforms like ColdFusion, PHP, PERL or etc.
Guess what? Nobody cares. Well, at least Microsoft does not care, it seems. |
MS isn't noone. MS doesn't care. Bippy for them. People care.
| Quote: |
| Visual Studio is not a web development tool (well, until VS.NET). |
That's right..UNTIL .NET. Another relatively failed initiative. I posted the quotes from Gates and others on OSY 1. Go look for that.
Visual.NET's goal was to allow for a simple, cross-language development environment for applications to funciton both off and ONline.
.NET put a greater emphasis on the web than ever. So for you to say that the web is no big thing is pretty iffy, seeing as how MS' biggest project, .NET is an aim at cornering the web's potential...
Maybe they should have called the initiative .EXE intead, huh?
| Quote: |
Madan, I agree with you that nothing is eternal and eventually Microsoft will not be numero uno anymore. |
That's all I'm saying.
| Quote: |
| What I do not see is who or how this dominance could be toppled in the short term (meaning the next 10 to 20 years). |
I never said this.
| Quote: |
| None of the current player have a valid alternative and revolutionary concepts are impossible to predict by their very own nature. |
I never said otherwise.
| Quote: |
Sure, it can happen, but it will require something we haven't seen today. |
That's what I said four posts ago.
Thank you.
<j>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, Madan, you have a lot of time on your hands.
Interesting discussion though.
| Quote: |
Noone thought that a little Unix-based OS, called Linux had a chance against juggernauts like MS in the web-hosting arena.
|
This isn't correct. Everyone assumed that Microsoft had "missed the boat" on the Internet (they did) and that Netscape was the future and the backend of the 'net would always run on Unix as it had always done, since day 1 (well, almost day 1)
People assumed that because Microsoft had never had a presence in the server arena (at any level, from Novell's dominance of simple LANs to Unix's dominance of the Internet) that they would never crack that market. Now, here we are, and IIS is at 30% of all web servers, and Win2k server is doing really well against a free product!
Recent web surveys have also shown that Internet Explorer is approaching a 95% market share for all web browsers. Google's, and our own company's web server's figures confirm this. Netscape is deader than a doornail.
95% of the Internet client base and 30% of the server is pretty damned good considering in 1995 Microsoft had 0% on both.
Today, people whine on about how evil Microsoft was for crushing Netscape (personally, I think they did the world a great public service) and laugh at the XBox for "failing" (when in fact it's doing anything but) Sony is a tough customer but Microsoft will slowly but surely start to eat away at their console monopoly. Mark my words.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 1:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
This isn't correct. Everyone assumed that Microsoft had "missed the boat" on the Internet (they did) and that Netscape was the future and the backend of the 'net would always run on Unix as it had always done, since day 1 (well, almost day 1) |
Everyone assumed MS missed the boat? Uhm, I don't think so. MS was releasing NT first and with it IIS and everyone was waiting for the other shoe to "drop", so to speak. For MS to gobble up everything.
Ten years later, MS is proportionally comparable to the day it started. It's Passport initiative and Hailstorm and every other malformed attempt at "locking in the web", which people were either incensed or at ease about...tanked.
Vanilla Nix <> Linux, btw. Linux even took other Unix users by surprise.
| Quote: |
People assumed that because Microsoft had never had a presence in the server arena (at any level, from Novell's dominance of simple LANs to Unix's dominance of the Internet) that they would never crack that market. Now, here we are, and IIS is at 30% of all web servers, and Win2k server is doing really well against a free product! |
Win 2k server? IIS? IIS is also a, relatively speaking, free product but that's besides the point. 30% after ten years? More? And if you look at Ars lately, there's a debate about this with the trend showing an infinitesimally small erosion of MS server marketshare...not a waxing.
| Quote: |
Recent web surveys have also shown that Internet Explorer is approaching a 95% market share for all web browsers. Google's, and our own company's web server's figures confirm this. Netscape is deader than a doornail. |
Was I talking about browsers? I don't remember.
| Quote: |
95% of the Internet client base and 30% of the server is pretty damned good considering in 1995 Microsoft had 0% on both. |
Let's take this into perspective. Differences in marketshare for MS IIS was from 25% to 30% over the last five years. Not bad.
Microcosmically, the marketshare for MS IIS was 30% to 30% in the last two years. Not so hot.
MS IIS' growth is stagnant, at best.
As for the browser, I never argued the browser. Everyone knew that MS' free offering of a browser spelled the doom of Netscape, even during Netscape's still relatively healthy 60% marketshare. Why? Because MS was giving away something for free and doing so in EVERY OS iteration of theirs.
Is that leveraging wrong? I'm not going to argue that but, then, I wasn't arguing browsers anyways.
| Quote: |
Today, people whine on about how evil Microsoft was for crushing Netscape (personally, I think they did the world a great public service) and laugh at the XBox for "failing" (when in fact it's doing anything but) |
No, the Xbox IS losing money significantly. I posted info about this on OSY 1 less than two months and a half ago.
Financial officer in MS indicated that MS Xbox had performed below original expectations. He then indicated that expectations were to lose money(lightly). Which must mean it's losing at least a moderate amount of money.
So, again, the pixie dust wishing for Xbox to do well isn't going to change anything.
Now, do I think the Xbox will always be a failure? No. I think that if MS sticks it out and makes some changes in their pricing, game licensing AND game compatibility, they've got a good shot.
But as of this summer, the Xbox fiscal performance sucked ass.
| Quote: |
Sony is a tough customer but Microsoft will slowly but surely start to eat away at their console monopoly. Mark my words. |
MS is a tough customer but XXXX company will slowly but surely start to eat away at their OS monopoly in the future. Mark my words.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeremy Reimer
King of Canada
1st Lord of the Admiralty
Joined: 01 Aug 2002
Posts: 7834
Location: 789-M
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Firstly, don't use ars as a backup for arguments, because if by ars you mean "The Battlefront" then I'm sorry, but it's just a bunch of idiots spewing noise about topics they know nothing about.
Secondly.. some corrections:
1. Microsoft was not "first with NT and IIS". IIS didn't exist in 1995. Bill Gates released the book "The Road Ahead" and it barely mentioned the Internet. Everybody knew that MS had missed the Internet boat, including Bill Gates, who wrote the famous memo that turned things around.
2. IIS is not a "free product" because it requires Win2k Server to support more than 10 simultaneous connections. It's free in much the same way as the first hit of crack is free.
3. MS server marketshare is not eroding. Most Ars people don't know what they are talking about, and have stupid Penguinista agendas anyway. They are best ignored.
4. IE didn't win because Microsoft was "giving away something for free". Netscape was always free (see PaoloM's post on the same topic) Bundling wasn't the reason either: IE 1, 2 and 3 were given away in boxes of breakfast cereal yet could not dislodge Netscape's dominant share... this changed with IE 4 (pre-Win98) which was a better product, while Netscape got WORSE with each iteration.
5. I said "The XBox is not a failure". You said "No, the X-Box is losing money". These are not the same things, not by a long shot.
Sony lost a shitload of money developing the PS2 and continues to lose money on every box (slowly, economies of scale kick in and the loss goes away, but by that time it's nearly time for the next generation of consoles anyway)
The money is in the SOFTWARE, and to win in that arena you need marketshare, which Microsoft is slowly getting. It's a tough battle, and people (idiots) on Ars like to say things like "PS2 30 million! XBOX 4 million!" but they (as usual) miss the entire point-- Microsoft is starting from ZERO and YEARS BEHIND! That they have done even this well is impressive.
Microsoft has FORTY BILLION DOLLARS IN CASH and they add to that war chest by about a BILLION dollars a MONTH. Think about that for a moment. What's worth more to Microsoft, losing a measely billion dollars in marketing and costs for the XBox, or not having an XBox at all and letting Sony dominate the living room forever?
The only reason Microsoft isn't giving XBoxes away is that would actually be illegal.
_________________
"Those afraid of the universe as it really is, those who pretend to nonexistent knowledge and envision a Cosmos centered on human beings will prefer the fleeting comforts of superstition. They avoid rather than confront the world. But those with the courage to explore the weave and structure of the Cosmos, even where it differs profoundly from their wishes and prejudices, will penetrate its deepest mysteries."
-- Carl Sagan
"Its not a rule. Its just something I noticed. Several of us have more than one sig." - Mord
"No, you are a troll, and I should have never let you back to Ars in after the first 16,000 bannings." - Caesar, to He Who Shall Not Be Named
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mord
Console Cowboy
Vice Admiral
Joined: 04 Sep 2002
Posts: 8022
Location: Where the rubber meets the road.
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
The only reason Microsoft isn't giving XBoxes away is that would actually be illegal.
|
That's a very interesting comment. How exactly would it be illegal? Would it simply cause too much commotion with Microsoft aggressively trying to grab marketshare? Or is it actually illegal to be handing them out?
_________________
Give a guy a gun, he thinks he's Superman. Give him two and he thinks he's God. - Superintendant Pang, Lashou shentan (a.k.a. Hard-Boiled)
I note that you don't have any OSY member quotes in your sig. - the twinkster
Nonsense. "Bias" is people whom don't agree with me. - FondueDaredevil
Gabe: I wish you weren't a fucking liar.
Tycho: I'm not a liar.
Gabe: Well, I wish you didn't lie.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Riso
Commodore
Joined: 28 Feb 2001
Posts: 3019
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually I think Sony is making money now after the die shrink.
But Nintendo is without question the one with the cheapest console on the market.
Not only that, big N is also the only one making profit on console sales from day one.
_________________
Miss Congeniality
"Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways Lord Reimer, your sad devotion to that ancient OS have not helped you conjure up the Guru Meditation or given you clarvoyance enough to find 1% marketshare"
- FondueDaredevil
"[...] we view customers as complete morons that will never catch on and [...] we're lying to them all the time."
- Gabe Newell |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Madan
Gone.
Commodore
Joined: 26 Feb 2001
Posts: 3688
Location: Miami
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 05, 2002 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paolo wanted evidence about Hotmail losing money:
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2002/tc2002031_7723.htm
| Quote: |
Printer-Friendly Version
E-Mail This Story
E-Mail: Killer App -- or Just a Killer?
Growing Pains for E-Mail Marketers
The High Price of Spam
Inside the Spammers' Arsenal
Clash of the Free E-Mail Titans
When Microsoft bought Hotmail in a stock swap valued at $400 million four years ago, it got quite a bit more than it bargained for. Its plan was to make the deal pay by selling ads on the free e-mail service -- and by eventually converting Hotmail's 8.5 million customers to Microsoft products. The strategy has succeeded spectacularly in one respect: Hotmail has more customers than ever -- 110 million.
Only problem is, it costs Microsoft about $1 per year to maintain each mailbox. And with advertising in the doldrums across virtually every medium, Hotmail's ad revenues cover a mere 20% of the cost, estimates Safa Rashtchy, an analyst at U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray. So now, Microsoft is revising its approach. It's trying to attract nonadvertising revenues with subscription features that can support its system.
|
20% coverage of costs? LOL!
I'll get to the other stuff later.
J.
_________________
Lovin' Mely.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.11j © 2001-2005 phpBB Group with many Smammy additions by Jeremy Reimer 2003-2005
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
