If I was Microsoft .....

[rs2sensen]

MacAddikt, thank you for pointing out my error in grammer. Often, people do not type posts in grammer that one would typically use in the "real" world. I believe that on average however, my posts tend to be pretty good in that area. However, had I noticed it when I originally typed it around midnight, I would have made a point to change it, as I am about to right now.

Falltime, you have made some very good points. Let me start at the tope of your post, and work my way down.

I also thought, like Pcpuke that you were asking for phone numbers, not the numbers of people he knew. Thats why he refused. And believing that, he had a point in replying like he did. Would you put your personal contact information out to the world? no

I agree that more specific facts from PCpuke would be very benefitial to this arguement.


"Pepsi's board of directors is made up entirely of angry, Brazilian terrorists" =lol, nice

'And yes, I've had long conversations with Gates, Ballmer, and Jobs on numerous occasions, and I know them about as much as I'd need or care to. " uh huh, I assume your joking. If not, I ask the same as you asked PC Puke, proove it.

"My analogy was as accurate as I wanted it to be. I wasn't confused. The concept behind the ant vs. airplane analogy was simple: the two differ so much in their shear size, purpose, and position that it makes very little sense to compare the two - not to mention have them in the same competitive arena. I was talking in terms of current market share, not the company’s individual measures of "class" and/or subjective potential and predictions. " alright. thanks for clearing that up. I disagree that the companies differ that much in purpose, but I agree when you look at size/market share, overall anyways.

"With the Windows family accounting for 90% of the entire OS market and Windows 98, a seven year old operating system, still doubling that of OSX's 2% market share - I don't think I'm making a terribly preposterous claim when I say Apple has quite a bit to go before it is any sort of threat to Microsoft... To Microsoft, 2% might as well be 0%. "

To some extent. I once made the analogy that if BMU were to make a "cheap" car, then they could become very serious competition for the Fords of the world, because thousands would purchase them on "the name." Apple has a similar level of marketshare to BMW.

"Just like I wouldn't try and compare Apple's MP3 player dominance to that of Microsoft's (seeing as they don't even have one) because it would just be completely ridiculous. It's just a matter of putting both company’s purposes, interests, and markets into perspective." No, you cannot directly compare them. However, you can add that in when comparing the marketing/media muscle that the companies can throw at other tasks and products. ie. the ipod causing ppl. to buy minimacs

Crap, sorry I can't reply to more. Something jsut came in that I have to work on. Will reply more later.

 

[falltime]

Linux increases its dominance

Actually, it really isn’t. It's gained about 0.3% market share over the past 6 months and only 0.8% over the past year and a half. Its market share appreciation coincides with Microsoft’s older OS's (Windows 2000 & NT) shedding some of their market share at about the same pace.

Windows XP on the other hand has gained 4% market share over the past 6 months and 21% over the past year and a half.

Linux holds a slight edge over Mac OS (OS 8,9,X) with Linux holding a minute 3.5% of the overall market share, and Mac OS holding only 3%. Mac OS’s are also growing even slower than Linux gaining only .2% over the past 6 months, and only .6% over the past year and a half.

That means, that over the past 18 months, Windows XP has grown @ more than double the pace than both Linux and Mac OS combined.

'And yes, I've had long conversations with Gates, Ballmer, and Jobs on numerous occasions, and I know them about as much as I'd need or care to. " uh huh, I assume your joking. If not, I ask the same as you asked PC Puke, proove it.

What I was asking PC_Puke to do was to at least give us the names of the people he was talking about. I was not asking for "proof," because I have no idea how he would provide that. The point I was trying to make was that you simply cannot just say "People sold their soul to Microsoft" and not give any additional details as to who, how many, or when that was.

Like I said, there is simply no way for me to provide raw "proof" or evidence. All I can say is that I spoke with Bill and Ballmer for quite a while at a charity race at the MTC in Mountain View about 3 years ago (before I moved to SoCal). Bill was wearing a white t-shirt and beige khakis and Ballmer was wearing a light green shirt and a Sonics hat. I've spoken to Jobs on numerous occasions - he is a good friend of a movie producer I frequently consult for, and I'll even occasionally seem him on production.

 

[MacAddikt]

MacAddikt, thank you for pointing out my error in grammer. Often, people do not type posts in grammer that one would typically use in the "real" world. I believe that on average however, my posts tend to be pretty good in that area. However, had I noticed it when I originally typed it around midnight, I would have made a point to change it, as I am about to right now.

dude........... i was only trying to make a joke :biohazard

 

[rs2sensen]

sorry addikt. np. I was in a tense mood from other arguements in the day. but I'm calm now, and got all the crap I had to do. hope you can forget my little snap

 

[Mac N00b]

I'm confused... why is Google a competitor of Microsoft?

 

[falltime]

I'm confused... why is Google a competitor of Microsoft?

People often get confused because Microsoft, at its core, is an OS company, and Google, at its core, is a Search Engine company. So many people question the difference and ask, "What do these companies have to do with each other?"

It's not a matter of where they started; it’s a matter of where they are headed. Microsoft, for so many years has been very confident with it's ambitions, and has never really had serious issues with any other companies getting in it's way. That is, until Google came around. Google is showing menacing signs of being a serious competitor of Microsoft in the coming years - especially in the eyes Microsoft themselves.

This pretty much sums it up:
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05070601.htm?logvisit=y&source=estmarhln001999&npu=y

 

[mmoy]

[Chris: “That's because it's not the tallest nail. That's like saying FireFox is more secure than IE, when (in fact) it's just not getting attacked as much because the installed user base is nowhere near that of IE. Trust me, if the market share tables were turned, folks would be saying "IE is more secure than FireFox."]

The problem with this argument is that it is not an Apples to Apples comparison. You are comparing Open Source to Closed Source and in Open Source, your code changes are subjected to a lot more public scrutiny than it would be in your typical large software engineering company. In the large software engineering company, you'd get your code and tests reviewed by one or two people per module based on the module owner.

You could ask for additional reviews by peers or your project leader of course but this can impact schedules.

With Firefox in particular, there are two levels of review and there are rules as to who can do the reviews so that someone doesn't pull a snow job. In addition, the discussion on code changes takes place in public at Bugzilla and anyone can attach themselves to pending code changes and get emails on the conversation over the code change.

Once your code gets in, you have the official build environment generating kits that go out to the testing community (there are a lot of people that download kits daily to test them and check out bugfixes and new features on the trunk).

And you have the unofficial builders that build the trunk and examine patches daily to cherry pick changes to put into unofficial release builds.

If a problem is discovered, you can frequently get access to prerelease kits with the fix(es) in them. Or you can just build your own.

Of course if you really want to feel secure, use Firefox on your Mac.

Professsors can grab a module and have their classes go over a module to figure out what it does and whether or not there are problems.

 

[Mac N00b]

People often get confused because Microsoft, at its core, is an OS company, and Google, at its core, is a Search Engine company. So many people question the difference and ask, "What do these companies have to do with each other?"

It's not a matter of where they started; it’s a matter of where they are headed. Microsoft, for so many years has been very confident with it's ambitions, and has never really had serious issues with any other companies getting in it's way. That is, until Google came around. Google is showing menacing signs of being a serious competitor of Microsoft in the coming years - especially in the eyes Microsoft themselves.

This pretty much sums it up:
http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2005/mft05070601.htm?logvisit=y&source=estmarhln001999&npu=y

It still seems a little irrational for MS to be afraid of Google taking their thunder. People are resisitant to change. You proved that with your growth numbers on XP X and Linux earlier. Speaking of which, is it necessarilly a bad thing that X is lagging behind? As long as it is the shortest nail, less viruses get written for it.

 

[scooter]

@ falltime

thank you for your well thought out and reasonable statements and comments. these are some of the best posts i have read on this site concerning msft and apple.

i once posted an argument very similar to your comparison of market share and systems. (not nearly as well thought out as your remarks, though) i was getting frustrated by the bashing i see on a lot of apple forums towards msft and other things not apple. neye:
http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19930

i love my mac, but people need to realize that apple is not divine. :yinyang:

 

[mmoy]

Some of the things that Google has done are Apple-like. They have the fastest web-based email program out there and the fastest and best mapping program out there with a really cool client-server approach towards these two applications. What if they did the same with Office applications? All you would really need is the browser to run some applications that contribute a huge amount of cash to Microsoft.

Microsoft killed Netscape because Netscape's ultimate threat was to replace the desktop with a webtop. Microsoft may fear that Google may do the same thing. Or at least steal some of Microsoft's thunder.

MSN came out with a new search engine earlier this year. I gave it a try as I through it provided more results than Google but I went back to Google out of habit and that I could go to Google for a bunch of other stuff too.

BTW, have you tried out earth.google.com? Incredibly cool application though it's Windows only for now and you need a substantial box to run it.

 

[Ex_PC_Puke]

While I started this wierd thread bashing MSFT I do need to say this - I consider myself very lucky to have walked into Intel right as the x486 came out ('89) and Windows 3.0 was being released. Few people at that time could envision (remotely) where the PC / Windows would be in 15yrs. I was smack in the middle of a lot of the platform R+D during that time.

I've always given MSFT / Gates a lot of credit for not only building their empire - but working closely with Intel to bring us things we all take for granted today in a PC running XP - which security issues aside - is a pretty amazing device especially compared to the freakish little fragile PC in '89.

The issue I have ( which has played out time and time and time again in courts around the world) is their ruthless biz practices. Anyone recall a little company called Netscape ..... or in a previous post in this thread where I recount the demise of GO Computing. In effect - stiffling innovation / opportunities for the PC world. All companies at times do aggressive or ruthless things to their competition - but with MSFT its their biz model for daily operations.

My only reason for this thread was to say - if you want to challange MSFT in any area - for any market share - you better have many friends (in high places) - be loaded for bear - and watch your back ............... :spook:

 

[mmoy]

Those biz practices are why they survive. High tech business is for carnivores. You can't play nice in tech because there's always someone waiting to eat your lunch. Jobs knows that as does every other head of a big tech company.

 

[rs2sensen]

Those biz practices are why they survive. High tech business is for carnivores. You can't play nice in tech because there's always someone waiting to eat your lunch. Jobs knows that as does every other head of a big tech company.

Once we throw away our business ethics, we give up everything that a free market economy stands for. Microsoft could survive without those tactics. In fact, if they were to play a fair game of ball, they could thrive. Microsoft is large enough to spur innovation in many markets. I could go on and list several of those markets and give you the benefits of working together within them, but I think with some thought you could easily come to the same conclusion.

It was Adam Smith who said that "in competition, individual ambition serves the common good." Pretty much meaning that the best result occurs whenever everyone does the best thing for him/herself (ie. Microsoft). John Nash revised his theory and said that the best result happens when everyone does the best thing for him/herself and the best thing for the group (ie. Governing Dynamics as the movie calls it, really called "Game Theory"). I think Nash's theory can really come to play in this problem. If Microsoft were to aim at doing the best thing not only for itself, but for the markets it is in, we would see tremendous gains. (Sorry, I just rewatched "A Beautiful Mind" which is a great movie although it stretches his theory and the facts a little too much).

 

[Amen-Moses]

Few people at that time could envision (remotely) where the PC / Windows would be in 15yrs. I was smack in the middle of a lot of the platform R+D during that time.

Unless they owned an Acorn machine that is. At that time RiscOS on the ARM2 was a fore-runner of todays PCs and was streets ahead of anything else in the consumer realm. The funny thing is that I like OSX so much because it looks and acts so much like RiscOS, the only real difference is that whereas RiscOS was all in ROM (which made it immune to Virii) and had a quirky proprietary multi-tasking kernal OSX is build on top of a proper industry strength kernal.

Amen-Moses

 

[mmoy]

Once we throw away our business ethics, we give up everything that a free market economy stands for. Microsoft could survive without those tactics. In fact, if they were to play a fair game of ball, they could thrive. Microsoft is large enough to spur innovation in many markets. I could go on and list several of those markets and give you the benefits of working together within them, but I think with some thought you could easily come to the same conclusion.

It was Adam Smith who said that "in competition, individual ambition serves the common good." Pretty much meaning that the best result occurs whenever everyone does the best thing for him/herself (ie. Microsoft). John Nash revised his theory and said that the best result happens when everyone does the best thing for him/herself and the best thing for the group (ie. Governing Dynamics as the movie calls it, really called "Game Theory"). I think Nash's theory can really come to play in this problem. If Microsoft were to aim at doing the best thing not only for itself, but for the markets it is in, we would see tremendous gains. (Sorry, I just rewatched "A Beautiful Mind" which is a great movie although it stretches his theory and the facts a little too much).

I don't think that you understand the personal
dynamics that drive large high-tech companies.
The gentleman companies that were around in
the 1980s have mostly been bought out or gone
bankrupt or near bankrupt.

There are also the dynamics of what management
personally and corporately wants and what
shareholders want.

At the core, it's all about money. It's something that is best experienced to understand it.

 

[Ex_PC_Puke]

I don't think that you understand the personal
dynamics that drive large high-tech companies.
The gentleman companies that were around in
the 1980s have mostly been bought out or gone
bankrupt or near bankrupt.

There are also the dynamics of what management
personally and corporately wants and what
shareholders want.

At the core, it's all about money. It's something that is best experienced to understand it.

I disagree here - you can be very competitive without having to resort to anti-biz / anti-competitive --- that why we (our Government) has rules on these areas. Its the carrot or the stick approach ---- from what I know from my time at Intel - the first choice was to always try the carrot when working with other Industry partners in advancing the platform (i.e. specs for PCI - AGP - USB - etc) --- the stick was the second choice. Frankly I believe MSFT believes using a carrot is a waste of time (esp. when you own over 90% of the market) and they replaced the stick with a club.

 

[rs2sensen]

At the core, it's all about money. It's something that is best experienced to understand it.

It's something I have experienced very well. I'm 36 years old. I have a masters degree in business. For five years I was the president of a printing company that I turned from $5 mil. in debt, to making $20 mil in profit per year. At that point I got fed up with the midnight calls with problems, and set out on my own.

I agree, the gentleman companies of the past are dead. However, the idea as I stated it, is quite a bit different than the corporate ideas of those 1980s businesses. I'm not saying that Microsoft should bend over backwards to cater to the competition. They would be destroyed. However, their main business strategy results in monopolization of markets. This tends to fall under the original ideas of Adam Smith. I still believe that the ideas of John Nash are superior to Smiths. Which by the way, he was awarded a noble prize for in the early 90s I believe. They are certainly not outdated ideas, and continue to recieve recognition.

Microsoft needs to work on creating new markets, and on encouraging innovation in the markets it is currently in. That is what I'm getting at. That would be doing the best for itself, and also it's competition, because both would gain. And Microsoft has the financial muscle, to go that direction pretty easily.

 

[mmoy]

Microsoft is working very hard on new markets
from what I'm seeing. Many of them have not
turned out well or have struggled against
competition.

They are still raking in gobs of money and they
have decent growth in server sales which bring
in more money per license than do consumer
sales.

It's something I have experienced very well. I'm 36 years old. I have a masters degree in business. For five years I was the president of a printing company that I turned from $5 mil. in debt, to making $20 mil in profit per year. At that point I got fed up with the midnight calls with problems, and set out on my own.

I agree, the gentleman companies of the past are dead. However, the idea as I stated it, is quite a bit different than the corporate ideas of those 1980s businesses. I'm not saying that Microsoft should bend over backwards to cater to the competition. They would be destroyed. However, their main business strategy results in monopolization of markets. This tends to fall under the original ideas of Adam Smith. I still believe that the ideas of John Nash are superior to Smiths. Which by the way, he was awarded a noble prize for in the early 90s I believe. They are certainly not outdated ideas, and continue to recieve recognition.

Microsoft needs to work on creating new markets, and on encouraging innovation in the markets it is currently in. That is what I'm getting at. That would be doing the best for itself, and also it's competition, because both would gain. And Microsoft has the financial muscle, to go that direction pretty easily.

 

[rs2sensen]

Microsoft is working very hard on new markets
from what I'm seeing. Many of them have not
turned out well or have struggled against
competition.

What new markets have they expanded into or created?

 

[mmoy]

What new markets have they expanded into or created?

Games, MSN, Windows 64, Windows Server, they have new and interesting database stuff and the new stuff in Whidbey, Internet Search.