Looks like MSN is looking at lifetime value of a customer. Very smart as long as they can pull it off.
To be honest with you, I don't really care what Bill Gates thinks about Google and whether or not they are a threat to him. If Bill Gates does consider Google to be a threat, it just shows he isn't as intelligent as many people think he is. If I were Gates, I wouldn't be scared of Google. Would I acknowledge their presence? Sure. But Billy is the richest man on the planet. He does what he wants, when he wants. The problem with Gates is he is not using his billions effectively. If I had the money he had, I would wipe the floor with Google. The problem with Gates in my opinion is that while he has a very analytical mind, the creative part of his brain is lacking a bit. He is not pushing the limits of technology. Gates is not a polymath. When you have billions, it should be easy to make more billions.
tesla i would argue that the less you have the easier it is to earn money (based on growth in percentages). i'm pretty sure i'm right
kkibak I agree with you 100%. Microsoft cannot experience the growth rate today that it did in its youth. But think about how much interest Gates should be earning on the money he has. I estimate that Gates probably makes tens of millions in interest on his accounts. If I had the money Gates/Microsoft has I wouldn't waste trying to make Microsoft more powerful than it is. I would expand my empire into other fields, under a different name, while being funded by Microsoft. Let me give you an example. In 2001 Microsoft released Xbox, their venture into the video game industry. While they have done well in the US and Europe, they crashed in Japan. Why? Because Microsoft let the Japanese know their console was from an American company. If I were Bill Gates, I would contract a Japanese hardware company in Japan to create a console that to all appearances, looks Japanese. I would never let the public know that Microsoft funded the console. Then I would precede to dominate the American, Japanese, and European Markets. Vince Mchmahon did the same thing with ECW. He funded the company underground while publicly not really attaching his name to it. Consumers then think they are with a totally different brand or company, while in reality, the WWE has an interest in the well being of ECW
Microsoft has to tread lightly when expanding its business and wiping out competitors. Any semblance to a monopoly could get them into more antitrust trouble. If you're saying they can circumvent this by setting up shell corporations, then eventually they would get caught, and possibly broken up.
Oops!!! yes I meant Star office. I was asking because I am going to use a linux server so I was looking for a User review for an office package which runs on linux. thats the point.
Oh I see.. Well, I believe OpenOffice.org would be a safe bet for you, especially the OpenOffice.org 2 that has just recently been released, although I haven't yet got around to get and try it. There are some alternatives to it though such as KOffice from KDE suite and Abiword word processor which couples nicely with Gnumeric tables calculator. Office software is in my opinion one area in which the GNU/Linux platform really doesn't lack, except if you really have some extremely exotic needs I can't think of right now, and even for such needs I'm sure there are some "hack" solutions or will be full solutions in the future as the demand grows. Thanks Daniel
How about 100% compatibility with Microsoft Office documents, for a start? OpenOffice and StarOffice are close but not quite. For personal use, that may not be a huge detriment. For business use, it most definitely can be.
Well, last time I tried to open MS Word .doc files in OpenOffice.org Writer (and that was yesterday) I've had no problems so even if it's not yet "quite there" it must be very close, especially with newly released OOo 2. That said, if there are some incompatibilities between formats left unsolved that may not be only the fault of the OOo development community (which includes Sun Microsystems), but Microsoft itself. Btw, OpenOffice.org 2 now supports OpenDocument format which is to be used on other suites like Corel WordPerfect. MS still refuses to support it which again make MS at fault for not following open standards. (and God knows (if He exists) how angry I get when I need to edit my CSS specially for Internet Explorer) Thanks Daniel
It's not an issue of "fault" exactly - although MS Office has the format that open source is trying to claim compatibility with so to the extent that they fail how can you blame Microsoft? Both PC World and I think Ziff-Davis have recently looked at MS Office alternatives witha special focus on the issue of compatibility. The open source versions are close but defintely not 100% - as I said, for personal use only, I could probably live with that; for business use, which is more bottom-line, mission-critical, screwups could cost me money, I wouldn't risk it. Do also remember that MS Office compatibility in the business world means a lot more than MS Word documents - Access, Excel, Powerpoint are just as important. If I recall the PC World article correctly, I think Excel compatibility was one of the areas the open source alternatives really faltered. As for WordPerfect and other Corel products, a decade or two ago they were the team to beat. They blew it with stupid marketing decisions, like refusing to go with Windows drivers and stubbornly sticking with their own. Here in Canada, after Corel bought WordPerfect, even the Canadian government couldn't be persuaded to go with WP, even with the cost incentives Corel was offering. Again, the issue is compatibility with what most of the world is using.
Well, MS's formats are proprietary, closed and shifting from version to version. Microsoft doesn't really make the job of ensuring compatibility between the free OOo and proprietary MS Office easier. They still want to keep their lock-in in place (why else would they refuse to support OpenDocument). As for the rest what you say, it's probably true. I can't vouch for anything as I'm not really using Office apps that much, but it probably still does have a way to go before reaching 100% compatibility. I just don't think the FOSS (Free Open Source Software) community is the (only) one to blame for not having it yet. Thanks Daniel
They are always backward compatible with other MS Office versions. Why should they or would they want to maintain compatibility with other office suites? They are the acknowledged leader in that field. The onus is on anyone else who wants to compete to ensure that they are compatible with Microsoft. To their credit, MS does maintain conversion utilities for various versions of Corel software but of course they have no interest (yet) in doing that for open source suites - why would they? For one thing, there are not enough people using those suites to matter to Microsoft, For another, as I've said, it's really up to open source to make sure that they are compatible or forget about ever being taken seriously by the general software community.
There's alot to be said about what made MS the acknowledged leader in the field, but this is probably not the place. I support open standards and MS formats, even if they account for 90% of the market aren't open standards nor does MS seem to believe in open standards (even if they'd say they do). What makes MS Office formats a "standard" is simply the fact that it's most used, and that's basically the only basis on which this is acknowledged as a standard. But that doesn't make their format open, nor are the users less locked in by that fact. This lock-in is in many cases what inertly keeps MS Office market share. I agree that it's up to the "open source" community as they don't trust in MS to support them anyway. It's therefore not like FOSS people are looking at Microsoft for some kind of mercy, they do whatever they can to get what they need. GNU/Linux and Free Software/Open Source is already being taken quite seriously. Just looking at what MS does these days can confirm it, and the whole buzz around "open source" and "linux" is just adding up to it. Thanks Daniel
Of course. MS has never made any claims to supporting open source or open standards. Why should they?
heh. seems like only webmasters hate Google. after this update, i have to say i'm not to pleased either. but that's neither here nor there. MSFT still has the advantage of the desktop platform. That advantage has been the critical component of killing off entire industries. All they have to do is integrate anti-spyware, anti-virus, firewall features into their OS and you'll see entire companies simply implode. google is a bit of a different animal. however, MSFT will find a way to integrate Search into the desktop platform in a way that makes it so natural for people, that they just may beat Google eventually. Say what you want about Firefox, most people still use IE. they will make MSFT search so naturally integrated into both the browser as well as the productivity applications that people will just naturally start using MSFT search. *BUT* this won't happen tomorrow. I see GOOG being heavyweight champion for the foreseeable future. MSFT was caught with their pants down, and they know it.
Well I could say that they should because it is the "right thing", but then I am gonna appear naive and idealistic. I do believe in Free Open Source Software as a more ethical way of developing and using software as well as a superior development model, but I also know enough about MS not to expect of them to support FOSS. That is not an issue here even. The issue is about what they really shouldn't, and that is deliberately stand in way of the Free Open Source Software development and doing so without fairplay (like spreading FUD). Stereolab, things are definitely different for Microsoft this time. Google and other web services companies are not the kind of competitor that they faced before, and coupled with an even more disruptive and emerging Free Open Source Software and GNU/Linux industry they are sure in for a tough fight. There is an interesting story about it on CNN/Money that gives some clear insight into the situation in which MS is today. Thanks Daniel
Having just been through some serious frustration with a phpBB update that IMO was seriously bungled by the development team and having the team justify various errors with statements like "we're volunteers and we have families too" I am in a mood to seriously question whether open source is a "superior development model". Look a little further at how long it is taking phpBB to produce the next version and compare that with what vBulletin has done - and ask yourself if you still want to defend the open source model on these grounds. They aren't standing in anyone's way. Your previous posts seem to imply that Microsoft should embrace a standard chosen by their open source competition and abandon their own preferred standards. Why would any business choose to do that? And what do you think the Microsoft shareholders would have to say about a Board of Directors that followed your vision of how they should operate? As for the "threat" to Microsoft, I have been hearing this for a long time. I don't see any real evidence that Microsoft is hurting from this "competition". I don't see any evidence that this is likely to change in the near future, either.
The superiority of the development model is secondary to the ethical issue at hand, the issue of freedom from consumer lock-ins, monopolies and other things that inherently plague the proprietary software industry. That said, I still however believe that FOSS is a superior development model because it allows for a free flow of innovation and creativity (not encumbered by proprietary licensing) which then creates a great pool of freely available ideas and code that can be built upon to create new innovation and contribute it back to that evergrowing pool. The ethical aspect, the aspect of freedom for both users and programmers, is what (although not obligatory) can directly stand behind these development process benefits. Simply said, what makes the Free Open Source Software development model better is cooperation, the fact that a software can be carved by anyone and anywhere, ultimately resulting in better software. More people working on a program of interest in one way or another is better then less. A phpbb example that you have named is just an individual example. It is true that a project as big as phpbb has to have some kind of an organization in place for it to work properly as well as a healthy community (which is very important in FOSS projects). If that is lost then the project can get into troubles you're describing. But that does not mean that the open development is what is causing these troubles, it is just how you organize this open development, how you handle and channel the "free flow" I described. There certainly are other examples of badly managed FOSS projects, but there are also shining stars of great management and consequent success. GNU/Linux, Apache, Mozilla Firefox, KDE, GNOME, OpenOffice.org, Drupal, Mambo Open Source (now Joomla) and many others... How so? You think MS never said a lie against FOSS, never tried to spread faulty information in order to sway public from considering it? So what about the "get the facts" campaign, Bill Gates accusing FOSS for being communism etc. etc. It somehow seems like you view MS as a business that can do no wrong (I know you don't) while MS has a widely recognized reputation for it's unfair business practices and strategies which too often favor quick fixes (or "hacks" as someone put it) to kill of competition (like in the IE vs. Netscape case for one). The only problem is that there is hardly such a quick fix that can get them rid of FOSS because it exists on a different level, being disruptive and reverting the system from the inside. Business is one thing, fair business is something entirely else. Thank you Daniel
I don't view any organization as incapable of wrong. That includes open source organizations and non-profit organizations. By the same token, I don't see any organization as bad simply because it knows how to produce a product that works, knows how to market it effectively, and knows how to make a profit doing that. I admire anything that someone does well. I think when they do they deserve whatever rewards accrue to them for that accomplishment.
That certainly makes sense, but there is a catch.. As long as a given organization is able to achieve all of that by actually following certain rules and not doing it on expense of others, especially their consumers, then sure we ought to admire and reward them. And sorry, but MS just isn't that kind of an organization. It is in line with the principle of doing whatever you wish to do as long as it doesn't deprive another of freedom to do too.