SI
SI
discoversearch

 Technology Stocks | Microsoft Corp. - Moderated (MSFT)


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Dave who wrote (1322)12/5/2002 5:45:31 AM
From: dybdahl
   of 18719
 
IBM tried losing a monopoly before, and they know the medicine. It's not about defending yourself, but about being proactive.

What would Microsoft have done if they were split into two companies?

OS company: Make cygwin part of it or create some kind of Linux/Unix compatibility that really works. Maybe use the Linux kernel and build Windows on top of it, giving people Linux abilities and Windows user interface, which would still be copyrighted etc. Include more good programs into Windows, so that the value of Windows as a product increases.

Office company: Make a version for Linux asap, in order to maintain market share.

If Microsoft wants Windows and Office to survive as long as possible, they need to do exactly the above things. What they do now is like keeping a broken shipyard alive with state money. Not a good idea in the long run, and MSFT knows that. But as long as stock holder relations forbids them to be more proactive, they can't do it.

Therefore, Microsoft has to tell stockholders and the market in a slow, controlled fashion, how the future market looks like, so that Microsoft gets into the position where they can do things like the above.

There are two possibilities:

1) Once the first Microsoft offering for Linux or on Linux comes, they will probably say "We are forced to do this because of the way the market works". A year later or so, they will say "We are committed to the Linux platform".

2) They will say "We are committed to provide XXX on the Linux platform" and then see how it goes, with a crappy offering for Linux. Which could be a .net platform, for instance. This is the bad choice.

If Microsoft has to grow, they have to focus a lot more on customer's ROI. Much more than they do today.

Lars Dybdahl.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)


To: alydar who wrote (1324)12/5/2002 5:56:44 AM
From: dybdahl
   of 18719
 
Supporting Linux is not that difficult for Microsoft. Most of the framework that is needed to make their software run, comes directly from Microsoft themselves. There is a project: winehq.com, that is able to run Microsoft software on almost any distribution, but replacing their code with Microsoft's expertise in Windows and Microsoft's code, will make it run very well.

OpenOffice and StarOffice may shred MS Office on any platform. That is basically not related to the operating system, except that the Windows version of OpenOffice.org has less features than the Linux version, and therefore less competitive (which is why Windows users often use StarOffice instead).

I agree that 40% of the profit goes down the tube. And they won't offer a Linux desktop product before Linux has got more market share. But if Linux desktop really kicks off, Microsoft has to lower prices significantly, and their profit goes away, too, and then they can either try to bury themselves into a hole, or try to be an active player on the future market.

I still don't understand why a spreadsheet basically looks like Multiplan for DOS. I really miss the ability to make database-like sheets inside the same spreadsheet file...

Dybdahl.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: David Howe who wrote (1323)12/5/2002 7:14:56 AM
From: Elsewhere
   of 18719
 
And I maintain that before you guys get too excited, you show us that Linux has achieved more than 0.5% market share on the desktop. I'll give you 3 years to pull that off.

Linux desktop market share 2001: 2.7%, source: IDC.
heise.de

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: David Howe who wrote (1323)12/5/2002 8:38:22 AM
From: John F. Dowd
   of 18719
 
DH: Looks like Motza ball is beginning to feel estopped here.

forbes.com

JFD

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: dybdahl who wrote (1326)12/5/2002 10:19:05 AM
From: The Duke of URL©
   of 18719
 
You bashers start off with the hypothesis that Linux controls the desktop, then you start musing about WHEN microsoft ports all its apps to Linux....

You're not in Sweden or Greenland anymore, Alice, you're in Dreamland.

Which is not a good place to be a soothsayer.

Further, if you guys would spend half the time writting code that you do writing posts, Linux might jump to maybe 1% on the desktop.

Its been five years now, you know, that you guys have just tried to COPY ms.

But I guess its just a case of those that can't do, post, hmmmmm?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: John F. Dowd who wrote (1329)12/5/2002 10:44:11 AM
From: David Howe
   of 18719
 
LOL

<< BALTIMORE (Reuters) - A federal judge Wednesday suggested Sun Microsystems Inc. drop some demands and go directly to trial on whether to force software giant Microsoft Corp. to carry Sun's Java program.

U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz said Sun, in its private antitrust suit against Microsoft, might want to drop its request for a preliminary injunction on carrying Java and set aside its claim for more than $1 billion in damages. >>

What will the bashers say about this? Some of them seemed to think that fines might be significant. I continue to feel that fines will be a NON-ISSUE as far as MSFT's valuation goes.

IMO,
Dave

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: David Howe who wrote (1331)12/5/2002 10:53:28 AM
From: DiViT
   of 18719
 
In Sun's JAVA inventors own words:

"We're really [screwing] up on the client side," Gosling wrote to Richard Green, Sun's vice president of developer tools, in an e-mail dated May 13, 2002, "mostly through neglect."


Gosling E-mail: Sun Is Screwing Up On Java Client Side

A Microsoft attorney Wednesday produced an e-mail in which Java inventor and Sun Microsystems Vice President James Gosling wrote that Sun's problems with Java on the client side are mostly due to the company's own neglect.

"We're really [screwing] up on the client side," Gosling wrote to Richard Green, Sun's vice president of developer tools, in an e-mail dated May 13, 2002, "mostly through neglect."

The e-mail was part of the second day of a preliminary injunction hearing here in which Sun is asking U.S. District Judge J. Frederick Motz to force Microsoft to put a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) compatible with the latest version of Java into Windows XP.

Microsoft Attorney Michael Lacovara produced the Gosling e-mail as part of a strategy to show that some of the problems with Java are of Sun's own making.

Lacovara pressed the point that the responsibility for Java platform fragmentation lies largely with Sun. "Whether or not Microsoft is 'acting unlawfully' as you put it," the Java platform is already fragmented due to the large number of Java run-time environments in the marketplace, Lacovara said.

Lacovara also showed the court a PowerPoint document bearing Sun's logo labeled "What Needs To Be Done" along with a subhead that read "We are still not competitive vs. Microsoft JVM." The Sun slide included several alleged issues with Sun's JVM including lack of stability, large footprint, and lack of awareness of OEM's product release schedules.

The e-mail from Gosling came into play when Lacovara was questioning Sun's third and final witness, University of Chicago Business School Professor of Economics Dennis Carlton.

Lacovara is attempting to debunk Sun's claim that Microsoft's anticompetitive acts and JVM distribution methods have given Microsoft's .Net an unfair advantage over Java.

crn.com

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)


To: dybdahl who wrote (1326)12/5/2002 11:18:32 AM
From: DiViT
   of 18719
 
"Once the first Microsoft offering for Linux or on Linux comes..."

mslinux.org

;-)

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)


To: dybdahl who wrote (1326)12/5/2002 11:34:16 AM
From: Dave
   of 18719
 
IBM tried losing a monopoly before, and they know the medicine. It's not about defending yourself, but about being proactive.

Lars, before IBM's antitrust woes, it had a long history of world-class innovation. In contrast, Microsoft has a history of copying other products and muscling its way into one-sided deals. They also have shown an uncanny knack for recognizing an upcoming technical trend, and then killing the competitive threat by either copying (Windows), buying and burying (WebTV), embracing and extinguishing (Java) or price gouging (browsers).

If Microsoft has to grow, they have to focus a lot more on customer's ROI. Much more than they do today.

Granted, when you have as much cash lying around as Microsoft does, you can certainly afford to build pretty much any new business model you want. So it's conceivable that the company could eventually reform itself and become a great technical innovator, and this new company might possibly give a tinker's dam about its customers and their ROI. But I think that's a long shot that would require a thorough management purge.

It would be difficult to get Microsoft's various top-level billionaire managers to learn to see past their own arrogance.

Dave

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read


To: DiViT who wrote (1333)12/5/2002 11:41:10 AM
From: Dave
   of 18719
 
DiViT, that's hilarious. Thanks.

With the exception of taking over Cuba and some details like that, technically mslinux wouldn't be all that different from Mac OS X. It would be a port of an OS's APIs onto another OS.

It would be a tougher port than Mac OS was, what with all the last moldy vestiges of DOS, like GDI and so on, but MS has the money to do it. And in about ten years they may even have the inclination. Let's see if they still have the money by then.

Dave

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2014 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.Stock quotes are delayed at least 15 minutes - See Terms of Use.