Microsoft paying you to use their products
-
Nishant S wrote: it was simply a very smart marketing tactic which worked quite well Indeed. No respectable and full of competitive features browser company has made any money ever since. Nishant S wrote: At the same time they "never" stopped anyone from running Netscape did they? I believe you are forgetting one thing, the corporate factor. Since IE came default with the OS, and corporate people were not inclined to install anything else, then IE became the dominant browser. That's the result of unfair marketing, and we can all only raise concern about what were FCC and other regulation organisations doing at that time ? Were they also bought by Microsoft ? Or they did nothing just because Microsoft was a US company ? Now that corporate people are even less inclined than ever to make a change, IE doesn't have to be upgraded with new features. Competition is completely drawn. How nice indeed. And how fair. In addition, what's terribly wrong about all this is that people (mass consumers and corporate people) have been used to have products freely over the web, and it is impossible to get them to pay for a product now. Oh sorry, as soon as MS comes up with palladium-enabled PC in 2005, Microsoft will allow PC users to buy the stuff they use. Unfortunately, like music monopolies, you know where all the money will be going. Do you also know that Microsoft has recently settled a lawsuit [^]in California only by giving away enough money. What kind of justice is this ?
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I believe you are forgetting one thing, the corporate factor. Since IE came default with the OS, and corporate people were not inclined to install anything else, then IE became the dominant browser. I had to step in here for a moment. Having IE as a default in the OS had nothing to do with it becoming the dominant browser. It simple became a better browser than the competition and from a price/performance ratio, Netscape died. Many people that like to bash Microsoft squawk about Microsoft always crushing competition and some how removing everyone's brain so there is no room for inovation. That is not the case. Back in the early days, CP/M was the OS of choice and was on the majority of machines sold. They even had a plug in card to run CP/M on the old Commodore VIC-20 and C-64 (boy am I showing my age here). At that time, IBM was planning on putting out their new PC and wanted a CP/M built for it. After being treated like some old dog, they ended up getting an OS from a little company known as Microsoft. The MS-DOS age was born. In my personal opinion, I think MS did a little dirty dealing with IBM over the OS2 and Windows market, but business is business and I am sure IBM thought for sure Windows would be crushed by OS2. MS kept pushing Windows and finally took the market. MS later found themselves lost without a clue of the Internet age. So, they decided to jump right in and try to take a lead in something they knew little about. The got IE up and running (licensed the core from another company, like they did for MS-DOS) and everyone laughed. They were so far away from the mark, it was hardly even usable. I am sure that Netscape officials thought they had nothing to worry about. The secret to MS though is you do not count on version 1 of anything from Microsoft. It is usually several versions before their get serious (.NET seems to have been an exception to this, can hardly wait to see .NET V5.0). Who cared if IE was free, it was a peice of junk and hardly no one used it. A few versions down the road, MS started taking the market. It was not that they drove others out of business, they just keep increasing the functionality of their product while the market leader, Netscape sat back and continued to pump out the same old stuff. They did not want to change, there were sure they would hold the market. MS nailed them to the wall and they still did nothing. When MS gets invovled in an area it means only one thi
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: I believe you are forgetting one thing, the corporate factor. Since IE came default with the OS, and corporate people were not inclined to install anything else, then IE became the dominant browser. I had to step in here for a moment. Having IE as a default in the OS had nothing to do with it becoming the dominant browser. It simple became a better browser than the competition and from a price/performance ratio, Netscape died. Many people that like to bash Microsoft squawk about Microsoft always crushing competition and some how removing everyone's brain so there is no room for inovation. That is not the case. Back in the early days, CP/M was the OS of choice and was on the majority of machines sold. They even had a plug in card to run CP/M on the old Commodore VIC-20 and C-64 (boy am I showing my age here). At that time, IBM was planning on putting out their new PC and wanted a CP/M built for it. After being treated like some old dog, they ended up getting an OS from a little company known as Microsoft. The MS-DOS age was born. In my personal opinion, I think MS did a little dirty dealing with IBM over the OS2 and Windows market, but business is business and I am sure IBM thought for sure Windows would be crushed by OS2. MS kept pushing Windows and finally took the market. MS later found themselves lost without a clue of the Internet age. So, they decided to jump right in and try to take a lead in something they knew little about. The got IE up and running (licensed the core from another company, like they did for MS-DOS) and everyone laughed. They were so far away from the mark, it was hardly even usable. I am sure that Netscape officials thought they had nothing to worry about. The secret to MS though is you do not count on version 1 of anything from Microsoft. It is usually several versions before their get serious (.NET seems to have been an exception to this, can hardly wait to see .NET V5.0). Who cared if IE was free, it was a peice of junk and hardly no one used it. A few versions down the road, MS started taking the market. It was not that they drove others out of business, they just keep increasing the functionality of their product while the market leader, Netscape sat back and continued to pump out the same old stuff. They did not want to change, there were sure they would hold the market. MS nailed them to the wall and they still did nothing. When MS gets invovled in an area it means only one thi
Rocky Moore wrote: Having IE as a default in the OS had nothing to do with it becoming the dominant browser. Not sure everyone agrees with this. Even MS people admit it. Rocky Moore wrote: Many people that like to bash Microsoft squawk about Microsoft always crushing competition and some how removing everyone's brain so there is no room for inovation. That is not the case. Please make sure the Microsoft memos back in early 90s. I can provide a few of them. Here is one[^]. You have to put this in perspective with innovation versus NDAs versus patents. In addition, this is more of importance these days as for the law expected to pass on September in Europe.
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: Why say "MS sucks" on a site where it's already said a hundred times a day? Because then you dont bore me with it ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
Actually that's the problem with discussions. The prequisite from a discussion is that two people agree on something. Otherwise they are like to yell one at another. But then, if they agree on something, there is not much to learn about. Tricky eh. ;)
-
Actually that's the problem with discussions. The prequisite from a discussion is that two people agree on something. Otherwise they are like to yell one at another. But then, if they agree on something, there is not much to learn about. Tricky eh. ;)
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: But then, if they agree on something, there is not much to learn about. In this discussion, I have no intentions of learniong anything from you, I know where I stand it those matters. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: Tricky eh. Not really - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: But then, if they agree on something, there is not much to learn about. In this discussion, I have no intentions of learniong anything from you, I know where I stand it those matters. Stephane Rodriguez. wrote: Tricky eh. Not really - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
Not even in software patents, in Europe, and how much it relates to innovation ? You don't have to take what I say for granted, just follow the link. ;)
-
Not even in software patents, in Europe, and how much it relates to innovation ? You don't have to take what I say for granted, just follow the link. ;)
Yeah, I saw the link. Looks too much like sites like grc.com for me to be able to take it serious. I dont like that people can patent everything, but it would not like no patents in the software business. Some of those patents makes sure I get payed every month ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
-
Yeah, I saw the link. Looks too much like sites like grc.com for me to be able to take it serious. I dont like that people can patent everything, but it would not like no patents in the software business. Some of those patents makes sure I get payed every month ;) - Anders Money talks, but all mine ever says is "Goodbye!"
To make sure you are getting paid every month, you only need copyright. And copyright is de facto. There is no need to go through a formal $process$ for that. Patent is a way to make money by screwing others. Getting through the patent process is especially easy for those who can afford it. What patent do in fact is let big players make even more money by not letting small innovating companies sell their own products for whatever reason. When you know how hermetical patent documents are, you know that it does not protect the original author, nor the invention. And since small companies can't afford lawsuits, all what it produces is a screwed software industry. You can tell me that the software industry is already screwed because a significant amount of jobs are going in developing worlds and will never return here. But let's tackle problems one after another.
-
Anytime MS or other monopoly does this, a whole sector of companies simply bankrupt. Regarding software, I believe that's the first time I see this happen. It's true that it's quite common for "real" products, especially when providers/manufacturers want you to subscribe yearly or so. There has to be something to wet your appetite. The problem I have is that MSN Messenger articulates around a few MS strategies, including .NET alerts, or other passport-related products. People are free to decide what they'd like to use for IM, etc. but when you know what we are really talking about, and the stake thereof, may be a few should warn.
AOL doesn't charge for it's IM crapware, so what's the problem? FYI I don't use MSN Messenger, Yahoo Messenger or AIM - I run Trillian on all three services. ;P Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Ok, let's double-check : was giving IE freely and integrating it with the OS regular marketing or not ?
IMHO the net wouldn't have taken off if browsers weren't free. Something to ponder. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In
-
Anders Molin wrote: The problem is that you just plain hate MS, and you always sound that way... Yes, I hate them because they tend to do all possible things just because with their money they can afford it. They are burning everyone else's money, and stifling innovation from the ground. In addition, they are constantly threatening small software companies with NDA, patents and the like. Have you heard of laws regarding software patents in Europe, that are to pass on September? To remind you a few things, check out this site[^]. Now tell me if there is any reason to fight monopolies. Monopolies would be, regarding software patents in Europe, the ones benefiting from that new law. Anders Molin wrote: posting that kinda stuff at /., OT. This takes courage to do this on a MS site. Why say "MS sucks" on a site where it's already said a hundred times a day?
You may hate them, but you can't deny that the likes of Sun, IBM and Apple would do exactly the same if they were in a position to. Certainly, after sampling the product "quality" and "support" of IBM and Sun I'll take MS any day. Anna :rose: Homepage | My life in tears "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work. Trouble with resource IDs? Try the Resource ID Organiser Visual C++ Add-In