So why did Microsoft invest in Corel?
-
I've watched wild rumors circulate ever since Microsoft made its US$135 million investment in Corel, and to me most seem pretty far fetched. What do you guys think? Is MS trying to keep all of their competitors alive by feeding them cash in order to keep the Justice dept at bay? Does Microsoft want to co-opt a major Linux vendor into supporting .Net? What is this wild thought of a Linux distribution running over .Net? Would it be worth anything
-
I've watched wild rumors circulate ever since Microsoft made its US$135 million investment in Corel, and to me most seem pretty far fetched. What do you guys think? Is MS trying to keep all of their competitors alive by feeding them cash in order to keep the Justice dept at bay? Does Microsoft want to co-opt a major Linux vendor into supporting .Net? What is this wild thought of a Linux distribution running over .Net? Would it be worth anything
I think its because, MS really wants to leverage .NET across platforms. Maybe the investment with Corel is a starting point The real taste of success to these technologies come from the fact when they do cross platform. MS never wants competitors, their motto is Dominance and .Net is another huge step in that direction(only if justice dept. dont intervene too much)
-
I've watched wild rumors circulate ever since Microsoft made its US$135 million investment in Corel, and to me most seem pretty far fetched. What do you guys think? Is MS trying to keep all of their competitors alive by feeding them cash in order to keep the Justice dept at bay? Does Microsoft want to co-opt a major Linux vendor into supporting .Net? What is this wild thought of a Linux distribution running over .Net? Would it be worth anything
My Guess it was for a bunch of reasons rather than just 1 large reason. .... Also 135m$ isn't a large investment or even loss for MS to assimilate. .... It's even possible MS could boost Corel sales substantially, .... The idea of having Net being capable of emulating Linux sound s interesting but I doubt will be of great benefit. .... What'll be interesting is if they keep Corel as one co, or split it up, .... Then again maybe MS is looking for a residence across the borde
-
I've watched wild rumors circulate ever since Microsoft made its US$135 million investment in Corel, and to me most seem pretty far fetched. What do you guys think? Is MS trying to keep all of their competitors alive by feeding them cash in order to keep the Justice dept at bay? Does Microsoft want to co-opt a major Linux vendor into supporting .Net? What is this wild thought of a Linux distribution running over .Net? Would it be worth anything
Corel is a major Linux vendor?? Wow. When I used their version of Linux I thought it was pretty bad. As for getting Corel to support .Net.....well I suspect that Microsoft will be focusing on getting it running on their platform first since at this point its really nothing more than a vision and a set of promises to provide tools and support for that vision. One thing to remember: Microsoft owns a chunk of Apple. They bought it not too long before Apple revived. Maybe Microsoft is just being a smart investor. They sure haven't gotten any major benefit from writing Windows for Mac software
-
Corel is a major Linux vendor?? Wow. When I used their version of Linux I thought it was pretty bad. As for getting Corel to support .Net.....well I suspect that Microsoft will be focusing on getting it running on their platform first since at this point its really nothing more than a vision and a set of promises to provide tools and support for that vision. One thing to remember: Microsoft owns a chunk of Apple. They bought it not too long before Apple revived. Maybe Microsoft is just being a smart investor. They sure haven't gotten any major benefit from writing Windows for Mac software
Are you sure MS haven't gotten a major benefit from writing Windows for Mac Software ?? I had read that approx 2% of MS ' s revenue came from Mac Software Sales, Howevere that 2% revenue was far greater than Apple's Profit made from Mac sales. And that was the main reason why MS had invested in Apple !
-
Are you sure MS haven't gotten a major benefit from writing Windows for Mac Software ?? I had read that approx 2% of MS ' s revenue came from Mac Software Sales, Howevere that 2% revenue was far greater than Apple's Profit made from Mac sales. And that was the main reason why MS had invested in Apple !
2%???? 2 whole precent??? Ok....that was mean, but I strongly doubt that number. Apple computers make up 5% of the PC market sales in the US as per an NPR report a month ago. Given that, and the fact the major revenue source of Mac software sales would be Office, that would suggest that the vast majority of Mac users have purchased Office....which contradicts what I've seen among Mac users. Either way, if the reason MS invested in Apple was to earn money, why do people waste time and effort trying to read evil intent into every move that Microsoft makes?? Over the years I've seen them work with any number of companies in partnership which often benefitted both parties....after all, I doubt that Corel said "Please don't give us your money!". Maybe the more interesting question is why did Corel accept the MS investment?
-
2%???? 2 whole precent??? Ok....that was mean, but I strongly doubt that number. Apple computers make up 5% of the PC market sales in the US as per an NPR report a month ago. Given that, and the fact the major revenue source of Mac software sales would be Office, that would suggest that the vast majority of Mac users have purchased Office....which contradicts what I've seen among Mac users. Either way, if the reason MS invested in Apple was to earn money, why do people waste time and effort trying to read evil intent into every move that Microsoft makes?? Over the years I've seen them work with any number of companies in partnership which often benefitted both parties....after all, I doubt that Corel said "Please don't give us your money!". Maybe the more interesting question is why did Corel accept the MS investment?
As memory serves, at the time of the investment in Apple, MS was selling roughly $300M a year worth of Office for Mac and there was real concern that Apple was going to fail. From speaking with the Microsofties last week, it did sound like at some level at least they considered the move a reasonable "investment" although I have a lot of trouble believing that it wasn't a strategic move. When I think about the Apple investment now, I'm wondering if the .Net strategy (in whatever form it was in then), wasn't a reason there too
-
As memory serves, at the time of the investment in Apple, MS was selling roughly $300M a year worth of Office for Mac and there was real concern that Apple was going to fail. From speaking with the Microsofties last week, it did sound like at some level at least they considered the move a reasonable "investment" although I have a lot of trouble believing that it wasn't a strategic move. When I think about the Apple investment now, I'm wondering if the .Net strategy (in whatever form it was in then), wasn't a reason there too
Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/q22000/gee20001013002616.htm Personally, I really hope they do port .NET over, especially the WinForms portion, it'll make porting end-user apps infinitely easier. Ryan Schneider NeoWorx Inc
-
As memory serves, at the time of the investment in Apple, MS was selling roughly $300M a year worth of Office for Mac and there was real concern that Apple was going to fail. From speaking with the Microsofties last week, it did sound like at some level at least they considered the move a reasonable "investment" although I have a lot of trouble believing that it wasn't a strategic move. When I think about the Apple investment now, I'm wondering if the .Net strategy (in whatever form it was in then), wasn't a reason there too
I would think that getting help from Corel porting Visual C++ to Linux would be a priority ahead of .NET...... If you really look at .NET, you'll notice that a lot of it focuses on the server rather than the client. That would mean that porting things like SQL Server, ASP, and ADO to Linux would be required before actually doing much else. I just don't see that happening without porting a lot of COMesque code. And what about IIS?? I just don't know if many Linux Admins are going to give up Apache in favor of IIS and I don't see MS walking away from IIS.
-
I would think that getting help from Corel porting Visual C++ to Linux would be a priority ahead of .NET...... If you really look at .NET, you'll notice that a lot of it focuses on the server rather than the client. That would mean that porting things like SQL Server, ASP, and ADO to Linux would be required before actually doing much else. I just don't see that happening without porting a lot of COMesque code. And what about IIS?? I just don't know if many Linux Admins are going to give up Apache in favor of IIS and I don't see MS walking away from IIS.
-
I would think that getting help from Corel porting Visual C++ to Linux would be a priority ahead of .NET...... If you really look at .NET, you'll notice that a lot of it focuses on the server rather than the client. That would mean that porting things like SQL Server, ASP, and ADO to Linux would be required before actually doing much else. I just don't see that happening without porting a lot of COMesque code. And what about IIS?? I just don't know if many Linux Admins are going to give up Apache in favor of IIS and I don't see MS walking away from IIS.
I doubt MS will be porting Visual Studio to Linux, it's just to tightly wound up with Windows. It would be a lot more practical to allow for remote debugging, and for Linux to be a "target" for Visual Studio, but I think even this is unlikely. I think .Net is the strategy, plain and simple. Allow developers to write apps in VB and C#, and have those applications run on the "portable" version of .Net. Make it easy for sys admins to install the .Net runtime, and have the legions of VB developers with the millions of departmental apps out there force the market open.
-
I'm sorry, but I wouldn't trust Corel to port anything. They always do a half assed job and make a very unstable product
-
I doubt MS will be porting Visual Studio to Linux, it's just to tightly wound up with Windows. It would be a lot more practical to allow for remote debugging, and for Linux to be a "target" for Visual Studio, but I think even this is unlikely. I think .Net is the strategy, plain and simple. Allow developers to write apps in VB and C#, and have those applications run on the "portable" version of .Net. Make it easy for sys admins to install the .Net runtime, and have the legions of VB developers with the millions of departmental apps out there force the market open.
I thought of that too, but threw it out when I thought "hey...now THAT would undermine Windows position in the PC platform market. Therefore, I would expect the focus to be on using Linux for servers rather than as desktops. It would make sense from that angle since Linux sucks as a desktop environment today, but is very strong as a server platform