the bright side...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Nov 03, 2005 9:07 AM EDT |
Microsoft took advantage of the basic business handshake, the level of understanding and trust that lets business function without calling in the lawyers on every damned decision you have to make. Part of that handshake is that if you say that you'll do something, you intend to do it. Things come up, everybody understands that, but vendors don't intentionally hang their customers out to dry. It doesn't make business sense. Market power goes a long way, but I think Microsoft will have trouble pulling that kind of crap on that kind of scale again. You can only burn your "friends" so many times before they cast a wary eye. It may not always seem that way, but Microsoft is getting a lot of wary eyes these days. |
| tadelste Nov 03, 2005 3:40 PM EDT |
It doesn't seem like Microsoft's getting a lot of wary eyes and people have started to back up a few inches. This stupid move in Massachusetts could backfire. How does a Secretary of State get to hold a hearing on a very vetted CIO of the state. And, I happen to know, they did more due diligence than anyone has ever done on anything. If this gets nasty and I expect it will, the Mass tech people will bury Microsoft. How many companies includeding the Bell Systems have ever had as much continuous anti-trust concerns as Microsoft? If you look at the last AT&T actions, it didn't last as long as Microsoft's. That's huge. |
| dinotrac Nov 03, 2005 7:08 PM EDT |
Massachusetts is a drop in the bucket. It will be nasty if Microsoft manages to pull that one out, but still a drop in the bucket. Microsoft has screwed a lot of people up. Just remember: Five years ago, the smart money was on a nearly all-Microsoft world. There would be no Unix and Linux would still be a hobby preserve. It hasn't worked out that way, and it's not going to. |
| mvermeer Nov 03, 2005 10:06 PM EDT |
I still wonder how far they can go with that. If they pull off Massachusetts, we will see the spectacle of a four-person 'chaperone commission' overseeing everything ITC in the commonwealth all down to buying cell phones... above and beyond the constitutional supervision over the executive already duly exercised by elected representatives. That cannot be pretty to watch, especially not if people start digging into the backgrounds of the people (and the money!) involved. One of them being Pamela Jones BTW. I agree with Dino, this looks like a rather hopeless rearguard action. Even if they win, they lose. |
| PaulFerris Nov 04, 2005 1:59 AM EDT |
One of my articles:
http://www.acmqueue.com/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage... Contains the following quote: Quoting: On top of all of this, Microsoft has made it extremely clear that it's not going to lose any fight to Linux. --- ... Regardless, a recent leak involved a "win-at-all-costs" strategy to keep large corporations in the fold. The memo in question made clear that, no matter what, in certain corporate settings a sale was not to be lost to Linux --- ... Oddly enough, this provides a really good reason for companies to adopt an open source strategy. For one, it isn't going to cost much to create an evaluation committee to, let's say, look at replacing all corporate desktops with Linux. Granted, it may not be a workable solution for the company; it may be totally unsupportable given the current desktop support staff, Windows inertia of expertise, applications, and so on. In other words, if you are getting ready to negotiate a big sales contract with Microsoft, you would be stupid not to create a simple evaluation commitee to point to during that time. Likely to save you a ton of cash. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!