The road is littered with the corpses of Microsoft allies
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| softwarejanitor Jun 18, 2007 11:31 AM EDT |
I can sort of see SJVN's points... the problem is that especially for smaller companies, the history of those who seek alliances with or accept overtures from Microsoft has not been very good. When dealing with an 800lb gorilla, small companies often accept one-sided agreements which tend to benefit the bigger player far more, and they are often cast aside once the bigger player gets what they want. The important thing to think about is how many companies in the software business can you name that have really been successful because of (not in spite of) partnering with Microsoft? How many can you name that were run roughshod over and either aquired, are no longer in business or are in the "where are they now" file? Even their partners who were/are large and well funded haven't had a very happy track record of cooperation with Microsoft. And that even includes players who are as big as IBM -- they still bear scars from repeated backstabbing by Microsoft... OS/2 being the worst example. Probably the only major company I can think of that has managed to play with Microsoft and avoid that blade in between the shoulder blades has been Apple... but they are still relegated to being essentially a niche player and have arguably had better success because of things like the iPod where they beat Microsoft to a market than anything related to their deals with Microsoft. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 11:50 AM EDT |
>but they are still relegated to being essentially a niche player Hmm. Personal computers, servers, software, music players, telephones. Not a bad niche. Compare Apple before the deal and now. Apple is much better off than it had been. Jobs made the deal because he had no choice -- Apple was spiraling in. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 18, 2007 12:12 PM EDT |
> Hmm. Personal computers, servers, software, music players, telephones.
> Not a bad niche. Of those Apple has little revenue from anything other than Personal computers and music players. They are not a significant player in the server market and they don't make much from software, particularly off the OS X platform -- most of what they make for Windows are freebies... Quicktime Player, iTunes, etc. Their telephone business hasn't even shipped yet... so no telling at this point how successful it will be. If you just look by market share... the Mac is what, maybe 5% of the personal computer market... looks like a niche to me. The only market you mention where they have a big presence is music players, and then only portable players, which is a niche market. But you are right, its not a bad niche. > Compare Apple before the deal and now. Apple is much better off than it had been. Jobs made the deal > because he had no choice -- Apple was spiraling in. Not exactly a resounding endorsement of why one should partner with MS... But even at that, was it the MS deal that saved Apple or was it the iPod? About the only real bone that MS threw Apple with that deal was not pulling the plug on MS Office for the Mac. At the time that was probably a much bigger deal than it is now. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 12:34 PM EDT |
>But even at that, was it the MS deal that saved Apple or was it the iPod? Stupid question. Try checking your facts. Throwing no bones? Microsoft threw them 150 million bones. Apple was nearly bankrupt in 1997, 4 full years before introducing the iPod. That hefty infusion of cash may be the reason you could ask your question. As to PC shares, Apple has a bit more than 6% of the world market, up substantially from 2-3% just a few years ago. That is enough to make them the world's 4th largest PC manufacturer. Not a bad niche. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 18, 2007 1:03 PM EDT |
$150M is not insubstantial, but it also probably save Apple from bankruptcy. It was also an investment in non-voting Apple stock which was later sold. Compared to Apple's revenue even in 1997 it was more of a token amount than anything, especially when you consider that Apple had just spent $430M acquiring NeXT. Continued support for MS Office on Mac reassured a lot of Apple customers that they could still buy Macs, that was probably a lot more important in them sticking around long enough to make it. It obviously wasn't IE on Mac that has contributed to Apple's success since they've basically replaced it with Safari and if anything a larger percentage of Mac users run Firefox than Windows users. 6% may be enough for Apple to be the 4th largest PC manufacturer, but they are still a tiny niche when you consider Windows has over 90% of the market. We could probably also argue a long time over whether development of Mac OS X (probably in spite of Microsoft rather than because of) or Microsoft's involvement with Apple was more responsible for Apple's successes in increasing their market share in personal computer sales. |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 2:53 PM EDT |
>Apple was more responsible Steve Jobs and his vision were responsible for bringing Apple back from the brink of bankruptcy. The Microsoft deal just provided breathing room to get the mess turned around. The money was not a token amount to Apple at that time. The appropriate comparison is not with revenue but with profit and relatively liquid capital. They were teetering on bankruptcy. They needed to reassure customers and keep the doors open long enough for Jobs to do the Jobs thing. |
| moopst Jun 18, 2007 6:04 PM EDT |
Microsoft kept Apple on life support to be their competition fig leaf. Apples success is entirely to Bill's chagrin. Zune anyone? |
| dinotrac Jun 18, 2007 6:14 PM EDT |
>Microsoft kept Apple on life support to be their competition fig leaf. I doubt that Steve Jobs cares why. He was smart to take the deal and rebuild his company. Don't know if you watch TV, or, especially, watch "House". There was a great little rant near the end the season finale. One doctor told House that he didn't want to be like him, viewing each patient as merely a problem to be solved, that he wanted to care about them as people and to feel good about helping them. House asked a pretty darned good series of questions: "Do you think she cares why I saved her life?" "Do you think her hunsband cares?" "Do you think the children she's going to be able to have because I saved here life will care?" This is not about getting Microsoft to like us and invites us to their parties. This is about advancing FOSS. If we can do that with Microsoft's money, so much the better. If we can get Microsoft to waste its time and money on a campaign that people won't believe anyway, super. |
| softwarejanitor Jun 19, 2007 7:06 AM EDT |
> This is not about getting Microsoft to like us and invites us to their parties. This is about advancing FOSS.
> If we can do that with Microsoft's money, so much the better. If we can get Microsoft to waste its time and
> money on a campaign that people won't believe anyway, super. My original point was just that playing with Microsoft is very dangerous. A lot of companies who have tried it have gotten burned. I am not sure that any of the Linux companies that have signed on with Microsoft so far will get as lucky or are as smart as Steve Jobs. If they fail, they could make it much worse for FOSS. Is it worth the risk? Does FOSS have to take Microsoft's money to win? I don't personally think so. |
| dinotrac Jun 19, 2007 7:12 AM EDT |
>My original point was just that playing with Microsoft is very dangerous. Absolutely. >Does FOSS have to take Microsoft's money to win? No, but FOSS doesn't take anybody's money, just like it doesn't eat breakfast or take in a ball game. Companies that operate in the FOSS arena, however, are a different story. Dealing with Microsoft may or may not make sense, depending on the company's target market and financial position. Microsoft is not a trustworthy partner, but Microsoft money may be a risk worth taking if you need capital. Going out of business isn't the same as losing a job -- you tend to take others down with you. |
| jezuch Jun 19, 2007 2:20 PM EDT |
Quoting:Does FOSS have to take Microsoft's money to win? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecunia_non_olet It's not about the money, it's about the strings attached. But apart from that, the more money the merrier, isn't it? ;) |
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!