Oh no! He's right.
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2011 11:11 AM EDT |
Hold on just a minute...If there are pigs flying out there I need to duck inside.
Better check the thermostat,too, in case You Know Where is freezing over. Yes. Microsoft sells software and its primary platform is under attack. Sensible move is to sell software on other platforms. It's always sold Mac software, and it should cover the iPad and Android platforms, too. Move on to greener pastures. That's what smart companies do when the old ones start to dry up. |
| skelband Dec 15, 2011 12:53 PM EDT |
Problem is, Microsoft is big. Very large companies with the bureaucracy that Microsoft has find it very hard to change. Too many managers in charge of sections that want to keep going doing what they've always done, too many vested interests. Sorry, Ken has it all wrong. Office is one of their biggest sellers helped along by their Windows tie-in. Unfortunately, they have gotten used to market control through this mechanism and they will find it hard to compete on level terms with others. But software was never really the problem with Microsoft, it is the suits with vested interests within the organisation that are the problem. Too many people involved with the Windows platform and a company ethic that does not look to platform independence as a first choice, so their products are so integrated with Windows. Microsoft has some serious issues that they need to address before them quickly become an also-ran in the software industry. |
| kingttx Dec 15, 2011 2:48 PM EDT |
@dinotrac: Are you saying you live in hell? |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2011 3:54 PM EDT |
> Sorry, Ken has it all wrong. You say that as if it's an unusual occurrence. It's far more rare to find something that Ken Hess has right than it is to find something he has wrong. |
| Grishnakh Dec 15, 2011 4:48 PM EDT |
@jdixon: Spot on. Why they even link to Ken Hess articles here, I have no idea. It's just as bad as linking to Rob Enderle articles. |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2011 4:55 PM EDT |
@kingttx - Well, Illinois, which is close enough. I just figure that much freezing at the core would have to make things a little cooler on the floorboards. |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2011 4:57 PM EDT |
OK, you Hess-Haters (not an irrational thing to be, I'll admit): What, exactly has Hess got wrong in this little piece? Is it your claim that Microsoft is NOT a software company? Is it your claim that they DON'T care about profit? Do you think their stockholders don't care about their investments? What, exactly are you trying to say? My guess is this: You really don't want to think very hard. |
| Koriel Dec 15, 2011 5:12 PM EDT |
Seems fine to me, only thing he got wrong was the order transpose First with Second and thats Microsoft. |
| jdixon Dec 15, 2011 5:52 PM EDT |
> What, exactly has Hess got wrong in this little piece? Dino, even for a conversation with you, I'm not going to force myself to read something by Ken Hess. Sorry, but life is just too short. > Is it your claim that they DON'T care about profit? Care, yes. But it's not their primary concern. Secondary at best. |
| dinotrac Dec 15, 2011 6:27 PM EDT |
@jdixon - >But it's not their primary concern I think you done been slipped some of that thar loco weed. |
| tracyanne Dec 15, 2011 10:07 PM EDT |
Quoting:Why they even link to Ken Hess articles here, I have no idea. Because the responses make interesting reading. |
| Grishnakh Dec 16, 2011 12:47 AM EDT |
I'm with jdixon here. For one thing, I cannot be bothered to read the article, so don't assume I know what it says. I'm not going to read anything by Ken Hess, and I'm absolutely not going to give him any click revenue. Secondly, it's true, profit is not a big concern at MS. It's odd because at most American companies, profit is all that matters, and only short-term profit. MS is different, because it's not run by its board of directors, and doesn't have a CEO who cares only about next quarter's profits. It's run by two guys, Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates, who have ALWAYS run the company the way they see fit. For them, their primary goal is control, not profit. If they cared much about profit, they would have done many things very differently over the last 10 years, including firing Steve and finding a better CEO, as Steve has shown himself to be incompetent. Shareholders have been complaining about MS for ages now, but nothing changes; we can only conclude that's because the shareholders don't have the power to change things over there. Most likely, the ones who get fed up simply dump their stock and move on, rather than trying to effect change from within. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 7:44 AM EDT |
>For them, their primary goal is control, not profit. Yeah, that's why Bill Gates is worth $56 billion and Paul Allen is worth $10 billion (down from $26 billion a few years ago). These grade school caricatures confuse tactics and goals. Microsoft pursued control to make a heaping big pile of money. In the face of a changing world, it is (very very grudglingly) inching out in any way that will maintain its ability to make a heaping big pile of money. |
| Grishnakh Dec 16, 2011 1:07 PM EDT |
dinotrac wrote:Microsoft pursued control to make a heaping big pile of money. In the face of a changing world, it is (very very grudglingly) inching out in any way that will maintain its ability to make a heaping big pile of money. The problem is, the people running MS just can't comprehend of any way to make money without having monopoly control of things. They've been doing it so long that they don't know another way. This is why Google pisses them off so much and makes them throw chairs around; Google makes heaps of money with very little control at all (after all, there's nothing stopping you from going to http://www.bing.com and doing your search there). |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2011 1:09 PM EDT |
> I think you done been slipped some of that thar loco weed. OK, Dino. I'll bite. You've seen the slide where Microsoft says the Linux installed desktop share is about the same size as that of Apple's. Now, they sell Office for the Mac. If their primary goal is profit, why don't they sell it for Linux? |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2011 1:10 PM EDT |
> The problem is, the people running MS just can't comprehend of any way to make money without having monopoly control of things. Bingo. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 2:22 PM EDT |
>If their primary goal is profit, why don't they sell it for Linux? Maybe because they don't see any money in it. Let's think this through for a minute: 1. "Linux" is Linux, but it's also Debian vs Red Hat vs Ubuntu vs SuSE. A little more expensive to support than the Mac. 2. They were doing Mac software in the beginning. Office started out as a Mac app, not a Windows app. They've got a lot more experience there and a lot more tools. Easier to make money that way. 3. Let's be honest -- you don't see very many companies making money on Linux desktop software. Not at all like Apple that way. And -- what proportion of Linux Desktop users do you think would actually be open to buying Office for Linux? I know I wouldn't. LibreOffice suits me fine. Making money is about going where the dollars are. |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2011 2:45 PM EDT |
> Maybe because they don't see any money in it. Possible, but given the exisitng market share, I doubt it. I think they're unwilling to do so in spite of the potential profits. > "Linux" is Linux, but it's also Debian vs Red Hat vs Ubuntu vs SuSE. You honestly think repacking would be a problem for Microsoft? And if it was, just support Red Hat and Debian. > And -- what proportion of Linux Desktop users do you think would actually be open to buying Office for Linux? Wrong question. Correct question: What proportion of existing and potential customers would be willing to pay to run a supported version of Office on Linux? We don't know, but it's almost certain that Microsoft does. Simply put, I think (like Grishnakh) that Microsoft thinks they can only make a profit if they maintain control of the platform. They are so convinced of this that at a fundamental level control has become more important to them than current profits. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 3:07 PM EDT |
@jdixon - The answer to your claim is and always has been Apple. Microsoft does not control the Apple platform. Microsoft writes software for it. For that matter, they do web-based stuff as well, and they certainly don't control that -- although they sure did try. Microsoft wants to control the platform just like Apple and Oracle do. Problem is, they can't. Back in the 90s, it looked like they might, but they failed. |
| skelband Dec 16, 2011 3:23 PM EDT |
@dinotrac The reason why I think Ken is wrong is that he thinks that Microsoft will survive because it is, at heart, a software house. I wouldn't disagree that they are a software house, but they are institutionally married to the concept of Windows as a delivery platform and a lever to getting their products to customers. They are not used to, at this point in time, having to compete on merit. Whether or not you think that their software is of a high quality, that is not why people buy it. The real reasons are more complex, and about tie-in to Windows, a perceived value for money because it is in a market dominant position, because they always have, etc, etc Mobile has changed the game because Windows is no longer the dominant player in the mobile market, which is where all the current and future money is being funnelled. They are making some efforts, but you can see that it is not their favourite game. Where is all the blanket coverage for their mobile platform? What about Windows Phone 7 phones - where is the exposure? Why are Android phones everywhere in people's hands, on the TV and on marketing billboards? They just don't know how to market products since they have never really had to make the effort. They need to make Windows Phone 7 cool, an attractive alternative. The little that we do see is some mud slinging in the press: absolutely pathetic. Nokia releases a cr@p phone that hardly anyone will want. They really do need to up their game. It can be done. Apple did it when Steve Jobs came back. But it will take a monumental corporate change to make any difference to the core of the Microsoft organisation. They have proved that change can be achieved, but historically, Microsoft has only been able to do this on the fringe of their core business. XBOX and Kinect is a good example. A new section of the organisation with no previous baggage can take whatever direction they feel like. Telling that to Steve Ballmer and the middle-management suits in their core business areas is their biggest problem and they must change or sack a load of them otherwise that ship is going to sink. |
| Grishnakh Dec 16, 2011 3:34 PM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft wants to control the platform just like Apple and Oracle do. Problem is, they can't. Here we go again with the Oracle bashing. How has Oracle ever demonstrated that it wants to control the platform? Oracle controlling the PC platform makes about as much sense as SAP controlling the PC platform. Here's a clue: Oracle doesn't have a PC OS (like like SAP). |
| jdixon Dec 16, 2011 4:09 PM EDT |
> Microsoft wants to control the platform just like Apple and Oracle do. Problem is, they can't. We know that, Dino. Microsoft, however, has never accepted it. So they keep trying. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 4:24 PM EDT |
@grishnakh - Who in the Hell is bashing Oracle? Stating the obvious -- that they are a large corporate IT company that protects its IP and seeks to extinguish competition -- hardly counts as bashing. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 4:37 PM EDT |
@skelband - Whatever Ken thinks of Microsoft's chances for survival, he didn't express in this article. That aside, it doesn't look like you and he disagree in any fundamental way. Microsoft is having to re-learn an old way to operate, the way it had to work before a. owned the tech world, then b. sank back into a second rate IT company whose name is rarely mentioned when one speaks of cool new products and innovation. It ain't gonna be easy, but their survival (at least for the foreseeable future) isn't at stake, just their fading relevance. |
| Grishnakh Dec 16, 2011 4:53 PM EDT |
@dino: You're the one bashing Oracle, by saying they want to "control the platform" the way MS and Apple do. What platform does Oracle even compete with? They don't have one! What "IP" are they protecting that amounts to a "platform"? I don't see any desktop OSes for sale by Oracle. Maybe they'd like to have one and then turn it into a monopoly, but I'd like to have a secret lair in a hollowed-out volcano, and my chances of achieving that are about as likely as Oracle achieving any fantasy they might have about becoming a player in desktop OSes. Oracle does one thing, and one thing only: big databases. Everything else they've tried to get into has been a failure. How a company that does nothing except overpriced enterprise-level databases somehow warrants comments comparing it to MS and Apple is completely beyond me. Are you going to start bashing PeopleSoft next, for their desires to create a monopoly in the desktop OS space? How about id Software? |
| Koriel Dec 16, 2011 4:57 PM EDT |
I would buy an OS from iD Software a file manager by John Carmack would kick serious butt. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 5:01 PM EDT |
@girshnakh -- I must assume that you are deep into piles of Kool-Aid. There are many platforms, and there is no reason why it needs to be an OS. Heck -- the best platforms would be OS agnostic, able to generate loot no matter what foundation they're laid over. The whole philosophy of Oracle, down to stored procedures and moving apps into the database is a matter of controlling the platform. Buying up folks like SleepyCat and MySQL -- not to mention Sun MicroSystems is more of the same. The difference between Oracle and Microsoft is that Oracle never managed to achieve a monopoly -- and that Oracle remains relevant. For the moment, at least. |
| Grishnakh Dec 16, 2011 5:52 PM EDT |
Quoting:the best platforms would be OS agnostic, able to generate loot no matter what foundation they're laid over. For an aspiring monopolist, the best platform is one they can control, but which 90%+ of customers can't get away from and are forced to use somehow. M/S accomplished this because to use a PC, you need a PC OS to do anything useful with it, and they basically controlled the PC OS market. I don't see how Oracle ever had a prayer of controlling the database market for one thing, and for another, databases are only used in certain places (such as websites, and enterprises). People using their PCs for web surfing don't generally use RDBMSes. Quoting:The whole philosophy of Oracle, down to stored procedures and moving apps into the database is a matter of controlling the platform. Buying up folks like SleepyCat and MySQL -- not to mention Sun MicroSystems is more of the same. Again, databases are only used in some places, such as websites and enterprises. Enterprise software has always been weird and proprietary; that's why companies like SAP and PeopleSoft can make so much money shoveling cr@pware to their customers. Websites have been using MySQL for ages, and many use PostgreSQL. Both are free. Oracle may have bought up MySQL, but it was quickly forked into MariaDB thanks to the GPL, plus Postgres is out there and purportedly superior in performance/reliability and has its own Free license. So if Oracle ever thought they could gain some significant control over the Free DB market by buying out MySQL, it was yet another example of their utter incompetence as any idiot these days who knows anything about Free software knows you can't turn a Free project into a proprietary one. As for Sun, again, that's more of the same too: the whole deal has been a disaster, whatever their intentions were. Solaris has been dying for years, and them buying it has only accelerated that process. There's really nothing relevant about Oracle, because the danger of them succeeding in doing anything to control any platform that matters is precisely nil. They may have succeeded in getting some big enterprise customers locked into their overpriced DB, but honestly, who cares? I'm sure IBM would be happy to help them migrate to DB2 for the right price. I don't see many Free software fans wringing their hands over the customers of PeopleSoft and SAP being locked in, either. Meanwhile, all the websites out there are using (free) MySQL, Postgres, or even noSQL databases and not paying Oracle a dime. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 6:41 PM EDT |
@Grishnakh- Sounds like you are getting all worked up over nothing -- and by your own admission. Your whole argument seems to boil down to this: Oracle was unable to do what Microsoft managed. |
| dinotrac Dec 16, 2011 8:04 PM EDT |
@Grishnakh - So...is this story: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canonical-Will-Remove-Java-Fr... Just more Oracle-bashing? |
| Grishnakh Dec 19, 2011 9:00 PM EDT |
Your whole argument seems to boil down to this: Oracle was unable to do what Microsoft managed. So were PeopleSoft, SAP, id Software, Gibson Research, Lotus, Kapersky, and countless other software vendors who have never even tried to any real extent. So why all the hate for this one company? So...is this story: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canonical-Will-Remove-Java-Fr... Just more Oracle-bashing? Yes, they suck; this was never in question. The question was how dangerous are they, and do their actions and their status warrant placing them alongside MS and (more and more these days) Apple? My contention is "no". In fact, this news item is the only really evil (or at least highly annoying) anti-OSS thing they've done that I can think of, and this hadn't even happened during our prior conversations and all the previous bashing of Oracle. So, you still haven't answered what they've done (prior to this event) that's so horrible to the cause of free and open software, that places them on a level with Microsoft whose anti-OSS actions you could literally write a book about (patent attacks, SCO, etc. etc.). At the very most, this latest action by Oracle brings them up to the level of Adobe, but I never see anyone complaining about Adobe like they're as bad as MS (at least after the Sklyarov incident died down, but that was what, 8 years ago?). Heck, before this recent event, I would have placed Novell (before the sale to Attachmate, though it looks like AM isn't doing any better) at a higher level on the "evil company" list than Oracle, because of their patent agreement with MS. Why wasn't Novell on your list? |
| dinotrac Dec 19, 2011 11:25 PM EDT |
Quoting: So why all the hate for this one company? ?? Who hates companies? Waste of karma. |
| skelband Dec 20, 2011 1:46 AM EDT |
@dinotrac: What I take issue with is Ken's assertion that the poster to which he was referring was incorrect in his original article. I actually agree with the original article and therefore disagree with Ken. The original article basically is asserting that MS will be hurt by platforms where their software is not the de facto choice fpr most people. If you have an iPad or an Android device or anything that doesn't run Windows, then your first port of call is NOT Microsoft for your software. This is a radical new situation for MS and I think they are going to feel some real hurt from it since this is the big expanding market that Microsoft is not a significant part of. |
| dinotrac Dec 20, 2011 8:08 AM EDT |
@skelband -- Frankly, I don't see much difference between the two articles. They say more or less the same thing, and it's a painfully obvious thing. Yes, Microsoft will be hurt by the proliferation of new platforms beyond its control. How can that not be true? Microsoft will respond by supporting platforms it deems important. What choice does it have? Whether or not Microsoft will ever again be relevant -- that's a good question. |
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!