begin oe_protect.scr
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Wednesday 17 May 2006 09:37 \__
>
>> begin oe_protect.scr
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>> __/ [ B Gruff ] on Tuesday 16 May 2006 14:26 \__
>>>
>>>> Now there's an interesting take - from Gartner of all people!
>>>>
>>>> "International standards bodies' unanimous approval of ISO/IEC 26300
>>>> moves OASIS OpenDocument Format to being the official XML document
>>>> format. It is now unlikely that ISO will adopt Microsoft's Open XML
>>>> document format"
>>>>
>>>> Search for G00140101 on:-
>>>> http://www.gartner.com/
>>>
>>> Thanks, Bill. Excellent news, especially since I read in a couple of
>>> places that Massachusetts was ready to get lenient and permit the
>>> existence of MS XML. Nothing was finalised at the time, but it seemed
>>> discouraging. Gartner, of all bodies (a company actually), turn out to be
>>> somewhat of a friend:
>>>
>>> http://www.gartner.com/2_events/conferences/oseu1.jsp
>>>
>>
>> Well, they've set up an event which exhibitors will be charged for
>> exhibiting and visitors will be charged for visiting, and Gartner will
>> make a name for itself in the OSS world, at least as far as those CIO
>> types who can't recall beyond that last analyst's document...
>>
>> Still, it's a big move from the 'total criticism' which they were
>> pervading; the lack of vision of most analysts is a little frightening.
>
>
> Never forget that analysts are fed by companies with resources, like
> themselves. They perceive Open Source as somewhat of a threat where
> communities manage software and analysts become rather obsolete. The
> client is in charge. The developer has control.
An interesting set of thoughts. I suspect that traditional analysts
probably do not have the best skill set for the emerging OSS and COTS
hardware world, so it'll be interesting to see which ones are able to
get up to speed.
>
> Think vendors. They portray and demonstare a similar perspective: sell,
> sell, sell. No matter what people want. Feed the sheep with whatever makes
> them come back asking for more: modern computers (the bigger the better),
> RAM, games, AV virus, commercial software (as opposed to RPM/Deb
> repositories, ISO's, df.net and fm.net).
The traditional lock-in based business models are most certainly under
threat, a very strong threat indeed, so new ways of obtaining revenue
need to be found. The kind of monopoly which Microsoft created and then
maintained for a couple of decades will not happen again, even if the EU
ever allow software patents.
As far as hardware vendors are concerned, Linux and free software are,
in fact, a very good thing indeed. By using Linux, they can halve the
retail price of their boxes, and offer more capability than they ever
could before, and perhaps more importantly, they will not be beholden to
Microsoft for their future; indeed, their business model is about to
simplify considerably.
Someone recently said (I forget who) that traditional vendors like the
upgrade cycle which windows forces, but if you really think about this,
apart from a few business users, this approach is more or less dead
anyway. The only thing which keeps it going is that Windows, does, in
the end, grind to a halt due to all the malware it gathers in normal
usage.
What really forces people to look at new setups is either new hardware
they want (tv card, say?) or a new game which needs better capability.
People who aren't interested in either of those are unlikely to upgrate
until their computer stops dead. Those who are will upgrade no matter
what OS is running.
>
> In summary, vendors, like analysts, love Microsoft Windows. The sufferer
> is usually the end user, but what counts to them most is their balance at
> the bank. The user, when disinformed, is left out entirely from this myst-
> ifying equation.
>
Such is, and always has been, the nature of business...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Only fools are quoted.
-- Anonymous
|
|
