__/ [ Mark Kent ] on Saturday 28 April 2007 12:28 \__
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>> __/ [ [H]omer ] on Saturday 28 April 2007 06:16 \__
>>
>>> Verily I say unto thee, that Roy Schestowitz spake thusly:
>>>> Is Novell Poised for a Turnaround? It Doesn't Look Like It
>>>>
>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>> | Is this the same Novell that in every quarter for more than a year
>>>> | either missed analysts' targets or made disappointing forecasts? Is
>>>> | this the same Novell where less than 10 percent of annual revenue
>>>> | is actually open source-related? Is this the same Novell that upset
>>>> | the open source community by signing away its soul to Microsoft?
>>>> `----
>>>>
>>>> http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070427/33755_id.html?.v=1
>>>>
>>>> That's what one gets for 'getting together' with Microsoft.
>>>
>>> Ballmer's bribe didn't help then?
>>>
>>> Well ... it helped Ballmer, certainly.
>>
>> http://biz.yahoo.com/seekingalpha/070426/33579_id.html?.v=1
>>
>> [Ballmer:] "If somebody came to you and said you have a new competitor
>> [that
>> has no price and has no cost structure you might stay up a night or two on
>> that one."
>>
>> Google has made him lose some sleep. I'm telling you, that guy is mental.
>>
>
> The problem is that Ballmer and Microsoft just do not comprehend the
> development/support model of business. They are still 100% wedded to
> the lock-in model, with licensing as their revenue stream. I can see
> why, though, as it is extremely lucrative, and really, you don't need to
> deliver a great deal. Of course, when someone comes along with the
> right product for the development/support model, then your particular
> house of cards will collapse, which is precisely what has happened to
> Microsoft.
>
> There was an opportunity for them to stem the tide by adopting linux and
> building their applications on top - they would've managed to hang on to
> probably one more round of lock-in, but their insatiable desire for
> insane levels of lock-in seems to have prevented them from pursuing that
> angle.
>
> They still have an amazingly large number of fans out there who would
> leap onto a reasonable product given half a chance, and have been
> genuinely convinced by the anti-Linux/anti-GPL/anti-FSF FUD, but every
> day here we see another bunch of Ubuntu conversions or Dell preloads or
> new linux devices, phones, sat navs, palmtops, games machines, so even
> the most die-hard Microsoft fans must be questioning whether the crowd
> has gone the other way.
>
> Google does, of course, have a cost structure, as do Microsoft. Unlike
> Microsoft, however, Google do not rely on lock-in for their business.
http://weblog.infoworld.com/openresource/archives/2007/04/is_google_more.html
There was a similar and related item in this blog where Schmidt is quoted...
sort of paraphrased anyway... with the argument that Google is against
lockin and that it wants no business with those who want to escape and take
business elsewhere. While it sounds good, makes you warm, and fuzzy and it's
something you'd want to believe, I sort of doubt it. Don't forget that
Google still does a lot of proprietary stuff. I does a bit of good and a bit
that's evil... a matter of balance for its image.
--
~~ With kind regards
Roy S. Schestowitz | #00ff00 Day - Basket Case
http://Schestowitz.com | Open Prospects ¦ PGP-Key: 0x74572E8E
Tasks: 128 total, 2 running, 124 sleeping, 0 stopped, 2 zombie
http://iuron.com - knowledge engine, not a search engine
|
|
