Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Steal like an artist, zombie lies, and why Microsoft is irrelevant
zridling:
Three things that got my attention:
HOW TO STEAL LIKE AN ARTIST (AND 9 OTHER THINGS NOBODY TOLD ME) by Austin Kleon
http://www.austinkleon.com/2011/03/30/how-to-steal-like-an-artist-and-9-other-things-nobody-told-me/
Zombie Lie -- No matter how many times you refute it, it keeps coming back and people keep believing it.
http://www.wordspy.com/words/zombielie.asp
How Microsoft Caused the DotCom Bubble and why their Skype ‘Hail Mary’ is irrelevant
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/how-microsoft-caused-the-dotcom-bubble/
Microsoft remains hugely profitable today, but increasingly irrelevant. Their purchase of Skype is an attempt to buy back some relevance. They are the rich, uncool fat kid at school, trying desperately to buy their way into some popularity.
40hz:
How Microsoft Caused the DotCom Bubble and why their Skype ‘Hail Mary’ is irrelevant
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/how-microsoft-caused-the-dotcom-bubble/
(see out attachment in previous post)
Microsoft remains hugely profitable today, but increasingly irrelevant. Their purchase of Skype is an attempt to buy back some relevance. They are the rich, uncool fat kid at school, trying desperately to buy their way into some popularity.
-zridling (May 12, 2011, 01:53 AM)
--- End quote ---
Cute sound byte. But like so many clever remarks, it's little more than wishful thinking and a pile of hot air. Microsoft never worried about "relevance" or being "insanely great," or...well, all those other things hipsters so fervently wish were more important to running a business than they actually are. Especially when it comes to successful and very large businesses.
Microsoft doesn't worry much about the things that keep the coffee shop and wine bar crowd from getting a good night's sleep. Microsoft prefers to think about more mundane things. Like ROI and market share.
And (possibly much to the dismay of people like Steve Jobs and Barry Ritholtz) it appears to be working beautifully for Microsoft.
;D
Deozaan:
I've never heard of Barry Ritholtz before, so maybe this is common knowledge, but he outs himself as "a longstanding member of the [Microsoft] bashers" in the comments in response to a comment that adequately described the thoughts I had while reading that article:
joshmaher Says:
You do realize that you are saying you can’t believe Microsoft didn’t invent every technological advance in the last three decades right? That is like saying why doesn’t Ford invent every advance in automobile manufacturing. You are suggesting that a single company can invent everything and that the free market system that actually provides for the innovation that we love so much is irrelevant. Of course that is right after saying that when they did control all things in the tech space they were also bad. Which is it? Are they bad if they have invented or copied everything in the tech space to the point that they are the only player or are they bad if they are not inventing every little tech advance that happens? They can’t be bad for both reasons.
A little short sighted if you ask me. Sounds more like you are jumping on the MSFT bashing bandwagon to get readership (which I guess worked because I am commenting).
~~~
BR: I have been a longstanding member of the MSFT bashers; this has been kicking around my head for a long time (I wrote it in an hour this AM).-http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/05/how-microsoft-caused-the-dotcom-bubble/#comment-557058
--- End quote ---
mouser:
I have my own share of anger at Microsoft for lots of things they do that I'm not happy with.
But I honestly wonder if in 10 or 20 years we are going to look back at the times we are living in now and lament the death of microsoft and the death of the good old days when software companies actually made products and sold those products to users.
Seems like we are headed into an age where companies are going to be trying to find increasingly convoluted and complicated schemes to extract money from us without actually charging us directly for the products we use. And I'm not looking forward to it.
Renegade:
I have my own share of anger at Microsoft for lots of things they do that I'm not happy with.
But I honestly wonder if in 10 or 20 years we are going to look back at the times we are living in now and lament the death of microsoft and the death of the good old days when software companies actually made products and sold those products to users.
Seems like we are headed into an age where companies are going to be trying to find increasingly convoluted and complicated schemes to extract money from us without actually charging us directly for the products we use. And I'm not looking forward to it.
-mouser (May 12, 2011, 05:51 AM)
--- End quote ---
+1
MS can certainly drive me into a screaming frenzy at times, but man... Look at the alternatives!
MS has a long history of bringing people along to make money with them. I'm afraid that the environment for independent, small developers will become increasingly hostile.
The normal EULA in the shareware/trialware/try-before-you-buy world is going to be slowly subverted with increasingly complex clauses and whatnot.
I for one would LOVE to see legislation that made it illegal to change an EULA for existing users, and regulation that forced companies to ONLY display an EULA for an upgrade IFF there were changes in it, AND to make those changes visible UP FRONT. i.e. Make a changelog mandatory. Well, at least for companies with revenues over some sane number, like $10 million or so.
Like who wants to read Apple's 80 page EULA for iTunes every week when they shit put out an update? Same goes for Java and Adobe with their 50 trillion daily updates.
Can I get an Amen? :D
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version