|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 09:38 AM EDT |
I would call it karmic, that MS is having what they did with IE happen to them.
And I know what got IEs competitors out of that bind, but IO don't see MS being
able to do that :)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 10:05 AM EDT |
What law requires this?
A director of a public company is forced
to
choose (b) and (c), because by law, the board of directors
must maximize
short term returns for share holders.
I don't believe there is
any such law. I think short-term
profit is driven by short-sighted
shareholders. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 12:13 PM EDT |
The low license price can't be ignored, especially for handset makers (?), but
FOSS would not have any traction without the performance. PCBSD, FreeBSD,
*buntu, Fedora, etc. would be a bargain at two to three times the price of
Windows. If changing had cost $200 when I made my switch, I would have paid it
just because of the way FOSS freed me from the headaches I was having with XP.
Apple was not an option, because I will tolerate Windows before I flush all of
my freedom down the toilet... even if Windows currently requires flushing about
85%.
I am reading more and more FUD where the propietary crowd is trying to attribute
FOSS' gains to it being freely accessible. Do people really believe that users
will abandon what they know for another option just because it has a purchase
price of $0. Sure, that applies to the hardcore techies, but some of us simply
want something that works and allows us to have at least some freedom of choice.
If Windows performed half as well as FOSS, FOSS' share would not be steadily
growing, and so many corporate servers would not be using Linux (when you need
reliability and security, Windows isn't an option.).
Regards,
mc[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
No. He is *pressured*. Google is a public company and doesn't behave like that.
Thing is, companies with a strong leadership, usually by people with large
shareholdings, tend to do what they think best.
Companies with a weak leadership, who have no shareholding to speak of and are
primarily interested in the size of their pay-packet, tend to do as you
describe.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, March 13 2013 @ 03:32 PM EDT |
You have it a bit backwards.
Microsoft was able to crush commercial competitors to MS Windows by abusing
their monopoly power.
The only viable competitors to Microsoft today are ones evolved using a
completely different model.
Linux is a good example. Microsoft tried everything it could to destroy Linux,
but because it wasn't a company their well-practiced techniques didn't work.
Dirty tricks such as refusing, the day before, to be on a press release if Linux
was mentioned. Or threatening to drop a conference sponsorship if Linux talks
were given in the main hall. Or offering essentially 100% product discounts if
a site quit using Linux.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|