Microsoft should spank em'

[Undertoad]

By 1992, *everyone* with a desk job used computers at work. The personal computer was a business device first.

By 1995 the country and globe were crossed by private networks as large as the Internet itself. TV Guide, for example, bought a T1 just to move their issue from the east coast to the west coast. 99.9% of the time, it was unused.

Private online companies like Compuserve, AOL, Prodigy, etc. brought in a few million customers. I will always remember looking at my yearly summary of Amex charges and realizing that Compuserve cost me $600 in 1989. Today that same monthly nut buys me a connection 10 times faster than that TV Guide circuit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

By 1992, *everyone* with a desk job used computers at work. ... By 1995 the country and globe were crossed by private networks as large as the Internet itself. .... Today that same monthly nut buys me a connection 10 times faster than that TV Guide circuit.

So are you saying that we should ban tinkers because it is good for and right for big industry to do so? Are you saying its good to let big business restrict others so as to do all innovating and enhancements? I don't understand how this applies to MaggieL's posts. MaggieL has defined the point in this thread. How do examples of 'big business suddenly discovering their oversight' agree or contradict what MaggieL has posted?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

So are you saying that we should ban tinkers because it is good for and right for big industry to do so? Are you saying its good to let big business restrict others so as to do all innovating and enhancements? I don't understand how this applies to MaggieL's posts. MaggieL has defined the point in this thread. How do examples of 'big business suddenly discovering their oversight' agree or contradict what MaggieL has posted?

They were responding to a tangential remark I made.

Who is banning tinkering? Banning and not assisting are different positions.

Windows became ubiquitous because it provided people and businesses with a complete package they could use without doing a mix & match of products from different sources. Most people don't want to tinker, neither do businesses want their people tinkering instead of doing their job.

Once people are comfortable with Windows they can jump from company to company. Employers like to have a large pool of prospective employees they don't have to train on basic PC skills.

There's no reason why anyone can't come up with their own OS and sell it to everyone, but it's not Microsoft's responsibility to help them..

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Most people don't want to tinker, neither do businesses want their people tinkering instead of doing their job.

That's correct. Most people don't want to advance mankind. Most people are happy to maintain status quo. Only the 1% advance mankind. Tinkers, doubters, questioners, the few who push out an envelope and therefore advance mankind are not found among myopic workers who use a PC and therefore call themselves 'computer literate'. We are not talking about those in love with a status quo mentality.

Meanwhile, many big businesses don't want tinkering- a nature of businesses that fear 'disruptive innovation'. Such only comes from that 1% - not from the majority who prefer to stay ignorant.

Why is the Prius being modified for AC electric recharge? Not by Toyota. But due to those tinkers and due to a company that does not fear innovation, future Toyota products will be modified for an AC electric recharge option. Why? You and everyone you know did not do that tinkering. But the less than 1% who did therefore caused another innovation.

Meanwhile, Microsoft, whose product once encouraged tinkering and therefore created so many new compatible businesses and new MS markets, now all but discourages tinkering.

Just because you and so many peers don't tinker means nothing in this discussion. Just because some companies don't want tinkers means those companies never belong anywhere in this discussion. Non-tinkerers are a majority that also don't advance mankind. We are not discussing those who fear or who have no useful curiosity. We are discussing those who would learn and therefore make something even better than a current MS product. Those who don't appreciate a need for tinkering and the underlying learning also would be same who never appreciated why innovation, new ideas, new concepts, and new products are the only source mankind's advancement.

IOW don't even mention the majority who are totally irrelevant to this topic and to the advancement of mankind. Even mentioning what the majority do with their computers and what they companies want would only be mentioned to confuse the issue - does not belong anywhere in this thread.

Can you put an MS OS on a different hardware platform to do something MS never intended? Once that 'tinkering' was encouraged and had started to create new MS markets. Now MS fears you might do that. Same reason why MS is having so many problems getting their OS products on other platforms such as cell phones and intelligent machinery. MS simply hides too much of what was once always made freely available by MS - and therefore once contributed to MS's phenomenal growth.

It was a simple and so accurate example. Why are the return codes from PING a trade secret? Those who are only 'computer literate' and therefore would not appreciate the value and need for innovation should not even bother answering. The example of a secret that never need be a secret demonstrates how much MS hides rather than encourage innovators - the tinkerers. MS now has too much of a 'we fear the innovative' attitude which would also explain their stock price AND why MS does not succeed in other new markets.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by tw

Why is the Prius being modified for AC electric recharge?

http://www.paulgilbert.com/Judas_Prius.html

I love Paul Gilbert.

[Radar]

The simple truth is Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. This is especially true in Europe....the home of Linux. Microsoft should NEVER comply with that court ruling. In fact Microsoft should tell the court to screw themselves, not pay a penny, and refuse to support their products within that country until they stop making unreasonable demands. Microsoft still has a large enough marketshare among the governments and major businesses in Europe that this would cause a big enough impact that the businesses would pressure the government to stop harassing Microsoft.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Radar

The simple truth is Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly. This is especially true in Europe....the home of Linux. Microsoft should NEVER comply with that court ruling. In fact Microsoft should tell the court to screw themselves, not pay a penny, and refuse to support their products within that country until they stop making unreasonable demands. Microsoft still has a large enough marketshare among the governments and major businesses in Europe that this would cause a big enough impact that the businesses would pressure the government to stop harassing Microsoft.

Wow.

Is that a big "libertarian thang", urging companies to defy the laws of sovereign governments because they can?! What the fsck? Would you advocate the same behavior of a foreign entity that operated in the United States? This position is 180 degrees from every other political post I've ever seen by you. "Respect other's boundaries" (I paraphrase). Aren't the laws under which companies do business within the boundaries of the governments who write and enforce them?

Because they can, pbtbtbt. That is the weakest, most immature reasoning possible in support for your position.

[Radar]

Originally Posted by BigV

Wow.

Is that a big "libertarian thang", urging companies to defy the laws of sovereign governments because they can?! What the fsck? Would you advocate the same behavior of a foreign entity that operated in the United States? This position is 180 degrees from every other political post I've ever seen by you. "Respect other's boundaries" (I paraphrase). Aren't the laws under which companies do business within the boundaries of the governments who write and enforce them?

Because they can, pbtbtbt. That is the weakest, most immature reasoning possible in support for your position.

The laws of the country don't say, "If you do business in our country you must give away your trade secrets to your competitors" and if it did, Microsoft wouldn't do business there in the first place.

Also, the EU isn't a country.

[Undertoad]

I was responding to xoB's post.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by xoB

It's every companies duty to fight unfair trade practices that are so common abroad.

Perhaps. "Duty" is a loaded term these days. Duty in service to what or whom? Duty to their shareholders, a fiduciary duty? Ok, then run the numbers a decide what is the most profitable course of action, and proceed. A duty to ... US industry? to Truth, Justice and the American Way? Duty to what? I think MS is a good corporate citizen, a law abiding citizen. In fact, they're most successful in places where the rule of law is strongest. In the US they're everywhere and we have a strong rule of law. In Asia, they're getting their butts kicked by pirates. In response to this expensive hemmorhaging of business, where do you think they turn? Meaner pirates? They certainly could. They could afford a global army of software mercenaries. They have the wherewithal, the means motive and opportunity to act as they will. But no, they turn instead to the law, the courts. "If it please the court, these people are stealing from me and I want relief". They work within the law. Hell, they work the law. But not in outright defiance of it. The validity of Radar's "solution" expired in about third or fourth grade, in every place that Microsoft does business. Probably still works in the jungle, though.

In fact Microsoft should tell the court to screw themselves, not pay a penny, and refuse to support their products within that country until they stop making unreasonable demands. Microsoft still has a large enough marketshare among the governments and major businesses in Europe that this would cause a big enough impact that the businesses would pressure the government to stop harassing Microsoft.

In what way is this a valid suggestion? Venting, ok. Pointing out an unfair judgement, possibly. A possible course of action, especially for a marquee American company such as Microsoft? Hardly. This isn't libertarian thought--it's Anarchy.

Originally Posted by BigV

Perhaps. "Duty" is a loaded term these days. Duty in service to what or whom? Duty to their shareholders, a fiduciary duty? Ok, then run the numbers a decide what is the most profitable course of action, and proceed. A duty to ... US industry? to Truth, Justice and the American Way? Duty to what? I think MS is a good corporate citizen, a law abiding citizen. In fact, they're most successful in places where the rule of law is strongest. In the US they're everywhere and we have a strong rule of law. In Asia, they're getting their butts kicked by pirates. In response to this expensive hemmorhaging of business, where do you think they turn? Meaner pirates? They certainly could. They could afford a global army of software mercenaries. They have the wherewithal, the means motive and opportunity to act as they will. But no, they turn instead to the law, the courts. "If it please the court, these people are stealing from me and I want relief". They work within the law. Hell, they work the law. But not in outright defiance of it. The validity of Radar's "solution" expired in about third or fourth grade, in every place that Microsoft does business. Probably still works in the jungle, though.
In what way is this a valid suggestion? Venting, ok. Pointing out an unfair judgement, possibly. A possible course of action, especially for a marquee American company such as Microsoft? Hardly. This isn't libertarian thought--it's Anarchy.

Which is why I gave the solution that I did... sell them only software and hardware with which you are willing to comply with their demands and let the rest of the world move on.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

But as it is they have no choice...and we'll see how happy they are about that state of affairs when we get to that MSFT nirvana where you get a software bill every month that left unpaid will cause your machine to stop working. Don't kid yourself: the phone-home-or-die infrastructure for that is being (quite visibly) laid as we speak.

I don't see MSFT as a problem unless you're using stolen software, which I'm not.

In any event...the state you see today is not some magical thing billg did out of kindness for us all to make computing easy, something that no one else could have concieved of or done. That's MSFT spin, PR and propiganda, concieved after the fact.

But "they" didn't, Gates did, and for that I'm grateful.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't see MSFT as a problem unless you're using stolen software, which I'm not.

Or unless you don't want to rent it when MSFT decides that's the only way they're going to offer it. Or happen to make enough changes to your machine that the phone-home system decides you have a new computer and must buy all your software over again.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

But "they" didn't, Gates did, and for that I'm grateful.

No, he didn't.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I don't see MSFT as a problem unless you're using stolen software, which I'm not.

Neither is famous Windows fanboy Paul Thullott...and yet he got burned anyway

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hyperbole. He didn't get burned.

No, he didn't.

Hold your breath until you turn blue, but he still did it. :p