Sometimes, the smallest of things can amaze me. I'm a sucker for details, which probably lies at the base of my slightly obsessive-compulsive traits of keeping things organized, tidy, aligned, and neat. It's great to see some companies are suckers for details too. Unless the details just become too insignificant. Note: Sunday Eve Column. Short, this week, though.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-06-29
My last comment, I promise, but Thom, is this really the level of discussions you want to see on your site? Someone pointing out that lack of competition leads to less innovation surely could have been answered without trolling, couldn't it?
No, that is not trolling Ralph. He says the current situation stiffles innovation-- and yes, less choice indeed should lead to less innovation.
However, I see more than enough innovation in the Apple and Linux worlds. How does that rhyme with the assessment of the current situation the parent poster sketched? Might it just be that this monopoly is far less strangling than many people seem to (or want to) admit? That it is... A perceived monopoly?
Member since:2006-04-21
However, I see more than enough innovation in the Apple and Linux worlds. How does that rhyme with the assessment of the current situation the parent poster sketched? Might it just be that this monopoly is far less strangling than many people seem to (or want to) admit? That it is... A perceived monopoly?
You may have a point there, but the fact is that the dismantling of Microsoft's monopoly has only been going on since around about the time IBM put its weight behind Linux. And only now are we starting to see the effects. Before then, however, many, many companies and products were killed in Microsoft's blitzkrieg on the competition.
As I've said before on this forum, lack of innovation has never been a problem for people going up against Microsoft. The two problems have been (a) lack of marketing skill (which can be blamed on the rivals themselves) and (b) Microsoft's monopolistic practices (for which only Microsoft is to blame). If you could turn back time 20 years and prevent both Microsoft's practices from start to finish, and marketing failures by competitors, then UNIX proper (plus a lot of other hardware and software products) would still be around. However, if you could only prevent Microsoft's practices, then UNIX and OS/2 would probably be dead, but other products might well not be (e.g. Linux might have as much as 40-60 of the desktop market).
Member since:2005-07-12
Ironic, isn't it, that both Linux and Apple are located at least somewhat outside of the mainstream x86 commercial software development sphere...?
(Linux development is largely noncommercial, while Apple was completely outside of the x86 world until recently and still protects itself via vendor-specific hardware).
Doesn't that reinforce the fact that a problem exists *inside* the mainstream x86 space?
Member since:
2005-07-10
"So basically, you are admitting there is little to no innovation in the Linux or Apple worlds?"
My last comment, I promise, but Thom, is this really the level of discussions you want to see on your site? Someone pointing out that lack of competition leads to less innovation surely could have been answered without trolling, couldn't it?