Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Jan 2007 22:43 UTC
Microsoft With holiday PC sales apparently unscathed by the lack of Windows Vista, Microsoft reported quarterly earnings Thursday that topped expectations and its own forecast. The software giant said it earned USD 2.63 billion, or 26 cents per share, on revenue of USD 12.54 billion, for the three months ended December 31. That compares with earnings of USD 3.65 billion, or 34 cents per share, on revenue of USD 11.83 billion for the same quarter a year ago.
Thread beginning with comment 206169
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Kaiwai...
by rcsteiner on Fri 26th Jan 2007 20:20 UTC in reply to "RE: Kaiwai..."
rcsteiner
Member since:
2005-07-12

Now, I'll pretend you weren't an utter twit above and actually response to your salient points.

Secondly, this exclusive contract existed before Microsoft became a monopoly, or to use a more 'politically correct' term - dominant market player.

Really? And you believe this revisionist history?

Here's a juicy fact for you, my friend: Microsoft got themselves into a dominant market position in the OS market in the first place in the early 1990's by USING such exclusive contracts.

http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index_licensing.htm

That was deemed illegal by the feds. In addition, the current contracts that you seem to be defending are not at all the same ones that existed prior to MS being a monopoly in the OS space. Those are renegotiated prior to every new OS release (and probably considerably more often then that). Have you forgotten the hassle IBM had to go though with the Windows 95 OEM licensing process? It went down to the last day, and they had to stop distributing their own operating system (OS/2) on their VERY OWN HARDWARE in order to get any sort of deal from MS.

*That's* a prime example of a monopolist being able to apply pressure. Who else could get IBM to cave like that??

Lets also remember, we need to blame competitors who failed to step up to the crease when opportunities arose; we could all be running SPARC powered machines had Sun not been such a coward and pulled out of the desktop space; we'd all be using dumb terminals over high speed internet connects had the UNIX vendors pulled finger and came out with a unified standard for the various UNIX's.

Uh... Have we forgotten OS/2 already? Remember that it won tons of awards (including InfoWorld's Product of the Year for something like five years running) and that it was *the* OS to have in the hobbyist community from roughly 1993 until the end of 1995 or so.

It wasn't a lack of a good product (or even user mindshare) that killed it. I have another link for you:

http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653

The above is Groklaw's MS Litigation Page. Look in the "OS/2" section and follow the various links.

To some how imply that Microsoft suddenly got market share, then imposed these exclusive contracts on OEM's is nothing less than a complete and utter lie used by Microsoft's detractors to explain as to why they lost and Microsoft won.

Of course not. Microsoft imposed those contracts on OEMs once they started getting an upper hand in the market with Windows, they used per-processor licensing and other illegal techniques to leverage that foothold into a monopoly position, and THEN they continued to use their position and illegal tactics to hold their position on the top of the market.

It's actually worse than you seem to feel we believe...

Microsoft wins, not because their products are superior, but because the competition is so utterly shit

No, Microsoft wins because so many people completely forget the reasons for their being dominant in the first place -- because they incorrectly believe that the market was incapable of competing when in fact the opposite was true. In the DOS market we had Windows, PC/GEOS, GEM, and even Deskview/X. In the later DOS market we had Windows 3.x, Windows NT in its little niche, and OS/2 taking over the hobbyist and some of the business market. OS/2 was the #1 retail product for consecutive months in 1996. Remember that?

No. The market was *quite* capable of competing, but Microsoft used their illegal strongarm tactics to unfairly bias the market.

I think you have a lot of reading to do...

Edited 2007-01-26 20:28

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Kaiwai...
by kaiwai on Sat 27th Jan 2007 00:50 in reply to "RE[2]: Kaiwai..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

1) Interesting, you claim that IBM was *forced* to stop selling OS/2 on their machines back when Windows 95 was released, and yet, interesting enough, when I was in Australia back in 1996, you could purchase an IBM machine loaded with OS/2 - infact, it was placed at the end of the shelf so that was the first machine you saw as you entered the PC section.

So they hardly hid that computer down the back and out of sight so that no one new they sold an OS/2 machine; it was sitting out there, in all its big-blue glory waiting to be purchased by an end user.

It was IBM who killed off OS/2 sales because, like Linux, it never had the software availability which Windows had; sure it had the Lotus division and IBM software provided on it, but anything more than that, pretty much a pipe dream - it did have on thing going for it, the hardware support wasn't actually too bad, and there were a sizable number of vendors releasing drivers for their hardware.

Oh, and btw, there is nothing stopping IBM from opensourcing OS/2 - don't believe the 'licencing' hype which they scream, they could opensource it tomorrow, but you would end up with a massive migration to it - why do that when you can hype a system like linux which requires massive TLC and you can sell millions of dollars worth of 'services' just to get things glued into an existing infrastructure.

2) The alternatives were shit; we could be running a UNIX of some sort had they got their act together; Apple proved that a easy to use UNIX, in the form of A/UX was possible - too bad Sun didn't continue developing OpenStep on Solaris - we'd have a very nice operating system now.

As for 'market quite capable of competing' interesting; why has Wordperfect/Lotus 1-2-3/Harvard Graphics/DBase all lost marketshare? the fact that they didn't adapt to the time? the fact that they thought Windows was a 'fad' and that everyone would remain with DOS?

You obviously have no clue as to how crap the competition is; if the competition is so great; why doesn't Wordperfect or OpenOffice.org make any dents in Microsoft Office marketshare? how come Linux has next to no big name software vendors like Adobe, Quicken, MYOB, Corel, Peachtree and the likes producing desktop software for it?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Kaiwai...
by twenex on Sat 27th Jan 2007 18:27 in reply to "RE[3]: Kaiwai..."
twenex Member since:
2006-04-21

Interesting, you claim that IBM was *forced* to stop selling OS/2 on their machines back when Windows 95 was released, and yet, interesting enough, when I was in Australia back in 1996, you could purchase an IBM machine loaded with OS/2 - infact, it was placed at the end of the shelf so that was the first machine you saw as you entered the PC section.

When only one vendor is pushing an OS, what does that say about it? (Of course, I mean, "only one vendor that isn't Microsoft"). OS/2 had no market because it had no apps and no name recognition like Microsoft. OS/2's marketing was crap - who wants to use an OS used by nuns, and what the hell were they doing going at Warp speed?


Oh, and btw, there is nothing stopping IBM from opensourcing OS/2 - don't believe the 'licencing' hype which they scream, they could opensource it tomorrow,


And you know this how?

but you would end up with a massive migration to it

Oh really?

- why do that when you can hype a system like linux which requires massive TLC and you can sell millions of dollars worth of 'services' just to get things glued into an existing infrastructure.

"Sweet cheeks", Windows requires even more "TLC" than Linux.

Or on the other hand, we could believe your version of events. Yes, the world is just one massive IBM-led conspiracy to liberate the masses from "good" software like Windows so that malodorous unethical pizza-guzzling hacker-types from Finland can foist their needy OS crap on the world. Dream on.


You obviously have no clue as to how crap the competition is; if the competition is so great; why doesn't Wordperfect or OpenOffice.org make any dents in Microsoft Office marketshare? how come Linux has next to no big name software vendors like Adobe, Quicken, MYOB, Corel, Peachtree and the likes producing desktop software for it?


Pudding, OpenOffice.org IS making dents in MS Office marketshare - not to mention Firefox. As for Adobe, Quicken, et al., it's a chicken-and-egg situation. You can thank Microsoft for the fact that Wordperfect is no longer available for Linux, btw.

Reply Parent Score: 2