uh, how are any of those like the what I said? It's not even a question of losing money, it's giving something away, and paying people to take it. Previously, you could at least argue that "integrating" (really, bundling) things into new versions of the OS made sense because it was an incentive for people to upgrade. Here, "free" "integrated" IE4, aka every enhancement done to Windows95 since the retail launch, looks very much like a disincentive for people to upgrade to Windows98. If you get all the new stuff for free, what's the point? For the most extreme example, you got IE4 for Unix, a product that makes no sense for Microsoft at all, a market they've totally laughed at in the past, now they're going to port IE to Unix and give it away for free? How does this make sense in any rational economic system? I'm sure Bill's commissioned suitable right-wing think tank economists somewhere to explain how it's good for us all, but we all know that's not what's going on here. I just pity the poor Microserfs stuck on that last project, doesn't seem like a good way to get ahead in the company.
Of course, Microsoft had a bit of a legal problem with Stacker, too, as I recall. The price of greatness, I guess.
Cheers, Dan. |
