I'm no MS or Gates fan, but
But you've obviously fallen for their line of BS
The fact is that they have simply done a better job than most of their competitors and the result has been tremendous prosperity for all of the U.S. based computer and software industry.
That "prosperity" is an illusion to all but Microsoft. Microsoft is quickly moving into a position where they can dictate who will succeed and who will not. As long as you tow the Microsoft line and do what they let you do (or what they force you to do), you can be successful.
MSFT's success due to their monopolistic practices or the failures
of their competitors?
To both.
Did excel become the dominant spreadsheet because of MSFT's practices or because Lotus didn't have its act together and let 1-2-3 slip off the screen when Windows became popular? Was it MSFT's practices that killed Word Perfect or was it their failures?
You either didn't read my post carefully or you're selectively blocking out key moments in history. Remember the first versions of Excel and Word relative to Lotus 123 and WordPerfect? Would those products have stood even a remote chance of success had they come from a company that wasn't financing these abominations with a healthy source of cash from a then-budding OS monopoly, while at the same time using control of the platform to give these in-house apps technological advantages not available to the competition? As time went on, of course, Excel and Word were going to get better, ultimately choking off their competitors' cash, sales and their ability to hire quality people to take their products to the next level. That possibility continues to exist, and it is one of the reasons Microsoft is bad for free enterprise, because it dis-incents pursuit of ideas that go against the Microsoft way. Haven't you heard of the many stories of VC's refusing to fund startups not out of concern over the viability of their products, but out of fear that they may someday, somehow arouse Microsoft's ire? This happens all the time!
Was it really MSFT that was responsible for IBM's failure with OS2 or was it IBM???
IBM could've done a much better job supporting application developers to take advantage of OS/2's superiority at the time. Microsoft out-strategized and out-executed IBM at every turn, and the result: the inferior product won out. Is that necessarily a good thing? Whatever...that's irrelevant to my point...that today's Microsoft is a negative influence on the computer industry, because it is slowing innovation by restricting opportunity.
ORCL has gotten involved in areas that it shouldn't have bothered.
Oh? Like what? Open standards network computing? Java and CORBA in every tier? Universal data management and applications deployment? Supporting the ability to run your application and access your data regardless of where you are or what machine you're running? If Oracle succeeds in what you're urging them not to bother with, Windows becomes irrelevant. Again, you're spouting the Microsoft line.
Its fine to babble on about technological innovation, but, exactly how many company's in the business today are truly innovators?
IBM (continuous hardware innovations), Sun (NFS, Java, Network Computing), Netscape (Mosaic), 3COM (Palm Pilot), Novell (NDS), Oracle (see above)...and many others, all of which have introduced and continue to bring forward breakthrough technologies that aren't simply refinements of what others pioneered. And how funny to note how many of these innovators have been seen as threats to Microsoft, and what Microsoft is trying to do to them, and where we'd be if Microsoft would just get the hell out of the way and let these innovators pursue their visions without trying to stop them through cowardly predatory practices.
Grow up!...High tech/computing, has been the driving force behind this and the current full throttle economy. MSFT has been a key factor in this, along with the other dominant company's in the US high tech market.
You grow up! Or snap out of your Msft-induced coma. Microsoft has done some positive things for the industry, but Microsoft if not now, then soon, is or will become more of a hindrance that a help. It needs to step aside and let the innovators take it from here. |
