Not really. Do you remember when MS wanted the AOL protocol to put into their MSN Messanger? AOL said no way...
Apple came around and asked AOL for their protocol and now, look at iChat.
Are you forgetting who AOL is?
America Online Time Warner
I think Time Warner is maybe number 1 on the top 5 largest record company's of all time. I do not think AOLTW would want to work with Microsoft on such a music service if one were to pop up.
Besides, I would not trust a Microsoft infrastructure/backend to any music service. Do any of you remember when they put up that test box running Windows 2000 and they had a competition to see who could hack it? It always went down...
Yeah, MS can't have anything.
But there are several music and video services that use MS DRM. AFAIK the only crack tool available works on windows media 7, and it makes the music sound like crap.
Exactly how many years and how many hundreds of millions of dollars did it take for them to get IE up to speed? How about Visual Basic?
MS will kill off total failures (MS Bob), but Gates is famously patient if he thinks a product or service is tactically important.
Duh, who would kill off product/services that are tactically important?
I do not see IE or VB costing that many years or *hundreds* of millions of $, especially since they are not separate products and are coded into the main OS. I would like to see you present #s that suggest otherwise.
Duh, who would kill off product/services that are tactically important?
I do not see IE or VB costing that many years or *hundreds* of millions of $, especially since they are not separate products and are coded into the main OS. I would like to see you present #s that suggest otherwise.
Er, IE and VB are NOT coded 'into the OS', depsite what MS wants you to think. Sorry, they're just another set of libraries that they managed to convince others were 'part of the OS'. They're not, any more than Word is. They just want you to think they are for tactical reasons regarding monopolistic practice trials.
Er, IE and VB are NOT coded 'into the OS', depsite what MS wants you to think. Sorry, they're just another set of libraries that they managed to convince others were 'part of the OS'. They're not, any more than Word is. They just want you to think they are for tactical reasons regarding monopolistic practice trials.
Of course you and I know that they are not part of the OS and argue that they should not be.
However, the fact is that they did 'integrate' it into the OS, calling it the part of OS, and use it as part of the OS e.g you can go directly from explorer to a website, for example. The result is that you cannot get a Windows (a non-hacked version) without IE or VB. My arguments still stands that Microsoft did not spent years or hundres of millions of dollars developing these two products, especially if one consider these product part of the OS (we know Microsoft does).
Duh, who would kill off product/services that are tactically important?
Tactically important != profitable, which was my point. MS will not kill off an unsuccessful or unprofitable venture if Gates considers it tactically important. MS has the reserves to wait out competitors, and they know well that once you control a market, you can charge whatever you want.
How much money has MS made off IE? MSN?
Quote:
I do not see IE or VB costing that many years or *hundreds* of millions of $, especially since they are not separate products and are coded into the main OS. I would like to see you present #s that suggest otherwise.
It came out in the antitrust trial that MS spent something like $500 million dollars to turn Mosaic into IE. I'll post a link when I find one.
Many companies keep tactically important projects going despite them not being profitable. Case in point: British Airway and Air France both flew the Concorde for years despite it being a money drainer since day 1.
That is not uncommon at all in the business world.
Many companies keep tactically important projects going despite them not being profitable. Case in point: British Airway and Air France both flew the Concorde for years despite it being a money drainer since day 1.
That is not uncommon at all in the business world.
So in other words, MS is not always "quick to pull the plug on a loser," contrary to your assertion. They have thrown over a billion dollars all told at an application that would never earn them a dime of revenue (MSIE), just to kill a competitor and assert control. Profit is not a primary consideration in determining whether to keep a project going.
Thank you.
(Oh, and the Concorde at least earned income, if it didn't generate a profit. And it was a marquee service, which none of MS' projects are. MS subsidizes projects in order to undercut poorer competitors and assert control.)
So in other words, MS is not always "quick to pull the plug on a loser," contrary to your assertion. They have thrown over a billion dollars all told at an application that would never earn them a dime of revenue (MSIE), just to kill a competitor and assert control. Profit is not a primary consideration in determining whether to keep a project going.
Thank you.
(Oh, and the Concorde at least earned income, if it didn't generate a profit. And it was a marquee service, which none of MS' projects are. MS subsidizes projects in order to undercut poorer competitors and assert control.)
You have so many conflicting statements I don't know where to begin. Let's start backward.
First, you seem to believe something that earned income yet generate no profit is always something better than something that generate no income. An easy way to disprove that logic is an item that generates $1 of income yet loses $100 versus something that generates $0 income and lose $10. Is that $1 income generating item better?
Second, yes Concorde is a flagship product as I had asserted as well. You claim that Microsoft has no such product. If Windows is not such a product I do not know what is.
We both believe that MS will pull plugs on non-profitable losers so I will leave things at that.
Lastly, I still await your evidence on MS thowing $500 million (now over a billion dollar according to your post) on one application.
I think you and Amorph are on completely different wavelengths. anyway, here's the DOJ link that (point 135) says MS spent $100mil in devlopment and $30mil in marketing IE for Windows since 1995. By the time the Finding of Fact was published, it was 2000, hence the $500mil that was floating around.
Come on people, the magic here was not in the software or the servers. We ain't looking at anything other than eCommerce (hosting, plus clients, plus security -- yes yes, make jokes now.) M$ already has everything it takes to whip up a competitor in short order. The magic, from Apple's position, is in getting the majors on board. Once the concept is proven, what's to stop the majors from taking a sweeter deal from M$ ??? "Apple giving you 65 censt on the dollar? Come visit us, we'll give you 75 and retail the tracks for 89 cents, you win, and the consumer wins!" (And M$ eats loses for as long as it takes to gain dominance)
Unless the record companies have a reason to distrust M$, or their licensing/DRM schemes. Something tells me that some record execs may really really like palladium at some point int the future, though.
My personal belief for the big 5 jumping aboard with Apple is the security issue. M$ is known for crappy code that gets hacked, prodded, pocked, you name it. They know that historically M$ couldnt keep anything secure. Why do you suppose the indistry guys are concerned about the security of the Windows version of iTunes? RIAA is as greedy as they come and they know for a fact that if M$ develops it it will leak like the Titanic. Atleast with Apple and the Mac platform they had some possibility of seurity.
My personal belief for the big 5 jumping aboard with Apple is the security issue. M$ is known for crappy code that gets hacked, prodded, pocked, you name it. They know that historically M$ couldnt keep anything secure. Why do you suppose the indistry guys are concerned about the security of the Windows version of iTunes? RIAA is as greedy as they come and they know for a fact that if M$ develops it it will leak like the Titanic. Atleast with Apple and the Mac platform they had some possibility of seurity.
Listen.com has had all 5 labels on board for a year and a half and use Windows Media.
Comments
Originally posted by Jared
Not really. Do you remember when MS wanted the AOL protocol to put into their MSN Messanger? AOL said no way...
Apple came around and asked AOL for their protocol and now, look at iChat.
Are you forgetting who AOL is?
America Online Time Warner
I think Time Warner is maybe number 1 on the top 5 largest record company's of all time. I do not think AOLTW would want to work with Microsoft on such a music service if one were to pop up.
Besides, I would not trust a Microsoft infrastructure/backend to any music service. Do any of you remember when they put up that test box running Windows 2000 and they had a competition to see who could hack it? It always went down...
Yeah, MS can't have anything.
But there are several music and video services that use MS DRM. AFAIK the only crack tool available works on windows media 7, and it makes the music sound like crap.
Originally posted by Amorph
Exactly how many years and how many hundreds of millions of dollars did it take for them to get IE up to speed? How about Visual Basic?
MS will kill off total failures (MS Bob), but Gates is famously patient if he thinks a product or service is tactically important.
Duh, who would kill off product/services that are tactically important?
I do not see IE or VB costing that many years or *hundreds* of millions of $, especially since they are not separate products and are coded into the main OS. I would like to see you present #s that suggest otherwise.
Originally posted by klinux
Duh, who would kill off product/services that are tactically important?
I do not see IE or VB costing that many years or *hundreds* of millions of $, especially since they are not separate products and are coded into the main OS. I would like to see you present #s that suggest otherwise.
Er, IE and VB are NOT coded 'into the OS', depsite what MS wants you to think. Sorry, they're just another set of libraries that they managed to convince others were 'part of the OS'. They're not, any more than Word is. They just want you to think they are for tactical reasons regarding monopolistic practice trials.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
True, hate to sound like such a fatalist, but this hypothesis if you will has yet to be proven wrong. AOL's martshare is dwindling,
From here:
Worldwide, Microsoft has about 8.7 million MSN subscribers, a 300,000 decline in the first quarter from the fourth quarter.
So if AOL is down, and MSN is down...
MS is not all powerful, no matter what they like to think.
They're stubborn, and they're flush with more cash than they know what to do with, but they're not perfect. By far.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Er, IE and VB are NOT coded 'into the OS', depsite what MS wants you to think. Sorry, they're just another set of libraries that they managed to convince others were 'part of the OS'. They're not, any more than Word is. They just want you to think they are for tactical reasons regarding monopolistic practice trials.
Of course you and I know that they are not part of the OS and argue that they should not be.
However, the fact is that they did 'integrate' it into the OS, calling it the part of OS, and use it as part of the OS e.g you can go directly from explorer to a website, for example. The result is that you cannot get a Windows (a non-hacked version) without IE or VB. My arguments still stands that Microsoft did not spent years or hundres of millions of dollars developing these two products, especially if one consider these product part of the OS (we know Microsoft does).
Originally posted by klinux
Duh, who would kill off product/services that are tactically important?
Tactically important != profitable, which was my point. MS will not kill off an unsuccessful or unprofitable venture if Gates considers it tactically important. MS has the reserves to wait out competitors, and they know well that once you control a market, you can charge whatever you want.
How much money has MS made off IE? MSN?
I do not see IE or VB costing that many years or *hundreds* of millions of $, especially since they are not separate products and are coded into the main OS. I would like to see you present #s that suggest otherwise.
It came out in the antitrust trial that MS spent something like $500 million dollars to turn Mosaic into IE. I'll post a link when I find one.
That is not uncommon at all in the business world.
Originally posted by klinux
Many companies keep tactically important projects going despite them not being profitable. Case in point: British Airway and Air France both flew the Concorde for years despite it being a money drainer since day 1.
That is not uncommon at all in the business world.
So in other words, MS is not always "quick to pull the plug on a loser," contrary to your assertion. They have thrown over a billion dollars all told at an application that would never earn them a dime of revenue (MSIE), just to kill a competitor and assert control. Profit is not a primary consideration in determining whether to keep a project going.
Thank you.
(Oh, and the Concorde at least earned income, if it didn't generate a profit. And it was a marquee service, which none of MS' projects are. MS subsidizes projects in order to undercut poorer competitors and assert control.)
Originally posted by Amorph
So in other words, MS is not always "quick to pull the plug on a loser," contrary to your assertion. They have thrown over a billion dollars all told at an application that would never earn them a dime of revenue (MSIE), just to kill a competitor and assert control. Profit is not a primary consideration in determining whether to keep a project going.
Thank you.
(Oh, and the Concorde at least earned income, if it didn't generate a profit. And it was a marquee service, which none of MS' projects are. MS subsidizes projects in order to undercut poorer competitors and assert control.)
You have so many conflicting statements I don't know where to begin. Let's start backward.
First, you seem to believe something that earned income yet generate no profit is always something better than something that generate no income. An easy way to disprove that logic is an item that generates $1 of income yet loses $100 versus something that generates $0 income and lose $10. Is that $1 income generating item better?
Second, yes Concorde is a flagship product as I had asserted as well. You claim that Microsoft has no such product. If Windows is not such a product I do not know what is.
We both believe that MS will pull plugs on non-profitable losers so I will leave things at that.
Lastly, I still await your evidence on MS thowing $500 million (now over a billion dollar according to your post) on one application.
I should probably link to it
Unless the record companies have a reason to distrust M$, or their licensing/DRM schemes. Something tells me that some record execs may really really like palladium at some point int the future, though.
Originally posted by TAZ
My personal belief for the big 5 jumping aboard with Apple is the security issue. M$ is known for crappy code that gets hacked, prodded, pocked, you name it. They know that historically M$ couldnt keep anything secure. Why do you suppose the indistry guys are concerned about the security of the Windows version of iTunes? RIAA is as greedy as they come and they know for a fact that if M$ develops it it will leak like the Titanic. Atleast with Apple and the Mac platform they had some possibility of seurity.
Listen.com has had all 5 labels on board for a year and a half and use Windows Media.