snip... > > Sun has said they will support FLOSS - They have continuous and > repeatedly displayed that support, with time, money, code, > programmers, marketing, and more. If you don't believe them, > that's you're priveldge. As for me, OOo alone is enough to prove > their sincerity.
+1 > > >>Microsoft, by contrast, is living in a brick and mortar house > > > >a) The first prediction I read of Microsoft's demise, was around > > 1992. The number of units of Win95 that had to be sold, to > > break even, exceeded the total number of operating systems > > sold, leased, or pirated, since circa 1948. I'm not familiar with this argument. My first impression is that I would need more information to understand this point of view. When you say, the number of Win95 units that had to be sold to break even, are you referring to recovering the R&D and marketing costs? Also, Clayton Christensen sites Windows as a disruptive technology which buried IBM and Apple. So Microsoft's success with Win95 is actually evidence in support of my understanding of Christensen's theory. > > > >b) The second prediction was around 1995. It predicted the fall > > would start in 2000, and by 2005, Microsoft would be history, > > because all of the stock had been cashed in, and the new > > employees were not going to work for wages alone. That suggestion was clearly not based on any sound theory at all. > > > >c) The next prediction I read was around 98. This was when > > Microsoft was settling a string of anti-monopoly suits, and the > > Dept of Justice trial was just getting started. The settled > > lawsuits had one thing in common --- Microsoft admitted that > > they were violating the anti-trust act, and did so with the > > sole intent of ensuring that it had no competition at all. The > > justice department rolled over, and played dead. There was a change in administrations. > > > >d) Now. There is the claim that microsoft is fleeing upstream, > > to maintain profit levels. As that upstream market decreases, > > so its profits fall. The problem with that theory, is that > > microsoft is lowering the cost of Office on one end, and > > raising it at the other end, with more features. [The low end > > version of Office is around $100. The high end version of > > Office is around $50K. The high end is going to subsidize the > > low end.] $100 is still more expensive than free as in beer. There will certainly be a market for the $100 and the high end versions of office. IMHO, the question remains: how is Microsoft distinguishing its business plan from the business plans of Western Union, Harley Davidson, RCA, and IBM, all of whom were routed in their main product lines by a modular product which was both cheaper and "good enough" and made available through distribution channels which those companies could not control. I submit that history is against Microsoft. > > Very nice summary of why I don't fear for Microsoft's future. > That and $50 Billion in the bank - don't forget that. The difference is that Clayton Christensen's point of view is based on pretty compelling theory. And actually, does anyone know what Microsoft's cash and cash equivalents equals now, after their record-setting dividend of December? --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
