On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 07:45 -0700, Robin Laing wrote: > > Mind in 5 years I guess that a $100 client with solid state storage will > > easily hold an operating system and office productivity tools so maybe a > > web based office will be used for other reasons such as to minimise the > > use of files, to integrate information more closely with the web etc. > > Whatever the case, I can't see many people paying more for their office > > license or OS license than the whole of the cost of the device. The only > > thing that could then save margins would be to compensate for loss in > > value by increasing the product volume. If there is free access to web > > based office software and desktop computers cost < $100 and have > > pre-installed OS and Office software that is 100% compatible with the > > on-line office software who is going to pay $300 for Windows and MSO? > > If MS drop the price a factor of 10 they might stay in the game but that > > means they have to sell 10 times as much stuff to stand still. > > > > Isn't this the same person that stated that 640Mb of ram would be more > than enough? Isn't this the same person that came in late to the > Internet? Isn't this the same person that missed the search engine > boom started by Yahoo and expanded by Google?
Yes, but its also the person that has really only had two commercially successful products. An operating system and an office suite. > I do agree, Gates is worried and he has a right to be. He sees that > the potential for advertising as a revenue source is vast. It is if everyone upgrades since none of the legacy stuff has potential for adverts. Can he get $100+ in advertising revenue from every desktop to replace the loss in license fees from OEM Windows? Possibly, but then its rather like the BBC vs Commercial TV here in the UK. BBC has no advertising, commercial TV is paid by advertising. A lot of people watch sport on the BBC because its uninterupted. There are advantages not to have advertisements. I think schools might take a philosophical view that advertising is not ethical in the classroom and so some at least would switch to stuff without the advertising. > The issue > is will users be willing to put up with that. What I do see is the > price of hardware is dropping quickly. I received an ad yesterday for > an Athlon 64 system for under C$400.00 +monitor. How can I justify > spending and extra $300 just for productivity software? Especially > software that has some strange or restrictive rule about transferring > it or moving it to another computer. Especially as more and more consumer electronics devices are around that use software but just run and are much lower cost than computers. > If some of the trends I see come true, in 5-10 years, I really doubt > that I will be worrying about the cost of my computer much. > > What I see is happening is a trend for rental as a revenue source. > Many companies are starting to do this. Instead of selling you the > necessary hardware to access their services, you now rent and the > monthly fee ends up costing you allot more. Of course that headaches > of not having to worry about equipment failures is a benefit. Service providers are in fierce competition so if it costs $20 a month its probably good value. Its when there is a monopoly and a lack of competition that prices go up and stay up. MSO is getting some real competition from OOo so the prices have fallen and will continue to fall (just as OOo will continue to improve) perhaps to the point where its free apart from advertising or bundled in the cost of service provision on a monthly basis. But if the service provider can do the same with OOo and be more competitive they will. Bit without OOo I doubt MS would be producing an XML file format or considering going down the advertising route. -- Ian Lynch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ZMSL --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
