Core bussiness practices at Microsoft
|
| Author | Content | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| tadelste Dec 30, 2005 11:17 AM UTC |
If you look at Microsoft's business model their core should be creating great software. But, they have added another core to their business: Protect the monopoly at all costs. |
||
| jimf Dec 30, 2005 3:09 PM UTC |
Hell, looking back to their original Dos acquisition, the business model has never been to 'create' anything. Market share has always been the goal. | ||
| number6x Dec 30, 2005 3:48 PM UTC |
jimf, even before microsoft Billy G went dumpster diving to steal the code to write his basic compiler. he didn't even create before there was a microsoft. |
||
| Bob_Robertson Dec 30, 2005 7:09 PM UTC |
Before one condemns the officers of Microsoft, remember that they are a publicly held company. If they didn't make every effort to maintain the value of their stock, they could be sued individually by those stockholders. While it may seem reprehensible to buy influence in government, it is in fact one very effective method of enhancing "shareholder value". Making good software is not Microsoft's primary duty as a company. Their singular duty is to enhance shareholder value. Neil Stevenson in _Cryptonomicon_ does a wonderful job of illustrating this point. It's also a great nerd-read. On Gates, he's never actually innovated just as Number6x states. They stole BASIC, bought DOS, copied WINDOWS, "borrowed" NT. The only product they really created was OS/2, but they abandoned it because IBM owned some too and Microsoft doesn't share. |
||
| jimf Dec 30, 2005 10:32 PM UTC |
Bob_Robertson wrote: The only product they really created was OS/2 In everything I have ever read on this, OS/2 was suposed to be a joint project, but, IBM Engineers were the one's who did most (i suspect all) of the coding. Certainly after v1.03 that as true. |
||
| tadelste Dec 30, 2005 10:46 PM UTC |
Bob_Robertson:
Puh-lease. They are only required to make offers and acceptances for goods and services, exchange consideration, it must be within the law and they must demonstrate capacity and ethical conduct. I don't think any stockholder except Vinnie "the fist" Ratillio, would expect them to behave the way they do. Just because the law lets them get away with things no one else does, doesn't mean they're doing right by anyone -including their shareholders. If I was their CPA, I'd through the Sarbanes Oxley book at them. How come they have the highest gross profit of any enterprise in America. Only the cocaine dealers have higher gross margins. If it's too good to be true it probably is. They're scumbags and no justification can change that. Money as God won't get anyone to heaven, brother. |
||
| Bob_Robertson Dec 31, 2005 4:00 PM UTC |
Jimf, likely the key reason why OS/2 was stable and reliable, as opposed to Windows. Tadelste, I didn't say I agreed with their methods, only that they are indeed making an effort (a vile, putrid effort) to fulfil their primary task: Maintain the bottom line. They have the highest profit margin because they sell $.30 CDs for $300. I cannot say that I wouldn't do exactly the same thing if I could. Don't let your disgust with Microsoft's methods distract you: Government influence is available for sale. If it weren't, Microsoft with all their billions couldn't buy it. Microsoft is a bidder in the market, but so are many, many others. Eliminate the source of the problem. |
||
| tadelste Dec 31, 2005 4:46 PM UTC |
Bob: The goal of financial management of any company is to maximize the value of the company. But it has to be legal. | ||
| Bob_Robertson Jan 01, 2006 1:52 PM UTC |
Tadeslte, what isn't legal about it? I'm quite certain that the terms and values of the contributions are quite legal, that's why lobyists and politicians are most often lawyers. Just nit-picking, I do understand what you mean. Just remember who it is who decides what is and isn't "legal": Politicians and lawyers. |
||
| tadelste Jan 01, 2006 6:52 PM UTC |
The laws exist. It's up to government regulators to enforce them or someone can take them to court if they can afford it. The existence of their $ 180 million anti Linux slush fund is legal in the US but not legal in the EU. We'll see if the EU can see past all the other crap they have going with Microsoft to enforce their own anti-trust rules. |
||
| Bob_Robertson Jan 01, 2006 11:26 PM UTC |
Agreed, it will be interesting to watch. This year seems to be a watershed, with both Microsoft and SCO reaching the ends of their ropes. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!