60 percent skipping Vista, so Ballmer looks to Apple

I ran into this thread from the Linux Link Tech Show forum and well.....

http://thelinuxlink.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=3207

I have to say that I agree with what Dan's arguing. The question to me at this point is this: Does more focus need to be put on Apple? That's the same argument that Mark Shuttleworth has brought up as well.

Ummm..

A. Microsoft's original stock holdings were more symbolic than anything, a block of non-voting shares that have since been sold.

B. Apple does not have market power. Apple is, for all intents and purposes, Nintendo, Sony, IBM, Sun, Oracle, Adobe or anybody else who sells non-free software.

Big freakin' deal.

dino,

Got a link for A concerning the selling of said stock?

B. You're kidding, right? Tell that to Hollywood and most newspaper businesses across the country.

A. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL

B.

Um ... Yeah. Just because they choose to use Apple doesn't mean they have to. Lots of WIndows software out there. Apple stuff just happens to be better. And that don't break no laws.

Quoting:HP's revelation, made at the launch of a new range of business notebooks, flies in the face of Microsoft's persistent PR claims that Vista has sold tens of millions of copies — and is selling at a faster rate than XP ever did.

However, HP explained how Microsoft is coming up with these "Vista" sales figures.

"From the 30th of June, we have no longer been able to ship a PC with a XP licence," said Jane Bradburn, Market Development Manager, Commercial Notebooks for HP Australia.

"However, what we have been able to do with Microsoft is ship PCs with a Vista Business licence but with XP pre-loaded. That is still the majority of business computers we are selling today."

So, in other words, Microsoft counts a sale for Vista, even though the computer manufacturer has really sold XP.

http://apcmag.com/xp_still_killing_vista_in_sales_volume_hp....

Nasty, but nothing new. This has been rumored for quite some time now and MS has acknowledged that it's possible/legal to do this. However, now that HP confirms it's doing this on a massive scale I wonder if MS shareholders or maybe even the SEC will start making noise. After all, MS has been boasting these incredible sales numbers for Vista and the financial predictions and expectations presented my MS are based off this. Misrepresentation? Shareholder suits? Who knows. I hope so actually.

Let's bring popcorn and see what happens :-)

I was surprised to go into WalMart last weekend and see a bunch of systems from various vendors on the shelves (Compaq, Emachines, Dell) and all but one offered XP, not Vista. This in spite of the fact that XP is supposedly gone.

You know Vistar is bad when it makes XP look good, LOL! And I'll take some of that popcorn, hopefully we'll see someone's head on the chop. :)

Quoting:It’s worth remembering, though, that retailers aren’t officially allowed to charge for copies of XP any more; instead, for each of these ‘loophole’ sales, the seller has to pay the relevant license fee for Vista to Microsoft. So while it’s misleading to suggest 180 million people have intentionally gone out and bought a copy of Vista to run, Microsoft is still getting the cash in its pocket.

http://vista.blorge.com/2008/07/29/hp-challenges-vista-sales...

OK, so they count WinXP sales as Vista sales. But looking at it from a different angle, they are selling XP - because that's what the consumer asks for and that's what he gets - but the consumer also gets Vista. So it sounds like Vista is 'bundled' with XP these days to me. Then, here's my question:

How is it that Microsoft is not allowed to tie IE or WMP to XP but it is allowed to tie Vista to XP? Or is it because the formal sale (Vista + free XP) is different from the real-world sale (XP + free Vista) that it is allowed?