- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The REAL secret behind Microsoft iPad Apps
My ZDNet colleague, James Kendrick wrote, “Secret behind Microsoft iPad apps,” but got it totally wrong. Sorry, James, but you’re wrong on this one–way, way off, in fact. I know this because, like James, I started with Microsoft’s earliest products including DOS, Windows 286 and so on. There’s no need to battle it out over who has worked with their software the longer because there’s no real contest–we both have our histories. It is my history with Microsoft products that allows me to say how far off base James’ comments are. |
|
|
Comments (51)
Oh no! He's right.
14 earlier comments in the full thread.
> The problem is, the people running MS just can't comprehend of any way to make money without having monopoly control of things.
Bingo.
Bingo.
>If their primary goal is profit, why don't they sell it for Linux?
Maybe because they don't see any money in it.
Let's think this through for a minute:
1. "Linux" is Linux, but it's also Debian vs Red Hat vs Ubuntu vs SuSE.
A little more expensive to support than the Mac.
2. They were doing Mac software in the beginning. Office started out as a Mac app, not a Windows app. They've got a lot more experience there and a lot more tools. Easier to make money that way.
3. Let's be honest -- you don't see very many companies making money on Linux desktop software. Not at all like Apple that way. And -- what proportion of Linux Desktop users do you think would actually be open to buying Office for Linux? I know I wouldn't. LibreOffice suits me fine.
Making money is about going where the dollars are.
Maybe because they don't see any money in it.
Let's think this through for a minute:
1. "Linux" is Linux, but it's also Debian vs Red Hat vs Ubuntu vs SuSE.
A little more expensive to support than the Mac.
2. They were doing Mac software in the beginning. Office started out as a Mac app, not a Windows app. They've got a lot more experience there and a lot more tools. Easier to make money that way.
3. Let's be honest -- you don't see very many companies making money on Linux desktop software. Not at all like Apple that way. And -- what proportion of Linux Desktop users do you think would actually be open to buying Office for Linux? I know I wouldn't. LibreOffice suits me fine.
Making money is about going where the dollars are.
> Maybe because they don't see any money in it.
Possible, but given the exisitng market share, I doubt it. I think they're unwilling to do so in spite of the potential profits.
> "Linux" is Linux, but it's also Debian vs Red Hat vs Ubuntu vs SuSE.
You honestly think repacking would be a problem for Microsoft? And if it was, just support Red Hat and Debian.
> And -- what proportion of Linux Desktop users do you think would actually be open to buying Office for Linux?
Wrong question. Correct question: What proportion of existing and potential customers would be willing to pay to run a supported version of Office on Linux? We don't know, but it's almost certain that Microsoft does.
Simply put, I think (like Grishnakh) that Microsoft thinks they can only make a profit if they maintain control of the platform. They are so convinced of this that at a fundamental level control has become more important to them than current profits.
Possible, but given the exisitng market share, I doubt it. I think they're unwilling to do so in spite of the potential profits.
> "Linux" is Linux, but it's also Debian vs Red Hat vs Ubuntu vs SuSE.
You honestly think repacking would be a problem for Microsoft? And if it was, just support Red Hat and Debian.
> And -- what proportion of Linux Desktop users do you think would actually be open to buying Office for Linux?
Wrong question. Correct question: What proportion of existing and potential customers would be willing to pay to run a supported version of Office on Linux? We don't know, but it's almost certain that Microsoft does.
Simply put, I think (like Grishnakh) that Microsoft thinks they can only make a profit if they maintain control of the platform. They are so convinced of this that at a fundamental level control has become more important to them than current profits.
@jdixon -
The answer to your claim is and always has been Apple. Microsoft does not control the Apple platform. Microsoft writes software for it.
For that matter, they do web-based stuff as well, and they certainly don't control that -- although they sure did try.
Microsoft wants to control the platform just like Apple and Oracle do. Problem is, they can't.
Back in the 90s, it looked like they might, but they failed.
The answer to your claim is and always has been Apple. Microsoft does not control the Apple platform. Microsoft writes software for it.
For that matter, they do web-based stuff as well, and they certainly don't control that -- although they sure did try.
Microsoft wants to control the platform just like Apple and Oracle do. Problem is, they can't.
Back in the 90s, it looked like they might, but they failed.
@dinotrac
The reason why I think Ken is wrong is that he thinks that Microsoft will survive because it is, at heart, a software house.
I wouldn't disagree that they are a software house, but they are institutionally married to the concept of Windows as a delivery platform and a lever to getting their products to customers. They are not used to, at this point in time, having to compete on merit. Whether or not you think that their software is of a high quality, that is not why people buy it. The real reasons are more complex, and about tie-in to Windows, a perceived value for money because it is in a market dominant position, because they always have, etc, etc
Mobile has changed the game because Windows is no longer the dominant player in the mobile market, which is where all the current and future money is being funnelled. They are making some efforts, but you can see that it is not their favourite game. Where is all the blanket coverage for their mobile platform? What about Windows Phone 7 phones - where is the exposure? Why are Android phones everywhere in people's hands, on the TV and on marketing billboards? They just don't know how to market products since they have never really had to make the effort.
They need to make Windows Phone 7 cool, an attractive alternative. The little that we do see is some mud slinging in the press: absolutely pathetic.
Nokia releases a cr@p phone that hardly anyone will want.
They really do need to up their game. It can be done. Apple did it when Steve Jobs came back. But it will take a monumental corporate change to make any difference to the core of the Microsoft organisation. They have proved that change can be achieved, but historically, Microsoft has only been able to do this on the fringe of their core business. XBOX and Kinect is a good example. A new section of the organisation with no previous baggage can take whatever direction they feel like.
Telling that to Steve Ballmer and the middle-management suits in their core business areas is their biggest problem and they must change or sack a load of them otherwise that ship is going to sink.
The reason why I think Ken is wrong is that he thinks that Microsoft will survive because it is, at heart, a software house.
I wouldn't disagree that they are a software house, but they are institutionally married to the concept of Windows as a delivery platform and a lever to getting their products to customers. They are not used to, at this point in time, having to compete on merit. Whether or not you think that their software is of a high quality, that is not why people buy it. The real reasons are more complex, and about tie-in to Windows, a perceived value for money because it is in a market dominant position, because they always have, etc, etc
Mobile has changed the game because Windows is no longer the dominant player in the mobile market, which is where all the current and future money is being funnelled. They are making some efforts, but you can see that it is not their favourite game. Where is all the blanket coverage for their mobile platform? What about Windows Phone 7 phones - where is the exposure? Why are Android phones everywhere in people's hands, on the TV and on marketing billboards? They just don't know how to market products since they have never really had to make the effort.
They need to make Windows Phone 7 cool, an attractive alternative. The little that we do see is some mud slinging in the press: absolutely pathetic.
Nokia releases a cr@p phone that hardly anyone will want.
They really do need to up their game. It can be done. Apple did it when Steve Jobs came back. But it will take a monumental corporate change to make any difference to the core of the Microsoft organisation. They have proved that change can be achieved, but historically, Microsoft has only been able to do this on the fringe of their core business. XBOX and Kinect is a good example. A new section of the organisation with no previous baggage can take whatever direction they feel like.
Telling that to Steve Ballmer and the middle-management suits in their core business areas is their biggest problem and they must change or sack a load of them otherwise that ship is going to sink.
Quoting:Microsoft wants to control the platform just like Apple and Oracle do. Problem is, they can't.
Here we go again with the Oracle bashing. How has Oracle ever demonstrated that it wants to control the platform? Oracle controlling the PC platform makes about as much sense as SAP controlling the PC platform. Here's a clue: Oracle doesn't have a PC OS (like like SAP).
> Microsoft wants to control the platform just like Apple and Oracle do. Problem is, they can't.
We know that, Dino. Microsoft, however, has never accepted it. So they keep trying.
We know that, Dino. Microsoft, however, has never accepted it. So they keep trying.
@grishnakh -
Who in the Hell is bashing Oracle?
Stating the obvious -- that they are a large corporate IT company that protects its IP and seeks to extinguish competition -- hardly counts as bashing.
Who in the Hell is bashing Oracle?
Stating the obvious -- that they are a large corporate IT company that protects its IP and seeks to extinguish competition -- hardly counts as bashing.
@skelband -
Whatever Ken thinks of Microsoft's chances for survival, he didn't express in this article.
That aside, it doesn't look like you and he disagree in any fundamental way.
Microsoft is having to re-learn an old way to operate, the way it had to work before
a. owned the tech world, then b. sank back into a second rate IT company whose name is rarely mentioned when one speaks of cool new products and innovation.
It ain't gonna be easy, but their survival (at least for the foreseeable future) isn't at stake, just their fading relevance.
Whatever Ken thinks of Microsoft's chances for survival, he didn't express in this article.
That aside, it doesn't look like you and he disagree in any fundamental way.
Microsoft is having to re-learn an old way to operate, the way it had to work before
a. owned the tech world, then b. sank back into a second rate IT company whose name is rarely mentioned when one speaks of cool new products and innovation.
It ain't gonna be easy, but their survival (at least for the foreseeable future) isn't at stake, just their fading relevance.
@dino: You're the one bashing Oracle, by saying they want to "control the platform" the way MS and Apple do. What platform does Oracle even compete with? They don't have one!
What "IP" are they protecting that amounts to a "platform"? I don't see any desktop OSes for sale by Oracle. Maybe they'd like to have one and then turn it into a monopoly, but I'd like to have a secret lair in a hollowed-out volcano, and my chances of achieving that are about as likely as Oracle achieving any fantasy they might have about becoming a player in desktop OSes. Oracle does one thing, and one thing only: big databases. Everything else they've tried to get into has been a failure. How a company that does nothing except overpriced enterprise-level databases somehow warrants comments comparing it to MS and Apple is completely beyond me.
Are you going to start bashing PeopleSoft next, for their desires to create a monopoly in the desktop OS space? How about id Software?
What "IP" are they protecting that amounts to a "platform"? I don't see any desktop OSes for sale by Oracle. Maybe they'd like to have one and then turn it into a monopoly, but I'd like to have a secret lair in a hollowed-out volcano, and my chances of achieving that are about as likely as Oracle achieving any fantasy they might have about becoming a player in desktop OSes. Oracle does one thing, and one thing only: big databases. Everything else they've tried to get into has been a failure. How a company that does nothing except overpriced enterprise-level databases somehow warrants comments comparing it to MS and Apple is completely beyond me.
Are you going to start bashing PeopleSoft next, for their desires to create a monopoly in the desktop OS space? How about id Software?
I would buy an OS from iD Software a file manager by John Carmack would kick serious butt.
@girshnakh --
I must assume that you are deep into piles of Kool-Aid.
There are many platforms, and there is no reason why it needs to be an OS. Heck -- the best platforms would be OS agnostic, able to generate loot no matter what foundation they're laid over.
The whole philosophy of Oracle, down to stored procedures and moving apps into the database is a matter of controlling the platform. Buying up folks like SleepyCat and MySQL -- not to mention Sun MicroSystems is more of the same.
The difference between Oracle and Microsoft is that Oracle never managed to achieve a monopoly -- and that Oracle remains relevant.
For the moment, at least.
I must assume that you are deep into piles of Kool-Aid.
There are many platforms, and there is no reason why it needs to be an OS. Heck -- the best platforms would be OS agnostic, able to generate loot no matter what foundation they're laid over.
The whole philosophy of Oracle, down to stored procedures and moving apps into the database is a matter of controlling the platform. Buying up folks like SleepyCat and MySQL -- not to mention Sun MicroSystems is more of the same.
The difference between Oracle and Microsoft is that Oracle never managed to achieve a monopoly -- and that Oracle remains relevant.
For the moment, at least.
Quoting:the best platforms would be OS agnostic, able to generate loot no matter what foundation they're laid over.
For an aspiring monopolist, the best platform is one they can control, but which 90%+ of customers can't get away from and are forced to use somehow. M/S accomplished this because to use a PC, you need a PC OS to do anything useful with it, and they basically controlled the PC OS market.
I don't see how Oracle ever had a prayer of controlling the database market for one thing, and for another, databases are only used in certain places (such as websites, and enterprises). People using their PCs for web surfing don't generally use RDBMSes.
Quoting:The whole philosophy of Oracle, down to stored procedures and moving apps into the database is a matter of controlling the platform. Buying up folks like SleepyCat and MySQL -- not to mention Sun MicroSystems is more of the same.
Again, databases are only used in some places, such as websites and enterprises. Enterprise software has always been weird and proprietary; that's why companies like SAP and PeopleSoft can make so much money shoveling cr@pware to their customers. Websites have been using MySQL for ages, and many use PostgreSQL. Both are free. Oracle may have bought up MySQL, but it was quickly forked into MariaDB thanks to the GPL, plus Postgres is out there and purportedly superior in performance/reliability and has its own Free license. So if Oracle ever thought they could gain some significant control over the Free DB market by buying out MySQL, it was yet another example of their utter incompetence as any idiot these days who knows anything about Free software knows you can't turn a Free project into a proprietary one. As for Sun, again, that's more of the same too: the whole deal has been a disaster, whatever their intentions were. Solaris has been dying for years, and them buying it has only accelerated that process.
There's really nothing relevant about Oracle, because the danger of them succeeding in doing anything to control any platform that matters is precisely nil. They may have succeeded in getting some big enterprise customers locked into their overpriced DB, but honestly, who cares? I'm sure IBM would be happy to help them migrate to DB2 for the right price. I don't see many Free software fans wringing their hands over the customers of PeopleSoft and SAP being locked in, either. Meanwhile, all the websites out there are using (free) MySQL, Postgres, or even noSQL databases and not paying Oracle a dime.
@Grishnakh-
Sounds like you are getting all worked up over nothing -- and by your own admission.
Your whole argument seems to boil down to this: Oracle was unable to do what Microsoft managed.
Sounds like you are getting all worked up over nothing -- and by your own admission.
Your whole argument seems to boil down to this: Oracle was unable to do what Microsoft managed.
@Grishnakh -
So...is this story:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canonical-Will-Remove-Java-Fr...
Just more Oracle-bashing?
So...is this story:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canonical-Will-Remove-Java-Fr...
Just more Oracle-bashing?
Your whole argument seems to boil down to this: Oracle was unable to do what Microsoft managed.
So were PeopleSoft, SAP, id Software, Gibson Research, Lotus, Kapersky, and countless other software vendors who have never even tried to any real extent. So why all the hate for this one company?
So...is this story: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canonical-Will-Remove-Java-Fr... Just more Oracle-bashing?
Yes, they suck; this was never in question. The question was how dangerous are they, and do their actions and their status warrant placing them alongside MS and (more and more these days) Apple? My contention is "no". In fact, this news item is the only really evil (or at least highly annoying) anti-OSS thing they've done that I can think of, and this hadn't even happened during our prior conversations and all the previous bashing of Oracle. So, you still haven't answered what they've done (prior to this event) that's so horrible to the cause of free and open software, that places them on a level with Microsoft whose anti-OSS actions you could literally write a book about (patent attacks, SCO, etc. etc.). At the very most, this latest action by Oracle brings them up to the level of Adobe, but I never see anyone complaining about Adobe like they're as bad as MS (at least after the Sklyarov incident died down, but that was what, 8 years ago?). Heck, before this recent event, I would have placed Novell (before the sale to Attachmate, though it looks like AM isn't doing any better) at a higher level on the "evil company" list than Oracle, because of their patent agreement with MS. Why wasn't Novell on your list?
So were PeopleSoft, SAP, id Software, Gibson Research, Lotus, Kapersky, and countless other software vendors who have never even tried to any real extent. So why all the hate for this one company?
So...is this story: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Canonical-Will-Remove-Java-Fr... Just more Oracle-bashing?
Yes, they suck; this was never in question. The question was how dangerous are they, and do their actions and their status warrant placing them alongside MS and (more and more these days) Apple? My contention is "no". In fact, this news item is the only really evil (or at least highly annoying) anti-OSS thing they've done that I can think of, and this hadn't even happened during our prior conversations and all the previous bashing of Oracle. So, you still haven't answered what they've done (prior to this event) that's so horrible to the cause of free and open software, that places them on a level with Microsoft whose anti-OSS actions you could literally write a book about (patent attacks, SCO, etc. etc.). At the very most, this latest action by Oracle brings them up to the level of Adobe, but I never see anyone complaining about Adobe like they're as bad as MS (at least after the Sklyarov incident died down, but that was what, 8 years ago?). Heck, before this recent event, I would have placed Novell (before the sale to Attachmate, though it looks like AM isn't doing any better) at a higher level on the "evil company" list than Oracle, because of their patent agreement with MS. Why wasn't Novell on your list?
Quoting: So why all the hate for this one company?
??
Who hates companies? Waste of karma.
@dinotrac:
What I take issue with is Ken's assertion that the poster to which he was referring was incorrect in his original article. I actually agree with the original article and therefore disagree with Ken.
The original article basically is asserting that MS will be hurt by platforms where their software is not the de facto choice fpr most people. If you have an iPad or an Android device or anything that doesn't run Windows, then your first port of call is NOT Microsoft for your software. This is a radical new situation for MS and I think they are going to feel some real hurt from it since this is the big expanding market that Microsoft is not a significant part of.
What I take issue with is Ken's assertion that the poster to which he was referring was incorrect in his original article. I actually agree with the original article and therefore disagree with Ken.
The original article basically is asserting that MS will be hurt by platforms where their software is not the de facto choice fpr most people. If you have an iPad or an Android device or anything that doesn't run Windows, then your first port of call is NOT Microsoft for your software. This is a radical new situation for MS and I think they are going to feel some real hurt from it since this is the big expanding market that Microsoft is not a significant part of.
@skelband --
Frankly, I don't see much difference between the two articles.
They say more or less the same thing, and it's a painfully obvious thing.
Yes, Microsoft will be hurt by the proliferation of new platforms beyond its control. How can that not be true?
Microsoft will respond by supporting platforms it deems important. What choice does it have?
Whether or not Microsoft will ever again be relevant -- that's a good question.
Frankly, I don't see much difference between the two articles.
They say more or less the same thing, and it's a painfully obvious thing.
Yes, Microsoft will be hurt by the proliferation of new platforms beyond its control. How can that not be true?
Microsoft will respond by supporting platforms it deems important. What choice does it have?
Whether or not Microsoft will ever again be relevant -- that's a good question.
I'll be darned.
For the heckuvit, I went back and read both Kendrick and Hess pieces.
Big Doh! moment.
Here's why:
THEY ARE SAYING THE SAME THING!!!!!
Kendrick says Microsoft is just worried that people will discover alternatives to Office, and --- Duh! --- that's what happens when you don't have a product on the platforms people are using.
Ken Hess says Microsoft is in business to sell software and that's why they are putting out iPad apps.
Yes. There ain't no room between those positions because --- it's really just two different ways of stating the same position.
(Sound of painful repeated head slapping)
Big Doh! moment.
Here's why:
THEY ARE SAYING THE SAME THING!!!!!
Kendrick says Microsoft is just worried that people will discover alternatives to Office, and --- Duh! --- that's what happens when you don't have a product on the platforms people are using.
Ken Hess says Microsoft is in business to sell software and that's why they are putting out iPad apps.
Yes. There ain't no room between those positions because --- it's really just two different ways of stating the same position.
(Sound of painful repeated head slapping)
No, you were right the first time. We're saying different things. I'm saying it's business as usual. He's saying they're fighting for air.
@khess
When is ZDNet going to acknowledge the Download.com story?
When is ZDNet going to acknowledge the Download.com story?
Thanks for the explanation, Ken. As usual, you get it wrong. This isn't "business as usual". While Microsoft may not be grasping for air, they are having to adjust their business model to one where they don't control the platform anymore. They are having to learn how to succeed in a world where they don't have a monopoly or near-monopoly share of the market for once. For Microsoft, that is anything but business as usual.
Oh, and BernardSwiss asks a fair question. Are we going to see an answer? I'm not holding my breath for one.
Oh, and BernardSwiss asks a fair question. Are we going to see an answer? I'm not holding my breath for one.
@caitlyn,
'Re-learn' might be a better choice than 'learn'. I remember MS as that small company by the UNM stadium in Albuquerque that wrote compilers for CP/M OS microcomputers.
They made their name writing software for platforms they did not control, they just have to get back to their scrappy, upstart, competitive roots. I wonder if they have what it takes?
'Re-learn' might be a better choice than 'learn'. I remember MS as that small company by the UNM stadium in Albuquerque that wrote compilers for CP/M OS microcomputers.
They made their name writing software for platforms they did not control, they just have to get back to their scrappy, upstart, competitive roots. I wonder if they have what it takes?
I don't have anything to do with what ZDNet acknowledges or doesn't.
@Caitlyn - as usual you don't understand business or the English language.
@Caitlyn - as usual you don't understand business or the English language.
I don't understand business? Really? My customers would disagree and, considering that my business is growing, I'd say you have no evidence to back up such a ludicrous claim. What part of English don't I understand, Ken? Stop hurling insults and show me where I'm wrong. You can't, of course, so you go into attack mode. If you want me to believe that what you write isn't drivel then support it with reasoned arguments.
Oh, wait a minute, the whole article is an attack on another writer. For you, the attack and the resulting controversy seem to be the whole point. It keeps the page hits up, right? Facts? Who needs facts when you can stir the pot?
Oh, wait a minute, the whole article is an attack on another writer. For you, the attack and the resulting controversy seem to be the whole point. It keeps the page hits up, right? Facts? Who needs facts when you can stir the pot?
I'm not the first to hurl insults.
> I'm not the first to hurl insults.
Agreed. But if you had your way, I'm sure you'd be the last.
Agreed. But if you had your way, I'm sure you'd be the last.
__..._
__..._
,-` `',
,'
/ |
,' ,
,' ,/-'`
_ ./ ,.'`/
.-` `^_,.'` / `__
7 / / _,._,.,_,.-'.` `
A __/ ,-```-`` `, `, ` ,`)
^-` / ` ,/
( , ,_ ,-,_,<`
__ T--` `''` ``` _,
_/|_ ,.-` | |
_/ | |T_ _,'Y / +--,_
<``` _/_/ `\_/ / `
/ ,-- ` _,--,_`----` _,,_
/ ` | <_._._ > ` ` `
| | , ` | |
V| | | |`
/ / /
x _ | /-` /
`-,| ,/--` /`
x_ _ /--'` , /
x_ `` ,,/` `
`-,_,-' ,'`
_| |`
( `-``/``/`_/
`-`-,.-.-`
[editor: comment removed due to violation of the LXer TOS paragraph 6:
"6. Do not place any material on our service that could be considered offensive, indecent, abusive, hateful, harassing, libelous, profane, vulgar or unlawful. Our audience tends to be professional in nature, and we have the right, but not the obligation, to remove, edit, or relocate any content that we feel violates the standards of our site."]
"6. Do not place any material on our service that could be considered offensive, indecent, abusive, hateful, harassing, libelous, profane, vulgar or unlawful. Our audience tends to be professional in nature, and we have the right, but not the obligation, to remove, edit, or relocate any content that we feel violates the standards of our site."]
Quoting:[editor: comment removed due to violation of the LXer TOS paragraph 6]
Hay Grinch, why don't you take a break til next year.
I don't know if you enjoy calling people names or what, but you are getting too annoying this time of the year.
http://www.google.com/search?q=grinch&hl=en&sa=X&prmd=imvns&...
Hess and Caitlyn are both right to a degree.
Hess's point about MS Office for Mac is valid - MS has probably sold millions of copies over time to that platform - in that way, MS simply follows the market trend and sells to whoever the potential customers are, without regard to platform.
However, Caitlyn's point about MS having to "adjust their business model to one where they don't control the platform anymore" is valid when you look at several other lines of MS business. Especially in the area of video games, where MS could make a fortune selling some of their top games for other platforms such as the PS3 or the Wii, many of the best MS video games are only released for the MS-controlled XBox platform.
Probably a better description of MS is that the company is so large, and is involved in so many different product areas, that business decisions cannot always exclusively be geared to promote their own platforms. And to Hess's point - although it is business as usual for some MS units to write some software for other platforms, Kendrick's assertion that MS is "fighting for air" could well apply to specific business units within the company.
Hess's point about MS Office for Mac is valid - MS has probably sold millions of copies over time to that platform - in that way, MS simply follows the market trend and sells to whoever the potential customers are, without regard to platform.
However, Caitlyn's point about MS having to "adjust their business model to one where they don't control the platform anymore" is valid when you look at several other lines of MS business. Especially in the area of video games, where MS could make a fortune selling some of their top games for other platforms such as the PS3 or the Wii, many of the best MS video games are only released for the MS-controlled XBox platform.
Probably a better description of MS is that the company is so large, and is involved in so many different product areas, that business decisions cannot always exclusively be geared to promote their own platforms. And to Hess's point - although it is business as usual for some MS units to write some software for other platforms, Kendrick's assertion that MS is "fighting for air" could well apply to specific business units within the company.
I hope my Grinch cartoon didn't offend, I just thought we needed a laugh here.
My apologies if my ascii art ruffled feathers.
Séan
My apologies if my ascii art ruffled feathers.
Séan
[editor: comment removed for TOS violation. User has lost LXer membership privileges.]
Quoting:[editor: comment removed for TOS violation.
I wasn't defending Ken Hess and NO, I don't approve of anyone calling people names including YOU. I just thought your comment was extremely offensive and there was no reason for it.
[editor: comment removed for TOS violation.
I think I hear Scott warming up his steel-toed butt-kickers.
Comments on this story are closed.
OK, Dino. I'll bite. You've seen the slide where Microsoft says the Linux installed desktop share is about the same size as that of Apple's. Now, they sell Office for the Mac. If their primary goal is profit, why don't they sell it for Linux?