"Roy Culley" <mrloy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:fquk64-1mf.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> begin risky.vbs
> <1631394.phEcO6UhQi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> It's the end of the line for Microsoft: sorry, Mr Gates, you've just
>> been Googled
>>
>> [snip]
>
> Not a bad article overall. I liked these parts especially:
>
> If you're an old-media outfit, creating 'content' is an expensive
> business: you have to hire producers, directors, studios, actors,
> writers and a host of other low-life types, pay them good money up
> front and wait until they produce the goods. Only then can you
> start to make money from it. But the explosion of user-generated
> content suggests that there are millions of schmucks out there who
> are willing to do all this for free! So the question for the
> old-media world was: 'how do we cash in on this racket?'
>
> Oh dear, seems it is not only OSS developers that will are happy to
> give their work away. What will our wintrolls have to say about that!
> :-)
I think that it is more of a question as to whether consumers who were
expecting to hear Elton John will be satisfied with listening to John Elton
instead. Content is used to attract consumers to advertisements or to pay
for commercial free presentations. Free content may be worth every penny,
but that is not going to excite many people.
>
> The trauma of producing Vista has shaken Microsoft to the core,
> and revealed the extent to which it has become a middle-aged
> company which is poorly adapted for a net-centric world. Its
> dominance of the PC has become a wasting asset, because the PC is
> no longer the cornerstone of our information ecology. The network
> has become the computer, and it is Google, not Microsoft, that
> dominates there.
>
> MS ignored the Internet when it first became widely popular. They got
> away with it that time by using unscrupulous means. Can they do it
> again? I don't think so.
>
There are so many nits to pick regarding Microsoft. It is a wonder that
they succeeded at all. Microsoft succeeded at being the leading supplier of
operating system software for both servers and desktops, including
workstations, which were once the province of Unix suppliers. They have
created a substantial if not so profitable business in game consoles and
they make great keyboard and wireless mouse products. Is it necessary for
them to succeed in content, too? The billions still roll in for operating
systems and office automation and database software. Is that going to go
away with Google? Almost everyone uses Google for something or other, but
they use a Windows computer to access it.
> --
> Security is one of those funny things. You can talk about being "more"
> secure, but there's no such thing. A vulnerability is a vulnerability,
> and
> even one makes you just as insecure as anyone else. Security is a binary
> condition, either you are or you aren't. - Funkenbusch 1 Oct 2006
|
|
