RE: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing
Paul, (01)
Thanks for your message. (02)
Diffusion of common operating systems technology and frictionless
syndication has played a large part in creating the $1.24 trillion dollars
spent annually on IT. (03)
Like all legitimate business propositions, MS, with all its warts, has
created many multiples more of wealth for others that it has taken. That's
the fact Jack. (04)
BTW, that figure is 'commercial grade' and specifically excludes
entertainment software, education software, telephony, video or audio, etc.
Those markets are massive -- surprisingly large, and MS doesn't really have
a foothold. It is, however, a significant enabler. (05)
These staggering numbers make the MS share even smaller, and less
significant. (06)
Look, do you think millions of developers, service providers, hardware
vendors, users, etc., have been duped? They aren't chumps. They are
apparently successful and happy, to the note of $1065B, with only a TINY,
miniscule share-of-wallet for the demon MS. (07)
Having said that, the reality of the democratic Web is -just- beginning to
hit the MS product cycles. To wit, (08)
"Partners can make or break .Net," Governor said. (09)
-and- (010)
"It's a major overhaul. We get a chance about once a decade to take
everything we've learned and create a new way of building applications,"
said John Montgomery, group product manager for Microsoft's .Net Developer
Platform. (011)
This is the soft white underbelly of MS. The transition will be far more
difficult than they think. It like the shift from a mainframe perspective to
a PC perspective. Your last great so-called computing monopoly, IBM,
cratered badly during this transition. Ironically, it created your next
hobgoblin, MS. (012)
And so it goes. (013)
The real point of the message was try to ameliorate the clinical
preoccupation with MS in ba-ohs-talk. It is dysfunctional and a real bore.
It does not advance OHS one whit. It is distracting and paranoid. (014)
Should we change the name to ba-MS-'axe-to-grind'-talk@bootstrap.org? (015)
Also note that Microsoft is fundamentally a Sales and Marketing company,
not a software company. Expecting software innovation from them is a
farce. (016)
Let's try and move the ball forward and stay on-topic. (017)
Cheers, (018)
John (019)
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
[mailto:owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Paul Fernhout
Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 8:26 PM
To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
Subject: Re: [ba-ohs-talk] Re: Rethinking Licensing (020)
John- (021)
But it is the core 11% -- based on controlling a 90%+ OS share and a
90%+ key office application suite share which just about every other
application rests on. That other 89% is for the most part playing
catchup to Microsoft and jumps through whatever hoops Microsoft holds up
-- either technical or legal.
> Well, I can see that this is a hot button issue. (022)