4 ms·
I agree with some points in this article, but there are dangerous points here as well. Its dubious to say that in the face of Windows and Office, Ruby is not w
by unexpected 16y ago
I agree with some points in this article, but there are dangerous points here as well.
Its dubious to say that in the face of Windows and Office, Ruby is not worth investing in - in the face of windows and Office, NOTHING is worth investing in.
This is a common business trap - why spend money on insignificant businesses when you already have giant product lines - that many companies fall into. Microsoft has already done it with Windows Mobile and IE, and is trying to avoid the same fate with its ZuneOS and Cloud Computing offerings.
- joe_the_user 16y agoMicrosoft's situation is indeed a common business trap but it's more than a conceptual trap. It's a strategic trap. MS has reached a local maximum in it's profit potential. Any change in course would impact it's "golden reputation for solid profits". A company caught in a local maximum might really be unable to escape the situation, in that the purse holders are simply unwilling to open the purse for investments on a scale necessary to get into a different position. And they have a point. "You want to take these golden goose eggs and invest in diamond mining? No, we keep the goose eggs, that's what they are there for!" IE, companies don't exist a priori to grow and grow. A company exists to grow, become profitable and return the profits to the owners hot little hands. "in the face of windows and Office, NOTHING is worth investing in." - that might indeed be true. And it might the case that the only thing MS really is throw enough money at different project to keep from seeming like the abusive rent-extractor that its market position makes it.
- berntb 16y agoYour description of those monopoly strategies reminds me of the resource curse: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse