3 ms·

Of course they cut deals with educational and government institutions. It's just good business to do so. Expose the students to your products and there's a good

by jm4 18y ago

Of course they cut deals with educational and government institutions. It's just good business to do so. Expose the students to your products and there's a good chance they will buy them later because they already know them. Besides, they can write these deals off as donations and benefit from the good PR. Numerous companies operate like this. Schools, especially, have traditionally been Apple's territory. Do you really think cash-strapped schools are paying retail for those Macs? Microsoft is not alone here and despite the fact that we can cite cases of corruption the practice itself is not necessarily corrupt. It is merely a marketing tactic of early exposure and high profile usage. The result is genuine interest among paying customers. The type of work that I do exposes me to many types of web technologies at many different organizations. This is purely anecdotal, but there is real interest in Silverlight among heavy users of Microsoft technologies. Adoption is very low right now, but there are quite a few shops testing the waters. And why not? If you don't care about multi-platform interoperability it's actually pretty nice. If I had to guess I'd say there are more shops like that out there than ones who develop platform-independent applications. I think this is a very bad idea, but these organizations are making a conscious decision to operate like this. They could just as easily choose to use platform-independent and open source tools, but they're not doing it. Microsoft isn't paying them all.

Create 18y ago
And why not? Because of software patents. Microsoft isn't paying them all. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation".
- jm4 18y ago
  Because of software patents. Did you completely miss the point I was trying to make? You and I may not like Microsoft products because of their proprietary nature, but there are plenty of customers making a conscious decision to use them despite this. In fact, quite a few of them probably choose Microsoft specifically because of this. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation". I don't even know where to start here. I'm going to completely overlook that "innovation" remark because your poor use of the English language makes it impossible for me to figure out what you're trying to say. Do you realize that you've contradicted yourself here? First, you cite examples of Microsoft paying people off to use their software. Now they are threatening them if they don't pay? Which one is it? If what you're getting at is all that BSA nonsense I'll bite on that. The companies that get bullied by Microsoft and the BSA have chosen to use Microsoft software. Many of them are using it illegally. Either way, that's something they have opened themselves up to by using Microsoft software. Do I think it sucks? Absolutely. That's why I choose my software carefully. Microsoft is not like the Mafia showing up at your door demanding money as soon as you set up shop. They are demanding money - whether right or wrong - from people already using their software. Ten years ago your arguments would have held a lot more water. I may have even made those arguments myself. But things have changed considerably over the last several years. We have real alternatives to Microsoft software. In many cases we have acceptable interoperability between Microsoft products and their open source equivalents. The fact is you can get by in a mostly Windows world without ever touching a Microsoft product so I tend to think the primary cause of complaints like these is the stupidity of the people who still use software that doesn't fulfill their needs.

by jm4 18y ago

Create 18y ago

And why not? Because of software patents. Microsoft isn't paying them all. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation".

jm4 18y ago
Because of software patents. Did you completely miss the point I was trying to make? You and I may not like Microsoft products because of their proprietary nature, but there are plenty of customers making a conscious decision to use them despite this. In fact, quite a few of them probably choose Microsoft specifically because of this. No, it is threatening them all if they don't pay. In the name of "innovation". I don't even know where to start here. I'm going to completely overlook that "innovation" remark because your poor use of the English language makes it impossible for me to figure out what you're trying to say. Do you realize that you've contradicted yourself here? First, you cite examples of Microsoft paying people off to use their software. Now they are threatening them if they don't pay? Which one is it? If what you're getting at is all that BSA nonsense I'll bite on that. The companies that get bullied by Microsoft and the BSA have chosen to use Microsoft software. Many of them are using it illegally. Either way, that's something they have opened themselves up to by using Microsoft software. Do I think it sucks? Absolutely. That's why I choose my software carefully. Microsoft is not like the Mafia showing up at your door demanding money as soon as you set up shop. They are demanding money - whether right or wrong - from people already using their software. Ten years ago your arguments would have held a lot more water. I may have even made those arguments myself. But things have changed considerably over the last several years. We have real alternatives to Microsoft software. In many cases we have acceptable interoperability between Microsoft products and their open source equivalents. The fact is you can get by in a mostly Windows world without ever touching a Microsoft product so I tend to think the primary cause of complaints like these is the stupidity of the people who still use software that doesn't fulfill their needs.