5 ms·

In summary, a retarded article bragging about billions and market share without any substance at all to dispute PG's assertion. M$ is dead, nobody fears them a

In summary, a retarded article bragging about billions and market share without any substance at all to dispute PG's assertion. M$ is dead, nobody fears them anymore, their products are no longer required, for every M$ product there are many competing products that work as well or better. Like saying IE is the best browser because it has 60% of market share without saying it had 90% a year before. Nobody uses it anymore and nobody cares. That's the real issue.

ashot 18y ago
Please don't use "M$"
- chancho 18y ago
  Is Windoze still ok? Internet Exploder?
- TweedHeads 18y ago
  From Wikipedia: M$ (Microsoft): used to emphasize the allegation that Microsoft has business practices that focus on making money rather than producing good products or looking after the end user's needs and interests. Microsoft was convicted under United States anti-trust law of taking unfair advantage of its monopoly position. Also criticized for taking advantage of loyal customers and upgrading products annually for an expensive price, thus "shafting" the people who bought last year's products. I don't see anything wrong with using M$ to imply all of the above in one simple and worldwide recognizable satiric misspelling. See also, satire
  - nailer 18y ago
    All businesses should primary focus on making money. That's what businesses do. If you'd like to draw attention to Microsoft's illegal behavavior in the market, you have to explicitly state it, a dollar sign won't be enough for most people, who think you might simply be poor and envious.
    - prewett 18y ago
      I strongly disagree that "businesses should primarily focus on making money." They should focus on solving problems or making great products. The money follows. There's a word for "primarily focusing on making money": greed. I don't think we want more greedy companies around...
      - jordyhoyt 18y ago
        I strong agree about the greed, but would like to add one more entry to what their primary focus should be on: the customer.
        jibiki 18y ago
        In what order should a company consider customers, employees, and shareholders?
        jordyhoyt 18y ago
        that order sounds pretty good to me. also, "employees" ought to be a subset of "shareholders", simplifying the prioritization a bit.
      - nailer 18y ago
        You haven't provided any justification for why focusing on making money is greedy. I would, however content that a company which is focusing on something other than making money for its shareholders is dishonest, as that is what is expected of a for-profit business.
  - scott_s 18y ago
    The problem is it introduces an implicit statement into your explicit statement. That makes it more difficult to focus discussion.
    - dschobel 18y ago
      and it makes the author sound like a fifteen year old writing l33tsp34k.
      - jordyhoyt 18y ago
        the use of "retarded" doesn't help either.
      - scott_s 18y ago
        This is true, but I felt why it interfered with discussion was more relevant.
yan 18y ago
"their products are no longer required" is a bold statement to say about a company pulling billions in profits. Ditto for "Nobody uses it anymore and nobody cares"
- randallsquared 18y ago
  > "their products are no longer required" is a bold statement to say about a company pulling billions in profits. No, it isn't. Toyota's products are not required, since they have many competitors for each. That doesn't mean that they can't make money, only that they're not a(n effective) monopoly.
  - chancho 18y ago
    Microsoft has a pretty solid monopoly in the institutional space through sheer inertia. It would take monumental will power to switch away from MS Office, let alone Windows. Startups: "Yeah fuck Microsoft, who needs em." 10,000+ employee gov't agency: "Microsoft = Computer."
    - briancooley 18y ago
      If large corporations weren't forcing Microsoft products on their users, MS's market share would shrink relatively quickly, IMO. It's not entirely dissimilar to a family that refuses to take a loved one off life support now that I think about.
      - chancho 18y ago
        If gravity wasn't forcing me onto the ground I could fly. I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that would love to move away from Microsoft, but its just reality that they can't. They are too invested in it. It would take too much money, too much time and too much political will to make a change. It's not their fault, its not even Microsoft's doing, other than being in the right place (on commodity PCs) at the right time (the '90s.) It's just the way it is.
      - likpok 18y ago

ashot 18y ago

Please don't use "M$"

chancho 18y ago
Is Windoze still ok? Internet Exploder?
TweedHeads 18y ago
From Wikipedia: M$ (Microsoft): used to emphasize the allegation that Microsoft has business practices that focus on making money rather than producing good products or looking after the end user's needs and interests. Microsoft was convicted under United States anti-trust law of taking unfair advantage of its monopoly position. Also criticized for taking advantage of loyal customers and upgrading products annually for an expensive price, thus "shafting" the people who bought last year's products. I don't see anything wrong with using M$ to imply all of the above in one simple and worldwide recognizable satiric misspelling. See also, satire
- nailer 18y ago
  All businesses should primary focus on making money. That's what businesses do. If you'd like to draw attention to Microsoft's illegal behavavior in the market, you have to explicitly state it, a dollar sign won't be enough for most people, who think you might simply be poor and envious.
  - prewett 18y ago
    I strongly disagree that "businesses should primarily focus on making money." They should focus on solving problems or making great products. The money follows. There's a word for "primarily focusing on making money": greed. I don't think we want more greedy companies around...
    - jordyhoyt 18y ago
      I strong agree about the greed, but would like to add one more entry to what their primary focus should be on: the customer.
      - jibiki 18y ago
        In what order should a company consider customers, employees, and shareholders?
        jordyhoyt 18y ago
        that order sounds pretty good to me. also, "employees" ought to be a subset of "shareholders", simplifying the prioritization a bit.
    - nailer 18y ago
      You haven't provided any justification for why focusing on making money is greedy. I would, however content that a company which is focusing on something other than making money for its shareholders is dishonest, as that is what is expected of a for-profit business.
- scott_s 18y ago
  The problem is it introduces an implicit statement into your explicit statement. That makes it more difficult to focus discussion.
  - dschobel 18y ago
    and it makes the author sound like a fifteen year old writing l33tsp34k.
    - jordyhoyt 18y ago
      the use of "retarded" doesn't help either.
    - scott_s 18y ago
      This is true, but I felt why it interfered with discussion was more relevant.

yan 18y ago

"their products are no longer required" is a bold statement to say about a company pulling billions in profits. Ditto for "Nobody uses it anymore and nobody cares"

randallsquared 18y ago
> "their products are no longer required" is a bold statement to say about a company pulling billions in profits. No, it isn't. Toyota's products are not required, since they have many competitors for each. That doesn't mean that they can't make money, only that they're not a(n effective) monopoly.
- chancho 18y ago
  Microsoft has a pretty solid monopoly in the institutional space through sheer inertia. It would take monumental will power to switch away from MS Office, let alone Windows. Startups: "Yeah fuck Microsoft, who needs em." 10,000+ employee gov't agency: "Microsoft = Computer."
  - briancooley 18y ago
    If large corporations weren't forcing Microsoft products on their users, MS's market share would shrink relatively quickly, IMO. It's not entirely dissimilar to a family that refuses to take a loved one off life support now that I think about.
    - chancho 18y ago
      If gravity wasn't forcing me onto the ground I could fly. I'm sure there are plenty of organizations that would love to move away from Microsoft, but its just reality that they can't. They are too invested in it. It would take too much money, too much time and too much political will to make a change. It's not their fault, its not even Microsoft's doing, other than being in the right place (on commodity PCs) at the right time (the '90s.) It's just the way it is.
    - likpok 18y ago