|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Well "Jen"
You said:
>I don't know how you can say they don't innovate
>though. From their Windows platform
and then you said:
>Do you think Apple innovates?
>Mac was a rip off from Xerox but it added stuff and
>introduced the retail world to a windows platform.
So Apple was "ripping off" Xerox, but Microsoft was "innovating" with
Windows. I see. Microsoft gets credit for being "innovative" by
introducing a GUI OS years after Apple (and Xerox) even though Windows was
drowning in mediocrity at for half of it's life and was half as good until
almost a decade later. I remember seeing a sig on this mailing list that
said "You have moved your mouse. Please reboot for changes to take effect."
Every Windows user knows where that comes from.
You said:
>Mac was a rip off from Xerox but it added stuff and
Then you said:
>And innovation costs BIG $$$. Innovation by
>your definition equates to R&D and huge risk. Taking
>smaller perhaps well tested ideas and making them into
>something big is not a bad way to build software
Finally you said:
>they build software that people can use. They are
>spending more on RD now than any other time in their
>history. What more evidence do you want?
(Setting aside the assertion that you have provided "evidence".) Innovation
is a simple process of giving proper resources to creative people and then
getting out of the way. It doesn't always have to "cost BIG $$$". And
let's be clear that spending "big $$$" doesn't guarantee success. You
mention Xerox above, a company just now coming out of bankruptcy. In the
60's, Xerox was making more money than they knew what to do with so they
established PARC. In the 60's, 70's, and 80's, Xerox did almost nothing but
research yet today they are emerging from bankruptcy. Why? Because there
is a big difference between R&D and product development.
The money Microsoft spends on research does not translate into better
products. Microsoft's hiring practices are the problem. They hire armies
right off the boat and out of college. Armies don't innovate. Armies
consolidate. And armies full of newbies consolidate sloppily.
>to their megalithic .net development platform.
>They're all innovative new products for the pc world.
Ever heard of Java? And have you used any .Net? I have. Some of the high
level classes I have been using have some serious and obvious flaws in their
functional interfaces. They were clearly implemented by wet-behind-ears
programmers.
>And what about all the digital pad stuff coming out of
>MSFT. That's all new stuff that MSFT is designin
>virtually from scracth. So they do innovate A LOT.
Ever heard of the Apple Newton? My MessagePad 2000 is still serving me well
everyday. I'm glad Jobs is back at Apple but I wanted to kill him when he
pulled the plug on Newton. There were PDA's before the Newton, but the
Tablet PC (Microsoft) is just Microsoft getting around to the PDA market. I
went to a Tablet PC demo last week and it looks good (although his tablet
did lock up once during the 30 minute demo which prompted a question from
the audience "How do you reboot the tablet?"). I will probably get a Tablet
PC in the near future but I wonder how long it will be before a message pops
up that says "You have moved you pen. Please reboot for changes to take
effect."
>So people need to drop the old ideas spread by
>netscape and Sun lovers and start seeing things for
>the way things are.
You mean the Netscape that popularized the web browser? And Sun that
popularized the write-once, run-anywhere concept? Those two companies kept
Bill Gates awake at night because he missed the boat on both of those
concepts. But with a little anti-competitive marketing (in the case of
Netscape) and some good old competitor stupidity (in the case of Sun), Bill
was able to use the Windows cash cow to create competing products and
out-LAST (not out-compete, not out-program, not out-innovate) his
nightmares.
The margins on Microsoft's operating groups were released last week. I
think it was 80-something% for the Operating Systems group and ditto for the
Office Applications group. That is Microsoft's sole guarantee of industry
dominance. It's also the clearest indication of a market crying out for
competition.
For the record, I have spent my entire professional career (since 1987)
writing software for Microsoft operating systems. Every box in my house
(12) runs a Microsoft operating system. And I have never hated Microsoft
because they were big. I have hated Microsoft because they created mediocre
software. I have hated Microsoft because they used anti-competitive tactics
to drive true innovators out of the market. And after I read about
Palladium a few months ago, I now hate Microsoft because Bill Gates wants to
control (and presumably charge me for) every packet of data that comes into
or goes out of my computers.
I don't let my hatred blind me. Don't let your love blind you.
Kent
----- Original Message -----
From: "Calandra Sikes" <jen450us@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: Cost of in-house trading software development
Kent,
Precisley my point. Microsoft has always looked for
ideas that sold well somewhere else then implemented
them on the PC. In "overcrowded markets" that are
active and have players. Trying to establish a market
is a lot more risky and usual death wish.
I don't know how you can say they don't innovate
though. From their Windows platform, to their
software features, to their implementation inside the
software, to the features and adaptation to windows,
to their keybaords and mouses with the little scroll
wheel, to their megalithic .net development platform.
They're all innovative new products for the pc world.
You obviously hate MSFT and have a thing against them.
But they do innovate. Do you think Apple innovates?
Mac was a rip off from Xerox but it added stuff and
introduced the retail world to a windows platform.
Yet everyone says Apple innovates. True innovation as
it sounds like you define it doesn't come along every
day. And innovation costs BIG $$$. Innovation by
your definition equates to R&D and huge risk. Taking
smaller perhaps well tested ideas and making them into
something big is not a bad way to build software
though people who hate you will always criticize no
matter what. Espically is you're succesfull.
And as for MSFT building some of the best software --
they do. They do it better than anyone else in
Windows. I love MSFT software and I've tried the
others. The other crud that's out there with their
layers nad layers of toolbars, and menus and windows
in confusing at best and unworkable at worst. MSFT
software isn't perfect, but it's better than most
other stuff.
And what about all the digital pad stuff coming out of
MSFT. That's all new stuff that MSFT is designin
virtually from scracth. So they do innovate A LOT.
So people need to drop the old ideas spread by
netscape and Sun lovers and start seeing things for
the way things are.
Microsoft out builds, out designs, out innovates and
out performs the competition. They can out last the
competition because they build great sofwtware that
people respond to and are willing to pay up for.
Corporatins wouldn't buy itif it didn't work or help
them. MSFT spends millions every year making sure
they build software that people can use. They are
spending more on RD now than any other time in their
history. What more evidence do you want?
Their software isn't perfect but no software is. MSFT
has cotninued to build on their success in version
after version and steadily taken marketshare because
their products not only equals the competition does
but they do it better in mosat cases.
|