|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Great discourse Kent, and all-so-true.
Anyone questioning this, just take a look at Sun Microsystems stock (the
creators of Java) versus Microsoft over the past 3 years.
Microsoft did everything in their power to "kill" Java in the
browser......from setting default browser settings to disable Java applets,
to no longer upgrading the browser JVM which essentially made Java applet
development totally worthless as new Java features could not be incorporated
under Internet Explorer that gained an 80%+ market share !!!
Now Microsoft is cloning the only good thing going for Java, J2EE..the Java
web dev platform.
Yep, .NET and C# is all-too-J2EE-like to be considered innovative.
Hail to Bill Gates, King of the Cloners.
Jeers to the Justice Department, they're too stupid to understand what is
going on here.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kent Rollins [mailto:kentr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 26, 2002 10:56 AM
> To: OmegaList
> Subject: Re: Cost of in-house trading software development
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
|