 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
This is not my point (which I have been trying to explain to Asher).
My point is that it can make good business sense to open source part of your code. If enough companies do this there can be massive efficiency gains, which means cheaper and better software.
|
Which is exactly my point as well.
However, under the GNU license, any MODIFICATION of the GNU source, must be made available for FREE to the GNU populace. This does not stop you from using GNU software in a product. You cannot charge for the for the GNU part, but you are allowed to charge for your software that makes use of the GNU product.
Note: Apple does not charge for the Open BSD OS or the Mach kernal. It charges for all the fruit that runs on top of the free OS.
That out of the way. You are still missing my point.
Almost ALL open source software under the GNU license is created by USERS to USE and not to SELL. You don't create GNU Open source software to SELL because you can't SELL it.
That being th case, you can still make an economic case for a company to Open source it's IT development. The benefit is that you will get many more programmers working on your problem than you can afford to employ on your own. If you are willing to let any competitors use your software, and are just interested in USING your Open Source software then this could be a good strategy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
You are assuming that I think the GNU or GNU-like licenses are the only possibility for open source. I never said that. It is not an unreasonable assumption to make on your part, but it is not what I think and I didn't say it. My current opinion is that totally free software probably won't work - that doesn't mean there aren't other options.
|
Well tell that to the millions of Linux users.
Free software works. It works because the users of that software are also the developers of the software. They care less about selling as opposed to using.
This can be used by companies as well. They just need to keep the proprietary parts seperate from the free parts, ala Apple.
Your points on this are spot on. Many companies will start to take advantage of Open Source software (especially GNU free software).
Why would you pay Microsoft money for something that you can get for free.
That's what Microsoft is afraid of.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
This makes complete sense, as we all know the world will end in 3 years and MS will have no chance to make further profits...  |
The Xbox world will end in 3 years, as the Xbox's lifecycle ends in 2005...
At that point, they start over again. New R&D costs, new $500M marketing budget for the North American launch, new sky-high hardware costs, etc.
So yes, effectively the world does end in 3 years for the Xbox.
quote:
Usual Asher, misrepresenting my arguments in a desperate attempt to support his unchanging point of view. And you wonder why I don't bother any more? It's fun to wind you up and watch you go some of the time, but after a while it just makes my head hurt...  |
Explain to me how that was misrepresenting your arguments.
Your argument was MS got into the Xbox market primarily for profit. You made that painfully clear.
Think, Drake, think...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:25
|
|
Drake...
I really don't know what to say.
If you really want to continue arguing this with me, go read Opening the Xbox. It's not a terribly long book, and it'll open your eyes to MS' intentions in the market. It'll make a whole bunch of things make sense.
Further, it's absurd to think a 30% marketshare now means a 30% one next term. Further still, why do you think MS would be happy with 30%? They want it all. Either way, it may as well be 0%.
They'll need to pour tons of money into Xbox2 to gain lots of marketshare, which means it very likely won't turn a net profit either.
It just doesn't make sense for MS to enter a market for the purpose of making profit then spend billions of dollars, knowing they probably won't make them back...
It then becomes obvious, especially after reading the book I mentioned, that the reason they did it was not for profit, but to prevent Sony from dominating the living room. That's what it's about, the battle for the living room...
MS doesn't need profits from the Xbox. That's what Windows and Office are for. The Xbox's role is to protect Microsoft incase the market shifts from PCs to Living Room boxes, as Sony is trying to do...
If you still don't comprehend this, and I'm a poor thinker, I'd hate to think what you'd be classified as...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Drake Tungsten
|
 |
Knee deep in alien womyn...
Oct 2001
time: 14:25
|
|
quote:
"Momentum" carrying through is unpredictable and doesn't mean a damn thing to the corporations planning their next console. It'd be stupid for MS to rely on having carryover, even stupid for Sony to do so too. Which is why the Xbox2 will be loaded down with features again, making it expensive to make but the best value to the customer, in order to increase markethsare... |
Are you Canadian or retarded? MS is spending billions of dollars on the Xbox right now to ensure that it will carry momentum over to the next generation! The immense resources being poured into this is meant to counteract the unpredictability of the market. In order to guarantee momentum, they have to spend the money to get good games on the Xbox so that they will build a reputation for quality that will carry over to the next generation. They want the Xbox to be a PS1, not a Saturn, so they're putting in enough resources to ensure that it doesn't fail. Failure of the Xbox would ruin their plans for the Xbox 2.
If MS was really only interested in stopping Sony and its digital hub strategies, there are easier and cheaper ways of going about it. MS is spending all of this cash because they want to control the console gaming industry. If you can't see that, fine, but I'm done making my points. If you can't figure it out by now, you're never going to...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Are you Canadian or retarded? MS is spending billions of dollars on the Xbox right now to ensure that it will carry momentum over to the next generation! |
In what magical way can a company ensure momentum?
MS is spending billions of dollars on the Xbox right now to get marketshare. Yes, it will help when the Xbox is successful to make the Xbox 2 successful. This DOES NOT imply that the Xbox 2 will be profitable.
First of all, there's no way in hell Xbox will reach more than 30% marketshare before Xbox2. That's about 1/3 of what MS wants.
Obviously, MS is going to use the same tactics they used with Xbox1 to make Xbox2 go up even further in marketshare.
Eventually they will probably reach profitability, but this won't happen until marketshare is 60%+ at least, IMO. Which won't happen until Xbox2's end of life or maybe even Xbox3.
You've simply got no basis, at all, for thinking Xbox2 is profitable. All signs point to it NOT being profitable.
quote:
If MS was really only interested in stopping Sony and its digital hub strategies, there are easier and cheaper ways of going about it. |
Bullshit -- list them!
quote:
MS is spending all of this cash because they want to control the console gaming industry. If you can't see that, fine, but I'm done making my points. If you can't figure it out by now, you're never going to... |
You've changed your argument! It may be subtle to you, but it's a HUGE difference!
MS wants to control the console industry, I *COMPLETELY* agree. In fact, I've been saying this THE WHOLE TIME.
YOU were the one stating MS wanting to make tons of money off of it primarily. I was the one stating they want to control the market. The reason they want to control the market, of course, is to fend off the Sony threat -- after that's done, they can profit from it too!
Which is why I always said the Xbox is about :
1. Stopping Sony by gaining marketshare
2. Hopefully profit at some point too
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That's the dumbest thing you've said yet. 60% before they'll become profitable? What a ridiculous figure. |
Care to explain why you think it's ridiculous?
quote:
The easiest would be to support a proxy like Sega or Nintendo (or both) in the console wars. Cuts into the Playstation's marketshare without forcing MS to spend all the money needed to design, field, and promote a new console. |
Been there, done that.
MS made the Operating System for Dreamcast. MS attempted to do a joint venture with Nintendo after Sega died, who refused.
Got any others?
quote:
Again, Microsoft didn't need to get into the console business themselves in order to stop Sony's "threat". |
Again, they've tried that -- what else can they do?
Partnership with Sega? Tried that, Sega ****ed it up.
Partnership with Nintendo? Tried that, Nintendo's not interested.
What else can MS do but launch their own?
quote:
They got in because they see a growing industry and they want all the profits for themselves. |
Perhaps you should look into MS' history.
When MS enters new market segments, it's because they feel threatened by them.
Example 1: Internet Explorer. MS saw Netscape's internet browser as a threat to Windows, launched Internet Explorer to counter it.
Example 2: MSN. MS saw AOL's network (which acquired Netscape) and looked at their future plans of web services (implemented with .NET) -- saw a threat. So they launched MSN to compete with AOL.
Example 3: Xbox. You know where this one is going...
After MS counters the threat (as they see it), they then work on making that business profitable. It's MS' MO. It's how they work.
If they were concerned about profit mostly, they would have entered the hand-held game market as well.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I'd rather see you prove your 60% figure. I'm not the one throwing out numbers with no basis in reality. |
Wow.
I said "60% IMHO", it's just my estimate. There is no "proof" of it, and there is no "basis in reality" for it, it's my estimate.
And the reason I said 60% is, because after MS gains a majority at all (50%+) they'll start focusing more on profit. It's the transition period between market-dominance and profit that they've historically had. 
quote:
The Sega deal was a half-assed attempt, at best. The Windows CE environment was utter crap and all the games that used it performed horribly. And what did MS do besides that? Why didn't they lean on some developers (like EA) to encourage them to support the Dreamcast? MS gave Sega weak support all around. Either MS didn't see Sony as much of a threat, or they were already planning on going into the console biz for themselves... |
Sony wasn't much of a threat until they unveiled the PlayStation 2's plans. That's perhaps why MS' support was "half-assed". It doesn't matter at all though, that's in the past.
After Sega withdrew from the hardware market, MS had two options: Work with Nintendo, or enter the market themselves.
Nintendo wouldn't work with them at all, so they entered the market themselves.
Ironically, Nintendo has now made that mistake twice, and it toppled their monopoly. 
quote:
And go up against the Nintendo monopoly? Hell no. The chances for success are too low. |
Hardly. Sony toppled Nintendo's monopoly handily with the PSX. MS could have easily done the same thing with the GBA: The GBA itself was really poorly designed.
Poor battery life, no back-light, fairly weak StrongARM processor, very aged RAM technology (albeit very cheap). Nintendo didn't have any real competition so they cheaped out on it.
If MS came in with a backlit, Li-Ion battery, more comfortable GBA with an Intel XScale chip in it, it would have spanked the GBA all over. Or at least made a huge dent in Nintendo's marketshare.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Asher
|
|
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:25
|
|
quote:
Sega thought they could do the same thing with the GameGear, which ended up being a disaster. The fact of the matter is that Nintendo has a choke hold on all the 2-D developers who are left, as none of them are going to give up the assured profitability of the Gameboy to develop for the Xboy. |
The GameGear flopped simply because it was huge, it took a ton of batteries, its' battery life SUCKED.
If MS went with a backlit screen and LiIon battery (like Nintendo's GBA-SP now uses) a couple years before Nintendo got to it, they would have made a big splash. They'd end up being the same weight or lighter, much longer battery life, way better screen visibility, and more powerful components...
The reason Nintendo did such a poor GBA design was because this way they made the most profit off each unit.
quote:
Would people buy a Microsoft handheld with no games on it? |
Obviously they would have got game developers to do Xboy games just like they did to get Xbox games.
I'm still anxious for you to tell me some of the ways MS could have fended off the Sony threat without entering the market themselves, by the way...
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:25.
Apolyton Time is 00:25. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
18-01-2003 03:47
|