 |
|  |
 |
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000 time: 01:29
|
|
quote: Originally posted by elijah
I think MS has a bright future, but not in operating systems, they should stick to what they do best, namely making software apps. |
Actually, the vast majority of MS's revenues come from Windows and Office sales. Nothing else even comes close, and many of MS's attempts to expand outward from those two monopolies have been money-losers. XBox, for example, is estimated to cost MS $100 on every unit sold, and hasn't caught on outside North America. MS has also been almost totally unable to get in on cell phone software; their first couple cracks at a cell phone OS were bug-ridden and have won them no allies in that market.
The harder MS pushes privacy-invading and untrustworthy schemes like Product Activation and "Trusted Computing", the more they change their licensing schemes to ass-rape their customers by forcing them to MS-dictated upgrade schedules, and the more they try to tie future products to their Windows monopoly, the more that Linux will trickle its way into general acceptance. MS Office will find itself on much more precarious ground as open-source alternatives mature, such as OpenOffice and the recently-begun Exchange-compatible project.
MS will still be king of the hill for a good decade, especially with that mammoth hoard of cash they're sitting on. After that, hard to say.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:29
|
|
OS/2 has a better chance of overtaking MS than Unix ever does.
quote: Actually, the vast majority of MS's revenues come from Windows and Office sales. Nothing else even comes close, and many of MS's attempts to expand outward from those two monopolies have been money-losers. XBox, for example, is estimated to cost MS $100 on every unit sold, and hasn't caught on outside North America. |
The Xbox lost $100 on every unit sold when it was launched two years ago, costs have come down considerably since then (to the tune of 150-170 bucks), which means MS is only losing about 30-50 bucks per unit. Interestingly, they make 50 bucks for every Halo copy sold alone...
And the Xbox has caught on everywhere but Japan. It's dethroned Nintendo in every market except Japan.
quote: The harder MS pushes privacy-invading and untrustworthy schemes like Product Activation and "Trusted Computing" |
The term is "Trustworthy Computing", and you obviously haven't the faintest clue what it is if you think it's "privacy-invading". I can't say that I'm surprised, though, most people who waste their time railing MS haven't a clue about much.
And the reason I haven't posted is because I spent the weekend at the SO's house drinking, partying, and having lots of fun.
Obviously more fun than the people in this thread have had, that's for sure. 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
Linux is a four-course feast that you have to make yourself. It will be very rewarding but you can't possibly hope to do it all correctly.
Windows is McDonald's. You don't have to do anything yourself but it's not that much better than dog ****.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Cruddy
|
|
quote: Originally posted by optimus2861
Actually, the vast majority of MS's revenues come from Windows and Office sales. Nothing else even comes close, and many of MS's attempts to expand outward from those two monopolies have been money-losers. XBox, for example, is estimated to cost MS $100 on every unit sold, and hasn't caught on outside North America... |
I've got news for you Optimus - everybody loses money on console hardware sales. Sony, Ninetendo, and Sega when they played the game.
You lose money on the hardware, and you rake it in with the software.
At current rates, MS could keep losing money on X-boxs for decades... and it still wouldn't affect their overall performance.
To make serious inroads with the Xbox though, they have to get the software base - and to get that, they have to woo the games houses into developing X-box titles.
That costs money.
It's not a question of X-box winning, it's more a case of taking 2nd place from Nintendo - sounds impossible? Well, Nintendo don't make money outside of consoles, so it's really just a matter of time... and MS deciding that the game is worth the candle.
I doubt the X-Box will oust PS2, but hey, I've been wrong before.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote: I've got news for you Optimus - everybody loses money on console hardware sales. Sony, Ninetendo, and Sega when they played the game. |
!!! A standard myth about the console gaming industry. Microsoft is the most publicised example--they lose a lot of money on each XBox they put out. Until recently, Nintendo stayed out of the losing money scheme, but I believe they started selling the Gamecube at minor losses. (A shame.) However, Sony sells PS2s at a massive profit, something like fifty to a hundred dollars per machine.
Then again, they keep the price up because 1) they know everyone is going to want and buy a PS2 even if they have to sign over their firstborn son, 2) they like money, and 3) if they suddenly dropped it a hundred bucks people would lose the irrational feeling that they're getting their money's worth.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999 time: 22:29
|
|
Also interesting: Some of you may remember UR posting a thread and dancing about talking about how Munich is buying 14,000 Linux PCs? It turns out, 80% of those are running...windows.
Also note that no thread from him exists about that, curiously. 
http://www.gartner.com/DisplayDocument?doc_cd=115336
quote: Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use
Although the Munich city council has voted to migrate its IT infrastructure to Linux, the actual migration won't start until 1Q04. If the migration succeeds, Munich's 14,000 clients would visibly boost Linux on the desktop. However, the city hasn't completed detailed planning for the migration, so don't view this announcement as proof that desktop Linux is ready for the general-purpose knowledge worker.
Munich hasn't yet disclosed the business case behind its decision. Gartner understands that Munich has many older versions of Windows installed, including Windows 3.1. We believe enterprises with very old infrastructures can cost-justify this type of migration more easily.
Gartner estimates that Munich's migration to Linux will cost around 30 million euros. It would have cost 27 million euros to upgrade Windows, before some reportedly very steep discounts from Microsoft. The business case assumes that many applications will not migrate to Linux; instead, the bulk of applications requiring Windows will probably be Web-enabled and accessed through a browser. Munich will accommodate any remaining applications using virtual machine software, such as VMware. Too many VMware implementations or other workarounds will reduce the benefits of the Linux migration, and the residual reliance on Windows would likely be higher than planned. The planned implementation is reportedly a traditional fat-client architecture.
The state of the project by year-end 2005 will better indicate Linux's maturity for the desktop and for knowledge workers in particular. If your enterprise is considering Linux, make sure that the expected benefits of migration will exceed the costs. Also, governments may take additional external factors into account in making this kind of decision — factors like local job creation or increasing local competition — that may not be relevant to your enterprise. |
More info from Paul Thurrott of Windows Magazine:
quote: And speaking about Linux stories you don't hear much from the Linux-loving mainstream press, consider the following. Remember that story about the city of Munich choosing Linux to power 14,000 desktop computers? One aspect of this story that most people don't know about is that up to 80 percent of those Linux desktops will be equipped with VMWare, a virtual machine emulator, under which they will run Windows and Windows applications. That's right, folks: The majority of those "Linux desktops" will be used to run … Windows. I'm not a big fan of Gartner, but they've issued a report, correctly titled, "Munich's Choice Doesn't Prove Linux OK for General Desktop Use," that raises some interesting issues. First, many of the Windows desktops they're migrated are very old Windows versions like Windows 3.1, making the switch to Linux less painful (it would be equally painful to switch to XP). Gartner says the cost of switching to Linux will cost 30 million Euros, or 3 million Euros more than it would cost to switch to XP, not including any steep discounts Microsoft would have no doubt provided. And finally, because most of the Linux machines will use VMWare to run Windows anyway, Linux is really being used as a hosting environment, and not as a replacement. In other words, this isn't exactly a good business case on which other companies can base a decision to migrate to Windows desktops. And, not coincidentally, that's why we're not reading about a lot of other high-profile Linux switchers. |
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Wraith
|
 |
Austin, Texas, USA
Aug 1999 time: 23:29
|
|
--"Aye, the corportations sure are getting the shaft with support for MS."
Many of them are, actually. You're just purposely misreading what he means by support.
And that TCO for Windows being lower thing isn't backed up by about half the studies I've seen. The other half being Microsoft sponsored, of course.
Corporations keep buying Microsoft for a few big reasons. One is that there is a big company behind it. Another is because it's been done that way for a long time. MS Office is another reason. Not ease of use for the most part, or features (since 99& of the users aren't going to touch 98% of the features), but the file formats.
--"Linux servers are more entry level servers, they don't scale very well."
True enough, but it has been getting better. I wouldn't say that Windows scales particularly well, either. You'd need to go with something like Solaris or OS/390 for that. Haven't really played with 2003 much yet on big boxen, though.
Wraith
"There are two major products that come out of Berkeley: LSD and UNIX.
We don't believe this to be a coincidence."
-- Jeremy S. Anderson
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mrmitchell
|
|
quote: The PS2 makes $20 per machine.
The Gamecube breaks even.
The Xbox is at like $20-$50 loss per machine.
But the N64 was a massive money-loser initially for Nintendo, as was the PSX and PS2 initially for Sony.
|
I was under the impression that Sony spent massive development costs on the PSX and PS2 and that was why they priced them to be expensive enough to turn in large profit, even to begin with.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:29. Apolyton Time is 00:29. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|