| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Gartner: How Microsoft will handle the Linux threat | |
|
||
| Time: 08:36 EST/13:36 GMT | News Source: TechRepublic | Posted By: Robert Stein | ||
|
As Linux continues its move into the enterprise, how will Microsoft change its strategy? Because of Microsoft's enormous market influence, CIOs and many other executives are interested in insights on the software giant's likely moves. Microsoft's attitude toward competition has changed as a result of Linux and other open source software. Its business tactics are changing to focus on areas that have not been Microsoft's traditional strengths. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:44:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8589 (67.65.86.116) at 5/15/2003 12:20:41 PM |
|
What threat? When installing a single RPM can cause the system to go down, and not reboot, I don't call that a threat. Redhat is now charging for automatic updates. I don't call that a threat. Intel and Visioneer have devices that won't run under Linux. I don't call that a threat.
(I could go on, but I don't want to be perceived as being a Linux basher) I call this Linux wanting to be an OS, but still falling short. |
| #2 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/15/2003 1:53:24 PM |
| The US should start investigating on whether Linux exists because of illegal dumping by foreign companies. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 5/15/2003 2:38:41 PM |
|
Yeah, soda, please tell?
Sounds to me like the democrat is trying to drum up some Limbaugh-style zenophobia. "Illegal dumping by foreign companies"? Hmm, let's see there are numerous Linux distributors. Most of them are American. ALL of them offer some form of their product for free in a non-discriminatory basis (so how can it be discriminatory or predatory pricing?). NONE of them are the DOMINANT player in the marketplace. NONE of them have dislodged or advanced on Microsoft's marketshare--particularly a FOREIGN company in the AMERICAN market by means of DUMPING. |
| #4 By 8589 (67.65.86.116) at 5/15/2003 3:28:48 PM |
|
#2, speak for yourself paleface. LOL
#6, I have never had Windows XP go belly up by installing an upgrade. I did with Redhat 9.0, I ran RPM -Uvh programname.rpm and after that, the system became unstable. I then had to reboot. When I did, the system failed to boot into Linux, even at the text prompt level. No, Linux is not that stable at all. Unless Linux can get to the point that people with minimal computer skills can update their systems, kernels, programs, etc... without trashing the system, it is not viable. |
| #5 By 7797 (63.76.44.117) at 5/15/2003 3:33:27 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #6 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/15/2003 4:19:24 PM |
|
LOL!
The sad thing is the point I made in post #4 is exactly what these folks are claiming against Microsoft. Gotta love hypocrisy! tgnb - BTW... I still don't take kindly to stalking. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at 16:20. |
| #7 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/15/2003 4:33:31 PM |
|
soda, please explain: MS is being accused of drastically reducing prices only under the specific circumstance where they know they aren't getting the sale for the express reason of preventing the adoption of a competitive product.
Please explain how Linux (a single vendor or at large) does this. As far as I see it, most Linux distros can be acquired at all times for free, packaged with additional features/services for a fee, or for free with a paid service agreement. How does that compare at all? I love when the MS goon tries to defend it with the Sun example--yes, they give StarOffice away for free to gov't and educational institutions. But they do it for ALL such potential customers. They do not charge for it unless the customer is selecting MS. So please explain how this is "EXACTLY" the same thing. |
| #8 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 5/15/2003 6:32:14 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #9 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/15/2003 6:45:58 PM |
|
sodajerk - "MS is being accused of drastically reducing prices only under the specific circumstance where they know they aren't getting the sale for the express reason of preventing the adoption of a competitive product. "
It is called competition. "How does that compare at all? " It is also called competition. "I love when the MS goon tries to defend it with the Sun example" I never used a Sun example, why do you bring this up? "So please explain how this is "EXACTLY" the same thing. " Again, it's competition. Linux vendors dump their product on the market at below cost because it is the only way for them to gain any marketshare. Microsoft is having to respond to this product dumping by lowering the price of their products. The hypocrisy is in you claiming that somehow it is fair for Linux to be dumped on the market, but it is unfair for Microsoft to ever lower the price of their products. Further adding to your hypocrisy is your continual whining about how high priced Microsoft products are, in your world view. Competition and free markets have to be a two way street for consumers to benefit. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at 18:50. |
| #10 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/15/2003 6:48:05 PM |
|
tgnb - "No one is stalking you sodablue. Stop being stupid and paranoid! "
I would appreciate it if you would stop taking my sarcastic comments out of context and reposting them. It certainly is not lending any credibility to your arguments. If you have a problem with my statements, make an argument against them. |
| #11 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/15/2003 7:07:59 PM |
|
I brought up that example for my own use; did I ever say you said that?
As for your deflection--and it's certainly a deflection to describe anything and everything as competition--is pathetic. I'll go through it if you'd like... Linux is not dumping--it's ALWAYS available for FREE. MS isn't being forced to LOWER its PRICES; they are only UNDERCUTTING the competition when they are getting BEATEN by the competition. As for your ridiculous claim of hypocrisy, this is the same as saying someone who is anti-war is against the troops. I do complain about MS pricing... But I do not see how that is in contradiction to them using a slush fund to subsidize certain sales that they wouldn't be able to make. If they were cutting prices across the board, maybe we'd have something. But we don't have that--we have them preying upon Linux because they are scared sh1tless. Let's use another quote: MS claims they NEED to do this to remain "competitive" and "relevant"--so does anyone (the softies, I mean) actually believe that MS is "irrelevant" and "not competitive" if they don't maintain a fund to undercut lost sales to Linux? Hmmm? |
| #12 By 7797 (64.244.109.161) at 5/15/2003 7:08:50 PM |
|
sodablue:
Another one for the list: "I would appreciate it if you would stop taking my sarcastic comments out of context and reposting them." Out of context? Hardly.. You mean to say you were being sarcastic when you said those things? ROFLMFAO!!! Suuuuuuuure!!! LOL this is tooo much :) |
| #13 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/15/2003 7:31:19 PM |
|
""MS is being accused of drastically reducing prices only under the specific circumstance where they know they aren't getting the sale for the express reason of preventing the adoption of a competitive product. "
It is called competition." It's called anti-competition. It's called illegal discounting. These aren't advertised prices. These aren't prices available to everyone. These prices are only used when they know they are losing the sale to Linux. That is not competing. And besides, I thought MS claimed they were competitive with Linux--that they still had the lead despite cost. And even if you want to make a price argument, they claim they are cheaper through TCO. If they can make this claim to the press and at events, why can't they with their customers? ""How does that compare at all? " It is also called competition." As I said, calling everything "competition" is a rather pathetic argument. Having a thumb wrestling match with someone is competition too. On the other hand, the distinction we are trying to make here is illegal anti-competitive behavior by a dominant market force versus a technology movement. They are not the same whatsoever. ""So please explain how this is "EXACTLY" the same thing. " Again, it's competition. Linux vendors dump their product on the market at below cost because it is the only way for them to gain any marketshare." No, Linux vendors provide a product for free. They try to make a profit through packaging and services. They do not selectively provide their products for free when they are getting beaten. In fact, they are probably more successful with businesses when they aren't just handing over a free ISO, but rather when they are charging. By the way, are you suggesting that Linux is a dominant market force? Or that they are only reducing their cost when they know they are losing a sale to MS? "Microsoft is having to respond to this product dumping by lowering the price of their products." It's not product dumbing, and MS has said numerous times they can compete without reducing costs. That they are in fact cheaper when factoring in TCO. So which way is it? "The hypocrisy is in you claiming that somehow it is fair for Linux to be dumped on the market, but it is unfair for Microsoft to ever lower the price of their products." As I have said, you wouldn't have a chance in hell of showing that Linux is being dumped. On the other hand, it's easy to show that your little euphemism for what MS is doing is a joke--they are not lowering the price of their products. They are shifting money from a fund to register the same sale price when they can get one through deep discounting--they are sucking up the costs of particular sales only when Linux is a factor. What about my stance says to you that MS can never lower their prices. I'd be happy if they did: uniformly. "Competition and free markets have to be a two way street for consumers to benefit." But there is no way in hell you can show any benefit here. MS is specifically trying to eliminate the option of a competitor from the marketplace. That is neither free nor competitive. Ms is taking a loss (by selling below the price they say is determined by the market to be profitable) which hurts themselves, hurts the competition, and hurts the consumer who wanted the choice--all for the sake of fractions of a percent of marketshare. Are you seriously suggesting that MS needs "help" when it comes to competition? That they should be able to do anything with their dominant position and huge cash hoard to prevent an OS from going from 2% to 2.5%? That otherwise MS can't survive without the total elimination of Linux as an option? Please, tell me it's just competition again. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at 19:59. |
| #14 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 5/15/2003 8:24:16 PM |
|
parker, do you know how to read?
"Discounting is a normal corporate sales practice. But under European law, companies that hold a dominant market position, like Microsoft, are barred from offering discounts that are intended to block competitors from the market." "The lawyer's e-mail message advised Microsoft that its discounts should not be "discriminatory" among clients. The e-mail also said discounts could not be intended to exclude competitors from the market. "Discounts are not per se unlawful," Charles Stark, a former antitrust official at the U.S. Justice Department and a partner at Wilmer, Cutler Pickering in Brussels, said in an interview. "It depends on the market circumstances and how they use them and what their impact is." Stark, who has not seen the documents, added: "But pricing behavior can be viewed differently by a dominant firm than by a nondominant firm." "In other words, Microsoft would have to show that it could offer discounts because they generated internal cost savings, rather than because the discounts were designed to exclude competitors from the market." Anyway, why am I trying to encourage you to read when you are still ignorant and foolish. There is not a legal threshold for discounting related to the production cost. Are you suggesting it's illegal to make something and then give it away for free? "As long as Microsoft doesn't sell their products at less than it cost them to manufacture the CD's and packaging, they are perfectly legal." So MS's FREE products are ILLEGAL? You're very silly, parker. How long will it take for some of you people to realize that economic regulations like this have to do with market definitions, market position, and the effect on competition and the consumers. "Also, one shouldn't encourage IP thieves like the Linux community. It sets a bad precedent. " I've already explained that you need to read, are ignorant, and foolish so I shouldn't respond to this flame--but are you really walking lockstep with SCO, a company that EVERYONE is vilifying as the most desperate company ever, worse than even the likes of the dreaded (by softies) Sun? |
| #15 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/15/2003 8:38:19 PM |
|
linuxhippie - "Are you saying the Linux vendors are competing by illegal means? I'm confused by your post. "
You should be confused. I am only saying that Linux vendors are competing by illegal means if we are to believe the supposition that Microsoft is competing by illegal means through the same process of lowering prices. I have long maintained that the playing field should be level, and am all in favor of whatever controls must be put in place to achieve that. That includes regulation of the industry, if need be. However I do not feel handicaping one competitor so that the other competitor can catch up in the race serves any benefit to the consumer. Any regulations put in place must apply equally to all participants. That is the fundamental difference between myself and the ABMers like jerky boy. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, May 15, 2003 at 20:52. |
| #16 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/15/2003 8:45:21 PM |
|
sodajerk - Please explain how it is you define competition.
A consistent definition seems to be the fundamental problem with your entire argument. tgnb - *plonk* |
| #17 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/15/2003 8:50:30 PM |
|
I am curious to see what evidence SCO has in their lawsuit. It's impossible to judge the validity of their claims one way or another until the evidence is presented at trial.
I have been rather appalled at the reaction the OSS community has had towards SCO, but I was certainly not surprised. It's consistent with their anti-business stance. |
| #18 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/15/2003 8:52:59 PM |
| cba-3.14 - It's not clear to me that SCO gave their work away for free. Can you cite any sources to substantiate this claim? |
| #19 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/15/2003 9:36:15 PM |
|
cba-3.14 - So let me get this straight... It's ok to steal source as long as you don't get caught? And if you do get caught, then go write something of your own. So if Microsoft took a bunch of GPLed code(doubtful since most GPL code is of dubius quality) and incorporated it into their product, that would be ok?
Once again the hypocrisy runs deep. We'll just have to wait for the trial to see what validity the SCO claim has. I know SCO though, and they aren't a company to go off running half-cocked. Chances are there is strong validity to the claim. Considering they are suing IBM who partnered with them on the Monterey project. |
| #20 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/15/2003 9:40:34 PM |
|
linuxhippie - "No reason to lash out at Linux users about this; we don't write the law or enforce it. "
No, but you frequently misinterpret it. |
| #21 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/16/2003 12:48:51 AM |
|
linuxhippie - "However I believe I am right concerning the anti-trust law. "
Anti-trust law clearly prohibits monopolies from engaging in anti-competitive behavior. But not every action a company takes is anti-competitive. Anti-trust law is also concerned with harm to competition, not harm to competitors. That is a distinction that you largely ignore in your arguments. The greater argument in antitrust law is that it harms consumers long term due to a lack of investment and innovation into the market. But I see no evidence of that. I've been working with personal computers for 20 years, and I've seen more innovation occur in the last 5 than in the first 15. How can you explain that? |
| #22 By 135 (208.50.204.91) at 5/16/2003 12:52:48 AM |
|
cba-3.14 - "well, you have to give it back, if you write something on your own that's your business. "
In the case of software, stolen property results in increased market share due to the increased benefit to consumers as a result of the additional functionality. You can't just give it back. The only recourse is for those who profited from the stolen property to pay penalties to the entity who has suffered from the theft. i.e. cash. The question in the case of Linux is who pays. "I agree, your Straw Men tend to be quite hypocritical! Why is that? " Ahh, but you have yet to identify hypocrisy. Nice try, though. |
| #23 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/16/2003 10:10:03 AM |
|
cba-3.14 - "Linux users do NOT want to steal SCO code, they are appalled!"
No they're not. They're all claiming SCO doesn't have a right to protect it's copyright, that the company is evil and desperate and all manner of things. "If SCO had revealed what code the found offending, I bet it would have been replaced by now." But that still does not address the original copyright infringement and the benefit that Linux has possibly derived as a result. You can't just steal something and then give it back and not expect to be punished. "But SCO is the one that wants Linux to contain their IP, no one else." Now you are arguing like a child. |
| #24 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/16/2003 10:19:34 AM |
|
CooCooCaChoo - "US dumps agricultural goods onto South America which pushes down prices resulting in farmers being driven off the land "
I do not see any justification for this claim. I suggest you are not familiar with US ag policy. Products such as grain largely benefit from mechanized labor and largescale farm operations. The US is extremely efficient in that realm, moreso than any other nation on the planet. You would have to give specifics for me to do research on. I am aware of Canada placing large tarriffs on our imports, as does the EU. The EU subsidizes agriculture at levels 3-4 times that of what the US does. |
| #25 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 5/16/2003 11:31:00 AM |
| bluesky - If you are admitting to using Microsoft products you can't be part of the club. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 330 Last | Next |
The time now is
7:44:56 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
