| 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 |
 |
Microsoft, Rob Enderle, and their conflicting perceptions of reality | |
|
||
| Time: 07:08 EST/12:08 GMT | News Source: TechFlash | Posted By: Kenneth van Surksum | ||
|
Some of the most curious e-mail exchanges to emerge from the "Windows Vista Capable" lawsuit involve Rob Enderle, a frequently quoted industry analyst whose affiliations and opinions have been a subject of some controversy in the tech industry. Microsoft is one of Enderle's clients, and his role includes advising the company behind the scenes.
| ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:45:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 8556 (12.210.39.82) at 11/23/2008 12:45:58 PM |
| Vista Basic is a waste of an SKU. I supect that MS, being the profit machine they are, brought it out in the hopes of direct selling some customers an "upgrade now" option, where MS would make more $ than on the original OEM sale. This did not turn out well either. A single Home version makes the most sense. MS confused many early Vista users with their "wow is now" campaign where they implied on the TV ads that Aero was standard, in spite of web pages that listed the "features" of the many versions. |
| #2 By 17996 (66.235.18.153) at 11/23/2008 9:56:01 PM |
|
I don't see Home Basic as that big of a waste -- its the Vista analog to XP Home. Vista Home Premium is the analog to XP Media Center Edition. I don't think it would be wise for Microsoft to either cut the price of Home Premium to down to the Home Basic price, nor would it be wise to force everyone who just wants Home Basic to have to pay the Premium price.
If they were to have a single home SKU, it would have to be without Media Center completely, because there's no way the EU would let them get away with forcing Media Center on every home user. Of course, that does lead to the ala carte idea where there should be a single Windows version where you buy additional features to put on top. Kind of like what they're doing with moving features into Windows Live, but with a price tag attached. Or take it a step further -- don't call it Windows Media Center -- just call it Microsoft Media Center and disassociate it with Windows completely. |
| #3 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/24/2008 8:58:10 AM |
| Interesting. MS fought against Ballmer being deposed by offering up the nose-stretcher that Ballmer doesn't know anything. Now we find out that was just a convenient lie and that Ballmer was very well aware of the situation. I wonder why he's so reticent to testify, to the point of lying about his knowledge? The emails also expose Rob Enderle for the MS shill that he is, despite all his protestations to the contrary. |
| #4 By 23275 (71.91.9.16) at 11/24/2008 9:24:19 AM |
|
#3, Sheesh... what Steve Ballmer rightly said was that he did not know anything more, or unique from those that were closer to the specfics that had already given testimony.
You call that lying and it isn't. Enderle is an analyst with influence. His group advocates for the industry and the people who use Windows. Thousands of analysts perform identical functions in and around this and all other industries. They often say that which cannot be said directly by those running companies. They perform very important functions as regards oversight - clearly, Enderle was unhappy with what was going on. |
| #5 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/24/2008 11:36:01 AM |
|
#4: Ballmer was getting status from his own people, and he was getting outside, "bird's eye" reports from OEMs and others like Enderle. He HAD to know more than those working directly on it, like a general knows more about a campaign then the grunts on the gorund.
As for Enderle, he is what he is. He's a good go-to guy if you need a positive MS/Windows quote, but otherwise his analysis is useless. He advocates for Microsoft, and not the industry as a whole. I've watched him get it wrong many times over the years. What amazed me is that he got this one right (or at least he was the messenger for the OEM that got it right). |
| #6 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 11/24/2008 1:24:43 PM |
| What Ballmer does not want to do is to speak under oath; nothing new here: Mr Gonzales, Mr. Rowe etc. etc. showed the "how to". |
| #7 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/24/2008 2:16:53 PM |
| #6: The difference here, of course, is that Ballmer can't hide behind a flimsy 'executive privilege' excuse that the Bush mob has been fond of using. Now Ballmer's only option is to lie on the stand or start being extremely obtuse when answering the class's lawyer's questions. |
| #8 By 1896 (68.153.171.248) at 11/24/2008 3:05:23 PM |
|
#7:I do not think that he would need to be obtuse, just "vague": "As far as my knowledge goes", "If I remember correctly" etc. etc.
IMO he should have accepted to testify and answering to questions: I honestly believe that only someone guilty, who is just reciting the story he learned by memory, would be able to give exact and specific details about something happened more tham two years ago. If you ask me details aabout a meeting held two months ago I would not recall all the details... and I am not as busy as Ballmer. This post was edited by Fritzly on Monday, November 24, 2008 at 15:05. |
| #9 By 143 (216.205.223.146) at 11/24/2008 5:25:10 PM |
|
"It just felt like it was broken as they rolled to market,"
Trust in Force, always. |
| #10 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 11/24/2008 6:50:59 PM |
|
#7 LyinLatch, it was Clinton who invoked Executive Privledge 15 times (or more) to avoid going to jail for crimes he and his cronies and Hillary committed.
http://conservativesuperiority.com/2007/07/20/executive-privilege-clinton-vs-bush/ 1993 - to block an inspection of Vince Foster’s files after his suicide 1994 - to block turning over documents from its ethics review regarding Agriculture Secretary Mike Espy 1995 - to block lawyer’s notes from conversations with Hillary Clinton 1996 - to block turning over documents relating to arms shipments from Iran to Bosnia 1996 - to block turning over a memo by FBI Director Louis Freeh criticizing the drug policy 1996 - to block turning over documents subpoenaed concerning Haiti police violence 1996 - to block turning over Travel Office documents 1997 - to block turning over campaign finance related records 1997 - to block testimony of Bruce Lindsey concerning James Riady - campaign finance 1997 - to block turning over documents pertaining to cancellation of an Indian casino 1998 - to block testimony of Paul Begala - filegate 1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey and Sidney Blumenthal - Lewinsky 1998 - to block grand jury testimony of Bruce Lindsey (”attorney client”) - Lewinsky 1998 - to block Secret Service testimony - Lewinsky (new privilege, “protective function”) - Lewinksy 1998 - to block answers to 2 questions Hillary Clinton (”spousal privilege”) – Whitewater |
| #11 By 23275 (71.91.9.16) at 11/24/2008 11:07:56 PM |
|
Latch, "obtuse" please look it up... then tell us why any person with obvious intelligence, would intentionally be so....
All, please understand, the American system of government ( Latch is from a remote region in Canada - where they seem not to have had school books ), provides that each branch or our government be designed (by explicit intent) to influence and weaken the others. "Executive Privilege" is one tool whereby our executive branch (which includes not only our President, but all members of that branch), may influence and weaken the power of our ligislative and judicial branches. Presidents all the way back to George Washington have invoked this privilege and our supreme court has upheld its - United States .v Nixon is the most famous test of it and even then, it was upheld. For Latch to characterize this important member among many checks and balances in the world's oldest existing Republic (Swiss Constitutional Reform does not really count), in a negative way is inappropriate and unfortunate. If you are an American and do not understand its importance, please review the design of our separation of powers from which it is derived. Hint... it was/is designed to limit and control confrontations between branches. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/25/2008 8:20:00 AM |
|
#10: After criticizing MS and Bush, I guess it was only a matter of time before parkkker swooped in with his patented Distract-O-Matic.
#11: And on the heels of parkkker we have Ketchum doing one of his garden path tours. Once again you completely misunderstand and jump to conclusions. I don't disagree with executive privilege as a concept, but I do take issue when it is abused by those who seek to avoid exposure for political or personal reasons. We don't need totalk about that though, as it doesn't apply to Ballmer. It will be good to see if he can shuck & jive on the stand like Gates back in the antitrust trial days. The court better make sure all the chairs are nailed down. |
| #13 By 23275 (71.91.9.16) at 11/25/2008 9:02:32 AM |
|
@12, You're right... it does not apply to Ballmer - no more than this case has a thing to do with our current President... yet, you indict both and convict both in the same post (again).
You were the one that used the term 'executive privilege' and tied it to Ballmer and our President - then tell me I'm jumping to conclusions ..then criticize the rest of us as you insult our country, its leaders and the structure of our government... and expect us to sit on our hands and lap it up. Ok, American exceptionality invites some of this, but at least try and get the basics down before your draw parallels and wild conclusions which are not supported by facts. head of bone... mind of clay... |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/25/2008 11:10:40 AM |
| #13: Let me spell it out in simple English. I used the term 'executive privilege' all right, in the context of it being misapplied, and for some bizarre reason you took my words and twisted it into a criticism of executive privilege in general. And you're doing it again, taking my criticism of Bush and somehow painting every citizen of the US and the US as a whole with it. I think you need to lay off the coffee this early in the morning. |
| #15 By 23275 (71.91.9.16) at 11/25/2008 11:51:15 AM |
|
[#6: The difference here, of course, is that Ballmer can't hide behind a flimsy 'executive privilege' excuse that the Bush mob has been fond of using. Now Ballmer's only option is to lie on the stand or start being extremely obtuse when answering the class's lawyer's questions.
Your words. The inference is very clear... and clearly as inapplicable as it is inappropriate and unwelcome. If you assess Mr. Ballmer has anything to add that is materially greater than those specialists whom have already provided testimony, they share the basis supporting that assertion.... against the clear understanding that Mr. Ballmer is equally protected and represented under our system of law as you would be the moment you set foot on our soil. |
| #16 By 92283 (70.66.78.103) at 11/25/2008 11:58:32 AM |
|
#12 LyinLatch, you always get it wrong. You accuse Bush of abusing executive privledge and it turns out compared to his predecessor he barely used it ... and he only used it in cicumstances where he had the right to fire people anyway.
As it turns out your hero Clinton used it 15 times to stay out of jail. All of your bullsh*t on this site is just lies. Every thing you say is a lie. Whether it is politics or Microsoft. Its all lies. |
| #17 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/25/2008 12:10:52 PM |
|
#15: I am not accountable for your flawed inferences. I could go on to explain to you what was meant, but I know that you know and you're just being deliberately dumb to make a weak point. I thought only parkkker made a habit of looking stupid or saying silly things to back his position. Got any more rhetoric? I've got time to pick you apart all day today.
|
| #18 By 23275 (172.16.10.31) at 11/25/2008 5:27:51 PM |
|
There is no benefit in yelling at a rock. You quote executive privilege in the context of President Bush and associate it will Steve Ballmer? and I got the inference wrong? Ok... you don't even know what it means really, and you regurgitate the narrowest of uses of it and very recent examples of that narrow representation to suggest that the CEO of a company is as best seeking to block access to the truth - or failing that, lying... as if you're enlightened and hip enough to get any of it right... and suggest to us, what our national leaders and senior corporate executives should or should not do?
Ok. Call me stunned. |
| #19 By 8556 (12.206.195.4) at 11/26/2008 9:26:53 AM |
| The Vista Capable sticker issue is not a CEO level decision. Out of 11 layers of MS management it is likely 5 or more layers below Ballmer in the marketing department. Like any other CEO, Ballmer gets summary reports that, in most instances, he reads and then files it away on the mail server. If no further action is required of him he will forget about it soon thereafter. The average person forgets 90% of what they "hear". Ballmer, being a CEO, probably forgets more than 90% due to the total data input. Ballmer works in the "now", if he didn't he wouldn't be the boss of a $60 billion US company. |
| #20 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 11/26/2008 3:29:12 PM |
|
#18: You quote executive privilege in the context of President Bush and associate it will Steve Ballmer? and I got the inference wrong? Ok...
Yes, you did. Allow me to show you how you got it wrong. Excuses come in two flavours: good & bad. Same as executive privilege invocations. If a particular invocation is bad (or 'flimsy' in my posting), it does not follow that ALL invocations are bad or flimsy. You seem to insist that this is not the case. My only association of executive privilege to Ballmer was simply to state the obvious fact that he doesn't have the ability to dodge a question by claiming executive privilege based on a weak or flimsy pretext. Do you get it now? Or are you going to continue believing that I'm somehow slighting all of America? Ok... you don't even know what it means really, and you regurgitate the narrowest of uses of it and very recent examples of that narrow representation to suggest that the CEO of a company is as best seeking to block access to the truth - or failing that, lying... as if you're enlightened and hip enough to get any of it right... and suggest to us, what our national leaders and senior corporate executives should or should not do? Geez Louise, wake up. Of course a CEO of a company that is the defendant in a court case is going to lie if the balance of risk/reward is high enough. Some of the whoppers Darl McBride dropped were hilarious, and some of BillG's testimony at the antitrust trial come to mind. Ok. Call me stunned. You're stunned. |
| #21 By 215907 (173.74.182.57) at 3/16/2009 2:56:17 PM |
|
Discover the secrets to making big money blogging.
This definitive guide will help you start making money today! These strategies will guide you step by step with no technical experience needed. <a href=http://www.fromblogtobank.com>http://www.fromblogtobank.com</a> You could be the next online sensation |
| #22 By 219950 (173.74.168.208) at 4/12/2009 1:33:24 PM |
|
Check out this site for free website design.
<a href=http://www.designedfree.com>www.designedfree.com</a> You cant beat the price! This would be great for a church website |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 326 Last | Next |
The time now is
10:45:07 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
