XPost: microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
From: nospam@needed.invalid
james@nospam.com wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:40:35 -0500, Paul wrote:
>
>> Unlisted wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft has ...
>>> I hope they file for bankruptcy as a result.
>> The way high tech companies work is... diversification.
>>
>> You must have more than one cash cow generating revenue
>> at a time. The projects need to overlap. Microsoft has
>> Azure as a source of income.
>>
>> if you fail at *all* your enterprises, that's when
>> you file for bankruptcy.
>>
>> And with the mountain of cash that Microsoft has,
>> they could fire a large portion of the staff, and
>> come up with a new plan. And have years worth of money
>> to do it.
>>
>> They have tried to mop up that mountain of cash, by pissing
>> it away on LinkedIn. They tried to waste their money on Yahoo,
>> but somebody else got it. These are the kinds of moves I
>> associate with failed companies - the flailing around
>> in the mergers and acquisitions department. Smart companies
>> do strategic acquisitions, with purchases around the
>> $1 billion or less mark. As they get better value for
>> money that way. Apple and Cisco do that. Qualcomm has
>> done it to some extent in the past. The Broadcom deal
>> will be their undoing (big purchase always equals big writedown).
>>
>> People forget, just how close Apple came to going out
>> of business. They might have been down to around nine quarters
>> worth of cash at one time. Which means, if they didn't produce
>> a "winner" of some sort in a couple of years, they would
>> have been dead. Even though Apple too has a vast mountain of
>> cash today, you only need to think back to their "close call"
>> to realize how fragile these businesses are.
>>
>> High tech companies don't last very long. IBM is an exception.
>> And IBM only does "high margin" projects. They don't make
>> tea kettles with a profit margin of $0.05 each. They will
>> wring the cash out of you, if you do business with them.
>> That's how they can afford all those PhDs.
>>
>> Paul
>
> You said "You must have more than one cash cow generating revenue
> at a time."
>
> So if that is true, why does MS only offer one operating system?
1) Brand dilution.
Market now distracted by your lack of focus.
2) Market survey.
"Show me the money"
3) Needs a champion.
Have to convince the shareholders that you're not an idiot.
What you're after, is a Desktop Environment (DE) and not an OS.
Examples of existing ones are Classic Shell and Start10,
both implemented by outside developers without help from
Microsoft.
You'll notice that the Windows 10 default desktop has
a large blue window, with blue light. Something you can
see at a distance in the computer store. That background
image is part of the marketing.
If the machines had a pseudo-WinXP desktop on them, a lot
of consumers would be confused by that. They would see the
dated graphics and ask the computer store staff "Are
those used computers on that table?".
Although at the current time, Microsoft doesn't mind the
practice of confusing consumers with its latest offerings.
The device with the ARM processor in it, coming this
spring is an example. It will have an x86 emulator in it,
but it only runs x32 software (you know, that software
that the entire world is itching to discontinue). And
Microsoft will be selling that platform to people, after
basically deprecating their WinRT (pure ARM) platform
from a couple years ago. (The practice of putting
emulators in computers, is something their competitor
Apple has done in the past. And whatever Apple does,
they must do too.)
They don't mind confusing people, if the right executive
at Microsoft makes the call. But a blatant attempt to
remove the bright blue window and replace it with something
else, that's a problem. Other executives could easily
counter such a proposal with (1) Brand Dilution.
Paul
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
