>Doug,Jim,

>Doug,
>SNIP
>>>Don't ask me - I think the subscription model, as envisioned by MS, STINKS! But the answer is probably GREED.
>>
>>Ughh.. Without making everyone who draes a paycheck from Microsoft a greedy bastard why can't the answer to this just be "Cash Flow"? Remember, some 40,000 employees (plus what, another 60,000 spouses & children?) depend upon the continued successes of Microsoft. If by the use (careless IMO) of the word 'greed' you mean something along the lines of de Tocqueville's notion of "Enlightened Self Interest" I'll wholeheartedly agree. If you mean a sort of craven defintion I'll strenously object; and that based upon the fact that so many of the employees of Microsoft are such nice folks. Are Mike Stewart, Garrett, Calvin, Gene, Randy, etc this greedy? I think not.
>>
>C'mon, Doug, you know full well that Mike Stewart, Garrett, Calvin, Gene, Randy, etc do NOT make these decisions about sales models and such. When a company is found to be employing illegal tactics in its business affairs, are ALL its employees marked a criminals by the public at large???
>Well how did they get into this cash-flow "bind"? How did their prior model go sour on them? Seems to me they (MS) probably had something to do with it. Perhaps a bad model, possibly diminishing value in their products or maybe more savvy customers.
>You're really grasping at straws with this one Doug.

I really don't think I am actually. Microsoft, as I'm sure you know, isn't in a "cash flow bind" whatsoever as far as I can tell. That they understand the nature of the care and feeding of a large corporation is evident. But, to insinuate 'greed' in this case seems more to be grasping at straws than suggesting that they (MSFT) is simply attempting to make money for its shareholders. Perhaps this is just another cas eof 'half empty v half full'?

While I think that mankind in general is depraved in a spiritual sense and that this will ultimately cause him to get very close to destroying himself I also recognize that mankind has the choice to make good decisions. IOW.. I have no illusions whatsoever that Microsoft may be and may have engaged in unethical or illegal acts. That's why we have laws and courts - people are prone to these types of behaviors. Still, to paint them with a broad brush seems eggregious in nature. I am of the opinion that you are smarter than your statement first indicate and that this is more emotional in nature and that you have colored your analysis with emotion. Perhaps I've misread you...


>
>>I also do not like the subscription model but I understand that an organization like Microsoft has to have a constant source of revenues.
>>
>Well that's mighty generous of you Doug. It isn't often, though, that companies (especially those without monopolies) can impose something that its customer don't like/want/need and get away with it.
>Most people, too, aren't anxoius to walk into things that they know in advance will cost them MORE MONEY. I've knowingly bet at a charity black-jack table hwere a push went to the dealer but I wouldn't take that from a regular casino.

Microsoft is a 'monopoly' (I disagreee that it is but I'll use your words) because more people want to use their software than that of others. I seem to recall that WordPerfect once held the position that Word now does and that Lotus 1-2-3 also was once 'king of the hill' and failed when competing against Excel. Perhaps all of this success came as a result that Microsoft understood the benefits of bundling of products (Office) before other companies and that their failed attempts to bundle their various software offerings failed because they were greedy rather than Microsoft. t least Microsoft could enforce (semi) a common set of standards as witnessed by OLE, ODBC, COM etc.. People wanted the ability to exchange data made easier. Microsoft made it more possible and they got the business.

What in the world is wrong with success?

>
>>Suppose they could build the perfect OS but then in 5 years they'd end up spending more to retool after shutting down the current OS development - after creating the perfect OS.
>>
>Sorry, but I don't understand. Are you saying that, because it's not in their best interests to develop the best and most reliable (even perfect) we should never expect one? (because then they'd have no source for future revenue)

Sorry I wasn't clear.. If one makes a perfect product (I contend there is no such thing) then there is no need to continue development of said product. If there is no continuing need to develop then you can stop developing and save $$. To stop and start development of any given product would IMO cause great disruption in the development process, causing greater costs. A subscription model at least ostensibly creates a consistent cash flow which would allow decision-makers to more accurately project/development expenses. I would think that this would also allow for lower overall expenses but I'm no CFO. <g>

>
>>Is it perfect? No.. No way. What are the alternatives, particularly if you're in the position of managing a corporation with 15-20,000 employees, all of whom need support?
>>
>Maybe you can explain this too. Are you talking about 15-20K MS employees or some user companies employees?

Sorry again.. <g> I meant those corporations who used some product (MSFT's in this case) and the attendent expenses. They need something that helps them to be more productive. Microsoft's products apparently have so done and IMO that's why they are on top.

As an aside, I've seen some news articles that indicate that corporations are looking more seriously at the Linux/Star Office option. I think this will be good as it will cause Microsoft to pay more attention to their customers ie. de Tocqueville's enlightened self interest and the market beautifully at work.

Jim.. I think that the marketplace will win this one and I'm content to avoid meddling in the market via governmental entities - unless laws have been broken. In such a case I would suggest that authorities vigorously prosecute.
Best,


DD

MPC #7