Jim,

>Same disclaimer for me (as anyone can tell)
>
>Well car makers, refrigerator makers etc ad nauseum all have the same problem, yet that find ways to get along.
>
>Do you think that maybe MS has lost its capability for innovation that has served it so well until now? Do you think that people just might buy upgrades - as they used to - if there was real value in doing so? I think they would.
>Do you think that maybe MS should get used to a little lesser cash-flow, in line with virtually all other companies on the planet? Maybe just do so while they find their innovative capabilities once again? You know, the capabilities that made their products so attractive and "needed" inthe first place.

I don't suppse that anyone really knows for sure where that proverbial 'line' would be. Do you? I'd bet you don't either and that's why I'm content to wait and see what the marketplace will do.

Regardless of whether or not you're selling refrigerators or software it seems you still have the same issue with respect to cash flow, don't you think? I remember when GM, Ford, et al would build cars with planned obsolescence designed in. The Japanese saw an opening and kicked our collective butts by creating a better product that lasted longer, sold for less and so on. We responded by improving our products and all in all the consumer benefitted. I'd be willing to bet that the same thing not only can happen but will happen in the software industry. As a matter of fact it already has, but with Microsoft the (currently) prevailing company. That could change almost overnight I'd dare say.


>
>You know, Doug D. started all this on the basis of my "I don't know. ...maybe it is greed" statement.

Oh sure! Blame me!! <g>

>The fact is, I don't know, but I do smell a rat - something that is in the best interests of MS while decidedly not in the best interest of its customers.
>Furthermore, we don't really have the proper outline of how they intend to do this. But I will say that I cannot fathom how they could improve the situation (of software distribution/payment) over today's model with a subscription service.

I don't think any of us have all the facts but IMO it's just as onerous to presume 'greed' on the part of Microsoft on one hand as it is to put one's head in a bucket on the other hand. <g>

I dare say that Microsoft is just like every other business in that they are competing to win. It seems to me that the real difference is that they (MSFT) have been able to attract a higher quality of employee (collectively) in that these employees know and understand the competative nature of the software business than thoise (collectively) who do not work for Microsoft. Have they gone over the lines at times? Sure, you bet. Is that the same as a corporate policy? I hardly think it is.

>
>Cheers
>JimN
>
>>Disclaimer: I am not an economist. :)
>>
>>It seems to me like a good reason for this is market saturation. In the begining, not many people had their own computers. Now most of the ones who want one have one. (In more affluent countries at any rate.) Once everyone that wants to buy a product has done so, you run out of people to sell to unless you can convince them to buy another version of what they already have.
>>
>>It's affecting the PC market, and I don't see how MS is any different.
>>
>>Michelle
>>
>>
>>>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.