The question begs to be asked - Why does Microsoft simply not buy Google?

[alheim]

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: alheim
Anyone know why XP still costs $100, +/- $whatever?
Seriously. I can not afford to buy XP.

Then go use Linux.


On the side note, nothing to do with you, but it really irritates me when people blow $500 on a video card every year complain about a $100 OS that lasts you 5+ years.

I see your point, but, well.. nevermind, I guess I don't really care that much.

But - I am a fan of Linux, but not a user - maybe one day I'll convert all of the way, but Windows still does things for me that Linux doesn't. Unless, of course, you know something similar to Adobe Premier Pro that I can use on Linux..?

 

[Jzero]

#1 Google board/shareholders would never go for it.
#2 SEC would never go for it.
#3 Microsoft board/shareholders would never go for it - It would cost BILLIONS...an awful high price to pay to knock out an entity that is hardly a direct competitor.

 

Originally posted by: mdchesne
I hope microsoft starts an exponential decrease soon... getting sick of MS. don't get me wrong, i love the software, I just don't like it being EVERYWHERE and for EVERYTHING with little or no versions for mac or linux

Mac has a lot of the mainstream stuff. It's not cost effective for all software companies to spend money on developing software for the mac platform.

Linux, well if you don't understand the "lack" of software on the platform, then you are asleep.

 

[s0ssos]

Originally posted by: dartworth
Microsoft will be splinting up soon...

OS
XBOX/Entertainment
Office

haha.
you mean "splitting up" (and i'm not meaning that you spelled it incorrectly)
if MS splits up, like really does, it wouldn't be MS anymore. they wouldn't have the advantages that they have right now, like sharing money (so money losing things like xbox keep on going), having preinstalled software (like IE with home page set to msn), etc

 

[OrganizedChaos]

because microsoft dosen't have nearly enough money to. go look at there stock price

 

[miri]

I play a lot of games and there really is no viable alternative on the computer for gaming other than windows.

 

[Kalbi]

A) Anti-trust
B) Google Board of Directors wouldn't allow it
C) Google shareholers would tell Gates to fvck off

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: So
Look I'm no MS lover, but that's BS. The reason MS is on top is because they've responded to what the consumers ask for. If you have an objection, blame the uneducated public, not MS.

Part of the reason they are on top is abuse of monopoly power, dating back to Windows 3.0.

Quite a bit came to light during the two DOJ actions against MS (early and late 90s) about abusive anti-competitive business practices, everything from threatenting any vendor that offered a choice of OS, to charging discriminatory prices to any vendor that sold "bare" systems without Windows (and discounts to those that bundled Office), to deciding to bundle IE and IIS explicitly to "cut off Netscape's oxygen" and bankrupt them.

Facts.

MS does make good products, but they have been caught (and barely slapped on the wrist for) abusing their monopoly power over and over again.

 

[herkulease]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
because microsoft dosen't have nearly enough money to. go look at there stock price

and what does Microsoft's stock price have anything to do with it? If stock prices meant anything Berkshire hathaway must be a god with class a shares costing $92K

Microsoft's "lower" price is merely due to spliting shares 9 times over the years.

Microsoft is valued 3 times more than google anyhow.

I personally don't see why microsoft is all upset with google anyhow. they are not doing much to unseat microsoft dominance in the software business which is there meat and potatoes. Unless google find other solid and reliable revenue sources, I don't see internet ads taking them very far. they won't go under or anything but won't become anything to rival microsoft.

 

[Blueoak]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
because microsoft dosen't have nearly enough money to. go look at there stock price

and what does Microsoft's stock price have anything to do with it? If stock prices meant anything Berkshire hathaway must be a god with class a shares costing $92K

Microsoft's "lower" price is merely due to spliting shares 9 times over the years.

Microsoft is valued 3 times more than google anyhow.

I personally don't see why microsoft is all upset with google anyhow. they are not doing much to unseat microsoft dominance in the software business which is there meat and potatoes. Unless google find other solid and reliable revenue sources, I don't see internet ads taking them very far. they won't go under or anything but won't become anything to rival microsoft.

Google stock, not Microsoft stock.

Microsoft would have to buy up a majority share of Google stock.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
because microsoft dosen't have nearly enough money to. go look at there stock price

and what does Microsoft's stock price have anything to do with it? If stock prices meant anything Berkshire hathaway must be a god with class a shares costing $92K

Microsoft's "lower" price is merely due to spliting shares 9 times over the years.

Microsoft is valued 3 times more than google anyhow.

I personally don't see why microsoft is all upset with google anyhow. they are not doing much to unseat microsoft dominance in the software business which is there meat and potatoes. Unless google find other solid and reliable revenue sources, I don't see internet ads taking them very far. they won't go under or anything but won't become anything to rival microsoft.

I'm not too sure of what the situation is like for MS at the present, but 2 years ago they had over 25 billions in liquid cash for acquisitions.

 

[klah]

Originally posted by: alheim

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: alheim
Anyone know why XP still costs $100, +/- $whatever?
Seriously. I can not afford to buy XP.

Then go use Linux.

On the side note, nothing to do with you, but it really irritates me when people blow $500 on a video card every year complain about a $100 OS that lasts you 5+ years.

I see your point, but, well.. nevermind, I guess I don't really care that much.

But - I am a fan of Linux, but not a user - maybe one day I'll convert all of the way, but Windows still does things for me that Linux doesn't. Unless, of course, you know something similar to Adobe Premier Pro that I can use on Linux..?

$100 for an OS is unaffordable, but you use a $700 video editing suite? Perhaps it is $100 because they realize that people like you will pirate it regardless of the price.

 

[Bozono]

Originally posted by: alheim
Anyone know why XP still costs $100, +/- $whatever?
Seriously. I can not afford to buy XP.

Truth be told, $100 is a fair price. Win98 was like $300 when it came out.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: klah

Originally posted by: alheim

Originally posted by: dexvx

Originally posted by: alheim
Anyone know why XP still costs $100, +/- $whatever?
Seriously. I can not afford to buy XP.

Then go use Linux.

On the side note, nothing to do with you, but it really irritates me when people blow $500 on a video card every year complain about a $100 OS that lasts you 5+ years.

I see your point, but, well.. nevermind, I guess I don't really care that much.

But - I am a fan of Linux, but not a user - maybe one day I'll convert all of the way, but Windows still does things for me that Linux doesn't. Unless, of course, you know something similar to Adobe Premier Pro that I can use on Linux..?

$100 for an OS is unaffordable, but you use a $700 video editing suite? Perhaps it is $100 because they realize that people like you will pirate it regardless of the price.

:laugh:

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: episodic
I guess I'll never understand anti-trust lawsuits. I still don't know how they brought action against microsoft when there were at least two other viable operating systems for consumers to go to, linux and mac.

Noone twists anyone's arms and makes em buy microsoft. They just did it better than everyone else (marketing not necessarily programing).

I cant stand the fact that an american company gets punished for being too popular.

pls read about this before posting such naive thoughts...

- MS armtwisted hardware manufacturers to not install Netscape on their machines
- they hardwired IE into Windows and made it impossible for customers to get rid of it

there's been truckloads written about this. shouldn't be too hard to find

 

[DeeKnow]

Originally posted by: Jzero
#1 Google board/shareholders would never go for it.
#2 SEC would never go for it.
#3 Microsoft board/shareholders would never go for it - It would cost BILLIONS...an awful high price to pay to knock out an entity that is hardly a direct competitor.

SEC??? what role do you see the SEC playing in this hypothetical situation??

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow

Originally posted by: episodic
I guess I'll never understand anti-trust lawsuits. I still don't know how they brought action against microsoft when there were at least two other viable operating systems for consumers to go to, linux and mac.

Noone twists anyone's arms and makes em buy microsoft. They just did it better than everyone else (marketing not necessarily programing).

I cant stand the fact that an american company gets punished for being too popular.

pls read about this before posting such naive thoughts...

- MS armtwisted hardware manufacturers to not install Netscape on their machines
- they hardwired IE into Windows and made it impossible for customers to get rid of it

there's been truckloads written about this. shouldn't be too hard to find

He thought the anti-trust was about the OS not browsers.
His point still stands, there are other operating system options. Some (lots) are even free!

 

[archcommus]

I never understood how MS could get bashed for including IE with Windows. I mean, Windows is THEIR product, THEY sell it, and THEY decide to include another piece of software with it. If they included NO browser, the general public would be bitching that they can't get online to see their grandchildren's photo album straight out of the box! That's a bunch of BS if you ask me. It's not like you can't install another browser just because IE's on there. You don't want it, don't use it!

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: DeeKnow

Originally posted by: episodic
I guess I'll never understand anti-trust lawsuits. I still don't know how they brought action against microsoft when there were at least two other viable operating systems for consumers to go to, linux and mac.

Noone twists anyone's arms and makes em buy microsoft. They just did it better than everyone else (marketing not necessarily programing).

I cant stand the fact that an american company gets punished for being too popular.

pls read about this before posting such naive thoughts...

- MS armtwisted hardware manufacturers to not install Netscape on their machines
- they hardwired IE into Windows and made it impossible for customers to get rid of it

there's been truckloads written about this. shouldn't be too hard to find

He thought the anti-trust was about the OS not browsers.
His point still stands, there are other operating system options. Some (lots) are even free!

do any of you deal w/ the general population? Linux is not a viable alternative. Just like windows, if a user doesn't know what their doing, it's just as insecure, and a hell of a lot more complicated sometimes. No one wants to spend time learning how to use a computer, everyone just wants it to work.

OS X is the only viable alternative.. but too damned expensive and tied into only apple hardware. With that said, I love OSX, just can't justfiy spending 1.5-2k on a nice g5.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: herkulease

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
because microsoft dosen't have nearly enough money to. go look at there stock price

and what does Microsoft's stock price have anything to do with it? If stock prices meant anything Berkshire hathaway must be a god with class a shares costing $92K

Microsoft's "lower" price is merely due to spliting shares 9 times over the years.

Microsoft is valued 3 times more than google anyhow.

I personally don't see why microsoft is all upset with google anyhow. they are not doing much to unseat microsoft dominance in the software business which is there meat and potatoes. Unless google find other solid and reliable revenue sources, I don't see internet ads taking them very far. they won't go under or anything but won't become anything to rival microsoft.

Google is making moves on microsofts territory with plans for lite office suites, and microsoft has shown a desire to steal the search crown from them, IIRC. They haven't really bunted heads yet, but they're both stamping their feet.

While they haven't directly competed yet, they both sort of use the same expansive grown revolving around their brandname to adjacent markets. One of the reasons, if not the main reason, google supports firefox so much is because microsofts stranglehold on the browser market gives them the ability to kill google's web products.

 

[crisscross]

While most of you believe Google to be a nice guy, the number of products they are coming up with and the rate at which they are buying out companies is scary, google is getting more and more powerful and it is a bit scary to have one company have access to as much information as google does.

 

[PingSpike]

Originally posted by: crisscross
While most of you believe Google to be a nice guy, the number of products they are coming up with and the rate at which they are buying out companies is scary, google is getting more and more powerful and it is a bit scary to have one company have access to as much information as google does.

True. But I'd just like to see a real competitor to microsoft.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: episodic
I guess I'll never understand anti-trust lawsuits. I still don't know how they brought action against microsoft when there were at least two other viable operating systems for consumers to go to, linux and mac.

They weren't in trouble because they were a monopoly or because they were the only OS. There is NOTHING wrong being a monopoly... if you can rise to the top and beat out everybody else, you deserve to be there. They got in trouble for monopolistic practices that stifled other companies.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: OrganizedChaos
because microsoft dosen't have nearly enough money to. go look at there stock price

First off, what does MS stock prices have to do with their ability to buy out another company?

Second, MS dollar value per stock may not be as high as Google, but there are many many more MS stocks (MS stocks have split numerous times over the years)

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: DeeKnow

Originally posted by: episodic
I guess I'll never understand anti-trust lawsuits. I still don't know how they brought action against microsoft when there were at least two other viable operating systems for consumers to go to, linux and mac.

Noone twists anyone's arms and makes em buy microsoft. They just did it better than everyone else (marketing not necessarily programing).

I cant stand the fact that an american company gets punished for being too popular.

pls read about this before posting such naive thoughts...

- MS armtwisted hardware manufacturers to not install Netscape on their machines
- they hardwired IE into Windows and made it impossible for customers to get rid of it

there's been truckloads written about this. shouldn't be too hard to find

yea they did us a favor Netscape sucked more ass then IE ever did