|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
You know, I think y'all confuse concept innovation
with product innovation. It's really really hard and
really really expensive and extrememely time consuming
to invent concepts -- create them, draft them for
others, develop them, test them and bring them into
production -- let alone creating a final user version
and marketing it. Concept innovation (inventing) is
what IBM does in their raw research labs. That's
EXTREME risk. Who wants that?
The other type of innovation is product innovation.
Where they modify an old (not widely distributed)
idea, modernize it, design it, build it (with their
own engineers -- not stealing some else's design
verbatim), or code it (and each line of MSFT code is
original! thus innovative) and then user test it,
market it and release it. That's innovation because
it brings something that didn't exist in the
mainstream markets -- computer basements in AI labs
don't count sorry -- to market for the public. MFC is
a good example in a long list of good examples of an
innovative product.
Taking what you think is a good idea, changing it a
little and then popularizing it is a good way to do
business. Anyway, how many truly original ideas are
there out there? Not many. In fact, most of what is
considered new from any company, it really not. That
goes for reserarch ideas, product ideas you name it.
Probably only about 3% of the so called new ideas and
products out there are truly original.
I can't blame MSFT or any other company for not
wanting to develop truly original ideas because it's
so risky. It's a good way to go out of business fast.
Gates methodology the way I see is to buy a higher
bottom. He waits for the market to tip it's hand --
shows there demand -- and then buys like mad. In that
respect he a dman good trader and who can fault him
for that?
Unless y'all have made a living (forget living, just
some $$$) buying falling knives, I don't think anyone
on this list can fault him.
So y'all should just si'down, buy some of his stock,
and quit fighting it.
Jen.
On Tuesday, November 26, 2002, 9:34:48 AM, Calandra
Sikes wrote:
CS> Toolbars, accelerator keys, context sensitive
menus, Help buttons
CS> on the dialogs, scroll wheels, and I think even 2
button mouses
CS> (Apples was 1 button) those are all MSFT
innovations that probably
CS> came out of usability studies.
Ummm... you might want to check back in some early CS
and AI research
labs - you'd be surprised by what you'd find there.
For example, I was
using a 3-button mouse before M$ had Windows, and they
activated early
versions of the above, and more. M$ wanted a
dumbed-down version, thus
2 buttons.
CS> Microsoft does innvoate but you have to be willing
and able to see
CS> it.
I keep trying to find it, but it always seems they
copied it instead.
Their PR division does the innovating. :-) And many
clueless people
swallow it - hook, line, and sinker.
CS> The split keyboards are also an idea MSFT
popularized
True
CS> not invented.
Also true. :-)
CS> I could go on and on.
Likewise.
CS> That?s the way it is with MSFT haters. They nit
pick the products
CS> to death -- the 10% that has flaws
CS> MSFT does not write mediocre software. On the
CS> contrary, they set the industry standard. I know
CS> because I?ve been using MSFT software since 1985
when
CS> my Dad brought home Excel and Word.
I've been following it since Gates had his first
version of Basic
distributed on paper tape. Everything they released
was soooooo bad I
developed a rule to not buy anything from M$ until
version 3.3. So did
many others. M$ finally caught on to this and quit
using the version
numbering. :-)
CS> And as for your hatered of MSFT because because
?Gates wants to
CS> control (and presumably charge me for) every
packet of data that
CS> comes into?
He's a lot more greedy than that. :-))
ztrader
|