[Kre]

I know we`re getting completely off topic from this thread with all of this, but thats one of the reasons I love this place.

And I do understand your example. I was saying the same thing you are, but only from a different angle. But this is about understanding business. I was trying to point out how unlikely it was to see two competing OS`s ship on the same machine or device. Do you really think that Symbian would agree to Nokias request that their OS be bundled with the Smartphone 2k2 OS, if Nokia were to actually request such a thing? Although Apple builds its own hardware, is it anti competitive that they dont allow Windows or Linux to ship on its machines? Hardware manufacturers dont have to say yes to MS, they can do what they like. Just because a certain OS doesnt ship on a computer, what would prevent someone from buying and installing any OS they want later on? Besides, the vast percentage of users and companies arent going to want or need two operating systems to be productive. And most want Windows, anyway. So its not as though any manufacturer is really losing out by using Windows only. Thats where all the money is. Not to mention, not having to support yet another operating system reduces tech support costs for the manufacturer. So even from those standpoints, its a bit of a ridiculous request for any manufacturer to make in the first place. And on top of it all, anybody sitting in a garage can code an OS and sell it. Nobody and nothing is stopping him or her from entering the marketplace.

If a pc manufacturer wants to have two competing OS`s on the same system, here is another example that points out how ridiculous that request is... Could you imagine seeing one building with two competing movie rental stores inside? Say Blockbuster Video on one side of the store, and Hollywood Video on the other, for example? Could you imagine the landlord asking Blockbuster Video if it were ok if Hollywood Video shared the same space with them? This is ridiculous to say the least, and would never happen. Would it be anti competitive for Blockbuster to say no to this? Rather, it would be stupid for them to say yes, and would not be smart business! Is it reasonable, then, for anyone to expect MS to agree to allow its competitors to share the same hard drive, especially if they dont have to?

These things are hardly anti competitive. This IS competitiveness. The words anti competitive are for whiners, the weak, and for those who are sore losers. Microsoft started out as a two man company and built itself up from there just like all these other companies. Whats kept these other companies from doing the same thing? Should MS be blamed for being successful, and using their strength in the marketplace to their own advantage? Hardly. I know of no other industry or competitors in the world who behave any different. Its not Microsofts responsibility to `help` its competitors just for sake of consumer choice. Microsofts competitors are responsible for themselves. Theyre big boys and girls, they can figure things out on their own. This is not an issue of ethics. Its business. But then again, I dont see anything ethically wrong with being a smart business man. Besides, as long as we can go out and buy an alternative OS at a store or online or wherever, which we can, then MS is hardly keeping others from entering the marketplace. You have to keep in mind, that when manufacturers say yes to MS`s requests, and if you want to engage in finger pointing, you have to point your finger at the manufacturers, too. And keeping in mind that manufacturers can do what they want, why do you think that they always finally say yes to MS instead of going with an alternative OS? Because maybe Windows is whats going to maximize their sales, because thats what most users want, and thats where the money is? This reveals the true nature of business... Its money. The bottom line. Its not ultimately about variety, or feelings, or the love of technology, or the sporting aspect of competition, or bla bla bla. Its about money.

What if Be was the reigning OS in the world and MS was struggling to be known and used? Does anybody really think they would give poor little MS a chance? Hardly.

If youre the underdog like Be, you always have be more flexible, i.e., `Sure, we`ll share the same hard drive space with MS!` Because, as the underdog, sacrifices are necessary to get anywhere in the marketplace. But if youre the KING of the marketplace, you dont have to be flexible. And its unreasonable to expect MS to unseat itself from the throne it sits on to help a competitor by walking arm in arm with them. MS agreeing to have BeOS ship on the same hard drive, would effectively result in MS assisting Be`s marketing campaign and bottom line, while shooting holes in its own bottom line by saying, `Hey customers, look at Be... for some of you this is a MUCH better alternative to Windows! So if you try it and like it, then buy it from now on and forget us!` There is nothing keeping users from going out and buying Be on their own, installing it, and coming to the conclusion that Be IS better for them, but we cant expect MS to agree to conditions that would facilitate this process. Such is not the nature of business or competition. Would it be reasonable to expect to see brand new Mercedes` and brand new Lexus` selling on the same lot? Then why is it reasonable to some, to see competing OS`s shipping on the same hard drive? Not gonna happen. Microsoft isnt forcing anyone to do anything. There arent any guns to anybodys heads. Manufacturers can use what they want. MS setting conditions is not called force, its called leverage.

**********************************

As far as the Smartphone 2k2 is concerned, and it having a smaller chance for success if its not manufactured by a major player, I cant say I agree with this. I suppose anything is possible, but we have to ask ourselves how Ericsson and Nokia themselves, got so big in the first place. They started out as nobodys. Nobody knew who they were when they first came to market. They ultimately succeeded because over time they built up brand name recognition. Microsoft has this already, which is a huge advantage. If they can build a good solid phone, there is no reason they wouldnt succeed just the same. Without a major player, this would take more time than it otherwise would. But look at what theyve done in the gaming market with the XBox in such a short time. Look at what theyve done in the handheld market. MS`s products have been getting better, and if they can really put out a good phone, there really isnt a whole lot that will stop them. I dont doubt Microsoft knows who theyre up against, but that doesnt mean theyre intimidated.

Looking at MS`s behavior in the past, I dont think they worry about how long it might take to grab a piece of a market. I think they just ask themselves how can we enter this market, how fast can we do it, and then just steadily plug along until theyve done it, taking advantage of every opportunity along the way. When they target a market, they never worry they wont get a chunk of it, because eventually, they always do. This is why we never hear of them being intimidated, and Im sure this is why Nokia doesnt intimidate them. In terms of market share, to MS its most often a question of when, not if. Like Ive said many times before, time will tell.

[Kre]

I know we`re getting completely off topic from this thread with all of this, but thats one of the reasons I love this place.

And I do understand your example. I was saying the same thing you are, but only from a different angle. But this is about understanding business. I was trying to point out how unlikely it was to see two competing OS`s ship on the same machine or device. Do you really think that Symbian would agree to Nokias request that their OS be bundled with the Smartphone 2k2 OS, if Nokia were to actually request such a thing? Although Apple builds its own hardware, is it anti competitive that they dont allow Windows or Linux to ship on its machines? Hardware manufacturers dont have to say yes to MS, they can do what they like. Just because a certain OS doesnt ship on a computer, what would prevent someone from buying and installing any OS they want later on? Besides, the vast percentage of users and companies arent going to want or need two operating systems to be productive. And most want Windows, anyway. So its not as though any manufacturer is really losing out by using Windows only. Thats where all the money is. Not to mention, not having to support yet another operating system reduces tech support costs for the manufacturer. So even from those standpoints, its a bit of a ridiculous request for any manufacturer to make in the first place. And on top of it all, anybody sitting in a garage can code an OS and sell it. Nobody and nothing is stopping him or her from entering the marketplace.

If a pc manufacturer wants to have two competing OS`s on the same system, here is another example that points out how ridiculous that request is... Could you imagine seeing one building with two competing movie rental stores inside? Say Blockbuster Video on one side of the store, and Hollywood Video on the other, for example? Could you imagine the landlord asking Blockbuster Video if it were ok if Hollywood Video shared the same space with them? This is ridiculous to say the least, and would never happen. Would it be anti competitive for Blockbuster to say no to this? Rather, it would be stupid for them to say yes, and would not be smart business! Is it reasonable, then, for anyone to expect MS to agree to allow its competitors to share the same hard drive, especially if they dont have to?

These things are hardly anti competitive. This IS competitiveness. The words anti competitive are for whiners, the weak, and for those who are sore losers. Microsoft started out as a two man company and built itself up from there just like all these other companies. Whats kept these other companies from doing the same thing? Should MS be blamed for being successful, and using their strength in the marketplace to their own advantage? Hardly. I know of no other industry or competitors in the world who behave any different. Its not Microsofts responsibility to `help` its competitors just for sake of consumer choice. Microsofts competitors are responsible for themselves. Theyre big boys and girls, they can figure things out on their own. This is not an issue of ethics. Its business. But then again, I dont see anything ethically wrong with being a smart business man. Besides, as long as we can go out and buy an alternative OS at a store or online or wherever, which we can, then MS is hardly keeping others from entering the marketplace. You have to keep in mind, that when manufacturers say yes to MS`s requests, and if you want to engage in finger pointing, you have to point your finger at the manufacturers, too. And keeping in mind that manufacturers can do what they want, why do you think that they always finally say yes to MS instead of going with an alternative OS? Because maybe Windows is whats going to maximize their sales, because thats what most users want, and thats where the money is? This reveals the true nature of business... Its money. The bottom line. Its not ultimately about variety, or feelings, or the love of technology, or the sporting aspect of competition, or bla bla bla. Its about money.

What if Be was the reigning OS in the world and MS was struggling to be known and used? Does anybody really think they would give poor little MS a chance? Hardly.

If youre the underdog like Be, you always have be more flexible, i.e., `Sure, we`ll share the same hard drive space with MS!` Because, as the underdog, sacrifices are necessary to get anywhere in the marketplace. But if youre the KING of the marketplace, you dont have to be flexible. And its unreasonable to expect MS to unseat itself from the throne it sits on to help a competitor by walking arm in arm with them. MS agreeing to have BeOS ship on the same hard drive, would effectively result in MS assisting Be`s marketing campaign and bottom line, while shooting holes in its own bottom line by saying, `Hey customers, look at Be... for some of you this is a MUCH better alternative to Windows! So if you try it and like it, then buy it from now on and forget us!` There is nothing keeping users from going out and buying Be on their own, installing it, and coming to the conclusion that Be IS better for them, but we cant expect MS to agree to conditions that would facilitate this process. Such is not the nature of business or competition. Would it be reasonable to expect to see brand new Mercedes` and brand new Lexus` selling on the same lot? Then why is it reasonable to some, to see competing OS`s shipping on the same hard drive? Not gonna happen. Microsoft isnt forcing anyone to do anything. There arent any guns to anybodys heads. Manufacturers can use what they want. MS setting conditions is not called force, its called leverage.

**********************************

As far as the Smartphone 2k2 is concerned, and it having a smaller chance for success if its not manufactured by a major player, I cant say I agree with this. I suppose anything is possible, but we have to ask ourselves how Ericsson and Nokia themselves, got so big in the first place. They started out as nobodys. Nobody knew who they were when they first came to market. They ultimately succeeded because over time they built up brand name recognition. Microsoft has this already, which is a huge advantage. If they can build a good solid phone, there is no reason they wouldnt succeed just the same. Without a major player, this would take more time than it otherwise would. But look at what theyve done in the gaming market with the XBox in such a short time. Look at what theyve done in the handheld market. MS`s products have been getting better, and if they can really put out a good phone, there really isnt a whole lot that will stop them. I dont doubt Microsoft knows who theyre up against, but that doesnt mean theyre intimidated.

Looking at MS`s behavior in the past, I dont think they worry about how long it might take to grab a piece of a market. I think they just ask themselves how can we enter this market, how fast can we do it, and then just steadily plug along until theyve done it, taking advantage of every opportunity along the way. When they target a market, they never worry they wont get a chunk of it, because eventually, they always do. This is why we never hear of them being intimidated, and Im sure this is why Nokia doesnt intimidate them. In terms of market share, to MS its most often a question of when, not if. Like Ive said many times before, time will tell.

[JohnnyFlash]

Phew! That must have taken ages to type and it's a lot to take in!

Originally Posted by Kre

Although Apple builds its own hardware, is it anti competitive that they dont allow Windows or Linux to ship on its machines?

Don't allow is a bit strong if M$ has never asked (and Apple do run M$ software on their machines).

Originally Posted by Kre

Just because a certain OS doesnt ship on a computer, what would prevent someone from buying and installing any OS they want later on?

It would seem so, or M$ wouldn't insist on having Windoze on every spinning disk.

Originally Posted by Kre

Besides, the vast percentage of users and companies arent going to want or need two operating systems to be productive.

I don't need two Operating Systems, but I like to choose one.

Originally Posted by Kre

So its not as though any manufacturer is really losing out by using Windows only

So why the M$ threats? :?: Are you saying that Micro$oft is wasting money by insisting on having it's OS on these machines? I agree that today, it makes little difference. However, when there was competition, not long ago, it made a world of difference. Manufacturers were willing to provide the choice... why not let the market decide this was a bad move and not Micro$oft?

Originally Posted by Kre

Nobody and nothing is stopping him or her from entering the marketplace

With respect, you haven't been listening have you?

Originally Posted by Kre

Could you imagine seeing one building with two competing movie rental stores inside? Say Blockbuster Video on one side of the store, and Hollywood Video on the other, for example? Could you imagine the landlord asking Blockbuster Video if it were ok if Hollywood Video shared the same space with them?

Actually, yes. I've seen Blockbusters and other video stores under the same roof. Much like the way you can find HMV, Virgin and Our Price in the same shopping centgre (mall).

Originally Posted by Kre

These things are hardly anti competitive. This IS competitiveness.

So, if we both had similar products, even though your was better, you'd accept it as good competition if I had the welly to bully and bribe companies into telling you to get lost and only to use my product?

Originally Posted by Kre

Its not Microsofts responsibility to `help` its competitors

I agree. But there's a difference between helping someone and giving them a kick in the goolies before whipping the casrpet from under their feet.

Originally Posted by Kre

And keeping in mind that manufacturers can do what they want

But they can't. You say it is business. They know that they need to have Windoze installed to get their PC to sell with the competitors. It's like having a race where some of the athletes aren't allowed on the track until the others have already got into their pace.

Originally Posted by Kre

What if Be was the reigning OS in the world and MS was struggling to be known and used? Does anybody really think they would give poor little MS a chance? Hardly.

I agree with you. Be would prbably do the same. But it doesn't make it right. I still want choice.

Originally Posted by Kre

If youre the underdog like Be, you always have be more flexible, i.e., `Sure, we`ll share the same hard drive space with MS!` Because, as the underdog, sacrifices are necessary to get anywhere in the marketplace. But if youre the KING of the marketplace, you dont have to be flexible. And its unreasonable to expect MS to unseat itself from the throne it sits on to help a competitor by walking arm in arm with them. MS agreeing to have BeOS ship on the same hard drive, would effectively result in MS assisting Be`s marketing campaign and bottom line

No! No! No! Nobody expects M$ to get off their throne to help Be. I would consder the correct action for Micro$oft to be to do nothing. Don't help, but don't hinder. Micro$oft went out of their way to stop the manufacturers from inlcuding Be. :?: If manufacturers are truly independent (as you suggest), why should Micro$oft get involved if all?

[HR]

Originally Posted by yup

Not that I like Nokia so much better, but compared with Stinger, Symbian is _much_ more mature, proven, and used in gazillion of phones worldwide

Excuse me? All the European surveys published in PDA sites that you are well familiar with show that Nokia has something like 4%-5% of the PDA market and Symbian has 7%-9% as whole. So please back you numbers.

I do prefer a platform that lets me connect to the *real* internet and choose my applications, services and downloads and not pay money for every *word* that I type as Part of SMS or email I send, no to mention to charge me for ring-tones.


This post would have cost me pennies with MS, but like $3 with Nokia phone.
.

[JohnnyFlash]

Originally Posted by HR

This post would have cost me pennies with MS, but like $3 with Nokia phone.

:? What the flippin' blink are you on about!?

I sent a couple of e-mails this afternoon and browsed this site on my Nokia device this evening and I know that I was charged by the second (which is not that bad with HSCSD).

Please explain what you mean.... I'm all ears!

[HR]

Originally Posted by Chubbergott

:? What the flippin' blink are you on about!?

I sent a couple of e-mails this afternoon and browsed this site on my Nokia device this evening and I know that I was charged by the second (which is not that bad with HSCSD).

Please explain what you mean.... I'm all ears!

Sure.
When you use a PC or a PPC, you get connected to the Internet as you describe. You get a pipe to the Internet. The phone company is relegated to charging for connection time. I am free to totally control my OS, choose applications and service providers such as email, instant messaging, web and freqing whatever. I am free to download any file and application I want. Nothing that I do or use costs me extra beyond connection time. I am free to choose companies who are competing for my attention and money in an open and universal system. I connect to the *real* web.

Now I live in Canada (and what I say refers to the US too) and use a cell phone. In order to extract additional money from me, the cell phone companies offer additional services like SMS Web and email. But those services are closed and proprietary. I can only use the application the phone company offers me and use it under their closed system. I cannot interface with the *real* internet, and worse of all, they make me pay for these things by the nose. They literally make you pay extra for the pathetic surfing inside their closed system; they make me pay for every byte of email I download; and they make me pay for every word I type on SMS. Those things add up like snowball, without even commenting on their usefulness.

If you get a wireless connection for $40 a months for a PPC, it literally costs you pennies to do those things, while dollars to do similar things using the business model of the cell phone companies.

What part of CLOSED PROPRIETARY AND RIP-OFF didn't you understand?
_________________________________________
foan campanys aaareee reeeepiiinng youuu aaauooffff aannnddd
nnnaaaaato MMMIccrosooft

[JohnnyFlash]

:? Ok, now I'm not the brightest candle on the tree so you'll have to bare with me a little......

Originally Posted by HR

When you use a PC or a PPC, you get connected to the Internet as you describe. You get a pipe to the Internet. The phone company is relegated to charging for connection time. I am free to totally control my OS, choose applications and service providers such as email, instant messaging, web and freqing whatever. I am free to download any file and application I want. Nothing that I do or use costs me extra beyond connection time. I am free to choose companies who are competing for my attention and money in an open and universal system. I connect to the *real* web.

These seem like basic rights that I've enjoyed since my Psion Series5 (Before PPC)..... I think this shows just how brainwashed you are into Micro$oft thinking. You seem to consider it impossible that;

I connect to the internet via my Nokia device (though I used Ericsson with my Psion). I can connect via Orange (the network operator), IC24, Tiscali.... in fact, anybody that provides a dial up service that I can access via my PC (even AOL - but I'd need a medical procedure before I could do something that stupid).

When I connect to the internet, I can browse anything I like. This site, that site, news sites, games sites, sites with pictures, sites without pictures, sites in English, sites in Welsh, sites in French (though I wouldn't understand that), sites for PocketPC technology, sites for cutting edge technology, sites that sell paper and scissors, sites that sell rubber bands, sites that sell rubber dolls (though may I take this opportunity to say that I have no need of use sites), sites that sell software, sites that buy hardware, my bank, my own site....... in fact, :?: NAME ME A SITE THAT I CAN'T VISIT VIA A NORMAL ISP!? (on a 640x200 screen - nice and wide)

I too can download any file I like, I can even download applications straight to my Communicator and install them without the need for a PC (that's handy, actually). I can download documents, sounds, pictures, applications (as I said)..... JUST LIKE YOO-HOO-HOO!

When I connect to the internet, Orange charge me by the second for that connection. They don't give a flying fop-fangled-matoid where I go on the internet (I could visit Vodafone, BTCellnet and Genie if I wanted).

We don't have SMS web and e-mail in the UK (I don't think so anyway) and to be honest, I don't think I'd touch it with a bargepole attached to another bargepoles on a day when the minimum length for bargepoles has been officially doubled. It would seem to me that the service you're on about is not available to me..... which kind of makes me ask;

Are you aware that devices other than PPCs and PCs are able to make connections to the internet via a normal ISP?

I don't mean to teach my granny to suck eggs, but it sounds to me like you reckon Nokia tie people into a subset of the internet (like WAP). I can tell you now, based on the paragraphs above, this is patently not true and I prove this every day (either that, or I imagine surfing the internet).

So, who told you all that claptrap about being locked into 'another internet' if you don't use a Micro$oft product? Whoever it was..... they lied!

PS. If you don't believe me, I'll post screenshots just to that I deceive you not.

Originally Posted by HR

If you get a wireless connection for $40 a months for a PPC, it literally costs you pennies to do those things, while dollars to do similar things using the business model of the cell phone companies

:roll: There just is no helping some people!

[SwitchBlade]

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Ok I think I've calmed down a little now. Thank you for informing me that I cannot access the web without an M$ device, I forgot that M$ "innovated" the web from nowhere and that it can be accessed on Acorn/Amiga/Apple/Atari machines (these aren't IBM compat "Oh no!!!!"), or on a PC running BeOS (how I post), M$, Linux, Unix, QNX. Then we can also use WebTVs, palmtops, mobile phones....

You seem to have the opinion that once you buy a phone they are set up for one ISP and that you are treated as if you were using AO(hel)L, I have an ISP account with freeserve that I use with my 9210, I can view sites with javascript/java/flash/etc I am not limited apart from by the width of the screen, which is still a mile wider than an M$ device. Previous to this I used my laptop with my Nokia 6210 for similar net access.

Now I don't know how things are done in your country but the way you describe the way you are charged for net access on a landline is *EXACTLY* the same method that is used for landlines and mobile phones in the uk. In some cases the mobile phone is *FREE* due to use of free minutes with your tarriff. you seem to have a very stange idea about how mobile phone companies and networks go about things... Maybe that just shows how far ahead Europe and Asia are with their business models for the devices. Move to Europe to enjoy beautiful easy to use handsets, and online freedom

'nuff said

SwitchBlade

[Kre]

Chubbergott,
Yes, it did take a while to write up. And I could respond to some of the things you said, but then we`d be here all week :lol: So I think Im gonna take a break from this thread!

[JohnnyFlash]

Originally Posted by Kre

Chubbergott,
Yes, it did take a while to write up. And I could respond to some of the things you said, but then we`d be here all week :lol: So I think Im gonna take a break from this thread!

Good move because I was beginning to think that I was dreaming when I accessed the internet using a connection that charged me by the second.

However, just in case there is still some confusion, I'll describe the tarif I'm on and how I connect to the internet with my Smartphone and will then also abandon this thread.


:arrow: I bought a Smartphone

:arrow: It is connected to a network called Orange

:arrow: Orange grant me 50 free off-peak minutes a day, for 50p a day. Any calls made bayond those 50 minutes, or at peak time are charged by the second

:arrow: A call can be a voice conversation, a FAX or a data connection to any ISP I choose

:arrow: When I have finished doing whatever it is I want to do, I disconnect

:!: Think of it in the same way as you connect your PC to the internet. You'r choice of ISP is not necessarily determined by your modem's or PC's manufacturer. You choose your ISP, connect, transfer and disconnect.

I hope this has clarified any misunderstanding about how you think we connect to the internet when we don't use a Microsoft product.

If you are still reading this topic, I really would be interested in knowing what this SMS based Web and E-Mail is all about since I've never heard of it.

Thank you.

[HR]

You guys are killing me. Please read the topic of this discussion. Does SMARTPHONE ring a bell. It's has somethng do with an device called "cell phone" and not PDA, revo and what's not. So let's talk about phones, smartphones, web/SMS connected cell phones that are used by 99% of the population. And I mean *regular* population not some geeks that spend all their times and money connecting with their NON-PHONES, (dead) revos, communicators etc. Any normal person who buys a phone gets milked by cell phone companies (and there is no reason to think British and European phone companies are any less greedy, they are actually more expensive).

And I was not referring to MS specifically, but to the model they represent. The ability to access and use the *real* Internet, currently not available to most cell-phone users. And I don’t care with what (really bad for you that 99% of this is handled by MS software, but, again, it's irrelevant. Hey let's ignore that, we don't know what is MS, they don’t exist).

You geeks simply do not realize that you don't represent normal users who buy a $100 phone and *do* get charged by the nose. You can go back now to your wet dreams about (dead) revos and the 0.0005% market share communicator.