[eep!]

Say, Bill left Microsoft, the whole thing, sold all his stock in MS and bought AAPL, gets voted in by the board as CEO, and Bill used all his cunning business tactics to get Apple to the very top, would you (we) still hate him as much?

If he did a better job than Steve, would you (the Steve worshippers) still love Steve as the god you see him as?

i will always love steve and billy boy sucks

------------------
stupid age bigots'
Mike

[gumby5647]

billy could NEVER do as good a job as steve......NEVER

Steve has culture, passision, a dream.

Bill nothing more than a stupid business man that doesn't do anything

------------------
AIM: gumby5647
ICQ:41746288
[email protected]
http://homepage.mac.com/gumby5647

[eep!]

Originally posted by gumby5647:
Bill nothing more than a stupid business man that doesn't do anything

I happen to believe Bill is a great business man and as for not doing anything... how did Microsoft get so big? surely you don't think it's because of their great products?

For what it's worth, I don't like Microsoft, it's products are useable at the moment (don't think I'll switch to XP though)

I don't even know why I posted this 'What if...' I should have known i'd just get a bunch of childish remarks, now I know why Mac users aren't popular...

...I think I've reverted to a PeeCeeWeenee !

[yoyo52]

Personally I think Jobs and Gates are far more alike than different. Both of them seem to me pretty ruthless in the pursuit of their goals, and both of them seem pretty callous about who they run over to accomplish those goals. The nature of the goals are a bit different, but only within the limits of a capitalist desire to maximize profits. Having said all that, I want to add that Gates is, personally speaking, a capitalist with some elements of a conscience. He has given away a great deal of money. I'm not sure that Jobs has done the same with his wealth, although corporately speaking Apple does seem to work with a social conscience of sorts.

[bradoesch]

I'd be pretty pissed off if it happened. First, he'd likely cut R & D totally out, and go back to stupid beige boxes again. And next generation firewire, etc., why develop that? He'd turn Apple into Microsoft's style of innovation (which is nothing).

------------------
Why 1984, won't be
like "1984"

[MikeM32]

Yeah in a hypothetical situation like mentionned in the beginning of this thread I do believe Bill would turn Apple into the biggest company around, the downside is we'd all wind-up with crappy software/hardware.

I'd be more worried about the quality going right out the window, over whether Apple became the software giant M$ is.

Bigger isn't better.

Mike

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by eep!:
how did Microsoft get so big? surely you don't think it's because of their great products?

Oh, it surely couldn't be that they've got the only user-friendly OS available on the open-architecture PC platform.....oh, no, not a chance.......

------------------

[suprz]

if bill (the evil one) took over apple....

well i guess the R&D budget could be lowered seeing how all the new apps could just be stolen.......

------------------
" I think,
therefore....IMAC

[eep!]

Originally posted by mr_sonicblue:
Oh, it surely couldn't be that they've got the only user-friendly OS available on the open-architecture PC platform.....oh, no, not a chance.......

Re-read the post, I never said they made userfriendly products, I said the got as big as they are through good business practices. I'm not saying that everything they've done is great, the whole netscape thing should never have happend and this mp3 thing is pointless but you've got to admit they have given a lot of people what they want (or what they believe they want...) and I believe it's Apples fault they're not as big as they could (should?) be, not Microsofts.

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by eep!:
Re-read the post.

Um, re-read MY post. The only reason that they're so big is that zillions of people/companies bought the cheaper computers available from half-a-dozen PC makers. And, good thing for Microsoft, they had the only user-friendly OS available for the platform.

It has little to do with "good business practice" in the long run. It comes down to this: what else would they put on those PCs?

------------------

[iCartman]

I'd be pretty pissed off if it happened. First, he'd likely cut R & D totally out

Silly boy, you are confused. Steve is the guy who dislikes R&D, not Bill. Steve has already reduced Apple's R&D to pitiful industry levels, hence why no new technology has come out of Apple in a looong time

I imagine Apple would be have an OS on every machine out there and have around an 80% market share. Thier legal fees would be much less also since Bill doesn't go around suing anyone tries to make his product better. Of course, Apple would be one of the most boring companies in existance.

------------------
respect mah athoritah!

[typoon]

All creativity and originality woudl go out the window

[eep!]

Originally posted by mr_sonicblue:
Um, re-read MY post. The only reason that they're so big is that zillions of people/companies bought the cheaper computers available from half-a-dozen PC makers. And, good thing for Microsoft, they had the only user-friendly OS available for the platform.

It has little to do with "good business practice" in the long run. It comes down to this: what else would they put on those PCs?

Microsoft are the big fish because they offered the 'Total Solution' they offered the client OS, the Server OS, the Office suite and they crammed it down peoples throats. They advertise anywhere, the throw huge launch parties, they make it known what they have, what they do and who they are.

IBM offered the Client OS (I think they also did a server version of OS/2 but I don't remember as their advertising was so poor) and when they bought Lotus they also offered the 'Total Solution' but did they cram it down peoples throats? no, they sat on it, almost ashamed of what they had to offer.

Be, Sure they offered a great OS, but did they back it up? Have you ever seen an ad for BeOS in print or on TV? Did they offer any apps, Office suites or graphics/music/video packages?

I've used BeOS it is easy to use, easier even than windows, but it was released and set adrift, it was never really pushed at the people it was aimed at. As for OS/2, I might go hunting for a copy one day and try it out just for the hell of it.

So, if Microsoft offering what people want and making it known that they have it, isn't good business practices I don't know what is.

[micha schraven]

A few blocks away there is a dentist who parttime works as a constructionworker. His patients know this as he sometimes has black dirt under his fingernails while doing his dentist things. dentists make a lot of money in Holland, constructionworkers do too. He just likes to do both these things.

Now if Bill had a second job (like steve has Pixar) what would it be?

(I agree that Bill is a fantastic businessman, one of the best in history)

[Ken_F2]

Microsoft are the big fish because they offered the 'Total Solution' they offered the client OS, the Server OS, the Office suite and they crammed it down peoples throats. They advertise anywhere, the throw huge launch parties, they make it known what they have, what they do and who they are.

Actually, Microsoft is one of the few tech companies to spend more on R&D than it does marketing. In 2000, it spent >4 billion on research and development and around 3.5 billion on marketing; it is set to eclipse 5 billion in R&D this year. By comparison, AOL spent on the order of 10 billion in marketing and 300 million in R&D last year. Apple spent about 1/12 what Microsoft did on R&D last year.

Microsoft is only able to do what it does because of its immense resources. Those resources were acquired the last 15 years; they can't be acquired overnight. There is tremendous power in having 25,000+ software developers available to do your bidding (along with virtually unlimited cash).

As for Bill Gates, I don't think he is greedy at all, at least, not in the traditional sense of the word. He has already committed virtually all of his fortune to charity upon his death (the Bill and Melinda foundation is already giving billions for food and medical services in third-world countries). As I noted in another thread, I think his primary motivation relates to his legacy. He wants to go down in history as the one single-handedly shaped the information age. He would like write Apple, AOL, Netscape, etc out of the history books. If he had his way, the references to the "golden age of information technology" in history books might very well start and end with Microsoft Corporation. I suppose that may be a 'greed' of a different sort.

[eep!]

Originally posted by micha schraven:
A few blocks away there is a dentist who parttime works as a constructionworker. His patients know this as he sometimes has black dirt under his fingernails while doing his dentist things. dentists make a lot of money in Holland, constructionworkers do too. He just likes to do both these things.

I hope he wears gloves when he's in peoples mouths!

Now if Bill had a second job (like steve has Pixar) what would it be?

That's a really good question. An oil barron?

(I agree that Bill is a fantastic businessman, one of the best in history)

Thanks. nice to see not everyone has their head in the sand.


[This message has been edited by eep! (edited 05-06-2001).]

[eep!]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
Actually, Microsoft is one of the few tech companies to spend more on R&D than it does marketing

Did I say it didn't? Nope. I was merely pointing out that Windows wasn't the only OS available on the Intel platform, but it WAS the only one that offered what people wanted, and was well known.

Microsoft is only able to do what it does because of its immense resources. Those resources were acquired the last 15 years; they can't be acquired overnight. There is tremendous power in having 25,000+ software developers available to do your bidding (along with virtually unlimited cash).

yeah, and IBM couldn't have pushed OS/2 a little harder? and BeOS failed because they didn't have bag loads of money to back them? nope. the failed because of bad business practices, a few well placed ads, a few media events, a couple of apps offered to go with BeOS and it would not be on the verge of being cancelled.

As for Bill Gates, I don't think he is greedy at all

who said Bill was greedy? oh, yeah! you did!

[fisherKing]

the world gives gates too little/too much credit.
gates, in part, was in the right place at the right time..
and sadly, apple had a lot to do with ms success...

if gates ran apple, we'd all have blazingly-fast beige boxes, no personality but great w/spreadsheets; sure, we'd all be running mac os, but our kids would be hanging out at the forums at msNN...

--------------------------------------------------------------------
. (tiny sig within designated parameters) �

[mr_sonicblue]

Microsoft, being as intelligent as you think it is, is certainly handling the open-source movement in a very stupid way. I find the entire situation very humorous (since the more Microsoft does to mend things, the more trouble they get into).

EDIT: And anyways, what you've been saying about BeOS and OS/2 may be true. But, does that make Microsoft intelligent? No, it just makes them not dumb.

------------------


[This message has been edited by mr_sonicblue (edited 05-06-2001).]

[eep!]

Microsoft, being as intelligent as you think it is

Did I say Microsoft don't make dumb moves? Nope.
Did I describe Microsoft is intelligent? Nope.

Did I say Microsoft have the ability to make people aware of the software they have available and what it can do? YES!

Would the ability to make people aware of what Hardware, software and services Apple have be beneficial to Apple? YES!

Would Bill do a better job than Steve? Probably.

aw, jesus. I've had enough of this 'what if..?' it seems some people really can't see beyond 'oo, micro$oft are the enemy and winblows sucks...'

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by eep!:
Did I say Microsoft have the ability to make people aware of the software they have available and what it can do? YES!

Uh-huh. Here's the latest Microsoft ads I've seen.

1) "Windows 2000 has 99.999% uptime." OK, what new features does it have?
2) "Office XP doesn't have Clippy." OK, what new features does it have?
3) "Windows 2000 doesn't blue-screen like Windows 98." OK, what new features does it have?

What Microsoft seems to be good at lately is trapping companies into upgrading their products.

Microsoft: "You have Windows 98, right?"
Business: "Yep."
Microsoft: "Hey, why not upgrade to Windows 2000?"
Business: "No thanks. I don't need it."
Microsoft: "That's OK, I'll just terminate your license. Now you can buy Windows 2000 or use something else!"

I still love this Microsoft quote (about open-source): "Only large, established companies can truely innovate."

Microsoft is turning into it's own enemy. Maybe Gates should bail while he still can.

------------------

[eep!]

Originally posted by mr_sonicblue:
Uh-huh. Here's the latest Microsoft ads I've seen.

1) "Windows 2000 has 99.999% uptime." OK, what new features does it have?
2) "Office XP doesn't have Clippy." OK, what new features does it have?
3) "Windows 2000 doesn't blue-screen like Windows 98." OK, what new features does it have?

Go back up the page and read what I said about "Microsoft give people what they want (or think they want)"

What Microsoft seems to be good at lately is trapping companies into upgrading their products.

So if a company buys the hardware and runs Microsoft software and when it comes time to upgrade they don't want to buy from another company and buy new Microsoft software, how is this microsofts doing? It's up to the company doing the buying to make the right choice. Microsoft can no more make anyone buy their software as I could to get you to do backflips.

Microsoft: "You have Windows 98, right?"
Business: "Yep."
Microsoft: "Hey, why not upgrade to Windows 2000?"
Business: "No thanks. I don't need it."
Microsoft: "That's OK, I'll just terminate your license. Now you can buy Windows 2000 or use something else!"

You made that up didn't you?

I still love this Microsoft quote (about open-source): "Only large, established companies can truely innovate."

You can highlite all of Microsofts dumb moves, but it won't prove me wrong. Microsoft have played the game of business right.

Microsoft is turning into it's own enemy. Maybe Gates should bail while he still can.

Now, THIS I agree with.

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by eep!:
You made that up didn't you?

No, that's what I meant by trapping customers. They are actually terminating business licenses for Windows 95/98 to force an upgrade.

------------------

[eep!]

I know Windows 95 is no longer supported even in the home, I didn't know about windows 98 though.

Do you have any links on this?

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by eep!:
I know Windows 95 is no longer supported even in the home, I didn't know about windows 98 though.

Do you have any links on this?

The article I read was in eWeek. But, here's a quote from the Win98 EULA

Termination.
Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.

I'm sure the business license agreement has a slightly modified version of that phrase.

------------------

[Ken_F2]

No, that's what I meant by trapping customers. They are actually terminating business licenses for Windows 95/98 to force an upgrade.

They are not terminating licenses, they are terminating support. They are giving companies about twelve months notice of this as well.

Can you call Apple and get support for OS 7.x (which was the current ver of MacOS when Windows 95 was released in August '95)? I doubt it.

[eep!]

Termination.
Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. In such event, you must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and all of its component parts.

Read that again: Microsoft may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA. where does it say "Microsoft can and will terminate EULA if you fail to upgrade to a newer version of the software or it's replacement." I'll tell you where, nowhere. So, tell me again how Microsoft are locking people into buying new software?

[This message has been edited by eep! (edited 05-07-2001).]

[mr_sonicblue]

Ken_F2, they are terminating the license.

eep!, once again, that's the END-USER license agreement. Not the business license agreement (Which, I'm sure, is far different).

------------------


[This message has been edited by mr_sonicblue (edited 05-07-2001).]

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by eep!:
Say, Bill left Microsoft, the whole thing, sold all his stock in MS and bought AAPL, gets voted in by the board as CEO, and Bill used all his cunning business tactics to get Apple to the very top, would you (we) still hate him as much?

If he did a better job than Steve, would you (the Steve worshippers) still love Steve as the god you see him as?

I don't hate Bill. I respect him for where he has gotten himself.

However, if he took over Apple, who would he look to for the one thing that Steve has over him? VISION?




------------------
Dave Simon
----------
Windows are easily broken.

[eep!]

Originally posted by mr_sonicblue:
eep!, once again, that's the END-USER license agreement. Not the business license agreement (Which, I'm sure, is far different).

So, a business isn't an end user?

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by eep!:
So, a business isn't an end user?

Nope. An end-user buys one copy. A business buys many copies. But that's the only difference I think.

------------------

[Ken_F2]

sonicblue,

I already know for a fact they are not terminating the license. You misunderstand what you read.

And yes, Apple has similar "we may terminate this EULA if you fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this EULA" provisions in its licensing agreements, as do most software vendors.

[PowerBookDude]

Nevermind.



[This message has been edited by PowerBookDude (edited 05-07-2001).]

[eep!]

PBD, your post are really starting to annoy me, I've kept quiet because I thought you didn't need one more person going on at you about your pointless posts.
Do you really think asking somebody to check their email and reply to you on the boards is going to make a blind bit of difference? Surely SonicBlue will check his own email and reply in good time?
Still I suppose I should be thankful you didn't reply with:

" "

And don't bother repling to this post with: " " ok, rant over.
Just tell me to shut up.

[mr_sonicblue]

Originally posted by Ken_F2:
I already know for a fact they are not terminating the license. You misunderstand what you read.

It was in black and white in an article in eWeek. Some businesses were mad because Microsoft was terminating licenses to get more Win2000 upgrades. I wish I would have saved it (but they come every damn week).

And yea, every license agreement has that clause. But, it seems rather evil to use it when someone did nothing but not upgrade.

------------------

[eep!]

ok, man, I believe you, I never heard that Microsoft were terminating licenses for no reason other than they wanted to, in fact it would serve Microsoft right if those customers moved to a non-MS platform with non-MS apps.
Just to reiterate:
I do not believe MS is the greatest company ever.
I do not worship Bill.
I do not believe MS do not make dumb moves.
I do believe that MS will take any opportunity to make money and/or harm competitors (unless it benefits them)
I do, however believe that MS make known what they have, whereas Apple don't really do so (pointing out you can do on an Apple everything you can do on a Windows machine is very 'me too-ish' ie. rip, mix & burn.)

I think Apple should do an ad on editing a video, showing iMovie2 instead of dancing iMacs, show iTunes, 'ripping, mixing & buring' not a bunch of musicians. They should end the ad with the iMac and the tagline.

I started this thread hoping it would be fun, sure I enjoyed the argument (thanks sonicblue!) but other than our futile little war, it has (in a few of the replies) shown that some people are unable to 'Think Different' despite probably saying they do so by using macs.

Lastly, I'd just like to apologise to powerbookdude, Sorry for being a bit of a d*ck, but you get my point.

I'll say no more on any of the matters discussed.
Thanks for your time and energy.

[Ken_F2]

Here's the article. Applicable quotes:

The licenses that let most computer makers incorporate the OS in new computers expired Dec. 31. As a result, Dell Computer (Nasdaq: DELL) and other computer makers no longer install the OS on new computers except under special circumstances.

"Beginning January 01, 2001, Dell is no longer licensed to factory install Windows 95," states an "end of life" notice on Dell's Web site.

In addition, Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) is not offering the OS under new volume licensing agreements that it sells directly to medium-sized to large businesses, according to company representatives. The only place that the OS is still being sold is in the "original equipment manufacturers' distribution channel," the network of distributors, dealers and small manufacturers.

"Windows 95 is definitely a legacy, discontinued program. None of the systems coming from the manufacturers has Windows 95 anymore. Everything has either Windows 2000 or 98," said Mark Romanowski, vice president of services for Long Island City, N.Y.-based dealer Jade Systems.

Even then, anyone who has purchased a copy of Windows 95 through a dealer or even a Windows 95 computer from a small manufacturer has had to pay for technical support calls since last fall. With Windows 98, a customer gets two free calls from Microsoft and often more from the dealer.

Microsoft uses other methods to encourage customers to shift as well, MacDonald said. Microsoft Office 10, the company's latest application package, is not compatible with Windows 95, he said. Microsoft also will not provide bug fixes after Dec. 31 of this year, which encourages migration.

"If you are a business, it becomes a risk-management decision when a vendor says that they won't provide anymore bug fixes or security fixes," MacDonald said.

People really burning for Windows 95, of course, can get it. Dell, for instance, will sell the OS through its custom integration service. To get that service, though, customers must order at least 25 PCs, said Dell spokeswoman Anne Camden. Dell also charges an additional fee for burning in the custom software.

Dell, however, will not "support," or provide consultation or troubleshooting, on Windows 95 installed on machines bought after Dec. 31 of last year. For help, customers will need to call Microsoft, which will charge for the call.

[This message has been edited by Ken_F2 (edited 05-07-2001).]

[sKP]

he's still not innovative, so I don't think we'd have any iBooks, iMacs, Powerbook G4 Titaniums and G4's would be in big beige boxes running MacOS X which has big UGLY blue windows and no Aqua no thanks... Bill's just not innovative enough, I'm sure he could make Apple the top company in the world because he's an EXCELLENT marketer, but I like Apple how it is...