Competition With Microsoft Isn't Just Possible, It's Commonplace
from the happens-all-the-time dept
Mitch Wagner is taking issue with everyone who says that you can't compete with Microsoft. He argues that, not only can you compete with Microsoft successfully, it happens all the time. He brings up the usual examples that show, indeed, it is possible to compete with Microsoft - though many of those companies are in a pretty tough fight and may not last. Even the ones that have won battles up until now might end up losing eventually. Still, he points out that the competition is leading to better offerings for consumers in the long run, and that's a good thing. Of course, what he doesn't mention is that any startup that comes up with a technology a VC considers to be a potential focus of Microsoft will never get funding...
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"You can't go wrong with IBM..."
About 8 years ago, I was working with Borland, configuring the labs for the yearly Borland TechFest (Borland Developers Conference,) and one of the folks I worked with had used that phrase a number of times in regards to Compaq. He was the supplier of the loaned Compaq computers used during the conference, and he stated on several occasions, "You can't go wrong with Compaq." His reasoning, when I questioned him, was the same as why those who used IBM stated, "It is easier to blame an oddity on the machine itself, since Compaqs don't go bad, and when they do it is rare." Now, at the time I was a salesperson/repair person of computers and I knew that while there was a few companies that consistantly sold broken printers, just about any computer had an equal likelihood of being broken. And several of the Compaqs we used that weekend died too, however the fact that it was Compaq meant support, and better equipment, etc... (even though we all know that is probably a load of dingo kidneys.)
The problem here is the same thing. It doesn't matter if Theo DeRaalt suddenly makes OpenBSD the most powerful, easiest to use, and cheapest desktop platform out there (you can hold your breath as long as you want, it won't happen,) Microsoft will still hold a Marketshare on the Operating System market because, "You cannot go wrong with Microsoft." I think Linux has gone a very long way to toppling Microsoft, and there is still a long way to go, but people will continue uttering this phrase until there is sufficient pull from another product to topple Microsoft.
However, when our jobs don't need to depend on it, we use the better operating systems, despite the fact you can't go wrong with Microsoft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oops, A Freudian Slip!!!
Oops, that should have been "computers", you probably know what was on my mind when I wrote this...
http://members.cox.net/ltlw0lf/printers/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft's dominance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IBM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: IBM
I've heard it both ways, but the statement still implies the same thing. Regardless to which way the statement was phrased, the folks that bought Toshiba typewriters, or Brother, or Casio, etc. had to prove it was the machine and not the company that was at fault...the folks who bought IBM weren't concerned because it was a commonly believed fact that "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]