[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 7 January 2013 21:19, Simon Avery <digdilem@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I don't think it's remotely fair to say they're not a technology > company. Fair? I have to be fair to MS? I'm actualy not sure I'm not being, in fact. Balmer: arch-technologist. > there are no pure technology companies - or at least, not for very > long. There are no successful _pure_ technology companies, one must have a busines-person among the nerds, or at least a nerd who can simulate one. And if your business plan is:- invent technology demonstrate technology sell company to %_big_player then the biznerd only needs a certain range of abilities. > The problem is, I don't think MS themselves know who they are right > now or what they're doing. I certainly haven't a clue. Watching MS > over the past couple of years is like watching an irritable neighbour > you don't like very much repeatedly poke themselves with a fork whilst > walking into the walls. And since if they were a technology (driven) company what they would be doing would be pursuing the ultimate in %_tech we return to the proposition that what they actually are is a company that wants to crush their enemies underfoot, accumulate the currency supply of the world, impose their trademark upon everything, and their chosen method for doing so is via the sale of whatever technologies they can acquire, or if necessary occasionally actually invent. It is not to say that they do not have among them very clever technologists... just that what the company does is not based on gratifying the superprimal drives of those people. Similarly, Microsoft are prepared to behave in an entirely legal and ethical way in their business methods. -- Adrian Midgley http://www.defoam.net/ -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq