“Michael Robertson, CEO of software company Lindows, has revealed himself as the formerly anonymous donor of $200,000 in prize money in a contest to translate the Linux operating system to Microsoft’s Xbox video game console.
The revelation was made in a posting earlier this week on the Xbox Linux Project site at SourceForge, a site for collaborative development of open-source software projects. Robertson disclosed his identity as the person funding the contest and extended the deadline.” Read the article at ZDNews.
This guys is sleazzy…. A sleazzy guy with a lot of money…
Well, however sleazzy he may be, if the outcome is that the xbox becomes usable to me I don’t mind.
Actually, there is another sleazzy guy…. A sleazzy guy with a HUGE amount of money…
the xbox is ALREADY usable as a gaming console, just like the PS2, and the Gamecube, and the Super Nintendo.
On an unrelated note:
I like the idea of running linux on the xbox, I hate the people who want it to smite microsoft
Don’t get me wrong, I hate microsoft probably MORE than the next guy ;D
Unless you are unable to read and comprehend I will repeat:
Well, however sleazzy he may be, if the outcome is that the xbox becomes usable to me I don’t mind.
I have no use for another videogamesystem, but a cheap linux based server built from quality parts is something I’d have a use for.
The XBox is not a cheap (even based on Linux) server. Those money can buy you a really competent NForce2-based AMD PC with a heckofalot more disk or RAM than you get with the XBox.
(As a matter of fact, you can hardly buy that slow PCs anymore. Perhaps old used models?)
Perhaps the XBox was a good buy when it first came out, but the PC market moves a lot faster than the console market. The only thing better on an XBox than on a cheaper PC is the graphics card, but you have no use for that on a Linux server anyways.
You just end up giving Microsoft money… (There are rumors on the contrary, but someone shows up with numbers I believe Microsoft probably makes a good profit on selling outdated hardware called the XBox.)
well, I don’t feel it is ethical for people like RObertson change a product that is meant to make money via selling games (royalties) turn it into a cheap PC…
NForce 2 with AMD processors? I could get a machine at the price of XBOX, but only with NForce, plus the same amount of RAM and HDD as the XBOX..
I love the idea of being able to run linux on xbox, or even microsoft os’s with the help of vmware of similar.
The only thing is at the moment the best resolution they have is 640×480.. which is a little poor I guess. But then again you are only playing it on a tv. But to do serious work then it’s not much use, but for setting up a server im sure 640×480 isnt too bad.
I would love to play DIVX movies on it as well, 640×480 is great for this. I think the idea of the xbox is unlike a modern pc it’s quiet (ish), unobtrusive and would make a great mp3 server etc.
However slashdot being the geekiest site I knew actually refused the article when I posted it about 4 days ago!
Maybe he should have put up money for who ever can make Photoshop 7 run on Linux.
NForce2 boards seem to run at over 200 EUR here.
Also, compared to the average PC case an Xbox is still rather small. Not as small as a shuttle barebone, but still quite small and good to stack away in some corner or integrate into an existing home entertainment system as a fileserver or what have you.
As for MS losing money on the hardware, I’m convinved they do. There have been some very well written articles on the subject.
Well, if you follow up the news sites you will figure that each Xbox is a pile of crap of its own… go to [H] and search the news…
Given the pricetag the quality is good in my opinion. in hardocp’s opinion usually only the latest and greatest overclocked the the max is good quality. They concentrate on the gaming use, not on a mostly quiet box for server use.
michael robertson does this so the joe sixpacks with an xbox could buy lindows for xbox and play nwn
Maybe he should have put up money for who ever can make Photoshop 7 run on Linux.
That’s actually a good idea
well, I don’t feel it is ethical for people like RObertson change a product that is meant to make money via selling games (royalties) turn it into a cheap PC…
Let’s compare that to another industry. When GM sells a car they plan to make money on the interest and service through a GM shop. Is it unethical to refinance the loan through a bank and service the car somewhere else?
He offers money to people to get his operating system preference (and business model) greater exposure and usability?
Pahlease!
(Sometimes I wish a had an idiot stick to hit over the head of people like you)
“well, I don’t feel it is ethical for people like RObertson change a product that is meant to make money via selling games (royalties) turn it into a cheap PC…”
rajan,
Why is it that it seems that you jump to microsoft’s defense for any reason whatsoever… even if it contradicts several statements that you’ve made at other times?
Something tells me that you are among the handful of Microsoft lemmings paid to troll here.
“NForce 2 with AMD processors? I could get a machine at the price of XBOX, but only with NForce, plus the same amount of RAM and HDD as the XBOX..
But how is hacking the XBOX somehow wrong or unethical?
(It’s not)
“Maybe he should have put up money for who ever can make Photoshop 7 run on Linux.”
But only Adobe can do that.
If you’re suggesting that someone else somehoe make the port… than THAT would at least be an unethical act… (unlike rajan r’s unethical post(‘s))
” well, I don’t feel it is ethical for people like RObertson change a product that is meant to make money via selling games (royalties) turn it into a cheap PC…”
rajan,
Interesting comment. In Australia, Sony took a guy to court for modifying PS2 so that it could play games parallel imported from outside of Australia. Sony likes to increase their profits by charging different prices for their games in different countries. The ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) which enforces fair competition, defended his actions and ruled it legal. Subsequently, Microsoft threatened to remove Xbox from the market in Australia as it undermined their business model – i.e. sell discounted hardware in order to make money on the software.
Now the ACCC is an institution that I respect. Microsoft and Sony etc are playing a dirty game. By selling you cheap hardware they lock you into their gaming format. This prevents new entrants into the gaming market, thus providing a new little monopoly for the likes of Microsoft.
Monopolies are the devil in modern capitalist societies as they literally suck money out of consumers by maintaining artificially high margins. ACCC defended the Australian consumer by defending that individual who was modifying PS2. This is a good thing. In a similar vein Robertson is defending the consumer by increasnig competition no the Xbox market by providing an alternative platform to develop games on.
The software market is particularly prone to creating little monopolies, as everybody likes to adhere to a common standard. If this standard is propreitory then we have a problem.
Robertson and his Lindows marketing is on the tacky side. But I maintain that his actions are increasing the level of competition rather than decreasing it. Hence in my eyes, I give this “sleazy” guy the double thumbs up, at least for now.
There’s nothing unethical about making Photoshop run under Linux or any other platform, as long as you don’t modify Photoshop to do it.
//Something tells me that you are among the handful of Microsoft lemmings paid to troll here.//
If you really believe that MS pays people to post on such a inconsequential website….you’ve got serious issues.
Don’t forget to don your tinfoil hat when you leave your house — or basement, or one-room apt., or whatever.
“well, I don’t feel it is ethical for people like RObertson change a product that is meant to make money via
selling games (royalties) turn it into a cheap PC…”
What’s unethical about it?
If I buy an XBox (not that I’m likely to), what I do with it is my
business, so long as it’s legal. If I choose to buy a kit to turn it
into an answering machine or whatever, that has nothing to do with the
makers.
They can, however, reasonably refuse to service it under warranty if
it has been used for a purpose it wasn’t intended for.
If Microsoft choose to sell hardware at a loss, that is their
decision. You don’t owe it to them to rescue them from their folly by
buying games.
In Australia, Sony took a guy to court for modifying PS2 so that it could play games parallel imported from outside of Australia.
Well, the goal for the xbox-linux is to run on an unchipped xbox, so the above does not apply at that point anymore.
Lindows is not a company, lindows.com is the company and LindowsOS is a product they have. Anyway, I’m glad to see he has that much money to spend. Maybe 3 months from now I won’t be reading a press release that says “Please donate money to help save lindows.com”
BTW, I think Linux is it’s own worst enemy, but that’s another discussion.
I think no matter what Robertson does, it’s all for publicity – which he has succeed in getting. The posture he has been taking is interesting – a posture of pure hatred for Microsoft. This can get a reaction from people, but I don’t know how long it can be sustained. I mean, even if you don’t like Microsoft, Robertson will start sounding shrill and will become an irritation more than anything else, if he keeps harping on MS instead of promoting Lindows.
If nwm ever comes out for linux…
In another sense, it is well known that MS loses money on every Xbox they sell, with the hopes of making it up on the games and accessories that are sold. It would be pretty funny if a percentage of Xbox sales were for running a poor-mans linux box, without games sales. This would create a lot of problems for MS to go and re-engineer it.
Actually photoshop working on Linux isn’t something that only adobe can do. Word has it that Codeweavers (who made Office 2000 run on linux among other things) are almost done with code that will let photoshop run on linux. The reason that it would help Lindows in the long run is that they can then advertise that not only can you run Office on Lindows but also Photoshop. A lot more companies than you realize are dependant on Photoshop and that is one of the only reasons they pay for and keep paying for Windows licenses instead of moving to linux.
The XBox is the most powerfull from all consoles currently on the market. It might not be as powerfull as your NForce + AMD + whatever-the-hell-evel PC you can buy for this money but the games that are for the XBox are specifically writen / optimized for the CPU / GPU in the system so they run a lot better than on any PC that costs less than $700.
Hell Unreal 2003 runs 100 times better on my xbox than on my roommate’s PC with AthlonXP 2000+ GeForce 4, 512mb ddr, that he paid $500+ for (more than twice the price of the xbox).
This guy is a complete idiot for wasting $200k of his money on something useless. The purpose of the XBox is for it to be a bad ass gaming console and it does it’s job well. Why would you want to put Linux on that machine and for what purpose? I don’t get it.
If this guy so wants to waste money why didn’t he sponsor the development of a new gaming console based on linux? That would’ve contributed a lot to the linux comunity in terms of multimedia features and stuff like that in linux.
Putting linux on the XBOX won’t contribute jack shit to the linux community since nobody other than the developers and a couple of crack heads will ever use it so it will never mature.
Let’s compare that to another industry. When GM sells a car they plan to make money on the interest and service through a GM shop. Is it unethical to refinance the loan through a bank and service the car somewhere else?
Tell me, does GM makes a lost with every car sold? Do they depend on the services for their profit? In both cases no. So your analogy sucks because of this. Microsoft sells XBOX at a lost, gaining their money via software royalties. If this group, funded by someone who, IMHO have not a ounce of decency, succeed is making Linux run so that geeks can just go out and buy a cheap PC – to me, that’s unethical.
Mason: He offers money to people to get his operating system preference (and business model) greater exposure and usability?
He gives money to people to get his BUSINESS MODEL greater exposure at the EXPENSE of someone else. That’s unethical. IMHO. Though matter how rich the victim is. If you think it is ethical, it is YOUR OPINION. MY OPINION is that this guy is a sleezebag.
Like said before, Microsoft doesn’t make profit from the hardware itself, they do it from the software royalties. You think this guy really care about Linux taking off? NO! Offering a price money is far more cheaper and time effective than hiring people to do it for him. Prior to Lindows.com, accroading to him, he was using Windows 2000. Trust me, I doubt he develop a great sense of patriotism for Linux in such a short period.
Mason: Why is it that it seems that you jump to microsoft’s defense for any reason whatsoever…
Au contraire. Take the Sendo case for example, I jumped at Sendo’s defence. Or the Open Source Achievement thread, I jumped at Linux’s defence. I do not owe anything to Microsoft, and certain the same to any other company.
Mason: even if it contradicts several statements that you’ve made at other times?
Name the times I contradict myself. I only contradict myself when I change my stand, which is normally when software progresses (e.g. I used to say Linux fonts are crap, now I say with FT2 and XFT2, they are the best). But I have never changed my stand on business ethics in a long time.
I once made wrong statements (all of which factual, not opinion), but once corrected, I never repeat them.
Mason: But how is hacking the XBOX somehow wrong or unethical?
How does that have to do with my statement that XBOX is not too expensive for its price?
Mason: But only Adobe can do that.
If Loki can license games to be ported to Linux, why can’t Robertson do the same?
Mason: If you’re suggesting that someone else somehoe make the port… than THAT would at least be an unethical act… (unlike rajan r’s unethical post(‘s))
Which is impossible, BTW. Unless you take CrossOver’s way. But that wouldn’t be unethical (or illegal), unless somewhere in Photoshop’s EULA it forbids Photoshop being runned on OS’s other than Windows and Mac OS.
ashley: Now the ACCC is an institution that I respect.
Well, if that’s the only reason you respect ACCC, I agree with you. I don’t at all believe in copyright-protection that blocks’s the end user’s fair use rights. Playing a game you bought in Europe or Japan is a fair use right.
However, I don’t agree that games made for Europe or Americas should be imported by third parties into Australia, because it is their producers’ right to sell their products in whatever regional markets they like.
ashley: Microsoft and Sony etc are playing a dirty game.
If you are meaning that they should no longer make money from the games but from the software, no, I disagree with you. Microsoft and Sony have everyright to earn money from royalties.
While we may never really know unless we become a Sony/Microsoft employee, I personally believe, looking from my point of view of the facts, that each regional division of Sony and Microsoft collects profit from software producers. So if just say Australian and American titles flood the Asian market, Microsoft and Sony’s division in Asia wouldn’t make as much profit.
But I can’t verify that (making it therefore an opinion) because how they make profit from software developers is a trade secret.
besides, them doing a wrong (trying to break fair use for consumers) doesn’t allow Robertson to do a wrong towards them. In this case, two negatives don’t equal a positive.
ashley: Monopolies are the devil in modern capitalist societies as they literally suck money out of consumers by maintaining artificially high margins.
Neither Sony and Microsoft are monopolies in this console markets. (Besides, margins for the sale of console hardware is below negative)
Don Cox: If I buy an XBox (not that I’m likely to), what I do with it is my
business, so long as it’s legal.
Wrong. Selling the console to you wasn’t their way of making profit. If they made profit when you turn your XBOX into a answering machine, for whatever reason, I don’t think it is unethical.
Don Cox: If Microsoft choose to sell hardware at a loss, that is their
decision. You don’t owe it to them to rescue them from their folly by
buying games.
They sold it to you for you to buy games. Read the agreements when you buy the console, you can’t do what you want legally (meaning no more legal green-black answering machine for you). If you both the XBOX and somehow disagree that you can’t mod it, then by all means used the refund.
Jay: The posture he has been taking is interesting – a posture of pure hatred for Microsoft.
Which is a funny thing, before Lindows.com, he wasn’t close to being anti-MS… at least he didn’t make it public.
Nothing’s better than to see there’s still people trying to bring M$ down. Go Lindows!
“well, I don’t feel it is ethical for people like RObertson change a product that is meant to make money via selling games (royalties) turn it into a cheap PC…” – By rajan r (IP: 219.93.220.—) – Posted on 2003-01-03 13:01:24
This is by far the most stupid thing I read in a long time. Here is why:
Essentially the console game industry works like the razor and blade cartridge business. They lose money on selling the razor handle but make money back by selling the razor cartridge. Microsoft loses money on selling console but make it back by selling game titles.
If I wanted to go out and buy a dozen razor blade handles without cartridge and then turn them into door handles, there is absolutely no ethical problem with that. Heck, I could buy hundred of them, glue them together and make an art piece out of them and no one will question my ethics. In fact it’s protected under my free speech. I can even buy the razor handle and drill holes in them so that it will work with it’s competing brand of razor blade if I want to. I paid for them with my money, I can do whatever I want with them.
I can get an XBOX saw it in half with a chainsaw and use those pieces as bookends. Where is ethics come into play here? I bought it, it’s mine and I can do whatever I want to do with it. I can go buy two XBOX consoles, duct tape them together and use them during step aerobics. I can buy one and let it sit on the shelf doing nothing and use it as a decoration if I see that the box is appealing to look at. For some reason that becomes “unethical”? Bizzare, odd, and maybe stupid but certainly not unethical.
I think Microsoft has brainwashed into believing that XBOX is “theirs” and they have the right to control it in a way they see fit. The fact is, you gave them money, you got a piece of equipment in return and therefore “you” own it. It’s none of their business whether I turn it into a bookend or a web server.
You can build a nforce2 based AMD system for $199? Please enlighten me..
AMD XP 1600 – $55
Nforce2 mobo – $100
Heatsync + fan – $10
Case + Power supply – $45
Geforce 3 ti200 – $95 (slower than the xboxes mind you)
64mb of pc133 ram – $25
10 gig harddrive – $55
Doesnt sound like $199 to me, but my math could be wrong.
(Above = $385, subtract $20 for a duron socket A proc)
it is NOT common knowledge MS loses money on every xbox they sell, and NO article written on the subject has proven they don’t make money on each unit.
“But I have never changed my stand on business ethics in a long time.”
Wait a second, are you telling my you’re coming to the defense of MS for ethical reasons. Blah hahahahaha. You wanna talk about ethics, you’re preaching to choir here. When MS started their little business, ethics went out the window. Maybe you should focus your “lectures” on the MS crowd.
If you wanna say Robertsons little contest is stupid, pointless, and a waste of money, that is one thing. But to say the poor MS is being treated unethically is just a joke. I very seriously doubt you’ll get little of sympathy/support for your point of view. “poor ms, everyone is so mean to them”.
Sendo
Netscape
Oracle
BeOS
Macintosh
names ring a bell with you? the MS empire is based on scandal and deceit. and yet you pick up their banner claiming “unethical treatment”…. WOW!!!
Thank you mountainpenguin for that great post. Everything I wanted to say and more.
If Microsoft thinks that selling the hardware at a loss and relying on software sales will be worth it in the end then that’s their decision. If it doesn’t work out for them then they can start selling the xbox at a profit. Why should the consumer worry about the validity of a company’s business model?
And even if it becomes easy to run linux on an xbox, how many people will really do it? A few thousand at max I would guess. Microsoft probably wont even notice/care.
I’m still curious as to why Robertson is doing this. I think that anything that sells hardware is good for MicroSoft, because if nothing else it looks like (and probably is) a larger installed player base. I think games are probably just the immediate stratagy for getting boxes on everyone’s TV rather than a real stratagy for profit.
So still, even with out my theories as to why MS is willing to throw almost unlimited money out the window with the Xbox, why is he doing this? Is it just to spite MS?
The only way this could make any sense is if he sees signifcant opportunity for LindowsOS sales to Xbox owners, and that probably isn’t going to happen when it requires a user to do it themselves.
Sounds like he thinks there is still a buisness model in a WebTV like device, but the people who go for that are usually those who want a no settup, no install connection.
I give Robertson some credit as a smart guy, but it just seems he is off his rocker here.
rajan r:
I only know this for a fact in relation to Ford (not GM), but yes, they do sell cars at a loss. The reason for this is not the same as MS selling the Xbox at a loss. In the US the federal government has regulations on the average miles per gallon for the vehicals each auto maker sells. Ford sells their tiny little, gas sipping, compact cars at a slight loss so they sell more huge, gas guzzling F Series trucks at a monster profit. There is no more obligation to buy Xbox games than there is to pay thousands of dollars more than a truck is worth just to help destroy the environment.
mountainpenguin:
The console razor-and-blade thing (or printer-and-ink) is largely a myth. Nintendo has never sold a console at a loss. Sony may start at a small loss, but making their own components and revising their hardware every few months (last I heard the PS2 was on its seventh revision) helps them to get it profitable real quick (they are making somewhere around $40 per PS2 right now). Microsoft just can’t compete without taking a loss (about $75 dollars per console). The first consoles to be sold at a loss were the PS1 and Sega Saturn once they came to America (Sony knocked more than $100 dollars off their Japanese price, and Sega was forced to follow).
🙂
A gaming console will never be a good substitute for a workstation or pc. But they are great for playing Donkey Kong! or Halo!
Pong, anyone?
it is NOT common knowledge MS loses money on every xbox they sell, and NO article written on the subject has proven they don’t make money on each unit.
google for it. just because you haven’t read it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Look at the SEC filings, the xbox division is losing money.
A lot of salesmen will actually take a loss on the intial sale of cars since most of their profits come from the various financing deals that *they* offer. If you don’t want their finance deals you’ll often pay a little more since they’re losing that profit.
>>>>The console razor-and-blade thing (or printer-and-ink) is largely a myth.
“Nintendo’s Mr. Main says his company’s games should turn a profit on hardware alone early next year. At press time, its GameCube console was expected to sell for $199 at launch. Over time, Nintendo should be able to reduce the cost of its system from $275 to less than $100.”
http://www.redherring.com/technology/games.shtml
>>>>Sony may start at a small loss, but making their own components and revising their hardware every few months (last I heard the PS2 was on its seventh revision) helps them to get it profitable real quick (they are making somewhere around $40 per PS2 right now).
The reduction in cost is even more when Microsoft uses 100% PC-commodity parts.
“I can get an XBOX saw it in half with a chainsaw and use those pieces as bookends. Where is ethics come into play here? I bought it, it’s mine and I can do whatever I want to do with it. I can go buy two XBOX consoles, duct tape them together and use them during step aerobics. I can buy one and let it sit on the shelf doing nothing and use it as a decoration if I see that the box is appealing to look at. For some reason that becomes “unethical”? Bizzare, odd, and maybe stupid but certainly not unethical.”
Just so.
Equally so, if I were to satisfy my erotic whims using an X-Box that wouldn’t be unethical either.
It might be obscene, but it wouldn’t be unethical.
I don’t understand your complaints about people installing linux on the xbox. People already install it and use it on PS2. If I go to the store and buy a piece of hardware I can do whatever I want with it. If I want to run linux on the xbox and use it as a cheap pc, that should be only my business. I will never understand all of the whining about this. It hurts nobody, and it is a great benefit to people who want to use it.
> If you really believe that MS pays people to post on such a inconsequential website….you’ve got serious issues.
Maybe you’ll find this interesting:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=49665&cid=5009397
But only Adobe can do that.
If you’re suggesting that someone else somehoe make the port… than THAT would at least be an unethical act… (unlike rajan r’s unethical post(‘s))
—
Mason, please remove the dobbie from your mouth. What the original poster is probably suggesting is that the money can be used to pay to license the source code from Adobe, the group then port it. Once complete, when sold, both the organisation and Adobe get the profits. Yes, and the software remains proprietary.
Whether or not it is illegal to reverse engineer the XBOX, people will do it anyway. Microsoft will try to prevent them, because they don’t want to lose money. As for the ethics, ask yourself what you would do if you had expended a lot of effort to create a new platform and someone actively sought to crack your console, games, and gaming network for whatever reason?
“As for the ethics, ask yourself what you would do if you had expended a lot of effort to create a new platform and someone actively sought to crack your console, games, and gaming network for whatever reason? ”
Well, for starters I would start realizing that it would be legal for people to do whatever they wanted with it and wouldn’t base my profit model on taking a loss. That’s just plain stupid. They *ONLY* reason Microsoft even attempted it has everything to do with their monopoly. They are leveraging their monopoly (by using their previous gains illegally made through their monopoly practices) as padding to allow them to enter the game console market.
I give anyone $5 to bring Linux to the Super NES, and it has to be compatible with the SNES Satellaview Satelite receiver. and X-band modem
Even if it was illegal for Microsoft to use the money they gained through leveraging their monopoly, Microsoft did not make all their money illegally. Also, anyone who wants to break into the console market today has to spend a lot of money. Microsoft is no exception. Even with a state-of-the-art console like the XBOX, below-cost price, and the usual intense marketing, MS has still had a hard time catching up to Sony. If MS had priced the XBOX for even a $0.01 profit on each console, they would have much lower or nonexistent market share now. Finally, the DMCA makes it illegal to reverse-engineer the security systems on the XBOX.
…being a LInux fan myself, but….
“They are leveraging their monopoly (by using their previous gains illegally made through their monopoly practices) as padding to allow them to enter the game console market.”
I’ve been watching commercials for the Xbox, and I don’t see any reason to believe they are doing anything but competing on merit. I’d also think that any company could have hired a large networking presence to help them get a gaming network going. Including AOL? Michael Robertson bugs me, sometimes, and I don’t have any positive or negative view on his effort to hack a gaming system (it’s been done, adnauseum, including to my beloved Atari computer series.) That’s life. But Robertson has a way of getting himself in trouble that hurts other people along the way. If MS has legitimate patents and property that are being usurped by this antic, I don’t like that.
If there’s something else going on here, some under-the-rock deals involving Microsoft, will somebody clue me in? If they can’t, then I have no reason to believe they’re competing unfairly.
You might want to invest that $5 the NetBSD team instead.
Under “suggested ports”:
”
Nintendo 64
Given the progress on the NetBSD/sh3 port to the Sega Dreamcast, another obvious target could be the MIPS R4000 series based Nintendo 64 games console. Games consoles share many interface and resource limitations with embedded and palmtop devices, opening a possibly more serious side to the port.
Contact: [email protected].
”
NetBSD has pretty good MIPS support, running on both big (mipseb) and little (mibsel) endian systems.
mipseb: evbmips (either eb and el) mipsco newsmips sbmips (either eb and el) sgimips
mipsel: algor arc cobalt evbmips hpcmips playstation2 pmax sbmips
Yours truly,
Jeffrey Boulier
Aitvo: Well, for starters I would start realizing that it would be legal for people to do whatever they wanted with it and wouldn’t base my profit model on taking a loss. That’s just plain stupid.
So what would you do? Charge the original price? Or strip down the hardware future? Thank god you aren’t in charge of Microsoft’s XBOX division, cause if you are, XBOX (as unsuccessful as it may be) wouldn’t be as successful as now.
So lets say you decide the pick the earlier one. Who on earth would buy your hardware? It wouldn’t at all be successful, and would go in the way of Dreamcast. It wouldn’t have as much games as it has now.
So what happens if you decide to take the second choice? The console would be downright lousy, people would much rather buy the competitor’s over yours. So in all, I’m sure Microsoft is very happy they didn’t pick you.
Aitvo: They are leveraging their monopoly (by using their previous gains illegally made through their monopoly practices) as padding to allow them to enter the game console market.
I personally think Microsoft didn’t do anything wrong in the light of antitrust laws, because I think it is a sore loser’s law. Besides, just say Microsoft allow BeOS to be loaded on Compaq machines, and never integrated IE into Windows, I don’t think Microsoft profits would be anywhere lower than it is today. If it is lower, it would be a insignificant amount.
So if IBM enters the console market, would you say they are using money from their previous “anti-competitive” dealings as a padding?
“I personally think Microsoft didn’t do anything wrong in the light of antitrust laws, because I think it is a sore loser’s law.”
Rajan, man, don’t be insulting everyone’s intelligence like this. If I make a profit by beating all my competitors with a baseball bat, that, believe it or not, is a CRIME. That I CAN do it doesn’t make it legal, or RIGHT.
Even though Ayn Rand would undoubtably approve. Pure capatalists place a very low value on morals. Doesn’t add to the precious bottom line.
I personally think Microsoft didn’t do anything wrong in the light of antitrust laws, because I think it is a sore loser’s law. Besides, just say Microsoft allow BeOS to be loaded on Compaq machines, and never integrated IE into Windows, I don’t think Microsoft profits would be anywhere lower than it is today. If it is lower, it would be a insignificant amount.
Apple could be said to be lowering MicroSoft’s profits an “insignificant amount”, but that insignificant amount is making quite a few of us very happy. Why shouldn’t Be be lowering MS’ profits another insignificant amount to make another group of people very happy? How about Linux? Allowing OEMs to ship dual boot systems would lower MS’ profits another insignificant amount, and make more people very happy. All that may well add up to lowering MS’ profits insignificantly, but it would make significant profits for others, and quite a few happy customers.
In the end I couldn’t care much less about MS bundling a web browser. We wouldn’t be where we are today in the world of web browsers if MS hadn’t bundled IE. I just wish using IE didn’t irritate me so much.
the arbiter: If I make a profit by beating all my competitors with a baseball bat, that, believe it or not, is a CRIME.
Antitrust is not a criminal law, BTW. Besides, what I’m saying is that Microsoft didn’t beat their competitors with a baseball bat, they just provided them with baseball bats.
If I arson down my competitor’s restaraunt, that’s a crime. If I charge half the price, and steal all his customers, that’s no a crime. That’s being competitive. If I, the most biggest (or monopoly) of table tennis bats decide to include table tennis balls in the set, that’s being competitive. Not anti-competitive. But if I send spies to my table tennis ball manufacturing competitors and sabotage their buidling process, that’s a crime.
the arbiter: Even though Ayn Rand would undoubtably approve.
I take it you haven’t read her writings. Well, to make it easy to you (or rather to spare you the boredom of reading Ayn Rand’s writings), here are some links to summarize them for you;
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/monopolies.htm
http://www.capitalism.org/faq/antitrust.htm
In other words, if she was writing books now, she have even more reason to bash antitrust laws.
(Besides, to clarify, there are some major parts of Ayn Rand’s ideologies I don’t believe like abortion rights, tax-free, legalizing dangerous drugs, etc. she was from the 50s, this is the 21st century)
the arbiter: Pure capatalists place a very low value on morals.
On the contrary. It is just that the moral system practiced by capitalist are based on individual rights, which is different from other societies like convervatives, socialist, etc.
nnooiissee: Apple could be said to be lowering MicroSoft’s profits an “insignificant amount”, but that insignificant amount is making quite a few of us very happy.
I don’t see how in any way Apple was hurt by the so-called “anti-competitive” practices by Microsoft.
nnooiissee: Why shouldn’t Be be lowering MS’ profits another insignificant amount to make another group of people very happy?
Be’s second-last business model was to get a free version of Be OS into PCs with the help of PC OEMs. They had no plans to get OEMs to bundle BeOS without Windows. I don’t see how Microsoft could have loose profit over this. Besides, Be would be dead anyway because their strategy sucks (how are they gonna make money while waiting for developers to come?)
nnooiissee: How about Linux?
If anything, Linux is blessed by Microsoft so-called “anti-competitive” practices. For example, when Microsoft started forcing the enterprise market into a subscription policy, Linux gain a lot of new clients.
nnooiissee: Allowing OEMs to ship dual boot systems would lower MS’ profits another insignificant amount
Actually, it doesn’t lower MS’ profits at all. Notice that Windows would be bundled in the dual-boot machine that would only please such a small minority of geeks which already have dual-boot (or even non-MS) machines.
nnooiissee: and make more people very happy.
Yes, I can imagine grandma and grandpa bringing out the party hats just because their new Compaq comes with both Windows and BeOS.
nnooiissee: but it would make significant profits for others
I don’t see how Apple makes money if Microsoft allowed OEMs to dualboot with Windows…. mainly because they have no version for x86. Then Be, how do they make money from OEMs if they are willing to give it for free? And then Linux… I sincerely doubt Linux would be all that profitable if got bundled with every new Dell along with Windows.
nnooiissee: quite a few happy customers
Just to highly a word.
nnooiissee: In the end I couldn’t care much less about MS bundling a nnooiissee: web browser.
Besides, even if Microsoft charged the same price as Netscape for IE, and didn’t “co-minggle” it with Windows, I doubt Netscape would be the top. Maybe their shares would be double at this time, but that’s it.
Just to highly a word.
Highlight, not highly.
“So what would you do? Charge the original price? Or strip down the hardware future? Thank god you aren’t in charge of Microsoft’s XBOX division, cause if you are, XBOX (as unsuccessful as it may be) wouldn’t be as successful as now.”
I don’t know what I would do, I have not written a business case for the console market. I would not however go into it blindly believing that my hardware wouldn’t be used for other things.
“So lets say you decide the pick the earlier one. Who on earth would buy your hardware? It wouldn’t at all be successful, and would go in the way of Dreamcast. It wouldn’t have as much games as it has now.”
Who’s to say that it would? The dreamcast didn’t take off because no one would develop for it due to it’s lack of built in copy protection.
“So what happens if you decide to take the second choice? The console would be downright lousy, people would much rather buy the competitor’s over yours. So in all, I’m sure Microsoft is very happy they didn’t pick you.”
Who says it would be lousy, you? Was the N64 lousy? no. Was the NES lousy? no. Doesn’t matter if they did pick me, I wouldn’t work for them anyway for moral reasons.
“I personally think Microsoft didn’t do anything wrong in the light of antitrust laws, because I think it is a sore loser’s law. Besides, just say Microsoft allow BeOS to be loaded on Compaq machines, and never integrated IE into Windows, I don’t think Microsoft profits would be anywhere lower than it is today. If it is lower, it would be a insignificant amount.”
That’s your opinion and it’s wrong. Microsoft stomped out competition for YEARS. They wouldn’t be where they are today if it weren’t for things like bundling, issuing false errors in beta code, and forcing OEM’s to only sell your product.
“So if IBM enters the console market, would you say they are using money from their previous “anti-competitive” dealings as a padding?”
I seem to recall that IBM wasn’t convicted of monopolistic practices. Leveraging one market to enter another is a violation of the Sherman act.
“SECTION 1 Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.
SECTION 2 Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding ten million dollars if a corporation, or, if any other person, three hundred and fifty thousand dollars or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court.” — http://voteview.uh.edu/antitrst.htm
Microsoft was found guilty of a FELONY, they are FELONS. They are now using their illegal gains to enter new markets which in itself is illegal.
Aitvo: I don’t know what I would do, I have not written a business case for the console market. I would not however go into it blindly believing that my hardware wouldn’t be used for other things.
If you think Microsoft and Sony are blind to the fact that modders (or, in this case, Linux running off a CD) wouldn’t try to use the hardware in ways other than what Microsoft and Sony wanted, you are dead wrong.
Even if Microsoft and Sony anticipated these activities (just like the RIAA anticipates its CDs being copied by piraters and sell them in Bangkok), doesn’t make it unethical. At least to me.
Besides, your point was it is Microsoft’s and Sony’s fault that their hardware don’t make profit, and they make profit else. My point was that they don’t have a choice. Except entering a niche market like Nintendo (which is much harder and the returns are lower).
Aitvo: Who’s to say that it would? The dreamcast didn’t take off because no one would develop for it due to it’s lack of built in copy protection.
The main reason why Sega dropped the Dreamcast is because it knew that it isn’t all that smart making games for your own console (there’s nothing to be made there). As for no copyright-protection, I’m not sure, but the only person I know that still uses the Dreamcast normally enters a CD-R (with pressumably some code to circumvent any copyright protection) before entering the game.
But then again, I’m not at all sure about that.
Aitvo: Who says it would be lousy, you? Was the N64 lousy? no. Was the NES lousy? no.
The speed and graphics quality, compared with a XBOX or a PS/2, yes I say it is lousy. GameCube too. Nintendo manage to do this because it owns a niche no one really tried to enter.
Aitvo: That’s your opinion and it’s wrong.
Yes, it is my opinion (never said otherwise). But calling it wrong is as easy as me calling your arguments wrong. I believe in different principles, political ideologies, etc. than you.
Aitvo: Microsoft stomped out competition for YEARS.
Should we gun down Ford because they stomped out many different competing products over the years? Nah, because they aren’t a monopoly.
Netscape, Be killed themselves. Sun on the other hand with such greadiness in keeping Java *their* product rather than a standard also blocked it.
Aitvo: I seem to recall that IBM wasn’t convicted of monopolistic practices.
Wrong. Research on that again.
Aitvo: Leveraging one market to enter another is a violation of the Sherman act.
getting pregnant outside a marriage (zina) in north nigeria is a violation of nigerian Shariah law. Should I agree witht that too?
Aitvo: Microsoft was found guilty of a FELONY, they are FELONS. They are now using their illegal gains to enter new markets which in itself is illegal.
Their legal gains (if they didn’t violated the law) would be all that different than their “illegal” gains. As I previously mentioned. Besides, from what I understand from this law, it is only illegal to use one product which is a monopoly of a market to enter a new market (ala Internet Explorer). I don’t think XBOX is the same.
So what are you suggesting? Strip Microsoft of all their money? If it is illegal, trust me, there would be a suit against them right now.
Rajan-for starters, I’ve read both “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”. Don’t make assumptions about those whom you are holding a dialouge with, and you’ll end up looking less ignorant in the end.
I do appreciate you wishing to spare me the tedium of Ms. Rand’s writings, but, unfortunately for me, you’re twelve years too late.
About Rand and capitalism:
1. Her writing is piss poor and boring, no question. Sadly, poorly written elitist rape fantasies are not illegal. Perhaps they should be, but the First Amendment prevents this.
2. Two more morally bankrupt pieces of literature cannot be found anywhere. Her philosophy, held aloft by “pure capatalists” everywhere, boils down to this: The strong should survive, and the meek can go die in a corner. Quiety, so as not to disturb the rich folks’ party.
Enough of Rand. Subject two: Antitrust laws, last I heard, are in fact CRIMINAL laws that can also carry civil penalties. Just like murder:)
Like most people, myself included, you draw a line of personal convenience as to what you consider right or wrong. You are allowed to do so, so long as you recognize that when you take an extreme position most people will object, sometimes quite vociferously.
Microsoft hurt a lot of people, and did so in a fashion that this society considers against its laws. They were found guilty of a violation of the law. It didn’t seem to hurt them any, and hasn’t stopped them from indulging in the same kind of behavior. People, myself included, will object. Get used to it. We’re not going away.
One thing I forgot in my anti-Rand rant: (sometimes I get carried away) I think Michael Robertson is one of the lowest forms of life on this planet for pulling this stunt. At least Bill Gates let us all know who he was.
Rajan-for starters, I’ve read both “The Fountainhead” and “Atlas Shrugged”. Don’t make assumptions about those whom you are holding a dialouge with, and you’ll end up looking less ignorant in the end.
So please quote her from her books in areas she agree with action taken against Microsoft.
The strong should survive, and the meek can go die in a corner.
Actually no. What she is saying is that the government shouldn’t force the strong to help the meek. She is saying that if the strong really want to help to meek, they can setup their own charities, their own schools, their own public hospitals.
Subject two: Antitrust laws, last I heard, are in fact CRIMINAL laws that can also carry civil penalties. Just like murder:)
Actually, I believe antitrust law is a civil law, rather than criminal. However, there’s no need to debate over this because neither of us are lawyers (maybe you are, but I don’t know).
If Microsoft can be considered a criminal, most drivers I know that at least once had to pay a find are criminal too, am I right?
Microsoft hurt a lot of people, and did so in a fashion that this society considers against its laws.
Actually, the people that are suing Microsoft, Netscape, Be and Sun, actually hurt themselves more than Microsoft hurt them.
take Netscape for example. Before Netscape 6.0, it wasn’t modular (meaning I simply can’t link my software to Netscape to use a function, unlike with IE where I can link to DLLs like mshtml.dll). (Netscape 6.0 came a bit too late, BTW).
So what did they so? Besides making their browsers free and trying to find a different source of income, they started a long 4+ year rewrite. Heck, they released 6.0 before the rewrite was over, and there was a lot of backlash against Netscape for that release.
if you see how Netscape manage their engineers in mozilla, you can pretty much understand why they went under and got bought by AOL. How many times did they change their goals? It seems they are running a real open source project, completely oblivion to the fact that it was their only hope.
So if it is true that Netscape was a poor defenceless company, how can Real manage to stay as the market leader after about 3 years of NetShow being in Windows?
Then what about Be, you say. Even now, more and more, BeOS zealots are starting to realize that Be Inc. wasn’t run by the smartest (nor anything close to it) businessmen. It was runned by a bunch of great technological visionaries, but not businessmen.
All their products you see that they couldn’t care less about marketing. They wanted to make something cool. This only appeal to a small group of geeks, completely unprofitable. They had many chances of success before they tried the PC market.
Take BeBox for example, they could have successfully marketed the product as a altenative to PCs and Macs. they could have attacks and kept a profitable niche to themselves and expand from there. They didn’t. Their whole product wasn’t made to get new customers, it was to please acedemics with super cool tech.
(Besides, while really off topic, Be also made a lost with each BeBox sold, they planned to make money from developers).
So what did they do before entering stupidly into the IA market? They tried to enter Microsoft’s main market. Even if Microsoft allowed BeOS to be bundled together with Windows on OEM machines, I sincerely doubt that Be Inc. could have succeeded.
They gave BeOS free to the OEMs, hoping again to make money from developers. But developers aren’t stupid people, if BeOS shares goes up, they know it is only because it is bundled with Windows. They have no reason, economic and competitive, to port their software to BeOS.
The Java. Until .NET, JCP didn’t exist. Sun had every say on what goes into Java and what doesn’t. It happens that much of IBM’s tech happens to go into Java because Sun benefits directly from it. However Microsoft have absolutely no say whatsoever in Java, not a smart way to treat a company way way way more larger than Sun.
So Microsoft and Sun early on had a deal. Microsoft made a compatible Java VM. Then Microsoft added some parts to it. Sun disagrees, sues. Sun is in the right here, although I think it doesn’t make sense from my point of view.
But here’s the interesting part. Sun settles with Microsoft. The settlement breaks Microsoft free from their previous contracts. Microsoft have no more obligations with Java anymore. Sun thought Microsoft wouldn’t dare remove java from Windows and thought they would bundle their VM. Boy, were they wrong. Instead Microsoft decides to compete against Java.
P.S. Don’t say I’m wrong because I can’t be neither right or wrong. This is my opinion. Your opinion is yours, I can’t prove it wrong either.
P.P.S. I find Ayn Rand a terrible writer. But I agree a lot with her on many things, but a lot of things she wanted are outdated and impossible today.
Robertson is not really a real keen follower of Rand’s ideologies. Take his flint with MP3.com for example. He is a opportunitic, not a follower of Rand.
I have been following this argument awhile and I’ve got to say. Microsoft decided to sell XBox at below cost. X-Box is a piece of hardware and when you buy it you have the right to do what you please with it. If Microsoft can not make money off of the X-Box it isn’t because “Oh those linux hackers are screwing MS!” It is just because perhaps they have a *gasp* bad business model. Microsofts business model involves buying off the shelf parts in order to produce a console and expect it to be competetive. In todays world, that just isn’t practical. So, they take a hit on every console in order to drop it to a competetive price. However, chances are this business model is just not sustainable. Is it anybody’s fault? No. It is just the reality of the business. If MS wants to compete with Sony, they may well have to vertically integrate. If they can’t do it, they don’t stand much chance.
Microsoft decided to sell XBox at below cost. X-Box is a piece of hardware and when you buy it you have the right to do what you please with it.
So if I rent a car at the car rental, I can do whatever I like with the car? Buying a XBOX is very similar to renting, read the EULA before opening the box. If you don’t agree with it, ship it back to the store and get a full refund.
If Microsoft can not make money off of the X-Box it isn’t because “Oh those linux hackers are screwing MS!” It is just because perhaps they have a *gasp* bad business model.
Actually, Microsoft is not making money with XBOX not because Linux is there. Linux doesn’t run properly on XBOX anyway for now! They don’t make money now with XBOX because there isn’t much non-Microsoft games development, meaning not much royalties. And the reason for that is that most game developers don’t really see much reason to develop games for XBOX.
Microsofts business model involves buying off the shelf parts in order to produce a console and expect it to be competetive.
If that’s the reason why Microsoft is not that successful with XBOX, boy my respect for Microsoft’s business-savviness has gone down.
Microsoft took off-the-shelf parts because they cost less and less over time. Besides, most of it are custom parts. Like the processor is a custom P3/Celeron. The chipset/GPU is similar to NForce. Stuff like that.
Using these parts doesn’t make Microsoft less competitive. Heck, XBOX provides potentially better graphics and faster speed than their closest competitors. This is their only competitive egde.
However, chances are this business model is just not sustainable.
Actually, it is potentially very profitable. Sony is making billions of dollars out of PS/PS2. Microsoft just have to give it time. If theyd didn’t make a lost with each system, I doubt they would be anymore successful.
Is it anybody’s fault?
I’m not saying that it is anyone’s fault. Heck, Microsoft anticipated this, you think they went into the market expecting huge returns overnight? What I’m saying is Robertson is trying to make profit out of someone else’s work.
You think he is providing the money so he would get good PR? You think he gave the money because they looovvvveeee Linux so much that he wants to run it on his XBOX at home? If you think that way, Lindows.com PR team’s hard work worked for you. He probably wants to create “LindowsOS for XBOX”, but I don’t know because he isn’t really open about his intentions.
And that’s to me is unethical. This is soooo similar with MP3.com, trying to make money like a parasite. (Besides, I really didn’t know your ass was unethical..)
When fully upgraded with Nintendo licensed hardware
the N64 has, a 64meg Disc Drive with the 64DD, Real time clock
Boot Rom, Cartridge Modem, Keyboard, Mouse, Capture Cartridge
with AV Input.
rajan is right in that Be should’ve kept the bebox and advanced it instead of going software only. As a result they had to deal with numerous tech support calls relating to hardware compatibility and the numerous problems involved with OEM’s and their relationship with Microsoft. I think Palm took the right approach (and the Be team is right in the middle of it!). They started with integrated OS and Palm, had it established with consumers and developers and then split the OS from the PDA so that Sony and other companies could easily license the OS. The reality is that if you want a successful alternative OS, you have to have it in a unique hardware platform to carry it through. Amiga, Mac and Playstation are other examples where the OS was pushed by the hardware and they are pretty viable OS’s (though amiga was killed off because Commodore really was a bunch of crooks)
So what about linux? They already have a compelling hardware platform…it’s called Tivo.
I didn’t know that the distro they used was MDk 9.0 ! That freaking cool. Un-top of all that if you want to retian the orginal OS to play games and dual-boot Linux all you have to do is throw in a mod chip. Nice !!! Hmmmm….the x-box with just Mandrake Linux would make for a nice and quite router/firewall/email server….evil grin.
My point wasn’t that Be should have stayed with BeBox (personally, I would have kept it for a time being). My point is from birth itself Be didn’t have a clear and distinct target market. But just say JLG got a clue and targeted video. he would have either tried to get video apps to be ported to BeOS, license those apps to port them over to BeOS, or write his own apps, or all three. He would aggressively market it towards video editing folks.
And then just say it succeeded in getting the video editing market, they can move to a related market… for example, photography. Or audio. Or something of that sort. Personally, I think Be should have gone for the print market, because Apple was pretty weak at that point, while Steve Jobs was playing Mr. Revenge instead of Mr. Businessman (with NeXT).
besides, just to point out, Linux is succeeding because of its nature. It isn’t a product of a company, rather it has become a product by many different companies. It is very versatile. If Be wanted to follow Linux lead, they wouldn’t be able to do it profitably.