Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 02:28:19 -0700 From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> To: "David Johnson" <djohnson@acuson.com>, <freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: RE: Innovation and Promotion Message-ID: <004d01c12fa3$c60251a0$1401a8c0@tedm.placo.com> In-Reply-To: <3B8A9679.D8928ABC@acuson.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>-----Original Message----- >From: owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG >[mailto:owner-freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG]On Behalf Of David Johnson >Sent: Monday, August 27, 2001 11:51 AM >To: freebsd-newbies@FreeBSD.ORG >Subject: Innovation and Promotion > > >Apropos the recent thread: > >When it comes to new technology, you have two forces at work, the >innovators and the promoters. Microsoft has never innovated anything. >But they have done excellent work at promotion. The Unix family has done >great innovation but has fallen down when it comes to promotion. > >Without Xerox PARC, BSD UNIX, and many others, there would be nothing >for Microsoft to promote. Despite their blunders and frequent lapses of >ethics, they have managed what everyone else (with the exception of >Apple) in the industry has failed to understand: what the customer >really wants. No. What Microsoft and Apple did is that they understood BEFORE anyone else that the type of customer that you describe later on even exists at all. Everyone in the industry understands what the customer wants, that's not hard to see. But, very few people can tell you what that customer is going to look like 10 years from now. Apple and Microsoft were able to rub that crystal ball and for a brief instant it all became clear to them. By the time that everyone else realized what that vision was going to be it was too late. >And so they have become a monopoly without even trying >hard, because no one else is even attempting to compete on the same >playing field. > No. They tried very, very hard indeed and Bill Gates created a giant deception that he used to destroy Steve Jobs and Apple's future. If Bill had been honorable then Apple and Microsoft would have ended up like Coke and Pepsi are today. But Bill Gates was a coward and was afraid that he wouldn't measure up if he had to compete with an Apple Computer that was the same size as him, so he chose to be underhanded and use deception to destroy their future. >The the average customer doesn't want technology. If they did Microsoft >would have been out of business years ago and all computers would ship >with Unix/BSD/Linux by default. What the customer wants instead are the >*benefits* of technology. They don't want TCP/IP, they just to surf the >web and read their email. They don't want X11R6/GTK+/QT/Motif, they want >a desktop that isn't ugly. They don't want OpenGL, DRI, or even DirectX >(for that matter), they only want their games to run smoothly and >quickly. > This is a very simplistic view. Yes, a LOT of customers want this. But your forgetting there is a very large segment, the "silent minority" if you will, of customers that want technology, but because of various factors don't have a choice but to be rammed into the "benefits of technology" mold. There are plenty of specialized programs out there that are only available on Windows, and their users are then forced into using Windows just to get access to the program. Now, I'm not saying that this is all Microsoft's fault, the UNIX people could do more to extend a hand to many ISV's to help port their code. There's plenty of examples out there of ISV's that have ported to UNIX and get little marketing or other attention from the big UNIX players. >When someone knows what the technology is and what it means, then there >is no need to promote the benefits. This is why Unix is a favorite among >techies. But until very recently, and only in a few corners of the Linux >camp, has the Unix community even considered promoting the benefits of >their technology. > What you really mean is "promoting their technology to the simplistic customer that just wants to to surf the web and read their email, want a desktop that isn't ugly, and want their games to run smoothly and quickly." Yes, that's true. There's a very big question of applicability here, though. But, the're's been a LOT done to promote to the customer that is a cut above that group, the customer that has needs that aren't satisfied by the lowest common denominator software which is what Windows is. But, this is where you start running into problems from Microsoft, because simply put they are greedy. Microsoft knows that when they cater to the lowest common denominator, that they simply cannot satisfy most of that smaller group of customers that are above the lowest common denominator. But, they would rather see that smaller group of customers struggle with an unsatisfactory Windows solution than be happy and satisfied with a UNIX solution - EVEN IF it's one that THEY own. Don't forget that Microsoft sold off SCO UNIX years ago (it was XENIX then) when SCO XENIX was ideally suited for the server arena, compared to what Microsoft was pushing at the time. >We have a long way to catch up to Microsoft. Complaining about their >monopoly status won't help at all. It won't make any difference if >Microsoft get's broken up, because there will still be a Windows out >there somewhere and it will be preloaded on all the new computers and it >will run all the new games on the store shelves. If we want to take >market share away from Windows we have to understand that market and >sell to it. And be patient. > >We don't have a problem selling to the technology elite. But we are >clueless when it comes to selling to the average Joe on the street. No, not at all. But, there's a big difference between us and them, there's many of us and only 1 of them. It's easy for Microsoft to sell to anybody because there is only one of them. All they need to concentrate on is selling _their_ view of computing - which is ram every last darn one of you into the same tennis ball can. Their competition to this is nil - because there's nobody else out there that's selling tennis ball cans because Microsoft illegally put all of the other tennis ball can manufacturers out of business years ago. But, it's hard for us to sell to anybody because there's a lot of us. Not only do we have to concentrate on selling UNIX (whether shrink wrapping it for the masses or techies, that's just packaging) but we have to concentrate on stabbing each other too. If Sun had illegally put all other UNIX manaufacturers out of business years ago then everyone in the UNIX community would be all united under a single banner and we all would be able to pull the dirty tricks (like forced preloading) that Microsoft is able to do to shove product out the door. But that didn't happen so not a lot of our energy is spent competing with each other. Recognize that this is one of the strengths of UNIX - it's what produces good product. In fact you simply don't WANT a market with a single provider of the product in the market, but it puts you at a disadvantage when competing with a monopoly. The >new Unix/BSD/Linux isn't any more difficult than the old DOS/Win3 combo. >Easier in many ways in fact. But the old DOS/Win3 is what got Microsoft >its monopoly. All the elements are there if we want to succeed in the >market. > Which one? The lowest common denominator market? Or the one that's a step above it? Ted Mittelstaedt tedm@toybox.placo.com Author of: The FreeBSD Corporate Networker's Guide Book website: http://www.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-newbies" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?004d01c12fa3$c60251a0$1401a8c0>