From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,TO_NO_BRKTS_FROM_MSSP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,92c39a3be0a7f17d X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-12-21 08:40:34 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!logbridge.uoregon.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!nntp-relay.ihug.net!ihug.co.nz!out.nntp.be!propagator-SanJose!in.nntp.be!newsranger.com!www.newsranger.com!not-for-mail Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada From: Ted Dennison References: <9vtkbe$kth$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <9vvja5$edn$1@nh.pace.co.uk> Subject: Re: RE: Portable GUI (was Re: Future with Ada) Message-ID: <2CJU7.6955$XC5.8815@www.newsranger.com> X-Abuse-Info: When contacting newsranger.com regarding abuse please X-Abuse-Info: forward the entire news article including headers or X-Abuse-Info: else we will not be able to process your request X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsranger.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 11:40:30 EST Organization: http://www.newsranger.com Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 16:40:30 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:18211 Date: 2001-12-21T16:40:30+00:00 List-Id: In article <9vvja5$edn$1@nh.pace.co.uk>, Marin David Condic says... > >Little guys can afford to make little mistakes. Big guys can afford to make >big mistakes. I understand how their size & wealth have enabled them to Quite so. >survive some bad product decisions, etc. But if they didn't have some >enormously big successes (which means they must be doing *something* right!) >they wouldn't have the cash cows out there to make up for the marketing >flops and tactical blunders. If you read the history of the company, you will find that it could easily be argued that everything they now have has flowed out of having the OS monopoly. How they ended up with that was indeed luck (early on they actually tried to give it away twice). However, *someone* would have ended up with it either way. So from our perspective luck wasn't an issue at all. We would have had our Microsoft, no matter what their name ended up being. :-) It could be argued that they have been at least fairly crafty in maintaining their monopoly, and in continuing to keep plugging away when they enter new markets and fail initially. But I don't see where we need to ascribe to the company unnatural levels of skill, intelligence, or good looks to explain the current state of affairs. --- T.E.D. homepage - http://www.telepath.com/dennison/Ted/TED.html No trees were killed in the sending of this message. However a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.