Perhaps some of you have been watching Microsoft's aggressive attempt to takeover Yahoo!.
On a previous thread several of you said this was a good thing, basically since competition is good for the consumer, this would compete with Google - and we win.

However these basic principles do not apply when Microsoft is involved, MS does not , and has never "competed" - they have bought out or barbarously destroyed all competition. With MS - consumers do not win.

The reason MS wants Yahoo! should be obvious, they see the future of computing - as does Google, the future (for now) of computing is primarily every computer everywhere can be your personal computer. That your data will sit on vast servers with blazing speed instead of your hard drive, basically all you will need is an appliance with a stripped OS that primarily just needs to connect to the internet, all of your applications and data is stored off-site....meaning of course that no matter where you are - every computer can be your personal desktop.

This, of course is a MAJOR threat to MS, no need for an over bloated operating system, and no need to buy over priced office software - software will be available for a much smaller user fee....Google has already begun this with the various Google apps including Google Docs More Google Products .....right now of course it is all free, partly paid for with advertising - which will subsidize our cost to run software - we win.

Microsoft wanted to own the internet in the first place, they tried to sue for it many years ago - but of course failed - Microsofts invision for the internet was to make it like a toll road, you can access the internet only after paying fees to Microsoft. They have NOT given up on this idea. They want Yahoo! because they want to tear down Google's massive internet presence, and to ensure that they will be the ONLY ones to provide internet-based applications - don't believe it? - Well then IMO - you have never paid attention to how MS does business.

How could they possibly be the only ones to provide internet applications? They were able to grab the PC market by the balls because of the deals they struck with the chip providers and computer makers. There's no real danger from that with web applications, which are decoupled from the hardware, and often from the OS.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Well on the surface I say yes you are it appears right however, IF you are staying they should be stopped form buying yahoo etc. I cannot agree.
That would be like stopping the xm sirius merger.
MS can take its chances. Remember that when MS came out with their search feature a while back and ballyhooed as ending all other competition etc. in that area, becaue they were MS.

That did not happen, Goggle came into being....serendipity via timing or not Google is now preeminent in that field, so why should it be left to them? I frankly have issues with Google and wish someone else would come along.

Let me be clear, I have no great love for MS but as far as this merger/ buy out whatever goes, there is no reason in the world to stop it.

__________________
No individual can plan his own existence in their view.

So the state planners must arrogate to themselves the right to manipulate any sector of the economic system if the good of “society” or the “general welfare” is paramount.

Ipso- if the rights of the individual get in the way, the rights of the individual must be sublimated.

The Road to Serfdom
FA Hayek (interpretation)


Mortgage Backed Security survivor

Easy.
Let's call the new computers "Microsoft Terminal" ...basically the appliance is all memory, including significant graphical memory.
The only software on it is a"OS" that is more or less a "suped-up " browser.
Microsoft (if they get their way) will have the market on many types of applications people use daily - e-mail, word processing, spreadsheets etc. etc. - they will charge user fees instead of a CD purchase.
Here is how they get to charge for everything else - their "Microsoft Terminal" has proprietary code (think Citrix as an example) - all internet based applications in order to connect to everyone must pay M$ - CAL's...

(BTW - I am not making all of this up myself, I have read various tech periodicals and a few shows on Link TV)

I also don't think that Microsoft is trying to "Microsoft Yahoo", but rather trying to "Yahoo Microsoft" - I think they're looking for a foothold in the distributed market as opposed to dominance (which isn't feasible, short term, with their focus on hardware and OS specific development).

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

So, instead of paying for XP and office, people pay for this. What difference would it make? If people want free web apps and online access, they can still have it. They can force people to pay by month for outlook instead of 500 bucks for Office, but they can't force people to buy/use outlook.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Again think Citrix.
You computer will not have local storage, it depends solely on server storage for applications and data - to get to the applications and data you have to have a common vehicle - that common vehicle is the MS Terminal...just like a toll road, to have access to programs etc, regardless who makes it - it has to go through the toll road first.
Your right they can't force you to buy their programs only - but through access privileges through the terminal the software maker - pays a fee to Microsoft to get to you....(like SQL)

No local storage? You've got to store the OS binaries, device drivers, network interface and everything else somewhere... And, anyone who wants to hook a digital camera, cell phone, scanner, printer, etc, etc to their computers (or just use CD's) isn't going to buy something like this. The only use I can imagine is for corporate drones whose entire computing presence consists of word and excel.

And, if people want to buy such a setup, who cares? If Microsoft makes whatever applications they serve proprietary to machines with this setup, they'll be shooting themselves in the foot because they won't get any kind of market share push (who's going to buy a new, device-less computer in order to pay a monthly fee for MS Word?). If they don't, then why would anyone buy one of these terminals when they can use the functionality ala carte from their existing PC? And, I can't imagine Microsoft creating terminals that couldn't make use of Java applications. That would be product suicide.

This whole concept seems too infeasible to worry about in the first place, and, even if it does come to fruition, what negative impact would it have?

I suspect that what Microsoft really wants is Yahoo!'s extensive web platform and search mechanisms, which they'll want to merge with the .NET platform. I doubt the average user gets gouged by (or has reason to care about) this at all. The only beneficiary to what you're talking about would be Apple who'd be gearing up for the exodus in the wake of Microsoft committing suicide.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

MS is only interested in two things
1) Maintain it's monopoly
2) Grow the monopoly in other markets and future markets.

As you probably know, Apache has been losing server market share and Microsoft is gaining share, it will not be long that MS will have the majority of host servers....something many thought would not be possible.
If MS can (which they certainly have the will and the money to do so) seriously put down Apache, marginalize Google's stronghold...they have already made serious strides in computer gaming - it is actually possible MS could extend it's monopoly to every aspect of computing.
At that point (like they did with X-Box 360) what could be better for them if they can make a reliable appliance that (like X-Box) guarantees them monthly income from everyone who owns one.
Think like an average consumer, not the techie that you are...you have a choice - Buy a conventional PC with all it's trappings, have to spend $100's for software to put on it - or for $39.95 a month, you get a "computer" access to the internet, access to all MS products and can play all MS Games....all for the monthly fee.

I see that as absolutely a viable product.

Okay, but what does server OS have to do with what you're talking about? Microsoft sells an OS for servers, but that doesn't give them the ability to tell anyone what to do with those servers.


I see this as a different product than the one you seemed to be describing earlier. That sounds not just viable, but kind of cool. Monolithic installed software is becoming outdated across the board - why wouldn't the software biggies get in on this? This all just continues to ring as a non-issue to me.

And, I'm not sure what apache has to do with this. This is, presumably an issue of Microsoft's internally run and maintained servers providing web services. Commercial web servers and the software for third parties to serve sites/services isn't really relevant.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

To clarify what I'm saying, consider my current roll at my company (for a few more weeks prior to promotion, anyway ). I design software based on often high level requirements. I'll get a project directive like, "drgoodtrips, we want something that can be accessed internally and by people traveling for work that will keep track of X and Y, and produce reports on Z". I'll take that requirement (well, I'll generate a formal proposal/statement of work, to be accurate) and then make decisions about which technologies to use for any of the following, if necessary for what I'm doing: database application, server OS/software, client OS/software, etc. In doing this, I've had requirements that have made it necessary for me to use or look at things like Apache (on windows and Linux - Microsoft isn't really a direct competitor with Apache), Microsoft IIS (equivalent of Apache, kinda), etc. I then decide what OS to use, what RDBMS to put on there, and what software to use to serve it.

A lot of developers or IT managers do what I do. Whether I use Apache or a Microsoft tool won't have any bearing on Microsoft offering these terminals. Even if they come out with them, if they told me I had to make my server accommodate people using these things, I'd flip them the bird and stop using Microsoft. They'd never do that though because their OS/server software sales would become nonexistent in commercial settings.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

WHat does Apache have to do with this??

Well, I'll paint the scenario...

For ease of typing I will replace Microsoft with simply MS and will place [brackets] around them for emphasis.

You start your day by turning on your [MS] Terminal appliance (formerly Dell, HP, Sony...whatever - you know those pesky PC makers that had the audacity to refuse to give in to MS's usual brute force tactics and sold PC's with XP)
Your [MS] appliance boots up from hard written chip memory almost instantaneously, unpackages itself like it always does into RAM - and within a second or two you see your desktop.
You check your mail with the neat [MS] e-mail program that goes online to [MS's] mail servers and see you have an e-mail from a colleague.
The e-mail automatically connects you to [MS's] "online office" where your company has all of it's data and applications stored on [MS's] .Net servers.
You finish that and decide to look at the news....you like CNN which is on [MS] webservers FORMERLY APACHE) with ad's supplied by [MS] Yahoo!
YOu see a video you want to see, so you click on the video which is an embedded [MS] movie player format.

etc. etc. etc.

I could go one, with online gaming [MS] 360 games built-in to the applicance.

Basically (as an average computer user - not a programmer such as yourself)
Your "computer" is Microsoft
Your e-mail is Microsoft
Your browser (which is really the OS) is Microsoft
Your office sits on .Net
You play games through Microsoft
The videos you watch is Microsoft format
The websites you visit sit on Microsoft Web server OS (after beating out Apache)
And finally to get all of this.....you pay Microsoft a monthly fee to get every single thing (no matter who makes it) you see and do through the appliance.

IMO - Yahoo! is one of the needed parts to this overall Monopoly.

1) How many companies do you think want proprietary emails in a third party's possession?
2) How many companies do you think want sensitive word/excel documents in a third party's possession?
3) Why would people's choice to use one of these ostensible 'terminals' have anything to do with CNN's hosting hardware?
4) Why would people's choice to use these terminals have any effect on who web hosters opted to contract with for advertising?
5) Why would Microsoft create dumb terminals only capable of viewing Microsoft format or only servicing proprietary formats? That alone would turn most people off from buying them.

You can get away with that kind of crap (5) when you're defining the market - not when you're racing to get the last piece of the pie.

I've no doubt that Microsoft would want such a thing (what tech company wouldn't), but I see no connection between a merger of Yahoo/Microsoft and that outcome, whatsoever. What technology does Yahoo have that would suddenly make Microsoft able to dictate all web standards and file formats? Yahoo doesn't make standards, it doesn't make client software, it doesn't make enterprise software, it doesn't do web hosting on any serious scale... it's just a big website with a search engine.

__________________
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."

-Thomas Jefferson

Yahoo has everything to do with it.
Yahoo = web presence. MSN has less than 10% of the market share while Google has nearly 70%.
Microsoft has zero chance in destroying Google (they have no intention of competing with anyone once they set their eyes on a market) without purchasing Yahoo, all other browsers added together don't even add up to the little that Yahoo does have.
With Yahoo - they have about 25% market share, which is at least a reasonable starting place for web domination.

The internet as we know it, is soon to evolve. What hinders it's full capability is speed, or actually the lack thereof.
Technology already exists to have bandwidth in which several GB can be downloaded in seconds...which many think will mean that HD's will have to be able to store 100's of TB's. however I think they are wrong, for the short run yes, but not the long run, with this kind of speed - instead of a huge ass 10 core system with giant HD's - it would make more sense to have a few TB's of RAM that can process data sort of like a window instead of having to have the entire file on a HD.
Super computers already exist that have mind boggling capabilities...like being able to process all of the information and applications of 10.000's of users simultaneously.

People (average users) like computing, but they hate computers.
Ask ANY average user - would you want a computer that has problems all the time, viruses, malware, spyware, lightning strikes, broken CD doors etc. etc. - or what if I could give you a screen, keyboard and a mouse - and you can do everything you did before - without all of the hassles above - make a product like this - and you WILL sell them.

This is what I belive the next generation is - appliances, some extremely portable and use specific - connecting to an extremely fast network of super computers.

And Doc - you asked what company wants their e-mail handled off-site, data handled off-site ect.??? - seriously? - You know how many already do?
I have lots of former IT friends that were running company servers and networks that were eliminated due to the company moving their systems off site to hosting centers.
Folks with racks of servers in bunkers, with redundant connectivity and backup power systems.
My company use to have an FTP server, e-mail server and our eCommerce site all in-house, now it is all ran from a company in South Bend who has just that, giant servers - underground - 3 point power backup and 3 redundant lines.
No more IT guy making 70k a year, no expensive servers to buy - just a monthly fee......it is fantastic.

What market are you talking about? You're talking about browsers, search engines, etc and calling it all "web presence". Yahoo is basically a website/search engine with some actual apps branded with it in strategic partnerships (I think AT&T offers some clunky proprietary browser branded with Yahoo for its high speed subscribers). If you're talking about browser market share, your players are netscape, firefox, ie, etc. If you're talking about search engines, your players are google, yahoo, ask, etc. If you're talking OS, it's Microsoft, Apple, *NIX, etc. Microsoft already dominates the browser market and they already have a decent stake in the search engine market. What does buying Yahoo get them other than a large scale website (with source code) and a search engine, the latter which they already have, just not as good?

RAM is more expensive, more volatile, and more likely to fail than persistent data storage, and the disparity is only widening. Couple that with the fact that the demand to store actual data is easily keeping up with ability to store it whereas app requirements are not so much keeping up with processor and access speed. The bottleneck in distributed systems (from the average user perspective) is the ability to access "random" information from persistent storage - not the ability to send packets over a distance. It doesn't matter if the packets move at the speed of light if your record is buried in a stack of tapes with a robot pulling them out at request, or on a massive hard drive. And regardless of how cheap RAM becomes, it can't be a substitute for storage space - that's prohibitively expensive and unreliable. You also hit a point where forcing RAM to be a sub for persistent storage starts exposing it to the difficulties of scaling.

Consider also that people are increasingly opting to downgrade connection speed by going wireless. Convenience trumps speed. People will wait, but people want access to information exponentially larger bodies of information on demand.

*shrug*
Of course. If you offer a more reliable and easier to use product, people will buy it. Why does this bother you? If Microsoft can deliver on such a thing, God bless...

Yes, clearly distributed systems and server side applications are becoming more and more the norm. But, if you have all manner of people and companies with their own hardware/software offering remote services on demand, where does the part where Microsoft begins to rule the universe come in? Smart-assery aside, how does Yahoo and Microsoft spell doom in this paradigm at all?