[Toby]

Originally posted by homer
Can't writing better software to make customers happier and therfore more loyal and therfore buy more be a profitable business decision?

It _can_ be, but I don't see how it is in this case. If there are no real competitors, then why bother? That's the whole point behind many people's problems with Microsoft. When one has no competitors, 'natural' market forces cease to apply.

I imagine it was because it was easier to deal with a palm conduit than the outlook team over the the Windows department. ;o)

Why would they need to work with the Outlook team? Just get a computer with Outlook and mimic it.

The Outlook client for Macs is dead. It can't be rebuilt at this point. They need to start over. The Mac group isn't a big group and they simply are prioritizing things. My guess is that there are more mac users wanting Palm OS synchronization than Outlook compatibility.

Is there Exchange compatibility in Entourage? If they can share interact with Exchange clients using Outlook as is with Entourage, I could believe it theoretically, but otherwise, I'm dubious.

I couldn't find any concrete numbers in the few minutes I googled for it, but turned up stuff like this that helps define the mac group at Microsoft:

http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0508005772.htm

I'll have to check that out later.

Of course not What kind of question is that? ;o)

Just trying to get more information.

They do indirectly. Appleworks, for instance, and a number of other word processor and spreadsheet apps.

Lemme guess...none of them can read Office format.

Uhhh...diversity? Pride? Ego?

Those aren't business reasons.

More profits?

But we haven't established that it would bring that.

Shared Knowlege? First to market?

Neither of those are inherently business reasons either.

[homer]

It _can_ be, but I don't see how it is in this case. If there are no real competitors, then why bother? That's the whole point behind many people's problems with Microsoft. When one has no competitors, 'natural' market forces cease to apply.

Ah. I see now. Yes, I would usually agree with you there 100%. My argument, though, is that the Mac group at Microsoft truly is different. They are determined to make better products. MS had no real competition before the founded the Mac group, either. But they did. And the group has been steadily but surely rewriting the apps and interfaces and making them truly unique. IE on the Mac has many more usable features than the PC version, for instance.

Microsoft CAN be truly innovative when they want to be, but, like you said, they rarely are as they don't NEED to be.

Why would they need to work with the Outlook team? Just get a computer with Outlook and mimic it.

It has to be tightly integrated with the server.

Is there Exchange compatibility in Entourage? If they can share interact with Exchange clients using Outlook as is with Entourage, I could believe it theoretically, but otherwise, I'm dubious.

No exchange compatibility yet. Supposedly it's on the to-do list.

Lemme guess...none of them can read Office format.

Most of them can. You have to be MS-compatible to even get people to look at your software these days.

diversity? Pride? Ego?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Those aren't business reasons.

Diversity is. Pride and Ego aren't BUSINESS reasons, but they're reasons Gates, Jobs and the rest have used more than once in making huge business decisions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
More profits?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
But we haven't established that it would bring that.

Can't argue that. We live in this society where better products don't mean a whole lot most of the time.

Shared Knowlege? First to market?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither of those are inherently business reasons either.

Sure they are. MS could be letting the Mac group step out of bounds to see what innovative things they come up with without stepping on their established Windows users. First to market is a huge business reason. When done right, a company can control the market quickly with little long-term effort. IE, MS-DOS, for instance.

[Toby]

Originally posted by homer
[...] My argument, though, is that the Mac group at Microsoft truly is different. They are determined to make better products.

I'm sure _everyone_ at Microsoft _thinks_ they are, as well.

MS had no real competition before the founded the Mac group, either. But they did.

Probably because they made a good chunk of change off Apple previously.

And the group has been steadily but surely rewriting the apps and interfaces and making them truly unique. IE on the Mac has many more usable features than the PC version, for instance.

Like what?

Microsoft CAN be truly innovative when they want to be, but, like you said, they rarely are as they don't NEED to be.

I think their innovative skills are seldom in their code.

It has to be tightly integrated with the server.

Then the Exchange group is the one they'd have to work with.

No exchange compatibility yet. Supposedly it's on the to-do list.

Weird. So, there are a plethora of Mac OS X users with Office X and Palms that want to sync with Entourage, but there aren't any that want to collaborate with Exchange users?

Most of them can. You have to be MS-compatible to even get people to look at your software these days.

Too bad that only Microsoft can really do it considering that their file formats are closed. Star Office was getting there last I checked. Not sure about the Mac alternatives.

Diversity is.

How is diversity a de facto business reason? There's nothing inherently good for business about diversity. Quality employees are quality employees. If hiring quality employees brings diversity, wonderful, but there's nothing inherently good (for business) about diversity.

Pride and Ego aren't BUSINESS reasons, but they're reasons Gates, Jobs and the rest have used more than once in making huge business decisions.

No argument there. Avoiding court and detrimental court decisions have also played as factors on multiple cases, hence my original post.

Sure they are. MS could be letting the Mac group step out of bounds to see what innovative things they come up with without stepping on their established Windows users.

But that's not inherently good for business. It might be good, bad, or indifferent.

First to market is a huge business reason. When done right,

Sorry to split your sentences, but that should have been one sentence, and is the reason why I don't consider it inherently a business reason.

a company can control the market quickly with little long-term effort. IE, MS-DOS, for instance.

But MS-DOS wasn't the first PC operating system. :/

[homer]

Like what?

- True font resizing
- Scrapbook
- Tabbed explorer bar (different than the PC version)
- Keyboard command to open new windows behind the current one
- Auction tracker (I believe the PC version now has that, too...though not sure)

Weird. So, there are a plethora of Mac OS X users with Office X and Palms that want to sync with Entourage, but there aren't any that want to collaborate with Exchange users?

I imagine there are more Mac/Palm users that Mac/Exchange users.

Quality employees are quality employees. If hiring quality employees brings diversity, wonderful

PRODUCT diversity. Something Microsoft embraces.

But MS-DOS wasn't the first PC operating system.

It was the first PC operating system licensed to IBM.

[Toby]

Originally posted by homer
- True font resizing
- Scrapbook
- Tabbed explorer bar (different than the PC version)
- Keyboard command to open new windows behind the current one
- Auction tracker (I believe the PC version now has that, too...though not sure)

Hmm...I wouldn't even know if the PC version had those, because they don't sound like features I'd use.

I imagine there are more Mac/Palm users that Mac/Exchange users.

Why?

PRODUCT diversity. Something Microsoft embraces.

Only when it looks like it can make money. Even meaning a different sort of diversity really doesn't change my view. Diversification would have been a better word and closer to a business reason, but given the Mac's trends, I don't see it being much of a consideration for Microsoft because of its revenues. Again, the Mac's support by Microsoft has much more weight from a political standpoint.

It was the first PC operating system licensed to IBM.

My point was that it wasn't first to market, so you can't say that MS-DOS is an example of success by being first to market. At best, it's a success of leveraging another practical monopoly's power to become a monopoly in your own right.

[homer]

Diversification would have been a better word and closer to a business reason, but given the Mac's trends,

What Trends? The fact that Apple is doing quite well?

I don't see it being much of a consideration for Microsoft because of its revenues. Again, the Mac's support by Microsoft has much more weight from a political standpoint.

I don't see any political gain by supporting the Mac market. It does little to nothing against the monopoly trial. But, whatever.

Microsoft does like to diversify their products, though. You are probably correct in that it isn't necessarily a revenue thing. Hotmail doesnt' really make money. They're loosing money on each XBox they sell.

[Toby]

Originally posted by homer
What Trends? The fact that Apple is doing quite well?

No, the one I heard where their marketshare has dropped to 3.5% from 5%.

I don't see any political gain by supporting the Mac market. It does little to nothing against the monopoly trial. But, whatever.

You don't see a public perception issue there (not even getting into whether or not Apple would still be here without Microsoft)? IME, most of the people that defend Microsoft as not being a monopoly point to the Mac as an example of how it couldn't possibly be one since you can always buy a Mac if you don't want Microsoft.

Microsoft does like to diversify their products, though. You are probably correct in that it isn't necessarily a revenue thing.

I'm not saying it's not a revenue thing. I'm saying they only tend to diversify into markets where they think they can make money or increase their dominance (they don't always bet right, but that's a separate issue).

Hotmail doesnt' really make money.

Never looked at it, but I'd be willing to bet they're making money somehow (selling email and/or snail mail information to spammers more than likely).

They're loosing money on each XBox they sell.

So are the other console makers. They make their money selling the blades not the razors.

[critic]

Originally posted by Toby
So are the other console makers. They make their money selling the blades not the razors.

At the risk of getting flamed (and let's not kid ourselves, this is quickly turning into a flamewar here), what you say about the console market is true at first. Console makers (Sony, MS, Nintendo) manufacture and sell their consoles at a loss to start, and make the money back on software. But eventually, the hardware becomes profitable. PlayStation 2 is no longer being manufactured at a loss, so they dropped their price. MS had to counter, and is now selling the hardware at a larger loss than ever, hoping to God, Brak, or whatever the hell Bill Gates worships that the software sells like crazy.

I'm done now.

[homer]

No, the one I heard where their marketshare has dropped to 3.5% from 5%

Since job's took over, Apple has been stated has having between 2 and 10% of the desktop OS market share. These numbers fluctuate constantly and are entirely dependant on who's reporting them.

Regardless, even 3.5% is a hefty share of most markets.

IME, most of the people that defend Microsoft as not being a monopoly point to the Mac as an example of how it couldn't possibly be one since you can always buy a Mac if you don't want Microsoft.

Well, Apple's a monopoly too. They own 100% of the MacOS marketshare.

The monopoly has less to do with the OS, but how they sell the OS. It's not really about 'there's only one OS to choose from'...which is the only argument to bring up apple in response with.

[Toby]

Originally posted by critic
At the risk of getting flamed (and let's not kid ourselves, this is quickly turning into a flamewar here),

It is? I don't get that impression, and I'm involved in it.

what you say about the console market is true at first. Console makers (Sony, MS, Nintendo) manufacture and sell their consoles at a loss to start, and make the money back on software. But eventually, the hardware becomes profitable.

Sure, after the R&D are recouped, but do you really think that Microsoft is likely to just let their hardware just sit there at the same level? Nah...they're going to try and bloat it up just like PCs.

PlayStation 2 is no longer being manufactured at a loss, so they dropped their price. MS had to counter, and is now selling the hardware at a larger loss than ever, hoping to God, Brak, or whatever the hell Bill Gates worships that the software sells like crazy.

I don't think they care initially how much money they lose on the consoles. They're just hoping to build marketshare. Microsoft can afford to bleed cash to increase dominance (although at this rate, that might be a significant amount of bleeding).

[Toby]

Originally posted by homer
Since job's took over, Apple has been stated has having between 2 and 10% of the desktop OS market share. These numbers fluctuate constantly and are entirely dependant on who's reporting them.

IDC reports it as being pretty steadily at 5% since 1997 until recently

Regardless, even 3.5% is a hefty share of most markets.

The numbers I've seen show ~25 million Mac owners. Palm also claims to have ~20 million Palms out there. If Apple is 5% of the desktop market, it would seem plausible that they're ~5% of the Palm market. Furthermore, even Steve Jobs has admitted that OS X only has 1-2 million OS X users. Not sure how many of those are also Office X/Entourage users who also have Palms, but even assuming they _all_ were, that'd only be 50,000-100,000 people.

Well, Apple's a monopoly too. They own 100% of the MacOS marketshare.

The market being discussed is the desktop market, though.

The monopoly has less to do with the OS, but how they sell the OS. It's not really about 'there's only one OS to choose from'...which is the only argument to bring up apple in response with.

No, the monopoly argument is 'there's only one OS to choose from' _because_ of 'how they sell the OS' and moreso how they sell peripheral products to that OS, like tailoring PocketPCs to sync better with Office applications, or denying access to programming environment placement to PocketPC competitors until after it looks like they're going to testify against you, or not rushing to sync with their product until after it looks like they're going to testify against you. It's possible that Microsoft's Mac division is just one warm-fuzzy-Palm-Lovin' division that's been busting their buns for Entourage X compatibility with Palms, but I just don't see the case for it considering that they're still a division of Microsoft.

[Madkins007]

Ahhhh! Run, hide! Apple/PC fight!!!!!

[errqre]

Originally posted by Madkins007
Ahhhh! Run, hide! Apple/PC fight!!!!!

Unless someone else gets in on this to screw everything up, it'll remain fairly nice.

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
...that'd only be 50,000-100,000 people...

If it takes 50k for a hardware product (ie the color handera - with all the people needing to be involved from programmers to designers to manufacturers, etc.) to be profitable, do you know what it would take for a software product (that could conceivably be done by a team of 10 people and would require no advertising because the people who wanted to use it were actively looking for it)?

[Toby]

Where's my filet knife? I was wondering if anyone would bring this up...

Originally posted by ****-richardson
If it takes 50k for a hardware product (ie the color handera - with all the people needing to be involved from programmers to designers to manufacturers, etc.)

How many people does Handera employ? From all accounts, it isn't many.

to be profitable,

Actually, we don't know that it would be profitable at that size order. We only know that it would be producable. Considering that handhelds don't seem to be Handera's primary business (consulting seems to be their bread and butter), I'm not sure that 50,000 isn't simply their break-even point (or token profit).

do you know what it would take for a software product (that could conceivably be done by a team of 10 people and would require no advertising because the people who wanted to use it were actively looking for it)?

Except that Office X for Mac _is_ advertised, and from what I've observed, pretty slickly. Don't lose sight, though, of the fact that I was being extremely generous in estimating the potential number of people. Does _everyone_ with OS X use Office X, and additionally own a Palm, and want to sync with Entourage?

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
How many people does Handera employ? From all accounts, it isn't many.

Last I heard was 47, but as I mentioned, that doesn't include manufacturing costs (which would be considerable, comparitively). How many people worked on the Entourage Palm conduit? How much were they paid?

Actually, we don't know that it would be profitable at that size order. We only know that it would be producable.

Agreed, but I sincerely doubt that Handera would produce these at a loss, considering...

Considering that handhelds don't seem to be Handera's primary business...

they're not going to be willing to take a financial hit.

Don't lose sight, though, of the fact that I was being extremely generous in estimating the potential number of people.

And 50k is even more generous in estimating how many licenses it would take to get to profitability WRT software.

[terrysalmi]

If Microsoft has done such a good job taking over Palm Desktop on a Mac with OSX, can they put their next program into making an OSX conduit for AvantGo? AG doesn't seem very interested.

[Toby]

Originally posted by ****-richardson
Last I heard was 47, but as I mentioned, that doesn't include manufacturing costs (which would be considerable, comparitively).

That's probably why it takes such a relatively high number as 50,000 units to even make it worth production.

How many people worked on the Entourage Palm conduit? How much were they paid?

Don't know. Why don't you find out.

Agreed, but I sincerely doubt that Handera would produce these at a loss, considering...

they're not going to be willing to take a financial hit.

I never said they were looking to produce them at a loss. I'm only saying that 50K is likely not necessary to make the company profitable (although I'm sure that the possible token profit would be much more to them relative to the same to Microsoft). OTOH, Entourage syncing doesn't seem likely to contribute _anything_ to the profitability of Office X. Or do you think all of the OS X users were waiting for it before upgrading to Office X?

And 50k is even more generous in estimating how many licenses it would take to get to profitability WRT software.

Sure, but you're still overlooking the fact that they're _not_ making money off this conduit. It's a free download. Do you honestly think there's a vast untapped market of people who were just waiting for this conduit to purchase Office X? It only becomes an issue of the conduit contributing to profitability if it actually increases sales.

[errqre]

Originally posted by Toby
Don't know. Why don't you find out.

Can't say as I care.

I never said they were looking to produce them at a loss. I'm only saying that 50K is likely not necessary to make the company profitable (although I'm sure that the possible token profit would be much more to them relative to the same to Microsoft).

And I'm saying that, since handhelds aren't their main business, they're not going to do anything with them unless it adds to their profitability.

OTOH, Entourage syncing doesn't seem likely to contribute _anything_ to the profitability of Office X. Or do you think all of the OS X users were waiting for it before upgrading to Office X?

Not hardly, but my point is that MS has not had to spend much to make the Palm conduit, and by bundling Entourage only with Office, it won't take many sales for that effort to pay off. Just to point out, I have not entirely disagreed with your assessment that it is being developed for legal reasons. I just find it odd that the software is as good as it is if their reasons are purely legal.

[Toby]

Originally posted by ****-richardson
Can't say as I care.

You cared enough to ask.

And I'm saying that, since handhelds aren't their main business, they're not going to do anything with them unless it adds to their profitability.

Apples and oranges. What's their mission? They're pushing their engineering abilities. Occasionally, they have to show they've still got the stuff (18 months seems to be their rough window).

Not hardly, but my point is that MS has not had to spend much to make the Palm conduit, and by bundling Entourage only with Office, it won't take many sales for that effort to pay off.

Entourage is already bundled with Office, though. Again, it doesn't pay off unless there are enough people buying Office specifically to use Entourage with a Palm.

Just to point out, I have not entirely disagreed with your assessment that it is being developed for legal reasons. I just find it odd that the software is as good as it is if their reasons are purely legal.

Why (although I never said they were 'purely legal' outside of the context of the timing of releasing the conduit seeming mighty suspect)? Personally, I find it odder that their other software is as bad as it is if Office X is as good as people claim.