I know that it's the hip thing around here to slam on Katz no matter what he says
I know it's getting hippier to defend JonKatz whenever someone slams on him.
What I didn't get into was that Katz's whole idea was wrong. The so-called technological movements and evolutions aren't even technological movements and evolutions of the nineties.
open source - huh what? Can you see Katz grin to the zealots' clapping of their hands? How does "dominating open source" create a extremely profitable model? AFAIK, open source hasn't even been proven as a viable model of commerce yet. The fastest companies adopting open-source are hardware companies that open-source their driver, because they don't sell software as their main source of business.
nano-technology: your quote: nanotech, once it gets going, will need software in order to do anything worthwhile
Err, yeah. Now can you elaborate on how Microsoft creating software for nanotech will be a profitable and lucrative business?
AI is classically a matter of software + specialized hardware
I agree with your statement. But how is not dominating AI bad for Microsoft? Sorry.
SuperComps and handhelds are light-blinkers without an OS and proggies.
Can you explain how selling OSes for super computers will generate a lot of revenue? Please?
I'm not even going to touch genetic research with a 10 foot pole.
Katz's only valid points was hand-held and wireless computing - even wireless computing is better left to the hardware companies.
So, 1 out of 7 right isn't too bad?
And Katz missed the most important 2 techlogical evolutions that Microsoft didn't ride - Internet and e-commerce. Which lead me to the conclusion that Katz doesn't know what he's talking about.
Savage Henry Matisse, you're still wrong. (Score:2)
I know it's getting hippier to defend JonKatz whenever someone slams on him.
What I didn't get into was that Katz's whole idea was wrong. The so-called technological movements and evolutions aren't even technological movements and evolutions of the nineties.
open source - huh what? Can you see Katz grin to the zealots' clapping of their hands? How does "dominating open source" create a extremely profitable model? AFAIK, open source hasn't even been proven as a viable model of commerce yet. The fastest companies adopting open-source are hardware companies that open-source their driver, because they don't sell software as their main source of business.
nano-technology: your quote: nanotech, once it gets going, will need software in order to do anything worthwhile
Err, yeah. Now can you elaborate on how Microsoft creating software for nanotech will be a profitable and lucrative business?
AI is classically a matter of software + specialized hardware
I agree with your statement. But how is not dominating AI bad for Microsoft? Sorry.
SuperComps and handhelds are light-blinkers without an OS and proggies.
Can you explain how selling OSes for super computers will generate a lot of revenue? Please?
I'm not even going to touch genetic research with a 10 foot pole.
Katz's only valid points was hand-held and wireless computing - even wireless computing is better left to the hardware companies.
So, 1 out of 7 right isn't too bad?
And Katz missed the most important 2 techlogical evolutions that Microsoft didn't ride - Internet and e-commerce. Which lead me to the conclusion that Katz doesn't know what he's talking about.
As for you...