[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Solaris competitive price

  In reply to chuck swiger's message sent 11/21/97 9:23 AM:
  >Now, everytime I look at the newest Win98/NT5 there's this
  >satellite dish for 'push' technology, or channels, which makes
  >me say, 'There's another idea they stole, this time from from
  >Marimba'. However, why is it that the founder of Marimba,
  >Kim Polese, and three other key members of the Sun Java team
  >had to leave Sun? The question is: what is wrong w/ Sun that
  >highly talented and innovative employees have to leave the
  >company to realize their vision? While it is often common to
  >hear of people leaving companies to start their own, why do
  >we never hear that a group has left MS to start up a company?
  >In fact just the opposite occurs, MS attracts talent away
  >from other firms (no doubt you'll say due to illegal/immoral
  >means). Could it be the MS knows how to nurture and encourage
  >talent, provides a good work environment for people to
  >develop and grow, maybe has a winning 'formula' which makes
  >others jealous?
  Now, this is a prize red herring if ever I've heard one. Neither you nor 
  I can evaluate the inner thoughts of someone who leaves a high tech 
  company to start up one of their own, beyond recognizing the obvious 
  allure of becoming rich beyond imagination. Come to think of it, that 
  sounds like a pretty good motivation all by itself, so maybe we can 
  forget the armchair psychotherapy altogether.
  One way to induce employees to stay put, particularly at a company with 
  an inflated market value, is to pay them in stock options that can only 
  be exercised over time. Microsoft does this. And nobody doubts that the 
  industry is currently experiencing an acute shortage of talent and that 
  Microsoft is in a unique position to pay handsomely -- mainly in stock 
  options. One more technique Microsoft uses for "attracting" talent: they 
  buy companies like most of us buy groceries.
  As for NT, I have a (non-conspiracy) theory as to why Microsoft did not 
  show any real interest in porting it to non-Intel platforms. First, 
  Microsoft is wedded to the hardware/OS platform lock-in model. The idea 
  of multi-boot machines represents a new opportunity for serious 
  competition on a more level playing field (e.g., if you give users a 
  choice, they might actually make one you won't like). Second, I wouldn't 
  be surprised if Andy Grove had one or two words with Bill Gates about the 
  future of the Wintel duopoly (something along the lines of, "if it ain't 
     Mitch Stone
     If you don't know where you want to go, we'll make 
     sure you get taken.
             --- Microsoft ad slogan, translated into Japanese.
     Boycott Microsoft ** http://www.vcnet.com/bms