The greatest supply-sider in recent history is....

[samjones]

Microsoft create the smartphone market as well. The iPaq was the model Apple used for the iPhone. I don't think Microsoft will be competitive in that market either.

Google will dominate both tablets and phones - they already dominate the phones.

It doesn't matter. If you use your Android-powered Samsung phone to access data using Microsoft technologies on Microsoft servers than Google really hasn't accomplished anything. When MS wants they'll simply port their OS to the Samsung phone and you'll have "CHOICE".

(We all believe in choice, right?.... well Appleidiots don't.)

You like someone else's phone better? Then go down to the store and get yourself a new phone. Takes 15 minutes. Who cares what OS comes on it.

The organization hosting the data you access will probably put a little more thought than you do when they're considering replacing their LAMP environment with Microsoft (or vice versa).

Since practically nobody uses Apple for server, virtualization or cloud-based services you can be that their easy-come popularity will be easy-go popularity. They're consumer electronics. I don't know that Microsoft does or ever did care about that space (XBox excepted)

 

[Uncensored2008]

Embrace and extend was Microsoft's approach to standards - and still is. They got the strategy from Microsoft.

Essentially I see Apple as nothing more than a very rich consumer electronics company who hasn't quite figured out the actual "technology market". They've lived by the phone, they'll die by the phone. It's a very fickle market. People get a new one every year and they won't think twice about changing manufacturers.

I don't agree at all.

Apple has been very nimble in putting out products. They dominated the the MP3 market with iPods, when competition overtook them, they jumped to the phone market and dominated. Once Google overtook them they moved to the tablet market, where they currently enjoy dominance. That too is fading, so they are ready to move on - they tried streaming media, but Netflix is already there.

Apple can never really dominate a market, they are a hit and run company - but they make scads of money doing it.

In the meantime, I don't really see Google as being a realistic competitor to Microsoft. Amazon is a competitor to Microsoft. Google's just cheap garbage. Give them 5 years and maybe they'll come up with a usable product.

Android dominates the mobility market, with the release of Ice Cream Sandwich as open source, this is only expanding. Google has a huge jump on cloud technology that Apple will never match. Microsoft you never can tell about, they have enormous resources and talent. But at the moment, cloud computing belongs to Google. After all, Salesforce.com doesn't run on Microsoft, or on Apple, they run on Google Cloud Services. With heavy hitters like SAP and Oracle using Google Cloud Technology, it will be very difficult for others to compete in this arena.

Anything can happen, and in technology it usually does, but at the moment, Google is the best positioned technology company out there. Microsoft is fading, and as you pointed out, Apple is just a consumer electronics company on par with Sony or Samsung, they aren't really a technology company.

The thing about all these providers - Amazon, Rackspace, etc.... is they'd better provide and encourage a complete non-Microsoft solution or else they risk enriching their competitor with their own platform.

Amazon is an E-Tailer. While I admire the company, they don't play in the same space that M$, IBM and Google do.

We saw Novell do this back in the 90's. They provided a PC-friendly server platform that encouraged people to put a Microsoft-based PC on every desk. This made Microsoft so rich that they developed a server platform that knocked Novell right out of business.

Suse is still a good platform.

What caused the demise of Novell was their inability to support a graphical world. Netware wasn't able to transition to the Windows world. And honestly, was I to support IPX in the TCP/IP world?

...And to a certain extent I think that we are seeing and will continue to see the same thing happen to VMWare in the near future.

I agree, I think we're already seeing the decline of VMWare. I'm moving my VM's to Hyper-V en masse.

(Parenthetically I will add that all of this is nothing that the Appleidiots will understand because they have an effin clue what happens when they pull up a web page on their phone.)

If anybody plans on running Microsoft out of business then they're not going to do it by creating a platform that ultimately ends up selling alot more licenses for Microsoft.

I don't know that anyone can put M$ out of business. Hell, I'm an MCSE, my livelihood depends on Microsoft technology and NO ONE touches Microsoft in the mid-sized server arena. Server 2008R2 outclasses any flavor of Linux I've ever seen, by a huge margin.

So again I agree, as long as business host local networks, Microsoft will dominate. But a paradigm shift could make LAN's, WAN's and VPN's irrelevant, due to the cloud.

Price/Performance is one thing. This is what all these providers tout (Amazon, Google, Rackspace, etc.). In the end if you look at the underlying technology you'll likely conclude that not only is Microsoft miles ahead of them, but Microsoft has a vision that is a good decade ahead of their's and Microsoft is widening the gap every year.

Perhaps.

But can they leverage it?

I saw Microsoft surface computing demonstrated in 2005. It was the future, it was so clean and useful. Here we are in 2012, where is it? It's still relegated to tech demos and CSI shows. Why can't Microsoft actually sell the most powerful platform on the planet?

Welcome to Surface

I will help some Appleidiot (comment not directed at UC2008) understand. Using your Mac to connect to your Microsoft Virtual Desktop at work is not "dumping Windows".

LOL, good point.

Nor is using your Mac to open Excel or Word.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Jobs wasn't a supply-sider.

Whore would probably be a better description.

But he certainly knew how to take advantage of the internationalist's free trade orgy, I grant you that.

He was a master of taking advantage of opportunity, no question.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It doesn't matter. If you use your Android-powered Samsung phone to access data using Microsoft technologies on Microsoft servers than Google really hasn't accomplished anything. When MS wants they'll simply port their OS to the Samsung phone and you'll have "CHOICE".

You understand that most people DON'T access Microsoft servers or programs from phones and tablets, right?

A few of use use corporate email via Exchange and Citrix to log in on ERP's - but the vast majority are using GMail and watching Netflix or playing Angry Birds.

(We all believe in choice, right?.... well Appleidiots don't.)

Apple is the North Korea of the computer industry.

You like someone else's phone better? Then go down to the store and get yourself a new phone. Takes 15 minutes. Who cares what OS comes on it.

That's the beauty of Android. As an Open Source system, any vendor can create a phone, giving millions of choices.

The organization hosting the data you access will probably put a little more thought than you do when they're considering replacing their LAMP environment with Microsoft (or vice versa).

Since practically nobody uses Apple for server, virtualization or cloud-based services you can be that their easy-come popularity will be easy-go popularity. They're consumer electronics. I don't know that Microsoft does or ever did care about that space (XBox excepted)

Well, I think MySQL is the shittiest database in creation, so you're preaching to the Choir on this.

I'll give up my MSSQL 2008R2 when the pry it from my cold, dead hand (or when a better version comes along!)

 

[Truthseeker420]

probably Steve Jobs. Without people like him we'd all be living back in the stone age. Probably the best policy toward people like that would be huge tax subsidies so that the least productive among us would be helping or contributing the most important and productive among us.

Steve Jobs is a poor example of a human being and free market economics.

 

[samjones]

You understand that most people DON'T access Microsoft servers or programs from phones and tablets, right?

A few of use use corporate email via Exchange and Citrix to log in on ERP's - but the vast majority are using GMail and watching Netflix or playing Angry Birds.

...
I'll give up my MSSQL 2008R2 when the pry it from my cold, dead hand (or when a better version comes along!)

Azure.... And where is Google or Amazon's competitive answer?

So, I'm certainly not saying that Microsoft owns the server market. I'm only saying that for all intents and purposes Apple doesn't exist in it. People may not understand that there's an infrastructure behind these games that they play, but there is.

I won't pretend to know everything about the companies that you mentioned, but the public web sites of Angry Birds and Netflix appear to be hosted by Amazon... Netflix fairly recently.

Of course Google hosts its own web sites.

Both companies tend to operate more in the ".com" space rather than in the Enterprise space.... with virtually every app that you'll ever use there will have to be a backend data storage and delivery mechanism that will make that app useful to you. Microsoft has a strong presence in that market. The app (and the stupid phone that its on) can change. The data and what serves it up is what matters and changing that tends to be a long and carefully considered process.

After, all you got guys that develop these things and they'll only give up their favorite database platform if someone pries it from their cold carpal-tunnel afflicted fingers.


SFDC is a fad. All PAAS is a fad.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jobs wasn't a supply-sider.

to earn billions he must have supplied something. Too bad all of our industries don't have folks who could innovate like Jobs did.

Why would Democrats be against supply siders unless they are insane?

 

[samjones]

to earn billions he must have supplied something. Too bad all of our industries don't have folks who could innovate like Jobs did.

Why would Democrats be against supply siders unless they are insane?

There's a difference between a "supplier" and a "Supply-sider". "Supplier" is not a pormanteau.

Certain companies surely benefit more from demand-side policies and Apple is without a doubt one of those companies. The people who get that extra money will almost certainly blow it on things they don't need, like iPhones and stupid apps to fill them.

Apple is sortof the McDonalds of the Tech world.

IBM would love supply-side policies. They'd take their extra money and invest even more heavily in India.

 

[Douger]

probably Steve Jobs. Without people like him we'd all be living back in the stone age. Probably the best policy toward people like that would be huge tax subsidies so that the least productive among us would be helping or contributing the most important and productive among us.

Perhaps you view "recent history" as being the last 10 years? Even on your terms - the ones you choose to make your point, Bill Gates is a heckuvalot more influential than Steve Jobs ever was.

Personally, I think that Dennis Ritchie - who was found dead one week to the day after Steve Jobs, was far more important than either of the above...... There's more to life than money, you know.

Both are-were bullshit.
Here's the guy that made it available to other than fatcats.
I'm sorry. He's not a Joo.
Linus Torvalds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

There's a difference between a "supplier" and a "Supply-sider". "Supplier" is not a pormanteau.

not really, both are very very concerned with the supply of goods in order to raise the standard of living. We got from the stone age to here because supply siders supplied many new things

Certain companies surely benefit more from demand-side policies and Apple is without a doubt one of those companies.

as a liberal most things escape you, of course. Apple is highly innovative, they supplied a better phone and so created instant demand for it.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

IBM would love supply-side policies. They'd take their extra money and invest even more heavily in India.

of course as a liberal you're totally befuddled. Should we pass a law so that all companies must invest where return is lowest??

 

[Uncensored2008]

There's a difference between a "supplier" and a "Supply-sider". "Supplier" is not a pormanteau.

Certain companies surely benefit more from demand-side policies and Apple is without a doubt one of those companies.

Utter nonsense.

Had Apple sat around and waited until there was demand for the iPod or iPhone, they would be long out of business.

The people who get that extra money will almost certainly blow it on things they don't need, like iPhones and stupid apps to fill them.

Smartphones are one of the most useful tools to come about in the last hundred years.

Apple is sortof the McDonalds of the Tech world.

IBM would love supply-side policies. They'd take their extra money and invest even more heavily in India.

This makes no sense.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Both are-were bullshit.
Here's the guy that made it available to other than fatcats.
I'm sorry. He's not a Joo.
Linus Torvalds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

too stupid and 100% liberal,i.e., an IQ too low to understand capitalism!! Does the liberal want an economic system where it is the law that everything is free??

 

[samjones]

Utter nonsense.

Had Apple sat around and waited until there was demand for the iPod or iPhone, they would be long out of business.

When I say "Demand-Side" I mean it in a tax/economic-incentive kind of way. Supply-side policies would lower the tax burden (for example) on large companies and rich people, assuming that they would use the money to hire people and increase production in general.

Demand-Side policies would put that money in the hands of the people and let them do with it what they will. The 18 month extension of UI, for example, was a demand-side policy. Give people money and they'll use it to buy consumer electronics (iPod) and McDonalds and whatnot. I'm not sure that the same type of demand-side policies would help IBM at all or Micorosft as much.

Give businesses a bunch of money and they'll stack it up loosely near an open window and they'll wait for a windy day --- this is how I think of it when I hear "IBM Consulting".

Smartphones are one of the most useful tools to come about in the last hundred years.

Total horse shit. You should educate yourself about some of the things that have happened in the last 100 years.

 

[samjones]

IBM would love supply-side policies. They'd take their extra money and invest even more heavily in India.

of course as a liberal you're totally befuddled. Should we pass a law so that all companies must invest where return is lowest??

I'd be satisfied if we just tried to not create tax laws that encourage corporation to send middle-class tax revenue to third-world sweat shops.

Even if we just "tried".

 

[samjones]

There's a difference between a "supplier" and a "Supply-sider". "Supplier" is not a pormanteau.

not really, both are very very concerned with the supply of goods in order to raise the standard of living. We got from the stone age to here because supply siders supplied many new things

You seem frightfully ignorant on the meaning of the term "supply-side economics". You should look it up and come back when you're done reading. It doesn't mean "supplier". A "Supply-sider" is not neccessarily a manufacturer. Demand-side works much better for people working in the consumer space, like Apple and McDonalds. They don't need to increase supply. Lack of sales is (would be) their problem.

Supply-side economics is a foolish thing when consumer sales are lagging.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

You seem frightfully ignorant on the meaning of the term "supply-side economics". You should look it up and come back when you're done reading. It doesn't mean "supplier".

it means someone who supplies or encourages supplies by encouraging economic freedom from liberal interference.

A "Supply-sider" is not neccessarily a manufacturer.

who supplies more than a manufacturer?

Demand-side works much better for people working in the consumer space, like Apple and McDonalds. They don't need to increase supply. Lack of sales is (would be) their problem.

too stupid!!! any business can say lack of sales is a problem at any time. The right product supplied at the right price got us from the stone age to here. liberals could have helicoptered in all the cash they wanted to the stone age and it would amount to zip!! It was supply sider who got us to here. Is this really over your head??

Supply-side economics is a foolish thing when consumer sales are lagging.

do you want to churn bubble up and recess the economy with helicopter money or do you want innovative products supplied like the kind that got us from the stone age to here. Think!!!

 

[Uncensored2008]

When I say "Demand-Side" I mean it in a tax/economic-incentive kind of way.

Huh?

Dude, stop reading that idiot Krugman, seriously. Keynesian advocacy of incentives is in response to troughs in the business cycle. Keynes never advocated government spending as a part of the normal economic process. Krugman infuses Marx into his nonsense.

Supply-side policies would lower the tax burden (for example) on large companies and rich people, assuming that they would use the money to hire people and increase production in general.

What the hell are you talking about? Both Apple and Microsoft rose to prominence in the 80's, what specific tax relief did either enjoy? Reductions in top marginal rates were offset by loophole removal.

Demand-Side policies would put that money in the hands of the people and let them do with it what they will.

Again, what in the hell are you talking about? What money?

Thank god that Apple and Microsoft arose in the 80's, when the concept of Laissez Faire was employed and we just kept our fucking hands off of them, letting them do what they did best.

The 18 month extension of UI, for example, was a demand-side policy. Give people money and they'll use it to buy consumer electronics (iPod) and McDonalds and whatnot.

LOL;

Feel free to point to Keynes advocating paying people to not work as an economic stimulus?

You never will.

I'm not sure that the same type of demand-side policies would help IBM at all or Micorosft as much.

You're not sure paying people to not work would help Microsoft?

Give businesses a bunch of money and they'll stack it up loosely near an open window and they'll wait for a windy day --- this is how I think of it when I hear "IBM Consulting".

Yes, of course. Since government is the source of all things, and all things belong to the government, the only way that Microsoft could have "a bunch of money" is if government gave it to them. The concept that they built a product people were will to buy, with no involvement by the state, is completely foreign to you...

Total horse shit. You should educate yourself about some of the things that have happened in the last 100 years.

You mean like a device that can fit in the palm of your hand, completely mobile, that can send voice, data, and video from anywhere, that provide navigation, translate foreign languages, capture images and video, play music and act as a radio.....

Something like that?

 

[samjones]

Supply-side policies would lower the tax burden (for example) on large companies and rich people, assuming that they would use the money to hire people and increase production in general.

What the hell are you talking about? Both Apple and Microsoft rose to prominence in the 80's, what specific tax relief did either enjoy? Reductions in top marginal rates were offset by loophole removal.



Again, what in the hell are you talking about? What money?

Thank god that Apple and Microsoft arose in the 80's, when the concept of Laissez Faire was employed and we just kept our fucking hands off of them, letting them do what they did best.



LOL;

Feel free to point to Keynes advocating paying people to not work as an economic stimulus?

You never will.



You're not sure paying people to not work would help Microsoft?

UI, EIC, programs like this create demand which would tend to favor a company in the consumer space, like Apple. Microsoft works in the corporate space, so lowering corporate income taxes, for instance, should help them.

You seem to be old enough to have lived through the 80s, but you seem to not remember them. There was this thing called "Reaganomics" which involved lowering CGT and the higher marginal tax rates. This was very good for the stock market and for fledging companies like Microsoft and Apple who both went public in the Reagan era (Apple slightly before, but no matter).

So, to answer the "what the hell are you talking about" screed - These economic policies put real money in people's pockets (as we all know, corporations are people too)..... you choose to belive that doesn't happen if you want, but it does.

Apple and Microsoft's growth in the 80's are irrelevant. Apple's growth over the last 10 years and Microsoft's comparable poor performance show that companies can make and lose money in all economic climates.

"Lowering taxes" is not "supply side economics"..... lowering taxes on corporations and financiers is "supply side economics". I can hardly see how a company like Apple Computer would need or should receive tax incentives. They already have more money than Satan. The best thing for Apple is to keep handing out UI money so people will blow it on those stupid apps.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They already have more money than Satan. The best thing for Apple is to keep handing out UI money so people will blow it on those stupid apps.

it takes more money than Satan to take over the cell phone market or TV market or home entertainment market. The more they have the more they can try and fail. Letting liberal bureaucrats waste it is absurd.