RealNames ceases trading

[carey]

DOWNWARD DEATH SPIRAL, REDUX!

> If you're trying to enhance 'the browser' or 'the desktop' on PCs, is
> there any other sane business strategy than to target IE and the Windows
> Desktop? Doesn't this imply that there is no sane business model that
> involves improving PCs?[1]
> Luis
>
>
Jeeesus luis.  do you like, read what you write n stuff?  No.

No . No and NO.
You can improve PCs -- or even browsers (I like google, even if there aren't
statistics on how much use is being made with it, the APIs work quite nicely
as well).   THe problem lies with ONLY targeting IE, only targeting
Microsoft.   WHy do you isolate yourself to just providing options for one
OS?  That'sstupid.

Here's an example.   I recently picked up a Piccolo by Sonnet.  Here they
have a wonderful little creation that makes money, and generally improves
the PC (it provides an alternate storage medium that kills Floppydisks and
wins over CDrom/most other media because its
1) small
2) portable
3) durable
and here' sthe cincher:
4)  PLUGS into like anything.  Anything with a USB is a win.   No driver
support necessary.

That improves my PC.

As for an IE only device, I don't think the argument has ever really been
'don't make shit for windows'.   The argument that I seem to hear about this
thread is more 'Don't make shit for windows, and then whine if M$ doesn't
approve/sanction/wholeheartedly adopt it'.    In the case of things like
Desktop improvement packages (say Windowblinds) its not a case where the
company went to M$ and sold soley to them.   Rather, they provided a
package, that users could decide whether or not they wanted to use.  They
targeted their business to the consumer, instead of to Big Bill.

It can improve the desktop.   You just dont' need to sell it soley to M$.

Dig?

*patpat*

> [1]outside of providing a completely different OS?
>
>
>
>
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
>