When it comes to Microsoft, yes, i believe that the licensing is horrific. Seriously, it costs so much money to license Windows and Office for every computer in a company. There is no need for an Volume License of Office to cost 500 dollars for the professional for each user, or 20 dollars for each client to use Live Communicator, or 25 dollars for client access licenses. Microsoft may and I do stress may have some nice software, but for what thy charge, it is a rip off. And they charge it because they know they have the Industry. Open Office an Linux are great, but really, how many companies use it? It is all Windows and Office.
I wish that Mac, Linux, and Open Office would pick up steam and begin to take over Microsofts market share. Maybe then their pricing would then be more competitive.
This is the best take on the underlying situation so far. So what's with all the negative votes? Every statement here is accurate and relevant. Microsoft do indeed operate a monopoly and behave as a monopoly.
Everyone generally agrees that competition is healthy, and particularly healthy where one company has dominated the scene for so long. It's over 30 years in Microsoft's case. So, again, what's with all the negative votes?
OnLive has a great service here. Sure it will help sell millions of iPads to current Windows PC users, but that's happening anyway. There's no turning this tide now. In theory, more iPad sales is potentially very bad for Windows 8 tablet sales. But Windows 8 tablets are thus far vaporware, with no believable roadmap for the promised full operating system on a tablet, meaning that OnLive's service is actually a win for MS, not a real threat. Even when there are credible Windows 8 tablets, they won't sell because Microsoft has slipped into third place in people's preferences. This is the consequence of standing still for 11 years. We've all lost confidence in them.
So, the intelligent thing for Microsoft to do is negotiate a deal with OnLive and treat them as a client. A new type of client maybe, and one that relies upon a rival platform, but a way of helping Windows and Office etc maintain their places in people's work lives in the post PC era.
Both Gates and Ballmer predicted and trumpeted tablets several times - without ever working out how to make them happen. They failed. And no, this is not a simple matter of missing first mover advantage. They failed and Apple won.
Sure there are also many Android OEMs offering hundreds of alternatives - all with different spec and even different versions of Android! But the real winner in any game is the one who walks away from the table with the most money. There is no scenario that sees Apple being beaten on that score.
What Microsoft need to accept is, if they want a seat in the game this time around, they have to rent one.
You should never start your own business.