Anyone care to remember?

[cahult]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/01/26/well_kill_spam_in_two/

It was two years ago Bill Gates said this. Is he right, have we got rid of spam? NO!!!!

[Refalm]

Microsoft did do something. They tried to shove Sender-ID down the throats of several ISP's, and only AOL agreed.

It was proven that Sender-ID is flawed, and that Yahoo!'s anti-spam system is totally better. So far, only Yahoo! Mail has implemented their own system.

[Dark_Me]

64k is all anyone will need

Three guesses where that quote came from.

[cahult]

http://www.userfriendly.org/cartoons/archives/06jan/ufng008730.gif

Good one...

[Pathos]

Spam isn't gone but I've read some good things about it diminishing.

Spammers are getting less and less cash for their work and ISP's are hitting them with legal actions.

It hasn't really diminished in volume because Spammers are increasing the spam to make up for the dwindling profits.

[jtpenrod]

It was two years ago Bill Gates said this. Is he right, have we got rid of spam? NO!!!!

When the hell has MS ever met a dead-line? Remember Windows 93?  :p

[Orethrius]

When the hell has MS ever met a dead-line? Remember Windows 93?  :p

 Windows 93, hell, what about Windows 96?  And it even took 'em ANOTHER year before they released a second edition to correct half those flaws!  

[H_TeXMeX_H]

I bet that's why they stopped using year names after 2000. (I dunno why they kept Server 2003)

[mobrien_12]

Everyone here now knows that Microsoft wasn't out to get rid of spam in two years.  They were out to put proprietary, patented locks in the worlds email system.  

The first stage in their master plan was Sender-ID.  Sender-ID was a patent encumbered Microsoft "technology" which wasn't fundamentally different from other open-specifications, except that it would be incompatible with open-source software and it had boatloads of Microsoft dollars trying to stuff it down the throats of everyone.

MS doesn't do anything for anyone but MS.

[Orethrius]

MS doesn't do anything for anyone but MS.

What's really sad is the number of people that'll post here in the next week defending that as "normal business behaviour," when a normal business is consumer-oriented.

[mobrien_12]

What's really sad is the number of people that'll post here in the next week defending that as "normal business behaviour," when a normal business is consumer-oriented.

Exactly.

A normal business is about giving the customer what they want and getting money in return.  

A monopoly is about giving a consumer what the business wants, and making damn sure they can't get it from anyone else.

[worker201]

Exactly.

A normal business is about giving the customer what they want and getting money in return.  

A monopoly is about giving a consumer what the business wants, and making damn sure they can't get it from anyone else.

And a modern American business is about telling a customer lies about what the customer wants, and then tells further lies about the business's ability to satisfy those artificial wants - anyone who doesn't line up like a good little robot and beg for this bullshit gets a foot in their ass (and/or secret service in their house and/or bombs dropped on them).


For some reason, back in the dotcom days, Charles Schwab was giving out free books about customer service - the book was called "Clicks and Mortar", and it was all about how Schwab was making huge money by giving quality customer service at any cost.  The way it was put in the book is that doing basic customer service to keep your customers and grow your business isn't enough.  The key, said the book, was to treat your customers like royalty because it was the right thing to do, and the profits will find their way into your accounts.  Making absolutely goddamm sure that their customers got everything they wanted and were completely satisfied made Schwab billions of dollars - and they didn't even have to try.  Cuz when the customers are happy, everything else can work itself out.

Now, I've never done business with Schwab, so I can't tell you if any of this is true.  But treating your customers right at all costs is always good for a business -- that's just common sense.  It's just too bad that nobody works that way.  Especially not Microsoft.  They are in the business of lies - their goal is not (and never has been) to help people.

[Pathos]

A normal business is about giving the customer what they want and getting money in return.  

A monopoly is about giving a consumer what the business wants, and making damn sure they can't get it from anyone else.

no.

A business is purely about taking the most profitable position in the market. No matter how big or small. Thats how capitalism is supposed to work.

A small business will attempt to provide a better deal for consumers of a larger business to gain market share. In this case Capitalism works.

A large business will try kill competition to gain market share. Capitalism does not really have any inbuilt mechanisms to stop monopolies, in fact it great encourages them.

Even with large competing companies they often prefer to have anti competitive measures (costs you money to switch, lots of paper work) and try hook customers with strong advertising rather than win peoples loyalty with their service.

Dell is a good example, sell cheaper shit than everyone else, if it craps out you get lost in the service web. If you want to get out you've wasted $500+USD on crap and cant afford something better.

Microsoft is rich cause people put up with crap and don't encourage competition with the choices they make in purchases.

[mobrien_12]

no.

A business is purely about taking the most profitable position in the market. No matter how big or small. Thats how capitalism is supposed to work.

Sorry, can't agree.

If it was just that, the most shining example of capitalism would be the thug with the protection racket.  He provides nothing, yet holds a very profitable position in the market.

A business runs by providing goods and/or services to customers.

[H_TeXMeX_H]

Note: Communism ain't any better ... trust me I know ... it's the internal corruption that kills it