<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_11_1525246</id>
	<title>10 Microsoft Acquisitions and What They Mean Now</title>
	<author>CmdrTaco</author>
	<datestamp>1265905500000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>FrankPoole writes <i>"CRN takes a look at <a href="http://www.crn.com/software/222700750">the past five years of Microsoft's acquisition history</a>, which totals $13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees, and highlights 10 deals and how they've affected the software giant. While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse, such as Danger and aQuantive, there are some smaller, blink-and-you'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft's push into new areas such as virtualization. And Microsoft's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html">former employees like Dick Brass</a>."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>FrankPoole writes " CRN takes a look at the past five years of Microsoft 's acquisition history , which totals $ 13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees , and highlights 10 deals and how they 've affected the software giant .
While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse , such as Danger and aQuantive , there are some smaller , blink-and-you 'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft 's push into new areas such as virtualization .
And Microsoft 's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by former employees like Dick Brass .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FrankPoole writes "CRN takes a look at the past five years of Microsoft's acquisition history, which totals $13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees, and highlights 10 deals and how they've affected the software giant.
While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse, such as Danger and aQuantive, there are some smaller, blink-and-you'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft's push into new areas such as virtualization.
And Microsoft's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by former employees like Dick Brass.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101076</id>
	<title>3 E's</title>
	<author>Slash.Poop</author>
	<datestamp>1265911140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Embrace<br>
Extend<br>
Enhance</htmltext>
<tokenext>Embrace Extend Enhance</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Embrace
Extend
Enhance</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101722</id>
	<title>Gates as Borg avatar</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265914560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Isn't it time we changed that Gates as Borg avatar with something like Jobs as Borg? Microsoft has lost its appeal as the "bad guy" in recent years...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is n't it time we changed that Gates as Borg avatar with something like Jobs as Borg ?
Microsoft has lost its appeal as the " bad guy " in recent years.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Isn't it time we changed that Gates as Borg avatar with something like Jobs as Borg?
Microsoft has lost its appeal as the "bad guy" in recent years...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31103300</id>
	<title>Re:Smart buys</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265919840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not sure saying that their ability to buy up innovation is a good thing. If Microsoft has no innovation within them then clearly buying up innovative companies is likely to stifle those companies and their future innovation and in the end the market and consumer loses.
<br> <br>
It just makes sense. Which ever side is larger will have more influence (it works that way with everything) and Microsoft buying up a small company means that company will almost certainly be absorbed into the borg-like company that lacks imagination rather than the borg-like company changing its ways thanks to the small company.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not sure saying that their ability to buy up innovation is a good thing .
If Microsoft has no innovation within them then clearly buying up innovative companies is likely to stifle those companies and their future innovation and in the end the market and consumer loses .
It just makes sense .
Which ever side is larger will have more influence ( it works that way with everything ) and Microsoft buying up a small company means that company will almost certainly be absorbed into the borg-like company that lacks imagination rather than the borg-like company changing its ways thanks to the small company .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not sure saying that their ability to buy up innovation is a good thing.
If Microsoft has no innovation within them then clearly buying up innovative companies is likely to stifle those companies and their future innovation and in the end the market and consumer loses.
It just makes sense.
Which ever side is larger will have more influence (it works that way with everything) and Microsoft buying up a small company means that company will almost certainly be absorbed into the borg-like company that lacks imagination rather than the borg-like company changing its ways thanks to the small company.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102822</id>
	<title>Re:Smart buys</title>
	<author>T.E.D.</author>
	<datestamp>1265918160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft has never "innovated" anything in its history, unless you count software licenseing or vendor agreements.

</p><p>They even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/86-DOS" title="wikipedia.org">bought DOS</a> [wikipedia.org] from someone else, for crying out loud.

</p><p>The best case you could possibly make for them is WindowsNT. They developed that in-house, but they did it by hiring the team that created VMS away from DEC and setting them loose. It wasn't entirely a home-brewed thing.

</p><p>This is just a story about Microsoft doing what they've always done for the last 30 years. If you want to find "innovation" at Microsoft, you have to look at their legal and marketing departments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft has never " innovated " anything in its history , unless you count software licenseing or vendor agreements .
They even bought DOS [ wikipedia.org ] from someone else , for crying out loud .
The best case you could possibly make for them is WindowsNT .
They developed that in-house , but they did it by hiring the team that created VMS away from DEC and setting them loose .
It was n't entirely a home-brewed thing .
This is just a story about Microsoft doing what they 've always done for the last 30 years .
If you want to find " innovation " at Microsoft , you have to look at their legal and marketing departments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft has never "innovated" anything in its history, unless you count software licenseing or vendor agreements.
They even bought DOS [wikipedia.org] from someone else, for crying out loud.
The best case you could possibly make for them is WindowsNT.
They developed that in-house, but they did it by hiring the team that created VMS away from DEC and setting them loose.
It wasn't entirely a home-brewed thing.
This is just a story about Microsoft doing what they've always done for the last 30 years.
If you want to find "innovation" at Microsoft, you have to look at their legal and marketing departments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101212</id>
	<title>It's not talked about much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>because you usually hear it from the executives and others who are well taken care of...</p><p>But having living through an acquisition by Microsoft of the small company I was working at, I personally found Microsoft's internal culture to be toxic to much of what made our startup successful in the first place.  As I saw it, for the typical 'guy in the trenches' your competition soon stops being the other companies competing in your market and becomes your co-workers.  The success of your origination is disconnected from the success of its products in the marketplace, while your personal success soon depends almost entirely upon your skills at competing against your peers, as it is predetermined how many winners and losers there will be amongst you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>because you usually hear it from the executives and others who are well taken care of...But having living through an acquisition by Microsoft of the small company I was working at , I personally found Microsoft 's internal culture to be toxic to much of what made our startup successful in the first place .
As I saw it , for the typical 'guy in the trenches ' your competition soon stops being the other companies competing in your market and becomes your co-workers .
The success of your origination is disconnected from the success of its products in the marketplace , while your personal success soon depends almost entirely upon your skills at competing against your peers , as it is predetermined how many winners and losers there will be amongst you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because you usually hear it from the executives and others who are well taken care of...But having living through an acquisition by Microsoft of the small company I was working at, I personally found Microsoft's internal culture to be toxic to much of what made our startup successful in the first place.
As I saw it, for the typical 'guy in the trenches' your competition soon stops being the other companies competing in your market and becomes your co-workers.
The success of your origination is disconnected from the success of its products in the marketplace, while your personal success soon depends almost entirely upon your skills at competing against your peers, as it is predetermined how many winners and losers there will be amongst you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100880</id>
	<title>"Become"?</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265909940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator.</p><p>Microsoft has always been a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator (though I suppose dumpster-diving does require a certain amount of agility).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Microsoft has become a clumsy , uncompetitive innovator.Microsoft has always been a clumsy , uncompetitive innovator ( though I suppose dumpster-diving does require a certain amount of agility ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator.Microsoft has always been a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator (though I suppose dumpster-diving does require a certain amount of agility).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101098</id>
	<title>Slide Show warning</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And I'm not seeing a print button</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And I 'm not seeing a print button</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And I'm not seeing a print button</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31104486</id>
	<title>Re:It's not talked about much</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265881320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>because you usually hear it from the executives and others who are well taken care of...</p><p>But having living through an acquisition by Microsoft of the small company I was working at, I personally found Microsoft's internal culture to be toxic to much of what made our startup successful in the first place.  As I saw it, for the typical 'guy in the trenches' your competition soon stops being the other companies competing in your market and becomes your co-workers.  The success of your origination is disconnected from the success of its products in the marketplace, while your personal success soon depends almost entirely upon your skills at competing against your peers, as it is predetermined how many winners and losers there will be amongst you.</p></div><p>What?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>because you usually hear it from the executives and others who are well taken care of...But having living through an acquisition by Microsoft of the small company I was working at , I personally found Microsoft 's internal culture to be toxic to much of what made our startup successful in the first place .
As I saw it , for the typical 'guy in the trenches ' your competition soon stops being the other companies competing in your market and becomes your co-workers .
The success of your origination is disconnected from the success of its products in the marketplace , while your personal success soon depends almost entirely upon your skills at competing against your peers , as it is predetermined how many winners and losers there will be amongst you.What ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>because you usually hear it from the executives and others who are well taken care of...But having living through an acquisition by Microsoft of the small company I was working at, I personally found Microsoft's internal culture to be toxic to much of what made our startup successful in the first place.
As I saw it, for the typical 'guy in the trenches' your competition soon stops being the other companies competing in your market and becomes your co-workers.
The success of your origination is disconnected from the success of its products in the marketplace, while your personal success soon depends almost entirely upon your skills at competing against your peers, as it is predetermined how many winners and losers there will be amongst you.What?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101034</id>
	<title>what no supplier of chairs?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>what no supplier of chairs?</htmltext>
<tokenext>what no supplier of chairs ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what no supplier of chairs?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101110</id>
	<title>Turf Wars</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So how many of you have been in mid sized growing companies that eventually kill off any sort of innovation they had due to Turf Wars? Every mid<br>sized company I have ever worked for tend to start the death spiral just about before they hit the 300-400 million mark. Sure the brand carries<br>them for a while but all innovation starts dying due to politics and turf wars. Most will start heavy acquisitions at this point to stay ahead but that<br>only turns the acquired into mush. It is a interesting phenomena to watch from the sidelines as the business inevitably implodes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So how many of you have been in mid sized growing companies that eventually kill off any sort of innovation they had due to Turf Wars ?
Every midsized company I have ever worked for tend to start the death spiral just about before they hit the 300-400 million mark .
Sure the brand carriesthem for a while but all innovation starts dying due to politics and turf wars .
Most will start heavy acquisitions at this point to stay ahead but thatonly turns the acquired into mush .
It is a interesting phenomena to watch from the sidelines as the business inevitably implodes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So how many of you have been in mid sized growing companies that eventually kill off any sort of innovation they had due to Turf Wars?
Every midsized company I have ever worked for tend to start the death spiral just about before they hit the 300-400 million mark.
Sure the brand carriesthem for a while but all innovation starts dying due to politics and turf wars.
Most will start heavy acquisitions at this point to stay ahead but thatonly turns the acquired into mush.
It is a interesting phenomena to watch from the sidelines as the business inevitably implodes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102782</id>
	<title>Re:Smart buys</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1265918040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That wouldn't surprise me in the least.  Microsoft spends an insane amount on Microsoft Research, and they come up with some genuine innovation, but most of the papers I've read by MS Research have contained things that were brought to market by Microsoft's competitors before MS got around to commercialising them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would n't surprise me in the least .
Microsoft spends an insane amount on Microsoft Research , and they come up with some genuine innovation , but most of the papers I 've read by MS Research have contained things that were brought to market by Microsoft 's competitors before MS got around to commercialising them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That wouldn't surprise me in the least.
Microsoft spends an insane amount on Microsoft Research, and they come up with some genuine innovation, but most of the papers I've read by MS Research have contained things that were brought to market by Microsoft's competitors before MS got around to commercialising them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100768</id>
	<title>It can only be good...</title>
	<author>nhytefall</author>
	<datestamp>1265909280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If a company cannot innovate internally, then they have to acquire from outside.
<br> <br>
Grow or die... but, it has allowed MS to improve their product offerings over time.  Should be interesting to see what the future holds.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If a company can not innovate internally , then they have to acquire from outside .
Grow or die... but , it has allowed MS to improve their product offerings over time .
Should be interesting to see what the future holds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a company cannot innovate internally, then they have to acquire from outside.
Grow or die... but, it has allowed MS to improve their product offerings over time.
Should be interesting to see what the future holds.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101054</id>
	<title>Still the best one by far</title>
	<author>Monkeedude1212</author>
	<datestamp>1265910900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Though not acquired in the past 5 years, Visio is still the best "Microsoft" product. It is the only one I wish I had, as the open source alternatives don't have the bells and whistles that make Visio a great product.</p><p>If you have had to use it - you know exactly what I'm talking about. Its got all the interoperability of Microsoft products that you'd expect, with all the ease of use and understanding that each Office iteration lacks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Though not acquired in the past 5 years , Visio is still the best " Microsoft " product .
It is the only one I wish I had , as the open source alternatives do n't have the bells and whistles that make Visio a great product.If you have had to use it - you know exactly what I 'm talking about .
Its got all the interoperability of Microsoft products that you 'd expect , with all the ease of use and understanding that each Office iteration lacks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though not acquired in the past 5 years, Visio is still the best "Microsoft" product.
It is the only one I wish I had, as the open source alternatives don't have the bells and whistles that make Visio a great product.If you have had to use it - you know exactly what I'm talking about.
Its got all the interoperability of Microsoft products that you'd expect, with all the ease of use and understanding that each Office iteration lacks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31105886</id>
	<title>Unintentional monopoly?</title>
	<author>plopez</author>
	<datestamp>1265886360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The author was only there from '97 to '04. There was nothing unintentional about it. If you know their history you know this. Their restrictive licensing began in the '80s. For example, early on they made license deals with manufacturers, e.g. Dell and Gateway. What that came down to was the manufacturer had to pay a fee whether or not a PC shipped with an MS OS. So what did they do? Ship only MS OS on their machines. MS was locking out the competition as as fast as possible.</p><p>This is also the company that said, It's not done until Lotus won't run".</p><p>Ballmer earning profits? He lead MS into their first ever period of losses. Now only remediated by Windows 7. Vista was a train wreck.</p><p>Being a monopoly has done what it always does; t makes a company fat, sloppy, lazy, and unimaginative.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The author was only there from '97 to '04 .
There was nothing unintentional about it .
If you know their history you know this .
Their restrictive licensing began in the '80s .
For example , early on they made license deals with manufacturers , e.g .
Dell and Gateway .
What that came down to was the manufacturer had to pay a fee whether or not a PC shipped with an MS OS .
So what did they do ?
Ship only MS OS on their machines .
MS was locking out the competition as as fast as possible.This is also the company that said , It 's not done until Lotus wo n't run " .Ballmer earning profits ?
He lead MS into their first ever period of losses .
Now only remediated by Windows 7 .
Vista was a train wreck.Being a monopoly has done what it always does ; t makes a company fat , sloppy , lazy , and unimaginative .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The author was only there from '97 to '04.
There was nothing unintentional about it.
If you know their history you know this.
Their restrictive licensing began in the '80s.
For example, early on they made license deals with manufacturers, e.g.
Dell and Gateway.
What that came down to was the manufacturer had to pay a fee whether or not a PC shipped with an MS OS.
So what did they do?
Ship only MS OS on their machines.
MS was locking out the competition as as fast as possible.This is also the company that said, It's not done until Lotus won't run".Ballmer earning profits?
He lead MS into their first ever period of losses.
Now only remediated by Windows 7.
Vista was a train wreck.Being a monopoly has done what it always does; t makes a company fat, sloppy, lazy, and unimaginative.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101766</id>
	<title>Re:Simple adaptation</title>
	<author>Attila Dimedici</author>
	<datestamp>1265914800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems to come up every now and again. MS hasn't changed, they were <strong>never</strong> an innovation company. Thye got their start on becoming big by buying QDOS from another company. MS has always seen which innovations the market was grabbing onto and then either copied them or bought them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems to come up every now and again .
MS has n't changed , they were never an innovation company .
Thye got their start on becoming big by buying QDOS from another company .
MS has always seen which innovations the market was grabbing onto and then either copied them or bought them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems to come up every now and again.
MS hasn't changed, they were never an innovation company.
Thye got their start on becoming big by buying QDOS from another company.
MS has always seen which innovations the market was grabbing onto and then either copied them or bought them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100972</id>
	<title>What a weird list.</title>
	<author>barfy</author>
	<datestamp>1265910420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Bungie, Visio, Great Plains Software?</p><p>These three companies have made more money and been more influential than these companies!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Bungie , Visio , Great Plains Software ? These three companies have made more money and been more influential than these companies !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Bungie, Visio, Great Plains Software?These three companies have made more money and been more influential than these companies!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101416</id>
	<title>Live by the sword, die by the sword</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Internal competition is common at great companies. It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete. The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive. At Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence.</p></div><p>This sounds like the same thing they do to external competition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Internal competition is common at great companies .
It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete .
The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive .
At Microsoft , it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams , belittle their efforts , compete unfairly against them for resources , and over time hector them out of existence.This sounds like the same thing they do to external competition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Internal competition is common at great companies.
It can be wisely encouraged to force ideas to compete.
The problem comes when the competition becomes uncontrolled and destructive.
At Microsoft, it has created a dysfunctional corporate culture in which the big established groups are allowed to prey upon emerging teams, belittle their efforts, compete unfairly against them for resources, and over time hector them out of existence.This sounds like the same thing they do to external competition.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101062</id>
	<title>Really?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dick Brass.</p><p>Really?</p><p>What? Was the given name "Balls" already taken?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dick Brass.Really ? What ?
Was the given name " Balls " already taken ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dick Brass.Really?What?
Was the given name "Balls" already taken?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752</id>
	<title>Smart buys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265909160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of the companies on that list were intelligent purchasing decisions by Microsoft, even if all of them didn't pan out in the end. Most of them even have examples included of where their input has specifically improved Microsoft's products. I think that Dick Brass's article in the Times was fairly harsh, but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation, then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves. It's certainly not ideal, but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of the companies on that list were intelligent purchasing decisions by Microsoft , even if all of them did n't pan out in the end .
Most of them even have examples included of where their input has specifically improved Microsoft 's products .
I think that Dick Brass 's article in the Times was fairly harsh , but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation , then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves .
It 's certainly not ideal , but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of the companies on that list were intelligent purchasing decisions by Microsoft, even if all of them didn't pan out in the end.
Most of them even have examples included of where their input has specifically improved Microsoft's products.
I think that Dick Brass's article in the Times was fairly harsh, but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation, then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves.
It's certainly not ideal, but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101154</id>
	<title>Why the unnecessary pages?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To be honest I didn't read the article.  I don't see why it couldn't have been on one page rather than 10 little slides.  This isn't a powerpoint presentation in a meeting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To be honest I did n't read the article .
I do n't see why it could n't have been on one page rather than 10 little slides .
This is n't a powerpoint presentation in a meeting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To be honest I didn't read the article.
I don't see why it couldn't have been on one page rather than 10 little slides.
This isn't a powerpoint presentation in a meeting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101270</id>
	<title>Ready Your Fanboys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Before you morons get all in a tussle, remember that Google BOUGHT most of everything it owns.</p><p>The following were outright bought:</p><p>Google Groups<br>Blogger<br>iGoogle<br>Google Maps<br>Google Earth<br>AdSense/AdWords<br>Baidu<br>Google Sketchup<br>Google Spreadsheet<br>Picasa<br>Youtube<br>Google Talk<br>Panoramio<br>Feed Burner</p><p>The following were developed around large chunks of bought code, IP, marketshare, etc.</p><p>Google Analytics<br>Android<br>Google Latitude<br>Google Documents<br>Google Sites<br>Google Chrome<br>Google Wave</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_acquisitions\_by\_Google" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_acquisitions\_by\_Google</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Before you morons get all in a tussle , remember that Google BOUGHT most of everything it owns.The following were outright bought : Google GroupsBloggeriGoogleGoogle MapsGoogle EarthAdSense/AdWordsBaiduGoogle SketchupGoogle SpreadsheetPicasaYoutubeGoogle TalkPanoramioFeed BurnerThe following were developed around large chunks of bought code , IP , marketshare , etc.Google AnalyticsAndroidGoogle LatitudeGoogle DocumentsGoogle SitesGoogle ChromeGoogle Wavehttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List \ _of \ _acquisitions \ _by \ _Google [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Before you morons get all in a tussle, remember that Google BOUGHT most of everything it owns.The following were outright bought:Google GroupsBloggeriGoogleGoogle MapsGoogle EarthAdSense/AdWordsBaiduGoogle SketchupGoogle SpreadsheetPicasaYoutubeGoogle TalkPanoramioFeed BurnerThe following were developed around large chunks of bought code, IP, marketshare, etc.Google AnalyticsAndroidGoogle LatitudeGoogle DocumentsGoogle SitesGoogle ChromeGoogle Wavehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\_of\_acquisitions\_by\_Google [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260</id>
	<title>Re:Smart buys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>I think that Dick Brass's article in the Times was fairly harsh, but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation, then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves. It's certainly not ideal, but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so.</i> <br>
<br>
I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass's article. Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft (whether homegrown or acquired), there are too many internal power struggles going on for those innovations to ever really shine through or live up to their full potential. It's really a symptom of the corporate culture that's been allowed to fester for far too long there.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think that Dick Brass 's article in the Times was fairly harsh , but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation , then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves .
It 's certainly not ideal , but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so .
I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass 's article .
Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft ( whether homegrown or acquired ) , there are too many internal power struggles going on for those innovations to ever really shine through or live up to their full potential .
It 's really a symptom of the corporate culture that 's been allowed to fester for far too long there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think that Dick Brass's article in the Times was fairly harsh, but if what he says is true and Microsoft no longer has the capability for innovation, then buying innovators with their still-impressive supply of cash and then successfully integrating their work into their products is a good substitute for coming up with those ideas themselves.
It's certainly not ideal, but it can work as long as they still have the funds to do so.
I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass's article.
Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft (whether homegrown or acquired), there are too many internal power struggles going on for those innovations to ever really shine through or live up to their full potential.
It's really a symptom of the corporate culture that's been allowed to fester for far too long there.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100950</id>
	<title>Something's amiss...</title>
	<author>Petersko</author>
	<datestamp>1265910240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"CRN takes a look at the past five years of Microsoft's acquisition history, which totals $13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees, and highlights 10 deals and how they've affected the software giant. While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse, such as Danger and aQuantive, there are some smaller, blink-and-you'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft's push into new areas such as virtualization." </i> <br> <br>

Sounds like it might be an interesting article. Also looks odd - a slashdot article submission about Microsoft that's, at worse, neutral. Where's the pro-forma jab?<br> <br>

<i>"And Microsoft's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by former employees like Dick Brass."</i> <br> <br>

Ah... there it is.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" CRN takes a look at the past five years of Microsoft 's acquisition history , which totals $ 13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees , and highlights 10 deals and how they 've affected the software giant .
While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse , such as Danger and aQuantive , there are some smaller , blink-and-you 'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft 's push into new areas such as virtualization .
" Sounds like it might be an interesting article .
Also looks odd - a slashdot article submission about Microsoft that 's , at worse , neutral .
Where 's the pro-forma jab ?
" And Microsoft 's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by former employees like Dick Brass .
" Ah... there it is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"CRN takes a look at the past five years of Microsoft's acquisition history, which totals $13 billion and more than 7,000 new employees, and highlights 10 deals and how they've affected the software giant.
While some larger acquisitions stand out for better or worse, such as Danger and aQuantive, there are some smaller, blink-and-you'll-miss-it deals that have proved pivotal for Microsoft's push into new areas such as virtualization.
"   

Sounds like it might be an interesting article.
Also looks odd - a slashdot article submission about Microsoft that's, at worse, neutral.
Where's the pro-forma jab?
"And Microsoft's recent acquisition track record may lend credence to the heavy criticism levied against the company by former employees like Dick Brass.
"  

Ah... there it is.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101050</id>
	<title>DIck Brass? I want his name!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then I'll start to sign with the surname before the name.</p><p>"[...]</p><p>Sincerely,</p><p>Brass Dick"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then I 'll start to sign with the surname before the name. " [ .. .
] Sincerely,Brass Dick "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then I'll start to sign with the surname before the name."[...
]Sincerely,Brass Dick"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101550</id>
	<title>Re:Flurry of negative Microsoft stories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265913540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Makes you wonder where they've been for the last 30 years. If anything, Microsoft today is a good company, in comparison to what they used to be. So why now instead of in the days when they were pulling all kinds of shady and illegal moves to kill the competition?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Makes you wonder where they 've been for the last 30 years .
If anything , Microsoft today is a good company , in comparison to what they used to be .
So why now instead of in the days when they were pulling all kinds of shady and illegal moves to kill the competition ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Makes you wonder where they've been for the last 30 years.
If anything, Microsoft today is a good company, in comparison to what they used to be.
So why now instead of in the days when they were pulling all kinds of shady and illegal moves to kill the competition?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101144</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102912</id>
	<title>Damn I hate these top 10 slideshows</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265918460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Need to click ten time to see the full list.</p><p>Huge pain in the ass and extremely unuser-friendly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Need to click ten time to see the full list.Huge pain in the ass and extremely unuser-friendly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Need to click ten time to see the full list.Huge pain in the ass and extremely unuser-friendly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31109576</id>
	<title>Re:Smart buys</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass's article. Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft (whether homegrown or acquired), there are too many internal power struggles going on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div><p>And it appears Dick Brass didn't have what it took to come out on top of those power struggles.  If he'd been a big dick with big brass balls then he might well have prevailed. Instead we get his whinging article in the times.</p><p>I note that Dick was a vice president at Microsoft.  In two of his examples of how creativity was thwarted at Microsoft his opposition was other vice presidents.  When it came time to nut up or shut up it's quite clear what Dick did.  He shut up.  Until now.  Maybe he should have just continued keeping his mouth shut.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass 's article .
Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft ( whether homegrown or acquired ) , there are too many internal power struggles going on ...And it appears Dick Brass did n't have what it took to come out on top of those power struggles .
If he 'd been a big dick with big brass balls then he might well have prevailed .
Instead we get his whinging article in the times.I note that Dick was a vice president at Microsoft .
In two of his examples of how creativity was thwarted at Microsoft his opposition was other vice presidents .
When it came time to nut up or shut up it 's quite clear what Dick did .
He shut up .
Until now .
Maybe he should have just continued keeping his mouth shut .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you missed a key point of Dick Brass's article.
Even with innovative technologies at Microsoft (whether homegrown or acquired), there are too many internal power struggles going on ...And it appears Dick Brass didn't have what it took to come out on top of those power struggles.
If he'd been a big dick with big brass balls then he might well have prevailed.
Instead we get his whinging article in the times.I note that Dick was a vice president at Microsoft.
In two of his examples of how creativity was thwarted at Microsoft his opposition was other vice presidents.
When it came time to nut up or shut up it's quite clear what Dick did.
He shut up.
Until now.
Maybe he should have just continued keeping his mouth shut.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101348</id>
	<title>Simple Adaptation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>

<p>The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.

</p><p>When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty. Very little competition. So the best move for MS to make was innovation. Come up with something new and market that. And hope to make it big, which they did. It was a gamble.

</p><p>Now, MS is HUGE. And the market is full - loads of competition. They don't have to innovate anymore. They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them. They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore. A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big. There isn't much room. Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem. That is what MS is hoping to acquire. The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market. They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore. They're here to stay. Now given that, what is the best strategy? Stop anyone else from competing at their scale. Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.

</p><p>The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment. It's not surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days .
When MS started out , they had little money and the market was nearly empty .
Very little competition .
So the best move for MS to make was innovation .
Come up with something new and market that .
And hope to make it big , which they did .
It was a gamble .
Now , MS is HUGE .
And the market is full - loads of competition .
They do n't have to innovate anymore .
They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them .
They do n't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore .
A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big .
There is n't much room .
Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem .
That is what MS is hoping to acquire .
The " oh wow I did n't think of that " part of the market .
They do n't have to think like a small " hope we can make it " company anymore .
They 're here to stay .
Now given that , what is the best strategy ?
Stop anyone else from competing at their scale .
Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller .
The environment has changed , so MS changed to adapt to the new environment .
It 's not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>

The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.
When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty.
Very little competition.
So the best move for MS to make was innovation.
Come up with something new and market that.
And hope to make it big, which they did.
It was a gamble.
Now, MS is HUGE.
And the market is full - loads of competition.
They don't have to innovate anymore.
They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them.
They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore.
A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big.
There isn't much room.
Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem.
That is what MS is hoping to acquire.
The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market.
They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore.
They're here to stay.
Now given that, what is the best strategy?
Stop anyone else from competing at their scale.
Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.
The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment.
It's not surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31106964</id>
	<title>Re:It's not talked about much</title>
	<author>gujo-odori</author>
	<datestamp>1265890980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, what he said.</p><p>I also worked at a smallish company that was acquired by Microsoft (funny it wasn't on the list in TFA, it fits the time span of five years, and some of the companies mentioned in TFA were acquired fist). My description of MSFT's internal culture would be "pathological," but I guess "toxic" works, too.</p><p>How pathological?  *Every one* was required to go through a full series of Microsoft interviews in order to keep our jobs. Submit your resume, the whole nine yards. Of course, most of my interviewers quite obviously hadn't even bothered to read my resume, leading to some pretty "interesting" questions and some answers along the lines of "I don't know; I don't do that."</p><p>One of them actually admitted point-blank that he hadn't read my resume and said he was too busy to bother with that. Classy, that. I bet he fits in pretty well at MSFT, though. A couple of others also pretty obviously hadn't but didn't 'fess up. So mostly, my "interviews" consisted of explaining to people who hadn't a clue what I did or what my team did what it was we did, since they seemed to have not read our job descriptions either.</p><p>I met a former Danger employee not long ago. Some interesting stories there, too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , what he said.I also worked at a smallish company that was acquired by Microsoft ( funny it was n't on the list in TFA , it fits the time span of five years , and some of the companies mentioned in TFA were acquired fist ) .
My description of MSFT 's internal culture would be " pathological , " but I guess " toxic " works , too.How pathological ?
* Every one * was required to go through a full series of Microsoft interviews in order to keep our jobs .
Submit your resume , the whole nine yards .
Of course , most of my interviewers quite obviously had n't even bothered to read my resume , leading to some pretty " interesting " questions and some answers along the lines of " I do n't know ; I do n't do that .
" One of them actually admitted point-blank that he had n't read my resume and said he was too busy to bother with that .
Classy , that .
I bet he fits in pretty well at MSFT , though .
A couple of others also pretty obviously had n't but did n't 'fess up .
So mostly , my " interviews " consisted of explaining to people who had n't a clue what I did or what my team did what it was we did , since they seemed to have not read our job descriptions either.I met a former Danger employee not long ago .
Some interesting stories there , too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, what he said.I also worked at a smallish company that was acquired by Microsoft (funny it wasn't on the list in TFA, it fits the time span of five years, and some of the companies mentioned in TFA were acquired fist).
My description of MSFT's internal culture would be "pathological," but I guess "toxic" works, too.How pathological?
*Every one* was required to go through a full series of Microsoft interviews in order to keep our jobs.
Submit your resume, the whole nine yards.
Of course, most of my interviewers quite obviously hadn't even bothered to read my resume, leading to some pretty "interesting" questions and some answers along the lines of "I don't know; I don't do that.
"One of them actually admitted point-blank that he hadn't read my resume and said he was too busy to bother with that.
Classy, that.
I bet he fits in pretty well at MSFT, though.
A couple of others also pretty obviously hadn't but didn't 'fess up.
So mostly, my "interviews" consisted of explaining to people who hadn't a clue what I did or what my team did what it was we did, since they seemed to have not read our job descriptions either.I met a former Danger employee not long ago.
Some interesting stories there, too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101212</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101324</id>
	<title>Simple adaptation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265912340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.

</p><p>When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty.  Very little competition.  So the best move for MS to make was innovation.  Come up with something new and market that.  And hope to make it big, which they did.  It was a gamble.

</p><p>Now, MS is HUGE.  And the market is full - loads of competition.  They don't have to innovate anymore.  They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them.  They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore.  A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big.  There isn't much room.  Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem.  That is what MS is hoping to acquire.  The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market.  They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore.  They're here to stay.  Now given that, what is the best strategy?  Stop anyone else from competing at their scale.  Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.

</p><p>The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment.  It's not surprising.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days .
When MS started out , they had little money and the market was nearly empty .
Very little competition .
So the best move for MS to make was innovation .
Come up with something new and market that .
And hope to make it big , which they did .
It was a gamble .
Now , MS is HUGE .
And the market is full - loads of competition .
They do n't have to innovate anymore .
They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them .
They do n't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore .
A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big .
There is n't much room .
Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem .
That is what MS is hoping to acquire .
The " oh wow I did n't think of that " part of the market .
They do n't have to think like a small " hope we can make it " company anymore .
They 're here to stay .
Now given that , what is the best strategy ?
Stop anyone else from competing at their scale .
Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller .
The environment has changed , so MS changed to adapt to the new environment .
It 's not surprising .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason why Microsoft is more of an acquire company than an innovation company is that the waters it swims in are different these days.
When MS started out, they had little money and the market was nearly empty.
Very little competition.
So the best move for MS to make was innovation.
Come up with something new and market that.
And hope to make it big, which they did.
It was a gamble.
Now, MS is HUGE.
And the market is full - loads of competition.
They don't have to innovate anymore.
They can assimilate small fish that do their innovation for them.
They don't have to take the risks a small company would have to take anymore.
A startup in this environment would have to gamble hugely to get big.
There isn't much room.
Patents and other competition means there are very small survival spaces in the ecosystem.
That is what MS is hoping to acquire.
The "oh wow I didn't think of that" part of the market.
They don't have to think like a small "hope we can make it" company anymore.
They're here to stay.
Now given that, what is the best strategy?
Stop anyone else from competing at their scale.
Buy them out and make the marketplace ecosystem even smaller.
The environment has changed, so MS changed to adapt to the new environment.
It's not surprising.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101092</id>
	<title>MS cool? When?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Having been in the computing world more or less continuously since the early 80s, I can't remember a single instance in which MS was considered to be cool; at least not among the computer scientists I was in touch with. There were a number of cool companies over the years: Thinking Machines, Cray, Silicon Graphics, etc. But MS? For all I recall, it would elicit nothing but derision at first, and despise and fear later on. Now it is true that it became hugely popular among computer science students whose unabashed goal was to become millionaires before turning 30 - not to shine in the computer science field.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Having been in the computing world more or less continuously since the early 80s , I ca n't remember a single instance in which MS was considered to be cool ; at least not among the computer scientists I was in touch with .
There were a number of cool companies over the years : Thinking Machines , Cray , Silicon Graphics , etc .
But MS ?
For all I recall , it would elicit nothing but derision at first , and despise and fear later on .
Now it is true that it became hugely popular among computer science students whose unabashed goal was to become millionaires before turning 30 - not to shine in the computer science field .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Having been in the computing world more or less continuously since the early 80s, I can't remember a single instance in which MS was considered to be cool; at least not among the computer scientists I was in touch with.
There were a number of cool companies over the years: Thinking Machines, Cray, Silicon Graphics, etc.
But MS?
For all I recall, it would elicit nothing but derision at first, and despise and fear later on.
Now it is true that it became hugely popular among computer science students whose unabashed goal was to become millionaires before turning 30 - not to shine in the computer science field.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100992</id>
	<title>MicroSoft Going To Innovate....</title>
	<author>thestudio\_bob</author>
	<datestamp>1265910540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <em>&quot;Hi, MicroSoft here and with all this bad press coming out lately, I would like to ensure you that we have some truly revolutionary products coming out soon... blah blah blah.&quot;</em> </p><p>Wake me up when they actually produce something cool that I can touch and feel. I'm getting tired of the standard "MicroSoft is going to innovate, just wait and see" PR tagline.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Hi , MicroSoft here and with all this bad press coming out lately , I would like to ensure you that we have some truly revolutionary products coming out soon... blah blah blah .
" Wake me up when they actually produce something cool that I can touch and feel .
I 'm getting tired of the standard " MicroSoft is going to innovate , just wait and see " PR tagline .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "Hi, MicroSoft here and with all this bad press coming out lately, I would like to ensure you that we have some truly revolutionary products coming out soon... blah blah blah.
" Wake me up when they actually produce something cool that I can touch and feel.
I'm getting tired of the standard "MicroSoft is going to innovate, just wait and see" PR tagline.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101082</id>
	<title>Re:Something's amiss...</title>
	<author>John Hasler</author>
	<datestamp>1265911200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; Where's the pro-forma jab?</p><p>I took care of that.  See my comment above.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; Where 's the pro-forma jab ? I took care of that .
See my comment above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; Where's the pro-forma jab?I took care of that.
See my comment above.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31105942</id>
	<title>Re:Smart buys</title>
	<author>hendrikboom</author>
	<datestamp>1265886600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The internal power struggles are just mirrors of the way Microsoft acts externally.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The internal power struggles are just mirrors of the way Microsoft acts externally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The internal power struggles are just mirrors of the way Microsoft acts externally.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101258</id>
	<title>I question his creditability</title>
	<author>Lead Butthead</author>
	<datestamp>1265911980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>His group invented ClearType? Don't make me laugh. The technique popular during <a href="http://www.cnn.com/TECH/computing/9812/08/cleartype.idg/" title="cnn.com">Apple II</a> [cnn.com] days and this guy has the gall to claim credit for it. I say this renders his creditability as questionable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>His group invented ClearType ?
Do n't make me laugh .
The technique popular during Apple II [ cnn.com ] days and this guy has the gall to claim credit for it .
I say this renders his creditability as questionable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>His group invented ClearType?
Don't make me laugh.
The technique popular during Apple II [cnn.com] days and this guy has the gall to claim credit for it.
I say this renders his creditability as questionable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102440</id>
	<title>Microsoft is me.</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1265917140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>"Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator."</i>
<br> <br>
The small company I work for is now mired in its own processes. I have no authority to do anything to change that. The positive is that we will not get to the stage of being an attractive acquisition, so jobs are pretty safe.<br> <br>
The downside is all the key innovators ( I include myself) at my work feel stymied. <br> <br> I would not feel sorry for the strategists at Microsoft, but I would feel sorry for their innovators. Their day cannot be a cakewalk.</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Microsoft has become a clumsy , uncompetitive innovator .
" The small company I work for is now mired in its own processes .
I have no authority to do anything to change that .
The positive is that we will not get to the stage of being an attractive acquisition , so jobs are pretty safe .
The downside is all the key innovators ( I include myself ) at my work feel stymied .
I would not feel sorry for the strategists at Microsoft , but I would feel sorry for their innovators .
Their day can not be a cakewalk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Microsoft has become a clumsy, uncompetitive innovator.
"
 
The small company I work for is now mired in its own processes.
I have no authority to do anything to change that.
The positive is that we will not get to the stage of being an attractive acquisition, so jobs are pretty safe.
The downside is all the key innovators ( I include myself) at my work feel stymied.
I would not feel sorry for the strategists at Microsoft, but I would feel sorry for their innovators.
Their day cannot be a cakewalk.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31103906</id>
	<title>Microsoft's "birthright" ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265878920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> a slashdot article submission about Microsoft that's, at worse, neutral. Where's the pro-forma jab</i></p><p>In what universe is Microsoft owed positive coverage by virtue of its mere existence? Where I come from you earn your reputation, good or bad, and you wear it. Tough titties.</p><p>If you want effusiveness over Microsoft's alleged virtues, I'd suggest that you read the business pages, not the (genuine) technology pages. They might be the wet dreams of investment analysts, whose sole goal is the accumulation of maximal wealth by whatever means possible, but to real technology world, they create a huge net loss.  Mediocrity (at best) and pervasiveness are not feats of technological ingenuity.</p><p>I often muse at how much more <i>advanced</i> the computing world would be had Microsoft not created an effective monopoly and caused virtual stagnation of the creative forces of development.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>a slashdot article submission about Microsoft that 's , at worse , neutral .
Where 's the pro-forma jabIn what universe is Microsoft owed positive coverage by virtue of its mere existence ?
Where I come from you earn your reputation , good or bad , and you wear it .
Tough titties.If you want effusiveness over Microsoft 's alleged virtues , I 'd suggest that you read the business pages , not the ( genuine ) technology pages .
They might be the wet dreams of investment analysts , whose sole goal is the accumulation of maximal wealth by whatever means possible , but to real technology world , they create a huge net loss .
Mediocrity ( at best ) and pervasiveness are not feats of technological ingenuity.I often muse at how much more advanced the computing world would be had Microsoft not created an effective monopoly and caused virtual stagnation of the creative forces of development .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> a slashdot article submission about Microsoft that's, at worse, neutral.
Where's the pro-forma jabIn what universe is Microsoft owed positive coverage by virtue of its mere existence?
Where I come from you earn your reputation, good or bad, and you wear it.
Tough titties.If you want effusiveness over Microsoft's alleged virtues, I'd suggest that you read the business pages, not the (genuine) technology pages.
They might be the wet dreams of investment analysts, whose sole goal is the accumulation of maximal wealth by whatever means possible, but to real technology world, they create a huge net loss.
Mediocrity (at best) and pervasiveness are not feats of technological ingenuity.I often muse at how much more advanced the computing world would be had Microsoft not created an effective monopoly and caused virtual stagnation of the creative forces of development.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101174</id>
	<title>Sure, but what about CompuGlobalHyperMegaNet?</title>
	<author>RevWaldo</author>
	<datestamp>1265911560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>After all, Bill Gates didn't get that rich by writing a bunch of checks!</htmltext>
<tokenext>After all , Bill Gates did n't get that rich by writing a bunch of checks !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all, Bill Gates didn't get that rich by writing a bunch of checks!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101936</id>
	<title>Re:Simple adaptation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265915400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Innovation in any large company is hard regardless of the market. I don't recall MS innovating much of anything...ever, but then I'm a Mac person.</p><p>Someone above wrote about what it was like to be in a small company taken over by MS. If the corporate culture is to promote a competition amongst the employees instead of competition geared toward competitors, then MS is probably what results. If you have a good idea, your co-workers will screw you because if it succeeds, they do not. That leaves the competition aspect of MS in the hands of Business School Product who understand nothing technical and but who really get "screwing a competitor" as a measure of success. Good ideas rise to the top at MS in spite of their current culture as opposed to because of their current culture.</p><p>Many other companies are in the same boat. HP used to be an innovator before they became PC/printer box makers. They screwed their engineering culture and now attempts to get it back are drowned by the Business School Product running the company. IBM appears somewhat similar although they do seem to have some hardware innovation kept alive, probably an oversight that will get killed off eventually.</p><p>It's a bit hard to tell where Apple's innovation comes from since the company is so secretive. Presumably, they have not neutered their engineering and some ideas are bubbling up from them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Innovation in any large company is hard regardless of the market .
I do n't recall MS innovating much of anything...ever , but then I 'm a Mac person.Someone above wrote about what it was like to be in a small company taken over by MS. If the corporate culture is to promote a competition amongst the employees instead of competition geared toward competitors , then MS is probably what results .
If you have a good idea , your co-workers will screw you because if it succeeds , they do not .
That leaves the competition aspect of MS in the hands of Business School Product who understand nothing technical and but who really get " screwing a competitor " as a measure of success .
Good ideas rise to the top at MS in spite of their current culture as opposed to because of their current culture.Many other companies are in the same boat .
HP used to be an innovator before they became PC/printer box makers .
They screwed their engineering culture and now attempts to get it back are drowned by the Business School Product running the company .
IBM appears somewhat similar although they do seem to have some hardware innovation kept alive , probably an oversight that will get killed off eventually.It 's a bit hard to tell where Apple 's innovation comes from since the company is so secretive .
Presumably , they have not neutered their engineering and some ideas are bubbling up from them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Innovation in any large company is hard regardless of the market.
I don't recall MS innovating much of anything...ever, but then I'm a Mac person.Someone above wrote about what it was like to be in a small company taken over by MS. If the corporate culture is to promote a competition amongst the employees instead of competition geared toward competitors, then MS is probably what results.
If you have a good idea, your co-workers will screw you because if it succeeds, they do not.
That leaves the competition aspect of MS in the hands of Business School Product who understand nothing technical and but who really get "screwing a competitor" as a measure of success.
Good ideas rise to the top at MS in spite of their current culture as opposed to because of their current culture.Many other companies are in the same boat.
HP used to be an innovator before they became PC/printer box makers.
They screwed their engineering culture and now attempts to get it back are drowned by the Business School Product running the company.
IBM appears somewhat similar although they do seem to have some hardware innovation kept alive, probably an oversight that will get killed off eventually.It's a bit hard to tell where Apple's innovation comes from since the company is so secretive.
Presumably, they have not neutered their engineering and some ideas are bubbling up from them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101324</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101144</id>
	<title>Flurry of negative Microsoft stories</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it me, or has the press turned really critical of Microsoft in past couple of months? It sort of feels like the barbarians are at the gate, waiting to taste Balmer's bitter flesh. Yesterday it came to a crescendo with Joe Wilcox publishing a devastating <a href="http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/Why-former-employees-say-Microsoft-cant-innovate/1265750084" title="betanews.com">piece</a> [betanews.com] on how middle manager culture is destroying innovation at the company.</p><p>I can't really peg this on one single thing, but if I were to guess, it's probably because Apple and Google are mapping out the future while Microsoft is still hung up chasing ghosts of yesteryear with me-too products with little or no tangible value.</p><p>Or perhaps it's just confirmation bias on my part because I don't particularly care for the company or majority of their products.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it me , or has the press turned really critical of Microsoft in past couple of months ?
It sort of feels like the barbarians are at the gate , waiting to taste Balmer 's bitter flesh .
Yesterday it came to a crescendo with Joe Wilcox publishing a devastating piece [ betanews.com ] on how middle manager culture is destroying innovation at the company.I ca n't really peg this on one single thing , but if I were to guess , it 's probably because Apple and Google are mapping out the future while Microsoft is still hung up chasing ghosts of yesteryear with me-too products with little or no tangible value.Or perhaps it 's just confirmation bias on my part because I do n't particularly care for the company or majority of their products .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it me, or has the press turned really critical of Microsoft in past couple of months?
It sort of feels like the barbarians are at the gate, waiting to taste Balmer's bitter flesh.
Yesterday it came to a crescendo with Joe Wilcox publishing a devastating piece [betanews.com] on how middle manager culture is destroying innovation at the company.I can't really peg this on one single thing, but if I were to guess, it's probably because Apple and Google are mapping out the future while Microsoft is still hung up chasing ghosts of yesteryear with me-too products with little or no tangible value.Or perhaps it's just confirmation bias on my part because I don't particularly care for the company or majority of their products.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101018</id>
	<title>Danger, Danger!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265910720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah, Danger, the company that all the competent people abandoned, and ended messing up the storage/backup for all of T-Mobile Sidekick users' data?</p><p>How did that go anyway, I heard they managed to find a way to recover most of it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah , Danger , the company that all the competent people abandoned , and ended messing up the storage/backup for all of T-Mobile Sidekick users ' data ? How did that go anyway , I heard they managed to find a way to recover most of it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah, Danger, the company that all the competent people abandoned, and ended messing up the storage/backup for all of T-Mobile Sidekick users' data?How did that go anyway, I heard they managed to find a way to recover most of it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101584</id>
	<title>Re:Slide Show warning</title>
	<author>miggyb</author>
	<datestamp>1265913780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Entire article in one post:</p><p>Fast Search &amp; Transfer (January 2008)</p><p>While much of Microsoft's recent push into search has been on the consumer side with Bing, Microsoft's $1.2 billion acquisition of Norway-based Fast Search &amp; Transfer has helped the software giant make inroads in the enterprise search market.
More than 10,000 of Microsoft's enterprise customers have deployed Fast's technology to date, and Microsoft's free Search Server Express product has been downloaded more than 200,000 times, according to Whittinghill.</p><p>Fast's enterprise search technology will also be part of Office 2010, Whittinghill says. Office 2010 is being offered to selected testers as a Release Candidate, and is slated for launch by June.</p><p>Danger (February 2008)</p><p>At this point in time, a week before the Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona, it's hard to look at Microsoft's $500 million pickup of Danger, developer of the software and services stack for the Sidekick, as anything but a disappointment.</p><p>Much of the Danger talent landed in Microsoft's Premium Mobile Experiences (PMX) team, a group within the Mobile Communications Business (MCB) of the Entertainment and Devices Division. PMX not only was responsible for a Sidekick outage last October that caused T-Mobile subscribers to lose data, it's also leading Microsoft's Pink smartphone project, which has been rumored to be on the rocks for several months. Many former Danger staffers have either been laid off or left Microsoft of their own accord.</p><p>According to Whittinghill, the goal of the Danger acquisition was to combine all the different Microsoft experiences, including MSN, Zune and Windows Live Search For Mobile, and "start creating a connected entertainment and communications experience." Microsoft may still be planning to launch Pink, and it may actually fulfill this vision, but right now, the Danger deal looks like a dud.</p><p>Kidaro (March 2008)</p><p>Microsoft's acquisition of Israel-based Kidaro, reportedly for $100 million, added desktop virtualization to its portfolio and gave the company the all important backward compatibility necessary for upgrading to new versions of Windows.</p><p>Kidaro is now called Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization (MED-V), which is essentially Windows XP Mode with management capability layered on top. Kidaro's technology allows companies to continue using legacy business apps after Windows upgrades, and it's also well suited to mobile environments with large numbers of notebook PCs, where the ability to deploy and move PC images quickly and easily is an advantage.</p><p>Kidaro is part of Microsoft's Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP), which includes desktop and application virtualization, inventory services, System Center desktop error monitoring and group policy management tools, and is only available as part of a Software Assurance subscription.
</p><p>DATAllegro (September 2008)</p><p>Microsoft deepened its data warehousing portfolio with its September 2008 acquisition of DATAllegro, an Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based firm whose technology allows SQL Server to handle massive amounts of data. "They allow you to scale out to hundreds of terabytes," says Whittinghill.</p><p>The DATAllegro deal, which reportedly cost $275 million, was Microsoft's entry to the data warehousing space. According to Whittinghill, Microsoft was interested both in DATAllegro's talent and its core IP. Given the growing role that data warehousing and business intelligence are playing within the enterprises, and the rapid increase in the amount of data enterprises are generating, this acquisition will continue paying dividends for the next several years.`</p><p>Calista Technologies (January 2008)</p><p>Microsoft's acquisition of Calista brought in a collection of GPU virtualization technologies that stream multimedia (Flash, Silverlight, Windows Media and Direct3D) content from a Hyper-V host to thick and thin clients.</p><p>"Calista provided the essential technology for increasing the ease of experience around watching video and</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Entire article in one post : Fast Search &amp; Transfer ( January 2008 ) While much of Microsoft 's recent push into search has been on the consumer side with Bing , Microsoft 's $ 1.2 billion acquisition of Norway-based Fast Search &amp; Transfer has helped the software giant make inroads in the enterprise search market .
More than 10,000 of Microsoft 's enterprise customers have deployed Fast 's technology to date , and Microsoft 's free Search Server Express product has been downloaded more than 200,000 times , according to Whittinghill.Fast 's enterprise search technology will also be part of Office 2010 , Whittinghill says .
Office 2010 is being offered to selected testers as a Release Candidate , and is slated for launch by June.Danger ( February 2008 ) At this point in time , a week before the Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona , it 's hard to look at Microsoft 's $ 500 million pickup of Danger , developer of the software and services stack for the Sidekick , as anything but a disappointment.Much of the Danger talent landed in Microsoft 's Premium Mobile Experiences ( PMX ) team , a group within the Mobile Communications Business ( MCB ) of the Entertainment and Devices Division .
PMX not only was responsible for a Sidekick outage last October that caused T-Mobile subscribers to lose data , it 's also leading Microsoft 's Pink smartphone project , which has been rumored to be on the rocks for several months .
Many former Danger staffers have either been laid off or left Microsoft of their own accord.According to Whittinghill , the goal of the Danger acquisition was to combine all the different Microsoft experiences , including MSN , Zune and Windows Live Search For Mobile , and " start creating a connected entertainment and communications experience .
" Microsoft may still be planning to launch Pink , and it may actually fulfill this vision , but right now , the Danger deal looks like a dud.Kidaro ( March 2008 ) Microsoft 's acquisition of Israel-based Kidaro , reportedly for $ 100 million , added desktop virtualization to its portfolio and gave the company the all important backward compatibility necessary for upgrading to new versions of Windows.Kidaro is now called Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization ( MED-V ) , which is essentially Windows XP Mode with management capability layered on top .
Kidaro 's technology allows companies to continue using legacy business apps after Windows upgrades , and it 's also well suited to mobile environments with large numbers of notebook PCs , where the ability to deploy and move PC images quickly and easily is an advantage.Kidaro is part of Microsoft 's Desktop Optimization Pack ( MDOP ) , which includes desktop and application virtualization , inventory services , System Center desktop error monitoring and group policy management tools , and is only available as part of a Software Assurance subscription .
DATAllegro ( September 2008 ) Microsoft deepened its data warehousing portfolio with its September 2008 acquisition of DATAllegro , an Aliso Viejo , Calif.-based firm whose technology allows SQL Server to handle massive amounts of data .
" They allow you to scale out to hundreds of terabytes , " says Whittinghill.The DATAllegro deal , which reportedly cost $ 275 million , was Microsoft 's entry to the data warehousing space .
According to Whittinghill , Microsoft was interested both in DATAllegro 's talent and its core IP .
Given the growing role that data warehousing and business intelligence are playing within the enterprises , and the rapid increase in the amount of data enterprises are generating , this acquisition will continue paying dividends for the next several years. ` Calista Technologies ( January 2008 ) Microsoft 's acquisition of Calista brought in a collection of GPU virtualization technologies that stream multimedia ( Flash , Silverlight , Windows Media and Direct3D ) content from a Hyper-V host to thick and thin clients .
" Calista provided the essential technology for increasing the ease of experience around watching video and</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Entire article in one post:Fast Search &amp; Transfer (January 2008)While much of Microsoft's recent push into search has been on the consumer side with Bing, Microsoft's $1.2 billion acquisition of Norway-based Fast Search &amp; Transfer has helped the software giant make inroads in the enterprise search market.
More than 10,000 of Microsoft's enterprise customers have deployed Fast's technology to date, and Microsoft's free Search Server Express product has been downloaded more than 200,000 times, according to Whittinghill.Fast's enterprise search technology will also be part of Office 2010, Whittinghill says.
Office 2010 is being offered to selected testers as a Release Candidate, and is slated for launch by June.Danger (February 2008)At this point in time, a week before the Mobile World Congress event in Barcelona, it's hard to look at Microsoft's $500 million pickup of Danger, developer of the software and services stack for the Sidekick, as anything but a disappointment.Much of the Danger talent landed in Microsoft's Premium Mobile Experiences (PMX) team, a group within the Mobile Communications Business (MCB) of the Entertainment and Devices Division.
PMX not only was responsible for a Sidekick outage last October that caused T-Mobile subscribers to lose data, it's also leading Microsoft's Pink smartphone project, which has been rumored to be on the rocks for several months.
Many former Danger staffers have either been laid off or left Microsoft of their own accord.According to Whittinghill, the goal of the Danger acquisition was to combine all the different Microsoft experiences, including MSN, Zune and Windows Live Search For Mobile, and "start creating a connected entertainment and communications experience.
" Microsoft may still be planning to launch Pink, and it may actually fulfill this vision, but right now, the Danger deal looks like a dud.Kidaro (March 2008)Microsoft's acquisition of Israel-based Kidaro, reportedly for $100 million, added desktop virtualization to its portfolio and gave the company the all important backward compatibility necessary for upgrading to new versions of Windows.Kidaro is now called Microsoft Enterprise Desktop Virtualization (MED-V), which is essentially Windows XP Mode with management capability layered on top.
Kidaro's technology allows companies to continue using legacy business apps after Windows upgrades, and it's also well suited to mobile environments with large numbers of notebook PCs, where the ability to deploy and move PC images quickly and easily is an advantage.Kidaro is part of Microsoft's Desktop Optimization Pack (MDOP), which includes desktop and application virtualization, inventory services, System Center desktop error monitoring and group policy management tools, and is only available as part of a Software Assurance subscription.
DATAllegro (September 2008)Microsoft deepened its data warehousing portfolio with its September 2008 acquisition of DATAllegro, an Aliso Viejo, Calif.-based firm whose technology allows SQL Server to handle massive amounts of data.
"They allow you to scale out to hundreds of terabytes," says Whittinghill.The DATAllegro deal, which reportedly cost $275 million, was Microsoft's entry to the data warehousing space.
According to Whittinghill, Microsoft was interested both in DATAllegro's talent and its core IP.
Given the growing role that data warehousing and business intelligence are playing within the enterprises, and the rapid increase in the amount of data enterprises are generating, this acquisition will continue paying dividends for the next several years.`Calista Technologies (January 2008)Microsoft's acquisition of Calista brought in a collection of GPU virtualization technologies that stream multimedia (Flash, Silverlight, Windows Media and Direct3D) content from a Hyper-V host to thick and thin clients.
"Calista provided the essential technology for increasing the ease of experience around watching video and</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101098</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31109660</id>
	<title>Re:I question his creditability</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265911380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>lol u got owned.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>lol u got owned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>lol u got owned.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101258</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31109576
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101936
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101082
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101584
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31103300
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31104486
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31106964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101212
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31105942
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31103906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100950
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101766
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101324
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101550
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101144
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_11_1525246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31109660
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101258
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101258
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31109660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101110
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101062
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101174
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101154
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100768
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101018
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101076
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101324
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101936
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101766
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101270
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102440
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101092
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101212
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31104486
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31106964
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31103906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101082
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100752
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101260
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31109576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31105942
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31102782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31103300
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101348
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101054
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101144
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101550
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31100972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101416
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_11_1525246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_11_1525246.31101722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
