microsoft made computers?

[TheRingmaster]

Why doesn't microsoft make their own computers (like mac does)?:confused:

[nalmeth]

Why build your own computers when you can get everyone else to make computers for you, and run your product exclusively?

[bobbybobington]

this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Widespread_Usage) should clear it up.

[MaximB]

I don't know about this...
M$ stared making hardware (mouses and keyboards for a long time) the xbox , and now they planning on a new "ipod" like music player.
maybe in a few years the would make their own PC.

[mozetti]

One reason MS doesn't make hardware is the same reason the PC took off as the dominant type of computer in the first place. You may not remember, but our x86 PCs used to be called "IBM PCs" or "IBM Clones" because IBM began making/licensing them (hardware & software), and was the main source for them. **EDIT** Found a Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_compatible) about it thanks to the previous Wikipedia link **/EDIT**

Unlike Apple, however, IBM didn't keep its manufacturing & hardware licensing internal, opting for outsourcing. So, whereas Apple had both hardware & software locked up, the parts in IBM PCs weren't restricted. This allowed multiple companies to get involved in manufacturing them, which in turn allowed other companies to buy the component parts and begin selling their own "IBM Clones" that could run the IBM software because it used the same hardware as IBM.

That was one of the biggest factors of the PC explosion. Free market/Capitalism created competition in the PC hardware markets. It created the situation where multiple companies (Mom & Pop up to International Corporations) could sell PCs, creating competition, and driving down prices.

So, if MS were to created PCs they'd be bumping up against the likes of Dell, HP, and others, including local PC shops; i.e. their customers. They'd probably have more anti-trust suites to face, also.

[adam.tropics]

I don't really see why they would bother, given that currently, they profit from almost every computer being built, at somebody elses expense.

[bjweeks]

I don't really see why they would bother, given that currently, they profit from almost every computer being built, at somebody elses expense.

Uh the people that use windows expense?

[adam.tropics]

Well yes, but only really by default. Really I meant that Microsoft profit from pretty much every 'unit' sold already, without the need to be involved in manufacturing that unit, and so without any hardware manufacturing expenses. I would imagine that the margins involved would be vastly better for software than hardware, although I can't back that up!

[djsroknrol]

Why build computers and deal with all the hastle when you can rule the planet with software that is written to be hacked, thus requiring more software to protect it and bork it even more?..

Makes perfectly good sence to me...:---)

[G Morgan]

Why build computers and deal with all the hastle when you can rule the planet with software that is written to be hacked, thus requiring more software to protect it and bork it even more?..

Makes perfectly good sence to me...:---)

Actually it makes all the sense in the world. If XP had good security then people will never switch. This is why Vista will have its own preplanned flaws.

[djsroknrol]

Actually it makes all the sense in the world. If XP had good security then people will never switch. This is why Vista will have its own preplanned flaws.

I rest my case...that's why I'm steering away from MS wherever I can..

[bjweeks]

Actually it makes all the sense in the world. If XP had good security then people will never switch. This is why Vista will have its own preplanned flaws.

I would love a source on that. Oh wait you can't because it's ********.

[mozetti]

I rest my case...that's why I'm steering away from MS wherever I can..

Hehe, you'd make a pretty poor lawyer.

[djsroknrol]

Hehe, you'd make a pretty poor lawyer.


A doctor would have been better, I think...;)

[G Morgan]

I would love a source on that. Oh wait you can't because it's ********.

I'm just stating why its not in their interest to make a perfect OS. The patch mentality fits directly in with their interests whether they did it intentionally or not.

On the other hand Linux will never get any benefits from having flaws either intentional or otherwise.

[bjweeks]

I'm just stating why its not in their interest to make a perfect OS. The patch mentality fits directly in with their interests whether they did it intentionally or not.

On the other hand Linux will never get any benefits from having flaws either intentional or otherwise.

We both know a "perfect OS" can't be made, so MS has no need to add artificial flaws.