Rumor : MS to take over Macromedia

[dragonfly_7456]

True, once macromedia is sold, the prices for their products will dramatically drop. What do you mean by "public company" what does that meaN?

[Hierophant]

A public company is one that is owned by shareholders through the sale of stock on one of the world's stock exchanges.

In order for a publicly traded company to be purchased, the purchaser simply has to own a majority stake worth of stock and call a shareholder meeting. Each share holder then votes on whether they want the new company to take over after being bribed with stock prices above market average. If 50% + one share of stock votes for ownership change it happens.

In today's world, this is called a Hostile Takeover and the majority stake is usually around 5% of all outstanding shares. With a tech company like Macromedia, its stock option plan and other incentive programs to employees, Microsoft would probably needs 23-24% of outstanding shares.

[dragonfly_7456]

ANd just like that the company is sold? That is scarey... Why is macromedia a public company though? Did they decide to be one?

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by dragonfly_7456
ANd just like that the company is sold? That is scarey... Why is macromedia a public company though? Did they decide to be one?

Yep, it's rather scary. Capitalism can be a rather scary thing overall. The reason MM is a pulic company is that it brings in an huge amount of money (that's what is called venture capital, I think) to the company, from people buying stock in the the company. So, what MM technically did when they went public was to sell their company to the general public.

[Jeremy W.]

Naw, Venture Capital is when someone funds your startup, or operating company, as a non-stock investor, though they may get stock.

They normally purchase a portion of your company, and get a say in how it's run. VC money is even more scary than IPO/stock money

[cosmo]

I know this is a Flash forum, but I just wanted to know how much of an effect (if any) will all this have on java or J2EE?

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by cosmo
What effect (if any) will all this have on java or J2EE?

Shouldn't have any really. Those are Sun products. They will face the same problematic development and marketing cycle they have always faced because Sun Microsystems couldn't sell hot coffee to eskimos.

[Steelsun]

But at least Sun now has a leg up in that the recent court decisions have forced MS to start bundling a current (not 5 year old) version of Java with all desktop systems. Prventive monopolizing for .NET.

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by Steelsun
But at least Sun now has a leg up in that the recent court decisions have forced MS to start bundling a current (not 5 year old) version of Java with all desktop systems. Prventive monopolizing for .NET.

That is a whole different topic and if they hadn't gotten an injunction against Microsoft from distributing any new versions of Java in 1998, they wouldn't have had to get a new injunction to have new ones shipped.

Really, the whole issue was just a tactic by Sun, to pull Java out of the Public Domain as open source and force restrictions on business competitors while giving partners a leg up on that competition. Personally, I don't see it as any different than any tactics that Microsoft has used but since Sun is the underdog company run by a pathetic CEO with no vision, it is okay in the public's eye to do these kinds of things. However if they had $40 billion in the bank, I feel that you would have just as much hatred and jealousy for them as Microsoft experiences now.

[M. Johansson]

Even so, I hardly think it affects J2EE. Java is mainly used for server-, not client software anyway. No shareware I've ever downloaded was written in Java.

[neil100]

Originally posted by W. Luke

However if they had $40 billion in the bank, I feel that you would have just as much hatred and jealousy for them as Microsoft experiences now.

I doubt it, granted many companies use shady business tactics including Sun, but Microsoft makes other tech companies look honest. Other companies occasionally appear in court for some dubious business practice, yet Microsoft have case after case due to their dirty tactics, they really should have their own courtroom.

Sun or any other tech company could have $40 billion or $400 billion in the bank and the dislike would be still be directed at Microsoft, perhaps if Microsoft didn't tear down competitors signs at trade shows, lean on the OEMs to continue illegal preload lockins despite Court rulings against such practices, have it's sales reps try to go over IT managers heads if the IT manager even considered other products or use it's desktop monopoly to try and kill off Netscape or Java, then the dislike would go.

[Jeremy W.]

Conjecture. Nobody knows if MS has more cases per customer than other companies, so let's not get into pure supposition.

[neil100]

Originally posted by Jeremy W.
Conjecture. Nobody knows if MS has more cases per customer than other companies, so let's not get into pure supposition.

The only conjecture is wether Microsoft reps behave any worse than other companies, the rest is fact. You just have to read the comments from the judge in their latest case with Java to see they tried to abuse their desktop monopoly to get an edge, the same goes for the court case over Netscape where again they were found to be guilty, again not conjecture fact.

Some people like to tell themselves that the reason Microsoft are disliked is simply because they are the most successful Tech company and people are jealous, these people are mistaken, there are plenty of other companies who are dominant in their sector which not disliked, Nokia for instance the worlds larget mobile phone manufacturer by some distance ,yet their is no animosity towards them, why? because they don't try and break the competition by breaking the law and tactics akin to extortion.

[seanf]

Originally posted by M. Johansson
The reason MM is a pulic company is that it brings in an huge amount of money (that's what is called venture capital, I think) to the company, from people buying stock in the the company

Share capital

Sean

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by neil100
Some people like to tell themselves that the reason Microsoft are disliked is simply because they are the most successful Tech company and people are jealous, these people are mistaken, there are plenty of other companies who are dominant in their sector which not disliked, Nokia for instance the worlds larget mobile phone manufacturer by some distance ,yet their is no animosity towards them, why? because they don't try and break the competition by breaking the law and tactics akin to extortion.

Nokia only holds 36% percent of the phone market. And their phones suck in comparison to the latest Sony Ericsson ones.

Microsoft has been using way beyond hardball tactics against their competition at times. True. That is why they were convicted and all that stuff. However, what disturbs me is that this, for some people, somehow makes Microsoft Satan incarnate and something that should be avoided in general, which I think is absolutely ludicrous, as Microsoft has put out some mighty fine software during the last few years, such as Windows XP, SQL Server and the .NET Framework, to mention a few.

I also applaud Microsoft’s initiative with Passport. A single sign in solution is something the web is hurting for, and also a fine example of how Microsoft is bashed for no other reason than being Microsoft.

1. Microsoft have been known for crappy security, bugs, and abusing their monopoly. They have never been in trouble for invading people’s privacy to my knowledge.
2. There is no alternative! I can not see how anyone could argue that several hundred points of failure (99.9% of users use the same username and password on all the sites they visit) are better than the single point of failure in the case of Passport.

As for forcing Microsoft to include J2EE into Windows… It’s really interesting. The ruling is wrong from many aspects. While it’s also pretty unfair for Microsoft to include the .NET framework in Windows, and you could argue that two wrongs make one right, the problem is that if this goes thru, it could be argued that Winamp should be included in Windows because of WMP and Netscape (and perhaps Opera) should be included because of Internet Explorer is in Windows.

[neil100]

Originally posted by M. Johansson

Nokia only holds 36% percent of the phone market. And their phones suck in comparison to the latest Sony Ericsson ones.

Nokia is still the market leader by some way their nearest competitor motorola only have a 16% market share while ericssons is around 8% (although they do have nice phones).

Originally posted by M. Johansson

Microsoft has been using way beyond hardball tactics against their competition at times. True. That is why they were convicted and all that stuff.
However, what disturbs me is that this, for some people, somehow makes Microsoft Satan incarnate and something that should be avoided in general, which I think is absolutely ludicrous, as Microsoft has put out some mighty fine software during the last few years, such as Windows XP, SQL Server and the .NET Framework, to mention a few.

I agree Microsoft make some excellent products many of which I use, however with regards to business practices at least in the tech sector they are something akin to satan incarnate as you put it.

Originally posted by M. Johansson

As for forcing Microsoft to include J2EE into Windows… It’s really interesting. The ruling is wrong from many aspects. While it’s also pretty unfair for Microsoft to include the .NET framework in Windows, and you could argue that two wrongs make one right, the problem is that if this goes thru, it could be argued that Winamp should be included in Windows because of WMP and Netscape (and perhaps Opera) should be included because of Internet Explorer is in Windows.

You may be right, but maybe if Microsoft didn't threaten to cut off Dell, Acer etc if they pushed any other make of O/S then perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem.

[M. Johansson]

Originally posted by neil100
Nokia is still the market leader by some way their nearest competitor motorola only have a 16% market share while ericssons is around 8% (although they do have nice phones).

But Nokia DOES have a very, very healthy competition. Microsoft's biggest competitor on the desktop OS have far less than 16%. Also:

Nokias market capital: 74,872.13
Microsoft's market capital: 289,991.44

I agree Microsoft make some excellent products many of which I use, however with regards to business practices at least in the tech sector they are something akin to satan incarnate as you put it.

First of all, there are companies several times worse than Microsoft. The kind that causes damage to the environment, child-labour and such. Microsoft is nothing in comparison. And even in the software market, they are not very bad compared to other companies which have REAL (hint, hint) issues with privacy. As I've said before: I'm afraid of cancer, murderers and talking to beautiful women. I'm not afraid of a software company.

But even so - let's accept that Microsoft are mean. It's a pretty commonly accepted fact. They play nasty. However, are they really doing something that the average company wouldn't have done in their situation (with Windows on every computer)? Companies are there to make money, publicly traded companies in particular. After they go public, they almost become soulless, money-making entities. They do what they are by law required to do: Maximize profits. Microsoft has a HUGE opportunity to do this through Windows, and they would be stupid if they hadn't taken it.

Now, should they be allowed to do some of the things they do? Absolutely not. Can we expect Microsoft itself to do something about itself? Hardly. I’d say the fault lies in the U.S. justice, which haven’t proven to be very functional in this matter - as the pretty weak “punishment” on Microsoft revealed.

You may be right, but maybe if Microsoft didn't threaten to cut off Dell, Acer etc if they pushed any other make of O/S then perhaps this wouldn't be such a problem.

Yep. But the deed is done.

[neil100]

Originally posted by M. Johansson

But Nokia DOES have a very, very healthy competition. Microsoft's biggest competitor on the desktop OS have far less than 16%. Also:

Exactly, Nokia have competiton something which is good for the consumer, innovation etc I am sure if Nokia removed the competition by repeatedly breaking the law then they would be about as popular as Microsoft.

The point being a large corporation can be very successful the leader in it's field without being hugely disliked (or repeatedly breaking the law to remove competition). If you want an example where a company as a huge percent of the market try Sony, a couple of years ago you had the vast majority of the games console market taken up the playstation one, with Nintendo having a small share and Sega dropping out. Now I admit certain people who used Nintendo or Sega products did not like Sony, but that is only a small minority which is not the case with the dislike towards Microsoft which is far more universal, even from people who use and like their products.

Originally posted by M. Johansson

First of all, there are companies several times worse than Microsoft. The kind that causes damage to the environment, child-labour and such. Microsoft is nothing in comparison. And even in the software market, they are not very bad compared to other companies which have REAL (hint, hint) issues with privacy. As I've said before: I'm afraid of cancer, murderers and talking to beautiful women. I'm not afraid of a software company.

Well yes certain companies in other sectors are worse then Microsoft in a different respects, however in regard to abusing it's position to try and remove competitors Microsoft are in a class of their own.

The fact that Real track user information is not a good thing, but the idea that they are somehow worse than Microsoft is ludicrous, you just have to of read any news site over the last ten years to see that Microsoft repeatedly break competition laws more than every other major tech company combined.

Whilst I am not afraid of Microsoft I do look at the way they treat companies who have no choice such as Dell then consider how will they treat the rest of us if they own coldfusion and wipe out Sun in the next 20 years, their ever increasingly ridiculous licensing conditions and costs (in areas where they have wiped out the competition) only lead to the conclusion that they will continue to abuse their position, which would not be good for the tech industry, it's simple economics Monopolies are not healthy or effiecient for their respective sectors.

Originally posted by M. Johansson

However, are they really doing something that the average company wouldn't have done in their situation (with Windows on every computer)?

Yes Microsoft have done plenty that other companies would not of done it's why they have been permanetly in court over the last ten years.

Originally posted by M. Johansson

They do what they are by law required to do:

No they don't if they obeyed the law they would not of been found guilty of repeatedly breaking competition laws.

Originally posted by M. Johansson

Now, should they be allowed to do some of the things they do? Absolutely not. Can we expect Microsoft itself to do something about itself? Hardly. I’d say the fault lies in the U.S. justice, which haven’t proven to be very functional in this matter - as the pretty weak “punishment” on Microsoft revealed.

So let me get this right if Microsoft break their law it's not there fault, because it's not their responsibilty to obey the law.

Whilst I agree the US justice system has been pathetic, it's also up to the administrators of other major markets like the EU to impose controls.

[M. Johansson]

So let me get this right if Microsoft break their law it's not there fault, because it's not their responsibilty to obey the law.

Whilst I agree the US justice system has been pathetic, it's also up to the administrators of other major markets like the EU to impose controls.

I didn't say it was their fault. I just said we can't expect them to, as they will maximize profits in any way they can. If we dont slap them properly when they make bad (but very profitable) stuff, I don't really see why they should stop doing them (as they are therefore profitable). Sure, as a good consumer I should vote with my wallet, but unfortunately the .NET framework kicks to much buttocks.

[Hierophant]

Originally posted by M. Johansson
But Nokia DOES have a very, very healthy competition. Microsoft's biggest competitor on the desktop OS have far less than 16%. Also:

The judgement and rulings that Microsoft is a monopoly are flawed. The original judge decreed early in the proceedings that the MacOS was not a competitor to Windows because it requires different hardware to run. The judge also ruled that Linux is not a competitor to Windows because it isn't a commercial product and there is no means to distribute it. They didn't even consider the server market where OS selection widens considerably. The original judge had already predetermined the case before hearing all the evidence as was released in subsequent articles by the judge and the reason he was replaced. I am sure if OS/2 was still around, it would have been declared a non-competitor as well.

The fact that Microsoft didn't go for a mistrial when the articles were published, is astonishing. The fact that the government's original request of breakup was toned down to the current settlement is fact that their case wasn't as strong as it appeared to be the first go around.

[neil100]

Originally posted by W. Luke

The original judge decreed early in the proceedings that the MacOS was not a competitor to Windows because it requires different hardware to run.

Well the judge was right I have the option to buy a PC or an Apple computer, not the option of using Windows or Apples O/S on my PC.

Originally posted by W. Luke

The judge also ruled that Linux is not a competitor to Windows because it isn't a commercial product and there is no means to distribute it. They didn't even consider the server market where OS selection widens considerably.

The judge was wrong to dismiss Linux on the grounds of it being non-commercial after all wether it's free or not it still provides some competiton, however Linux is targeted at developers, with regards to an operating system that the general public can use Microsoft has absolutely no competition. (With the possible exception of redhat 8.0, but given Microsofts pressure on Dell et al it seems unlikely that Redhat 8.0 will be pushed)

Originally posted by W. Luke

The fact that the government's original request of breakup was toned down to the current settlement is fact that their case wasn't as strong as it appeared to be the first go around.

Or that this government continually puts the interest's of large companies ahead of those of the public, enviroment etc.