Historically, software for business was seen as unsexy because the products were seen as so poor - they provided such a poor user experience.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Proprietary software grew up, starting really in the 1980s, as an alternative and that became the dominant model with the rise of companies like Microsoft and Oracle and the like.
Shareware tends to combine the worst of commercial software with the worst of free software.
You know, IBM was almost knocked out of the box by other types of computer software and manufacturing.
Open source production has shown us that world-class software, like Linux and Mozilla, can be created with neither the bureaucratic structure of the firm nor the incentives of the marketplace as we've known them.
I thought Microsoft did a lot of things that were good and right building parts of the browser into the operating system. Then I thought it out and came up with reasons why it was a monopoly.
Is it possible that software is not like anything else, that it is meant to be discarded: that the whole point is to always see it as a soap bubble?
Being able to compete for consumers' attention and dollars over the preciousness of access is a thing of the past. Everyone is using the Internet to globally market a product.
A lot of people who work on open-source software don't mind making money elsewhere. They aren't anticommercial.
In short, software is eating the world.
Every time we've moved ahead in IBM, it was because someone was willing to take a chance, put his head on the block, and try something new.
No opposing quotes found.