M31, I understand: Microsoft supporters put out "flawed" analagies, while Netscape supporters make "comments based on observations".
Whatever. You agree with knowitall that my analogy is flawed of comparing Coke and Pepsi buying out restaurant chains to move syrup as compared to MSFT using the OS to move browser software. The reason given by knowitall was that Coke and Pepsi have each other, whereas MSFT supposedly stands alone. You in fact are the one who pointed out to me just how large a company is SUNW sales-wise. In other words, they're no Snapple. I also pointed out string of other heavyweight MSFT competitors, all of whom have industrial strength in terms of technical research talent, employees, sales, channel distribution networks, etc.
But I know, I'm wrong, and my analagies are flawed. I guess I just need to acknowledge that MSFT executives don't have a right to want to develop and sell new products, don't have a right to maintain existing ones, and certainly don't have a right to improve existing ones.
re Paul Maritz, the company's group VP in charge of the Platforms Group: "We are going to cut off [Netscape's] air supply. Everything they're selling, we're going to give away for free."
CEO Bill Gates: "Our business model works even if all Internet software is free ...We are still selling operating systems. What does Netscape's business model look like? Not very good."
Senior VP James Allchin: "I am convinced we have to use Windows - this is the one thing they don't have."
Then to this you say "We've seen what microsoft has done." What have they done? Struck deals with ISPs to hawk IE, which MSFT has backed off from. Given the IE browser along with the OS, to the delight of consumers. Sure it all sounds rather aggressive from the NSCP point of view, but after all the words were voiced and actions taken, what happened? Netscape at last count still has 60% market share. So what's your point? Oh yes: the "Intent". Let's review the Netscape intent, according to a banner displayed at Netscape headquarters: "Kill Microsoft". If the laws are going to be based largely on intent, then NSCP looks just as guilty as MSFT: "Kill" or "cut off air supply". What's the diff?
The diff is that MSFT has all the money.
Paul Maritz's comment in particular has me RFLOL. Bill Gates' comment is typically cheeky and confident. I don't see anything wrong with James Allchin's comment either. NSCP still had a 60% market share, though that may not last. Win95 has recently been "patched" with an "unexciting new version" called Win98 (as described by most pundits). That leaves us with perplexing problem: Is Win98 just a patch for Win95, or is it a technological advancement? It seems that to some people, Win98 is both just a patch, and a threat to NSCP. Interesting. |
