SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly?
MSFT 483.03+0.5%Dec 5 9:30 AM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: John F. Dowd who wrote (23813)6/9/1999 12:53:00 PM
From: William Chaney  Read Replies (2) of 74651
 
>You miss the point whatgood is the testimony of this IBM. . .<

Actually, the point is that MS used OS dominance to try to control the market for applications, even though MS representatives had said earlier that they kept the OS and application units completely separate (remember the "Chinese wall" lies, er statements). It would be like an auto company that controlled 90% of the market saying that you couldn't run your car on Texaco gas without paying extra.

The IBM representative's statement may sound like sour grapes since OS/2 failed in the marketplace (due to a combination of bad marketing by IBM and MS working feverishly against it, not due to it being a substandard OS, as admitted by J. Allchin), but it documents monopolistic acts by MS. These statements by the IBM employee have not been denied by MS.

The consumer is indeed harmed by acts that make a supplier less competitive. IBM PC's with Windows 95 cost more if MS charges more for the Window's 95 license because IBM happens to make a competing product in another division. That reduces competition in the marketplace.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext