I agree. There isn't anything really surprising about the ruling. I would expect to see Microsoft split into pieces, following in the ATT footsteps. I would expect to perhaps see an operating system division, an office products division, and a home products division. Frankly I see no harm to this, either to Microsoft shareholders or to consumers. So long as the respective divisions produce quality products, they will do well.
One note on your post is that you commented that IBM fought the ruling for years, and that they have done well. It is true that they have done well recently, but there was a period when they did struggle. Perhaps they would have fared better if they had permitted themselves to be split up. Had they been split up, their various divisions might have been hungrier and more aggressive. As an example, some of their divisions could have turned out to become today's Intel, Microsoft, or CSCO. Allowing IBM to stay as a single monolithic entity may well have harmed the IBM shareholders by stifling creativity within a large organization.
Compare for example ATT, the baby bells, and LU. Does anyone think that if ATT had remained as a single entity that the combination would be as successful as the various pieces have been? LU in particular has flowered once released from the control of it's parent.
I fail to see how splitting up Microsoft will harm either consumers or Microsoft shareholders.
Carl
|
