How high will Microsoft fly? Message Board

STOCKTALK

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 473.65

-0.2%

11:34 AM EST

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: John F. Dowd who wrote (34682)	11/23/1999 5:25:00 PM
From: nommedeguerre	Read Replies (2) of 74651

John, "It seems acceptable if ORCL prices range from 24% discount to 94% discount but if MSFT has a variable scale it is anti-trust" Give me an example where ORCL provides discounts solely by PC Platform Manufacturer and I will believe you. Name another software company that charges people who purchase an IBM more than those who purchase a DELL? The difference between price-fixing and your variable scaling is the intent. Microsoft's decision to charge more per platform is not an economies-of-scale, supply/distribution, support/maintenance or sales/marketing based decision. Microsoft as a supplier has no legitimate reason to charge a higher price for a million units shipped on an IBM than it does for a million units shipped on a DELL. What does Intel charge per million processors shipped? Does it differ per platform manufacturer? Do you honestly believe it costs more to put the SHIP TO IBM label on a pallet of Win95 disks? Get real. "By the way Judge Jackson ought to look into my oil dealer and propane dealer's pricing policies" You got me here; those guys who buy a 1,000,000 cu.ft. of propane a week sure do get a better deal than those of us who buy 1000 at random. "In the case of IBM they had their own O/S that they could have used" A totally irrelevent point to the price-fixing argument, now isn't it. By your logic, MSFT should have charged IBM less for Windows just to keep OS/2 off more machines. What you have done is support the fact that MSFT charged IBM more simply because it was IBM and there was no Windows-compatible alternative. Couldn't do this if MSFT wasn't a monopoly. Cheers, Norm

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next