If you have a moment, please read through this article:
upside.com
You can not dismiss this article as anti-MSFT propoganda. The author makes some very good points without dragging the anti-trust case into the forefront.
There are many good examples of why MSFT is NOT the stock market darling everyone thinks they are. Their track record in the market has been carefully manipulated to create an aura of invincibility. I'd check into the SEC investigation of their "cookie jar accounting" as well as Bill Parrish's observations regarding Stock Options and the shifting of tax burden from the company to individual employees. In some quarters, it was pointed out that MSFT would have actually LOST money instead of posting a profit!
billparish.com
"In an 8/7/99 cover story, The Economist noted that a proper accounting at Microsoft would result in a loss of $18 billion for 1998 rather than the reported earnings of $4.5 billion. If you are not an accountant, don't waste the time pretending you are, trust The Economist, the earnings are not real. Don't let yourself be intimidated or deceived by financial analysts, TV commentators, bullies on Internet forums or Microsoft's elaborate public relations campaign.
Bill Gates trusts The Economist and you should too. Abbey Joseph Cohen and Rick Sherlund of Goldman Sachs have been sent this material numerous times over a 9 month period and neither has publicly divulged this situation."
On another note - I'd also like to point out that if DOS cost an OEM $3 per copy - what does the current copy of Windows cost OEMs? I've heard it's close to $35 per copy. I know you'll argue theres much more functionality in the OS but if you compare that to other products, we can all map out increased functionality in many of them while prices have still creeped downward.
Another interesting note - just this past February MSFT cut the price of it's Windows 2000 Professional desktop citing increased competition from other OSes! Amazing what good competition can do for us consumers huh? I wonder what more we can see if this competition can further develop....
You know, you're right - I don't need to worry about MSFT. Rereading that article leads me to believe that unless MSFT can drastically change it's corporate culture, it's doomed to fail and at that time, I will not have to pay a "MSFT tax" on the next computer hardware I buy.
I just want to leave you with this quote:
". . . flush from its victory over the Department of Justice, [it] continued with business as usual. And, indeed, why not? [CompanyX] enjoyed record profits, a gigantic war chest, legendary management, an unparalleled brand image, and a large and loyal customer base".
Sound familiar? The writer is talking about IBM in 1984. I see many parallels between IBM then and MSFT now. As an investor, you can not discount any of this. You can point to a track record as "proof of concept" but you can not project a past record onto the future without taking some risk. Ask some investors who bet on IBM in the mid-80's about that :)
Regards,
Peter J Strifas |
