Give up on what? Explaining Microsoft's legal strategy? That Microsoft has to role everything into the OS, to maintain the monopolistic death grip, and the slightest deviation from that strategy will doom the company? So the lawyers got to fight to the death on this one? Sorry, I know that's overstated, but I think it's also a dubious strategy on a number of grounds. Some technical, some naively political. Until the web browser hit, the only thing Bill seemed interested in "integrating into the OS" were the kind of utilities most people were used to getting with the OS in the first place. Except for one thing, of course- the big deal with Windows 95 was supposed to be MSN, built on the old-style AOL model of a closed content world, with the meter running. Since that didn't work out, they've been forced to give away a lot of stuff to get on top of the internet game. Good for all of us in the short run, in the long run? Just Trust Microsoft, right?
Right now, I'd analyze things a bit differently. What Microsoft seems to be doing is co-developing Windows and IE the way they co-developed Windows 3 and the Office apps. Then, of course, they had Ballmer's "Chinese Wall" between OS and apps, later ammended to "flying in formation" (sorry, I can't help repeating myself, it's a disease). Now, we got the various non-explanations about how it's impossible to disentangle IE and Windows. And IE isn't going to be a new "Office" in terms of revenue, if it's free forever.
But, of course, they may get away with it. Chaz's recent comment that the much ballyhooed CSS came from Word, combined with a recent news item that Microsoft was considering making html the default native Word format, sort of brought home to me how they've really been pretty successful at "Embrace and Extend/Demolish" up to now. Which is not particularly a good thing to us written word/plain text types, who are alternately mystified and annoyed when 500 word news articles turn into 50k html downloads. But that's life, maybe the datacom engineers will keep the bandwidth coming and it won't matter.
Anyway, did Microsoft hit the 108 target while I wasn't looking?:-) I mean, it's probably a good buy even at 125, but my grasp of yin/yang and the Jungian duality of man is not quite good enough to handle both my mission from God and investing in Microsoft. Sal convinced Bill Harmond, who we haven't heard from lately, but I'm out of my depth investment wise, mutual funds look good to me these days. I'll keep your advise in mind, though, I always said Microsoft was going to make a lot of money, no matter what. (there's that repitition disease again, sheesh)
Cheers, Dan. |
