Humbly report, Steven, regarding the Microsoft vs. PINC.
Again I quote:
zdnet.com
The tools will be provided on a subscription basis via e-mail or CD, said Jones. Microsoft has not decided whether to charge for the tools, but if the company does, said Jones, it will be a nominal fee to cover the program's costs.
"We don't view Y2K as a revenue generator whatsoever," said Jones. [bold mine]
So here is my take on this, and allow me please to use an example. Supposing it is determined that all Ford cars have a safety problem of some sort which causes them to blow up when they are cranked up on 01/01/00, and you are a Ford owner. A tiny unknown company claims it has a solution to this Ford problem for $X, and Ford provides a solution to the problem also for $X or so, or less, or for free. Who are you going to go to for the solution of this absolutely critical Ford problem?
I humbly believe you get my point. This is much less of a "free-market" situation, and much more of a Microsoft problem. With the exception of Mac users, virtually all PCs run Microsoft software first and foremost, ergo, when - not if - Microsoft comes with the solution, Microsoft's solution will be the de facto PC y2k solution by default.
It is therefore quite inconceivable for me to believe that PINC can get anywhere near the PC y2k market share the various analysts have projected. Not necessarily because of the quality (or lack of) of their solution, (though quality will of course play a role) but because I humbly believe that in the PC world y2k is primarily a Microsoft problem, and therefore the Microsoft solution will be the one most readily adopted. Especially if Microsoft chooses not to charge for this solution, as the above quote from Microsoft indicates may be the case.
If you find fault in this humble argument of mine, please do point it out.
Cheers,
Svejk
proofsheet.com |
