Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bearded One who wrote (23815)	6/8/1999 12:38:00 PM
From: jim shiau	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

>As far as consumer harm-- lack of choice is always a harm to a consumer. Really ? How about VHS and Beta ? Sometime too many choices is a harm consumer too. If IBM drops Netscape and get better price, and consumers get better price too, then where is the consumer harm ? Jim S.

To: Bearded One who wrote (23815)	6/8/1999 12:55:00 PM
From: Kevin Hay	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

re: <<Norris just told the court that Microsoft linked IBM's dropping of Netscape to better prices for IBM.>> number of units times margin/unit = profit less competing products = more units/can charge less. Is this complicated ? If IBM actually believed in os2, it would have been willing to take a short term hit on win95 based sales, just sell os2 based machines, persuade developers that their apps will do more on os2 ...you know, compete? As a consumer, sure, the more the merrier. But if this is the case it needs to be the case across the boards for corporate america. We'll introduce pricing regulation.., anyone's product must be included in anyone's product portfolio. I'm personally peeved when I have to have a pepsi, and can't get a coke. Let's make'm sell both!! And of course, we'll need government regulation on the prices charged to vendors for pepsi and coke. It's a short trip down this road to see it's absurdity. At the time msft was working with ibm, ibm evaluated the development effort by counting the number of 'blocks' of code. ie: more code = more effort. The overhead incurred with this approach may have been negligible while running on mainframes but it is absolutely ridiculous for pc's. It is no wonder that os2 was(is?) a huge pig. Sure, true multitasking, but if you ever worked with it you'd soon rather be sticking needles in your eyes. Apple had their chance to be 'it' but decided to price gouge everyone silly instead. Apple and ibm were going to develop a system..., anyone remember that? Does doj think they didn't have the resources to compete? Couldn't code their way out of wet paper sack is more like it. The length of this trial is what's holding the stock back, imo, and what's really irritating me. There's this tone that the msft developer community is somehow supposed to be a property to be shared via government control. ...very silly. A lot of what's being taken seriously right now will be looked back at with humour in the not-to-distant future. -Kevin