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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tony Viola who wrote (91840)	11/7/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: Road Walker	Respond to of 186894

JDN and Tony, It DOES very much surprise me that most folks don't support Microsoft. Haven't they always been rated one of America's most respected companies? How many stockholders does MSFT have? I bet they are a vocal minority. John

To: Tony Viola who wrote (91840)	11/7/1999 1:50:00 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

Thread and Joey, the FOF listed many complaints, and with that, a person could make a guess at which practices might possibly change (if at all). The following is not what the FOF said. Just my extrapolations/ interpretations (which may be incorrect) of the FOF's complaints and how these complaints might be converted into requirements: - cannot disallow OEMs from boot-sequence and autostart - cannot use as an incentive, a lower OS price point for the OEMs who do not advertise a competing OS - cannot sell an older product version at such a high price that it essentially forces OEMs to purchase for bundle the newer version of the OS - make the cost of an OS upgrade equally as painful as the cost of porting software to a different OS to ensure an equal footing (or something like that) - FOF complained about MS investing in amounts which were not constrained by a product's revenue, in order to ensure their software tools are used (rather than a competitor's tools which supports cross platform) - Intel could more freely develop platform level interfaces (which could draw support away from interfaces exposed by Windows) - It "allows Intel to increase its pace" of software innovation for purposes of promoting advanced features of its chips beyond the current limitations imposed by waiting until the next Windows release - Allows Intel to more freely sell API/DDI software to OEMs - FOF complained about the "Preferred ISV" status which allows certain ISVs (but not others) access to important APIs before the release of the OS - disallow lower prices to OEMs who ensure machines are powerful enough to run WinNT Client - modify the licensing program to allow for 2 OS licenses so a user isn't forced to purchase a new OS upgrade when purchasing a new PC - decouple bundles so users are not forced to purchase new OS software upgrade when purchasing a new PC machine - there was a long discussion on Java run-time in Windows (Sun's version vs Microsoft's version, etc.) - eliminate different pricing to OEMs which is currently dependent upon which vendors preserve the application barrier to entry - impose rules on Win licensing so it doesn't restrict OEMs from promoting software which weakens the application barrier to entry - change the piracy policy which limits the # of PCs an OEM may sell without an OS installed. FOF made the assumption users were reluctant to upgrade to newer versions of the OS, and it said the bundling and piracy policy imposed upgrades on the consumer - restrict upgrade prices (a report indicated Win 98 could have been $49 instead of $89) - set the price for Windows by comparing it to other OS price points - the FOF mentioned that cloning the 32-bit Win APIs would be a costly way to allow a new competitive entrant into the market - the FOF said $100M annual dollars are spent on ISV marketing (restrict ISV marketing) - there was a big section on IAP, OLS, ISPs, etc. which boiled down to the FOF complaining MS had controlled what gets launched, etc. - the judge closed the report with a discussion on how investments are not being made on innovations which might compete with Microsoft The above is not what the FOF said. Just my extrapolations/ interpretations (which may be incorrect) of the FOF's complaints and how they might be converted into requirements. Now here's my opinion on what I think will happen: I believe Microsoft will be asked to change their pricing policy and will be asked to release all APIs to all ISVs at the same time. Amy J

To: Tony Viola who wrote (91840)	11/7/1999 1:51:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Respond to of 186894

RE:"Polls" Seems the Lawyers are getting their pound of flesh and the public wants theirs too...High fives all around...Reno leading the way...and who appointed RENO? Jim

To: Tony Viola who wrote (91840)	11/7/1999 4:36:00 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 186894

<I have found, especially in industry, that far more people resent Microsoft, for many reasons, than Intel.> Tony, opinions vary widely, depending on who you speak to. For example, Jesse Berst, the loudmouth running www.anchordesk.com at ZDNet, thinks that Intel is a worse monopoly than Microsoft. And speaking of ZDNet, most of the posts on their Talkback forums relating to Intel are very anti-Intel and pro-AMD. In my opinion, it's a very distorted picture of what the public thinks, especially since I think the minority can be extremely vocal. By the way, most of the engineers I know at Intel don't have a very high opinion of Microsoft. (Intel Marketing, of course, has a very different viewpoint.) I have no idea what Microsoft engineers think of Intel, though. Tenchusatsu

To: Tony Viola who wrote (91840)	11/8/1999 5:06:00 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 186894

Dear Tony: I think most Americans are "Infracanineaphyls" see, I tought you a new word. haha. Means, "love of the Underdog" . Also, I think people in general have a sense of fair play. True or not (I believe its true but dont wish to argue the point) MSFT is perceived as a Bully who uses unfair business practices to achieve its objective. While, in the short run that MAY have meant cheaper operating software in the long run it appears to have limited the horizon. INTC, at least in my opinion, while nearly equally successful, has not appeared to have achieved that success through Bully tactics. JDN