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: JBTFD who wrote (38623)	2/26/2000 4:18:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Didn't they approach Netscape with an offer to divide up the market?

To: JBTFD who wrote (38623)	2/26/2000 5:22:00 PM
From: adamnelson	Respond to of 74651

When a customer buys a PC and asks for Windows installed, why should a boxmaker install a Netscape Navigator on the PC? If a customer buys a PC with INTEL chip, why should a boxmaker put a label AMD, in addition to the "INTEL INSIDE" one. Has any of the UNIX boxmakers shipped their machines with IE installed? even though IE is available on several UNIX platforms. These boxmakers might use Netscape Navigator as a leverage to negotiate prices on Windows with MSFT. And, MSFT might use their install base to attract them to consider Windows only solution. This sort of business negotiations goes on everyday across the world. It's the consumers who decide what they want to buy. And, over time only products with good quality will survive. This happens naturally, especially in the free market. Thanks God, we still have a free market here! Thinking back, I still remembered that I was enthusiastic about Netscape's web server when it first came out. However, over the years, people realized the product was buggy and unreliable. There were essentially no support and services from Netscape. At the same time, they charged so much for the licenses. All of us have all moved on to Microsoft IIS since then. It took years for a software company to mature. MSFT certainly has done its time.

To: JBTFD who wrote (38623)	2/26/2000 6:36:00 PM
From: rudedog	Respond to of 74651

Mark - I have some limited personal experience on this topic, and also the record from the transcript. It is clear from testimony that MSFT offered financial inducements to OEMs to feature IE over Navigator. It is less clear that they offered negative incentives. The argument that the DOJ made was essentially that MSFT had so much power that they only had to "suggest" to get the message across. I was working with a couple of the OEMs in late 95 and early 96 and several had done deals with Netscape to include the browser on their desktop, and also to engage in joint marketing of various types. This was during the time when Netscape charged for their browser, but "very good" deals were offered to the OEMs. Initially, MSFT pretty much just matched the netscape offers but when it became obvious that Netscape had more momentum, MSFT increased the marketing programs and also determined that both their browser and their web server would be free... this was really making public what was going on behind the scenes, because the netscape deals were pretty close to free also. MSFT also pressured OEMs not to put anything on the desktop as shipped by MSFT - but only on the initial boot. This was called "Windows experience" and their argument was that they wanted a known and stable desktop at least for the initial installation. There was some technical merit to that argument but most OEMs felt that the real purpose was to exclude non-MSFT products from appearing in an equal light at first boot. Everyone was free to do whatever they wanted after initial installation, and virtually everyone did, so the install process consisted of a mandated "Windows experience" desktop to appear at least once, and then whatever subsequent installation the OEM wanted would automatically continue. THroughout that time several vendors, most notably CPQ on their Presario consumer line, installed Netscape Navigator as soon in the boot process as they could. Presario at that time configured a desktop that looked nothing like the "Windows experience" - or any other desktop I have ever seen. So all of the debate was over a screen that appeared midway through the normal initialization of a new machine, only appeared once, and might only be displayed for a few minutes, depending on what the user did and what the OEM had automated. So what you say is true but not really very important in the overall scheme of things. The real "abuses" that MSFT was engaging in were related to their development partnerships with smaller software companies, and not with the OEMs. But that hardly came up in the trial, leading me to believe that this prosecution was like going after Al Capone for Tax Evasion... they built a case around the evidence that they could easily gather rather than going after the things that were really a problem.