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: William C. Spaulding who wrote (40243)	4/1/2000 5:22:00 PM
From: Jim McMannis	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

RE:"Nonetheless, Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to profit from its unethical and anticompetitive behavior. I think the best solution is to regulate Microsoft's prices, so that Microsoft would earn a slightly higher return on software than it would on other ventures. Microsoft would be free to innovate and develop new products, but it wouldn't be allowed to gouge the public." I don't understand...Microsoft gives away the IE5 browser and they are somehow gouging the public. If they are forced to separate the browser and sell it at "regulated" prices how does this help the consumer who was getting it free in the first place? All this would do is subsidise Netscape at the expense of the consumer. When you talk about regulating prices, you take yet another step towards communism...but with an interesting twist. Usually screams about regulation happen when prices are too high...The idea that prices should be regulated because they are ZERO is one of the craziest things I've ever heard. You see, the real issue here isn't prices but who gives the most campaign contibutions to whom and who builds factories in whos' state. Jim

To: William C. Spaulding who wrote (40243)	4/1/2000 6:38:00 PM
From: Michael Do	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

>Message #40243 from William C. Spaulding at Apr 1 2000 4:41PM Microsoft Monopoly: Here's my view. I'm not quite done with the article yet, but I'm posting now to hopefully get some feedback. money.york.pa.us Thanks.< Are you sure you are working for SUN/ORACLE? This is a bullsh*t article that can not stand today real world test: 1. Regulate Natural Monopoly: - Classic case of AT&T long distance and Airlines regulated prices. Consumer paid to the nose before deregulated price. Competition work, Government regulated do not work. 2. There are more propherous software companies now than ever before serving all kind of consumer needed. So MSFT must be provide better environment for competition and consumer. 3. US vs. Microsoft should be renamed as Steve Case, Scott McNealy, Larry Ellison and all.. vs Bill Gates to name: Who is the richest man in the world?? (they all already won who is the multi-billionaire) 4. Anyone can name 1 company being damaged by Microsoft and not by shooting itself in the foot: - Netscape: Could not get 5.0 out the door for 5 years. I don't think MSFT sabotaged it. - Novell: Really gouged IT for years w/ pricing of Netware just short of distance to the moon. - Corel: Practically gave away Corel Office but no taker because it is not very good. Consumers like MS Office and they buy it. 5. DOJ sues MSFT in the name of the consumer protection but poll indicated that 60% is favor MSFT and not the government. Only supporters for the government case are Microsoft competitors. 6. No one force to buy MSFT products. IBM and all bought MSFT products because their customer want it. IBM and load OS/2 or Linux if they want to but no one will take it. Mike

To: William C. Spaulding who wrote (40243)	4/1/2000 11:47:00 PM
From: Exacctnt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

You wanted feed back. <<When true competition exists, a company can only raise prices slightly above its costs, because competition prevents the company from raising prices further.>> Ever hear of productivity? Better products? Better marketing? Better service? Lower overhead? There are countless reasons why a company can raise prices or charge more in a competitive environment. <<Judge Jackson's findings of fact (paragraph 63) illustrate this point with a real example. A Microsoft study, done in 1997, concluded that $89 was the profit-maximizing price for Windows 98, even though it could have charged considerably less and still make a good profit.>> What authority exists that determines how much profit a company can make? Sounds to me as if you are championing price controls. <<Microsoft Office was distributed by almost every major computer manufacturer, and thus, as more computers were sold each year, more and more people got Microsoft Office.>> I must have missed this freebie. Microsoft office was missing on my Compaq and Hewlett Packard computers. How can I get my free copy? <<I think the best solution is to regulate Microsoft's prices, so that Microsoft would earn a slightly higher return on software than it would on other ventures. Microsoft would be free to innovate and develop new products, but it wouldn't be allowed to gouge the public.>> Just as I thought, price controls. The best way to kill a company, especially in high tech. You are advocating that Microsoft should put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. The King is dead. The King is dead? Long live the new King (SUNW or ORCL perhaps?).

To: William C. Spaulding who wrote (40243)	4/3/2000 3:39:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

WCS: re: "Because Microsoft couldn't ethically or legally charge people for software that they didn't request, it had to give the software away for free, and for years, that's exactly what Microsoft did." #1, you're making the erroneous assumption that Gateway didn't have to pay Microsoft for the copies of MS-Office it (Gateway) bundled with its computers. Why would you jump to such a ridiculous conclusion? #2, Wasn't IBM bundling Lotus Suite onto its computers? These copies were in fact "given away for free", since IBM owned Lotus. So IBM was the real predatory pricing perpetrator, not Microsoft. These are just two major factual errors in your article; I would do a bit more research before I submitted that for any publication. There are other erroneous conclusions you reach, for example your example of how Microsoft's charging a good price (not too high, not too low) is "predatory pricing". Every business charges the maximum the market will bear, to get the most revenues (i.e. not too high, but low enough to stimulate sales). You also imply that having a high market share of any profitable product catagory is automatically illegal. That's nonsense, of course. You also imply that having a good gross profit margin is somehow illegal. Nonsense! By your definition, Qualcomm should be the next target of the Dept. of Justice: Qualcomm owns CDMA technology, and collects license revenue (i.e. Win95/98/NT license revenue). I hear CDMA is quite popular in the U.S. Qualcomm's profit margins on this license revenue is around 85-90%!!! Surely that is evil, and those illegal monopolist profits should be disgorged to Qualcomm's competitors and the government. I bet Qualcomm even tries to "strike deals", "bundles", etc. Just start digging; looks like you've got a brilliant investigative journalism career ahead of you, rooting out all the evil monopolists in our society. Congrats.