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 (40667)	4/3/2000 4:58:00 PM
From: Gerald Walls	Respond to of 74651

If you look at my article again (http://money.york.pa.us/Microsoft_Monopoly.htm), you will see that my invoice listed MS Office separately, and that the price was zero. I put a copy of my invoice in the article. Ever see an auto sticker listing "Automatic Transmission: N/C" "Power Steering: N/C" "Power Brakes: N/C" Are you foolish enough to believe that they gave those to you for free? Did you see a break out on a computer invoice saying: "56K Modem: N/C" "MS Office: N/C" Are you foolish enough to believe that they gave those to you for free?

To: William C. Spaulding who wrote (40667)	4/3/2000 7:39:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

WCS - While MS offered a number of "package deals" to OEMs to move office, it was never free, despite what the invoice says... as far as SmartSuite, I did a deal a few years ago with a European OEM where IBM offered that product for $5 over MS, $3 over OS/2... that's pretty close to media cost. There is no question that MSFT did aggressive deals on the edge of the envelope to move their products - as did IBM and others. Where MSFT stepped over the line IMO was in the use of steep "per system" discounts to take the whole package - in other words, an OEM could get a REALLY good deal if they shipped Windows and Office on every box they shipped... even if the customer wanted another OS. The price was good enough that even if only 80% of the machines actually ran the MSFT products, they were still better off to take the per system deal. After that deal was cut, the OEM could charge whatever he wanted for the components - and many offered "free" office as an incentive. That was, of course, one of the practices they eventually discontinued under the original consent decree... but it was also relatively straightforward in comparison to the many "free" deals being offered today - free ISP service, free accounting software, even free computers. None of which are really "free". It is your pricing argument which falls down... since even today, the big OEMs can get the combination of Windows and Office for less than even those "super good" per system discounts. So if MSFT developed the ability to exercise monopoly pricing, they never used that, since they charge less today for a much better product, and one which includes three components not even in the original suite.

To: William C. Spaulding who wrote (40667)	4/4/2000 12:07:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

WC Spaulding, with all due respect for you personally, why don't you just give up on your analysis of the supposed "predatory pricing" of MS-Office. The facts are, Microsoft has always had a hefty price on their applications, all the way back since Excel spreadsheet competed against Borland's Quattro spreadsheet. All the way up until the present time, the PC OEMs could always get the WordPerfect Suite and its predecessors cheaper than MS-Office, to bundle onto their PCs that they sell. re "you will see that my invoice listed MS Office separately, and that the price was zero." Ms. Spaulding, I'm not getting through to you here. The price on your invoice has NOTHING to do with what Gateway paid MSFT for it. You bought a SYSTEM that came with COMPONENTS from MANY DIFFERENT MFRS, and that SYSTEM was put together by GATEWAY, and sold to you for ONE PRICE. re "There is no question that Microsoft used its influence to distribute MS Office, and if OEMs passed the cost to the customer without telling them about it, then that's even worse than giving it away!" No, you're wrong! You knew full well that your Gateway system was shipping to you with MS-Office. Furthermore, most people WANT an applications suite bundled WITH a new system, because THEY KNOW that they are getting it cheaper that way, than buying it at full retail price. Microsoft distributed MS Office through OEMs to make money on volume sales, period. If you're going to place blame on someone, how about including Dell and Gateway, for entering into the distribution agreements? Corel WordPerfect and its predecessors were always there, but the OEMs kept choosing Microsoft. I don't like that either, but unless Microsoft forced the OEMs to enter into that arrangement, I don't think it was illegal. FYI, I use and prefer WordPerfect also, and in fact my latest computer from Quantex came preloaded with Corel WordPerfect Suite 2000, and it's a great product. Unfortunately, the Dept of Justice doesn't give a hoot about Corel, and MS's exclusionary pricing wrt squeezing out Corel. Corel is a Canadian company, see? The only thing the DOJ cares about is Netscape, now owned by AOL. You many not like it, and I may not like it, but this lawsuit is all about retribution against Microsoft, all because MS gave away Internet Explorer, causing Netscape's inflated stock to fall back to earth. Probably Thomas Penfield Jackson owned shares in Netscape and got burned when the stock fell from the 80s down to the 30s. Or because Larry Ellison, Scott McNealy, and/or Oracle and Sun gave substantial campaign contributions to the "right" people, people who have influence in Washington DC. We'll never know for sure. What we do know is that consumers aren't going to be helpd a darn bit by this circus, regardless of what Ms. Reno says on the evening news. Regards, DK