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: TTOSBT who wrote (43897)	4/29/2000 7:30:00 PM
From: tonyt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

>...it was MSFT all along who became a legitimate monopoly through >superior competitive knowledge by knowing what the masses really >wanted, needed and then supplied it to them. And what was it that the masses really wanted that MSFT figured out? Was it an internet browser? Was it database applications? Was it spreadsheet applications? Was it intergrated office applications? Was it networking? Was it a grafical user interface? Was it a true multitasking OS? When exactly did Microsoft 'innovate' anything?

To: TTOSBT who wrote (43897)	4/29/2000 9:52:00 PM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

<<MSFT ... became a legitimate monopoly through superior competitive knowledge by knowing what the masses really wanted, needed and then supplied it to them>> By your own admission MSFT MUST abide by different rules than it's competitors and I'm talking about those rules applied to legitimate monopolies (they are well documented for all to read). Let's all agree that MSFT has a monopoly on the desktop - at that point, MSFT can not compete as freely as it's competitors in other markets. That's the law. You don't have to like it, just accept it. Besides, I'm not saying MSFT can't be a monopoly. What the government's case centers on is that MSFT has used that position unfairly. So with that in mind.... Let's try and remember that the term "consumer" includes ANY entity that buys MSFT software. Don't limit the scope of "damages to consumers" to the average person sitting at home using a PC. That's what MSFT WANTS people to think because they DESPERATELY need people to equate their own experiences at home with MSFT products and how these products have "enhanced" their lives. This is SPIN! People have never experienced anything other than Windows and MS Office! How can the public make an informed decision on how MSFT has "damaged" them if they don't know they had any choice in the first place? It's like everyone being beautiful - how would we know what ugly is?!? (Don't tell me beauty is subjective, it's an example) People have never experienced anything different which to MSFT is a wonderful thing and lends their spin greater effect. You have to work real hard and be somewhat experienced to order a PC today (or the recent few years) that did not have an MSFT OS and Office product pre-installed! I've tried to order a PC without MS Office (since I do not need it installed on the PC I wish to buy) and not one vendor will sell me a PC without either Office or Works installed! I don't want either products PERIOD but I have to pay a MSFT "tax" (the price of the software is included in the price of the PC) to get what I want. Real fair. Getting back to consumer - so every company that buys MSFT software is a "consumer". You want me to believe that companies have not been damaged because of incompatibility issues MSFT has engineered into their OS products to the harm of competitors? Have you really read the particulars of for instance, the Caldera suit and the evidence presented there? Do you even know who Caldera is? Let's take a different track and take some time and read this: ccianet.org When one company can dictate the computing environment for all of us, what freedoms would we have? What would stop MSFT from charging "applications taxes" or subscription-based computing (you know, every time you fire up MS Word, you pay MSFT $0.05 - don't laugh, MSFT has worked on this model, they call it Office Online - an Application Service Provider model!). It doesn't scare you that MSFT claims the recent surge in the economy as theirs? It doesn't worry you that one company can be so powerful? Everyone can stand up and applaud MSFT for their contribution to the "new economy" but if I remember my history correctly MSFT did NOT invent the internet or the WWW or "the browser" or web server software. In fact, MSFT did not innovate anything which has driven the "new economy" forward. In fact, for quite some time MSFT was chided for having missed the boat (in regards to the internet). They did market the HELL out of their own versions of software and tie their products together to gain an advantage in the marketplace. They took these different "applications" and made them work almost seamlessly with their operating system. Many people confuse this with "innovation" (which is MSFT's perspective) when in reality it isn't. It's MSFT using their monopoly to leverage additional products. One question - if Windows was not on 95% of PCs, would MSFT applications be as successful? Without having the advantage of running on Windows and the bundling effect? You can't honestly tell me yes -- But we'll never know will we? Heck we'll never know what we've missed because of the marketplace being skewed so far towards one company too! Here's another thought, if MSFT was just an operating system company, they would "open" their product to other companies who created applications. In this example, MSFT would work with application companies to further their enhance their operating system product but making it the "most compatible" one. Then everyone's applications would work seamlessly as well wouldn't they? Then we would have real competition in the market and software would be less buggy, less expensive and more functional. I know I know - the consolidation of the market on Windows has moved computing forward faster and better than in the opposite example I've described. But that would only be true is the past inefficences were never overcome and the "status quo" of the late '80s remained constant. You can't beleive the computer industry would not have come together and developed standards for compatibility and interoperatability. So in reality, "consumers" were introduced to additional MSFT products through the monopoly on the desktop. A HUGE advantage in distribution, you can not deny that. Sort of like shooting fish in a barrel huh? But you want me to believe there is still fair competition? MSFT is the most creative marketing machine every to do business in the history of civilization, I will agree to that. As for innovation, I disagree emphatically. Also, please define "innovation" for me. I have a hard time following MSFT train of thought here. It used to be "embrace and extend" which clearly states that it's "not invented here" but now it's all about "innovation". When did MSFT become an "inventor"? Also, what is an operating system? What are the components of an OS? Is email a necessary component of an OS or is it an application? Streaming media components - necessary part of an operating system or just a great way to distribute a new product via a monopoly? You want to change my mind, then have MSFT sell and/or distribute its products without pre-installing them with their OS on new PCs. If they can capture a 50% share of a market in this manner I will be impressed. Until then it's all just hype. Regards, Peter J Strifas