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.

Strategies & Market Trends : 50% Gains Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WebDrone who wrote (17932)	4/30/2000 11:37:00 PM
From: Pink Minion	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 118717

It amazes me all the "experts" out there giving their opinion on MSFT. Talk to any programmer that started before 1990, and they know the kind of innovation MSFT has destroyed. Would people argue with doctors about a disease? I ask anybody to name one innovation they have created. JUST ONE. One that is a technical innovation and not business innovation. They spends billions a year in R&D and the only thing they have created was "Microsoft Bob". I'm sure you know the core of Window's NT was stolen from DEC. Everything they have stolen or bought out. MH

To: WebDrone who wrote (17932)	5/2/2000 12:47:00 AM
From: Richard Tsang	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 118717

A few years after the breakup, I think the quality of the products you can buy will be vastly improved by true competition. MSFT companies enjoy a head start in market share. They'll do fine. I do not disagree, and I think I probably hate MSFT more than I love their products. I also like this great freedom of speech - everybody can express their opinion freely on anything. The point I was trying to make is: when the government tells business people how to run their business (splitting into two with this and that product, dada...) it reminds me of socialism which ultimately kills innovation. I have seen that in China. Not good for Corporate America, especially in a global competitive market. Marketing innovation is as important as product innovation, if not more than. I do not own MSFT (unfortunately). I bought some Jan 90 and 100 call options when it was beaten down recently as a spec play. Looks like they will bring me some profit, if the trend of recovery continues. Rich

To: WebDrone who wrote (17932)	5/2/2000 2:19:00 PM
From: Arrow Hd.	Respond to of 118717

Web, as we have discussed over on the IBM thread, the truly sad part is that the entire issue could have been avoided by accepting that competition law exists and working within it's constraints. MSFT could have had 90% of what they were after by simply: --Agreeing to snap-out. The package remains the same and for the same price but if you want to buy the pieces on an individual basis MSFT agrees to sell as such but the sum of the pieces is a higher price than the package. 90% will buy the package but the offer is there providing alternatives. --The package price is enough revenue such that it can be spread over each piece of the package and each piece passes the deep discount test. In other words, each piece within the package is profitable. Therefore, no claim of dumping by providing a "free" browser. The browser is still in the package but it passes the deep discount test. For those who want a for-charge browser, the snap-out option provides it at a very profitable price. This was technically feasible too so don't buy the architecture argument. I also believe there would be enough revenue in the MSFT offerings to pass the deeps when broken down. No economic barriers, passes profitability, snap-out options available. --Don't strong arm your customers demanding all or nothing. A very bad business practice. Give them an option but lead with your best packaged offering and price. They will willingly follow. --Defense becomes simple. We offer options, everything is profitable, MSFT succeeds due to excellence. So why didn't they do this? In one word, arrogance. The history was there. Tying law, bundling, other anti-trust provisions have all been tried and are chiseled in stone. The IBM Consent Decree has corresponding legal doctrine in anti-trust on virtually every issue. Further, software was unbundled from hardware in the late 60s. Maintenance from hardware across many venues including the Kodak copier verdict. An so on. Plus David Boies knows more about anti-trust than virtually any lawyer alive, excepting some of IBM's inside and outside attorneys. You simply could not screw this up worse than MSFT did and for what? To hammer home an extra 10%? They have lost billions in market cap, their currency for acquisition and expansion. Spent hundreds of millions in litigation fees but worse is all the executive time and other internal resources required to pursue the litigation and defend the charges. They should be expanding outside of their traditional business to survive. No one thought Wang would ever give up their lead in word processing in 1980 or DEC in mini computers in the mid-80s. After all, "DEC had it all" didn't they. Now they are owned by some PC company. MSFT is bracketed by NCs, JAVA, Server Platforms that don't require an intelligent desk top, Server farms like the Exodus model where you have options, non-OS Internet appliances both connected and wireless. This is the real MSFT challenge. The DOJ issues are majoring in minors. Its arrogance and pride, a misguided perception of reality and a major distraction from the on-going paradigm shifts. They have a serious problem.