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: rudedog who wrote (44041)	5/1/2000 11:53:00 AM
From: PJ Strifas	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 74651

I beg to differ here...you take the normal MSFT spin on all of my points...your own arguements show the flaws of that tact as well. RE: You also have to be somewhat experienced to order a PC without a hard drive or a monitor card. Does this mean there is some conspiracy between the manufacturers of those products and the OEMs? No - the reality is that it is a lot cheaper to make a unit that works, and to manage the support costs (the real driver of "standard configurations) with a small number of tested configurations. The days of "roll your own" PCs are long gone. People want products that work, and don't want to have to learn all the tricks of setting up and debugging. The OS and a couple of "bundles" are just additional components in that mix. You take a very simplistic approach to my statement - see, the problem arises when I already have a license for a specific product but in purchasing the new PC, I had to pay TWICE for the same product! Why? This discussion has nothing to do with "ease of use" or "productivity", it has to do with giving me a choice. All manufacturers I spoke with explained that it was due to their OEM agreement with MSFT that they could NOT ship me a PC without the bundled software. So I end up paying twice for the same software...let's see, can we say "harm to the consumer" here? Let's take another track on this situation - for arguement sake, say this affects 25% of the marketplace (replacing PCs with new PCs is a higher % of sales but much less so for people who are replacing a PC who already have the necessary software), then MSFT is inflating their sales figures but FORCING software (thru OEM deals) onto people who ALREADY OWN the software! Wouldn't this bother you as a stockholder? Probably not since you figure inflated sales numbers is ok as long as the bottom line is there so the stock can move up. You miss the long term fundamental effect of playing this type of numbers game. RE: No - and neither would any of the other applications which depend on a standard OS platform. Kind of like the electric power industry at the turn of the century - power came in 25, 50, and 60 cycles, 50V, 110V, 220V, even DC power (still used in parts of New York City until the late 1980s). That meant that your lights, appliances, and other electric devices had to be manufactured differently for different areas of the country, sometimes different parts of the same city. You make a good attempt for a parallel here but you fail to realize that no ONE COMPANY OWNS the power standard! It's free for all companies to develop products based on these standards for interoperability. See, you've actually helped make a very GOOD point. For the software industry to move forward in a healthy manner, then the OS needs to be standardized - I agree and MSFT has done this. Now the problem arises in that this leaves ONE company with too much power and the ability to DICTATE the future of computing (and not have inventions/innovation/consumer needs dictate the future). This is the fundamental essence of the government's case. A point I think you are missing. IMHO, the OS should have a flat rate fee paid to MSFT for innovation, maintenance and upkeep. See, limiting the "power" of MSFT to leverage their OS monopoly would envigorate development and that would make the next 10 years a rich environment for new product development and innovation for EVERYONE. Let MSFT keep it's monopoly - just limit their ability to leverage the dependancy of OEMs on their Windows shipments and the price they pay for the OS (a vital component - as you argued - to the PC). Since most people state that the price of Windows has come down (please prove this!), this would no harm MSFT's bottom line. MSFT will still see growth in sales and the ability to innovate their product as they see fit. This would merely change the way they do business with OEM manufacturers. RE: Do you even know who Caldera is? Yes - a company whose primary property is a lawsuit. Give me a break... I can't give you a break here. That lawsuit which you dismiss so easily is the very point you should be worried about if you really care about the future of computing. If you are only interested in an investment in MSFT or that you/your company makes it's living off the coattails of MSFT then your attitude clearly shows your disregard for "fair markets". I find this to be the case with 95% of all MSFT supporters :) Regards, Peter J Strifas PS - MSFT only cares for one thing -- to make the world run on Windows. Seems to me the most hypocritical corporate culture ever to walk the Earth! Here's a company that spent the first half of it's existence breaking down IBM's grip on computing claiming IBM was "stiffling" innovation. And now has spent the last decade becoming the very thing they loathed in the first place!