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: PJ Strifas who wrote (44051)	5/1/2000 12:02:00 PM
From: sandeep	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

There are problems associated with your line of reasoning. The OEMs ship Microsoft OS along with Linux many times not because Microsoft charges them, but because that way the OEM doesn't have to test the Linux OS working well with their machines that much. They can always tell the customer to use Windows if Linux fails to work properly. The other factor is that since most machines shipped by OEMs sell with Windows, it is easier accounting for both Microsoft and the OEM to just charge per-machine license fee. Otherwise, Microsoft will need to keep tabs on the actual shipments, something the OEMs probably are not willing to let Microsoft do. Having said that, it is reasonable for the Gov to require that Microsoft gets paid for what is shipped and only for what is shipped.

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (44051)	5/1/2000 1:00:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

PJ - I was designing microprocessors before microsoft existed. You are the one putting a spin on the way the industry works. You say 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? Well, I have dozens of perfectly good VGA cards, many which are more than adequate for my needs. Also dozens of hard drives. Why should I have to pay TWICE when I buy a new PC? The answer is pretty simple - BECAUSE IT WOULD COST THE OEM MORE TO TAKE IT OUT THAN IT IS WORTH!!! Same with DOS. OEMs were not REQUIRED to put DOS on the PC - it was just easier. The big OEMs were paying about $3 for a copy of DOS. Do you really think that they could put out a "special" for $3? If you think that, you don't know anything about the volume PC business. By the way, for a while CPQ offered a $5 rebate to anyone who did not use the factory-installed DOS. Almost no one took them up on it. it has to do with giving me a choice. You have a simple market choice. Buy the cheapest product which will support your needs, or the one you want. Maybe you already have a perfectly good set of tires and would like to buy a new car with no tires so that you could exercise your right of choice, but I think you would find that hard to do also. 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. Funny, extensive testimony in the current DOJ action failed to uncover ANY contracts like that. If the manufacturer really said that, they were just giving you an easy answer rather than the truth - they could ship whatever they wanted, but it was cheaper and easier for them to put the bundled software on and leave the fringe cases to the customer. MSFT is inflating their sales figures but FORCING software (thru OEM deals) onto people who ALREADY OWN the software! Well, if you read your license agreements, you don't OWN the software, ever, unless you write it from scratch yourself. But let's ignore that for a moment. I was involved in a number of OEM negotiations for software licenses in the mid-90s. MSFT was not forcing anything - they offered a variety of license options, and OEMs picked what they wanted. Surprise - the OEMs usually pick the one which gave them the software at the lowest price. But most of the big OEMs ship "vanilla" boxes. Large accounts already have the ability to put the OS and other products on the boxes through "select" agreements. DELL was the first to do this in a big way - offering "select" customers a PC with no software. The cost difference was less than $100 but for a big purchase that was significant. CPQ, IBM and HP followed suit pretty quickly. you say no ONE COMPANY OWNS the power standard! Yet it was exactly the kind of "standardization" which MSFT has done in the software industry that made 110V 60 cycle the standard in the US. MSFT does not "Own" the software standard either, and likewise they don't control the standards. I have been involved in a number of efforts over the last 10 years in which the standards leadership was driven by Intel, or CPQ, or IBM. Think of networking, I/O, PCI hotplug, disk storage... MSFT is a "fast follower" in virtually everything they do. Perhaps you could give me an example of a standard that MSFT has dictated. Offhand, I can't think of any.

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (44051)	5/1/2000 1:50:00 PM
From: Frederick Smart	Respond to of 74651

Microsoft: Just Another Pyramid.... >>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!>> Peter: Thanks for your well thought-out logical presentation of the argument against Microsoft and its practices. For Gates and Balmer to resort to denials and follow-up "SPINNING" is its own indictment. Now that they've painted themselves into a corner, there is no other resolution than to completely and totally force them to open up the OS. Thus, this power/control pyramid which has relied on fear, smoke, fire and mirrors will be forced to open up and unbundle into being an inverted service pyramid. In this New Age SERVICE more and more people will be attracted to core values which mirror/map to openness, trust, truth, etc. Microsoft in its current dungeon state can't be trusted. Break them up and let new energies realign the puzzle pieces in ways which will help "grow the pie" for everyone. It's the Internet stupid. Which is that same as saying "it's the people, stupid." People have lost interest in being spoon feed more spinning vitriol which comes from ONE political position which is trying to maintain power. Technology should not limit, restrict or control us. Technology should be open to "serve us." Peace. GO!!