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 (44127)	5/2/2000 1:33:00 PM
From: Paul K	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Dell: Antitrust laws outdated Computer magnate says parts of federal law unduly penalize many companies -- not just Microsoft. zdnet.com

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (44127)	5/2/2000 1:40:00 PM
From: KLP	Respond to of 74651

Wonder what would happen if/when the computer manufacturers offer: one price for a computer with ala carte 'innards' and a lower priced computer with MSFT operating and application software included....(knowing that volume will make the difference in pricing) We shouldn't forget....most consumers want something they can use with as little problem as possible (ie. turn on the TV, use the remote and watch) AND also want first class for the least amount of money as possible. That's the American way! KLP

To: PJ Strifas who wrote (44127)	5/2/2000 6:02:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

PJ - I am a charter subscriber to Upside and I like their style and attitude. Unlike others on this thread, I am not a believer in the "invincibility" of MSFT - I have seen a lot more failures than successes. About all one can say is that they keep plugging. They don't always get it right even then - what I have seen is they take three swings and either hit the right product or drop it. I have felt that MSFT was a company in transition since the 1995 "internet" shift. The changes in the company went a lot deeper than just a directive to include internet capability across the product line. This was also the time of the first DOJ action, and I saw a lot of changes in the way the company acted, especially regarding the kind of contracts they did and the increased flexibility they began granting to OEMs and developers. But the stuff Bill Parish posts is way out of the park. I can't believe Parish believes it himself - he is a fairly intelligent guy. I think he happened on this particular line of snake oil and is now in love with the notoriety his position yields. The notion that MSFT accounting for stock options represents some accounting trickery just ain't so - it's the way everyone accounts for options. The discussion about the extensive use of ESOP in lieu of compensation at high tech companies is a valid one, but there is nothing unique about MSFT in that regard. The notion that MSFT actually had a loss and somehow covered this up with their option credits is nonsense and no accountant with any integrity would take that position. That would also mean that Intel, CSCO, DELL, and the rest had no profits - the whole high tech industry is just a smoke-and-mirrors pyramid scheme. Sorry, I don't buy it. Parish should be (and is) concerned that accepted accounting practice is out of step with the way companies are being run. Change the accounting practice maybe. But let's not pretend that if the rules were different MSFT would be losing money. If I were on the Moon I'd weigh 28 pounds. But I'm not on the Moon... On the price of DOS versus the price of current Windows - I think you are a little low, I believe the big OEMs now pay something close to $50. But it is incorrect to compare that to DOS. Windows was a separate product from 1984 until 1995. Many would count the first "real" windows as 3.0 version from 1990. The cost of that package was also about $50 - the additional few dollars for DOS are noise level. I can't think of too many things that are the same price as they were 10 years ago but PCs are one of them. Base prices have declined almost every year over that time and are currently about half of what they were in 1990. So perhaps the OS should be cheaper too. Still, holding the price level (which in real terms means a reduction of at least 50%) hardly qualifies as monopoly gouging.