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: Andy Thomas who wrote (44267)	5/4/2000 1:05:00 PM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Andy - I agree with your posts, except that I don't think the OEMs thought MSFT was particularly predatory, and in the few cases where MSFT actually DID try and muscle them, testimony showed that the OEMs "just said no"... the notion that the OEMs were somehow captive to MSFT "because they have to ship Windows" has been thoroughly debunked. The reality is that MSFT is more dependent on the OEMs than the OEMs are on MSFT. There are lots of alternate ways to put the OS and apps on a box - it can be done through the channel via DSP or MOLP licensing, it can be done by the customer via Select licenses, it can be done by an SI via a number of mechanisms. One might argue that a strictly direct vendor like DELL would be slightly more vulnerable to pressure, but evidence suggests that DELL was as independent as the rest.

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (44267)	5/4/2000 1:19:00 PM
From: John A. Stoops	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Andy, Tell us how you really feel about this matter! I agree with you on some of your points but I wouldn't count MSFT out at this stage. I am long and strong on MSFT, there are plenty of brains left in the company. John

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (44267)	5/4/2000 10:33:00 PM
From: Charles Tutt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

I disagree with almost everything you said. What chance did any young, innovative company have going head-to-head against an established monopoly with billions in the bank? And the OEM's weren't usually getting their ox gored, so why would they be inclined to fight? JMHO.

To: Andy Thomas who wrote (44267)	5/4/2000 10:43:00 PM
From: ToySoldier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

One of the main culprits here are the OEMs. They could have said, "no" to MSFT's "predatory" practices but it appears that there was enough money in it for them that they never complained. Wow, what a naive statement Andy. You really think the OEMs had the ability to tell MSFT "NO"? Lets see: Unlike MSFT's almost absolute Intel workstation monopoly, these OEMs have been and still are in a dog-eat-dog competitive situation where every cost factor could mean big shifts in their marketshare numbers. If any of the OEMs were to say "NO" then MSFT simply upped their volume pricing per unit to these bad lil OEMs. They couldnt afford even a little higher Cost per unit from MSFT when they knew that they needed to put Windows or Win9X on the vast majority of their Intel machines. Dont be naive Andy. The OEMs are one of many victims in MSFT's unlawful activities. Toy