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: cheryl williamson who wrote (45329)	5/25/2000 12:18:00 PM
From: Insitu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Cheryl--The stockholders and employees of a competing company that is driven out of business would care, wouldn't they?

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (45329)	5/25/2000 12:51:00 PM
From: david_si	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

"the consumer has been harmed by inferior product quality at a price that is artificially high." Inferior product quality is no crime. With that logic, I am arguably more harmed by Netscape than Microsoft. For years, Microsoft has added features and functionality to their software without raising prices, or raising them very modestly. It costs billions of dollars to produce this stuff. Some of it (like IE) they give to you for free. Apple charges similar prices for their OS, and Novell for their network OS. You'd have to spend thousands more to get an Oracle database instead of SQL Server 7. If you think it's too high, don't buy it, or buy it from someone else. Insitu: "The stockholders and employees of a competing company that is driven out of business would care, wouldn't they?" It is capitalism and the American way to compete against your competition. You can still download Netscape today. You can choose Linux or FreeBSD or Be or Apple for your OS. It isn't illegal for Microsoft to have a more desired product. Where's the illegality in putting companies out of business. Antitrust laws don't cover that.

To: cheryl williamson who wrote (45329)	5/25/2000 3:08:00 PM
From: TTOSBT	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Re: "In the case of M$FT, the consumer has been harmed by inferior product quality at a price that is artificially high." I am not sure about you but I as a consumer had an opportunity to purchase other products but chose MSFT's most of the time. I know many other consumers who did the same. Our decisions had nothing to do with force, superior or inferior product quality. Most of it had to do with ease of use, convenience, comfort, affordability and availability. For instance my first computer was a Dell Dimension however I did not choose to have MS-OFFICE but rather Wordperfect suite without additional charge. What is confusing to me is when the more technically advanced and informed poster's claim that MSFT's products are inferior as if that should be the reason the DOJ should destroy MSFT. It sounds like the maker's of Rolls Royce complaining to some official authority to destroy Ford or GM cause they have inferior product quality and sell more of em! It just doesn't make too much sense to me. TTOSBT