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: Dave who wrote (59859)	7/15/2001 11:04:06 AM
From: Bill Fischofer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Re: Innovation vs. protection There's plenty of innovation in the PC world which is why any "state of the art" machine you buy is obsolete within three years. Having a standard platform is what makes the PC ecosystem and its many innovations possible. It is ironic that Linux advocates profess not to understand this since Linux is one of the primary beneficiaries of this ecosystem today. Without a standardized hardware platform Linux wouldn't have advanced as quickly as it has. And without a Linux standard the Unix market would remain a fractured one and the range and variety of the applications available for Linux would be severely diminished. The alternative to a dominant computing standard doesn't require conjecture, just a history lesson. The computing industry has in fact endured two such chaotic periods and in each case innovation and market expansion suffered greatly until a standard emerged. The first great growth spurt in computing occurred only after IBM established it's System/360 mainframe standard. The second occurred in the PC world after MS-DOS and then Windows emerged as the PC standard. The history of computing also shows the difference between a standard and a monopoly. At its zenith IBM essentially was the industry, controlling virtually everything to a degree that would put MSFT's supposed monopoly powers to shame. The government didn't stop IBM. The market did. The government spent 13 years on the IBM anti-trust case and in the end concluded that it was "without merit". But this didn't help IBM because while its mainframe standard endured its market position did not. Innovation is the only guarantor of enduring market position and IBM just wasn't up to the task as the computing industry evolved into a post-mainframe world. The same is true of MSFT. Just because Wintel owns the dominant PC standard so what? The world is much bigger than the desktop today and as its critics never fail to point out, MSFT's success off the desktop has been spotty. WebTV hasn't done much and MSN isn't giving AOL executives many sleepless nights. IE won the browser war not because of bundling but because they produced a superior product and Netscape dropped the ball. MSFT still hasn't figured out how to do lots of other software, which is why Quicken, Eudora, Musicmatch, Photoshop, and others still enjoy huge market shares in their respective categories. Innovation is alive and well in computing in general as well as in PC-land. It doesn't need bureaucratic "help".