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 (59865)	7/15/2001 2:06:53 PM
From: Bill Fischofer	Respond to of 74651

Sorry, but your history is flawed. First, aside from the sheetmetal and perhaps the 3.5" floppy drive there is virtually nothing in common between a PC today and one from ten years ago. Companies have been founded around the idea of modular upgradeability, the most recent example being Panda Computers (PNDA, now defunct) and that strategy failed precisely because the PC was evolving too rapidly and prices were collapsing so quickly that it cost far more to "preserve the investment" than to treat PCs as a consumable which are simply replaced wholesale every few years. The reason you're able to get more for less with each PC generation is due to the ceaseless innovation which continues to drive the PC industry and shows no signs of abating. The notion that consumers would be better served running museum pieces has no basis in any economic reality. Of course Linux runs on many kinds of hardware, but do you honestly believe that having a hardware standard slowed Linux's evolution? Standards spur innovation and the widespread adoption of technology. Standards are created by the market and exist so long as they serve the market. The fact that certain companies will enjoy a reign as top dog for a while is an inherent part of the system (as is the inevitable jealousies that that position engenders). They're called "good investments" during this period, but nothing lasts forever. Just ask XRX holders, one of the stellar performers of the 1960s. Don't underestimate the power of the market. It's humbled far bigger egos than Bill Gates' and will continue to do so. As someone who worked for IBM at the time it "lost the PC war" I can assure you that your speculation about the antitrust trial's effect on this outcome is incorrect. IBM missed the PC opportunity because they dismissed it as a toy or at best some sort of new terminal which should be used only to help boost mainframe sales. They never imagined it would become the value and innovation center of the industry. MSFT, to its credit, recognized that the Internet posed the same threat to its desktop franchise as the PC did to IBM's mainframe franchise. The difference is that they took action and as a result are still a player. Had they not taken that action and stayed on the desktop only they would already be irrelevant. As such, the argument seems to be that their "crime" is wanting to stay in business.

To: Dave who wrote (59865)	7/15/2001 2:10:11 PM
From: alydar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

<<By the way, one of the major reasons I think IBM lost the PC war was because of the antitrust scrutiny it was under. If the government had NOT launched its antitrust campaign against IBM (and yes, FOR IBM's competitors) IBM may well have more powerfully and effectively leveraged the PC's reliance on IBM's mainframes, or on IBM's sales teams.>> Dave, my point exactly. This is why the convicted felons at msft want to negotiate this matter to a close quickly. They are being watched by big brother and rightly so after what they did. The internet should be based on "the best" technology with open standards. MSFT has neither and will lose the internet mindshare ultimately but they need to be controlled so that they cannot "innovate" their way into a dominant position. For once, taxpayers dollars are at work for something worthwhile. rocky.

To: Dave who wrote (59865)	7/15/2001 2:26:46 PM
From: Joseph Pareti	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Re You have to replace your machine often because its manufacturer decided not to design in easy methods for consumers to upgrade components This is a McSquealy 100% match :-), not even get the basic FUNCTION. Let alone easy methods for consumers to upgrade components. Re you do realize that Linux runs on other kinds of hardware besides Intel PCs, right? Sure. A VM (or MVS)-Linux interface is not only compelling, just IREESISTIBLE :-) Re Don't underestimate the power of limiting competition through illegal exercise of monopoly power. Don't underestimate the stupidity of seeing monopoly power as a crutch for keeping mediocre businesses alive. Re . If the government had NOT launched its antitrust campaign against IBM (and yes, FOR IBM's competitors) IBM may well have more powerfully and effectively leveraged the PC's reliance on IBM's mainframes, or on IBM's sales teams. They eventually realized it (= antitrust campaign against IBM) was a blunder (even a greater one than the Lewinsky affair) and they eventually dropped it.