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.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BirdDog who wrote (50113)	1/28/2002 8:08:38 PM
From: EnricoPalazzo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

My basic response is that AOL would probably be wiser to pursue numerous partnerships with Linux providers, rather than trying to run one themselves. The only benefit that I see to directly owning Red Hat is the ability to sue. AOL has done such a good job of wheedling politicians and attorney generals (like there's a difference) into fighting their legal battles for them, that I'm not sure how necessary this is. I would not be surprised to see AOL partner with Red Hat or some other firm to market a clean version of Linux with AOL & StarOffice built in. I wouldn't say that they have no chance, but to the extent that they stake the future of their company on it, they are playing a very dangerous game. Microsoft has far more experience in creating easy to use, integrated software solutions than AOL does. I'd also add that the Gorilla Game would suggest that Microsoft, as the OS Gorilla & applications Gorilla and ISP prince, would have the advantage over an upstart chimp with attitude (Linux) joining forces with a King (AOL) and a chimp-amputee (StarOffice). Things are never that simple of course, and I guess it can't hurt to try. But again, even if AOL wants to define "the" battle as such, I'm not sure that ownership of Red Hat does them much good.