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 : Intel Corporation (INTC) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcmay who wrote (165212)	5/16/2002 6:56:37 PM
From: Saturn V	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 186894

Tim, Nice post. Your arguments about the Macintosh being the breeding ground for the eventual success of Microsoft Windows Office, are compelling. You cogently documented the success of the Microsoft applications on the Macintosh (where Microsoft did not have any advantage of having any inside knowledge of the operating system). Microsoft is probably still the dominant application provider for the Apple platform. Are we implying that Microsoft is better at developing Applications than Operating Systems ? I agree that the open architecture of the PC is a more challenging environment than the closed Apple box. But Linux on the PC has the reputation of being more stable than any Windows product ! Food for thought !

To: tcmay who wrote (165212)	5/16/2002 10:06:52 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Respond to of 186894

Tim, <<<These reasons all combine to explain the success of Microsoft in the _applications_ area, besides just the OS area.>>> Excellent post. How about IBM's role in all this? Their initial support of MS DOS and their efforts in trying to develop OS2. All that gave Microsoft a lot of credibility. Credibility that they did not totally earn. Plus, somehow, I think deep down, Bill Gates knew his own limitations. He did not go off and try to do anything way beyond his capabilities. Microsoft never did anything super significant on their own. They either bought or copied OS and apps developed by others and made them better. The WIMP and Internet paradigm came along at the right time and Microsoft fell into it. I am not in any way trying to denigrate what they did. What they did was enormous. They fell into stuff and they didn't make any major mistakes. I am only trying to see it in somewhat the same context as you have so eloquently stated. Mary

To: tcmay who wrote (165212)	5/17/2002 7:58:23 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 186894

tcmay, re: These reasons all combine to explain the success of Microsoft in the _applications_ area, besides just the OS area. Some would argue that the MS success in applications was funded by their monopoly profits from their OS sales, and eventually their monopoly profits from MS Office. And that many companies just got out of the business of competing with MS because of their advantage. MS could throw so many resources at an application that, eventually, they were almost sure to win. Or later on they could bundle the application into Office (essentially for free to the end user), or include it in Windows. A case in point, many years ago I was using Harvard Graphics presentation software. A great program (IMHO) at that time. But along came MS Power Point as a free bundled product with Office, an inferior product (again MHO), but it was there on almost every computer. Harvard Graphics did a slow but steady exit. Now, is there any company that would waste resources competing in presentation software? A "Power Point presentation" has become almost a generic term for any PC presentation. And, pardon me, but I still think Power Point is a POS program, awkward to use with mediocre results. I wonder what presentation software programs might have been developed by different talent at different companies if the marketplace had been a level playing field. There probably would be some very nifty programs. I agree that MS can put together some very good software when faced with competition. But once they win a space, improvements in the products are few and far between. This from a Microsoft shareholder. I can see both side of the debate taking place in Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly's courtroom. John