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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14068)	11/12/1997 11:21:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Monopolies, Standards, Goons and You nytimes.com I'm losing track of the armies of the ilk, I never heard of Ashley Dunn. Somehow, my minions never seem to acknowledge my role as erstwhile cult leader. Windows 95 has become a gangling behemoth in its effort to preserve its primacy on the desktop. The program has DLLs, drivers and all sorts of other pieces of code strewn across your hard drive. It doesn't keep up with new products very well, and when the program does advance, it throws the industry into turmoil because of all the internal changes. In short, Windows 95, after just a few short years, has become as oppressive as the great railroad companies. It has become an impediment to progress because of its complexity and effect on developers. The old complaints about the jumble of programs on our computers has now given way to constant moaning over the unstable dictatorship of Windows. Some company will eventually rise to meet this market demand for greater simplicity and interoperability. And no doubt Windows will survive for many more years. But with the rough standardization of the desktop accomplished, the computer has already begun leaping to the next step of standardization, provided by TCP/IP, HTML and perhaps Java. The difference with these three is not only that they are open standards but that they represent a slightly higher level of organization. The Net standards were created to provide an interoperable environment - one that provides a framework for many different standards to coexist. Interoperability is one step up the ladder of social organization, involving more intricate connections between humans and machines. It is the difference between railroads and paved roads, which are designed to accommodate many different types of vehicles, including bicycles, motorcycles, cars, buses and trucks. In many ways, they are the democracies of machine societies. It seems clear that we are moving toward a time of greater interoperability, and the job of regulators should be to foster interoperability while keeping Microsoft from wresting too much control over that evolving standard. That ilkster just doesn't understand the necessity of the proprietary lock, aka monopolistic death grip. He's also behind on his Microspeak, everyone knows the correct definition of "interoperable" is "running Windows". Oddly enough, this page has a download IE4 ad on it. Sounds like NYT is due for a call from the marketing peers. Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (14068)	11/12/1997 11:38:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do nytimes.com This is Chris Tacy, apparently another of the ilk who I've never heard of, and who gives me no credit. He goes farther that most. I hate the idea of government meddling in legal business matters. Even more than that, I hate the idea of a government agency trying to make decisions about the definitions of software and operating system. Finally, as an entrepreneur the concept of being punished for success scares me. But, in spite of all this, I have to take a stand. Microsoft should be broken up. Sheesh, he even starts out by paying homage to the company line. No matter. After some talk about a Microsoft trial balloon on spinning off a separate internet company (really, Microsoft trial balloon, not DOJ), we have the exciting conclusion. So, in the end the answer is clear. Janet Reno used the word "monopoly" twice in her press conference announcing the Justice Department's suit against Microsoft. That's what Microsoft has become, regardless of how much money they spend to prop up Apple. The government has clear policies and processes for dealing with monopolies. It's time to use them. I'm not a "Microsoft hater," in fact I admire Bill Gates and the company he has built. I oppose government intrusion into business, especially in areas where it has limited understanding. I realize that trying to draw a line between OS and application is a difficult if not impossible task, and will in the end create an artificial and arbitrary distinction. But the other alternatives are far less acceptable. I'm sorry Bill. I know you just want to win. But you'll have to admit that you never thought it would get this out of hand when your paper tape of Basic for the Altair ran first try in New Mexico. You've won already, time to give other people the chance to feel that rush of success you know so well. Boy, the breakup rumor has me thinking that there's more than a bit of whistling past the graveyard in the Microsoft "no merit" line. Maybe the confidential lawyer-client talk has touched on that pesky treble damages issue. Who knows, but the Microsoft PR blitz and Microsoft-hater ad hominem line seems to be meeting a bit of resistance. Cheers, Dan.