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: damniseedemons who wrote (14366)	11/23/1997 8:53:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

My basic argument is that the primary reason MSFT is in the position it is today has nothing to do with superior anything -- innovation, marketing, etc. It mostly has to do with riding on IBM's coattails. Certainly, if they had no further ambitions and became satisfied and extremely lazy, they would not still be on top, but I do not believe that is such a significant achievement, particularly in proportion with the level of success that they have achieved. BTW, I guess I am one of those who you would call an "egghead", however, this does not mean that you should be so patronizing to suggest that this means that I do not understand the difference between innovation and success, nor that I can not be successful financially. I am doing quite well in that area. But you are also assuming that being super rich is the what it is all about. If this is your point, then duh, Gates and Co. has won, regardless of how they got there. But probably the most important thing that he'd like is immortality. The only way he can get this is to do something really big. Moguls don't get remembered for very long. It is the great artists, inventors, and political leaders that get remembered.

To: damniseedemons who wrote (14366)	11/24/1997 4:23:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Respond to of 24154

>>>>Every great idea originated somewhere--most were born in academia, and very few in companies.<<< They are polluting your mind at that school of yours if you believe something like that. In fact for nearly all of the history of computing academia has been far behind private and government R&D in computing. Very recently they have come to a par, more or less. Same in any other applied field where there has been any money. Generally, where universities keep current it is via the synergy of bonds with R&D companies. Naturally there are great exceptions to this, particularly if you go back a few decades to the best times in University research funding. Watson and Crick, for instance. And that's just talking about the great ideas that have to do with modern technology. I urge you to reconsider and publish a better formulation. I'm sure on reflection you will realize the flaws. Shakespeare and Michelangelo Edison and Bell and Babbage and Gutenberg and many others would be startled by their proposed academic place of work! Chaz

To: damniseedemons who wrote (14366)	11/24/1997 7:52:00 PM
From: Columbo	Respond to of 24154

I haven't had time to read through the posts, but just seeing yours and the ref to Reg's, let me just say that the argument that Microsoft is not innovative or makes inferior products is beside the point. What's your arguement? We are saying they are not technologically innovative. We aren't saying you have to be innovative to be successful. They are very innovative in marketing, monopoly law contracts, biotech gene cloning, etc. That's something that "eggheads" (no offense to anyone--"egghead" is the only term I could think of) just don't 'get'. Is that what business profs call us? Well, I never. I prefer the word geek, as in "Computer Geek". You can't build a successful company merely by having superior/innovative products. It's all about business strategy and marketing. Oh wait, eggheads do, in fact, understand this. However, they think there's something noble about rejecting it, and then they deride companies that aren't stuck on their [foolish] ideals (i.e., Microsoft). Yea, it is a shame that we are always looking at what is the best way to do something and not how much money we can make. It is a shame that a hand shake and someones word is usually good for us. It is a shame that you and your business profs are always looking at ways to screw their fellow human Oh well, you guys keep your ideals. Keep your pride. And let Microsoft keep the money that could have been yours. Eggheads don't belong in the real world. So give up on the futile dream building your own companies and go back to world of academia. Or the better option would be to stop writing programs long enough so that you can get with the program! Yea, let you all lie your way up the corporate ladder and political offices. We should let you all rule the world. MH