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 (16296)	1/18/1998 8:34:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Respond to of 24154

Back to square one in Redmond? www5.zdnet.com I seem to have missed this one in my daily news watch, not that much new but amusing quotes nevertheless. To illustrate this point, company attorneys introduced into evidence a wall-sized poster showing the computer files that constitute IE, along with a block diagram depicting the internal architecture of the browser. The company's witness, Microsoft vice president David Cole, delivered a product demo/testimony that delved into a can of worms full of system services, stub executables, and macro languages, underwhelming the dozens of reporters and analysts gathered in the courtroom and literally lulling at least one television reporter to break into window-rattling snores. Cole sounded more like a product manager touting the benefits and gee-whiz features of his latest release than a witness in an antitrust case. A conversation overheard at the back of courtroom after a heated exchange between Jackson and Microsoft attorneys went like this: "This is really getting interesting now," a spectator said. "Don't worry, they'll start talking about software again," replied another. Oh no! Maybe Microsoft actually took my advice and really tried to explain "browser/OS" integration. Maybe it is beyond the comprehension of mere mortals! Is this block diagram online someplace? Sounds interesting. Hope I'm not not liable for giving legal advice without being a lawyer. Of course, I have numerous denials of legal expertise on the record, but never mind. Cheers, Dan.

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (16296)	1/19/1998 3:19:00 AM
From: Rubber Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

A little analogy ;) <uh, how are any of those like the what I said? It's not even a question of losing money, it's giving something away, and paying people to take it.> I was trying to give an example where Microsoft gave something away when others worked hard to produce and sell it. I'm not sure what your position is, but mine is that Microsoft ought to tread more carefully and less confrontational. Stacker- you know the story. Central Point- their anti-virus utility was copied so much so that Microsoft ended up settling with CP for profits lost when Microsoft's version of the utility was "bundled". Norton Utilities- disk defragmenting, undelete, etc - all bundled with Dos 5/6 as well as windows. Norton didn't do too well afterwards I believe - was sold or bought out by Symantec? (fuzzy picture, feel free to correct me) <Previously, you could at least argue that "integrating" (really, bundling) things into new versions of the OS made sense because it ...Microserfs stuck on that last project, doesn't seem like a good way to get ahead in the company.> Thing is, the O/S has gotten so big such that anything can be "bundled" and sold as part of the O/S - Microsoft's spagetti sause/pasta analogy. I think the DoJ is looking into the big picture-of what might happen if we become so reliant on Microsoft that no one can really refuse them, even governments etc? What if with Microsoft's cash position and marketing power, they can instantly own or kill a product that is "in their interest"?(here I'm talking about long term interest, so short term economic loss doesn't matter) Microsoft aimed and demolish the Apple market, and it's clearly aiming for the UNIX system. Is there a point where we say no? Sure, because Microsoft wants to be in every computer in the world, it may sound arrogant and grandish (what most people would argue on) but that is perfectly justified. My view on this is that the reason why DoJ/Microsoft is drawing the line now is because computers has become such a dominate part of our lives that whoever controls it wield tremendous amount of power, and since no company shall ever have more power than the government... ----------------------------------* Suppose the following scenario- a car maker (CarX Co.) wants to corner the market. They can start by reinventing parts of the car and perfecting it such that it's more efficient and less costly than anything seen before (nothing wrong here). They sell it to other car makers, which give them an advantage, and the effect snowballs until almost everyone is buying it in tremendous quantity (equalizing the playing field once more). Then they perfected another piece of the car and begin selling that too.. such that almost every manufacturer have to have these parts (say the engine, battery, etc) to compete successfully. In the meantime they've been squirreling away cash. One day, out of nowhere someone else (NetX Co.) perfected a part (or even created a new part) that CarX Co. hasn't done or was in the process of perfecting- what do CarX Co do? They finish the product in record time by shifting a large percentage of their resources into this er.. "component" and gives it to their customers at no cost. Their customers in the beginning went with NetX because back then, NetX products gave them a competitive advantage. However, sooner or later, CarX builds the same product at approximately equal quality to NetX's product (we'll never know as you'll see). CarX decides to give it away, on the condition that their customers would continue their "mutualistic relationship". Of course these customers who be crazy to stop buying CarX's products, and because the new product that they would otherwise buy from NetX costs nothing from CarX anyway, it was a good deal.. NetX loses its market in this new product, and CarX rolls along in other innovative products. NetX crash and burn. Now, CarX's cash position grew so much that they can start manufacture their own cars.. what on earth should they do? CarX clandestinely discontinues all future sales of their product, makes their own cars with newer products (while selling current products) and eventually sell it as "the next generation" product. Current industrial customers scrambles to build their own "next generation" products but are behind by 12-18 months, maybe more. In the meantime because the new products unveiled by CarX is so much better and cheaper, retail customers flock to CarX and buys from them. 12-18 months passes by, CarX's previous major customers creates new products to compete (and of course burning cash like crazy from slow/dead sales in the past year and a half). However, CarX's product is yet again more innovative (they did have a head start) and even more so, they're selling at the same price as everyone else... In the end, CarX will rule any "new generation" products, while their previous mutualistic customers are rendered to the depths of bargain buyers (CarX could be really "competitive" and discount so much so that such a market is non-existent). Now, because of the high cost of entry, and the complexity of the technology, CarX will become a pseudo-monopoly and eventually a monopoly. What would be their next step? 1) Build infrastructure (ie. "cars needs roads, CarX knows cars therefore CarX would be the best in building roads for CarX cars" ;) 2) Uphold laws (ie. "As builders of CarX cars whose owners may break the law, we're going to incorporate features such that by using our equipment [or better yet, by allowing us to help] we can reduce traffic violations by 100%!") 3) you decide.. Now, this is certainly not science fiction and I'm sure you can see where I'm headed. Feel free to correct me if you've read this far.. :)