To: +Bill Jackson (16254 )
From: +Flair Sunday, Jan 18 1998 11:13PM EST
Reply # of 16327
Bill,
Thanks very much for your elaboration.
1. Windows95/NT with 95%+ of systems. I think there are still
many Windows 3.1 running (for example, I used it since my
Office software is in Windows3.1). Thus, your statement
may be more accurate if you state "Windows 3.1/Windows 95/NT
with around 90% of PC systems". I believe that MAC and OS/2
command around 10%.
1A. Currently Macs enjoy sales of 4% of the dollar sales compared to the name brand aggregate of IBM, DELL, GATEWAY, PACKARD-BELL, and the others who join the industry data reporting service. I feel this 4% in $ is around 3% in unit sales due to the average 25% premium paid for Apple systems. This reporting does not mention the huge numbers of nameless clones made in screwdriver shops all over the USA/world. This might relegate Apple to 2% of system sales?? Apple was bigger in the past, and integrating backwards might up the number to %5, but no way on earth will Apple have 10% of the boxes running it's OSs.
2. As for Microsoft going to be a PC maker, theoretically they
can do that, but, IMHO, finanically they won't. This is the same
thing ever happening to Intel who got backfire from
Compaq and other big PC makers. There are a lot of more
profitable business that Microsoft can do than making PCs
directly. In terms of revenue in software, IBM earned more
than Microsoft. We still have many great software companies:
ORCL, SAP, CA, BMCS, SGI etc. In the enterprise software,
Microsoft is still a dwarf. If my memory serves me correctly,
I remember that Microsoft's software revenue in the whole
software industry is no more than 5%.
2A. Why enter a market with 8% margins from one with 95% margins.Since all boxes have their products inside them, why bother.
However with palmtops the split matket gives them a chance. The OS price is a far greater % of system costs at the low end where palm units live, and so they can act majeure.
3. The acceptance of Windows CE in Palm PCs or Handheld PCs
is determined by consumers. If consumers don't want them,
it is going to be a failure no matter how hard Microsoft
tries to push it. As far as I know, Microsoft does not
manufacture Palm PCs or Handheld PCs directly. If consumers
have strong need in Windows CE, then 3Com needs to come
up a more competitive product with Windows CE. It is pretty
bloody, but it is chosen by consumers.
3A. True, in a sense, but MSFT can take ten internal candidates and throw money at them until a couple emerge, then optimize them with consumer feedback. A smaller compay could not do that. That is why 3Com bought the company as they needed a larger backer. With endless money the lady would not have sold, as she was doing OK on her own. Development funds was the crux.
4. It looks like that you don't believe that Microsoft has
a bit of integrity to compete fairly against other companies.
Let's wait and see if DOJ can prove this point.
4A. MSFT never competes fairly, ever. They will only enter if they have an edge, and in many cases that edge is their deep pockets that enable them to persist until they get it right. From time to time they get a poke in the eye with a sharp stick, (stacker) when their tactics are so egregious that they risked huge punitive judgements if they persisted. So they settled, and apart from being rich, where is the owner of stacker now product wise? They will also buy what they see as an edge, and which can be an error(web TV buy), so they are not all knowing.
5. IMHO, the integration of
(1). cell phone
(2). pager
(3). voice mails
(4). personal organizer.
(5). fax.
(4). Palm PC or Handheld PC.
may come in a couple of years. It is mostly decided by what
consumers' need.
5A. Yes, the personal communicator will soon be everywhere. I give it 3-5 years to fully mature as a product, it will then get cheaper. Standards is one problem now. Every maker wants you to drive on his roads and pay his tolls, leading to assorteddevices that need a central translator/toll collector. Take the highway analogy. How would you like to buy Fords and be able to drive them on Ford roads, and chevys will go on GM roads. And the few Porsches would need their roads. Well we have that now with cellular. and roam fees. We need a road supplier who lets us all drive on the same road in whatever vehicle we like. Standards like wheel widths, loads sizes etc, can be arranged.
I see a convergence of the personal communicator to a device made by many people in many models, all of which use the same set of frequencies and are fully inter-operable. You would pay a fee to the frequency provider(which might be the city) and there would be Federal highways(interstates). I would like this to be private, so how do you make a common set of frequencies and com protocols work??
Like an ISP model over the phones. Each ISP pays support in propoertion to their use of the frequencies, and they then sell access like ISPs do now. $19.95 per month. With wide bandwidths coming real time talk/look will be doable. All the delayed message aspects can be done now, and the real time talk/look packets can be prioritised to pass the delayable com data stuff like e-mail, etc.
I am quite intrigued at current developments, however I see them clinging too strongly to proprietary empires. I would like to see a set of frequencies set aside for radio ISP uses. This would really make things change pronto.
Bill
Again, thanks for your reply.
|
