To: Bill Ulrich who wrote (16474 ) 1/21/1998 7:55:00 PM From: John Donahoe Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 24154
"No John, it is the argument of somebody who merely disagreed with your point, and explained why in a civil fashion without calling you names. The argument of a loser, is the response from one who cannot do the same." You apparently misunderstood me. I wasn't referring to you personally as a loser. I was referring to a business that fails due to the superior performance of one of its competitors. It is always much easier to ascribe your failure at the hands of your competitor to bad luck, cheating or whatever, then to admit you failed because your competitor was smarter, more aggressive, had superior products, better marketing etc. It's anathema to the giant egos that occupy the executive suite of today's corporations."Nope. I just got back from the store, and the razors all had price tags. There were a few freebies on the sides of Barbasol cans, but even these have a cost which somebody is paying for somewhere down the line, not to mention the fact that they are special item promos." I remember buying Gillette razor blades and getting the razor free. This was decades ago. If you accept this as fact does this mean that it's OK for MSFT to give it's browser away free?"Compaq can put any browser they want on their 'puters. Agree or not? Agree."Netscape has a right to competitively co-exist in the marketplace." Absolutely."Your comment does not at all consider that Microsoft is not acting competitively". What does this mean? MSFT is extremely competitive."They are giving away something to all the sheep and lemming consumers who will take it which is not decisively superior". What's stopping Netscape from giving their browser away for free?"Going out on a limb, I wonder if you can debate this gracefully, or just sling mud." I'm always graceful. JD