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 : Citrix Systems (CTXS) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NicholasC who wrote (5047)	2/21/1998 12:46:00 PM
From: dreydoc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Interesting point about the MS revenue heart; look at what Gates say's recently in Interview with Diamond Technology Partners/CONTEXT and where MS see's the future of their business... contextmag.com >>>> GATES: But nobody owns the customer. Nobody owns them. CONTEXT: For companies that leverage a skill like you do, that's one thing. But for companies that have played the game across a wide variety of fronts and have no particular skill that's a clear leverage point, the one thing they do have is relationships with customers. Can't companies do something to hold customers through mass customization? GATES: I totally agree, and that ties back to the Internet in a big way. To map this into Microsoft terms, we have a business called Microsoft Office, one of the most profitable businesses around. It makes Coke look bad. Today it's being characterized by the one-time sale of the physical package that you buy. In the future, we'll get your permission to send you mail once a month and collect bits that describe how you use Office. We think we'll get 90% to 95% of the people to agree to that. We'll make sure what we send is very informative to them and tells them what new pieces of Office they might want to download. And, if they're paying our annual fee, of course, they get everything in there. Our relationship with that customer will be drastically different. We'll know the nature of their current machine. CONTEXT: You will mass customize, is that what you're saying? GATES: Absolutely. We have to. That is the future of the Office business. Our relationship with our customer will be our big asset. We'll use that asset and the technology asset to, hopefully, create something that's very hard for people to duplicate. <<<<<<< Marry this strategy with evolving progress on micropayment technology and it's pretty compelling. dd

To: NicholasC who wrote (5047)	2/21/1998 6:24:00 PM
From: gdichaz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9068

Thank you. I feel much much better. Very much appreciate your full and careful explanation of actual relationship and interest of both to proceed for mutual benefit. Will sleep better tonight. Chaz

To: NicholasC who wrote (5047)	2/22/1998 8:04:00 PM
From: Ray Thackeray	Respond to of 9068

Nicholas, Nice to see a reasoned summary of the situation. To some of the issues you raised: >>>That's why Microsoft wanted control over the core technology and required Citrix to agree to first right of refusal on selling itself. Otherwise, there would be a threat that Sun, Oracle, IBM, etc. would buy Citrix and control a crucial counter-weapon that Microsoft would need.<<< >>>- Now everyone worries that Microsoft will make their incarnation of Winframe so good that people will pass on buying Picasso. Not likely. They(Microsoft) have little reason to. <<< Don't forget that Microsoft, eventually, HAVE to address thin clients. UNIX can do it - standard. NT can do it - with Hydra. If Microsoft want to pretend to address enterprise servers, it's an inevitability. Microsoft are doing their usual thing - in their arrogance, they believe that developers will gravitate to their technology over Citrix's; however, the performance is not as good as ICA, so as usual, it will be the second version that performs well (enough). Developers and partners (I've spoken to most of them over the last couple of years) are sick of Citrix's arrogance and outrageous fees, and if they can get the equivalent from Microsoft directly, they will drop Citrix in a heartbeat. Citrix are living on borrowed time. I already made the point that it's a simple technical matter to develop a protocol that works at least as well as ICA. Insignia Solutions already did it, with Java applets dubbed Keoke. I know, because I was with Insignia at the time and did the performance comparisons, and Keoke was better than ICA on all counts, local or remote, and was fully tested on all Java enabled clients. Someone raised the question that Citrix may not be dependent on Microsoft at all: this is naive. Microsoft have locked out all -except Citrix- developers to a thin client connection using a secure key to Hydra. Insignia, in fact, wanted access to Hydra using their Thin Client technology, but like all other were refused. That's why they had to sell their NTRIGUE technology to Citrix for a pittance. THIS IS THE CLOSEST I'VE SEEN TO AN ANTI-COMPETITIVE SITUATION, AND JANET RENO SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO THIS, RATHER THAN THE SIMPLISTIC BROWSER WARS. If Microsoft want to avoid an investigation, they will need to open Hydra to others besides Citrix, and RDP and it's successors may become a part of that. Ray