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: Reginald Middleton who wrote (17757)	3/4/1998 8:59:00 AM
From: Pink Minion	Respond to of 24154

1. Microsoft is a monopoly? (Yes/No) By strict definition, no. Please, stop calling me an idiot. You can live in your own world and have your own definitions, but please do not call me or anyone on this board STUPID Mr. B

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (17757)	3/4/1998 9:54:00 AM
From: Thure Meyer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

Reginald Middleton, I don't know if you have read the James Gleick's essay (Making Microsoft Safe for Capitalism), published in the NY Times magazine at the end of 1995. You can download it from his home page user.mc.net. I would suggest that Microsoft is a monopoly of a dangerous new kind and that they have and continue to use their position to prevent competition. The disingenuous stance that Dell Computers has taken is laughable and the only reason that Microsoft can declare that IE is part of the operating system is because there is no other choice for operating systems on PC's at this time. Microsoft is in the unique position of owning the highway and building cars at the same time. A conflict of interest for the public and difficult position for any competitor, and I am sure that this is abundantly clear to Congress. What is funny about the hearings is the spectacle of these arch yuppies who missed Viet Nam, the civil rights movement and never had to think about anything except making money finally being confronted on more fundamental ethical and rights issues. With the result being that they look like spoiled little kids. Thure

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (17757)	3/4/1998 4:28:00 PM
From: Jay Rommel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

Reggie, This hearing is starting to remind me of the tobacco industry denying that smoking does not cause cancer. GMAB! OK, if you agree that smoking does not cause cancer (the last I heard there is no direct medical evidence that it does ... you can check this for yourself on tobacco.org then I will agree that MSFT is not a monopoly. and Bill Clinton didn't inhale. and O.J. is innocent. and so forth and so on ... We will just live in denial so long as MSFT stock continues to go up. After all, it's all about $$$ right?

To: Reginald Middleton who wrote (17757)	3/4/1998 11:11:00 PM
From: Keith Hankin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

By strict definition, no. MSFT cannot unilaterally control pricing and they can not restrict entry to the market by other competitors (ask NSCP, SUN, IBM, ORCL, BeOS, Apple, etc.) Yes, MSFT can control pricing. They just raised the price of Win95 $10 to $80. Do you think anyone is going to not buy it because of the cost hike? I believe that this $80 is the OEM price, which is awfully expensive, especially since the cost of production per unit is nearly $0. Also, this price is more than 10 times what OEMs were paying for DOS. No. They gave it away for the same reason Netscape gave Navigator away for free - to gain competitive market share quickly. Come on, Reg. Yes, your statement is correct, but you can't deny that another equally compelling reason that they did so was to "cut off NSCP's air supply"?