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 : All About Sun Microsystems -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: uu who wrote (8083)	3/6/1998 8:50:00 PM
From: Beachbumm	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

Addi, it is the egg that comes first. At least, biologically speaking. The mutation giving rise to the first chicken is in the egg. So if the consumer is the egg, then at some point it is the consumer who says, wait a minute, what is this Windows crap? I need/want something better or simpler. Or better yet, gee, the way we use computers or what we use them for has changed. We don't need Windows. What else have ya got? Beachbumm

To: uu who wrote (8083)	3/7/1998 9:43:00 AM
From: micromike	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 64865

It is a condition that market and not Microsoft has created. Microsoft is simply taking advantage of the situation and is doing what market is asking them to do: to monopolize us! You really expect me to believe this. The average home computer user knows squat about computers and is relying on the sales people to inform them fairly about the options out there. Did you not read my post about Netscape and Dell. Dell does not even offer Netscape and Netscape just happens to be a popular product. Dell has a gun to its head by MS. Where is the consumer getting a choice here if MS controls the programmers and the equipment manufactures. MS has these secret licensing agreement and probably verbal warning to it customers so don't think for one minute that MS does not have total control of the game. The one who controls the game is called a monopolist in my books and the consumers gets the shaft when this happens. The DOJ is their for a purpose to protect the consumers. The problem we have now is that MS has such a strong monopoly they control the game and we will be stuck in this rut unless the DOJ kicks some butt. Everybody that understands computers knows that OS2 is superior to Windows and the Windows UI is what Apple had years ago. Why is that we are not moving forward in the home computer area. My DOS programs ran fantastic years ago, my window programs crash all the time. I think Java has a fantastic future but MS with its monopoly will definitely hurt it and once again the consumers will not get what it wants but what MS wants to sell you. Mike

To: uu who wrote (8083)	3/7/1998 11:09:00 AM
From: QwikSand	Respond to of 64865

Addi said: >But you see, as I said, consumer does have a choice. It is just that it does not want to exercise that choice! And the reason is PC vendors do not make that choice obvious to him. But why? Because PC vendors go by what the consumer wants! I partly agree, but not entirely. Remember Gates' volume for the ages, The Toll Road Ahead? In it he describes a "positive feedback loop" in the market that, for example, eliminated the old Beta format from consumer video. VHS and Beta started out neck-and-neck, but as VHS slowly gained a lead in VCR volume, more 'software' titles became available for it relative to Beta. As the number of VHS titles exceeded Beta titles, more people opted for VHS decks. Eventually the gap reached the point where Beta became nonviable and vanished. This phenomenon has surely played a role in making Windows what it is today. The market does indeed want standards. Unix has shot itself in the foot for decades by providing make-believe rather than real standards, and the market can tell the difference. But still, I think there's a rule of thumb to apply to Addi's chicken-and-egg problem: To the extent that genuine positive feedback (in Gates' sense) is responsible for a product's market dominance, the dominance is legitimate even if a single company seems to benefit from it monopolistically. To the extent that lawyers are responsible for a product's market dominance, the dominance is monopolistic and worthy of legal investigation. (There is also predatory pricing, but that's another discussion, and it's a difficult discussion to have in the realm of PC software. PC software's history has been the addition of more value for less money, Gates or no Gates. Note this is not true for mainframe and Unix software.) Nobody went to VCR builders saying "if you build Beta VCR's, I'll make sure none of your machines will ever play Gone With The Wind or Deep Throat." VCR builders made both kinds until the market decided. As Michael Dell proved last week, and as previous DOJ actions have shown, lawyers have a lot to do with Gates' market dominance. We're not dealing purely with a matter of "PC vendors going by what the consumers want", as Addi characterizes it. The choice that PC vendors want to exercise, and the choice that Gates' lawyers will let them exercise, are two different things. Regards, QwikSand