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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (25609)	5/6/1998 1:29:00 AM
From: Roads End	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Ok Jon, you win. Let's keep everything the way it is forever. No more development no more innovation no more improvements. MSFT has already created too many millionairs and there couldn't possibly be any more room in that club. <GG> Steve

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (25609)	5/6/1998 7:57:00 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

Jon - Your position reflects common understanding but is wrong on several factual issues. MSFT has used the same tactics to develop its core business almost from the start of the company. Something people seem to be forgetting is that MSFT have ALWAYS had a virtual monopoly on the client side of the PC operating system since day one of the IBM introduction!! but this monopoly was not worth anything until MSFT and others built the industry as it is today. Netscape had a very good run with a good product. Almost NO products in the PC space, hardware or software, can maintain market dominance for more than a year or so without changing and evolving. Netscape got lazy and decided to try to keep their market share without working to provide better value to the customer - instead they concentrated on hobbling their competitors. Netscape deserves to lose if they don't look to where the money actually comes from - users of the products. If MSFT was really all powerful, why were they unable to unseat Intuit for the financial suite market? Because Scott Cook and the folks at Intuit kept innovating, providing better and more integrated products for their customers, expanding the range of services. MSFT would come up with a slicker, more integrated home checkbook, Intuit would change the rules and offer a value proposition where the MSFT functionality was not the most valuable aspect of the product any more. Intuit continues to kick MSFT's butt in this space. As far as offering bundled related products, your information is just wrong. Large customers can buy the related products like office at a lower price than OEMs and have always been able to do so. This is a straight volume driven proposition. Outfits like Citibank can contract for larger volumes of application suites like Office than the big OEMs, since CPQ and Dell can not guarantee how many customers will buy the bundled products. None of the big players has ever preloaded Office on any of their major product lines to my knowledge. Reality in the market place is just the opposite of what you say - MSFT has been unable to generate much interest among OEMs for products like Office precisely because there is no obvious volume outlet and big customers can already get it cheaper buying direct. The company who has been the most aggressive here has been Dell who can integrate OEM software on an order by order basis more efficiently than anyone else. But even Dell can not compete on price with large corporate customer discounts direct from MSFT. As I keep reminding people on this issue, DON'T GET SUCKED IN BY THE HYPE!! Look at the facts.

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (25609)	5/6/1998 10:57:00 AM
From: Chris	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 97611

Jon, Using your logic the DOJ would have the right to pursue any company for improving their product at the cost of the competition. Why is it now suddenly a problem that MS incorporates a browser into the OS. Was it a problem that they include compression in OS? Was it a problem that they included backup software in the OS? Was it a problem that they included a disk defrag. in the OS? Was it a problem that they include TCP/IP or Novell IPX support in the OS? This is how a product evolves. If it makes business sense to include Office 2001 in the OS, MS has the right to do it. If we take that away from MS we take that away from every company in the US. Having a Monopoly in the US is not illegal. What is illegal is using monopoly power unfairly against the competition. MS's treats to box makers saying that if you want to sell our OS you must not install any other browser does seem to cross the 'unfair' line. The continued evolution of the OS does not, to me, cross that line. Yes they are using there dominate market position, like everyone else, to sell product. But, this is the advantage of having a dominate position. Personally, I would like to have an OS with tons of stuff included. If I want more stuff I can buy it. Microsoft continues to benefit the software industry in many, many ways. The DOJ will not block win98 (IMHO), but they may pursue a break-up of MS. If not today, than within 5-10 years. I would bet on it. As an investment, MSFT is a tremendous company filled with aggressive competitors who will not give up. The split-up of MS will also bring new opportunities. JMO, Chris PS Long both MSFT, and CPQ.

To: Jet.Screamer who wrote (25609)	5/6/1998 11:22:00 AM
From: BILL CHOW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

JON: There are at least two separate issues. The first one is what product is a company allow to produce. The second is the practices in selling that product. Microsoft is wrong in pressuring OEM to install only IE and not allow Navigator. DOJ should pursue that action. As far as what product can be produced, DOJ should stay clear. Besides, history has shown pursuing the product side has done nothing to improve the competitiveness. Just look back at IBM 20 years ago. DOJ was allover them. But what finally got IBM was the Microprocessors and PC revolution. Cheers