SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Scotsman who wrote (7266)5/16/1998 1:00:00 PM
From: dumbmoney  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 74651
 
The problem with the DOJ involves how they go about doing this. For instance, in a previous post it indicated that they require payment for licensing fees for all computers sold, regardless of whether they use MSFT or not.

Microsoft stopped doing this in '95 (consent decree). Didn't you notice the huge increase in OS innovation, competition, etc. that followed? Hahaha. It's just another example of petty, meaningless meddling.

Trust me, when Microsoft makes its "big concessions", nothing will change. It's all about ego, the need for the gov't to show who's boss.



To: Scotsman who wrote (7266)5/16/1998 3:06:00 PM
From: Mick Mørmøny  Respond to of 74651
 
Microsoft Battle May Alter Industry

NEW YORK (AP) -- If the government ultimately gets its way with Microsoft Corp., the result could profoundly alter how people use personal computers, letting them buy new machines customized with features from Microsoft's competitors -- but possibly at higher cost.

But the big emphasis is on the ''if,'' industry experts said Friday.

Any future changes hinge on last-minute settlement negotiations between Microsoft and government lawyers, and whether the ongoing talks head off threatened antitrust lawsuits against Microsoft next week. Even if legal action ultimately is successful, major computer changes are a long shot.

Under their most ambitious scenario, Justice Department lawyers now in talks with Microsoft want to make it easier for computer customers to order new machines installed with, say, Netscape's Internet browser or WordPerfect's word-processing program in lieu of comparable Microsoft features.

That could be one result if the government succeeds in ending Microsoft's allegedly restrictive contracts requiring PC makers to install all of the many features Microsoft packages together as Windows, the operating program that runs 90 percent of the world's computers. Microsoft insists that this would fragment the Windows program, making it tough for software writers to develop programs that work on all Windows machines.

In addition, executives at Dell, Compaq and other computer firms might have more freedom to install software from companies such as Symantec, which makes the popular Norton Utilities that enable PCs to run more smoothly, compress files and protect computers from viruses.

Another possibility is packing free CDs of Netscape's Navigator with every computer. Computer makers might offer the software with machines as a way to gain a distinctive selling edge over rival's products.

Microsoft says this practice could eventually drive up the cost of computing by requiring PC users to pay for new features that would have been included for free in Windows machines.

But even with drastic Microsoft concessions or a successful government lawsuit pursuing this angle, industry watchers doubted many PC makers would take advantage of fewer contractual curbs because of the software maker's far-reaching influence.

''If they tell (computer) manufacturers they're free to load Netscape, I don't think they will because people are terrified of Microsoft,'' said former federal judge Robert Bork, a Netscape lobbyist and antitrust expert.

A more likely result of any Microsoft agreement or government antitrust lawsuit would be more subtle.

For example, Microsoft may be required to let PC makers put messages or company slogans in the boot-up screen that appears when people start their computers. Critics want Microsoft to relax limits on how computer makers can modify the opening Windows screen, which is a potentially valuable billboard for companies.

Another possible change is in the ''Channel Bar'' that appears on the desktop screen of Windows 98 and includes icons of places users can easily click to on the Internet.

The government says the feature enables Microsoft to easily steer PC users toward its own Internet services or those of preferred partners. As a remedy, Microsoft could be forced to give more access to other Internet companies.

A government goal is to try to help Microsoft rivals such as Netscape, which pioneered the browser market but has seen its share dramatically shrink, survive Microsoft's strategy of continually adding new features.

''The immediate goal is to prevent Microsoft from snuffing out existing competitors,'' said Warren Grimes, a former Federal Trade Commission lawyer who is a professor of antitrust law at Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles.

''Over the longer term, the goal is to open up the market so that others could have access to it.''

So far, the only concession Microsoft has agreed to is delaying by three days, until Monday, delivery to PC makers of its new Windows 98 software, which is scheduled to be sold to the public starting June 25.

But because the software update contains few important new features, only some computer enthusiasts were chomping at the bit for it.

More immediately, only a handful of high-tech companies are expected to suffer more than small disruptions from any prolonged delay resulting from a government lawsuit.

Even assuming Windows 98 is on time, sales during the first 18 months were expected to be 15 percent below those of Windows 95 during the comparable period three years ago, says International Data Corp., a Framingham, Mass.-based research firm. But by 2000, annual sales of Windows 98 are expected to exceed the predecessor system as more people buy new machines.

People needing computers right away say they'll just buy Windows 95 machines and then upgrade to Windows 98, whenever the CDs are available.

''I would classify this as an inconvenience, not a tragedy,'' said Scott Winkler, an industry analyst with the Gartner Group research and consulting firm, based in Stamford, Conn.

Makers of personal computers were going out of their way to ensure customers don't put off purchase plans. IBM, Dell, and Gateway are offering buyers of computers running on Windows 95 free upgrades to Windows 98. Two other PC makers, Compaq and Packard-Bell-NEC, were giving coupons for more than two-thirds off the roughly $109 software price.

Makers of computer accessories such as game joysticks and scanners were among the few companies girding for a sales disappointment. The first buyers of Windows 98 were expected to be computer enthusiasts seeking the operating system's ability to easily hook up these accessories.

-



To: Scotsman who wrote (7266)5/16/1998 4:53:00 PM
From: ed  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 74651
 
I think we are living in a free society in US. What it means you have every freedom to develop yourself , as long as it is under the condition that your freedom will not hurt the right of other people to enjoy the same freedom. In a free enterprise world,
there are success and failures, If the failures can't not compete because of free competition , then we should let those which are less competitive go down, and sooner or later there will be more stronger and competitive ones come to the horizon . Government intervention is not the right solution for the
progress of human civilization. Government's intervention only make those less competitive being less competitive. Just look at those nationalized companies in the
communistic China, then you will know what I mean. I do not think it is Microsoft's
fault to own more than 85% of market of a certain product, MSFT did not force the
consumers to buy its products, but it is the consumers' choice, consumers' make their
own decision based on the freedom of choice, and if they do not want MSFT's products, they have additional choice to buy similar products from other companies.
It is not right either to blame other companies' failures on Microsoft's success, I think
APPLE, NSCP, SUNW, IBM alll have their days, and they fialed, their failures were
not caused by MSFT, it is the wrong business decisions made by those high level managers in those companies. Think about this, if AAPL would open up their hardware standard, then there won't be intel based PC hardwares. If SUNW would
drop the UNIX based OS softwares to the level that everyone can afford, then there won't be MSFT today, so those companies were givena fair opportunities , the problem is greediness made them lost the opportunity. So, how can you blame the failures of those companies on MSFT's success ? It is unfair and rediculous !!!!!

As to the first screen thing , I do not see anything wrong with it . If you think it is wrong for MSFT to put its logo on the first screen when the PC is boot, then why do you think it is right for FORD to put its logo on the car you buy from FORD, did you give up your right to have free choice of putting logo on your car ? If we
think this further, then why do you think it is right to let Intel put the logo of
Intel Inside on your computer ? You give up your right of freedom of choice again,
If we go further, then why do you let certain TV program to be played on your TV screen on channel 9? It is your TV, and you should have the right to decide what
programs should be played on your TV, just like you have the right to decide
what picture should be shown on the first screen of your PC. So, if DOJ decide that
MSFT put its logo on the first screen of PC is a misconduct, then we will see many and many lawsues from the consumers to those companies years to come. I will
sue FOR to put its logo on my car, I will sue INTEL to put INTEL INSIDE logo on
my PC .... etc. I will sue ABC to play certain TV program on my TV without my
permission ....etc.

As to the monopoly , let me ask you one question. FORD sell the Twon cars,
even FORD did not monopoly the car market, but it monopolies the market of TOWN
car. Is this against the law ? I have to spent $500 to buy the parts from FORD to
fix the headlight of my TOWN car because FORD's monopoly on the TOWN car market, and I can not get the part from anywhere else. FORD raise the price of the headlight of TOWN car to an unreasonable level because its monopoly of the TOWN
car market. So, should I have a right to sue ?