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: Thure Meyer who wrote (19805)	5/28/1998 3:44:00 PM
From: Pirah Naman	Respond to of 24154

From msnbc.com Paul Maritz, group vice-president of the platforms and applications group, wrote: Microsoft must "blunt" Java's momentum and "reestablish ActiveX and non-Java approaches . . . [to] protect our core asset Windows -- the thing we get paid $'s for." Jeff Raikes, group vice-president for North America Sales, wrote: "The situation is threatening our operating systems and desktop applications share at a fundamental level. Netscape pollution must be eradicated." From infoworld.com An internal Microsoft document: "the strategic objective was to kill cross-platform Java by growing the polluted Java market." Windows product manager Christian Wildfeuer: "It seems clear that it will be very hard to increase browser market share on the merits of IE 4 alone. It will be more important to leverage the OS asset to make people use IE instead of Navigator."

To: Thure Meyer who wrote (19805)	5/28/1998 5:14:00 PM
From: Reginald Middleton	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

<- Suppose VBA is used by other software vendors in building their applications. E.g., if I were to build a new spreadsheet application with some great new function (call it Vector-Sheet), I should somehow integrate VBA so that my new application is compatible with Excel - > Incorrect assumption. VBA gives Vector-Sheet the ability to integrate with, and talk to MSFT Office products. <Having bought VBA and integrated it I am now dependent on Microsoft to keep me upgraded. Or put another way, during N I am constantly facing the risk that Microsoft will not support me. Given Microsofts past history, what would they do if I gained any market share at the expense of Excel? How then, am I minimizing my risk?> Ask the authors of products historically written in Visual Basic. MSFT has created great wealth for software developers. In order for them to cut you off, they would have to create a discontinuous change within thier own office product which would destroy the vendor with majority market share. That being said, there is still some risk, butthat is the same risk you assume when you license Java from Sun, javascript from NSCP, or any other language from any other vendor. historically, MSFT has been much more polite than Sun and NSCP combined. <My potential Vector-Sheet customers are also at risk for the same reasons and they face additional integration costs. So why should anyone incur incur this risk or any switching costs even though Vector-Sheet is technically superior?> Because if you truly have a superior product, the benefit will overcome the cost and risk of switching. This is how MSFT captured the suite market inthe first place. Once a market like this is captured, the more advanced the technology becomes, the harder it is to lower switching costs. This makes a natural monopoly. A cross section of ease of use, price, utility and technical ability produce a superior product. Many programming proffessionals on SI seem to believe that technical superiority make a superior product. The market and history have proven that wrong time and time again. <So why should anyone incur incur this risk or any switching costs even though Vector-Sheet is technically superior? They won't! Why is that? Because a superior spread-sheet is not business critical for most companies and certainly not for or the home user. In order for new technology to be adopted it has to be different in a fundamental way. Like a browser....which the geniuses at Microsoft couldn't figure out.> This post infers that you are equating progress with the adoption of new (read different) technology. Progress is equated with increased efficiency for the end user. This is the argument used to support the need for a 800 pound gorilla, end users want one solid strng provider that ensures stability and a prolific third party market, not a splintering of file standards and interfaces. MSFT realized this early on and made every app in thier suite look adn feel the same. They catered directly to the third party developer market, unlike Ashton-tate, Wordperfect, and Lotus 123. Guess what happened after that. <If Microsoft really wanted to let applications be compatible with their Office Suite then let them put the file formats and their semantic interpretation into the public domain.> MSFT has no need to let applications be compatible with thier products. They are the market leader, they are the environment. It is other vendors who must be concerned with their products being compatible with the environment. To the victor goes the spoils.