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

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8223)	6/2/1998 8:58:00 AM
From: Scotsman	Respond to of 74651

Hey, I'll be cynical. When it comes to computers, the average American is pretty uninformed. It always boils down to price and name recognition. That is the great strength of MSFT. They know that the average American is ignorant about computers ( and a host of other things I might add) and thus have been able to parley their position by providing consumers a consistant, working, easy product relatively cheap. Overall not a bad deal. But unfortunately, this somewhat shoots down the competitive arguement referring to Unix, Sun, IBM, and these other OS. Since the consumer works through name recognition, than Dell, Compaq, Gateway, Packard Bell,and perhaps some others will be the ones they have heard of. And these all come pre loaded with MS OS and Apps. Since the consumer is ignorant and doesn't know they can order a Dell unloaded, and frankly isn't interested in doing so, they will assume that MS OS and Apps are the only thing going. And they work. MSFT products are excellent for the average consumer. I like them very much. I have to use Corel at work, and I can't stand it. Excel and Word are so much better for my limited knowledge. I should say that I am not fascinated with computers like I think many on this thread are. It's just a tool as far as I am concerned. So when I ordered my Dell, it came preloaded with MS products, and I am a happy camper. I prefer Apples, but only with MS Office. Sorry, rambling a little. But the point I am trying to make is the MSFT has provided consumers with a functional, easy to use, and understandable OS and a host of functional software. So there is little doubt that has driven most of their success. The issue with the DOJ should not center around the consumer and value, as they haven't a leg to stand on. It should center on why did the above computer companies all choose MSFT OS and Apps? Were they coerced? Has MSFT put pressure on them to eliminate NSCP and have they intentionally gone to steal JAVA, using their power. These are the legal issues. As far as software, its hard to beat in my rather ignorant opinion.

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8223)	6/2/1998 1:33:00 PM
From: Hal Rubel	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The Primacy of Marketing over Innovation RE:" "Gates very brilliantly marketed Intel/IBM/MS primacy to a vulnerable and willing public in the '80's, thus laying the foundation for today's seemingly unbeatable market dominance." Hal Excuse me, but I hope you are not implying that PC users continuously ponied up cash to buy MS products because they were naive and didn't know any better? That is a very cynical attitude, Hal." " IMHO, it is not the least cynical to think so. Please do not underestimate the marketing skill with which DOS prospered. I worked in IBM/Compaq/Mac computer retail environment from 1986 thru 1994 as a salesman and as a store manager. The misinformation and silly notions that the Microsoft reps used to deluge us with made me and my staff snicker sometimes. But, when customers came in with the same notions stuck in their heads and check books in their hands, we stood up and took notice. Marketing factors seemed to me to be vastly more important to the public than mere technical innovation. Who ever wrote about building a better mouse trap must have been more the romantic poet than a successful business man. To this very day, I think that marketing skill and market position remain the key to how high Microsoft will fly. I think that Microsoft is currently experiencing a marketing blip on its radar screen in the marketing skill and market position departments. What do you think? HR

To: Dwight E. Karlsen who wrote (8223)	6/2/1998 9:17:00 PM
From: cheryl williamson	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 74651

Dwight, I thought it better to respond to you on this thread. Regarding anti-trust law: I'm not really qualified to discuss it. I don't know a thing about what the DOJ can and cannot do with the law & its enforcement. My guess that they are somewhere in between a bull-in-a-china-shop and one of those dogs that bites you in the leg & locks its jaws so you can't get rid of it. One thing I don't doubt is Joel Klein's resolve. After all is said & done, MSFT will either make enough concessions to satisfy the DOJ or they will suffer through a lawsuit that will damage them commercially. I would like to go back to this business of the PC as an off-the- shelf computer. Assuming that MSFT had marketed MS-DOS on their own, proprietary Microcomputers (ala Apple), I don't see how anyone could complain about anti-trust (given the current complaints). They could have integrated any pieces into the OS & sold the it bundled with pastrami, if they wanted. The PC succeeded and outlasted other microcomputer manufacturers because it had the IBM stamp of approval and because there were so many 3rd party developers writing applications for it. As you pointed out, compatablity among the applications was a HUGE problem, especially considering the weakness of the supporting OS. I remember writing a non-3270 SNA client that had to co-exist with an IBM 3270 emulator & an Attachmate 3270 emulator, neither of which assumed anyone else was going to use the PC besides them. What a joke! Both 3270 appls took over the ENTIRE PC, including all the hardware channels. MSFT attempted to establish itself as the "standard" for everything early on. In the beginning it was necessary. If the machine didn't work with conflicting applications on board, no one would buy it. They never had the best applications, but because they wrote the OS, it was generally safer to use theirs. The only way third party developers could insure OS compatibility was to work with MSFT. However, MSFT had a built-in conflict-of-interest: OS vendor & application vendor. They had a tendency to keep the OS specs closed. I belonged to an informal coterie of determined hackers who uncovered the "mysteries" of MS-DOS & tried to inform the public (pretty much a waste of time). At some point, I'm not sure when, MSFT turned "standards" into "lockouts" as they began to flex their muscles when PC's slowly gained acceptance in the marketplace. MSFT's competitors in the applications market never seemed to have all the features that MSFT applications did, & they didn't work as well. I read, recently, about some internal memos running around MSFT about how they planned to gain marketshare vs. NSCP in the browser market. This business of leveraging the OS to sell the application is something they've always done, it's nothing new. Now, however, they have more ways of locking out a competitor than just manipulating the api's that they publish. Your rhetorical question, I think, is a good one: would the public be better off without a MSFT monopoly than with it? Ignoring the competitive pricing issue, for the moment, it's clear to me that it is a double-edged sword: with more 3rd party applications developers in a competitive market, there's no question that the product quality would improve, MSFT has neither the talent nor the resources to produce the best products in every PC application they particpate in. However, there would need to be an open process for developers, so compatibility problems would be minimized. This would require MSFT to publish the OS specs to everyone, the way Java is published. It is self-serving and arrogant for MSFT to say on the one hand that the consumer benefits from having a single-source vendor, and on the other hand to refuse opening up the 3rd party market to all (not just preferred) developers. So, when I used the term "screaming bloody murder" it referred to the difficulty that 3rd party developers have in getting into a market dominated by the OS vendor, not because they can't survive in rough waters. NSCP, of course, already is in the market and maintains a 60% browser marketshare. They began to complain because they were being systematically eliminated, by contract tying, from the PC market. They also sell to the Unix market, but they shouldn't be locked out of the PC market by the OS vendor who is using its OS in order to force hardware vendors to use its own browser. BTW: Now that MSFT has ported IE to Unix, a fairer assessment of the quality of the 2 browsers would be their Unix marketshare, where they have to compete head-to-head in a level field.