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: Nasdaq100 who wrote (9822)	7/31/1998 12:55:00 AM
From: ed	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Thinking about the first screen issue, it is just a business terms, and nothing wrong with it. If you do not put my logo onto the first screen, then I do not like to sell my product to you, and you have other choice. Just like I want to buy a Benze 320SL , and my offer is $20k, and the vendor do not like to drop the price , can I say the vendor is wrong ? or suit the vendor for not dropping the price , especially if I have a free choice to buy other cars with that price of $20K ? If we think deeper, it is really up to the consumers what should be on the first screen, and the hardware vendors have no right to make that decision for the consumers. Or should I suit FORD for putting its logo on its autos which I do not like as a consumer of FORD's products ?

To: Nasdaq100 who wrote (9822)	7/31/1998 4:05:00 AM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Bzzzzt. Sorry, try again. Standard case law indicates that 70% of the market is enough to assume a monopoly. Since Microsoft has well over 90% of the desktop market, the assumption is going to be that Microsoft has a monopoly unless someone provides strong evidence to the contrary. Mere existance of other products doesn't count.

To: Nasdaq100 who wrote (9822)	7/31/1998 9:01:00 AM
From: ToySoldier	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Nas100, Get serious on the Monopoly argument. When it comes to desktop OS market, MSFT has a clear and simple monopoly! End of Story. You are right that there are other desktop OS options in the industry, but as you fail to take into account, that means squat when you are talking about a monopoly. Let me ask you Nas, if you were to install MAC or Linux or BeOS and you walk into any computer store, what variety of software do you have compared to the WinX shelves on the other side of the store? Lets get serious Nas. This argument that there are other options means nothing. Since MSFT has a monopoly on the desktop , these other OSs have no hope in hell in getting credible acceptance - no matter if they are 2 or 3 times more superior to WinX technology. Let me ask you one more question: We all know that Beta is (might as well now say was) a superior videotape technology than VHS. So Nas, if its so good then wouldnt you consider buying a Beta machine? Give us all your answer on why you would likely be saying NO. I'll help you on the answer - Because there are no video shops that provide your better technology Beta machine with any video rentals or even supplies. You have no choice but to go VHS. The only difernce here is that VHS is an open standard and many suppliers can develop their version of VHS machine. Maybe after the DOJ is finished with MSFT, MSFT will have to open the WinX code and let all ISVs put out their own version of WinX - we could only dream! MSFT HAS A MONOPOLY ON THE DESKTOP - END OF STORY! Toy