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: Logos who wrote (10137)	8/16/1998 5:10:00 PM
From: J Krnjeu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Mr. Logos, << For example, had there been no government lawsuit, do you really think that Microsoft, Intel, even Compaq, would have been allowed to grow or even survive? >> Yes, because if you understood the IBM philosophy, they never expected the PC to be much more than a household item geared to replacing the typewriter, used in home budgeting process and entertainment. They NEVER expected it to grow into what it is today. Apple was not much more than graphic aid for graphic artists. Not the market IBM was going after big business with million dollar budgets. That is why companies such as DEC and HP computer business grew too as large as they were. IBM ONLY went after the top businesses that could afford multi-million dollar budgets. They targeted the top tier business and did not actively pursue the lower tiers. Bill Gates is a visionary who saw the PC as much more than it was. He was not constraint by the 'IBM big business mentality ' that is why he was scared of IBM. It happens a great deal to people when they see something others do not. IBM has admitted that it missed the boat on PC's because of its philosophy. <<IBM could have crushed them all, especially Microsoft, when they were still small enough.>> There was not the dollar volume to attract IBM attention. IBM was use to writing 50 -100 million-dollar contracts with 1 client. Microsoft was small multi million-dollar company. At that time, IBM was a 30 -50 billion-dollar company. The growing PC market was hardly worth a large percentage of the dollar resources. It's always easy to look back with the knowledge you have today and make an argument fit your current knowledge but take yourself back without today's knowledge. It's a much different picture. IBM was not going to give up the philosophy that got it to where it was. <<But because of the government constantly hammering them about being a monopoly, IBM had to treat these companies with soft gloves (I know, I know, IBM sued the bejesus out of a lot of companies, but think how much worse it would have been with no government lawsuit).>> Your own statement is contradictory. I never have known anyone or any business to sue someone with soft gloves. It just doesn't make sense. <<In fact, IBM would probably have followed their usual practise and built the PC with their own OS and their own microchips.>> They did, it was built with Micro channel architect. They also had their own OS's PC-DOS, OS/2 and don't forget the vaulted PS 2. They are currently building them with AMD chips among others. <<So the government lawsuit against IBM allowed all these companies to grow to become behemoths in their own right and capture a lot of business that would otherwise have gone to IBM. So I don't see how anyone can say that IBM came out of their government lawsuit unscathed.>> Basically that is your opinion. What really allowed these companies to grow were IBM's, DEC, NCR, DG and the other major's errors. IBM underestimated the PC from the start because of their corporate mentality. Don't get me wrong, I did buy IBM PC's from the beginning but soon found better value and moved on. IBM's ego had them believe that people would flock to whatever they sold. IBM used big business marketing on the consumer and it didn't work. Thank you JK