So far you talk and talk, yet post nothing of substance - hence my allegation that you fail to support what you say.
Ah, a classic Reggie ad hominem. One I've heard more than a few times before. For the innocent bystanders, a blast from the past to show the roots of my abiding respect for Reggie's expertise in all areas:
Dan, all of that typing and you have said nothing. MSFT has set no precedent, hih? So I assume that the decision handed down by the Justice department on per processeor deals, OS bundling and online networks must simply be in my imagination. If not, what does it mean. The JD has already rendered a decision on MSFT. Their decision is an interpretation of the law, by the top cops in the country. Their decision apparently states that MSFT is currently, and has not historically been in no major violation of anti-trust policies as currently interpreted by our nations honorable adjudication system (sans the decree issued, of course). If you don't like it, fine. If you don't agree with thier decision, that is fine as well, but stop pretending that it didn't happen. If it happened, it can be considered precedent.
(post www2.techstocks.com in that other forum, quoted in full, but of course you have to understand the correct Mind of Reg(TM) context to figure out what it means)
On to the current matter, and back to Gurley at news.com , with a more concise version of the relevant quote:
Any financial academician will tell you that the only proper way to value a stock is to predict the long-term cash flows of a company, discount those amounts back to the present, and then divide by the number of shares. As this is much easier said than done . . .
And so on. My naive reading of what this means is that it's not so easy, particularly the "predict the long-term cash flows of a company" part. You seem to have no problem doing that, though, then you just plug it into the old Regimodel, and voila! Microsoft is invincible. As for "well documented methods", well, there's the tiny issue of the fraudulent Java "high end financial math", as demonstrated by some Regimodel spreadsheet, available on your website, which you couldn't bother to explain, because, well, the formulae were proprietary. Good enough to generate gigabytes of data, though.
I present gigabytes of data to bolster my opinion, you present insults, vulgarity and personal attacks.
Yeah, yeah. I learned it all from you, buddy. Plus numerous other cheesy high school debate techniques you are the undisputed master of, which I don't care to emulate. Oh, not the vulgarity, but that was once, and I apologized to the whole world, including you, more than once on that one. What happened to that prerequisite thick skin, anyway? Meanwhile, you're always right. Right? Never been wrong, never. And not just in finance. Reg knows the law too, and to go back to where I came in:
Well, I understand software very well.
You understand everything very well, we all know that. I don't claim to know much beyond software. I don't know that much about Microsoft software, really, except that, at the OS level, it seems to sort of suck compared to other stuff I've used. This is based on personal experience only, but others seem to have come to similar conclusions. To quote a recent press piece, on Windows 98, the OS that was supposed to suck less, from another fan of Bill, at least on antitrust matters:
OK, it is better than its predecessor. But that's sorta like what someone once said about Richard Nixon: He would see someone drowning 100 feet offshore, throw that person a 51-foot rope, and say he went more than halfway.
So instead of fixing the steering and the brakes and the engine, they added a bunch of chrome. (from zdnet.com , the "solution" presented is amusing but probably wouldn't work)
And another guy, not one I'd lump in the nefarious ilk conspiracy by a long shot:
I share the view that Angela Gunn expressed in her recent column in Yahoo Internet Life magazine. Microsoft should pay more attention to writing good software than to storm trooping into its 1,479th market. Windows remains incredibly frustrating to use, and I've always wondered why Microsoft doesn't put the same effort into Windows 9x as it claims to put into NT. After all, Windows 9x is the software we use. (from zdnet.com
I know, Reggie, it's just the press out selling advertising again. The wise Microsoft investor, who knows the value of a good monopoly when he sees one, isn't worried about such trivialities. Personally, I was getting a bit mellow on old Windows95, it'd held up without obvious deterioration on me for a month or so on my main machine, after some hardware upgrades. Then it hung up in the splash screen. It's still doing it. It's obviously my fault, or the hardware's, since NT runs fine. Nothing the old standard Microsoft fixall, reformat and reinstall, won't fix, I'm sure. Nothing to bother Bill about, he's got better things to do with Microsoft's vast resources. Who cares, anyway, NT and WinCE are the future. Bill's just a software engineer, and all he cares about is "great software". He said that, it must be true.
Cheers, Dan.
P.S. Again, apologies to innocent bystanders. It's all out of context, you know. |
