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: Daniel Schuh who wrote (10734)	9/11/1998 3:36:00 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

The two Bills share more than bad press zdnet.com What? Ms. Lewinsky has been seen in Redmond:-)? Sorry, just a joke, really. Mean, I know, this column is too. But a certain company is known to be a bit on the mean side at times, and people consider that a virtue, I hear. The smoking gun will be the testimony of Palmer, who now is certain to be subpoenaed by the Department of Justice. Allegedly, Gates, in a thinly veiled threat, told Palmer he had to choose between partnering with Microsoft or Oracle. Palmer, according to the Times, swore to Ellison he would tell the truth about his conversation with Gates if ever asked. If this all goes Ellison's way, the outcome could be more valuable than the scrapped network computer deal. What makes this more interesting is that that Digital's decision would directly protect the Windows monopoly. A network computer running another operating system is not running Windows. Another bit of irony there. Friends of Bill are always happy to gloat about the stillbirth of the NC. I'd agree Bill's Digital deal probably wasn't a deciding factor. Near as I can tell, the deciding factor was crashing PC prices. Microsoft is always happy to take credit for that, but could competition perhaps have had something to do with that? Nah. On that subject: Gates is not the only one to demand exclusive friendship, of course. Years ago during a stormy period between Compaq and Intel, then Intel CEO Andy Grove reportedly told Compaq Chief Eckhard Pfeiffer something to the effect that "you are my friend or you are my enemy." An explicit threat for sure, but I forget what Andy wanted. But, Compaq had a leg to stand on when push came to shove versus Intel, and as a result we have cheap PCs. Intel's monopoly wasn't what it used to be. On the other hand, when push came to shove in the sacred icon war, poor Eckhard had no choice but unconditional surrender. And the poor DEC Unix engineers are scratching their heads about what to do for a browser, since Compaq made the "choice" to contractually ban Netscape from the premises. Bill's taking us where we want to go, though. He knows what the market wants- whatever he gives his approval to. And the OEMs all like it that way, most of all Compaq. "Take our code, please, Bill." Now Microsoft alleges that all its rivals once ganged up on Microsoft with its common Unix initiative. We know that initiative went nowhere, and one could conclude that Microsoft's enemies decided on a different course of action: drag Microsoft through the courts until it behaves better. The difference is that Microsoft has the monopoly (Intel did briefly) and the others don't. And threats -- veiled, vague or direct -- mean a lot more when you're the Big Kahuna. Hey wasn't there one of them around here? I get confuse with all the Mr. K's. Microsoft's arrogance and lack of restraint will haunt it for a long time. Clinton was more stupid than arrogant, but he showed a record lack of restraint. In makeup, the two Bills are very different people. But today, their circumstances are surprisingly similar. Well, we'll see. All I'll predict is that the greater Bill will be telling it to the Judge sooner than the lesser Bill. "Confidentially, Judge, I can't remember a thing about it." Cheers, Dan.