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 : MSFT Internet Explorer vs. NSCP Navigator -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21817)	11/28/1998 6:15:00 AM
From: Pink Minion	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

And, as access speeds increase, what, with the growth of Cable modems (AOL TV, anyone?), DSL, and all, the argument that it is just too difficult for consumers to download rival browsers will get weaker and weaker. There's still a cost of installing the software, plus there's the "Do you feel lucky?" feeling. I didn't put N4 on my mother's machine because I didn't want to take a chance of things screwing up. ------- If I understand your "natural monopoly" argument, you are saying that Microsoft is a natural monopoly and this benefits the consumer. They are a natural monopoly because software companies can/should spend all resources on development for one platform, this benefits the entire industry by allowing the production of more software. Consumers buy software not operating systems. One of the reasons my first video recorder was a VHS was because the selection of tapes were so much greater in that format. I really don't see network affects playing here because people replace their software about every two years anyway (even though I wish I could still use word 2.0). If the Mac or Linux had the software, the cost of switching wouldn't be that great. I would see networks affects in their applications. The cost of converting files and learning another application is great. For some it is like getting them to switch brand of cigs. Learning a new OS is minimal cost. Some might disagree but our company of 80,000 did it. I will agree in the natural monopoly argument in the old paradigm where shrink wrap applications or "thick clients" are loaded on pc's. But NOT in the new paradigm. And this isn't some imagination of Netscape or Sun. You are using the new paradigm right now with SI. The application and all its data resides on a server and you use a "thin client" browser to run it. The OS doesn't matter, the browser does. It doesn't necessarily mean Java. Even though you don't sound like a softy, you sure do ignore the points like one. Your profile kind of looks like this guy: Member 4160148 Only posts to one thread. Did Bill put you in charge of this thread? watchingtoomanyxfiles Mr. B

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21817)	11/28/1998 6:36:00 AM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

The big distribution channel they didn't close off was the Internet. DOJ's argument on that one was that downloading browsers is too "difficult" for peon, ignorant consumers, who always take the first browser that's offered to them with their PC's. But there is some support for that argument, Gerald. Still, many Americans appear to be embracing the information age tentatively, if not fearfully. More than half of all computer users, 52 percent, say they have never installed a software program -- a basic step in computing. While technology enthusiasts never tire of extolling the virtues of computers as personalized tools of empowerment, the Times/CBS poll suggests that a large share of the computer-using public has no interest in tailoring their machines or changing them. This from nytimes.com , a polling article showing that the people still love the greater Bill. There's also other evidence collaborating this, in terms of what browser people use being dependent on what they see first, but it's older and not as easily searchable. I can dig it up if pressed. I haven't been keeping up on the AOL buyout, I don't particularly like it but for reasons that have nothing to do with antitrust or business. Mainly, I worry that it moves Netscape away from the "open" camp back into the "proprietary lock" camp. I'll have to read some more about it before commenting further. Cheers, Dan.

To: Gerald R. Lampton who wrote (21817)	11/28/1998 6:41:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 24154

The big distribution channel they didn't close off was the Internet. DOJ's argument on that one was that downloading browsers is too "difficult" for peon, ignorant consumers, who always take the first browser that's offered to them with their PC's. Now, we have AOL, who will basically be using using their desktop icon to ram the internet down Microsoft's throat. You'll have to fill us in on how much foreclosure is too much foreclosure according to anti-trust Law. However, the number one distribution channel for software both in size and ease of use is the purchased computer. Microsoft says this, the DOJ says this, computer geeks who have friends in the real world who don't know how to download software say this--it's not really disputable. Again, you know the law from a lawyer's perspective but I don't. Millions or tens of millions of people over the past several months were denied Netscape Navigator because Microsoft pressured their OEMs both directly and through integration of IE into Windows. Now I guess the claim is that this is ok since the internet is going to become such a great means of downloading sofware. But here's the problem with that statement, and this is I believe the crucial point: 1) Downloading software even instantaneously creates problems. We can argue about how much problems, but certainly more problems then buying the computer with all the softwre pre-installed by the computer manufacturer who supposedly knows what's going on. Ever here of DLL hell? Doesn't happen with pre-installed software. Here's the secondary point 2) AOL's service is not going to be a distribution channel for Netscape. They still have to run IE to get onto that desktop. And even if they set it up so that the first thing that happens when you sign on is that they download Netscape, well, see # 1 above. Microsoft is not claiming the right to "shoot at everyone," except to the same extent as its competitors are allowed to do so. The point is, everyone plays by the same rules, until such time as antitrust law decrees that the "monopolist" should not be allowed to do so. My (non-lawyerly) interpretation is that a monopoly has more abilities than a non-monopoly and that the only constraints are on those extra abilities. Netscape doesn't have the ability to for an OEM to take its browser. Sun can't offer an ISP a place on the Windows desktop if the ISP will run its version of java. Maybe I'm wrong as far as law, but that's my view of a level playing field. Microsoft is the only one in the room with the machine gun, to push the analogy further.