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 (21830)	11/29/1998 8:04:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24154

I think we're going to run into a wall soon, where we simply have different views of the same thing. But here's some answers to your responses: Well, now we've shifted from market foreclosure to software incompatibility. Every bit of software that ever came out of a box is subject to the same analysis. Yet, no one is suggesting that, if the OEM packages, say, Novell, in a separate box that the user has to unpack and load herself, then Novell is being foreclosed from the market. Aside from the fact that the relevant software does not come in a box, why is the analysis any different for the internet? Two points, which I explain in the next two paragraphs. First point is that different software has different markets, so you can't generalize. Second point is that software incompatibility can drive market foreclosure. We're talking different markets. Some software gets sold through OEMs, some through mail-order, some downloaded, some in bookstores. Netscape considered the OEM market to be essential to distribution of its software. Furthermore, Netscape negotiated deals with the OEMs. So the fact that Novell or Symantec's stuff does just fine coming out of a box is just not relevant-- what's relevant is that Netscape doesn't do as well coming out of a box or downloaded as it does with the OEMs. Furthermore, it's not just that Microsoft broke Netscape's deals with the OEMs. Microsoft also integrated IE 4.0. That provides additional difficulties in using Netscape, and in installing it. To wit-- I installed Netscape on the system I'm using now. Yet every time I log on, IE 4.0 starts up and my shortcuts get changed. Also consider the case of large firms which wish to standardize on Netscape yet can't because they can't remove IE 4.0 and it's too expensive to support both, not to mention supporting all the phone calls from confused employees "Where'd my bookmarks go? Which one am I using? Where's my mail?" The fundamental point is that Microsoft has made it very difficult for the novice to obtain or use Netscape Navigator. Other software companies options are limited because (here's the monopoly part) Microsoft controls the OS. You cannot overestimate the effect that has on the industry. And what in your worldview is there to prevent Microsoft from coming out with a software patch to Windows 98 that fixes some bugs and as a side effect happens to delete Netscape? At what point do you say enough? I'll also respond in general to your other post about the danger of restricting one company and not others--the "machine guns" analogy which is getting pushed a bit far: Fundamentally, all your analogies about machine guns miss the following point: The machine gun is monopoly control over the Operating System. By definition, there's at most one monopolist in a market. Thus, there is only one machine gun in the room, or none. Giving other companies access to Windows source code doesn't give them machine guns, it removes the machine gun from the room. In some sense, there's three different machine guns that Microsoft owns. The machine guns are monopoly control over the distribution of, creation of, and understanding of the Operating System. They abuse their distribution of Windows by forcing OEMs to not support competitors. They abuse their creation of Windows to hurt other software company's products. They abuse their understanding of Windows to favor their software over other software company's products. I believe that this is a unique situation and can be remedied selectively. Perhaps at some point someone will come up with a technology that threatens Windows. Perhaps Java is it though I don't think so (and I'm a Java fan and user). As long as they don't use monopolistic tactics to do so, then Windows should lose. And no, Microsoft shouldn't be able to use monopolistic tactics to defend itself. They should either compete with innovation or lose. Death is part of the natural order of things.