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 (21872)	12/2/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: Bearded One	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24154

I think that, on its own terms, the memo is consistent with contestable markets theory because it identifies potential competitors. Where they will have to argue that the memo is wrong is in its assessment of likelyhood of success these potential competitors might have were they to actually enter Microsoft's markets. And that's where the issue of ego gratification and looking good comes in. It also would go against the potential competitors' own assessment of the likelyhood of success, which, considering that none of the competitors did enter the market, is probably not too high. I think that Microsoft would additionally have to argue that there were additional reasons for Compaq/Intel/etc.. not entering the Win32 clone market other than likelihood of success. Potential is a very unclear word. After all, I'm a potential competitor. Ultimately, the proof of the pudding is in the eating--- how many Windows 95 or Windows 3.1 clones are out there? Now compare that to Intel's supposed monopoly-- where AMD and Cyrix both came out with clones of the x86 chipset. I'm also going to add my 2 cents here about the Windows pricing vs. hardware pricing. Hardware technology proceeds at a different pace from software technology, so it's hard for me to accept this particular comparison as proof of monopoly control. I think the marginal cost arguments are much stronger--there are profitable companies out there selling Linux for nothing and just make money on support, what is it about Windows 95 that makes it such a premium operating system (try not to chuckle, Dan) that it costs more?