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: Claude who wrote (16148)	2/16/1999 6:38:00 PM
From: DownSouth	Respond to of 74651

Claude, Nice retort to Toy, but don't waste your breath. Toy has one agenda--say all things bad about MSFT. He doesn't even have a portfolio, for gosh sakes. Everyone is a lemming except those who think as he does, and they are all brilliant. He doesn't invest. And he works for IBM. He is a Novell CNE. 'nuff said?

To: Claude who wrote (16148)	2/16/1999 7:34:00 PM
From: LindyBill	Respond to of 74651

Way to go, Claude! Keep Toy occupied, and the rest of will try to figure out what we are going to do.

To: Claude who wrote (16148)	2/17/1999 12:43:00 AM
From: JP Sullivan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

To paraphrase Warren Buffett, I'd rather have an IQ of 100 and live in a world where the competition has an IQ of 80 than have an IQ of 140 and live in a world where everyone else also has an IQ of 140. One of the reasons MSFT is in the dominant position that it is today is that as far as marketing goes, everyone else has had an IQ of 50! Is it MSFT's fault that the IQ of it's marketing department is 80? (Okay, so I'm being charitable ;) Consider AAPL. The MacOS was superior to MSDOS and Windows for years. (IMHO, it wasn't until Windows 95 that MSFT finally caught up with -- some would say surpassed -- the MacOS.) In fact AAPL had a good 5 to 8-year head start to dominate the desktop. Had AAPL been savvier and a lot less arrogant, things would be very different today. Well, would have, should have, could have, don't mean squat. Only winners count, and I don't see MSFT being knocked off its king-of-the-road perch anytime in the near future. It is one of the sharpest marketing companies around today with a healthy dash of paranoia thrown in. I hope things never gets complacent at the Redmond campus. Winston

To: Claude who wrote (16148)	2/17/1999 3:46:00 AM
From: Dragonfly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Where I find your assertions naive is in that myopic view of yours that MSFT is evil and is stifling innovation. I havent worked for a software company yet that didn't cancel or curb an innovative product because Microsoft either moved into or announced plans to move into the market. Often, Microsoft never moved into the market (an example: high end project management software) but just by using its leverage kept competitive products out of the market. Do you think companies don't have investors that they have to answer to? You know when Microsoft announces, for instance, that they are going to do a PDA version of windows, investors in competitive products get cold feet. Even if Microsoft never actually does it. (I'm talking about "Windows for PEn" which was announced 10 years before Windows CE ever shipped.... but killed the early PDA market because investors pulled out of some great companies producing pen based devices.) The belief that Microsoft "just wants to innovate and the people who disagree are just competitiors who couldn't compete" is VERY naive. Of course, its what Microsoft wants you to think. But if this were true, you would be able to name many innovative technologies (of any significance) that Microsoft has developed. Can you name a single one? The truth is, Microsoft is a criminal organization and has broken the law many times- copyright law (stealing sources from Stac, Apple, etc.) Trade Practices (restraint of trade, per-cpu-licensing which is still going on, etc.), Fraud (not honoring refund clause of EULA) etc, etc, etc. However, they have been very profitable at doing this and I understand you are happy with the appreciation in your MSFT, and want to see it continue. (It will if they get away with it- now that Office is dominant, they are raising its price very quickly!) Just don't delude yourself into thinking this is an ethical company. Your gains are ill gotten. Microsoft has destroyed the software industry, and ruined the lives of far more good people than, say, OJ Simpson. Dragonfly

To: Claude who wrote (16148)	2/17/1999 4:28:00 AM
From: Jan Garrity Allen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Load up on the greatest stock ever and remember stay long and stay strong!! Good luck to all!!

To: Claude who wrote (16148)	2/17/1999 8:57:00 AM
From: ToySoldier	Respond to of 74651

Thanks Claude! Your posting provided me with one highlight - you wont respond to me anymore. How can a person take things completely out of context? Did you even read my posting. I will agree 100% with you on your Wordperfect description - BUT WHAT THE HECK IS THAT SUPPOSE TO PROVE? Did you even read the part that I mentioned that said some monopolies (sorry ED - for your sake - I consider MSFT's Windows OS a monopoly when it dominates 90%+ of the Intel desktop OS marketshare - I dont know what your definition is) are more powerful than others. The wordprocessing monopoly is not an easy one for any company to maintain since the VAST MAJORITY of other software and hardware products in the industry do not rely on it in any way. So, you are 100%, WordPerfect lost their monopoly (if they ever had one) because that is not an easy monopoly to hold. It is much less easy to hold when their competitor - who has the monopoly on the Desktop OS - is writing their code on their OS!!! Why didnt IBM buy MSFT and its OS? I think I have stated my opinion on this a thousand times - but just for you little buddy - because they little were politically discouraged from doing so. They just were coming out of anti-trust litigation themselves and likely they could not afford the heat in buying up a company that was starting to become the dominant OS of the Intel PC platform. Your naive myopic view of this situation proves that you dont look under the covers of why something really happens. (By the way - the ocean is more than just an inch deep - dont trust your eyes). But thanks for not responding to me anymore. Toy