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: Shea Jones who wrote (21583)	4/25/1999 10:19:00 PM
From: Sir Francis Drake	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74651

Hmm... things well in hand. Maybe. If they were so well in hand, you wouldn't have the spectacle of M first wanting to go to RR. BG would have known about it - is it possible that M said NOTHING to BG all along and secretly lobbied for the RR post? Are we to believe that BG knew nothing about it? If he knew nothing - then he's not as well in control as you think. If he did, and M STILL went ahead publicly with the RR move, then it means BG was not able to resolve things with him ahead of time - and so again is not in full control. Bottom line: if things were fully "in hand" by BG, you wouldn't have the public spectacle of M going for RR, and BG having to equally publicly veto the move. Sorry, any way you slice it, whatever occured, was not a display of things "well in hand". I'm not making a big deal out of this, but I think it's still good to be accurate about characterizing the situation.

To: Shea Jones who wrote (21583)	4/25/1999 10:41:00 PM
From: t2	Respond to of 74651

My guess is that once Gates was forced into vetoing the move by Maffei to Roadrunner, that Gates disclosed what he had in mind to Maffei and brought him more on baord with regard to making Maffei happy and hearing him out. I don't see this as a negative at all I agree. Now it will also look like a big announcement as the media can comment about how this was done to keep Maffei. IMHO, it brings more attention to MSN.

To: Shea Jones who wrote (21583)	4/26/1999 8:52:00 AM
From: John F. Dowd	Respond to of 74651

Shea and All: Shea makes the point well. There may have been things afoot that for one reason or another BG was keeping close to the vest. Once again the point must be made that the position at the top was kept open. Perhaps they haven't decided on Maffei's replacement yet and therefore did not have the leeway to move him out of this very crucial position. Finally I think many forget that there is an enormous media bias against Bill Gates and MSFT ( I guess this to offset the media bias on behalf of the other Bill and the one true monopoly that governs and intrudes on our lives). The press is socialist to the core and Gates is the antithesis of such sentiment. The media therefore will do all in its power (and the record clearly demonstrates this) to place MSFT in the worst light possible. JFD