[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: In the Briefcases of Gates' Lawyers

  First, I want to know where you are getting this stat. And does it compare
  similar products. Saying that MS sells a $11 billion in software and IBM $30
  billion is totally misleading. I will venture that IBM's "sales" are mainframe
  software sales, or better yet, software support costs. What does this mean? Your
  stat is meaningless, absolutely pointless.
  Furthermore, it's not JUST that MS is doing so well. It is how this company has
  done so well. Using it's dominance of the Intel OS platform MS (like many other
  multi-national corps) is buying out it's competition left and right. Want to see
  some info on that? I got some. Goto : http://www0.vcnet.com/bms//catalogp1.html
  This link will show you all of the companies Microsoft has simply chosen to
  purchase instead of compete with. One company might not be signifigant. 60 or
  more is. (that's right. 60 companies, and that list is still building)
  > Since Microsoft sells roughly a third as much software as IBM -- the score
  > being roughly $11 billion to $30 billion in 1996, I believe --and since IBM
  > and Microsoft are merely two of the thousands of companies making and selling
  > software, this "monopoly" stuff looks like a load of bollocks to me.
  > Even in industries which Microsoft created from nothing, microcomputer BASIC
  > and Intel-based operating systems being two good examples, Gates's company
  > is today a niche player.  A large niche player, it may be said, but in both
  > of those two its competitors include IBM, recently returned to competence.
  > Other very competent companies, including Symantec, Borland, and Novell
  > compete in one or the other of these.
  The only industry MS created was the reverse-engineering, poor-imitation,
  overbloated, error-prone, software. MS is NOT an innovative company in fact it
  is the reverse.
  See : http://www0.vcnet.com/bms//page3e.html
  > There is a pattern for successes in the computer industry: companies that
  > make good products and sell them cheap have a tendency to wipe out
  > companiesselling less good products at high prices.  This Gates sold DOS for
  > $65 in the teeth of the inferior CP/M being retailed for $245.  Phillipe Kahn
  > madea business out of Borland's garage invention of the IDE (Integrated
  > Development Environment) selling first an IDE for the C language, and then
  > others later, for a few hundred dollars -- a cheap price for the vast
  > productivity increases they brought about.  Later Kahn/Borland became dominant
  > in Pascal through the mysterious trick of putting out a fast, easy to use, and
  > well documented version for $99 against competitors with inferior product at
  > three or more times the price.  Scandalous behaviour, I'm sure.
  I have no problem with MS selling a product that it creates with a fair amount
  of research/development. Note that I say selling. I don't say, giving away or
  forcing upon manufacturers. MS is a company that really only does one thing.
  Create software and sell it. By giving away it's only product subsidized by it's
  [unfairly acheived] domination in the OS market, it amounts to dumping. Remember
  dumping? Perhaps you haven't been in computers this long to understand them.
                Christopher Pall
  Delphi Programmer & Western Michigan Student (CS)
                Kalamazoo MI USA