 UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! |
 Investorville
 M
 Microsoft (MSFT) (Page 16)
|
| This topic is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Microsoft (MSFT) |
|
newguy |
posted 03-07-2000 01:30 PM
 
As I type this, Cisco's market cap is $460 billion and Microsoft's is $490 billion. Cisco's has never been higher than Microsoft's, but the gap has been narrowing. The question is, when will Cisco catch Microsoft: this month, this year, later, or never? |
|
newsman |
posted 03-06-2000 01:12 PM
from the current Upside: "We said it last year: Bill Gates should break up his company before U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson does it for him. After all, the federal government has in the past won 84 percent of such cases, and it certainly doesn't appear willing to cede this one. In the meantime, however, Microsoft continues to roll: Windows 2000 is finally shipping, and competition from upstarts like those offering Linux and established players like Sun Microsystems stay even, at best. Still, Microsoft is simply too huge and unwieldy, and a breakup of the company makes a great deal of sense. Its management is more than smart enough to realize that -- so expect this move as part of a settlement later this year." |
|
InvestorGuide Daily Administrator |
posted 02-28-2000 06:29 PM
Not to be outdone, Qualcomm and Microsoft announced plans to jointly develop advanced wireless devices, expanding their relationship as the software behemoth continues its push into the communications market. (source: SJ Mercury Center) http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/081439.htm |
|
InvestorGuide Weekly Administrator |
posted 02-28-2000 01:18 PM
It's the software users who will lose if the government wins the antitrust case. http://www.upside.com/Upshot/38ac95440.html |
|
InvestorGuide Daily Administrator |
posted 02-24-2000 06:33 PM
Harvard law professor Lawrence Lessig, whose views were requested by the judge hearing the Microsoft antitrust trial, said that he harbors deep reservations about proposals to break up the software giant. (source: Seattle Times) http://www.seattletimes.com/news/technology/html98/micr_20000224.html |
|
JHirsch |
posted 02-23-2000 04:31 PM
Actually its probably more that the papers just want something to quote. He said this in relation to the bundling of Microsoft's software. They were saying that they wanted to have complete control of how their product was distributed. The judge's response was that Standard Oil wanted and had the same thing. Its not as damning as the headline would indicate, but it still shows the attitude of the judge and might be an indicator of which way he'll be deciding. The question is, is it the judge's job to protect the consumer, the competitive marketplace, or both? Jake |
|
gatsby |
posted 02-23-2000 09:54 AM
Regardless of what I think will or should happen, I disagree with the judge's comparison. I don't know much about it, my feeling was that the oil monopoly had a completely negative affect on the consumer, mostly with regards to prices. Yet MSFT's practices were negative with respect to competitors, not consumers, and as far as I know, the pricing does not reflect a monopoly. There is a clear distinction in my mind, but apparently, not in the judge's mind. Though I do agree with the judge's initial ruling on Microsoft (and you all know I have my own ideas regarding Gates' strategy!), I think this type of comparison to Rockefeller's oil trust is misguided and irresponsible. He sounds like he just wants to get quoted in the papers. |
|
InvestorGuide Daily Administrator |
posted 02-22-2000 06:02 PM
The judge in Microsoft's antitrust trial compared the firm's control of its Windows software to John D. Rockefeller's sweeping Standard Oil monopoly of the 19th century. (source: San Jose Mercury) http://www.mercurycenter.com/svtech/news/breaking/merc/docs/025413.htm Little progress is being made at the settlement talks despite the fact that the judge has urged both sides to settle. The judge was willing to offer more time for negotiations, but the fact that no time was asked for suggests that talks are not advancing. (source: Seattle Times) |
|
trendy |
posted 02-22-2000 03:06 PM
Good point, buynow. Also, this OS has been in development since 1996. A lot has happened since then. It remains to be seen how well it leverages and interacts with the internet, and whether it has all the good stuff Linux has. |
|
buynow |
posted 02-21-2000 03:01 PM
Microsoft is suggesting that home users stick with Windows 98 and its successor, called Windows Millennium Edition. This is going to cause a lot of confusion in the marketplace. When you launch a new product with the same name as an existing product and change only the number (here, from Windows 98 to Windows 2000), consumers assume that the new version is the one to get. It's also going to be confusing that there's a product called Windows 2000 and a product called Windows Millennium Edition. |
|
InvestorGuide Weekly Administrator |
posted 02-21-2000 12:06 PM
Microsoft recently launched a new site as a counter-marketing attack against Sun Microsystems' claims about Windows 2000. http://www.dot-truth.com Microsoft officially unveiled Windows 2000. CNet and Techweb have comprehensive |
|
InvestorGuide Daily Administrator |
posted 02-18-2000 06:42 PM
Chairman Bill Gates said Microsoft would be willing to open the source code for its Windows software to competitors if that was all it would take to settle the antitrust case filed by the Justice Department. (source: Cnet) http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1553128.html |
|
bobcobb |
posted 02-18-2000 10:28 AM
Would you rent a car that is know to have 63,000 defects? I wouldn't. But apparently people are buying Windows 2000. I guess that's what you get by being a monopoly. Actually, I wonder how many of the bugs are really big ones that the average consumer would ever encounter, much less even notice that they are occurring? The 63,000 number is a good headline though for anti-microsoft people. From the article newsman posted it seems like the license fees will only be paid by businesses and perhaps educational institutions, but not by home consumers. Its a great business model. Even better would be to offer more frequent upgrades over the web and charge an upgrade fee each time you upgraded. I'm sure they are planning on this too. bob |
|
newsman |
posted 02-18-2000 09:39 AM
If you thought Microsoft was profitable now, you ain't seen nothin' yet. Over the next few years, they're going to transition from software sales to software rentals. Instead of buying software once, you'll pay every month or year. Here's an article describing the first baby steps in this direction: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1553352.html |
|
InvestorGuide Daily Administrator |
posted 02-17-2000 06:16 PM
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates officially introduced Windows 2000, which he grandly described as "the future of computing." (source: PC World) http://www.pcworld.com/pcwtoday/article/0,1510,15343,00.html |
| This topic is 21 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 All times are EST (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
  |
|
Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.43
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.
Press ctrl-D to bookmark this page for future reference.
By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use.
Copyright 2001 InvestorGuide.com Inc.