|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Bill Gates is one of those people that put themselves at the right place at
the right time.
He is most thought of in the beginning as a computer geek. Fact is his
genius is in marketing and business. Microsoft was no fluke, luck or an IBM
over site when it hired his company to write an OS and neglected to get
patent rights. Steve Jobs develop the superior OS with his company Apple.
Gates busted Apple through his marketing techniques then invested in them
and brought them back because he needs competitors now. He beat Netscape
after they had a 70% share of the browser market in the Internet game. The
US government is going to break him up right or wrong I think. But as TJ
pointed out that probably will be a mistake but it will not end Gates.
Linux better probably but that never stop Gates before nor will it this
time even if they break up Microsoft. In the industrial revolution Bill
Gates would have been the guy that beat Henry Ford. Computers, automobiles
wouldn't matter he would be where he needed to be because MSFT has nothing
to do with luck or the superior product. I think the same is true for Bill
Crews to a lessor degree. He has dominated his little niche market for a
longtime. He probably could do the same in a different field now of he had to.
Robert
At 08:33 PM 9/20/1999 -0700, Ullrich Fischer wrote:
>BS. If you can write an OS, you can write an ethernet card driver.
>
>Microsoft's alleged crimes have very little to do with why it has a lock on
>the OS market. The main reason for this lock is that some OS has to be
>standard. MicroSoft was in the right places at the right times with the
>right moves early on in the game and got overwhelming market share to the
>point where developing for any other OS became uneconomical. The cost in
>terms of dollars and functionality for a company to try to get its work
>done using multiple, mutually incompatible Operating Systems has always
>been prohibitively high. That's why IBM mainframes and their clones were
>overwhelming in terms of market share in the 60s, 70s, and early 80s. When
>the PC came along and the computing paradigm changed, the same imperatives
>dictated that all but one OS would be relegated to the
>margins. Microsoft's "crime" was to manage to be the company that sold
>that one OS. There was nothing stopping Apple or SUN being that
>company, but Bill Gates had the vision to do it right. The cost of
>upgrading to newer technology on Microsoft's path was all along the line a
>tiny fraction of the cost of moving between generations of Apple or SUN
>products. While Apple and SUN used the infamous "forklift upgrade"
>technique, Bill maintained his market share over the generations of PC
>evolution by maintaining an often painful amount of backward compatibility
>between each newer generation of MicroSoft's OS products and the ones that
>came before. Now, the only way (short of government intervention) that
>Microsoft is going to be blasted out of its current position is if
>something comes along (and MicroSoft doesn't notice it in time) which
>completely changes the computing paradigm again in as radical a manner as
>did the shift from mainframe computing to PC based desktop
>computing. The rise of the internet and network computing in general
>would be a good candidate, but I think Bill's noticed it. :)
>
>Maybe its time for a new book: "How I learned to stop worrying and
>learned to love Bill Gates" :)
>
>-uf
>
>
>At 07:28 PM 9/20/99 -0700, David Fenstemaker wrote:
>>The point is simply this:
>>
>>Microsoft's "marketing" practices unfairly
>>eliminate competition. If it continues,
>>companies that provide stable OS's won't
>>exist. Already its getting hard to develop
>>on them because things like ethernet cards
>>now are "Microsoft Windows compatible",
>>Translation: "incompatible with anything
>>else by design".
>>
>>You better believe there is lots of exposure
>>in embedded devices, especially in the medical
>>field. Most don't run NT. That's why there
>>is a disclaimer with Embedded NT, that its is
>>not intended for critical applications, let
>>alone regular NT.
>>
>>David
>
>
|