|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Umm... There's another factor to MS's success in application software,
add-ons and integration tools that you have overlooked.... They already had
a LARGE market share of the computer industry, and hence end-user, by the
GONADS (and still do) before developing app #1. It was just a matter of
time. Hang in there; continue to build market-share in the OS market;
integrate, and distribute in some cases, the apps with the OS; bully the
hardware manufactures and retailers into "recommending" your products --
otherwise, you won't get those favorable OEM deals. So... the success of
"managing to grow and sell software in overcrowded markets" has something to
do with the amount of Clout you have in the market, whether that be cash,
market-share or a great product. If MS would have been just another software
developer, without the OS stranglehold and market-share behind them, Bill
Gates might be working for Steve Jobbs today...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Calandra Sikes" <jen450us@xxxxxxxxx>
To: <omega-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, November 25, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: Cost of in-house trading software development
> Hi Ian,
>
> Ok I promise not to complain about your condecending
> tone if you let me call you "EOR" -- as in the **Ass**
> from a familiar childrens story. OK?
>
> So EOR, if you read my previous post closer you will
> see I said "This sounds like the strategy MSFT has
> used again and again since the 1980's.". You must
> have missed that part because I'm sure you realize
> that MSFT was not an 18 billion dollar company in the
> mid 80's. In fact they weren't even the largest yet
> they still managed to grow and sell software in
> overcrowded markets.
>
> As an example of the power of picking already
> populated markets, MSFT around the early to mid 80's
> decided they wanted a piece of the spreadsheet market
> which was completely dominated by Visicalc. So they
> built Excel which did some things a little better, a
> little different and was priced about the same. But
> it wasn't far and away a better spreadsheet platform.
> And it sold for about the same price (actually a bit
> more $225) Over the years it slowly gained more and
> more market share. Making it a windows based app (ie
> more like the Mac) helped accelerate the demise of
> Visicalc and the acceptance of Excel as the #1
> spreadsheet app.
>
> Another example of the power of picking active markets
> is Electronic Arts (of Bill Budge fame). But I won't
> go into that one.
>
> I know all this because though I was a teenager at the
> time and my dad owned a PC chain tha sold PCs and
> Apples and related software in the 80's and he would
> talk about all that stuff.
>
> So EOR, it appears as though you're wrong again!! :)
> You're wrong that only having unique ideas is the best
> way to make money, you're wrong that you can't make
> money in overcrowded markets and you're wrong that
> MSFT only succeeded because they have a ton of money.
>
>
> What else are you going to be wrong about?
>
> I hope you trade better than analyze this kind of
> stuff.
>
> Jen.
>
>
>
>
>
> --- Ian McVicar <icm63@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Honey....if you have $18 Billion (ie Microsoft) in
> > the bank then you can afford
> > the marketing clout to do what you like, the IDEA
> > approach only works if its
> > good and the IDEA would sell its self (or with
> > little marketing, ie see
> > NeoTicker...same thing as other realtime charting
> > packages but has some nice
> > scanning tools ...there advantage maybe). Of course
> > most IDEAs come from people
> > who think they have a good idea and the failure rate
> > is high, but those clever
> > people with a GOOD IDEA well then it should
> > happen....
> >
> > Honey its all about how much money you have....
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Ian
> >
> > Ps : Dont send me an email telling me not to call
> > you honey ! ha ha
>
>
|