|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
I wrote a partial response earlier this morning and either sent or erased
it. Stupid me. I apologize if I am repeating myself:
Gary, Norman, and Earl;
I read your email everyday and I am sincerely impressed with your knowledge
and intelligence and I appreciate your contributions to RT's. Your
technical knowledge is far greater than mine. You all reference the poor
quality of Windows as an operating system. I have been reading for 18 years
that AAPL had a superior OS to MSFT. I think it can be agreed that Windows
is not an example of OS perfection. But with all due respect I ask you, are
you really naive enough to beleive that "product quality" has very much to
do with success in the REAL business world?????
"If you make a product good enough, even though you live in the
depths of the forest, the public will make a path to your door, says the
philosopher. But if you want the public in sufficient numbers, you would
better construct a highway. Advertising is that highway."
William Randolph Hearst
When a new company starts up, they fight, scrap, and do whatever is
necessary to gain market share. As a culture, I think in America we
respect and root for the underdog. But as a company gets bigger, there
seems to be a prevailing belief that there should be an inverse relationship
between market share and marketing agressiveness. A belief that the now
larger company should concede victory and set back on it's throne. That's
crazy.
As far as I know, there is only one business where the best product actually
makes the most money.... futures trading. Trading ability (the product)
alone dictates success. Isn't that why we are in this business. To prove
how good we are in a business that crushes mediocrity. A small minority of
traders make most of the profits, a larger group splits up the crumbs left
by the best, and the remainder are the sacraficial lambs.
Clinton is a prime example of superior marketing of an inferior product. Is
he the best man we can have in the White House? Certainly not! After he
became one of the most powerful men in the world, flaw upon flaw of his
product (character) was revealed. Guilty of criminal acts and questionable
character he retains market share. His dumbing down of the moral standards
of our country, are now and will continue to have detrimental effects on our
children and society for years to come. Yet the Dept of Injustice ignores
Clinton and focuses on a successful business that has created billions of
dollars of wealth, 10's of thousands of jobs, and standardized access to
computers worldwide.
The Dept of Injustice and those agreeing with the verdict say that we should
have choice of operating systems. That computers would be cheaper and
better. Come on! Have you thought of the complexity of retailing multiple
OS platforms and the multitude of various compatible software for each OS???
Do you think that Circuit City, Best Buy, or any retailer would allocate
shelf space to more than two (maybe three) OS platforms? Can you imagine
the average person going in to buy a computer and having to choose beween
Windows, BeOS, Java, OS2, and Linux??????? Do you really think this would
lower the price of computers? The manufacturers would have to install and
ship the same system but with different OS? That will reduce manufacturing
costs???
You have McDonald's/Burger King; Coke/Pepsi; Intel/AMD; The National
Football League/The Arena Football league; AOL/Mindspring. Most products
are dominated by one to three players the rest of the crumbs are scooped up
by smaller niche players. Why should the computer OS market be any
different and what makes you think that the government can orchestrate this?
Another Realtrder has already commented about the move away from pc to other
computing devices. The market can and will take care of MSFT if need be.
Thanks for the forum,
Howard
>From: "Earl Adamy" <eadamy@xxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
>Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 18:53:48 -0700
>
>I don't think it is at all funny, but it is long overdue. As an active
>developer and among the pioneer (Win286) Windows adopters and developers at
>a time when current wisdom held that DesqView would rule the multi-window
>desktop, I have observed, applauded and criticized Microsoft at close
>range.
>Microsoft exhibited the best of free market business in wresting the
>desktop
>from QuarterDeck. Since doing so, they have provided developers and
>consumers with the benefits of a uniform UI. However they have been
>relentless in their campaign to insure that no business or developer with
>which they either competed, or thought they might compete, had the free
>market opportunity to do the same. The power of the UI vested Microsoft
>with
>unbridled power ... they have done everything the government claimed and a
>great deal more.
>
>Microsoft, does charge what they want to charge - the prices of everything
>else in the PC world have come down many fold while the price of Windows
>has
>increased, albeit nominally. Microsoft, is a monopolist but no monopolist
>with half a brain charges so much that they drive customers away.
>
>The last thing I want is the Clinton luddites controlling the destiny of
>the
>software business, but it is the job of the government to insure a truly
>free market economy and the had failed miserably to provide an environment
>in which Microsoft competitors could survive. I will note one more
>government free market failing which will come home to roost in future
>years
>.... mergers are in large measure being driven by lack of business pricing
>power and the desire to curtail global production to more profitable
>levels.
>Guess what is going to happen when the number of global competitors has
>been
>significantly winnowed and global corporations deem themselves beyond the
>anti-trust reach of any one government.
>
>Earl
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Howard Hopkins <hehohop@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>To: <joe6964@xxxxxxxx>; <GREHERT@xxxxxxx>
>Cc: <Proffittak@xxxxxxx>; <chmeyer@xxxxxxxx>; <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Saturday, November 06, 1999 8:30 AM
>Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
>
>
> > Joe,
> >
> > You think it's funny that the government is stepping in and forcing it's
> > will into the free market?????? I think it's scary!!
> >
> > Windows may not be the best OS around, but MSFT has certainly kept it
> > affordable. A true monopoly could charge whatever they want because of
> > inelastic demand.
> >
> > Question: Where would we be as a networked society, if in 1980 AAPL has
> > opened up there OS? Would AAPL be the one under
>persecution/prosecution?
> > What if MSFT hadn't controlled the OS market and there were 5 or more OS
>in
> > the beginning each with equal market share of pc's OS? A simple unified
>OS
> > brought about the proliferation of the PC onto almost everyone's
>desktop.
> >
> > I beleive without MSFT's dominance we would be years behind where we are
> > now. Bill Gates "ruthless greed" should be applauded not punished but
>if
>it
> > is to be punished it should be by the free markets, not Janet Reno's
> > hinchman.
> >
> > Just my thoughts,
> > Howard
> >
> >
> > >From: Joe Frabosilio <joe6964@xxxxxxxx>
> > >To: GREHERT@xxxxxxx
> > >CC: Proffittak@xxxxxxx, chmeyer@xxxxxxxx, realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> > >Subject: Re: GEN: MS/JUSTICE DEPT RULING?
> > >Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 07:43:47 -0600
> > >
> > >Sorry Jerry,
> > >
> > >I got a little missed guided there. Spread a little panic, no I just
>think
> > >it
> > >funny that MSFT finally got hit in the face. Got to do some more
>research.
> > >
> > >Thanks,
> > >Joe Frabosilio
> > >
> > >GREHERT@xxxxxxx wrote:
> > >
> > > > Now aren't we missing the prices of the 7 baby bells that resulted
>from
> > >the
> > > > break up.
> > > >
> > > > Are you trying to spread a little panic?
> > > >
> > > > Jerry Rehert
> > >
> >
> > ______________________________________________________
> > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
> >
>
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
|