The Ford analogy would be correct only if the purchase of the car allow
you on certain key roads and forced you to use only one brad of gas with
a funny nozzle. You could not buy the car without either.
<Microsoft's API monopoly allowed them to make mistakes and inferior
<products and not only survice, but flourish. This was an unprecedented
<advantage over ever other competitor, and continues to be so to this day
This was one of MS marketing ploys. The other was licensing.
<If Microsoft had to compete on an even playing field, I think they would
<have been a good match for Lotus, and they probably would have put Word
<Perfect to bed as well. But Borland? Geoworks? Novel? Netscape? Sun
<Next? Apple? Amiga? I think we would all have much better software and
<operating environments today if Microsoft had to compete soley on
<technical merit.
Early on MS was recognized as a language house (MSbasic, Basic compiler,
fortran, cobal...) They were good at that but applications was clearly the
market though getting tools out there was the first step.
<Too little, too late. IBM, famous for tying customers to proprietary
<systems, gave away both the PC architecure and the O/S platform.
Later on at first IBM PCs were seen as typical IBM and proprietary. This
gave rise to dos on s100 and machines like the z100.
<they own the browser market, they own the "API" (HTML, HTTP, etc.), and
<eventually they'll own the internet. I, for one, don't like that idea.
They also hold a peice of the internet backbone.
<Of course, I put all of my disposable income into Microsoft stock, becaus
<the strategy is *so* damn good. I love them as an investment, but I don'
<like the way they grab power, and most of the time, I don't like what the
<do with the power once they have it.
Reminds me of the oil industry in the early 1900s.
Allison
Received on Fri May 22 1998 - 08:48:42 BST