> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On > Behalf Of Dan Minette
... > Originally, Gate's position was a market innovation. He did indeed > determine what people were willing to pay for and produced it. I don't think Microsoft has ever really distinguished itself with invention. DOS, which launched the company as we know it today, was essentially an acquisition. Windows was a Mac knock-off on top of DOS. Bill has always focused on market share, not innovation. And that's where his success comes from, IMO. > Now, I'd > argue, Microsoft is more like the trees in a climax forest. They > foster an > environment where competitors cannot grow. Thus, innovation is stifled. Agreed, although that's not where I was headed. Corrupting standards, such as what MS tried to do to Java a while back, stifles innovation and competition, even though it appears superficially to do the opposite. The old way of thinking is that if Microsoft "innovates" with a proprietary version of Java, that means there's more competition (between MS and Sun, in this case). But the overall effect on the market is to diminish innovation by fracturing a design platform, and to diminish competition by locking people into proprietary platforms, which inevitably favors the market leader. > When a company is an economic success because it finds a practical way to > use technological innovations, then it is a worthwhile innovation and > should be recognized. When a company doesn't just competing in a market > environment that is controlled by forces outside of all competitors and > starts competing by exerting control over the market, then damage instead > of benefit is done. Further, when a company wins because it just has > better smoke and mirrors, then harm is still done, although it is far less > than if it controlled the market place. I think MS is accused of "smoke and mirrors" fairly sometimes (when they announce they'll do a standard better -- the old "embrace, extend and destroy"), but unfairly other times. The unfair accusations have more to do with customers unhappy over missing features, bugs, performance, etc. > In short, marketing can do one of three things > > 1) It can perform its legitimate function, matching technological > possibilities to needs. When it does this it improves productivity and, > thus, the true wealth of the world. > > 2) It can sell sizzle instead of steak. It adds nothing when it > does this, > but it can divert resources from those that can. There's an interesting question with a moral dimension -- is there legitimate value in persuading people to feel good about their purchases? Or should that be left entirely up to the customer? > 3) If you include the largest sense of market innovation, it can > manipulate > the marketplace to remove opportunities for productivity > improvement. This > is quite harmful. > > Dan M. > Selling the sizzle instead of the steak can be profitable, but it does not > add to pr At the IPO party for Verity, one of our investment bankers toasted our CFO, saying he was just what we needed to go with our CEO. "You've got to have steak with the sizzle," she said. Our CEO exhibited a very rare blush when he realized what she was saying. But when somebody just helped you raise many millions, I guess they have the right to call 'em as they see 'em. Or at least the ability to get away with it. Nick _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
