[Ilugc] [OT] problems with microsoft
- From: siva@xxxxxxxxxxx (Sivasankar Chander)
- Date: Thu Feb 3 13:27:04 2005
If one company holds control of the IT infra-structure, then it
is likely that the cost of the IT infra-structure might be
prohibitive, for the wide-spread electronic literacy.
No company holds a monopoly on the IT infrastructure, and the
possibility of Microsoft becoming that company is diminishing rapidly.
The last nail on Passport has already been hammered in, and it's
only a matter of time before .NET also follows.
Google, however, is another story. It will most probably gain a
stranglehold on both retrieval (search) as well as mail and storage.
For the moment, they aren't evil (yet).
But our electronic industry has the notorious network effect
where the first entrant can establish proprietary standards and
block competitors.
It isn't possible any longer - the last attempt was by IBM in
1987, with the PS/2 and micro-channel, which failed miserably.
There's nothing to prevent another company or group of companies
from using open (non-proprietary) standards, like Compaq and Dell
did in 1987. IBM's PC business imploded into a void (the last
remnants are being sold to a Chinese company, Lenovo, which
did not even exist in 1987), while Dell prospered at IBM's
expense.
So to promote world-wide electronic literacy affordable,
governments, individuals can join hands form a mutual fund like
thing and take over microsoft and change its direction.
You still don't get it, do you? You're suggesting that paying
off (buying out) the owners of Microsoft with a sum of $145 Billion
(a sum that's larger than the forex reserves of India) to gain
control of the company. In so doing, you're suggesting paying
them a premium of 900% to the cash reserves of the company, i.e.
pay them Rs.10 for every Rupee they hold (I'd love to do business
with you :-)).
What's to prevent the bought-out owners from taking the $145B
and starting an even more formidable monopolist than the present
Microsoft, which has only $30B in cash?
To put these numbers in perspective, some highly competitive companies
have been started with very little cash. Examples are Google, with
angel funding of $250k ($0.00025 B), Serverworks (now part of
Broadcom) with $200k ($0.0002 B) and Cisco Systems for about $50k
($0.00005 B). Some of the promoters/angels/VCs who funded the first
two companies are Indians, by the way. Thankfully, they didn't sink
any money into Microsoft, as you're suggesting.
Why don't you suggest starting many small, nimble, highly
competitive companies, like the Chinese started doing 25 years
ago, instead of taking over one hugely expensive white-elephant,
Nehru-style?
Have you heard of Huawei, ZTE and UT Starcom? Each was
started on a shoestring - I doubt that their initial capitalization
was more than $10k each. Yet each is now the technology leader in every
category they've chosen to compete in. How did they do it? Among other
things, by using open standards wherever possible - this ensured that
largest possible market for their products.
-Siva
Other related posts:
