creator? R0R, he stole the aapl icons and transformed 'em into windows, thats all he did, maybe a creative thief, on that i sure agree.
I said "value" creator. You can't argue with that! Just look at the billions in wealth he has created for himself and his shareholders.
yeah, was just pointin' out at the fact that all he did was betray his friend steve and run with the money. nevertheless he sure is a midblowin' man, no kiddin'.
The rat is leaving the sinking ship so he can blame the demise on others. The end is in sight! MSN has failed to diversify and create some real new value added. Take in contrast Apple with the iPod. Or take Sony how they diversified from the days they had the walkman cassette recorder. Look at how bloated, delayed the new operating systems from MSN are. How they are trying to hang on to their customers by locking them in with "subscription" fees for businesses rather than a once off fee for their OS. Remember IBM, Novell? They did the same, look where that part of their business is now. And I agree on a smart cookie in business sense. He took the Japanese example and just picked out ideas from others and marketed it properly. Not the best product seems to win, just the one that is marketed better. (OS/2 was much better. OS/2 what is that?. lol) Look at Netscape, windows media player (now including screen recording that others had), anti virus & anti trojan (pay for something that should not have happened in the first place and should be included for free. Nice one - now less patches are required because the anti virus takes care off it. What a crap!) The examples are endless. Gates? yuk! Maria
This article is in Monday's IBD if you Microsoft fans are interested or nostalgic. The 'Next Microsoft:' Maybe It'll Resemble The Original In 1986 BY KEN HOOVER INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY Posted 6/23/2006 It's a line you've heard a million times when a pundit touts a stock: "It's going to be the next Microsoft." (MSFT) The best way to check that is to look at the original Microsoft when it came public in 1986. The next one will likely have similar fundamental and technical traits. At the time, Microsoft was the oldest software maker for PCs going back to 1975. Its biggest hits were PC-DOS and MS-DOS that ran on IBM-compatible computers. Windows was months away. The firm came public March 17, 1986, in an IPO described at the time as "frenzied." The co-founder, a shaggy-haired guy with big glasses, was suddenly worth $350 million. Chairman Bill Gates had been offering stock and options to new employees at a pace that would soon bring the number of shareholders to 500, the threshold for registering with the SEC. He might as well go public and reap the rewards. The market was ragged at the time. Microsoft formed a quick base 1, broke out and then failed as the market corrected. If an investor bought out of that base and was forced to sell for a small loss, the best course was to keep watching. A better opportunity would come along. Better Opportunity That arrived when the company set up in an 18-week base that corrected 27% 2. Microsoft's fundamentals were stellar. In the four quarters prior to the stock's breakout, earnings rose 53%, 77%, 14% and 75%. Sales were up 35%, 36%, 24% and 68%. The five-year earnings growth rate was 99%. The Earnings Per Share Rating was 98. The Relative Price Strength Rating was 80. The 50-day ratio of up to down volume was 2.4. The return on equity was 40%. Mutual funds owned 2% of the float, but many holdings weren't yet reported since it was a new issue. Gates owned 45% of outstanding shares. The float was only about a fifth of the total shares. In new issues, check the underwriter. Microsoft was brought public by a syndicate headed by Goldman Sachs. The top underwriters tend to get the top IPOs. The stock broke out Oct. 10, 1986, on volume that was 286% above average 3. An aggressive investor could have been accumulating a position during the previous few days while volume was building. Microsoft shot higher. It paused between Thanksgiving and New Year's to build a five-week flat base 4. Then came the powerful rally that began with the first trading day of 1987. The breakout from that base was an excellent time to add to a position or take a new one if you missed the first one. Microsoft stayed comfortably above its 10-week moving average line until May. The week of May 8, 1987, 5 was the biggest point spread of the entire advance, with the stock up better than 20%. The week of Jan. 9 was slightly bigger, but that was the week the stock broke out of the flat base 6. It should also be noticed that during the week of May 8 the stock accelerated its advance compared with previous weeks. That constitutes a climax run. The stock should be sold. Microsoft then set up in a new base that lasted 19 weeks and corrected 31% 7. It broke out Sept. 24, 1987, on volume 45% above average 8. The volume was a bit light for a good breakout. Otherwise, the base was fine. There was nothing wrong with Microsoft. But there was something wrong with the market. It was heading straight down into the Oct. 19 crash, taking good companies down with the bad. Microsoft was dead money until the end of 1989 when it started another big move up.
I've done the research and I um, happen to work there. I don't see many visionaries in management, and even fewer who are effective at making anything at all happen. I stopped holding the stock almost two years ago and see no reason to change that. But I wish you the best of luck as I'll continue to flip my espp the day I get it for the free 10%. PS. If you want a good feel for how the insiders feel try this blog http://minimsft.blogspot.com
So you work there, have done the research, but don't believe that Ray Ozzie or Craig Mundie are visionaries in their own right? Either you have no clue, or you don't work there. So you continue to work for a company whose stock you don't want to own, and believe that the people running it are not visionaries, or that it's managers aren't effective? Your credibility is going down fast. Luck plays no role in my trading. I don't want to hear what anyone else says because all that information is already in the stock and in the chart, and most of it is jibberish anyway. So stay away from the markets if that is the way you make your investment or gawd forbid your trading decisions. nitro