http://www.redherring.com/insider/2000/0217/tech-microsoft021700.htmlHere's an excerpt:On the eve of one of Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT)'s most significant product introductions, a dozen venture capitalists sat around a room scratching their heads. The question before them: "Is Microsoft dead?" It wasn't a joke. The VCs, who had gathered Tuesday at a private function to discuss investing trends, had been arguing about the one stock that investors should hold for the next five years. Everyone agreed on Cisco Systems (Nasdaq: CSCO). They haggled over Amazon.com (Nasdaq: AMZN) and eBay (Nasdaq: EBAY). But the company that wrought so much havoc in the marketplace that the government took it to court wasn't mentioned. Not once.
If you bought Microsoft years ago, then i might keep it. I wouldn't buy it today..Actually, if i bought MS years ago, i'd probably sell it and buy Cisco.I could see all sorts of devices taking away from Microsoft, yet all these devices (game consoles, set-top-boxes) will all increase demand for Cisco's products.
How do set top boxes and gaming boxes increase the need for network routers and other Cisco products? I own the stock and will continue to hold. Also, I would not count out Microsoft. Buy on the dips.
jpcienkus wrote:How do set top boxes and gaming boxes increase the need for network routers and other Cisco products? I own the stock and will continue to hold. The reason that non-PC devices help Cisco is that they will all be connected to the net. In some cases (e.g. the Palm VII), the bandwidth required to service such a device is relatively small. In others (e.g. set-top boxes doing video on demand), the bandwidth required is huge. When you consider the literally billions of 3G cellular phones to be produced in the next ten years, the continued drive to push bandwidth the last mile, the growth of wireless providers like Metricom, and software technologies like Java and Jini which are making networking increasingly ubiquitous, you realize that not only are there going to be billions more devices attached to the net in 2010, but that we'll be spending more and more time using the net. All of that adds up to a need for bandwidth that makes todays networks look like childrens' toys. Who's going to supply that bandwidth? Dollars to doughnuts it's Cisco.I bought Cisco over a year ago for exactly this reason. I had just gotten a cable modem, and enjoyed the speedy connection. It wasn't hard to predict that millions of others would enjoy it as well (indeed, lots of other people were predicting that). Given that, it seemed reasonable to believe that a lot of service providers, backbone providers, and destination websites, indeed just about everybody attached to the net, would ultimately have to upgrade their networking equipment to accomodate.I can't really comment on Microsoft other than to say that I'd rather invest in Cisco.--FreeFlyingFool
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |