Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
No. of Recommendations: 0
http://www.redherring.com/insider/2000/0217/tech-microsoft021700.html

Here'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.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
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.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
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.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
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
Print the post Back To Top
Advertisement