----- Original Message ----- From: "Dwayne Monroe" <idoru345 at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:18 AM Subject: [lbo-talk] Updating the Baran/Sweezy Perspective: Microsoft et. al.
> Is anyone aware of analyses of the tech industry in
> general and Microsoft specifically which employ the
> surplus -- stagnation theory Baran and Sweezy detailed
> in "Monopoly Capital" or ideas built upon this work's
> line of reasoning but updated?
>
> ...
>
>
> This comes to mind because of the following...
>
>
> It's common knowledge amongst economically minded
> techies that Microsoft faces a serious problem.
>
> It's operating system dominates the global user
> market. It's 'productivity tools' (Word, Excel,
> Powerpoint, etc.) are the de facto office software for
> millions upon millions of people.
>
> The company appears to rule the IT world.
>
> Yet there's a problem - Microsoft's traditional
> revenue stream is mostly dependent upon enticing (or
> forcing) its vast customer base to regularly pay for
> new versions of its operating system, applications and
> service platforms (mail server, database server,
> etc.). However, customers now have less incentive
> than ever before to upgrade -- if, for example, an
> accounting firm has mastered and tweaked Windows 2000
> server and workstation and they're running fairly well
> for their office what's the business need to 'upgrade'
> to Windows XP and Server 2003 on Microsoft's schedule?
>
>
> There's even less incentive for 'upgrading' to new
> versions of the 'productivity suite', Microsoft
> Office, (in how many new ways can you type a letter?).
> There's a tremendous surplus of available product
> along with surplus productive capacity.
>
> It appears Microsoft's monopoly position has created a
> cage from which it's trying to escape through
> "software assurance" licensing agreements
> (guaranteeing income for MS from you whether you
> upgrade or not), acquisitions of competitor firms,
> insertion into transaction-based revenue streams such
> as digital media and forays into other areas of
> industry - all made possible by its mind bogglingly
> deep well of capital.
>
> It seems to me that beneath this surface of frenetic
> activity lies a stagnant core. That is, although
> there's still room for monopolist expansion, the
> midpoint of the project is a gigantic pipe funneling
> revenue in with fewer places to spend it and the
> endpoint is slow decline.
>
> Other major IT industry players may face similar
> problems in their fiefdoms.
>
>
> I'm eager to learn if anyone's done work on this
> topic.
>
>
>
> DRM
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk