I have looked.

High-frequency (program) traders make big investments in computing that is located as close as possible to trading floors. They employ extremely expensive programmers to write highly proprietary code to run on these machines located on prime real estate, in speed of light terms. That's exclusively a rich man's (or firm's) game. I'm hard pressed to think of any way in which such trading helps allocate capital materially better to the real economy, which is the only useful purpose of finance. It's a grand waste of talent and resources that could be put to much better use elsewhere in the economy.

Somehow, prior to high-frequency trading, the world had plenty of liquidity, extremely narrow spreads, and not any more volatility than today (and probably less). I think the (real) world will do just fine without HFT.

Centralized computing works fabulously (and inexpensively) if you've got the right infrastructure. Mainframes work.

A lot of people get that wrong about IBM. For example, IBM's software business generates more profit than its services business. IBM is simply the most successful technology solutions company for business (and government) with the most extensive vertical integration of hardware, software, and services. If you think of IBM as primarily one of those businesses, you're entirely missing their business model. Their business model is not altogether unlike Apple's -- IBM and Apple have very similar philosophies in how to succeed -- but they don't compete.

No, a consistent user interface is not going to be enough. WebOS has a consistent user interface. Microsoft has a business model problem, and that's tough to fix. Application services are becoming more Web-based (cloud-based if you prefer), and Microsoft's Internet Explorer is no longer particularly popular. It's no problem running Safari, Chrome, or Firefox, mobile or tablet, to access the Web. (In many respects it's a better experience than IE on Windows.) Microsoft doesn't control much content distribution, doesn't control the dominant application ecosystems for mobile and tablets, and hasn't extended its Office franchise much less dominated in those dominant mobile and tablet ecosystems. (And those mobile and tablet ecosystems are doing just fine without Office, thanks.) On the back end, Linux dominates in the delivery of cloud-based services, not Microsoft. There are lots of business model problems here, and they only seem to be getting worse.

Apple's machine runs Apple's software. Something else doesn't. The value is in the software (and the content), customers recognize that, and so does Wall Street. It's really quite simple. The number that Wall Street assigns to the value of a company is far, far removed from the number of gigahertz in that company's products. Apple has found multiple winning formulas in its products, while Microsoft is struggling to deliver compelling products right now.

Apple controls the dominant application and content ecosystems for both mobile and tablet devices. Nokia (especially) and RIM never accomplished that. People don't buy iPhones and iPads only because of the hardware, excellent though it is. They buy those devices for the Apple and non-Apple software solutions and content. Regardless, the only application ecosystems that are even remotely competitive to Apple's in these two device categories are Android's, not Microsoft's.

It's not about sales. It's about profit (and profit growth). Wal-Mart generates far more revenue than Microsoft, but Microsoft has a market capitalization that's currently about $30 billion higher. Wall Street is concerned about Microsoft's potential for future profit growth, and that's not wrong. For example, Microsoft is going to find it increasingly difficult to collect its high Windows taxes in light of devices such as $199 Amazon Kindle Fires running Android.

Yes, it is one big if, but it's an if for both companies. Nobody has a perfect crystal ball, but it's simply inevitable that valuations flip when one company (IBM) consistently delivers superior profit growth compared to the other (Microsoft). That's particularly true when what forward-looking information we have suggests that Microsoft's twin franchises (Windows and Office), representing the majority of Microsoft's revenues and profits, are continuing to become progressively less relevant as predominantly non-Microsoft mobile and tablet devices supported by predominantly non-Microsoft cloud services and sold at non-Microsoft prices gain marketshare.

If you believe in rational markets -- I do, if the time horizon is long enough -- the market is simply valuing the respective companies according to the net present value of their expected after-tax profit streams. (That's an oversimplification but only slightly.) Looking at profit growth, IBM has outpaced Microsoft for several years running now. If the market simply extrapolates that trend forward, at some point IBM's and Microsoft's valuations had to cross.

It's extremely difficult for a major company to sustain its business leadership after its founder leaves. IBM was fortunate they had a son at the helm who was every bit as smart as his father. After the son the company lost its way but then found a new, better path after huge, painful adjustments. That's the exception, though. Apple had a near-death experience losing Steve Jobs, but the founder returned and put Apple back on track. It'll be interesting to see what happens now that Tim Cook is in charge, but we won't know the impact for several years. Likewise, Microsoft has yet to prove it can prosper in its post-founder era, and that experiment has been running a lot longer now. True, Ballmer has been with Microsoft a long time, but he's no Bill Gates, Thomas Watson (Jr. or Sr.), Steve Jobs, or even Lou Gerstner/Sam Palmisano.

Only by subcontracting to Microsoft, and only if Microsoft was willing. Thus far Microsoft has maintained an extensive code portfolio exclusively for its own cloud offerings. Note that it's sometimes fine for a government agency to sole source a particular purchase. Sometimes there's only one viable choice. But the agency simply needs to explain why it should be sole source and not pretend the earth is flat. Google was correct here: the Department of the Interior was pretending the earth is flat.

Then the agency shouldn't put out an RFP. They should issue a purchase order, as a sole-source procurement. It's either an open bid or it isn't. If the government agency is pretending it's an open bid when it isn't, then the agency is both misrepresenting its business dealings to the public and wasting bidders' time.

Kermit, from Columbia University, was at one point the most popular file transfer program (probably). McGill University's MUSIC enjoyed success as a time sharing system. The Logo programming language originated at BBN in Cambridge, so its academic roots are a bit fuzzy, but it was at one time the most popular instructional tool in computing for children. PLATO, from the University of Illinois, became very successful and invented (or at least popularized) numerous computer-based services we now take for granted, such as online forums and instant messaging. Model 204 originated in academia and runs Australia's social security system, among other things.