The Case Against Microsoft
by John Blackford
The Creator of Windows Now Threatens Innovation
Originally published in the July 1997 issue of Computer Shopper
It must be a sign of the times. Several Web sites focus solely on critiques of Microsoft, ranging in tone from the sincere to the scatological. The recurrent complaint is that, by maintaining dominance at all costs, Microsoft impedes technological progress and free-market competition.
Typical of the genre is www.vcnet.com/bms. The site's editor/publisher Mitch Stone begins his preface "Why Boycott Microsoft?" by writing: "This effort was begun out of concern for the future of the world's high-technology industry, an industry increasingly dominated by one company and one man. It is about the impending loss of meaningful consumer choice, and the stifling effects of monopolies on innovation."
The site's quote of the day, from InfoWorld's Nicholas Petreley: "I'm not one of those who think Bill Gates is the devil. I simply suspect that if Microsoft ever met up with the devil, it wouldn't need an interpreter."
What seems to have raised alarms for such individuals is Microsoft's pull-out-all-the-stops assault on Netscape combined with its push for Windows Everywhere. It's dawned on many that success in these areas would establish Microsoft prominently in all areas of information handling--on Web browsers, wireless PDAs, enterprise servers, personal computers, and PC/TVs--even as the company moves into content distribution with MSNBC and WebTV, and content ownership with MSN, Slate, and Sidewalk.
Thus, the inevitable question arises, "Do we want Windows Everywhere?" At the risk of becoming partisan, my answer is no. In particular, I hope Microsoft fails to establish ActiveX as an alternative to the platform-independentJava virtual machine (VM), that it does not unseat Netscape Navigator as the browser of choice, and that its effort to force the merger of the operating system and Web browser does not succeed. I give my preferences low odds.
I have considerable admiration for Microsoft and Bill Gates. I do not harbor any ill will. But Microsoft's ability and willingness to control proprietary standards that span the world's computing resources is in fact dangerous, with the potential to stifle competition and encourage bloated products with long development times.
What energized me on this issue is the prospect of Microsoft's shotgun wedding of the operating system and Web browser, apparently to quash a competitor rather than to deliver better products or more choice to users. Controlling the browser by making it part of the operating system, and using ActiveX as a Windows-centric alternative to the Java component model, is slowing Windows development and increasing security risks.
The current approach is by no means new to Microsoft, which has earned a reputation for using its resources and market clout to marginalize competitors. In this case, the effort is fraught with penalties for users of information resources.
What Can Be Done?
There are three obvious ways to encourage more evenhanded behavior by Microsoft: 1. Users can ask nicely. 2. They can buy competitors' products. 3. They can urge the government to constrain Microsoft or break it into several companies.
1. Ask nicely. This approach is being tried by ZDNet AnchorDesk's Jesse Berst, who organized a petition to encourage Microsoft and Netscape to standardize Dynamic HTML, now heading toward competing versions. Taking the diplomatic approach, Berst addressed Gates and Netscape's Jim Barksdale equally, overlooking the fact that Netscape is at significant risk and dashing about like a bug evading the inevitable boot. Berst forwarded tens of thousands of petition signatures to both firms. You can make your own views known by sending e-mail to Microsoft at www.askbillg@microsoft.com.
2. Purchase competitors' products. Microsoft does respond to economic pressure, though it can be hard to apply the pressure. Because the company groups products into ever-larger assemblies--i.e., the operating system and the Microsoft Office suite--individual titles come to resemble riders attached to must-sign legislation. (Imagine the Right-to-Breathe Act of 1997. Attached rider: Use Microsoft Everywhere. All opposed, stop breathing.)
Still, around $50 ($17 if you're upgrading from Navigator) will get you Netscape Communicator 4.0. Consider the cost a subsidy for freedom of choice--your own. Similarly, it's a little-known fact that there are still many fine products not owned by Microsoft, among them Corel WordPerfect Suite and Lotus SmartSuite 97. Patronize them.
3. Urge the government to act. This can only be done indirectly, since the regulatory issues involved are handled by officials not subject to re-election. Still, communicating with your congressional representatives can't hurt. Government action may be the best hope of change, since Microsoft otherwise has little incentive to give competitors a break.
