What is it about Microsoft?

By Charles Cooper, CNET News.com
17 August 2004 11:45 AM
Tags: charles, cooper, redmond, microsoft, gate
commentary The Monday morning missive got right to the point:

"I find it simultaneously strange, amazing and utterly incomprehensible that your news publications continue to write business articles about Microsoft that appear to elevate and lend credibility to their organisation. It's almost as if I am reading something coming out of the Pyongyang press!"

There's no doubt that Kim Jong-il longs to direct technology coverage at CNET News.com, though I can assure one and all that neither the dear leader nor any of his comrades are in line to direct our editorial operations any time soon.

The e-mail was not altogether exceptional, when you consider how Microsoft has become a latter-day Rorschach test for people who are passionate about their technology.

But it takes on a larger context when you tally in years of Microsoft-hating feedback detailing the enormity of this single company's misdeeds.

Sociologists would need to spend years getting to a root explanation, but this much is incontestable: there's a certain something about this particular company that pushes some folks over the edge.

Microsoft-bashing was in vogue long before the US Department of Justice hauled the company into court on antitrust charges in 1998. Some trace the resentment to the storied 1976 "Open Letter to Hobbyists" in which a 21-year-old Gates publicly chastised a group of developers for pirating his software. The backlash was immediate. (Paying for software? What a whiner!)

The label stuck. In time, Gates -- and by extension, Microsoft -- came to be viewed through a different prism. Unlike other early PC entrepreneurs doing their thing to make the world a better place for humanity, Microsoft got slammed for conducting business like marauding Huns. They were without morals, they were without ethics and on top of everything else, they made lousy software.

Even the anarchists got pissed at Gates, nailing him a few years ago with a cream pie.

Microsoft has public-relations baggage that's hard to shake. And as the technology industry's most famous convicted predatory monopolist, the company will never again win the benefit of the doubt. Still, the psycho nature of the conspiracy theorists is something to behold.

So much so that even Microsoft's ostensible good deeds only serve as more fodder for trashing. Consider the company's decision to sell Windows XP to developing nations at sharp discounts and expand computer literacy programs in local markets. To be sure, there's an element of self-interest involved. But when was the last time you read about Oracle or Apple Computer doing something on the same scale?

It doesn't matter, because the wackos already uncovered evidence of Microsoft's nefarious hidden hand. Dim the lights, tune the music, and insert Bill Gates into the starring role of Ming the Merciless.

Thus we are told that Microsoft won the legendary operating-system war against IBM's OS/2 because of dirty dealing. Forget that Big Blue was utterly incompetent in marketing its software against Windows. Forget that Windows finally improved to the point where it became a better product. All that pales in comparison with the Microsoft's indelible malevolence that attends the company's business dealings. Similar ravings have informed the debates about Microsoft versus Mac or Microsoft versus Linux -- or Microsoft against anything, for that matter.

Back on Earth, I don't think there's anything wrong bringing Microsoft down a notch or two. As a charter member of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club, I've thoroughly enjoyed holding Gates Inc. up to public ridicule for poor behaviour and appallingly bad judgment. I'd still like to know why nobody in Redmond had the brains -- let alone the guts -- to stop its home science project (aka MSNBC) from hiring a knucklehead like Michael Savage.

None of that should detract from Microsoft's track record as one of the great corporate successes of this -- or any -- era. Comparing Microsoft with the likes of Enron and WorldCom speaks volumes about the relative immaturity of the computer industry. Unfortunately, I know it's only a matter of time before somebody drops me an e-mail claiming to possess proof that Gates was on the grassy knoll in 1963.

Sigh.

Talkback 6 comments

    Solutions for OS extremism #1 ...Anonymous -- 17/08/04

    Solutions for OS extremism #1
    http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=19990320

    Is it because Microsoft have b ...Anonymous -- 17/08/04

    Is it because Microsoft have been the Bastards of the IY industry since IBM lost that mantle?

    Think about it. No one is hated for no reason.

    Do you think people hate Microsoft for no reason at all? If you too had any gumption, any ethics and any sense of history, you would hate them too.

    Lont-time indistry people don't forget or forgive that easily. They aren't easily bought off like corporations are.

    Personally, I think the reason ...Anonymous -- 18/08/04

    Personally, I think the reason so many techies and the like are anti microsoft is that they just don't like the fact that it was Gates who made simple computer using available to all.

    Hello people, What is your fre ...Anonymous -- 18/08/04

    Hello people,

    What is your freaking problem with Bill Gates and Micrososft?

    Human nature - Unhappy to see other people succeed in lives? Give him a break, besides if we comapred Micrososft products and others, Microsoft is way better! Nobody forced anybody to use MS products, if you guys dont like it, use others! You have your own choice, and please, stop talking nonsense!

    I can't say that I agree with ...Anonymous -- 18/08/04

    I can't say that I agree with the idea that it is only because Bill Gates made computers useable. If that was the case, we would be against Apple - the Lisa was out way before Microsoft even thought of the word "Windows".

    Personally, the biggest issue has been Microsoft's "predatory" approach to an industry that basically started as a series of "help-each-other" hobbyists.

    Several bad experiences in this arena have soured me to Microsoft in general.

    The first is their well discussed "embrace, extend, extinguish" approach - taking a good working standard (embrace), enhancing it in some non-standard and proprietary manner and the using their market penetration to extinguish competing products that were now incompatible (although still standard compliant). Internet Explorer / IIS stands as a glaring example here with non-W3C compliant pages served up from many places causing properly standard compliant browsers grief.

    The second was (a few years ago) their approach to businesses (generally PC resellers) who did not package Windows or other Microsoft products with their product, putting logistical, economic or practical barriers in the way of their ability to freely trade.

    In Australia, anyone who has been in the IT industry for more than ten years will definitely have some horror story about what MS did to them.

    And the real problem that Bill Gates is wrestling with is that we all have long memories.

    for those who wish to know the ...Anonymous -- 18/08/04

    for those who wish to know the facts of history about OS/2 rather than assuming it, here is the true history laid out below.....

    these are court documents that have been challenged and verified by 9 separate judges...

    it is obvious what really happened from these "findings of fact" below which were upheld by all appeals...... disrespecting history, as the author has done above, only disrespects the author's own judgement.....

    117. In the summer of 1994, the IBM PC Company told Microsoft that, with respect to licensing Microsoft's operating-system products, it wanted to be quoted terms just as favorable as those extended to IBM's competitor, Compaq. It was IBM's belief that Compaq paid the lowest rate in the industry for Windows and enjoyed unparalleled marketing and technical support from Microsoft. In response to the IBM PC Company's request, Microsoft proposed that the companies enter into a "Frontline Partnership" similar to the one that existed between Microsoft and Compaq. Pursuant to that proposal, Microsoft and the IBM PC Company would perform joint sales, marketing, and development work, and the PC Company would receive future Microsoft products at the lowest rates in the industry.
    118. At the same time that it offered the IBM PC Company the rather general terms in the Frontline Partnership Agreement, Microsoft also offered the PC Company specific reductions in the royalty rate for Windows 95 if the company would focus its marketing and distribution efforts on Microsoft's new operating system. Specifically, the PC Company would receive an $8 reduction in the per-copy royalty for Windows 95 if it mentioned no other operating systems in advertisements for IBM PCs, adopted Windows 95 as the standard operating system for its employees, and ensured that it was shipping Windows 95 pre-installed on at least fifty percent of its PCs two months after the release of Windows 95. Given the volume of IBM's PC shipments, the discount would have amounted to savings of between $40 million and $48 million in one year. Of course, accepting the terms would have required IBM, as a practical matter, to abandon its own operating system, OS/2. After all, IBM would have had difficulty convincing customers to adopt its own OS/2 if the company itself had used Microsoft's Windows 95 and had featured that product to the exclusion of OS/2 in IBM PC advertisements.
    119. Representatives from IBM and Microsoft, including Bill Gates, met to discuss the relationship between their companies at an industry conference in November 1994. At that meeting, IBM informed Microsoft that, rather than enter into the Frontline Partnership with Microsoft, IBM was going to pursue an initiative it called "IBM First." Consistent with the title of the initiative, IBM would aggressively promote IBM's software products, would not promote any Microsoft products, and would pre-install OS/2 Warp on all of its PCs, including those on which it would also pre-install Windows. IBM thus rejected the terms that would have resulted in an $8 reduction in the per-copy royalty price of Windows 95.
    120. True to its word, IBM began vigorous promotion of its software products. This effort included an advertising campaign, starting in late 1994, that extolled OS/2 Warp and disparaged Windows. IBM's drive to best Microsoft in the PC software venue intensified in June 1995, when IBM reached an agreement with the Lotus Development Corporation for the acquisition of that company. As a consequence of the acquisition, IBM took ownership of the Lotus groupware product, Lotus Notes, and the Lotus SmartSuite bundle of office productivity applications. Microsoft had already identified Notes as a middleware threat, because it presented users with a common interface, and ISVs with a common set of APIs, across multiple platforms. For its part, SmartSuite competed directly with Microsoft Office. In mid-July 1995, IBM announced that it was going to make SmartSuite its primary deskt

Add your opinion

Latest Videos

Sponsored content

Power Centre - Content from our premier sponsors

Blogs

  • Brad Howarth The key Topik is always money
    One of the big problems of the internet is that is practically impossible to keep up-to-date on preferred topics. You can limit your sources, but this can mean missing a lot of valuable data.
  • Array Do we need the legislative blackmail?
    Virtually everyone in the telecommunications industry has their say in the Senate Standing Committee's public hearing into the pending legislation to split up Telstra, in this week's Twisted Wire podcast.
  • Array Give Tax a break for a Change
    Considering the circumstances the Australian Taxation Office's (ATO) Change Program has been operating in over the last few years, it really hasn't been going too badly.
  • More blogs »

Tags

Back to top

Featured