Slashdot Mirror
The Return of Microsoft
Remember that scene in The Return of Frankenstein where the terrified villager spots the monster, years after he's been burned alive and buried below the rubble of Victor's castle? He rushes back to town, shrieking "He's back! The monster is alive!".
"But that's impossible!," thunders the incredulous mayor. "I saw him killed with my own eyes!"
"You fool," retorts the villager. "Don't you know he can never be killed?"
Bill Gates, exposed just a year ago as a ruthless and less-than-candid corporate predator, is today the King of the Corporate Republic, the CEO of Internet, Inc. He and his company are about to launch one of the most ambitious campaigns in the history of business, one that should leave him firmly in control of the digital universe.
If everything works as planned, Microsoft software will shortly control nearly every point at which a consumer or business interacts with the Web. That puts Microsoft at the center of all computing. And soon, the company may even escape the break-up threat hanging over its head. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is expected to rule momentarily on the company's appeal, and based on the questions asked during oral arguments, the court is expected to reverse Judge Thomas P. Jackson's findings that the company illegally "tied" its browser into its operating system, and acted illegally to maintain its Windows monopoly.
This, say competitors like Sun Microsystems CEO Scott McNealy, is where we started, only more so. "It appears they're doing all over again what they did when they previously went into foul territory," McNealy told congressional investigators, according to Business Week. Microsoft's new Internet strategy is the boldest move yet, he says, to leverage the company's Windows monopoly to create a bottleneck that will constrict the Internet.
McNealy might as well be talking to himself -- the Bush administration is hardly going to curb Microsoft's new juggernaut, which can proceed unimpeded for at least four years, by which time the company may well be beyond any control, if that's not already the case.
Microsoft has transcended the economic realities of our time. Even with the NASDAQ down 9 per cent, the company's stock price has risen more than 60 per cent this year. In the quarter ending March 31, MS earned $2.45 billion on sales of $6.46 billion.
And thanks in part to a media that has utterly failed to grasp or cover well the real issues involving the soft- and hardware that governs the Net and the Web, the public has no idea that they will be spending billions for years on things they could have -- ought to have -- for free.
There are now real questions whether corporations like Microsoft, Disney, and AOL Time-Warner are vulnerable any longer to government regulation, or to any other kind of curb. Microsoft seems to have convincingly demonstrated that is is, in fact, above the law, and means to stay that way.
Even bitter critics of the government's attempt to break up Microsoft concede that Bill Gates was arrogant and dishonest in his Federal court testimony, and whatever the ultimate judicial ruling, mountains of evidence presented at the antitrust trial showed how Microsoft squelched competitors and discouraged both innovation and competition. Yet it all seems to have had no more impact on the company than a pea bouncing off an elephant, or a torch on the monster.
We saw this company humbled and carved up with our own eyes, and celebrated it's being brought down to size. Boy, were we dumb. Microsoft is stronger than ever, and, as a consequence, so is Linux and Open Source.
Just a year ago, Microsoft was so embattled -- its revenue growth had slowed to 8 per cent, Jackson had ordered the company split in half, $250 billion had vanished from the company's market value -- that Microsoft called 20,000 of its employees together at Seattle's Safeco Field. There it showed a motivational video that included scenes from a documentary about the mythic l974 title fight between George Foreman and Muhammad Ali.
But on the Net, a year might as well be a century.
So the monster isn't only alive, he's stronger than ever. It's the Microsoft Era, Part Deux.
I guess I'm confused about what exactly JK's opinion regarding OS is now--or did he merely throw in the terms as a checklist item?
.NET, and compulsory registration. If .NET fails or doesn't take off as imagined, Microsoft could be in serious poo-poo.
I think he's drawing some premature conclusions about Microsoft's imminent success. There are two major bet-the-farm strategies Microsoft has embarked upon, and they could succeed or fail to various degrees:
Regarding compulsory software registration, that's yet another case of sticking the head in the sand: large corporations like MS simply refuse to acknowledge how much of their market share is really due to full on or gray piracy. Once you will literally be forced to buy a copy of Windows and Office for EACH machine in your household, rather than just using the CDs that came with one of them, let's see how many people will still have the latest Windows and Office on all their machines. And that's not even considering the Big Brother aspect of it. I think Microsoft will get a sobering reality check within the next year or so (especially after Windows XP turns out not to be the expected cash cow).
If we are going to argue this from the open source perspective (peer reviewed methodology produces better than secret sourcecode) rather than the Free (as in freedom) software perspective (free software is about fundamental freedoms), then we will find we are playing Microsoft's game on their own terms and our arguments quickly become moot. Microsoft can and, if dubious reports are to be believed, may perhaps actually be getting their software reviewed by other professionals, peers if you will, in a source-available-under-onerous-conditions approach, with the result than Windows 2000, while still inferior to GNU/Linux/FreeBSD/etc, is vastly improved over its predicessors. The open source argument can and likely will be made moot by a little agility on Microsoft's part coupled with a tremendous amount of cash.
That does not, however, affect the underlying issue of freedom at all, which actually has much more compelling business implications. One of the major reasons my employer moved away from Sun and Microsoft products and toward free software (Linux and GNU software in particular) was not because the software was technically superior (although it was), but because we would no longer be beholden to our vendor and have dictated to us when and to what we would upgrade.
Many people do not realize just how onerous and expensive such lack of freedom is for a company. When you are developing in house software for mission critical systems and you are told "platform x will no longer be supported as of this date, port your stuff to our new platform y" this can result in deployment delays and huge amounts of money spent on hiring enough staff to get the changes made in a reasonably timely manner. The cost is very real, and very significant. By switching to Linux and GNU we enabled ourselves to deploy in-house apps in a quick and timely manner, and we upgrade when we decide we need to, not when our vendor decides to pad their bank accounts at our expense.
I will reiterate: the major cost isn't the "upgrade cost," it is the actual time, effort, and work involved in moving an entire codebase from platform x to y, and being forced to do so over and over again every two or three years at the behest of one's vendors. Whether it is Sun, Sybase, Oracle, or Microsoft doing this is irrelevant, it delays important work and sucks up valuable resources.
The freedom of free software in allowing a company to preserve its own autonomy and not be beholden to its vendors, and to have a free, competitive marketplace in which to obtain and/or provide its services (as opposed to a monopoly) is IMHO a much more potent argument that the "peer review makes free software better than proprietary software," since, as Microsoft is showing, they can at least create the perception (and, if they wish, the reality) that proprietary software can also be peer reviewed.
I think sometimes we loose sight of real value of using free software vs. proprietary alternatives: the freedom itself, and how it enables us to do business and lead our lives in a much less encumbered fashion. Technical superiority is nice, and certainly important, but even in a case where proprietary and free software are both peer reviewed and a parity in quality is achieved, the free-as-in-freedom is still preferable because of the significantly lower drain it places on a companies resources and IT personnel, and the greater flexibility and choice it affords its users.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Yeah, right.
It was once stupid that MS could dominate the OS space: "look, there's PC DOS, DR DOS, CP/M, MacOS, and eventually we'll be using some kind of UNIX". Look what happened (well, they were partially right on the UNIX thing, only they expected it in 1986, not 1996)
It was once stupid that MS could dominate the application space: "look, there's Quattro Pro, Ami Pro, WordPerfect, Lotus 123, Paradox....Netscape... all of them are BETTER than the MS alternative" Look what happened.
I don't see why the Internet could be any different. Customers are clueless. For them, the Internet is that nifty little AOL or whatever icon you click, as well as explorer.
Just my two céntimos
Hugo
This is weird. How come there is so much pro-Microsoft Astroturfing going on the early posts under this article? Initially, I get the impression that so many people have blocked Katz's stuff that all that are left are trolls and Microsoft apologists. Did I say apologists? Maybe I meant employees...
The only other time I have seen this many people come to Bill's defense is on bad days at ZDNET's Anchodesk.
As one other poster indicated, the real problem is with the corpratist system completely unchecked by government. I know that's an essential element to what Jon is saying, but, whether you consider Microsoft evil or the best thing since sliced bread MS is merely a symptom, not the disease. To see what is happening, follow the money. And that's exactly what the officials you elected are doing, following the money.
Microsoft is apparently above the law - because they can buy the law. If you own it, you have nothing to fear from it since you control it. Thanks, G. W. (Our first unelected president since Gerald Ford.)
America is changing from a Democracy/Repulic to a Corporatocracy. (And so is the world mostly) That's the real danger. If we were truly a democracy or even a republic, the officials we elected to represent us would carry out our desires and work for the benefit of the *people*, not the *corporations*. (Who, strangely enough, are "people", but not subject to the same rules that you and I are.)
I know, there are those of you who will say that the stockholders are people and they *are* the corporation. But very few stockholders have enough of those little scraps of paper to influence the direction or behavior of the corporations they have invested in. That is reserved for the rarified few who have *lots* of those little scraps of paper, and they seem to have lots of little scraps of paper, but few moral or ethical beliefs and most a desire to collect more of those little scraps of paper. The average stockholder has *absolutely* no input into the corporation they invest it.
I think I heard this somewhere before, "We must all hang together, or we will certainly hang separately." It's never been more true than today. It's too bad that it seems that today, apathy reigns supreme.
It's gonna be an interesting ride, I hope we can survive it.
War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. - George Orwell or George Bush?
Well, there is a large difference between the president or CEO or whatever his title is nowadays, Steve Ballmer, representing MSFT, calling an entire movement a cancer, in a very public announcement. Joe Schmoe, on slashdot, venting his rage against some company doesn't even compare.
One expects some measure of courtesy or honesty of one at the helm of a large entity, which Ballmer has clearly not shown by referring to linux as a cancer, and by fudding his way to create confusion between gpl/free-software/open-source.
And finally, STOP! associating everybody on slashdot as having only one mentality! We're all different people. Anti-linux articles bring out the linux defenders, anti-windows articles bring out the windows defenders, and so on such forth for everything from emacs/vi to gnome/kde to democrat/republican to tastes-great/less-filling. There is NO one slashdot ideology here, so stop assuming it! .V / _` (_-<_-<
.\_/\_/\__,_/__/__/
__ __ ____ _ ______
\ V
make world, not war
Doc Searls writes:
"Here's something else to consider: Microsoft has so rarely had worthy competition from other Big Boys that the total rounds down to zero. They had it from Novell when Craig was running strategy there (one Microsoft guy told me "he kicked our ass"), but that was back in the 80's. They had it for a few minutes from Netscape when that company creatively ubiquitized LDAP. But they never had it from Apple (which for the Jobs interregnum was more of a bad partner than a good competitor). For brief and shining quarters they had it from Borland, Lotus and WordPerfect; but all of those companies lacked the endless supply of adrenalin a company needs to stay in the game. I'm not saying those weren't valuable companies (some still are); just that they were never in the same league. Frankly, nobody is. And that isn't Microsoft's fault, any more than it was Michael Jordan's fault that nobody could take him one-on-one or Mozart's fault that he was surrounded by Salieris. As competitive companies, Microsoft is in a league of its own. If you're like the other 99% of PC users out there, the proof is right there in your pixels."
It's kinda what The Emperor calls a Fully Operational Battle Station
...man, Doc has a way with words.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Microsoft is not Satan, Hitler, Stalin, Big Brother, MegaCorp(tm), or anything of the sort. It's a software company. As of the past few years, they've actually been making pretty good software. Windows 2000 is a respectable operating system. Internet Explorer won the browser wars (because it was better, not because it was "integrated"). Sure, they ran into some trouble because they acquired a bunch of companies and were accused of being a monopoly, but that doesn't justify the puerile namecalling that we typically see in posts like this.
Talk about knee-jerk reactions.
We hang on every Microsoft-sponsered word that refers to Linux as "inferior" or "a cancer" or anything else, but then turn around and make exactly the same accusations, with just as little basis.
Nothing in the software world will change as long as people like Katz and the karma-whores continue to treat Microsoft like an evil villain; It's unrealistic, and any approach that has such flawed logic at it's core is destined to fail.
Got Rhinos?
I must admit, this one hurts.
Microsoft is not indestructable. They are powerful yes, but not indestructable. The king of the Corporate Republic? No. Gates is merely a prince. The people that control Pharmacutical companies, the oil industry and the auto makers are far more evil.
For once we need to think outside of the box. Form grass-roots advertising campaigns. Its not that expensive either. Local LUGS hold community conferences and put up some signs. BANG! Instant linux users. We have something M$oft will never have: a world-wide loyal developer/user base. Most people use M$oft because they think its the only thing there is... we need to show them otherwise! If we listen to Katz we might as well take our programs and go home.
<sarcasm> Lets take our programs and go home, M$oft has won, no way we can beat them </sarcasm>
Seriously Jon, you've had some much better articles lately but this isn't one of them
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
The "twisted hand" will be the new Gestapo-esque salute in the Microsoft era. Raise your right arm straight toward the sky. "Heil Gates!" The poor souls whose hands are not bent into the sickle-shaped Microsoft position will be easy to spot and haul away to the innovation camps.
--
What mindless, pathetic drivel. This is a new low, even for Jon Katz.
Microsoft are guilty of several dubious business practices (the OEM lockin for instance) but their core business has succeeded by a shrewd knowledge of what their customers want, a cunning marketing campaign and quality products. Yes, that's right, quality products.
The reason the Court of Appeals will reverse Judge Jackson's rulings is simple - they did not act illegally in tying IE to their operating system. Quite simply, having IE as part of the OS makes it a better product for users! What a concept!
Quite simply, we live in a capitalist system and corporations making money is good for everyone at the end of the day, as it benefits us in services from tax revenues and general growth of the economy. Without companies like Microsoft, AOL, Time-Warner and Cisco, do you really think we would be able to maintain the world dominating position we are presently in?
No.
And if Microsoft come to dominate a set of new markets (a hell of a lot less likely than it made out here), then it'll be because they've again produced what the customer wants.
Microsoft is not "above the law". How foolish. They're nothing more than one of our great success stories, a hugely visible embodiment of the American Dream.
As if we needed any more examples of the rampant excesses that the supposed "free" market has bought us in the last century (and before, as the comment about the East India Company points out).
Time and time again, we see that corporations become large enough to strangle anything even resembling free trade, and that without a strong government to regulate them, a corporate dictatorship ensues, in which a coporations control over vital commodities gives them immense power over the lives of the proletariat.
I was pleased when I saw that the DOJ had finally moved to block the excesses of Microsoft's reign of terror over the computing industry, but in this new regime Gates and co have friends in the highest of places, all to willing to let "market forces" and the "invisible hand" determine the future.
Let me tell you, the invisible hand will bloody its knuckles against the hard rock of Microsoft's monopoly, to no effect.
Only by ensuring the market is tamed by regulations and a strong government can these kinds of abuses be tamed. A free market is not an unregulated libertarian paradise, for the only freedom that gives is the freedom to abuse. In an unregulated market, it is simply a race to gain the greatest market share, followed by a systematic procession to monopoly and corporate domination.
US corporations are famous for their abuses of power, especially against countries that cannot afford the resources necessary to combat them. And with corporate frontmen like Bush in charge, you can expect to see more government operations designed to allow US corporations to "increase profitability" through the exploitation of the poor and vulnerable.
Yeah, the level of emotional tenderness around here always surprises me. There's the neverending stream of rage and hatred directed at Microsoft. They're evil! We hate them! We're going to destroy them! I mean, look at the freaking icon for Microsoft articles!
But as soon as anyone at Microsoft voices a criticism of Linux or free software, everyone turns into a bunch of traumatized crybabies. Of course, as it happens:
- The vast majority of Slashdot readers are running Windows/IE
- The editors seem to spend more time playing Windows-only games than they do with anything related to Unix
- Jon Katz, last we heard, had abandoned Linux and gone back to his Mac. I'd guess he probably wrote this rant in Word; certainly not on a free system. (Jon, since you're the one editor who actually reads comments, let me know if I'm wrong.)
It's funny that I'm one of the big MS defenders here. As it happens, I haven't touched a Windows box in months and I have far more code in any Linux distribution than any 20 Slashbots together. (16 of whom, as I said, are reading this in WIndows.) But I have no objection to using MS products when they're superior to the alternatives (MacOS IE) or simply flat-out excellent (Excel). And I can't stand the smugness, self-righteousness and outright dishonesty in the Microsoft bashing around here.In another chapter from the can-dish-it-out-but-can't-take-it-dept., I notice that the GNOME developers, who built their position in large part by an endless stream of anti-KDE FUD are now considering disabling reader comments in Gnotices. Partly because of crapflooders, mostly because they're opposed to allowing any negative messages to be expressed.
Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
However, it was a good company in its effects. It brought taxation and simple democracy to India. It breathed the first light of the west's wisdom on those dark and primitive lands.
I thought you were being sarcastic as I started reading this, but after finishing your whole post I think you mean it. The cultural imperialism you have just displayed is astonishing. Those lands weren't primitive. Many African cultures had longer, richer histories than all of western society -- I intentionally didn't use the word "civilization" there. The African cultures were described as primitive simply because they were different from that of the invading armies.
I won't bother to expand on your assumption that introducing taxation was a self-evident improvement, other than to point out that the people suddenly forced to pay the taxes to their new colonial "masters" would probably not have agreed with the assumption.
Nope, no sig
I like to hear about advances in technology and cool hacks, and not so much to hear paranoid ramblings about how the government and big business are in some grand conspiracy. Regrettably, such as is the case with this article, it seems to me that Slashdot is lately engaging too much in the latter rather than the former.
How about Slashdot split itself into two sites:
Just an idea.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.