Microsoft's 12-Step Program

NevarMore writes to tell us eWeek is reporting that Microsoft, after almost 30 years of Windows, now has 12 philosophical tenets outlining Windows development. From the article: "Smith said the principles largely come from things Microsoft picked up in the consent decree the software giant signed in settling its landmark antitrust battle with the federal government, but that more recent developments led to the crafting of some of the other principles. The 12 principles are based on three main areas: choice for computer manufacturers and customers, opportunities for developers, and interoperability for users, Smith said."

Comments

Let me guess

[KDR_11k]

The 12 principles are based on three main areas: choice for computer manufacturers and customers, opportunities for developers, and interoperability for users

They are twelve ways to deny all of those?

Re:Let me guess

[Doug Merritt]

They are twelve ways to deny all of those?

Pathetic, isn't it? I had expected to see a list of issues like, perhaps

• Huge and bloated is beautiful
• Ship a prototype as soon as possible
• Embrace captive user interfaces
• Write programs that do thousands of unrelated things
• Write programs that don't particularly work together
• Write programs that handle lots of proprietary data formats, but not text streams
• (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_philosophy)

Instead their list of "philosophies" is more like

• Don't poison the customer
• Don't shoot the customer
• Don't bomb the distributor
• Don't ignore direct orders from the court

etc. Unbelievable.

Re:Let me guess

[Dolda2000]

They are twelve ways to deny all of those?

Not too far from it, from what I can see:

10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows. To facilitate this, Microsoft will document protocols supported in Windows as part of the product design process. We will also work closely with firms with particular needs to address interoperability scenarios that may require licensing of other protocols.

11. Availability of Microsoft patents. Microsoft will generally license patents on its operating system inventions (other than those that differentiate the appearance of Microsoft's products) on fair and reasonable terms so long as licensees respect Microsoft's intellectual property rights.

(From Microsoft's site)
So in other words, it's a no-go for free software.

I also found the 12th point interesting:

12. Standards. Microsoft is committed to supporting a wide range of industry standards in Windows that developers can use to build interoperable products. Microsoft is committed to contributing to industry standard bodies as well as working to establish standards via ad hoc relationships with others in the industry.

What a commitment! I think I can pretty much count all the open standards that Microsoft can be said to be committed to support on one hand: the IP stack, DNS and HTTP. Even their FTP implementation is half-assed, to say the least (considering how one cannot get out of the initial cwd), and I doubt anyone would argue that Microsoft actually "supports" any of the web standards (that is, if one isn't viewing support of the version of 10 years ago as a "commitment").

The second sentence is interesting in its own right. I, for one, cannot interpret it to mean anything but inventing their own, new standard instead of the ones that already exist and work. "[W]orking to establish standards via ad hoc relationships with others in the industry" doesn't even need a comment...

All the other tenets were pretty well summed up by another poster as "don't poison the customer", "don't shoot the customer", "don't bomb the distributor" and "don't ignore direct orders from a court of law". They are probably reserving the rights to boiling the customer, burying the distributor alive and following order from a court of law at their own pace, however.

Re:Let me guess

[Fred_A]

The second sentence is interesting in its own right. I, for one, cannot interpret it to mean anything but inventing their own, new standard instead of the ones that already exist and work.

A good recent example of this is the Multimedia Transfer Protocol (aka MTP) which is currently being pushed towards all the media player makers. Granted, there aren't really any such protocols that are really open. So everyone (well, Apple and MS currently, others don't seem to use any rich protocol, just mass storage fils transfers) is apparently building his own and pushing it to the market.

The MTP is an extended version of the PTP (the Picture Transfer Protocol) which wasn't much used since there wasn't many advantages compared to basic mass storage tranfer (which had the added bonus of working everywhere). With the more complex media players there is arguably a need for a more elaborate protocol. Whether the MTP fits the bill and whether it's open enough to be legaly used outside of the MS platforms remains to be seen (note that the libMTP project lets you fairly easily use MTP devices on pretty much anything)

Re:Let me guess

[Neoncow]

I took a look at that Unix Philosophy article and noticed that it links to an intriguing related philosophy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better. I believe Microsoft is following this one.

Quoth the link:

As long as the initial program is basically good, it is easier to port to new machines and situations, and will take much less time and effort to implement initially. Thus, its use will spread rapidly, long before a program developed using the "MIT approach" has a chance to be developed and deployed. Once it has spread, there will be pressure to improve it by improving its functionality, but users have already been conditioned to accept worse than the "right thing". "Therefore, the worse-is-better software first will gain acceptance, second will condition its users to expect less, and third will be improved to a point that is almost the right thing.

(Just replace the bit about "porting to new machines" with "attracting new users")

Microsoft has permanently stuck themselves between steps two and three.

Re:Let me guess

[hey!]

Well, remember this guy is not an engineer or PR flack. He's Microsoft's lawyer. He's basically saying that Microsoft will obey the law as the court has established applies in their case. Which of course is his job -- not only from a public standpoint, but from what his role in the company is. "IP" companies aside, the reason you have lawyers is to tell you what you need to do to stay out of trouble.

I expect this is his sincere viewpoint. And I would not be so dismissive of this viewpoint. All the technical ills of Microsoft's products are not unrelated to their illegal behavior as regards to their monopolistic power.

This relationship is the reason for the core philosophy of the laws that restrain monpolist power: promote competition. The holder of a legally obtained monopoly can enjoy the fruits of that monopoly, but he cannot use that monopoly to evade competition. He can't use it to prevent new competition from emerging in his monopoly areas, he can't use it to prevent structural changes in the market which may reorganize his monopoly out of existence, he can't use it to undermine competition in other market areas which are competitive.

Companies, even countries, can't really do more than one non-routine thing at once. They cannot put their energies into innovation and improvements, and at the same time turn their products into an interlocking mechnism to keep out and to undermine competition. As long as Microsoft's products are a vehicle for exercising, maintaining and extending Microsoft's monopoly power, they'll never be very good.

So, with respect to Microsoft's products and their future quality, the decision to abide by the law is much more significant than any technological or architectural strategy. It means they are agreeing to be subjected to competition.

Re:Let me guess

[j79zlr]

10. Communications protocols. Microsoft will make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols that it has built into Windows and that are used to facilitate communication with server versions of Windows. To facilitate this, Microsoft will document protocols supported in Windows as part of the product design process. We will also work closely with firms with particular needs to address interoperability scenarios that may require licensing of other protocols.

How can they say this, when they are getting sued for not complying exactly to this by the EU?

Re:Let me guess

[KDR_11k]

Because they hope that saying "we're working on it" will delay the court's realization that they aren't. It worked, the courts didn't notice for over a year. Too bad for MS they decided to make the fine retroactive.

Re:Let me guess

[Dolda2000]

Actually, they are complying exactly to that, and that's why they're getting fined by the EU. Microsoft claims to "...make available, on commercially reasonable terms, all of the communications protocols..." (emph. mine), and the EU saw through that to mean the free software was excluded. Thus, they told Microsoft it wasn't good enough.

Re:Let me guess

[roesti]

I think I can pretty much count all the open standards that Microsoft can be said to be committed to support on one hand: the IP stack, DNS and HTTP.

I wouldn't even count HTTP.

Re:Let me guess

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, the ABM crowd seems to be reaching when you have to pull NT 4.0 out of the attic to show just how bad MS is.

Re: Let me guess

[gidds]

I think they're actually on the right lines here.

Yes, MS produces some crap software, but that's not the real problem. If that were all, then users would be free to choose other software, and the free market would decide; MS would either learn to produce genuinely better software, or lose customers.

The real problem has always been MS's unfair business practices: their tying of one market to another, their embracing and extending of formats and protocols, their strongarming suppliers into not providing any alternatives, and so on and so on. Fix THOSE, and the rest will sort itself out.

If these 12 steps actually address those, then they're a Good Thing(TM). (How far MS will actually act on them is another matter entirely, of course, but they might at least be using the right words.

I got my hopes up!

[Enderandrew]

Damn misleading headlines! I thought this was a 12-step plan to recover from using Microsoft products!

With the belief in a higher power (Linus) you too can break free from Microsoft dependence!

Re:I got my hopes up!

[KwKSilver]

Linus .... Don't you mean apt-get? Pagan!

Re:I got my hopes up!

[Jesus_666]

I thought it was a 12-step plan to world domination, but then again, Bungie already has a 7-step plan for that and they work for Microsoft.

Re:I got my hopes up!

[jellomizer]

Apt-Get only workes for Free Software. If you need a comerical App chances are slim you can Apt-Get it.

Re:I got my hopes up!

[marcosdumay]

Step 1 - Download Knoppix.

Step 2 - Burn it into a CD.

Step 2 - Boot the computer with the Knoppix CD.

Step 4 - Locate KPatience at the 'games' menu.

Step 5 - Learn how to play some other 3 kinds of patience.

Step 6 - There is no step 6. No Windows user will ever take that CD out of the driver again. But you may want to buy a new driver...

Re:I got my hopes up!

[hackstraw]

Damn misleading headlines! I thought this was a 12-step plan to recover from using Microsoft products!

1) We admitted we were powerless over competition, laws, and other people - that everyone's lives had become unmanageable without our software.

2) Came to believe that trying harder would perpetuate the insanity.

3) Made a decision to turn our back on God as we understood him.

4) Made a searching and scary inventory of our competition.

5) Admitted to God to ourselves and to the human race where the competition was wrong.

6) Were entirely ready to eliminate said competition.

7) Proudly asked the world, "Where do you want to go today?"

8) Made a list of how all competition has hurt us and became willing to defeat them all.

9) Bought, FUDed, or destroyed all competition wherever possible except when to do so would benefit them, ourselves, or anybody else.

10) Continued to take the competition's inventory, and when they were wrong, promptly admitted it.

11) Sought through Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to improve our bottom line.

12) Having taken over the world and eliminated all possibilities of competition and well-being, we tried to keep up the good work, but succumbed to our own greed and stagnation.

Actions Speak Louder Than Words...

[the.metric]

...need I say more?

Re:Actions Speak Louder Than Words...

[mrbobjoe]

...need I say more?

No, but you need to say it louder

Re:Actions Speak Louder Than Words...

[AndreiK]

...need I say more? No, but you need to say it louder

NEED I SAY MORE?

Re:Actions Speak Louder Than Words...

[orty78]

What is it you're saying?

AA

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess the government realised they are drunk with power and have been forced to attend AA meetings!

Re:AA

[eosp]

They already attend **AA meetings.

An /. is going to...

[matt4077]

post 12 posts on these 12 tennets?

Re:An /. is going to...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the 12th day of christmas my robotic love slave gave to me:
12 worthless copies of
12 stupid tennets
ALL ON SLASHDOT!

Re:An /. is going to...

[Anonymous Coward]

post 12 posts on these 12 tennets?

Using my math that makes it 24 posts.

Re:An /. is going to...

[arachnoprobe]

No. This is not Apple-related stuff. Then we would have 12 posts for each of the twelcve tennets...

Re:An /. is going to...

[sharkey]

Twice.


At least.

Re:An /. is going to...

[Anonymous Coward]

12 x 12 = 144

Re:An /. is going to...

[Anonymous Coward]

12 x 1 = 12

"These tenets" is one object.

If the OP had said "each tenet," you'd be right, but instead you're just a retard.

30 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows hasn't been around since 1976, has it? According to this find FortuneCity website, it was announced in 1983, which would make it 23 years old. I doubt a 23-year-old person would consider themselves 'almost' 30 years old!

PS - The one-page version of the article can be found at http://www.eweek.com/print_article2/0,1217,a=18381 8,00.asp

Re:30 years?

[Enderandrew]

I believe it is Microsoft that is nearing 30 years, not Windows. Here lies the problem with the internet. Many sites just propogate links to other people's articles, like Slashdot does. If the first person doesn't fact check, then no one down the line does. They just pass erroneous information on.

Re:30 years?

[dingen]

I believe it is Microsoft that is nearing 30 years

Their 30th anniversary was last year. Microsoft was founded in April 1975.

Re:30 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the link:

The following is the installation and boot-up sequence for the first release version of perhaps the most important software currently in the world: Microsoft Windows. We would like to thank the University of New Mexico, Department of Pharmacology for these donations.

Why does this remind me of the dude on the playground going "yo kid, check this out, you should try this, here I will give you the first one".

Re:30 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

The BOFHs and PHBs at EWeek seem to disallow direct linkage to print-friendly formats!

So that people using lynx and w3c can read the article without trouble, here it is (notice how short their paragaphs are!):

Microsoft Establishes 12 Principles for Windows Development
July 19, 2006
By Darryl K. Taft
WASHINGTON--Microsoft has announced 12 principles by which the company will guide its development of the Windows desktop platform, starting with Windows Vista and beyond.

At a New America Foundation Policy Luncheon at the National Press Club here, Brad Smith, Microsoft's senior vice president and general counsel, outlined the principles and discussed lessons Microsoft has learned over the past 10 years based on antitrust battles, regulatory scrutiny and fierce competition in the operating system and software market in general.
ADVERTISEMENT

Smith said the principles largely come from things Microsoft picked up in the consent decree the software giant signed in settling its landmark antitrust battle with the federal government, but that more recent developments led to the crafting of some of the other principles.

RELATED LINKS

* Microsoft Offers to Share Windows Protocols Past Deadline
* Microsoft Asks U.S. to Intervene in Europe
* Lawsuit Labels Windows Genuine Advantage as Spyware
* Microsoft Bows to Pressure to Interoperate with ODF
* Microsoft Stays Mum on Plans for Windows, WinFS

The 12 principles are based on three main areas: choice for computer manufacturers and customers, opportunities for developers, and interoperability for users, Smith said.

"These principles are 12 tenets to govern and guide the development of Microsoft Windows," Smith said.

Microsoft adopted a set of philosophies that led to the crafting of the principles, he said.

One was the recognition that operating systems evolve over time and that the addition of new functionality to an operating system makes life easier for developers.

And, while the U.S. antitrust ruling recognizes that innovation in all forms is to be encouraged, it should not stifle competition, Smith said.

"We've seen over the last five years steady improvement to audio and video playback in Windows, but at the same time we've seen phenomenal success by others," Smith said, noting that Apple with its iPod technology is an example of this.

Meanwhile, Smith said that beyond the new principles. "We've have nearly five years of experience under the U.S. consent decree, and the one thing we've learned the importance of is humility..."

Ted Halstead, president and chief executive of the New America Foundation, who also served as host of the event, said, "This is a real, historic turning point, not only for Microsoft, but for the industry as a whole."

Next Page: The new principles.

The first principle goes to the installation of any software.

"We will ensure that Microsoft will design Windows in ways that make it easy for people to add non-Microsoft features," Smith said.

No. 2 is easy access: Computer manufacturers are free to add icons, shortcuts and the like to the Windows Start menu and other places used to access software programs so that customers can easily find them, Microsoft said.

No. 3 is defaults: Computer manufacturers are free to add icons, shortcuts and the like to the Windows Start menu and other places used to access software programs so that customers can easily find them.

No. 4 is exclusive promotion of non-Microsoft programs, Smith said.

"This is an important new issue in regard to things like media and Internet search, as we are broadening to adopt this for Internet search as well," he said, indicating that Microsoft's fierce competition with Google aside, the company is dedicated to this principle.

Guru Jakob Nielsen offers advice on designing applicat

Re:30 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

philosophy PhD:s currently being gainfully employed

So what you're saying is the 'currently' (assuming you meant "'", not ":") of the philosophy doctor of philosophy is being gainfully employed.

Just for the record, PhD -> Doctor of Philosophy

Re:30 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI:
According to http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/inside_ms.mspx
1975 Microsoft founded
Jan. 1, 1979 Microsoft moves from Albuquerque, New Mexico to Bellevue, Washington
June 25, 1981 Microsoft incorporates
Aug. 12, 1981 IBM introduces its personal computer with Microsoft's 16-bit operating system, MS-DOS 1.0
Feb. 26, 1986 Microsoft moves to corporate campus in Redmond, Washington
March 13, 1986 Microsoft stock goes public
Aug. 1, 1989 Microsoft introduces earliest version of Office suite of productivity applications
May 22, 1990 Microsoft launches Windows 3.0

Re:30 years?

[SnakeEater251]

...no wonder Vista is four years late already.

So what you're saying is that Vista was supposed to be released right around the time XP was released? If I remember correctly, XP was released in late '01, or in '02... Four years ago.

Re:30 years?

[JanneM]

Just for the record, PhD -> Doctor of Philosophy

I know. I have one. But people studying philosophy are far from the only ones getting a PhD; anybody in the sciences and many other subjects likewise get a PhD. The name is a throwback to a time where anything that wasn't religion, law or medicine by definition was "philosophy". So do differentiate the degree you add the subject you studied - did you write your thesis on a class of partial differential equations, the mating habits of the garden slug, on 14th century altar paintings in Westphalen or on the idea of self? So you say you have a "PhD in X" where X is the subject you actually pursued, whether mathematics, physics, art history or, indeed, theoretical philosophy.

Re:30 years?

[aduzik]

As someone whose 23rd birthday is next week, I can tell you in all honesty there are times when I do feel almost 30. But no, most of the time I feel, and behave, a lot more like a 12 year old. Just like Windows.

Re:30 years?

[smash]

I think the 30 years is in reference to Microsoft's development history, not Windows' development history.

MS started in 1975 (from memory), so the ~30 years would be dead accurate in that case...

In any case, Microsoft's backstabbing tactics pre-date Windows...

Their choice of principles eh?

[also-rr]

Principle No. 6 deals with APIs. Microsoft provides the developer community with a broad range of innovative operating system services, via documented APIs (application programming interfaces), for use in developing state-of-the-art applications.

If they do it fast enough they might even manage to avoid getting fined another $1bn by the EU.

Re:Their choice of principles eh?

[knipknap]

Of course, the documentation is pointless by now. In the future they will simply make sure to add some patented mechanisms into each API instead, and/or license the documentation in a way that shuts out developers of free software.

Re:Their choice of principles eh?

[Antique Geekmeister]

You have a good point. We've seen exactly this sort of attempt with the XML aspects of WinFS, with their modifications of Kerberos, and in their attempt to extend SPF with their SenderID system.

Fortunately, WinFS has finally been cancelled, Kerberos has been extended by MIT's authors to work around Microsoft's mistaken "extension", and fortunately or unfortunately SPF has basically been rejected due to the licensing problems Microsoft's "exteionsion" created.

36 Tenets?

[ozmanjusri]

So does that make 36 tenets in total?
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/0 7/20/2047250
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/217 218&tid=109

OK, nice philosophy. When's the release date?

[Godwin O'Hitler]

When do these 12 principles take effect?
Surely they're not implying they're already in operation.

Re:OK, nice philosophy. When's the release date?

[GoulDuck]

When do these 12 principles take effect?
From the article:

WASHINGTON--Microsoft has announced 12 principles by which the company will guide its development of the Windows desktop platform, starting with Windows Vista and beyond.

Re:OK, nice philosophy. When's the release date?

[Barny]

Personally, i will wait for "the 12 principles" SP1 before i start to believe them, as, i am sure, would everyone :P

funny

[Anonymous Coward]

but in 76 m$ didn't yet think of msdos in reality and was just short of getting that contract from ibm, windows is around for just a bit over 20 years now ...

quick check (i love wikipedia ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS-DOS#History ) ... 1980 was the year for the development of qdos, so pls even if you need to advertise this crap, do it with a bit of truth at least and not so directly....

Inspired by Alabama 3?

[bateleur]

Oh really? They have a 12 Step Plan?

They sound like a reform plan

[DeadSea]

The list could be titled: Twelve ways to avoid being a monopoly or Twelve ways to avoid pissing off customers and third party developers.

If Microsoft really takes these twelve items to heart, it could be a big shift for them. It would certainly go a long way to change my perception of the company. I might even consider using Windows again at some point.

The cynic in me says that something is forcing them to say this and that they possibly don't really mean it. The options seem like:

1. The anti-trust litigation is finally changing them
2. Competition from Apple and Linux has them over a barrel
3. They want good publicity and they don't really mean it.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[NexFlamma]

I realize this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but no one ever considers the idea that maybe Microsoft is trying to actually change it's old business practices.

Now, don't get me wrong, they're still in it for the money, and they'll never be Google, but is it entirely unfathomable that maybe Microsoft is trying to better the state of computer software as a whole? Many reasons could be cited as to why this would be a useful move for them in the long run, and I don't think that we should just automatically assume that their every action is designed to round up souls for them to harvest.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[Enderandrew]

Bill Gates went from being a buy who publicly said he didn't believe in charity to being Time's Man of the Year.

People can in fact change.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[Rakshasa Taisab]

As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[antifoidulus]

No, not really. I'm not a Microsoft basher(not lack of use of a $ or their stock symbol), but Bill Gates has imagined himself a modern day Andrew Carnegie for a while(I recall seeing a program about 10 years ago that featured him talking about how much he admired Carnegie). It's ego-mania in the form of charity, thats all.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[Opportunist]

Who cares? If he wants his ego stroked to help those who need it, so be it.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[ozmanjusri]

no one ever considers the idea that maybe Microsoft is trying to actually change it's old business practices.

Maybe they are, but you wouldn't know it from these "commandments".

Numbers 1-4 are already a fait accompli from a technical point of view. There's been nothing to stop OEMs or customers from adding their own software as defaults to any version of Windows, apart from Microsoft's shady business practices. Maybe Vista will make the process simpler, but complexity was never what stopped the Dell/Gateway/Toshiba etc of the world from changing defaults.

Numbers five and six are significant, if they happen and are not bypassed in practice, but it's really just Microsoft saying "We're not going to keep breaking the law."

Number seven and eight are non-sequiturs. Were they ever planning to incorporate Windows Live into their OS? Given the security implications, it would be an insane thing to do - so maybe they were... And what about not blocking access to non-MS websites? Gee, thanks guys. I'm glad you've decided to let us keep our Slashdot. Seriously, what the hell were they planning to do that would make it necessary to make that a core tenet?

Nine, they're saying they'll stop breaking the law again.

Ten and eleven are sneaky. They'll license communications protocols and patents "on commercially reasonable terms". Given the extremely flexible nature to the term "reasonable" you can pretty much bet they'll use the licensing terms to block all real competitors, particularly FOSS.

Number twelve, well we've seen from their behavior with ODF that Microsoft is committed to standards, as long as they're their own, and as long as they can retract the compliance if it gets in the way of their format lockin in the future.

All in all, there's a lot implied by the tenets, but the only ones which actually commit Microsoft to any changes are the ones required by law. The rest are carefully phrased to allow plausible deniability. Note also that they've said nothing about their key lockin tool - file formats. If Microsoft were serious about fair play they'd commit, in a legally binding way, to maintain fully open protocols, formats and APIs. They have not done so, so these "tenets" are nothing more than yet more spin and misdirection.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[NexFlamma]

Numbers 1-4 are already a fait accompli from a technical point of view. There's been nothing to stop OEMs or customers from adding their own software as defaults to any version of Windows, apart from Microsoft's shady business practices. Maybe Vista will make the process simpler, but complexity was never what stopped the Dell/Gateway/Toshiba etc of the world from changing defaults.

I agree with you, there is nothing stopping people from switching, except the fact that people simply didn't realize there was any alternative due to Microsoft's marketing/software tactics. Maybe I'm being too optimistic here, but I'm seeing Microsoft actually recognizing alternatives here. Sure, they aren't saying that the average person would benefit from them (and, realistically, most average people wouldn't! As much as OSS software is useful and solid, it's simply not as user friendly, familiar or widely supported as Microsoft's stuff is), but they are recognizing the fact that they exist.

It's a small step forward, but it is a step.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[NexFlamma]

Adding tags at 6:27AM is a bad idea, kids.

Friends dont let friends drink and post.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[NexFlamma]

Agreed.

But must we automatically condemn everything they do as an act of a despotic, evil dictator?

Did Bill come to anyone's house this morning and kick your puppy?

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[roystgnr]

If Microsoft really takes these twelve items to heart, it could be a big shift for them.

Absolutely. It'll be just like when Gates announced "Trustworthy Computing" and made security Microsoft's top priority in 2002, and then their products stopped being insecure.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[asuffield]

I realize this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but no one ever considers the idea that maybe Microsoft is trying to actually change it's old business practices.

I don't believe that anybody has ever changed their business practices with a press release. Neither have they done it with a list of a dozen trite platitudes.

Changing a culture just isn't that easy.

(Decide for yourself whether the MS leadership is aware of this or not, which is equivalent to saying whether this is just PR noise)

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[Dan Ost]

Given their past history, taking their words at face value is not an option.
However, we will watch them closely to see if their actions provide any
compelling evidence of a change of heart.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[cmarkn]

But must we automatically condemn everything they do as an act of a despotic, evil dictator?

They have a well established pattern of evil. It would be stupid to expect them to change without having seen evidence of change. Even if this is a genuine change, I say "show me. Then show me a pattern demonstrating change."
They have said before they would obey the law. They still haven't done it.

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[kimvette]

I realize this is going to be an unpopular opinion here, but no one ever considers the idea that maybe Microsoft is trying to actually change it's old business practices.

Let's see:

  - did they stop their get the fud campaign?
  - did they quit redefining "downtime" in their TCO comparisons?
  - did they disctontinue the "genuine advantage" spyware program and provide uninstallers?
  - are they opening up the document formats and protocols for interoperability?
  - Are they offering their WMA codecs and/or publishing specs for interoperability?
  - Are they implementing a de-activation feature for easy transfer of software (including resale of old/retired software to other people)?

Re:They sound like a reform plan

[Anonymous Coward]

As much as OSS software is useful and solid, it's simply not as user friendly, familiar or widely supported as Microsoft's stuff is

Couldn't resist the astroturf hey? A good example of Microsoft ethics in action!

That's eleven more than I knew about

[Archtech]

Hmm, having followed Microsoft's activities closely for the past 20 years, I had come to the conclusion that the Windows operation was guided by one principle. In its entirety, it reads as follows:

MAXIMIZE REVENUE

Analysis of Microsoft's behavior and the characteristics of Windows shows them to be fully and satisfactorily explained by this one hypothetical mandate.

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[jacksonj04]

Congratulations! You've grasped the core principles of Business 101.

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[bec1948]

MAXIMIZE REVENUE
Good guess. As someone else said, "Business 101"
Actually, in my discussions with Microsoft folks over the past couple of years, one concept has grown in importance. One that summarizes the 12 points - "Play nice with others"
There has been a growing recognition within Microsoft that they can't always win and the can't win every contest. But in those areas where they want to compete and eventually and hopefully win, if they can't win out of the box, they better play fair with the other kids or they won't be allowed to play. Microsoft can't take the ball, go home and sulk.
Winning in every contest is still a driving force at Microsoft. It should remain so, as it should for every business. Regardless of other factors, including the need to collaborate with competitors to provide complete technology solutions, it's a business imperative to want to win every deal and demolish the competition. OTOH, the best thing for every business is strong competitors who drive you to improve.
The worst case is what's happened to the US auto industry. For over a half century, Chrysler, Ford and GM really didn't compete on product. They competed for market share with products that were nearly identical - differentiating themselves by flash and marketing and price points rather than innovation and technological advancement. When macro-economic forces (oil shock of the 70's) awakened the US public to other possibilities, the innovative Japanese companies made their move and as we know the landscape changed completely. That the US makers still haven't figured it out shows how hard it is to actually compete. (This is a vast over simplification, intended to illustrate the value of true competition.)
What we're seeing now is the maturing of the PC industry. While Microsoft dominates as the OS platform (and Apple won the interface war - CLI vs. GUI), and X86 has won the processor wars (at least for the present - who knows what will emerge in the future?), desktop Linux (in several flavors) and Mac OS are both making their presence felt and are not considered as serious or worthwhile alternative choices for many more instances that even two years ago. Open Office/Star Office and web hosted apps are now considered viable alternatives to MS Office. FireFox (and Opera and Safari) are considered valid browser alternatives. Do these competitors have gigantic market shares, threatening the hegemon? No. But the obvious quality and utility of these and dozens of other examples has forces Microsoft (and Cisco and IBM and Oracle and any other major vendor faced with similar competition) to improve their products, their services and support, their marketing and sales methods and pricing and their willingness to "interoperate" with their competitors.
Microsoft, and all the major vendors, always PR that they're goal is to take care of their customers. At this moment in history, the way to do that is to; collaborate, interoperate, play nice with others. And the result of this supposed new go to market strategy is, as it should be:
MAXIMIZE REVENUE

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[Hurricane78]

And that's also why the world will go down.
If you not KILL all your concurrents, you will damage your business.
And because there's always someone who is more interested in maximising his revenue, this one will kill YOU.
So "natural selection" will always chose the one with the least scruples.

That's, what's wrong with our economy...

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[Pfhreakaz0id]

I'm sorry, but this is, without a doubt, the stupidest post I've ever seen on slashdot (and I've been reading a long time). That's the guiding principle of EVERY COMPANY EVER. It's so much a guiding principle that it isn't even bothered to be said. Of COURSE they are trying to maximize revenue.

Honestly, they are a public company. If their CEO came out and said "Maximizing revenue isn't our #1 goal" he would be (rightly) fired by the board of directors. If the board refuses to fire him, they would (rightly) be voted out at the next stockholders meeting or the everyone would (rightly) sell the stock and it would tank.

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[pedalman]

Honestly, they are a public company. If their CEO came out and said "Maximizing revenue isn't our #1 goal" he would be (rightly) fired by the board of directors. If the board refuses to fire him, they would (rightly) be voted out at the next stockholders meeting or the everyone would (rightly) sell the stock and it would tank.

Pfffttt!!! You give WAY too much credit to stockholders.

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[ortholattice]

I'm sorry, but this is, without a doubt, the stupidest post I've ever seen on slashdot (and I've been reading a long time). That's the guiding principle of EVERY COMPANY EVER. It's so much a guiding principle that it isn't even bothered to be said. Of COURSE they are trying to maximize revenue.

The guiding principle of every company ever (including Microsoft) is to maximize profit. For most companies, this is not same as maximizing revenue, because their products are physical objects that typically require a significant amount of labor and materials to produce. They could maximize revenue by selling at a loss, since everyone would flock to them instead of their competitors, but they would eventually go out of business. In the long term, that is certainly not in the shareholders' best interest.

A key difference in Microsoft's case is that their products cost essentially nothing to produce. So once their R&D costs are recouped, it is truly a case of revenues = profits. All that counts is maximizing price times units sold.

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[lowe0]

While you're far closer to the reality of business than the parent, you're still one off. While some businesses choose to make decisions that maximize profit, that's a short-sighted view. The long view would be to make decisions that maximize the value of the company, which is what the shareholders care about (or at least rational ones, as I don't deny that there are some who simply care about the latest quarterly report). An example would be the PS3 or Xbox 360, which are unprofitable, yet have the potential to grow into a valuable business segment. (Or, of course, the potential to take a few billion out back, soak it in gasoline, and set it on fire.)

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[Anonymous Coward]

He still hasn't thought about MINIMIZE COSTS

Re:That's eleven more than I knew about

[Brickwall]

" But in those areas where they want to compete and eventually and hopefully win, if they can't win out of the box, they better play fair with the other kids or they won't be allowed to play."

Kevin Turner, COO, Microsoft: "Enterprise search is our business, it's our house and Google is not going to take that business.... Those people are not going to be allowed to take food off of our plate".

Given that MS doesn't even have a product in this particular area, and also given that this quotation is less than two weeks old, the comment above seems hopelessly naive.

And the condensed version of their 12 principles

[The Mutant]

Embrace, extend, and extinguish.

Here they are

[rohan972]

1. We admitted we were powerless over our operating system --that our computers had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that an OS greater than windows could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our computers over to GNU/Linux as we understood it.

4. Made a searching and fearless inventory of files with proprietry formats.

5. Admitted to our local LUG and to ourselves the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have Free software remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked the mailing list to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had sent malicious code to, and sent GNU/Linux install CD's.

9. Help such people with the installation wherever possible, except when to do so would result in them being fired.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we had used proprietry programs, formats or protocols promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through slashdot and man pages to improve our conscious contact with GNU/Linux, as we understood it, asking only for knowledge of how to get our hardware working and perform our tasks.

12. Having had an awakening as the result of these steps, we tried to carry this message to other sufferers, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

Re:Here they are

[MarkByers]

13. Tried to play a game and found that it didn't work except in Windows.

Hmmmmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Sunday July 23, @02:31PM from the friendly-of-borg-or-marketing-shill dept. NevarMore writes to tell us eWeek is reporting that Microsoft

Hmmm, let's sum it up: I read on Slashdot that ScuttleMonkey was told by NevarMore, which was told by eWeek's report, which heard from Microsoft about it's 12 step program...

30 years?

[Sajarak]

30 years is a bit long though... Didn't Windows version 1 arrive in 1985?

The law still applies to Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

However much it would like to substitute it's 12 laws written by itself to replace worldwide anti-trust law it can't.

Microsoft just wants to make money

[MarkByers]

Microsoft just wants to make money and they have to try their hardest to get people to trust them. Wouldn't you expect them to say that they are a nice company? Do you think it would be better if they said 'We hate consumers having choice and we are trying to prevent competition'? There is no point bashing them for using good PR. Any other company would do the same. Perhaps Linux companies could learn something about marketing from them if they would take the time to study how Microsoft does what it does best - marketing.

Re:Microsoft just wants to make money

[bit01]

If this is just marketing talk then they're lying. That's fraud.

Some companies walk the walk. M$ just talks the talk.

It's a real shame that the legal system isn't sophisticated enough to deal with the likes of M$ well.

---

Creating simple artificial scarcity with copyright and patents on things that can be copied billions of times at minimal cost is a fundamentally stupid economic idea.

Re:Microsoft just wants to make money

[MarkByers]

Lying is not a crime. As long as they aren't promising anything in a sales contract, they can say whatever they like. If you want a promise, get it written in your contract. You are kidding yourself if you believe PR speak can be judged in a court of law.

Everyone should learn at school: Buyer beware.

Re:Microsoft just wants to make money

[bit01]

Lying is not a crime. As long as they aren't promising anything in a sales contract, they can say whatever they like. If you want a promise, get it written in your contract. You are kidding yourself if you believe PR speak can be judged in a court of law.

It's certainly unethical. It's also called truth in advertising and people can go to jail if they break it too much. You're correct in that PR speak is not held to as high a standard as contracts but the standard is there. And as I've already stated the law is not as sophisticated as it should be in this area.

Some companies do a lot more than others in breaking the spirit but not the letter of the law. M$ had a head start in this area (Bill Gates' parents were law academics) and this is part of the reason why M$ has been doing it from it's earliest days. Unfortunately they set an ethical standard in the industry that many other companies are following in a race to the bottom.

Everyone should learn at school: Buyer beware.

Yes, caveat emptor applies but that is generally referring to selective truth telling and spin rather than outright lies and fraud. It also does not stop the law from blocking the more gross abuses such as safety, fitness for purpose, high pressure sales tactics etc. The law is a very blunt instrument with plenty of things being legal but unethical, occasionally even illegal but ethical. M$ as an organisation however continues to confuse being ethical with being legal.

---

Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.

Their actions deny their words

[Anonymous Coward]

"Principles 10 through 12 deal with interoperability for users and say that Microsoft will make its communications protocols available for commercial release, the company will generally license patents on its operating system inventions, and the company is committed to supporting industry standards."

So, they still fend off their only competitor - open source. Suckers, lying through their teeth.

Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer just called and he's got them:

1. Developers
2. Developers
3. Developers
4. Developers
5. Developers
6. Developers
7. Developers
8. Developers
9. Developers
10. Developers
11. Developers
12. Developers

Re:Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

13. Sweat/Swear/Throw a chair

Re:Developers

[Anonymous Coward]

asdfasd

30 years?

[JanneM]

So, 30 years for 12 tenets. That makes 2.5 years per tenet if I'm not mistaken. Not a particularily productive tenet-developing group if I may say so, seeing has how a single philosophical paper can contain dozens of them. If a simple tenet takes 2.5 years from concept to deployment, no wonder Vista is four years late already.

Perhaps if they had hired a few of those philosophy PhD:s currently being gainfully employed in the fast-food industry, they could have gotten them into production faster?

hmm...

[dud83]

How is this different from their old?
1. Idea
2. Marketing research
3. Develop
4. Create a "mysterious" website promo
5. Spend gazillion dollars on marketing
6. ...
12. Profit

It does not bode well

[denoir]

It does not bode well when a company calls "computer manufacturers may add shortcuts to the start menu" a philosophical principle. It is such a sad statement of no core beliefs or belief in the future. Compare it to Google's naive, but uplifting "Do no evil".

Microsoft badly needs a reboot with people in charge who can give this company a real vision.

Re:It does not bode well

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't be evil.

they don't give assurances of no evil acts in isolation, just that they will remain non-evil as an entity in toto

Re:It does not bode well

[TheNetAvenger]

It does not bode well when a company calls "computer manufacturers may add shortcuts to the start menu" a philosophical principle.

The strange thing about this statement, is MS has never restricted an OEM from putting literally anything on the start menu. (Have you seen some of the crap companies like Compaq and Dell load on computers?)

Now that I think about it, maybe MS would be better off if they 'did' limit this... (j/k)

obligatory Prestowitz reference

[Amphiaurus]

In his book "Trading Places" Clyde Prestowitz noted that the Japanese frustrated the US trade delegations (during the Reagan/Bush Sr era) by openly agreeing to everything asked or demanded of them, then turning away and doing exactly what they planned to do in the first place. The US guys thought the Japanese were lying, but they missed (then) the significance of the ploy. I'm sure that Microsoft's managers and spin-surgeons are savvy to the method now, so quite frankly I don't believe anything that comes out of their PR department. If they're talking you can be sure they're lying. I just watched the original "Clerks" again. I'm thinking now that working for Microsoft is like doing contract labor on the Death Star. I'm sure it pays well, but it's ignoble work, contributing to an evil empire. :)

no use...

[Suez]

What do Microsoft want to do?

Re:no use...

[hotdiggitydawg]

You've got it all wrong - the slogan is "What did Microsoft want to do yesterday"...

Where the rules came from

[ZorbaTHut]

Smith said the principles largely come from things Microsoft picked up in the consent decree the software giant signed in settling its landmark antitrust battle with the federal government, but that more recent developments led to the crafting of some of the other principles.

Am I the only person who saw this?

Translation: We had to make some changes to keep from getting hit by more massive lawsuits, and then thanks to the EU ruling we had to make yet more changes. But we're going to act like it was voluntary because it looks better.

Where in there is "we've figured out some things that customers want and we're going to provide them"? No, this is all "let's keep from being sued again".

Re:Where the rules came from

[Tim C]

While I agree with your analysis on the most part, it is entirely possible that they *did* figure out things that their customers want, but it took the various law suits and potential for more to force them to actually implement those things.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that MS is full of stupid people; they know exactly what they're doing. Just because their aims and methods are not ours doesn't make them any less able.

Hear, hear

[KwKSilver]

Mod parent up!

I'm tempted to believe it

[Opportunist]

No, not because MS suddenly turned "good" and they want to repent their "evil" ways. Quite simply: When you're under constant surveillance for problems and legal breaches, you can't do them.

Take Google. It's the "not evil" company. Now, I might be mistaken, but doesn't Google have a similar position in areas like web search and to some extent web mail that MS has in the areas of OS and office? But where's the outcry?

MS has a huge image problem. It's become the "evil" company, it has the status that IBM held in the 70s and 80s, the monopolist who forces his solutions down your throat because you have no choice. Now, we all know what happened to IBM when the "IBM-compatible" PCs hit the market: They lost that market completely. Not because their machines were inferior or (too) expensive (yes, they were expensive but many companies care more for TCO than cost of the machine alone), they lost it with their image as the one who strangleholds you, and the customer fearing the lock-in.

MS is in the same position today. Using an MS client product almost forces you to purchase an MS server, which in turn forces you to buy MS client licenses for the server, which in turn almost forces you to use MSSQL (if for nothing else then for convenience's sake), you have an MS domain controller (because you fear that they just MIGHT change the protocol and your Linux DC won't be able to work it out) and so on.

A lot of companies, and also a lot of governments in Europe, are migrating to Linux because of this. And MS certainly does not enjoy this trend.

So it's not a move to be "less evil". It's simply a move to avoid losing more market share than absolutely necessary.

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[Knuckles]

Take Google. It's the "not evil" company. Now, I might be mistaken, but doesn't Google have a similar position in areas like web search and to some extent web mail that MS has in the areas of OS and office? But where's the outcry?

You STILL don't get it? The outcry was not about MS having a monopoly, but about using this monoploy to illegally gain advantages in other markets.

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[RahoulB]

the difference between Google and MS is that one is a huge behemoth getting larger and assimilating knowledge about everyone and everything and the other has been convicted (twice) of serious breaches of the law

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

"but doesn't Google have a similar position in areas like web search and to some extent web mail that MS has in the areas of OS and office?"

No. I think Google has, at most, 50% market share. And even if they had 90%, there are healthy competetors out there like Yahoo and (dare I say it) MSN. Furthermore, Google took no illegal actions to get where they are ... at least not to anybody's knowledge.

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

"Conviction" refers to criminal offenses, you know, the ones requiring unanimous jury verdicts of guild "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
Microsoft's cases, on the other hand, were civil cases (merely requiring "preponderence of evidence" (i.e. 50% + 1 of the evidence) as determined by a single judge (who may or may not be an idiot)). "Conviction" doesn't apply to civil cases (see "conviction" at dictionary.com).
Microsoft has never been "convicted" of anything.

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[RahoulB]

does that make it alright?

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[Opportunist]

I'm not talking about legal action taken against MS, the outcry about the monopoly situation of MS in the OS and Office market has been a target for various groups long, long before any governmental bodies started looking into the matter, even long before competetors tried to defend against it with legal moves.

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[Knuckles]

Ok, I see what you mean, but IIRC also this outcry happened because MS abused the monopoly. Not necessarily in a legal sense but in the way it treated its customers. Google on the other hand hasn't done much to upset people, and it's gratis.

Re:I'm tempted to believe it

[Anonymous Coward]

It's M$, not MS.

If you don't use the $, you look like a childish asskissing sheeple.

I think they missed a few:

[level_headed_midwest]

13. We will fully disclose our file formats so that greater interoperability with other platforms can be achieved- we will not "lock in" customers any longer.
14. We will not treat the user as a criminal.
15. We will fully respect the user's privacy. As such, we will install a working hosts file and NO Microsoft program can send any information back to us without explicitly stating what will be sent back, why, and who gets to see it. The Windows firewall will also be able to block all incoming and outgoing traffic, including traffic that reports to Microsoft. We will not put "backdoors" into our products.
16. We will fully respect the user's sovereignty over his or her own data. We will never allow the OS or any Microsoft programs to prevent people from accessing, modifying, or distributing data on their computers in whatever manner they wish to.
17. We are not the police. We cannot and will not attempt to stop users from doing any act on their computers that may violate any license, ordinance, or act in their particular region. It is the user's responsibility to comply with all local laws and regulations.

Re:I think they missed a few:

[Anonymous Coward]

screw all of u jealous dumb asses. get a life. for 23 years you have been underdogs to windows and will continue to do so because you are just plain stupid. your life revolves around /. and gay comments against MS while MS is busy doing all the hard work. haha

Re:I think they missed a few:

[level_headed_midwest]

No, Anonymous Coward, these are rules that should guide ANY vendor's development of ANY program (replace "Microsoft" with the name of any vendor if you please- MSFT was just the vendor in THIS STORY.) It is more or less of a "user's bill of rights" than anything. But if you like to be spied on by a company and various third parties, treated like a criminal when you back up a CD or reinstall your programs, and just generally get taken by your software vendors, feel free to criticize.

Re:I think they missed a few:

[Anonymous Coward]

18. We will not misuse the wealth of the Windows monopoly to buy our way into new markets: i.e. buy the customers WMP versions of their previously purchased songs in order to move the songs into our proprietary format.

Translation

[bhmit1]

For those that need help understanding what MS is really saying:

1. We will ensure that Microsoft will design Windows in ways that make it easy for people to add non-Microsoft features.

Like viruses, spyware, adware, and so forth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a market for getting rid of those problems and people wouldn't have a reason to upgrade.

2. Computer manufacturers are free to add icons, shortcuts and the like to the Windows Start menu and other places used to access software programs so that customers can easily find them.
3. Microsoft will design Windows so as to let computer manufacturers and users set non-Microsoft programs to operate by default in certain categories, such as Web browsing and media playback

And we can get past all that antitrust litigation.

4. Exclusive promotion of non-Microsoft programs ... indicating that Microsoft's fierce competition with Google aside, the company is dedicated to this principle.

Oh, we forgot to mention the entire open source movement and anything they happen to create. Them and Google. Oh, and Apple. Um... how about if we just limit this to companies we can buy or crush?

5. Microsoft will not retaliate against any computer manufacturer that supports non-Microsoft software

Again with the antitrust thing. Of course there's nothing saying you won't buy or destroy the other company, retaliation is completely different.

6. Microsoft provides the developer community with a broad range of innovative operating system services, via documented APIs (application programming interfaces), for use in developing state-of-the-art applications.

#$%$^ EU.

7. Microsoft will design Windows Live as a product that is separate from Windows. Customers will be free to choose Windows with or without Windows Live

Wait, didn't we just say no retaliation? Oh, you meant retaliation against them? Ok, them too.

8. Microsoft will design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web site or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using any non-Microsoft Web service

We had this cool system all ready to go, but the marketing dept said they couldn't find a good way to sell it without pissing off the anti-trust folks.

9. The U.S. antitrust ruling provides that Microsoft may not enter into contracts that require any third party to promote Windows or any "middleware" in Windows on an exclusive basis and Microsoft has pledged to continue this.

Ok, so just this one time, we are going to do what we were order to do by the courts. But don't push your luck.

10. Microsoft will make its communications protocols available for commercial release.

We think there's a lot of money to be made here.

11. The company will generally license patents on its operating system invention.

Except to those damn open source folks, we'll make sure the license is way to restrictive for them.

12. The company is committed to supporting industry standards.

We always have. Just ignore the fact that we then extend them to our own liking. And that process usually means we have to break a few parts of the standard.

So, yeah, nothing to see here folks. Move along.

Re:And the condensed version of their 12 principle

[Ant P.]

Maybe they've got 9 other Es that we don't know about. Extort?

I was with you up to step #11

[lildogie]

> Sought through slashdot and man pages to improve our conscious contact

If Slashdot were my sponsor, I'd drink myself to death.

Press release

[Anonymous Coward]

"By the time Office 13 will be released, the philosophical tenets outlining Windows development will become thirteen."

Ne business API

[TapeCutter]

Google made the "one principle" bussiness API, as one would expect, the MS copy (err, implementation) is 12 times as big as the original and hasn't been tested properly. /sarcasm

The first step ...

[eck011219]

... is admitting you have a problem.

Re:The first step ...

[Kenshin]

The second step is bolting the chairs to the floor.

All 12?

[Centurix]

7a. Be evil.

Article incorrect

[wackymacs]

Not 30 years, more like 23. Windows was originally announced in 1983, not 1976. Why can't Slashdot editors actually *read* the articles before posting them?

Re:Article incorrect

[chawly]

They read them - their problem is arithmetic

editors, please improve headlines

[Anonymous Coward]

this headline was as informative as "I have some clothes in my closet".

12 simple points.

[AHuxley]

1. Embrace
2. Indulge ie Embrace
3. Extend
4. FUD
5. Smart guided FUD via 'grass roots' or strange legal 'problems'
6. Extend
7. Extend
8. Embrace
9. Embrace
10-12 Extend

The spiritual awakening is the extinguish part.

and what's wrong with that?

[YesIAmAScript]

They signed a consent decree agreeing to do certain things. So they encode some of what they agreed to in their tenets for their employees to follow, in order to ensure they do what they said they would do.

And you have a problem with that?

There's nothing in that statement you quoted that indicates they arrived at all the tenets themselves.

These tenets are simply a tool for Microsoft to guide the development of Windows in a direction that they believe will maximize their profits, partially by minimizing fines. There's nothing wrong with that.

Wait...

[mentaldingo]

Microsoft has principles now?

they have very little..

[Anonymous Coward]

..in the terms of a future business model say ten years down the road. Even the dullest of the non sharp will realise that free and FREE is a lot more suitable by then. Gates even had the idiotic moment when he was saying that HARDWARE should be free, I guess to make the people still keep paying a huge amount for his digital bits. That isn't even borderline, it is pure insanity. This isn't the 70s or the 80s any more. Programming is not the old arcane and small industry it used to be. It is no longer all that elite or valuable per se. What remains valuable is USING programs in actual other real businesses. Software in and of itself is useful, but it is not the primary resource to "do work", to build stuff and sell stuff now. Those domains are, and will ever be, raw natural resources and availability of affordable energy supplies. Hardware has dropped in price from manufacturing advances, yet MS software remains high priced, with not much in the way of a corresponding drop. This was acceptable way back in the day when all programs were "exotic". Now, they are common, easily made, easily copied. What once was the province of a few thousand people around the globe is now either a job or hobby for multiple millions, and the older written programs have not totally vanished. And within ten years, triple or quadruple that number. And whqat we have now will just get that much better. And still cost around...zero. How the hell can MS build a business model around that sort of competition?

Software as a stand alone business will continue to drop in "worth". Software as a very cheap tool to use to make money doing something "real" in another business will increase in worth. MS has passed their peak (along with several other 'software is our business' styled companies). Global collaboration, open source, competition will drive a new business model, one that is NOT handing over billions of dollars for relative cheap grade C products, that are quite easily reproducible.

MS is trying to follow the same excact business model of the MAFIAA, for the same reasons, and both are doomed to failure in the long term for the same reasons. The need for middlemen skimming the bulk of the cash in the music and movie redistribution chain is being made obsolete. The need for software-only corporations is almost obsolete as well.

No amount of twelve step programs will change those data bits. they should be more than happy with what money they made, downsize considerable, branch out more into tangible products (a lot of them are surprisingly good), and be happy with making a living rather than trying to continue to make a *killing*. If they can learn to put the fork down and push away from the plate and still be content, they can do good for the next 50 years-if they can't, I give them less than ten years to turn into the IT version of the Edsel, and when they collapse it will be *fast*. It's their choice, stop being greedy and ..insane, megalomaniacal about things, stop living in their glory years buckets of money past, or gradually go downhill from arrogance. Look at SGI for a recent example of this sort of thing. either change when change is warranted, in a big way, not little stupid token ways, or fail. Nothing magical about MS, all corporations (and nations for that matter) are always subject to time and change, success or failure.

what they don't mention

[elucidnation]

They leave out things like 1) Customers don't own the software: we only license it on terms that we can arbitrarily change at will 2) Eulas are for our benefit not the customers 3) We are not responsible for the design and security flaws that will often make your computer unusable. 4) If our software resides on your machine, then we consider it our machine and will act accordingly. 5) You must run Auto updates so we can monitor you at all times. If you fail to do so we will cripple your computer. 6) Don't attempt to disable applications that we are using to leverage our monopoly. We make it as difficult as possible. 7) We own and control the source code-Trust Us--You never need to know what is going on behind the scenes on your computer

Choice, MS-style

[payndz]

The 12 principles are based on three main areas: choice for computer manufacturers and customers, opportunities for developers, and interoperability for users

I guess 'choice for users' was to have been the 13th step, but MS thought it would be unlucky.

Obligatory Star Wars Reference...

[pedalman]

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Well, this sounds all nice and all ...

[ScrewMaster]

but it smells a lot like the "Contract with America" that Congress foisted upon us some years ago. A mere expression of "principles" is nothing but a meaningless PR move, and I'm willing to bet that Microsoft's guiding principle ("try and take over the world") hasn't changed one bit.

On a merry night, in an old builiding in redmond.

[Marcos Eliziario]

Several guys and girls sitted in a class-room style, a parlatory. Bald middle-aged man - Hey Tonny, it's your turn! Tonny stands up, and go to the parlatory, there's a palpable layer of sweat on his face, yet, he looks proud and happy. Tonny stands in the parlatory.... TONNY - I am a Microsoft Windows Developer! ...

Innovation vs Competition

[Anonymous Coward]

"And, while the U.S. antitrust ruling recognizes that innovation in all forms is to be encouraged, it should not stifle competition, Smith said."

This is not the first time I've seen Microsoft suggest that innovation and competition are opposites. Is it just me or is that weird? I don't have an MBA so I probably don't understand these things.

Spin and marketing

[Drasil]

It seems like just talk to me. Microsoft are aware they have annoyed a lot of people. I think they are sincere in trying to fix that, they know that if they don't people will stop buying their products, however I still see signs they still don't 'get it'. Throughout the article I get the feeling that Microsoft cannot concieve of a world where they don't have a monopoly on the desktop. There is a lot of talk about releasing API documentation so 3rd partys can write software to run on Windows, and about how box builders should be free to install 3rd party software on the Windows boxes they sell. They even state:

Microsoft will design Windows Live as a product that is separate from Windows. Customers will be free to choose Windows with or without Windows Live

This indicates to me that the two products are only partially seperated, unless customers may choose to run Windows Live without running Windows, a statement which is conspicuous by it's absence. I expect what we are seeing here is partly a response to the EU fines, and partly the start of the "Next time will be different" campaign for Vista.

Re:Spin and marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

Customers may run Windows Live without Windows - you can do that today. Windows Live is a series of services, mostly web-based, and some of which are client-server systems. The client server systems are implemented on top of SOAP-standard web services.

There are only two part of the picture which is not standards-based. The first is the authentication mechanism, which is fully documented and able to reproduced by a third party if they had the desire to do so.

The second is a bit trickier - its Windows Media DRM. The Windows Media codec and the DRM system are available for liscense by external parties (including source code, so it could be legally ported to other operating systems) but that requires buying a liscense. Handheld makers already do this, a number of cellphone makers do, and if Zune ever became a real fight with iTunes, you might see Apple do the same, but it does limit the extent to which open source operating systems can consume the media aspects of Windows Live.

Re:Spin and marketing

[SanityInAnarchy]

It does show a bit of their attitude, though. Reading that, my guess would be that Windows Live is mostly standards-compliant by accident -- after all, why not lock people to IE?

Really, even taken in context, that statement has an incredibly high WTF factor. It would be kind of like if I said "Really, our car business is decoupled from our house business. You're perfectly free to buy a house without a car."

WTF? Why would you phrase it that way unless you are trying to dispell rumors (probably founded in truth) that you were planning to require all people who buy a house from you to also buy your car? Why phrase it in such a way that it suggests (probably truthfully) that you cannot buy a car from that company without also buying a house?

Cable and Telephone companies take note

[multisync]

No. 8 is Open Internet access, where Microsoft will design and license Windows so that it does not block access to any lawful Web site or impose any fee for reaching any non-Microsoft Web site or using any non-Microsoft Web service, Smith said.

Re:Cable and Telephone companies take note

[hachete]

I think it's better/worse than this.

With my best tin-foil hat on, I think they've thought about charging people for running non-MS apps on windows machines. And may well do so; of course, bigger companies like IBM will be able to pay some sort of fee - call it a rental. The main controlling mechanism would be WGA which would monitor any applications you use. And it would be forced on you by the EULA and presented as being for your Genuine Advantage.

Of course, you would no longer be able to write your own applications but really why would you want to?

Who pays for Open Source apps to run on their machines? Caught between this, patents, and "Trusted Computing", OSS would wither away. Bawahaha!!!

12th Step

[ESqVIP]

Based on their annual sales, I'm pretty sure they managed to make the 12th step "Profit".

Lies, dammed lies, and Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, what a list of hogwash items. They call that principles? Oh well. It is just a PR-stunt. I work for a company which publishes their high ethic standards. But hell breaks loose if an employee tries to acct according to them. I would guess it will be the same with MS. Lip-service.

Lets conter this PR activity

[Anonymous Coward]

Why shouldn't the Linux or in general the FOSS communities come up with a similar list for PR purposes.

E.g. software doe not crash. Software does not lock users out via DRM. Source code is available.

goodness...

[Anonymous Coward]

msft was planning to charge people to visit websites msft didn't authorize?

this is a new level of hubris - even for msft!

Microsoft walks the plank

[Anonymous Coward]

12 steps keeps you right where you started .. it takes 13 lucky steps to take the plunge.

--
You pick the price, I set the terms.
Meshulim Riklis

Re:Microsoft walks the plank

[chawly]

Be optimistic - could turn out to be like the twelve step program that the AA has. Some folks do get cured that way. (But, its true, there are many failures).

Re:Microsoft walks the plank

[Procedure]

Maybe Microsoft should switch to the vacuum cleaner business, where people actually want products that suck. (Quote from a signature) http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5830/suckercx8.jp g

Developers? $500, $500, $500, $500, $500, $500

[tepples]

If Microsoft wants to attract developers, especially hobbyist developers, then why is it requiring a VeriSign code signing certificate, priced at 499.99 USD per developer per year, in order to have device drivers load at all on Windows Vista 64-bit edition OS?

Pluralization conventions

[tepples]

philosophy PhD:s currently being gainfully employed

So what you're saying is the 'currently' (assuming you meant "'", not ":")

Some countries pluralize "PhD" as "PhD:s"; others use "PhD's"; others use "PhDs".

30 Years My Big O' Butt

[Alcoholic Synonymous]

"after almost 30 years of Windows"

1985 to present is only 21 years. We just barely past the 20 year mark, much less the 30.

... tenet by noon

[Anomalyst]

Remember. Putting 1,825 (2.5x365x2) PhDs on it will not get you a tenet by noon.

While practicing humility....

[EmbeddedJanitor]

FTFA "We've learnt humility...". So how can we believe anything if he says this?

Grow up

[lowe0]

6. Were entirely ready to have Free software remove all these defects of character.
It's just software. The attitude that using what works is a "defect of character" is insulting. Use whatever software meets your needs with tradeoffs you find acceptable, and try discussing the benefits and drawbacks of software in a rational matter rather than letting some notion of smug superiority enter the discussion.

Re:Grow up

[rohan972]

It's not a discussion, it's a joke.

Is this really an improvement?

[askegg]

No. 2 is easy access: Computer manufacturers are free to add icons, shortcuts and the like to the Windows Start menu and other places used to access software programs so that customers can easily find them, Microsoft said.

This is one of the worse things about Windows IMHO. I like to keep my desktop clean and don't want installs to drop shortcuts and folders on my desktop, in my start menu, in the quicklunch bar, in the system tray and then set it to autolaunch on startup - especially when the application makes sure all those things exist. Why not store all the applications in one spot, then they're really easy to find?

Re:Is this really an improvement?

[chawly]

"in the quicklunch bar," - set for digestive problems, you think?

Re:Is this really an improvement?

[askegg]

Damn.

Last two steps:

[Anonymous Coward]

.......
11. ????
12. Profit!

The queen borg...

[Anonymous Coward]

goes off in search of a soul, but the borg find one first. What's up with that?

It could have been worse!

[JonTurner]

Originally, there were 15 design principles... but they had to drop a few in order to meet the ship date.

Re:It could have been worse!

[rtb61]

They seem to have ignored the end user yet again. Currently the most important priciple should be that microsoft will put URM (user rights management) ahead of DRM (digital rights management) and remember it is the end user that pays microsoft for it's software. Don't trust your customers, don't expect your customers to trust you!

Re:It could have been worse!

[JonTurner]

>>the end user that pays microsoft for it's software
Are you sure about this? IIRC the vast majority of OS sales go to corporations (who want DRM or are at best neutral since it doesn't affect them), 3rd party vendors (Gateway, Dell, etc.), and integrators (value-added sales such as embedded systems). Sales direct to public are a minority.

It's good for MS, and bad for FOSS

[Javaman59]

The list could be titled: Twelve ways to avoid being a monopoly or Twelve ways to avoid pissing off customers and third party developers. If Microsoft really takes these twelve items to heart, it could be a big shift for them. It would certainly go a long way to change my perception of the company. I might even consider using Windows again at some point.

Agreed. This is a big move, and obviously it is done for Microsoft's business purposes (ie. "profit"), and I expect it to be successfull.

My first reaction was to check whether Microsoft had posted this their web site, which would be a strong indication of whether this is just a publicity announcement, or a serious commitment.

12 tenets

It is there, together with this statement

Microsoft will post these principles to its Web site so that they will be readily accessible to the computer industry and customers. We will review these principles from time to time, and at least once every three years, to determine whether we should adopt additional principles or modify existing principles to reflect technological, business or legal developments.

I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that this is close to legal accountability. So, if I buy a Microsoft product, and Microsoft fails to observe these tenets, then I (or me, IBM and Oracle), can sue Microsoft for breach of contract. Note that the announcement was made by a lawyer. It is, at the very least, moral accountability - Microsoft have attached their name to it, and their name will go down if they fail to observe it.

So, I expect that Microsoft will fully comply with it's own tenets.

Now, I believe that this is a major development in the software business. Microsoft's biggest obstacle to further growth, and maintaining a legal (as opposed to illegal) monopoly, is probably the reputation they have built over the years for predatory business practices. Customers and goverments everywhere are suspicious of them, and look for alternatives in order to keep Microsoft's tentacles out. We can argue forever about the quality of their products, and TCO, but the fact is that for most people, Microsofts products are (1) familiar, installed, and in constant use (2) functionally, if not "ideal", then at least "good enough". Most people, including many who are technically literate, have no strong business incentive to ditch Microsoft - the main reason they consider going to open source is the perception of Microsoft as a corporate bully, and exploiter of the customer, and the contrary perception of Open Source as offering freedom.

With this commitment, Microsoft will shed all these negative images. It's products are already trusted by most people, and now it's corporate image, and product strategy, will also be trusted. Those of use who have seen, and suffered, the "evil" Microsoft will not forget, but it will be of historical interest only. We may think it unfair that Microsoft was able to clean up it's image after they unfairly acquired a monopoly, but our resentment will not affect anyone elses purchasing decision.

FOSS is now going to have to be good enough to persuade people to switch on grounds of quality and cost alone, without using "Microsoft is evil" as a selling point for itself.

One of the things I most admire about Microsoft is their strategic ability, and timing. They have repeatedly made the right business decision, at the right time, often surprising the industry, and bringing scorn, but also backing those decisions, and being proven right. Sometimes the decisions have seemed ahead of their time (eg. the GUI server), and sometimes they have seemed to be late (as in this case), but they have many winnners, and few losers.

• Early 80's - PC software as a business
• Early 80's - The decision to licence DOS to IBM, rather than sell it
• Late 80' - Focusing on gra

Re:It's good for MS, and bad for FOSS

[Anonymous Coward]

March 1995 - Tremendous success of Microsoft Bob.

Re:It's good for MS, and bad for FOSS

[Javaman59]

many winners and *few* losers

Not again

[johnnyslogan]

Since when has Slashdot become an outlet for Microsoft propaganda?

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/0 7/20/2047250
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/19/217 218&tid=109
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/07/23/032 255

All deriving from:
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/newsroom/winxp/ windowsprinciples.mspx

Number 18:

[Gleng]

18. We promise to never, EVER invade Poland.