Slashdot Mirror
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."
...need I say more?
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.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
When do these 12 principles take effect?
Surely they're not implying they're already in operation.
No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
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:
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.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
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.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Pathetic, isn't it? I had expected to see a list of issues like, perhaps
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.Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
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.
I'll probably be modded down for this...
Microsoft badly needs a reboot with people in charge who can give this company a real vision.
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. :)
Similis sum folio de quo ludunt venti.
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
So in other words, it's a no-go for free software.
I also found the 12th point interesting:
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.
... is admitting you have a problem.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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
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.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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:
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.
I don't care why you're posting AC
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.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.