December 2000

The problem with Windows is not that it is "becoming the de facto standard," but that it is controlled by one company -- Microsoft. Imagine if Cisco controlled the IP standard, and they introduced changes to it so that other companies' equipment doesn't run smoothly. The world would be up in arms.

And what kind of analogy is the one Tom offers? Nice try, but it doesn't fit. Where Microsoft is today is unique in the industry; no other company enjoys such a position, owning a standard that holds an overwhelming market share and supplying the products that use it. The Justice Department wants to open the standard, and separate it from the applications that run on it. If Cisco did in fact own IP today, it would be similar to making IP an open standard, and taking it out from under Cisco.

I would also point out that his arguments for a single OS are flawed. First he cries out for "just one OS on the desktop," but then he has no problem with four (Win 95, 98, NT, 2000) because "they are similar enough." So is the line to be drawn where it either says Microsoft on the box or it doesn't?

Finally, on his experience of working in a dual environment (Mac/PCs), he takes the typical victim position, blaming the other side. For example, did it ever occur to him that maybe Microsoft should have programmed into their OS the ability to read/write Mac floppies? Apple's OS can read Mac, DOS, ProDOS, Windows, and others. Could Microsoft just not want to "interoperate"?
--Hilal Malawi

I enjoyed your article even if I disagree with your basic premise. It was well written and researched. One point I would like to clarify: The breakup of Microsoft (as proposed by DOJ, etc) would not fragment OS for it would be a single entity with the Internet portions separated from it. This, plus the prevention of Mr. Gates' leveraging competition out of existence, would allow the market place to determine the 'better mousetrap' instead of Microsoft Development.

The same market that made PASCHAL take a poor second to C and makes LINUX a preferred multi-platform to pure UNIX tends to sort out what is most practical, usable, and economical. Windows' de-facto position as leading OS was done by unethical business practices --quite a different approach to achieving market share. My objection to Windows as "the" OS is that when I purchased my last PC, I did not have a choice of operating system or driver sets or browser. I look forward to the day when that is not the case, when Mr. Gates does not own the industry like he owns his company.
--Richard Giltner

The editors respond:

The main issue in the DOJ case, which is often overlooked, is whether Microsoft was using its power in one market to essentially colonize another. Many in communications are promoting the idea of open development, the use of modular components, and expanding the development community as much as possible. (What if there were as many telephony developers as there were developers familiar with PC development tools, for instance. Or, even better, what if there were as many telephony developers as there were people building Web sites?) What might be gained, and what might be lost, if development were so thoroughly abstracted (that is, if the application layer were so divorced from the "plumbing") that even neophytes started creating telephony applications?

Is it possible that some of us learn our lessons from experience all too well? That is, do we risk "fighting the last war" when we architect development environments, say, for the new public infrastructure? Can we recognize an opportunity that is truly new, or will we diminish it simply to fit it within our comfort zone? The real issue is how to maximize development freedom and creativity, while maintaining marketing viability. You could even say the battleground is really within the imagination. Why should anyone, out of mere habit, recreate yesterday's dynamics in the brave, new, Web-style world, in which we have the opportunity to create a new dynamic?

Maybe Microsoft has been good for the economy, maybe not. Maybe Microsoft has fostered creativity, or maybe it has squelched it. We could argue forever. Instead, we should consider the implications beyond the operating system, perhaps even beyond the PC. 

[ Return To The December 2000 Table Of Contents ]