electric
pi
"What to do about Microsoft" is a hot topic these days.
Hype concerning the "end of the millennium" is beginning to
die out (even though it doesn't actually begin until 2001).
The Y2K Crisis, after hundreds of billions of dollars in
repairs and updates, is considerably less threatening than
it was prior to this huge effort. So, with a Presidential
campaign serving as background noise, we contemplate the
future of the world's most highly valued company: Microsoft.
And with it, we also contemplate the fate of
civilization.
Microsoft and Y2K
What, exactly, does Microsoft mean to modern
civilization? With a fairly modest number of employees,
compared to other Fortune 500 companies, Microsoft emerged
in 1999 as the corporation with the largest stock valuation
in history. It sales were a fraction of many other
companies, and the company has only modest assets of real
estate, equipment, and the other usual trappings of
corporate wealth. It is a manufacturing company, but the
goods it manufactures are fairly modest: keyboards, mice,
joysticks and other minor peripherals. Most of its wealth,
and fame, and power, comes from "manufacturing" software,
the curious process of storing sequences of numbers in such
a way as to produce word processors, spreadsheets, games and
operating systems.
What else has Microsoft done? This single company was
also the largest contributor to the Y2K Crisis. While
countless news stories talked about old COBOL programs that
needed to be rewritten to handle dates past 1999, and
embedded computer chips that might cause your VCR,
thermostat, or electric toothbrush to fail, the real story
was elsewhere. More people spent more time, money and effort
correcting, updating or eliminating programs written by
Microsoft than all other Y2K activities -- combined. Vast
numbers of "Wintel" computers running various versions of
MS-DOS (recall that "MS" stands for Microsoft) or Microsoft
Windows were carted off to landfills (or "donated" to
unsuspecting schools, churches and charities). Billions of
lines of code written in various Microsoft programming
languages were reviewed and revised. Tens of millions of
"consumer" programs (chiefly Microsoft Word, PowerPoint,
Excel and Access) were upgraded and updated. And special
laws were passed to protect software companies -- especially
one particular software company -- from legal liabilities
surrounding the "Y2K Crisis."
Microsoft's most profound accomplishment, however, has
been the assault on personal computing.
Microsoft and Personal Computing
Dating the beginning of personal computing is almost as
difficult as dating dinosaur bones. In the mid-1970s, most
of the computers in the world were large mainframe
computers, staffed by legions of specialists. Minicomputers,
similar in operation but much less costly, were staging a
strong challenge, but they were just as impersonal as their
more massive cousins. Computers were centrally managed
corporate assets, controlled by a select few who also
controlled how the computers could be used.
Beginning in 1977, microcomputers began to challenge the
stranglehold of the computer specialists. Radio Shack,
Commodore, Atari, Apple and many other companies introduced
"consumer" microcomputers, designed for use in homes and
offices by people with no background or training in computer
science. Control of these new "consumer" computers was not
in the hands of a large team of computer operators, analysts
and programmers; instead, individuals controlled
microcomputers. Corporations decided what programs and tasks
were suitable for the mainframes and minicomputers, but
individuals made their own decisions on what to do with
their microcomputers.
Initially seen as a passing fad, by 1981 even IBM had to
concede that microcomputers might have some value, so the
computing giant introduced the IBM PC. IBM didn't really
consider this PC as a true "computer," however; the model
number used -- 5150 -- was from the same block reserved for
computer terminals, and these terminals were only useful
when attached to mainframe computers. Since the PC, in IBM's
view, wasn't much use as a stand-alone machine, IBM didn't
even bother to write much software for it. The operating
system (available as an extra-cost option) was purchased
from Microsoft (which in turn bought the operating system
from another company, Seattle Computing), and the first word
processor was a somewhat rough translation of an Apple II
program. Clearly, IBM didn't think too much of "personal"
computing and assumed buyers would soon come to their senses
and attach these things to mainframes. Some did.
Most did not, and the rest of the 1980s saw a massive
migration in computing power, away from centralized
corporate strongholds and onto the desks of individuals.
These "personal computers" were often seen as corporate
vermin: beyond centralized control, ignoring corporate
standards, performing unauthorized tasks.
While the mainframes versus microcomputer wars were
raging, other trends were developing. The Internet was
starting to connect large government and university
campuses. Local area networks were starting to bloom in
small and large offices. Standards were being created for
exchanging information -- text, pictures, sound, networking
information -- between computers created by different
vendors.
Moving in to the 1990s, the mainframes versus micro wars
were forgotten. Microcomputers had grown in power and
capability, and mainframes from the previous decade,
purchased for millions of dollars, were sold for scrap,
eclipsed by the desktop wonders. Personal computers won.
For a while. Then the Standardization Wars began. Rather
than cope with the various features (personalizations) of
personal computers, large organizations started decreeing
"standards." The former high priests of the mainframes, in
their new role as corporate network managers, information
managers and "knowledge specialists," decreed that only a
very select group of word processors, spreadsheets,
databases and operating systems would be supported. (Does
this sound familiar?)
Microsoft encouraged this, and pushed Microsoft Office --
Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Microsoft PowerPoint (all
originally written for the Macintosh) as the "obvious"
standard. Naturally, Microsoft argued, this wonderful suite
of wonderful programs would work best with a wonderful
Microsoft operating system -- Microsoft Windows.
Organizations were encouraged to ditch their "legacy
systems" and adopt a full Microsoft "solution" --everything
Microsoft. No Macintosh computers. No UNIX computers. No
non-Microsoft operating systems, spreadsheets, graphics
packages or spreadsheets.
The personal computer was now dead, replaced by the
"standard" microcomputer. A Microsoft standard.
Microsoft: The Virus
Something else happened in the late 1980s and all through
the 1990s: the rise of computer viruses. Originally imagined
as an intellectual exercise by computer scientists and
researchers, eventually "real" computer viruses escaped out
into the world. The concept of "safe computing" evolved
(adopted from the anti-AIDS "safe sex" campaigns), and
included scanning new floppy disks and CD-ROMs for unwelcome
guests. An entire cottage industry sprang into being,
creating anti-virus programs to combat this malignant
digital life form.
Then Microsoft changed the rules. With the introduction
of OLE, later revised and renamed as Active X, Microsoft
created a way for programs to directly talk to the Windows
operating system. Apple, in the Macintosh operating system,
already had nice, safe ways for applications to talk to the
operating system, but Microsoft didn't like Apple's
solution, and insisted on introducing OLE (and Active X) to
the Macintosh.
And things went downhill from there. Poorly written
Microsoft Word and Microsoft Excel macros, through the use
of OLE and Active X, did undesirable things at the operating
system level, such as deleting files. Inspired by this
uncivilized behavior, vandals created the first Microsoft
"Macro" viruses -- the world's first cross-platform computer
viruses -- and fighting computer viruses went from being a
cottage industry to a global war.
Hundreds of new Microsoft Macro viruses are discovered
every month. In fact, well over 90% of all computer viruses
ever discovered are Microsoft Macro viruses.
In 1999, very clever vandals decided to escalate the
virus wars. Rather than limit their attention to Microsoft
Word and Microsoft Excel, the traditional "hosts" for macro
viruses, they targeted the Active X components of
Microsoft's E-mail programs, Microsoft Outlook and Microsoft
Exchange, and the Active X components in Microsoft Internet
Explorer. Suddenly, viruses were no longer limited to
documents coming in through a floppy disk or CD-ROM;
Microsoft's Web browser and Microsoft's E-mail systems could
attack entire Microsoft-based networks at once, from the
inside and the outside.
The Dark Side of the Force
Microsoft, of course, loudly claims to be sensitive to
the problems of its customers. Take, for example, the Y2K
problem. Earlier this year, Microsoft's Web site posted some
information on how the year 2000 might affect some Microsoft
programs, and offered to send customers a free "Microsoft
Year 2000 Resource CD" if they just clicked on a link.
If you clicked on the link, and were using Microsoft
Internet Explorer, you were taken to a page that allowed you
to enter your name and mailing address. If you used any
other browser -- Netscape Navigator or Netscape
Communicator, for example -- nothing happened. Microsoft,
apparently, was more than willing to help their customers,
provided their customers conformed to Microsoft's definition
of a proper Microsoft customer.
After this was mentioned in the press, Microsoft quickly
changed their Web site, allowing even users of non-Microsoft
Web browsers to request the CD-ROM. Several weeks later, the
"Microsoft Year 2000 Resource CD," stamped with the date
"June 1999," was shipped.
And it was quite a resource. Imagine, if you will, that
you are a small business owner, concerned about your network
of Microsoft Windows 3.1 computers with, say, a Microsoft
Windows NT 3.5 file server, and lots of slightly dated
Microsoft applications. You insert the CD-ROM in a drive and
see just one document, a text file called "README.TXT." You
click on it and see this notice:
Surprise, surprise! You were kind of hoping this free
resource would help you salvage something from your rather
substantial investment in Microsoft software. But -- fooled
you! -- Microsoft thoughtfully encoded the information in
such a way that less than current hardware and software
--like yours -- can't see whatever help the disc might
contain.
Maybe the "reject all browsers but Microsoft's" incident
was a mistake. Maybe shipping the CD-ROM in a form useless
to most of the people who needed it was also a mistake.
But there is another possible name for this: arrogance.
When you are Microsoft, you don't have to bend to the needs
of your customers, if you can make the customers bend to
your will, instead.
Microsoft Monopoly: More Than a Game
In the last months of 1999, Microsoft's monopoly power
emerged as a major topic of discussion, in the courtroom, in
the boardroom, and in the living room. On the one hand,
there is ample evidence that Microsoft has used less than
savory tactics to crush any real or threatened competitors.
While Microsoft once claimed that Windows was a much better
choice for businesses because it offered a wider variety of
software than any other operating system -- dozens of word
processors, spreadsheets and database programs -- this is no
longer true. Microsoft has essentially exterminated all but
token resistance to Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel and
Microsoft Access. The huge variety that allowed for the
almost infinite personalization of the personal computer has
been standardized into a gray, monolithic monopoly.
On the other hand, Microsoft apologists insist that,
monopoly aside, Microsoft has contributed greatly to the
economic health of the U.S., in particular, and the world in
general. True, thousands of software companies have been
destroyed, but look at the benefits of corporate
standardization! Instead of having to struggle with
different operating systems and data formats, everything can
now be handled seamlessly in an all-Microsoft world. Why,
even the hackers love Microsoft, for without such
standardization, they wouldn't be able to wipe out all the
corporate mail servers, Web servers and file servers with
such ease.
OK, maybe that wasn't the best example. The real
benefit comes from all the support industries created to
handle all the Y2K and virus problems caused by such
standardization. Wait, wait -- ignore that, too. The
real benefit is, um...
Microsoft has used advertising and highly publicized (and
tax-deductible) donations to counter the image of Microsoft
as corporate bully. Cheery, feel-good commercials show kids
using Microsoft programs to learn about the universe in
schools and at home. Other commercials show children with
terrible illnesses, smiling and happy in their hospital beds
thanks to wonderful Microsoft programs. Vast donations by
Microsoft, and Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates, have focused
on the value -- in the billions of dollars -- of the
donations. Usually unmentioned is the fact that these are
not cash donations; with rare exceptions, Microsoft and
Gates are donating Microsoft software, and the value is
calculated at full retail price.
Some apologists have gone so far as to suggest all the
legal proceedings against Microsoft be thrown out. The judge
in the case, they argue, is biased. He is angry with
Microsoft, and it is impossible to get a fair judgement from
him because of this anger. True, Microsoft officials did
forge various pieces of evidence for the court, then
testified that the "evidence" was not forged, and then
admitted that, well, maybe their previous testimony wasn't
correct. They also testified that they hadn't said various
things and then, when presented with transcripts (often
E-mail transcripts), either admitted that, once again, their
previous testimony might not have been correct. Or -- here's
an idea -- maybe the E-mail didn't really mean what it said.
But in either case, is that any reason to get angry with
Microsoft, and develop a bias against them?
The world has changed. Do laws really apply to companies
like Microsoft? Except, of course, such things as the law
limiting Y2K software liabilities?
What to do?
What should we do about Microsoft? Fine them? They could
pay the fine in, say, donated copies of Microsoft software.
That way, in the future, poor Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson
won't have to write his opinions in Corel WordPerfect (from
Canada, no less), and can use some good old American
software, like Microsoft Word!
Break up the company? One suggestion is to move Windows
(in all its flavors) and other operating system components
to one company, and all applications (word processors,
spreadsheets, database packages, etc.) to another. That way,
the Windows company would have to compete on a level playing
field against UNIX, Linux, Mac OS, and other operating
systems. The applications company, in turn, would be free to
go beyond Windows and develop programs for UNIX, Linux, Mac
OS and other operating systems.
"Open up" the Windows operating system code? This has
been suggested by quite a few, but it ignores something:
Windows isn't really an operating system, but a marketing
term. Windows 3.1 has almost nothing in common with Windows
95, which has almost nothing in common with Windows CE,
which has nothing in common with Windows 2000.
Or perhaps we could just make Microsoft more civilized.
Have the company accept their responsibility for the Y2K
crisis, and fix the problems, rather than use it as an
excuse to market new products. Have Microsoft accept
responsibility for the rampant virus problems, and get rid
of the OLE and Active X links between applications and the
operating system. Have Microsoft accept and follow true
cross-platform standards, and work with Java, JavaScript,
HTML, QuickTime, and other standards, rather than make up
their own private, incompatible, Microsoft versions.
When raising children, parents focus on just a few
skills: teaching children to accept responsibility for their
own actions, teaching them to be civil and respectful of
their peers, teaching them to get along. When they acquire
these skills, we consider them grown up.
It is well past time for Microsoft to grow up.
Revised January 9, 2000 Lawrence I. Charters
Washington Apple Pi
URL: http://www.wap.org/journal/