If Only Bill Gates Would Just Apologize
Written by John J. Xenakis for
CFO.com,
Jan 03, 2001.
Should Microsoft be split in two?
That's what the Department of Justice will urge the U.S. Court of
Appeals next week, when it files a brief supporting last June's
district court ruling to that effect.
The prospect of this kind of decision is a nightmare scenario for the
company and for the computer industry. We're headed for a time when
government bureaucrats with their parochial views will decide what
features and device drivers will go into the next version of Windows.
At this point, it should be noted that Microsoft's predicament is
largely of its own making. Despite the high quality of the firm's
products, it did engage in anticompetitive behavior that warranted
some form of punishment. But does the proposed punishment fit the
crime? Moreover, is the Justice Department's proposed remedy in the
best interest of Microsoft's corporate end users?
Perhaps the best solution is one that will return Microsoft to a
competitive environment similar to the one that existed in the early
1990s, when it was competing with other software developers to produce
world-class, top-notch products -- products that were so good that
Microsoft would have still have killed the market if it had competed
fairly and not broken so many laws.
In saying that, I'm specifically disagreeing with Ralph Nader and
others like him who say that Microsoft doesn't innovate; it just
copies other companies' software. The consumer advocates also believe
they're qualified to appraise the computer industry.
For example, the launch of Windows 95 was one of the technological
wonders of the world. Those who say that Windows 95 was just a
software retread might also be expected to argue that the Egyptian
pyramids were easy because everyone knows how to build sand castles.
Windows 95 integrated thousands of disparate products from other
vendors and got them to work on computers from hundreds of vendors. It
was a world-class achievement which moved the computer industry years
forward.
Similarly, Microsoft's application products, like Word and Internet
Explorer, are sophisticated products that have set the standard for
other vendors.
Unfortunately, Microsoft wasn't satisfied with producing the world's
best products; it had to use marketing techniques that resembled
extortion and racketeering, and indeed in December, 1999, the federal
court found the company guilty of using anticompetitive tactics to
cripple its rivals.
It's almost as if the company were behaving like an admired uncle
who's done wonderful things for your family and many others, but who
is embezzling money from his employer. Do you continue to admire his
accomplishments, or do you condemn his dark side? And what kind of
punishment does he deserve?
The problem is that Microsoft produced such great products that it
gained monopoly power with them, and this has caused the company to
get sloppy. The latest operating system, Windows Me, has been called a
"pale upgrade" by the Wall Street Journal's Walter Mossberg. PC
Magazine was more positive, but questioned whether it was worth the
$110 street price to purchase an upgrade.
But who can blame Microsoft for producing a second-rate product? If it
adds a major new feature that undercuts another company's product,
then the Justice Department will jump all over it. So the company
might as well put in a few non-controversial features, charge a
fortune, and sit back and collect the profits. It's not Microsoft's
fault; the government is making it behave that way.
Microsoft is in the grip of its own monopoly power and is turning into
the post office -- do as little as possible, keep everyone employed,
and don't rock the boat. Microsoft is becoming mediocre.
Unfortunately, most politicians don't understand that.
What's really sickening is that Microsoft is being drawn into this
political milieu, where excellence just gets some politician mad and
mediocrity is rewarded.
Which brings us to the depressing proposal to split Microsoft into
companies. Huh? That means not one company with two monopolies, but
two companies with two monopolies. Why would anyone think that was
better?
Oh, I see. Government bureaucrats get to regulate both companies, so
there are more politicians getting high salaries and building
bureaucracies to do busy work. It's a politician's dream, and a
nightmare for taxpayers and anyone who uses a computer.
What's needed is a solution that takes Microsoft's monopoly power
away, so that the company can go back to making leading edge
products.
How do you do that? It's actually simple, and it was a proposed remedy
that District Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson rejected. Microsoft should
be required to make the core source code for its monopoly products
available to competitors. Microsoft and others would differentiate
themselves by building unique features on top of the core
capabilities, and true competition would return.
Confiscatory!" is the objection to this proposal voiced by Bill Gates
in a press interview. But hey, when you break the law, you have to pay
a price.
I've had the pleasure of meeting Bill Gates several times over the
years, and although he has business skills that I can only fantasize
of ever having myself, there's a big part of him which is, like me,
pure nerd. If that part of him can ever get out front again, then he
may actually like this proposal for its openness and simplicity.
The deal would be this: Bill Gates would apologize, and would agree to
make Microsoft's source code available to the company's rivals. The
DOJ would agree that Microsoft no longer has monopoly power and would
drop all further litigation.
Microsoft would be back to where it was when it actually had to create
great products to survive. Call me a nerd for saying so, but I think
Bill Gates and Microsoft's employees will, in the end, be much happier
in that environment than playing footsie with politicians.
(This is a modified version of an article that originally
appeared on
Jan 03, 2001
on
CFO.com
at
this location.
)
|