Look, everybody, I know that I'm winning no points here on ethics and morality, and never will. Probably a lot more people who participate here read the WSJ than the NYT, I'm sure. Most participants are doubtless more closely in tune with the politics expressed in the WSJ editorial page than that found in the alledgedly liberal NYT, too. To my biased reading, the WSJ editorially spews venom without reason. The editors have recently admitted, I think, that they would never attack a Republican President the way they attack Clinton, because ideology comes first. That liberal rag, the NYT, basicly broke the Whitewater story. So, who are you going to believe? Not that I believe the NYT without collaboration, they're really much more establishmentarian than liberal. They write good, though.
I never give investment advise, period. I started razzing Sal about Nike just because I knew he touted it, here and elsewhere. I'm sorry it got out of hand. I guarantee you, despite my alledged appearance at Bill's executive conclave, I don't plan on attending Nike's next annual meeting with a token share of stock and starting a proxy fight, and I don't walk around the shoe stores in Madison with protest signs saying "Phil Knight, Feed Your People" (obscure cultural reference: Helen Hunt, Year of Living Dangerously, also staring Mel Gibson, Sigourney Weaver, great movie, lots of commies get gunned down too). I'm sorry people have lost money recently on Nike, other than the notice of the big tank day in the NYT I have no knowledge of the stock's recent preformance, and me razzing Sal about it had nothing to do with whether he, and others, were making money on it or not. Believe me, having lived through Netscape's big tank day, I can sympathize. Now, of course, I fear Nike like I fear Microsoft, I'm afraid that the shoe event horizon may be closer than I thought. That last sentence, I must point out, lest I be misconstrued, is a joke.
I often get attacked for saying Microsoft is evil, which is really an ad hominem, I've never said anything like that. I have attacked Microsoft on the Windows reliability issue. That's based on personal experience collaborated by things I've read on the net and in the press. Sorry. Otherwise, my usual line is that Microsoft will make money, no matter what. But, I don't think they should stand above the rule of law. In America these days, money buys plenty enough justice the way it is. And the business is war line is a bit too pat. Personally, I don't think business is war. There are no rules in war. Business wouldn't work very well outside of a legal framework. For that matter, the sacred concept of private property isn't much use outside of a legal framework, as can be seen in various African countries of late where governments have disappeared. Business, society, politics, economics all are interrelated.
As for Microsoft turning on a dime and embracing the internet, well, maybe. The end of last year, Reg was making these oblique remarks about how Java wasn't important, and neither was the internet. My reading at the time, after some thought, was that nothing much had changed in Microsoft's thinking on world conquest, except the transport medium. Before Dec. 7, 1995, the preferred medium was MSN, keeping that all important proprietary lock in place up and down the line. After Dec. 7, the medium became the internet. A lot of code had to be juggled, retargeted, rewritten, to be sure. Now, Reg says the internet is a really, reallly big deal, reflecting I guess his confidence that the Embrace and Demolish strategy has been successful.
And finally, Java. This is where I really go nuts, so I got to pontificate some more. Sorry, Eric, it's the lapsed Catholic in me, besides, as a SUNW holder don't you have some mixed feelings on this? Java is immature as a platform, and I for one never stated it would be the end of Microsoft or anything like that. Once more, Microsoft makes money, no matter what. It's just this "Embrace and Demolish" business, writ extra large. The problem with Java is fragmentation? And who's working hardest on fragmenting Java? The problem with Java is that Sun is dishonest on "Open"? And Windows is Open? Ignoring the doublespeak open definitional debate, Sun delivers source to everything, something that Microsoft is famous for, right? Then, we have the popular lines from the marketing peers, "Write once, debug everywhere", and "NC means Not Compatible". Some truth there, but again too pat by far. Java is a good idea, it may not pan out but it deserves a chance to be something beyond just another language in Windows. I can't see anything wrong with trying to break out from the little Wintel corner of the computer system design space.
Boy, another over the top, middle of the night post, hopefully not totally irrational. Look, really and truly, I don't think Microsoft is evil, but I don't think they have to control everything either. Nobody here seems to have much recollection of the heyday of the IBM/AT&T monopolies, things worked reliably, but it just wasn't that much fun. With Microsoft in control of the world I fear things won't be much fun, and they won't be that reliable either. Oops, that last was a bit nasty, Windows has actually been pretty good to me of late.
Cheers, Dan. |
