Thanks for taking the time to respond, and at the risk of another long post, let me respond to some of the points you make.
> However: if I understood
> you correctly, the main points of your message are that the source code should be
> made public because:
> a)it'd make Microsoft people less biased and let them see other things that are
> happening in the industry
Well, I'm not sure you quite understand what I am saying. It's not just that you spent so much time shipping Windows 95 that you almost missed the internet.
It's that, because you have to defend Winodws, that forces you to see things in a certain way, to solve problems in a certain way and to not do certain things because to do so would undermine Windows and the enourmous cash flow that represents. Windows cash flow is pretty certain. Future cash flows from products are necessarily uncertain and could be greater than what you now get from Windows. Of course, since those products might undermine the Windows franchise, you'll never know.
> c)it's good from a political standpoint
Well, it's a bit more than just being "politcally correct." It's a function of what the customer wants and what the marketplace will tolerate. Customers want open standards where they are not locked into a market like the automobile market, where they if they have, say, a Volvo, they have to buy expensive Volvo parts for the life of the car. They want to be able to mix and match, buy "best of breed" and have some competition for their dollars.
Also, keeping Windows proprietary engenders fear of Microsoft and the concern that Microsoft may have an unfair advantage on the appliations side over its competitors due to its superior knowledge of the APIs. There have even been accusations, and I don't know that they are true and am not asking for you to comment on them, that Microsoft keeps some APIs secret, at least for a while, so it can get a head start on its competitors in the applications area. Making Windows an open standard would dissapate all of these issues.
> d)revenue from Windows will decline due to Java/NC computing
Not just Java and the Network Computer: these are short-term considerations. I'm also talking about broadband.
> There
> are thousands of man-years of work invested in hardware compatibility, device
> drivers, application software, and many other things that make Windows anything
> but a commodity. And we will continue to add value with things like IE4.
The point is that IE4, Netscape Communicator, and the Java Virtual Machine are all competing platforms. Their existence tends to diminish the importance and value of Windows because people can write applications to them and not just to Windows.
I would also like to hear what you have to say about my argument that JDirect will not work: While Windows-only Java makes some sense in an environment such as a corporate LAN where everyone can be required to standardize on Windows, the strategy will not work on the extranet or the internet, where the business has no control over what platforms its customers will be running. In e-mail (not from Microsoft), I've seen some interesting counter-arguments to this, and I'd appreciate it if you could confront the issue directly. |
