compitition is good for Gates
techweb.com;
Competition:Good For You -- If you really, really like
Microsoft's products and services, you have the
company's fiercest competitors to thank
Stephen Manes
In a new pamphlet and insomnia cure called "Competition in the Software
Industry," Microsoft admits that "From time to time, Microsoft's competitors
seek to portray the company as a 'monopoly.'" The Redmond gang then tries
to refute that contention by saying that it's just a teensy little part of the overall
computer industry.
It's the goofiest antitrust defense since IBM's Tom Watson tried to ward off
the Feds by claiming his punch-card monopoly was just a wee cog in an
overall accounting industry, one that included adding machines, ledger books,
and pencils. The government didn't buy that one, either.
The theory behind antitrust law, remember, is to maintain competition-not just
to keep prices low, but also to stimulate innovation. The greatest confirmation
of that theory is Microsoft's own behavior.
Look at Windows 98. If Beta 3 is any indication, this is a lackluster release of
bug fixes and minor tweaks. There's not even an uninstall program to help get
rid of unwanted DLL files and the like. You might think that cleaning up after
itself should be an integral part of the operating system, but Microsoft
continues to leave that job to third parties.
Why? Because uninstall programs are no competitive threat. Microsoft has
concentrated its Windows 98 efforts in areas where it can blunt looming
competition:manageability, responding to "total cost of ownership" issues
posed by competitive systems, and Internet Explorer 4.0, responding to the
threat from Netscape Communications.
Even if Microsoft had not engaged in the practices for which the Justice
Department has hauled it into court, Netscape would have had its hands full
playing Microsoft's game:Set a standard and bury your opponents under a
constant blizzard of upgrades and improvements. But without competition,
neither Microsoft nor Netscape would have had much incentive to keep
improving their browsers.
During the years that MS-DOS monopolized the PC market, Microsoft did
little to improve it aside from an occasional upgrade to support new
hardware. But when Digital Research's DR-DOS arrived with more features,
Microsoft's DOS 5 and 6 rose to the challenge. Competition pushed
Microsoft's product out of its rut.
You can bet that if there were a DR-Win98 with an uninstaller and a knife
sharpener built in for $2.98, Microsoft would match it feature for feature and
penny for penny. Where there's no need to compete, there's every reason to
coast.
The leap from Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 was in part a response to the
momentum IBM briefly achieved with OS/2 and the potential for trouble from
a common platform that could run OS/2 and Mac OS. But by then, having
essentially won the application wars, programs such as Word and Excel for
Windows began to get only minimal improvements.
Where does Microsoft see competition now? Clearly, the massive effort
behind Windows NT 5.0 owes a lot to potential storm clouds from Unix,
Java, and thin clients. When the competition raised the
total-cost-of-ownership flag, Microsoft suddenly got religion. In the consumer
space, the one Microsoft product that keeps improving by leaps and bounds
with each new release is Microsoft Money; that's mostly because Intuit's
Quicken keeps cleaning its clock.
Before the great Internet wave, Microsoft as a company seemed to be
stagnating. The attacks from Netscape and thin clients rejuvenated it. That's
one good reason why competition must be encouraged, by ensuring that
Microsoft doesn't use its monopoly power-yes, it exists-to crush opponents
unfairly.
Eat your spinach, Bill:Competition is good for you.
Stephen Manes has been writing about computers and their discontents
since 1982. He sometimes answers mail sent to him at steve@cranky.com.
Copyright (c) 1998 CMP Media Inc. |
