Thank you again for the ad hominem attack, Cary. The socialist smear is hardly original either. Nah, I couldn't give you 127 company lines, Microsoft isn't that innovative. I could get you a Slate article that had a good analysis of the maybe the top ten antitrust lines, though. You know, Chrysler car radio, Bill the naive software engineer, Microsoft must "innovate" or die, etc.
Here's a little quiz for you from yesterday's news.
Microsoft currently hold 90 percent of the operating system market share with its popular Windows system, but Gates refused to characterize that as monopoly, insisting instead that Microsoft products have a very short shelf-life and are constantly threatened by competitors.
He said a bright innovator could replace Windows "in a day."
McNealy and Jim Barksdale of Netscape Communications, however, said they doubt the Windows operating system could be replaced in their lifetimes because it is so widely used around the world.
"That would be about as easy as switching the national language from English to Dutch," McNealy said.
So, you got your man Bill, and McNealy, who's not really my guy, even though I like Java. Who's closer to the truth here? Who's being, you know, maybe a bit disingenuous, as they say? Of course, old timers will know the proper "it's unethical to be ethical in business" formulation, so Bill's just doing his job, I guess, where McNealy is really botching his. Whatever. I find it all richly amusing.
The endless ad hominems I find tiresome, usually I just try to point them out as such, I'm not very good at ignoring them. I'm sure the Microsoft types would prefer this forum be given over to gloating about Microsoft's inevitable triumph and dancing on Netscape's grave. Plenty of other places for that. You might like to check out the current Newsweek, a nice little cover story reprise of last year's "Microsoft Century" fawning story, subtly timed to coincide with the hearings. Another example of Bill's legendary political naivete.
Cheers, Dan. |
