Reg, I never used the words good or bad. I admit that there is
a lot of sarcasm in me quoting Ballmer's "embrace and demolish",
but I think the quote is quite relevant in light of the fog of
PR pronouncements about the internet emanating from Redmond.
Netscape may well have wanted to get an internet monopoly,
but they're just a startup, not a big company with a powerful
existing monopoly to use as leverage. And, ethics aside, all
business is subject to the rule of law.
As I've said before, Reg, I think you and I share much the same
vision of the future of Microsoft and the internet. I'll make
another comparison, which I think is technically relevant here.
What Microsoft is trying to do is much like what AT&T did in
establishing the national telephone network. There was nothing
wrong with the old AT&T/Bell system; it provided good, reliable
service at a reasonable price. And I certainly wouldn't call
it evil. But you had to play by their rules. I think most
people would agree that we are better off with the competitive
and relatively open telecommunication systems we have now.
Microsoft wants to put itself into a position similar to the
old AT&T, where it controls the network and what is attached
to it. Of course, they can't force non-Windows computers off
the internet. But if they succeed with "embrace and demolish",
and it becomes necessary to run Windows everywhere because
essential services start to use ActiveX or other "open"
Microsoft standards, then the internet starts looking like
the old Bell system. There, you got connected at Ma Bell's
pleasure, and she told you what you could plug into your
wall jack. Of course, Ma Bell provide good service, and was
relatively benevolent to individuals in its cross subsidization.
And the regulatory environment provided some protection to both
consumers and other telcos. I'm not convinced that in Windows
World things will be quite so egalitarian. And while Microsoft
software is certainly reasonably priced now, who can say what
the price will be in Windows World.
It's not like Netscape is saintly on openness, but they do pay
more than lip service to the concept. The apparent Microsoft
definition of "open" == "running Windows" is beneficial
to Microsoft, but I believe sticking to a more conventional
standard of openness would be better for everyone else. And I
don't feel this is petty moralizing, as you seem to be arguing.
I think keeping network services independent of Windows-based
"standards" will result in more competition. I think that
is good economically as well as ethically. I also think
it is in the interest of every enterprise to consider these
issues when choosing what software to base their communications
infrastructure on. The decisionmakers need to remember, as you
say, that "nothing in life is free", and that there may be hidden
long term costs in going the Windows World way. And if these
issues are relevant to people purchasing Microsoft software,
they are relevant to Microsoft investors also, regardless of
ethics and morals.
Cheers, Dan. |
