I can't resist the summary bits from the last one in the string, Gerald. This guy doesn't pull any punches, does he? Lots of bald sarcasm, obviously somebody after my own heart on the matter. The days of naive earnestness in the face of cheesy high school debate tricks are long past. Excerpts from fool.com :
In Tuesday's article I stated my belief that Microsoft produces inferior products using ideas copied from others. Its admittedly nice graphical user interface (GUI) is a coat of paint over dry rot: the underlying technology is stale and pathetic. On Wednesday I stated that nobody has any real incentive to cooperate with a company that habitually puts partners out of business, and that the company has grown bigger than its much admired public relations department can handle.
Thursday I talked about the free market striving to find alternatives to Microsoft, such as Java and the Open Source Software movement. Under Linux, the risk of a software developer becoming "too successful" and attracting Microsoft's attention is not present. Resellers are happy with it because every dollar they can bill is pure profit, and its penetration into the corporate space increases on a daily basis. And yesterday, Microsoft brought Linux up in court as an example of competition, a move reminiscent of NBC or CBS looking around for competition and having to settle for PBS.
That last line is very apropos wrt the old "dictionary defense" on antitrust, there's so much competition out there for friends of Bill to laugh at, in any context but this one. As with recent local contributor Xiao Yao on the subject of open source and free software. Moving on:
The DOJ's list of twelve witnesses includes executives from Intel, IBM, America Online, Apple, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, Intuit (makers of Quicken), two economists, and professors from Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania. Microsoft's witnesses consist of nine Microsoft executives, one of George Bush's economic advisors, and two executives from companies that smile when Microsoft tells them to. Each side can call two more witnesses, and Microsoft may call Bill Gates himself. But they've been reluctant to do so, probably because he lost his temper on the witness stand in the stacker trial a few years back -- a court case which ended in a $120 million judgement against Microsoft. The fact that Bill Gates' videotaped testimony has already made the entire court (including the judge) burst out laughing on at least one occasion might also have something to do with it. (Hint: Gates wasn't telling a joke.)
Needless to say, I've found Bill's public pronouncements an endless source of amusement since long before the trial started. Rumor has it he may show up on the stand yet, take some of the heat off of all those other "relatively junior executives", provide some live entertainment to go with the tale of the tape. Too bad old friend Thomas Reardon didn't make the cut. It would have been fun to hear sometime Slate contributor Charles "Rick" Rule explain why his former chief economist in the Reagan antitrust division is just an "ivory tower consultant" in court. Reggie would have been good too, though the way things are playing out I can't tell if he's a secret Microsoft legal adviser at this point, or has just been the recipient of pending and possible legal strategies from them all along. Just remember, nothing in life is free, right, Reggie?
But the most important thing to come out of this trial is not some undefined government action to fix things, but a large amount of information that Microsoft has tried hard to keep out of the press. The released internal documents alone make it worth watching for those of us who work in the industry.
Hearts and minds guy can't resist a big "Right On, Brother!!!" on that one.
As Microsoft software becomes an increasing part of the cost of a new computer, we should all realize that Microsoft's famous marketing department is targeted at its shareholders just as intensely as anyone else. This company is enormously profitable, but it has enormous and diverse challenges to overcome if it wants to continue to be the end-all and be-all of the computer industry. Microsoft is a company that must grow to survive, and it's running out of elbow room. Its billions in cash indicate more than profitability: it has nowhere to invest the money in itself. Microsoft will either burst through the roof or crush itself to death, and nobody's sure which.
And one last snotty aside. Much would be forgiven if Mighty Microsoft, with more money and smart people assembled than ever seen before, in software or anything else, just saw fit to give the "consumer" it holds so dear an OS that sucks less. Not what the market has chosen, I guess. Not what the customers demand. All those people who love Bill and have never installed a piece of software really like the integrity and uniformity of the Windows95 experience just the way it is.
Cheers, Dan. |
