News and commentary from the cross-platform scripting community.
|
||
|
Mail Starting 10/23/97 | |
The OEM vendors are licensing a product from Microsoft. It's Microsoft's product. They can do whatever they want with it, right?
From: mike@newmedia.com (Michael Lynch);
Sent at 10/23/97; 3:44:01 PM;
Moral ArgumentsThe problem is, the DOJ thinks they have a monopoly, and they are using the monopoly to force people to use IE. They may be right, but I don't believe the government has any right to interfere. I mean, why didn't the DOJ interfere when Microsoft added a built-in TCP/IP stack with Windows95? There were many companies that made TCP/IP stacks before Windows 95 came out, but did the DOJ complain about "monopolistic practises" then?
There were a bunch of companies making email programs (still are) before Windows 95 came out, but did the DOJ complain when Exchange or Microsoft Mail was included? Did Adobe, Corel or the DOJ complain when Paint was included? Well no, you say, because Paint is not on the same level as Photoshop or Draw.
Oh, I see -- so the DOJ is determining the quality of software to see if it is creating an unfair advantage. Since when is Janet Reno or the DOJ qualified to do this?
I don't think they are. Will including IE in Windows 95 really cause that much of a disadvantage? Will users choose not to install Navigator because IE is installed? I have Exchange installed under Windows NT, but I choose to use Eudora. I don't feel like I've been the victim of a monopoly. I don't feel like my choice was forced on me.
Dave, I have my own little experience. I recently bought a Compaq laptop and was unable to remove the MSN (Microsoft Network) icon from the desktop. Is MS arguing that MSN is an integral part of the operating system? Apparently the only way to remove the icon is by reinstalling MSN, replacing the installed version and its otherwise unremovable desktop icon, and then uninstalling it.
From: grimes@access.digex.net (Seth Grimes);
Sent at 10/23/97; 3:12:37 PM;
Re:Moral ArgumentsAs an exercise, now that you have MSIE 4 installed in your Win95 machine, try removing it.
From: jwbaxter@olympus.net (John W. Baxter);
Sent at 10/23/97; 12:16:03 PM;
Re:Moral ArgumentsThis could be the next big opportunity for consultants: it is a *challenge* based on reports I've heard. (If Frontier were a little farther along for Windows, MSIE 4 removal would be a natural script to offer.)
I've also seen reports of corporate MIS folks urging their users NOT to install MSIE 4 because it's so hard to remove.
Reading the piece from PC WEEK, I was struck by the words of Microsoft's Greg Shaw: "If we let OEMs do what they want, then we would have a balkanization of the OS like Unix."
From: mmcavoy@ix.netcom.com (Michael McAvoy);
Sent at 10/23/97; 10:34:11 AM;
BalkanizationThe obvious (and frequently-mentioned) irony is that just last week we witnessed the beginning of Sun's lawsuit against Microsoft for, essentially, attempting to balkanize Java. Last week there was much discussion about whether Sun's lawsuit was simply a big PR move. If that were the case, then their PR was obviously over-shadowed by this week's events. Interestingly though, I cannot imagine this development doing anything but helping Sun's case. If you are going to tattle to the teacher that Billy is being a bully, it helps if a few other kids also show up with the same story.
Mr. Shaw is correct, of course. If the OEMs are allowed to pick and choose the pieces that they want to pre-install, then there will be much less consistency among the various flavors of operating system that people are working with. But... is this necessarily a bad thing?
The Macintosh went through this same process a long time ago. I remember when I began using the Mac, somewhere around System 3.0. We had to use Font/DA Mover to modify and customize the operating system. We did have extensions (although they were simply called INITs back then) but there was not nearly the quantity of different extension files that we now have. However one might customize their own Mac, there was much more consistency in what environment a developer could expect the end user to have. Later Apple "loosened up" that environment considerably. Programmers had to be more careful about checking the environment for the resources their applications needed. Programming the Mac became more difficult, but at the same time there was more power available. It was a good trade-off.
What made it work was that Apple has always carefully documented what was going on in the system. When I started learning to program the Mac, the fourth "Inside Macintosh" had just been published. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to how many books are in the series now (fortunately most of that information is unnecessary for any given developer).
Apple has largely taken a path opposite from what Microsoft is doing. Where MS is apparently taking an "Engulf and Devour" approach to integrating everything into the operating system, Apple instead allowed the OS to become more modular. Certainly, Apple has inspired some bitterness among third-party developers by adding OS functionality that was previously available through commercial add-ons. But at the same time, Apple has not pushed the "pristine environment" concept. Even when installing the OS itself, a user can customize and include or leave out a wide variety of OS-related capabilities.
Why is Microsoft so worried about balkanization when Apple has apparently made it work? Read "balkanize" as a euphemism for "open". When an OS may potentially be in many different configurations, it is absolutely necessary that the OS be well-documented--not necessarily down to the source level, but far enough down that anybody who wants to play can learn how the pieces interact. Apple builds operating systems by wiring together a large number of small black boxes. Microsoft builds operating systems by building massive singular black boxes. If Internet Explorer is ever fully integrated into Windows, that OS will THEN be what Microsoft NOW claims it to be: the browser the operating system will essentially be the same thing. It would still be possible to run a "foreign" browser, but it could not possibly have the functionality that IE would be able to offer by virtue of being inside that black box.
Apple, of course, is hardly the standard-bearer for OS open standards. That title obviously goes to UNIX. Again, what Microsoft calls "balkanization", the rest of us call "open". Granted, UNIX has a steeper learning curve than the Mac or Windows--the user must be willing to work "under the hood" or have somebody capable close by. It will be interesting to see how Rhapsody turns out, being a UNIX system with a Mac face.
Ultimately, users do not care whether the next person is using an identical operating system--they want it to support the way they prefer to work, and they want to be able to exchange data files with other computers. (And, over the last ten years, we have made a lot of progress at cross-platform file compatibility. Open-standard file formats tend to be the most successful; proprietary formats are usually seen as "dead-ends" for data.) Software developers are more sensitive to the question of inconsistent OS environments--they want to be able to write a program that will work correctly on a large number of computers without having to produce twenty different versions of the same program. Ideally, a software developer would not even have to recompile a program in order for it to run across a spectrum of hardware/OS combinations.
That ideal was (whatever Sun's other corporate attitudes) the cause of the excitement over Java. Write a program once, run it anywhere. That was an enormous threat to Microsoft. It promised to make the balkanization of an operating system into something not merely permissible, but preferable. This time, read "balkanization" as "customizing" or "user's choice."
Janet Reno sure came up with a great publicity stunt. Just as the heat over political fundraising was coming to a boil, the Justice Department decides to levy a headline-grabbing million-dollar-a-day fine against Microsoft. Almost everybody either hates or fears Microsoft, so targeting them would seem a politically safe move. The problem is it's unfair.
From: fred@weblust.com (Fred Davis);
Sent at 10/23/97; 1:01:41 AM;
MicrosoftNow, don't get me wrong. I'm no Microsoft lackey, and I don't think Microsoft is without fault. But I also don't think they are a monopoly. Computing is a market with hundreds of billions of dollars in sales. Microsoft's sales are only $7 billion a year - just one-tenth that of IBM's. And that relatively small market share hardly makes them a monopoly.
Sure, Microsoft is a mean and nasty competitor, who sometimes goes over the line in its zeal to be successful. And if they cross the line, they should be pushed back. But - surprise, surprise - Microsoft's main critics, notably Netscape and Sun, are also zealous and mean competitors. Like it or not, that's what business is all about, whether it's computers, cars, or cosmetics.
People who think Microsoft controls the market are giving the company way too much credit. In the computer industry, like most other industries, it's actually the customers who control the market. They vote with their checkbooks every day.
The customers who elected Microsoft to its current position seem to have turned into the company's biggest critics...kind of like the people who voted for Clinton. All these customers had a choice. They could have bought a Macintosh. They could have bought OS/2. They could have bought a NeXT. But they didn't, or at least, not many of them did. All of these systems had advantages over what Microsoft was offering. But customers apparently saw a greater benefit from buying Microsoft's products, and that benefit was conformity.
Society tends to reward conformity and punish those who deviate from the norm. And that's certainly been the main factor in Microsoft's success. I've learned this the hard way because even though I use Windows quite a bit, I've been a vocal advocate of the Mac over the years. Microsoft never attacked me for my choice. In fact, they created some pretty decent programs for the Mac that helped it survive. Instead of Microsoft, it was their customers who went on the offensive. Over the years, DOS and Windows users have written me hate mail, called me names, screamed at me, and almost punched me out... just for saying something nice about the Mac.
Both customers and companies in the computer industry obviously see a major benefit to having a universal computer standard because it provides conformity and compatibility that can help reduce the complexities of computer technology. Even when better operating systems like the Mac, OS/2, or NeXT are brought to market, the majority of customers and software developers decide to shun it in favor of supporting the standard. So if you want to blame somebody for Microsoft's domination in its market segment, blame its customers. And if you didn't even think about buying a Mac, then you can blame yourself too.
I just read your article, A Message to Washington. I liked what you said and would like to add a couple of points. In the article you stated, "Microsoft is making a bet that users want the web experience deeply integrated with all aspects of their computer use. Maybe they're wrong? A question for the legal scholars to ponder -- is Microsoft showing some vulnerability here? What if users don't like having HTML so deeply integrated with the user experience?"
From: lincolnb@ix.netcom.com (Lincoln Brigham);
Sent at 10/23/97; 10:08:22 AM;
Message to WashingtonYes, Microsoft could be wrong about using a browser interface. You bet they could blow it here; there's lot's of room for major strategic blunders in the computer industry, room enough for everyone. But consider this: Microsoft spent a great deal of energy and time trying to get the Windows interface right. They thought they got it right with the Windows 95 interface. (Okay, that's debatable too.) Then they got blindsided by the the whole Internet boom. This they admit. Is it likely they relish the thought of abandoning all of that operating system interface work they had done? I think not. I think they truly believe they are catering to the customer's whim in this case. And the customer could be wrong.
You're right to be confused as to Microsoft's intentions and clarifications.
From: dave@sherm.com (Dave Sherman);
Sent at 10/23/97; 9:57:36 AM;
Power to CompeteI strongly recommend that you check this story from Editor & Publisher:
http://www.mediainfo.com/ephome/news/newshtm/nuggets/nuggets.htm
I think it adds context to Microsoft's desire to maintain a "pristine" conduit to its content enterprises.
Respectfully, Ralph Nader and his organization aren't going to be the leaders in the movement where _individuals_ triumph over the corporations. The movement will be led by smart, young, and energetic people. Additionally, the methods used won't include meetings of rich people in Washington, DC hotels. The methods will likely be more unconventional, but much more effective.
From: robbtrek@umich.edu (Robb T Beal );
Sent at 10/23/97; 12:07:49 PM;
Today's DaveNet--Striking a Chord!The last paragraph of today's DaveNet struck a chord. It raises an important question: Do corporations have inherent power or do they only have the power that individuals choose to imbue them with?
Windows 98 has long been touted as being a revelation in computing, integrating the internet with the desktop and everything else in a way nothing else previously has.
From: jhebert@lab.housing.fsu.edu (james hebert);
Sent at 10/23/97; 12:08:20 PM;
Microsoft quietly changing its tuneThey're not saying that any more. Read the sj merc peice you linked to carefully -- Bill says windows 98 isn't much different from windows 95. He's trying to play it that the integration of IE into the OS has already happened, while many people on the mail page (and me) are saying that the real integration was coming in 98 and that Microsoft would be right then, but not now.
Just a clarification about your statement that MS wanted IBM's support back then.
From: davep@best.com (Dave Polaschek);
Sent at 10/23/97; 10:57:39 AM;
Moral ArgumentsOS/2 and NT were once the same thing. Microsoft and IBM were cooperating to develop the "Next Generation" of Windows. They parted ways due to different visions of the future, different engineering methodologies, and different goals for the finished product. IBM wanted something that would work well with their big iron in "enterprise computing" and would free them from having to llicense DOS, while supporting IBM big iron wasn't much of a priority for Microsoft.
In any case, the two split. IBM did a minimal amount of work on the shared code-base and released OS/2, hoping to get something significantly better than Windows out quickly, so they could get some momentum going. These were rough times for IBM, and they believed OS/2 could help save their PC business.
Microsoft wasn't very happy with the state of the (shared) software at that point, so they ripped big chunks out, replaced them with new code, and released NT. Since they already had a good grip on the market with Windows 3.0, they didn't need to hurry as much as IBM did.
The important point is that OS/2 and NT were (at the time of the parting) the exact same product. There was a schism, and they each went their own way.
It's interesting to see so much emphasis on Microsoft's power. The W3C is easily the most important, powerful organization in the computer industry today. An interesting question is: Why isn't Apple Computer more involved and better represented in the W3C? Perhaps you should pose this question!
From: robbtrek@umich.edu (Robb T Beal );
Sent at 10/23/97; 11:47:21 AM;
The real power in the industry!I think it's always revolved around the software. It just used to be that you could only buy the hardware from the same people who made the software. I guess Apple is still in this game, but the WinTel commodity market has unbundled these. I'm not convinced that's a good thing, but that's a different topic.
From: jpugh@Adobe.COM (Jon Pugh);
Sent at 10/23/97; 9:37:50 AM;
>Re: Moral ArgumentsThis desire of people to have a single company give them all the software they need is, I think, a manifestation of how computers are still too hard to use as well as how unknowledgable people are. Ask the average Windows user any technical questions and you'll quickly find out how little they know about their machines. They are still mysterious black boxes. A great example of this mentality is the "Wipe everything and reinstall" troubleshooting technique. When was the last time you did that to a Mac? It's very common practice on the PC, although I suspect most real computer geeks wouldn't stoop that low. ;)
Trying to predict the future in this business is impossible, but fun to try anyhow. I suspect that the only way to get computers to be more palatable to the vast majority of humanity is to reduce their complexity. Instead of these powerful multi-purpose devices, we need to make specialized computers which do only a limited number of things. For example, a Web Phone or a Web TV is a nice idea. The less educated masses can understand it and use it. It'll be impossible to misconfigure. As long as it doesn't crash its way into oblivion, it should work well. Things like this may trickle down better than generic PCs.
Of course, there will still be a place for the powerful generic devices we love to program. It just won't be in everyone's house.
Of course, I'm probably wrong. ;)
Jon
PS: It's very amusing to take any Microsoft statement these days and replace "Windows" with Java or vice versa. It really illuminates the contradiction.
PPS: It would also be interesting to explore the issue of OS bundling. I know you have strong feelings about that, and it's an ambiguous area. Can a company bundle any application software they want with their OS? (Why isn't MS Office part of the OS?) How could you possibly define the boundaries if they aren't? It's a tough call, and you've been involved with it for a long time. Can you figure out an ideal situation where bundling and competition can both be successful?
The thing that really concerned me was the non-disclosure agreements with OEMs and the inflexibility to allow the OEMs to modify (and possible add value) to the Microsoft's vision of Win95 (what they had admittedly done to Sun/Java win IE4.0).
From: larry@techwood.org (larry curtin);
Sent at 10/23/97; 12:33:11 PM;
Re: Moral ArgumentsIf you're the power company you can't threaten to disconnect folks if they don't get rid of their gas stoves. What is "good business practice" when you have a market share in the teens is an abuse of power and monopolistic when you market share is over 75%.