Microsoft's Worst Enemy

In a well-publicized memo either earlier this year or sometime during last, (I can't remember exactly which, I admit), executives at Microsoft admitted they considered Linux and open source software to be the biggest threat to their dominance and continued expansion into a variety of markets, from the home desktop and business office to the emerging TabletPC and notebook market.

After watching Microsoft closely for the last eighteen months or so, I've got to disagree. Microsoft's biggest threat isn't Linux, OpenOffice, or any piece of software at all--its themselves. Over the last eighteen months two distinctly different Microsoft cultures have emerged, often in opposition to each other.

Microsoft has, in fact, released some excellent products over the last eighteen months, as well as made some important and noteworthy advancements. Windows XP has proven itself as an extremely capable "bridge" product between the stability / power of Windows 2000 and the compatibility of the Win9x-era world of software. While there may not be many compelling reasons for Windows 2000 users to upgrade to Windows XP, there's no reason for Windows XP users to downgrade to 2K. Compared to Microsoft's Windows ME release, where many unfortunates stuck with the OS fixed their problems by installing the OLDER Windows 98SE, Windows XP has been quite a success. We've seen other solid products and developments in the X-Box, prototype TabletPC's, and the just-released DirectX 9. Overall, while Microsoft remains decidedly lackluster in areas like security, I have to say they've improved the overall quality of their product dramatically and deserve recognition for having done so.

The Dr. Jekyll of the Redmond campus may well be the collective body of programmers and designers--the true technicians--working on the software giants vast body of programs, operating systems, and other projects. If these were the people running the company, I daresay Microsoft would be perceived very differently by the collective IT community, but this is not the case.

The other aspect of Microsoft, and unfortunately, the dominant one, seems to be reserved for a type of marketing peon whose former job involved financial extortion, pathological lying, or a brief stint as one of Lucifer's demons. The sheer number of mis-steps made by this branch of Microsoft are difficult to remember, but some of the highlights include:

There were others--it's already emerged that MS developed a mobile phone under cooperation with a British company, with the firm expectation that the two would go to market together, only to dump them altogether, AFTER extracting the company's proprietary information. Then, of course, there's the company's attack on an Australian charity for daring to give away ancient Windows PC's that MIGHT be improperly registered. We're not even talking XP, or even 2K hardware here--we're talking Windows 95.

Add it all up and what you have is a company that, at the least, displays a profound level of arrogance coupled with the unshakable belief that they have not only the ability, but the right to dictate to the rest of the world, from charities to corporations, how the world should look. The only place we see Microsoft backing away from this type of overlord status is when it comes to organizations such as the RIAA or MPAA--and there, rather than standing strong as a champion of consumer's rights (its customers) the company has chosen to slavishly ally itself with them, incorporating ever-larger restrictions into its operating systems on how users can and can't use their equipment--and how they'll be monitored for doing so.

In response to these draconian measures we see government after government launching studies into the feasibilities of switching to open source software, school corporations investigating it, and end-users embracing it. Microsoft's response to this movement, thus far, has been characteristic of the brutal arrogance that the company typically displays. When some of the wealthiest counties in Washingston State began investigating switching to open source software, it was EXACTLY those counties that Microsoft targeted for a supposedly "random" audit, required that audit to take place within the middle of the school year, and informed school officials they had only six weeks to carry it out. Coincidence?

Now we see Microsoft launching seminars on open source software (you can safely guess its not promoted) and inundating senators, foreign governments, and anyone who will listen with all the reasons why OSS should absolutely NOT be considered as a possible solution. The first irony present in the entire situation is that this does them little good in the long run. Dragging people into rooms and inundating them with FUD may convince a few, but in the end, you'll lose a lot more than you'll convert.

Secondly ironic is Microsoft's own desire to seemingly destroy themselves at the precise moment their software is gaining some concrete technical merit. At the time when their operating system is actually becoming a product someone might want to run (as opposed to having no other choice), we see them burying it under a wave of spyware and fair-use-infringing "options" that seem purposefully designed to piss off their buyer constituency.

Ultimately, Linux is only Microsoft's biggest enemy because it represents a possible, cheaper alternative that can run on native x86 hardware without requiring an entire platform shift to Macintosh. Its not Linux Microsoft can't stand--its competition.

Its time for Redmond to wake up and smell the coffee. The businesses and governments testing Linux today are going to be the forefront of its adopters tomorrow, especially if your licensing restrictions and wallet-gutting pricing don't ease. Find a way to respond to the privacy, licensing cost, and fair-use regulation concerns of your buyers, or be prepared to be shoved out of the market. Before you arrogantly claim it couldn't possibly happen to you, take a good look at companies like Apple, IBM, or 3dfx who's names were once SYNONYMOUS with computing--and who now, without exception, are either dead or relegated to niche markets in the areas they once utterly dominated.

I'm no Linux user. I've never booted a distro of the OS in any of its flavors, and save for playing with it on a friend's machine, I've never spent much time in it. I am not an open source maverick, nor am I anti-business or anti-profit. What I am, however, is concerned about how Redmond intends to safeguard my privacy, my right to use an operating system as I see fit, and my rights of fair use. I am, in fact, very concerned.

Right now, Linux has yet to offer me any reason why I should go to the monumental hassle of switching and re-training myself to the new OS environment, but unlike two years ago, I can see it potentially occurring today. Drop the attitude, the lying, and the marketing BS, Microsoft--or--begin to watch your customer base slip away. Discuss this Editorial

a type of marketing peon whose former job involved financial extortion, pathological lying, or a brief stint as one of Lucifer's demons.

I think this is mis-placed. The acts we are seeing are not those of marketing people. They are the acts of lawyers. Lawyers are always the ones who think that the customers are the enemy. They are also the ones who think that force, coercion, and rigorously-enforced "agreements" are the path to happiness. To a lawyer, the 'adversary proceeding' -- even against a customer -- is the natural form of dispute resolution. They don't even understand that it pisses people off. To them, it's just how things get resolved.

We are watching in this country a huge movement toward allowing lawyers to have serious policy-making authority in corporations, and it is turning many corporations into belligerent, hard-to-deal-with pains who are wasting enormous resources on angering people when none of it is really necessary.

Yes, Microsoft is like that, but so are its rivals. The whole Microsoft anti-trust trial was an example of how a Sun or a Netscape competes when management is listening to the lawyers instead of the marketers or the engineers.

The recording industry is in the thrall of its lawyers right now; they think the path to profit is to sue their customers.

Rambus, which made a wonderful deal with Intel that could have made the company fabulously successful if they had tended to their engineering, instead fell into the grip of their lawyers... and pissed absolutely everyone off.

Hopefully, this is a phase. We had a phase like this with accountants about twenty years ago. All the big companies were elevating accountants to the role of CEO. Damn near every one that did -- including household names like Ford Motor and Safeway -- went right down the tubes.

I think we are still in the ascendancy phase with the lawyers, but once the record companies crash and burn and Microsoft sees whole countries switching to linux, people might get the message that the 'adversary proceeding' belongs in the courtroom, not in the salesman's bag, and certainly not in the consumer's face.

Actually, the primary threat to Microsoft is legacy-support.

So far, upgrading to the next version of Windows has made sense, because it will support all of the legacy software already on each machine. So you can upgrade from Win95 to WinME and still use the old Office95 suite you have until you can afford to buy the new iteration of Office. This means that consumers and businesses can spread out the cost of technology upgrades, as they can update old software at their own pace. This is why Linux and other OS's face such an uphill battle, because they require a high secondary cost when upgrading. You have to upgrade tons of software (yes, I know there are emulators, and no, they don't work very well) to get the same functionality as you had with your old OS. And in the end, that's all people are interested in, the functionality of the software apps (OS "features" come in way behind this).

So I have to giggle when I hear that Microsoft is considering dropping legacy support for its next OS. While the reports claim the primary reason is technological (which is plausible, as the move away from the WinX core makes backward compatability difficult), rumor has it that Microsoft's management is very upset that consumers don't see the need to upgrade from Office98 or Office2K to OfficeXP. Of course, the difference between the three is infinitesimal to the average user (so he has no need to upgrade), but all the bigwigs at Microsoft can see is the money that is "escaping" them. So they are floating the idea that the next OS won't support anything written for a WinX platform; only XP apps need apply.

Well, this will completely remove one of the biggest advantages Microsoft has. Now, why not switch to Linux, since you will have to upgrade all of your apps at the same time anyway? This will be the biggest step towards cutting Microsoft's market-share, and Microsoft might just do it to themselves...

All the big companies were elevating accountants to the role of CEO. Damn near every one that did -- including household names like Ford Motor and Safeway -- went right down the tubes.

Your remarks are right on the money. Good job!

This is why I first became an enemy of MS and I have stayed that way. Many emerging application developers saw their dreams disappear when trying to interest MS in their products. MS refused to divulge the necessary links but instead demanded the developers to expose their code. Results - thank you very much but we will do it ourselves. They stole the app and went on down the road.

I am a Mac user and would like to stay that way because I like Mac and I hate MS, though I use MS on other computers because that is the way they are set up.

Some thoughts...

The increasing levels of spyware and "digital rights management" integrated into Windows, including revelations that Windows Media Player tracks (and reports) what you view, the OS requires "authentication", and the Office suite is known for randomly (and incorrectly) claiming that the computer's hardware configuration has been changed--and requiring reactivation before it will function.

This is simply disingenuous. On the one hand, people want software that updates and repairs itself automatically; and, on the other hand, there are a few tinfoil-hat types who think that their usage patterns are interesting enough to MS and other companies to warrant conspiracy theories. Frankly, I'd be more than a little annoyed if these programs popped up every 15 or 20 minutes and asked for permission to phone home. Usability is the reason that they don't ask, not a desire to bring Big Brother into your house. Furthermore, I've changed quite a few components in my computers and have yet to have them stop functioning due to activation -- and I have yet to talk to anybody (excluding Slashdot Linux types) who has.

The integration of a new type of licensing program designed to lock businesses into a permanent upgrade cycle, force them to pay for products they don't necessarily need, and, in general, suck a great deal more money into Microsoft's already overflowing coffers.

In other words "Microsoft has way too much money and we think they should act more like a charity than a business." Sorry, I disagree. Businesses exist solely for generating profit.

The further claim by the Redmond company that the heavy resistance they encountered from the business market over implementing the above scheme was caused by customer's who "didn't understand" the benefit of such a program. Personally, I'd say they understood just fine--and what they understood was that your product is going to cost them a great deal more money, while providing a very questionable amount of additional value.

I have little doubt that MS will continue to fine-tune its licensing programs based on customer feedback.

The recently-revealed fact that Microsoft, in effect, offered states a bribe in order to drop their anti-trust suits against the Redmond giant.

Amazing. Under any other condition, this would be called "settling a lawsuit". But in the eyes of Slashdotters, it's "offering a bribe." Of course, such inflammatory crap overlooks the obvious point that settling a lawsuit is perfectly legal. Bribery isn't. Not surprising that such legal subtlety is lost on such aquamaroons.

While I hold the states equally responsible for accepting the money in the first place, Redmond is known for displaying a remarkable level of NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here) perhaps only equaled by Steve Job's unparalleled Reality Distortion Field.

Relevance to anything whatsoever?

A wonderful offering by Microsoft to donate thousands of ancient PC's running Windows 3.1 or even (gasp) Windows 95 to schools all across America in a move that would not only seed America's education system with a plethora of outdated, useless equipment but (coincidentally) take shots at Apple's market share. Really, the Apple angle is incidental, but the level of equipment MS's supposedly generous offering would extend is beyond contempt. You're telling me a company with forty billion dollars in cash reserves cannot afford to at least extend new PC's?

You know you're scraping the bottom of the barrel when have to find fault with what amounts to charity to schools.

This is simply disingenuous. On the one hand, people want software that updates and repairs itself automatically; and, on the other hand, there are a few tinfoil-hat types who think that their usage patterns are interesting enough to MS and other companies to warrant conspiracy theories.

Well, don't be disingenuous yourself. We both know that there is a thriving business in data that reveals consumer preferences and tastes. If I know what you listen to and watch on your media player, I can make excellent guesses as to your age, your income, your sex, all kinds of things. True story: there is a mis-spelling of "drudgereport" that you can make that lands you on a site that's all in Spanish. I did that one time. For weeks afterwards, half the banner ads I saw, no matter where I went, were in Spanish. OK, that's DoubleClick doing its job. But just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't really after you.

Maybe people shouldn't care about that. Maybe they should be thrilled that their media player phones home with the news that they like bluegrass music, and a week later their inbox is full of spam from people wanting to sell them bluegrass CD's. But I don't know too many people who are thrilled by it.

Usability is the reason that they don't ask, not a desire to bring Big Brother into your house

Well, I'm one of those people who wants to know just what you think you're going to update before you do it to me. I have Win2K, and I would never have voluntarily allowed that "automatic update" thing on my machine. But there it was, after some visit to Windows Update that told me I was getting a security patch. I hate that. I killed the thing, and I'm glad I did, because every time I go to Windows Update it wants me to move to IE6... and I don't want to. And I don't want some damned automatic thing doing it when I'm not looking.

I would concede that Aunt Nellie is probably better served by having a little robot that takes care of her. But I don't want it.

In other words "Microsoft has way too much money and we think they should act more like a charity than a business." Sorry, I disagree. Businesses exist solely for generating profit.

Your reply to the author's comment is a form of arrogance, and of a kind that destroys companies in the long run. The author's claim is that many corporate customers do not believe that they are receiving value for the increased price. (I believe the author because the same comments are all over the web on the IT sites, and because I know something of the hassles associated with managing hundreds or thousands of 'seats'.). These are not customers who want the product for free, or who think that Microsoft should be run as a charity. They are customers who are telling you that your price increases are not justified by the service provided. You insult such people at your peril. You may have them by the hairs today, but such people learned to extract themselves from IBM's clutches 15 years ago, and they will escape from yours as well. They always do.

Insisting on regular, mandatory upgrade fees from people who are managing huge numbers of seats is not cool. They know you're hosing them, and they will have their revenge.

I agree with your statement on settling lawsuits. I don't know why the guy would call it a bribe.

We both know that there is a thriving business in data that reveals consumer preferences and tastes. If I know what you listen to and watch on your media player, I can make excellent guesses as to your age, your income, your sex, all kinds of things.

I challenge you to show me that MS is collecting personally-identifiable information about you via this so-called "spyware".

True story: there is a mis-spelling of "drudgereport" that you can make that lands you on a site that's all in Spanish. I did that one time. For weeks afterwards, half the banner ads I saw, no matter where I went, were in Spanish. OK, that's DoubleClick doing its job. But just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they aren't really after you.

Ever try clearing your cookies, Nick? Didn't think so.

Well, I'm one of those people who wants to know just what you think you're going to update before you do it to me.

You do realize that XP allows you to turn this off via the Control Panel, right? I've never seen it turn itself back on.

These are not customers who want the product for free, or who think that Microsoft should be run as a charity. They are customers who are telling you that your price increases are not justified by the service provided. You insult such people at your peril. You may have them by the hairs today, but such people learned to extract themselves from IBM's clutches 15 years ago, and they will escape from yours as well. They always do.

That's fine, Nick. But you make your point by questioning the price of the license, not pointing at a company's "already overflowing coffers.".

Insisting on regular, mandatory upgrade fees from people who are managing huge numbers of seats is not cool. They know you're hosing them, and they will have their revenge.

That's only a small part of the story, Nick. You and I both know that many companies will actually save money on the license because they upgrade more frequently than others.

You and I both know that many companies will actually save money on the license because they upgrade more frequently than others.

I challenge you to show me that MS is collecting personally-identifiable information about you

If I have a Passport Id, then MSFT has a database record that ties my Windows serial number to personal identity data. Can the media player get access to the Windows serial number? Sure it can. Can it report that Serial Number XYZ watches old Three Stooges videos? You bet. Am I gonna get unsolicited offers for Three Stooges DVD's in my email? We'll see.

Then it's a dumb pricing strategy. Over time you will tend to lose as customers all the people who upgraded less frequently, and you will keep only the ones who would have given you even more money had you kept things unbundled. The strategy therefore loses both customers and money. Whose idea was this?

You should know better, Nick. MS are master marketers. They will fine-tune their licensing agreements to address customer concerns rather than lose market share.

If I have a Passport Id, then MSFT has a database record that ties my Windows serial number to personal identity data. Can the media player get access to the Windows serial number? Sure it can. Can it report that Serial Number XYZ watches old Three Stooges videos? You bet. Am I gonna get unsolicited offers for Three Stooges DVD's in my email? We'll see.

Note: I said "personally-identifiable information". Passport does not require you to provide a verifiable name, address, etc. You can easily provide a bogus one. Therefore, while you may get a Three Stooges DVD, nobody really knows who you are unless you want them to know.

Passport does not require you to provide a verifiable name, address, etc. You can easily provide a bogus one.

What? Are you basically 'fessing up here that Microsoft does this, and offering as the solution that people lie about who they are? What about all those wonderful benefits of being able to buy things with my Passport? You figure the credit card charges are gonna through with a bogus name & address in there?

You should know better, Nick. MS are master marketers.

You are trying to sell me credentialism as a defense against very simple microeconomics that tells us that people who use less than the average will find the price too high, and the people who use more than the average will think it's a steal. Your customer base will therefore trend toward only those who use more than the average. Others will gradually leave you, since they do not believe they are getting value for their money (which they aren't). This is just simple common sense.

IBM is full of master marketers, too, but they still had a PC Junior, and you still had Bob. It happens to all of us.

..what you have is a company that, at the least, displays a profound level of arrogance coupled with the unshakable belief that they have not only the ability, but the right to dictate to the rest of the world, from charities to corporations, how the world should look. The only place we see Microsoft backing away from this type of overlord status is when it comes to organizations such as the RIAA or MPAA--and there, rather than standing strong as a champion of consumer's rights (its customers) the company has chosen to slavishly ally itself with them, incorporating ever-larger restrictions into its operating systems on how users can and can't use their equipment--and how they'll be monitored for doing so.

Consumers are not customers to Microsoft -- they're walking wallets.

Nick, Nick. *Sigh*

Tell me you're not trying to actually have a rational discussion with Bush2000. Because if you were, I'd just have to tell you your time would be better spent hitting yourself in the head with a hammer. If you said the sky was blue he's say it's bright red, just to be contrary.

He doesn't care. He's not going to listen. You can't tell him wrestling is fake. You can't tell him Elvis is dead. You can't tell him there is no spoon. He will always take the other side.

He can't get a word in edgewise at Slashdot, so he comes here to bash conservative non-MS types. You notice he's not bugging the DUh crowd. He's not taking the fight to the far lefties who use open source because they see a weird communist symbolism behind it. Nope. He's picking on US. Conservatives. I suspect he's really a liberal. I think he picked Bush2000 as an alias to hide what he really is.

I suggest you just ignore him. Do anything else and it just eggs him on.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.