... or Assimilator

Starting with a little history

Microsoft, from it's early beginnings, has done little real innovation of it's own on the software front. Where it has really excelled is with buyouts, purchases, licenses and lucky breaks. A lucky break from IBM when the software giant was forced by time constraints to out source an operating system for the original PC. Microsoft, IBM's second choice for the project, bought the 86Q-DOS operating system software (which became MS-DOS) from Seattle Computer Products to meet IBM's deadline, which they then licensed back to IBM. The licensing contracts a fledgling Microsoft tied clone computer manufacturers to - (even to this day), requiring them to pay a license fee to MS for every computer they shipped, regardless of whether it shipped with a "Microsoft" operating system or not. Right from the start, Microsoft proved it was a very, very shrewd business operator.

Moving on

Apparently finding it easier to profit from the ingenuity of others (after all, why reinvent the wheel) if Microsoft saw a product that looked like it was going to be successful, they "bought" it, or copied it.

The Windows operating system that they built on top of DOS was not the first GUI (Graphical User Interface) operating system (1).

Even basic elements of Windows "programs" were bought or copied from others. Paintbrush for example was bought in 1990 from ZSoft, a Graphics software developer, to bundle with Windows 3.0. Current products - Internet Explorer (Spyglass Mosaic), FrontPage (Vermeer), and many, many others (2), have been bought or licensed from the original creators and marketed as Microsoft products. This may go some way to explaining the erratic nature of many Microsoft products. Without access to the programmers who designed and wrote the code in the first place, even just "integrating" them into the Windows operating system must be a nightmare for the 5000+ permatemp programmers in the Microsoft code mines. To affect real changes to complex applications must be like walking through a minefield.

Unfortunately, Microsoft also used their money and political manoeuvring tactics to remove potentially competing products, or even competitors, from the market. Some because they didn't make the bean-counters minimum projected profit of US$250million, others perhaps because they didn't like the flavour of the (java) coffee. The Microsoft decision to distribute Internet Explorer for free and then to "integrate it" into Windows 98 (3) was and remains a direct attempt to force Netscape out of the market. Some are starting to say MS has already succeeded in that task. Who's going to be next?

Microsoft's flagrant fiddling with it's "version" of Java is a deliberate attempt to "enhance" windows java at the direct expense of the WORA (Write Once Run Anywhere) initiative around which 100% pure Java is built (4).

WORA - means that a 100% pure Java program could run on any computer and any operating system with a compliant JMV (Java Virtual Machine) - the one, same program for Windows 98, NT, OS/2, Macintosh OS 8, Unix etc etc. WORA makes the Operating System irrelevant. Microsoft are in fear of that - it threatens their desktop dominance through which they leverage their other products (5). Developers on the other hand welcome it as a potential opportunity to break into new markets without the additional expense of extensive reprogramming for native versions.

Are Microsoft above the law? Can they do whatever they want to? Should they?

Microsoft's operating systems are reportedly on over 80 to 90% of all PC based desktop computers (6). Yet Microsoft pleads it does not have a monopoly. Technically they're probably right - until they have 100% of the market and all competing companies have been eliminated, they probably don't have a complete monopoly. It's a bit hard to raise competition from the dead though, once it's gone.

Microsoft is no stranger to the US legal system. Their bullying and blackmailing tactics have cost them many a slap on the wrist in the past. This tendency, however, has also meant they've built up an army of some of the cleverest legal people money can buy. Whenever a manufacturer tries to produce a product that might compete or help a Microsoft competitor, or distribute some machines with non-Microsoft OS's, Microsoft (unofficially of course) threatened to cut off their access to Microsoft technology (95/98/NT or API's etc), and they are forced to back down (7).

Microsoft is under siege by the US legal system for good reason. Ignoring the issue of software quality and underhanded tactics(8), (10). Microsoft investments and purchases over the last 2 years show an interesting trend in where Microsoft is heading, and where Microsoft want you to go tomorrow (11), (12). Complete domination (Microsoft prefer the euphemism "leadership") of information technology systems, from computers to intelligent toasters, right down to the Microsoft purchase of complete libraries and the rights to works of art. Getting kids young by investing (Microsoft solutions) in education, schools and universities; paying university professors to mention Microsoft products in lectures (13); Gates himself hobnobbing (or brown-nosing) with major political figures all over the world; Hitler had his strategy all wrong ... Bill Gates hasn't had to fire a single real bullet, yet.

Could it blow up in Microsofts face?

However, despite all their efforts, Microsoft might end up setting themselves up for heavy Government regulation. There is already talk among political, journalist and developer circles of the dangers of allowing one company to have control over information technology. With the strong migration of government, business and services to the net, the independence of the infrastructure (or at least apparent independence) becomes more important. The likelihood that a single commercial operation (Microsoft) might have ultimate control over the method of delivery of information, even the content of the information itself, has caused speculation on the possibility of nationalising Microsoft's operating system, or making it "eminent domain". (14). As (according to Microsoft) half of their income comes from overseas sales, what would be the likely impact on foreign governments and buyers if Windows suddenly become US Government property? Looking at the proven track record of their business practices, their behaviour in the US courts and overseas (15), it would seem Microsoft consider themselves above or beyond the law. The current anti-trust case (16) may either make or break that presumption.

So how does this affect consumers?

Ultimately the biggest loser in all this will be the consumer. The growing market of newcomers are unaware of what has come before. We speak to users who have no idea what their operating system is, let alone the existence of alternative software suppliers. They use Microsoft products because it came with the computer, why should they "buy" anything if they can use what they got for "free"? It doesn't matter if competing products are better, they aren't equipped with the experience to tell. Unless they become sufficiently computer literate to become a discriminating purchaser, a "2 bob watch" seems to tell the time just as well as a Rolex, well, at least until the warranty runs out ...

A growing number of computer users aren't interested in learning how to use their computers to the best of the machines ability. All they want to do is to use their application software ... and if it doesn't do "such and such", then they'll change their way of doing things to fit the "program" or do without.

But, by the time they're ready to think of alternatives (if they haven't succumbed to the Microsoft media machine) the competition's gone out of business due to lack of sales. Granted, this is a worst case scenario, but enough people in the industry are sufficiently concerned to have reason to believe there is a greater truth, out there. Many just aren't game to do anything about it any more.

An information-technology industry "light-globe" joke:

Question:

"How many Microsoft programmers does it take to change a light globe?"

Answer:

"None. The marketing department will convince you it's better to work in the dark."

Anything you can do, Microsoft can buy ...

Interesting reading from Moral Highground Productions - Boycott Micro$oft (Say "no" to monopolies)

EXERPTS FROM The (nearly) Whole Microsoft Catalog A REGULARLY UPDATED LIST OF WHAT THEY OWN
Vermeer Technologies Inc.	Developer of html editing software.	Purchased company for between $80-100 million; Vermeer became Microsoft FrontPage.	1996
Spyglass	Web browser software application.	Purchased software, which became Internet Explorer. In 1997 Spyglass alleged that Microsoft was withholding royalty payments and requested an audit.	1995
Hotmail	Free email service with 9.5 million subscribers.	Purchased company for perhaps as much as $400 million and incorporated it into Microsoft Network.	1997
Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd.	Australian media group.	$25 million joint venture contribution to create Internet service "Ninemsn."	1998
(Does this mean you're unlikely to see any anti-Microsoft stories on Channel 9. I wonder if reporters are reprimanded if a story happens to show Netscape being used instead of Internet Explorer?)
Infoseek	Internet search engine	Equity investment in exchange for preferential display of Microsoft products.	1997

Windows 98 disables Microsoft competitors' software - Microsoft's defence - they replaced any newer (.dll) files with old ones they wanted so they "knew" what the OS had to work with. Didn't they also "know" that would probably break other vendors software? Or is this yet another "mistake". See this CNN article.

Smart Ship "dead in the water" - NT strikes again!

The US Government, determined to reduce manpower costs by automating, has replaced 10% of the crew of an experimental "smart ship" by an NT based computer system. Unfortunately, NT performed its "blue screen of death" trick and, not having the skilled personnel on-board to rectify the situation, (presumably they cost too much too) have had to tow the ship back to port after serious systems failures.

"Although Unix is more reliable, NT may become more reliable with time." said the deputy technical director of the project. They'd better hope so, 'cause politics is migrating currently working Navy command and control applications from Unix to NT under a so-called "modernisation" scheme. Story here.

Interestingly, the only MS OS to get a partial ratings approval for military applications is/was NT3.51, running on an isolated, stand-alone, not networked machine, under the watchful eyes of MS technicians. How they expect a network to operate "under-fire" and without experienced technicians to keep it going amuses and mystifies this writer. Maybe "in time" like the US Navy spokesman hopes??

Further reading:

"Microstuff - More resources for advanced hellraising -- for those who know where they don't want to go, ever." Some links from this page no longer appear to work. Some actually now display "Free email" banners, from Hotmail, another Microsoft purchase. Could it be as one unnamed US journalist admitted, when asked why he no longer wrote negative or anti-Microsoft stories, he "didn't want to go to work one morning and find his paper had been bought out and he was out of a job".

Is freedom of speech only "allowed" if it's not anti-Microsoft? Can this long sought after freedom be so easily bought? Check out these links before they, too, have to go underground.

Rumours on and off the net:

Silicon Valley venture capitalists are reluctant to invest in any area of software or technology that Microsoft is likely to venture into.

Pay-offs and Hawaiian retirements to people in the right places to get anti-trust court cases dismissed on technicalities.

Brave new world

Although poorly resourced compared to MS, independent software vendors are not taking Microsofts interfering antics lying down. Recently there has been a flicker of affirmative action among developer circles, with hints of developers engineering software of their own to catch, remedy and/or prevent unwarranted interference with their products by the Microsoft operating systems. This could be the start of an independent developer comeback that could herald a new age of return to consumer choice. If developers can then harness the power of the media (and Microsoft has shown them the way - just throw money at it) we could be in for a roller coaster ride of real innovation and a return to a healthier software industry.

What can the ordinary computer user do? Most seem to think they can't do much, but they can. They can start asking questions. They can start critically assessing the software they use, and start looking at whether alternatives offer a superior product. With access to the internet you, the web user, have access to a wealth of information. You don't have to just take the local computer store sales person at their word. You can look for yourselves. If you buy an outdated or inferior piece of software off a vendors shelf, you have no-one to blame but yourself. Sales people will only tell you what you want to hear (if you're lucky - in many cases they don't know either!).

You are born with the best discriminating tool there is - a thinking brain. Use it. It is said there are three types of people: those who make things happen, those who watch things happen, and those who wonder what happened. The choice is yours.

We're at the crossroads. Down one track is the certainty of a glowing, comfortable, force fed Microsoft domination (sorry ... leadership ... "all praise to the company") while down the other is a less certain future filled with (gasp) choices, variety and independent competition. How history will view this crisis in the information technology era will probably depend on who, or if, anyone owns the rights to it.