Policing Microsoft – The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

We can all agree Microsoft has an almost complete monopoly on operating systems. We can all agree that monopolies are a dangerous thing, and at the least require supervision.

Where agreement breaks down is in what to do about it. It is very annoying to read posts at major sites like Slashdot on the subject because even with the post scoring system, any good idea is drowned out in the endless meaningless dribble fueled by nothing more than mob mentality. It’s not that there aren’t any good ideas. The problem is there are so many bad ones, and it seems like almost no one bothers to check for the difference.

Some of the good ones? Well I think pushing Microsoft to do better documentation is certainly worthwhile. To be honest I think these days Microsoft has some of the best documentation out there, but I will never complain about more, better and quicker. Nevertheless, do us all a favor and admit that documentation is not the easiest task, and never use it to block the release of innovation. If the EU or DOJ doesn’t believe Microsoft is trying hard enough at documentation, hire a raft of consultants, send them to Microsoft, and send Microsoft the bill if they manage to do a better job.

On a tangent however, regulatory agencies might want to consider applying this idea a bit more broadly than just Microsoft.

Another good one is regulation of contract law. What I think is more effective, and sensible, than simply threatening huge fines for negotiating a bad contract, is to make it clear you will not uphold any such contracts. Overall, I think the government has achieved their goals here. Manufacturers don’t seem to be worried about selling other operating systems (www.dell.com/linux/), but some are still afraid of selling AMD processors.

There are plenty of bad ideas out there too. For example, the whole bundling issue is totally wack. The proof of why this is such a bad idea, is total inconsistency of proponents. I have seen far too many anti-Microsoft posts that first rail about the bundling of Internet Explorer, and then later criticize Microsoft for not including anti-virus with the operating system.

This inconsistency demonstrates clearly that there is a real user demand for bundled products, whether they admit it or not. Another clear demonstration is that other vendors bundle products even more aggressively than Microsoft, and their users love them for it. Now, if for example, Microsoft didn’t allow you to install a competing browser, the case would be far different, but that is not the case.

The number of double standards on this issue alone is astounding, and I do truly believe it is harming Microsoft and users of Microsoft software. Microsoft has been following a bit of a me-too strategy in all of the free-software areas, and I think this is not just due to typical corporate bureaucracy, but also with the fear that any new service that isn’t me-too will draw even greater attacks.

Then we come to the ugly. The worst idea is that Apple should replace Microsoft. In terms of being open, Apple makes Microsoft look like a saint. Actually, Microsoft historically has built their business to a large degree on openness. The open PC hardware platform was the first part of this, followed by the wide availability of the Win32 API, which created the huge software base upon which the operating systems current dominance is built.

Also, in many ways .NET is more open than Java. The ECMA specification of .NET is and licensing of such is a fair bit more open than Sun’s process, which reserves rights to all final decisions to Sun alone (this is actually the clause that Sun used to revoke Microsoft’s Java license).

Nevertheless, no matter whether you think Microsoft does good, poorly or atrocious at being open, it is very hard to deny that Apple is in an entire different category of behavior, many levels lower.

I can see the draw people have toward a free operating system however, but Linux, and open-source software in general still has some hurdles before it can prove to me that its really what is best for all users. On one front is the user interfaces, and ease of configuration, which I fear will always be a problem with a tool like Linux that is designed to please its designers, rather than its users. There is also a big question of whether the somewhat rosy world of cooperation that exists today might evaporate if the community’s arch-nemesis was defeated. Lastly, I think the open-source community should accept that they are supporting commercial software development today, and embrace all types of user, whether they are “benevolent” consulting companies, or they are commercial software vendors. It should not be necessary to jump through artificial hoops to make money off software.

I am sure there are quite a few more from all three categories, but from here on out I will try to focus on the good. Maybe if more of the anti-Microsoft camp out there did this, they would find ways to not only encourage innovation outside Microsoft, but within as well. But so far, most seem to be complacently happy with the concept that the best thing would be to destroy Microsoft at all cost.