Microsoft vs the U.S.A.: Inside Fred's World

We all know that Microsoft is in trouble with the US federal government and about 20 states. Is the government merely trying to get some good press at Microsoft's expense (Look, voters, we're protecting you from big bad Microsoft and its chairman, Bill Gates, the richest man in the world. No one with that much money can be good, can he?), or do they REALLY think that Microsoft poses a threat to the future of the personal computer industry, and, as a result, to personal computer users such as you and me?

I won't pretend to know what the U.S. government is up to. But I do have some views of my own about Microsoft and the personal computer world.

There's no doubt that the personal computer would have been a very different product without Microsoft and Bill Gates. Whether it would have been better or not is not so easy to say. If Microsoft had not been there, IBM would have found someone else to design the operating system. Who knows what they would have done!

There is an apochryphal story that when IBM was looking for a designer of their new operating system, they first wanted to talk to Digital Research. The owner, however, decided he'd rather go fishing than talk business with IBM. So IBM went elsewhere. Digital Research produced GEM, which, in the Atari ST proved to be a viable and worthy contender to both the Macintosh and Windows. Unfortunately, Atari didn't seem to be very serious about doing business either. Good-bye Digital Research, Good-bye Atari. I may be one of the few, but I miss The Atari ST's simple but intuitive user interface. I didn't know it at the time, but now I miss its relatively stable operating system as well. I'm sure that if TOS and GEM had matured as Windows has, it would have been just as shaky as Windows can be, but it's nice to nostalgically look back at what could have been.

Microsoft contends it does not have a monopoly. This, of course, is technically correct. 90%, or 95% or 99.9% may not constitute a technical monopoly, but it is certainly an effective monopoly. It's an argument Microsoft might win, legally, but that it will most certainly lose - has already lost - in the computer world. Microsoft apparently believes it can win and that the fight and the publicity will not be harmful to its bottom line, well, not too harmful. They may believe that those of us who are more than casually interested in computers already know it is an effective monopoly, so winning or losing will not change our views. However, the rest of the world probably won't care, in the long run, if Microsoft wins or loses. And Microsoft is probably right. The general public has a short attention span. If this were not so, there would be no 'career' politicians and we would have to have an almost endless number of political parties to shuffle through.

A more important issue, however, is whether Microsoft should be forced to separate its operating system business from its general applications business. For me, that issue was decided on an August day in 1995 when Windows 95 was first released. Sitting on the shelves right next to it was Microsoft Office 95. Sitting beside that were two or three other products, released by other manufacturers. But only two or three single application products. There was no WordPerfect Suite for Windows 95. There was no Lotus SmartSuite for Windows 95. There was no avalanche of new Windows 95 software. Only Microsoft was able to release its flagship application on the same day it released its new operating system. Did the operating system division make its information available to the applications division (assuming there actually were these separate divisions or teams)? Of course they did. Did that constitute an effective unfair competitive edge? Undoubtedly. Did that have a negative effect on consumers? If you prefer a non-microsoft office suite, it certainly was a negative effect. You were stuck using 16-bit versions for almost a year for most products. But in at least one case, a once-flagship product was delayed indefinitely. Lotus 123 did not arrive in a 32 bit version for years (literally) after.

Okay, Both WordPerfect, and Lotus had other problems that held up development. WordPerfect was bought by Novell, not for the world famous word processor, but for its e-mail and networking solutions. Then Novell sold the word processor to Corel. Such changes in ownership result in delays, staff changes and general low morale - all highly counterproductive. And Lotus had fallen on some hard times of its own. Then it was bought by IBM who seemed more interested in developing Notes. But these problems do not account for all of the delay. Sure Microsoft informed other developers of many features of the new operating system, but there is little doubt that they did not distribute all the secrets. Some were, and are, being used to give Microsoft an unfair competitive edge.

The interesting thing is that even with this competitive edge, Microsoft hasn't been able to outdo its competition, merely get it out the door sooner. (Of course, when there is only one suite to choose from for your brand new operating system, it's hard not to buy it.)

Unfortunately, Operating systems are not like almost any other product. We all have a stake in the future of Apple. If it can't retain a workable market share, it will leave Windows all alone as the only (commercial) operating system for personal and small business use. With a healthy Apple, Microsoft not only has some competition, but also a source for new ideas! Without Apple, Microsoft can relax and take a much more leisurely approach to operating system development. (That may not be a totally bad idea. Maybe they would finally get all the significant bugs out! But probably not.) People understandably want the computer and operating system they purchase to run lots of appropriate software and to allow for compatibility, on some level, with other computers. Windows does that. The Macintosh does that. Interestingly enough, the Atari ST did it too. But people want something more. They want to feel that they belong. That they are part of the mainstream. At least most people do. Apple has always aimed its advertising at those poeple who weren't afraid to be a little different. It worked, to a degree. But even rugged individualists can eventually be won over when they see thousands of available titles for Windows, versus hundreds for their system. Every automobile on the market shares the same basic 'operating system': 4 wheels, a motor, brake, etc. The same is true of most other products. And technological superority doesn't beat out marketing and certainly doesn't win out over market share. If a clearly superior operating system were released tomorrow, it would probably not stand a chance against Windows. Even Windows NT can't compete against Windows, at least not yet. We're probably stuck with Windows (or whatever Microsoft decides to call its successor) for a long, long time to come. It's a standard. And maybe it's a standard that should not be left only in the hands of one manufacturer.

Let's spin off Microsoft's Operating System division; force Microsoft to give up most of its shares in the new company. Infuse it with new blood. Microsoft still has lots of other products to make money on.

(This is an 'opinions' piece. While I believe that any 'facts' are accurate, they are only my recollection of the 'facts'. Further research is necessary before accepting any 'factual information' given here as accurate.)