Irony In Action

Microsoft is an interesting case study. They are by all accounts a huge financial success and their stock has brought riches to many across the country and the globe. However, when you look beyond the dollars, you see a much more convoluted and confusing image. On one hand, Microsoft has made some of the best software and hardware many of us has ever used. Excel, for example, has always been very highly regarded, and on the hardware side, their Microsoft Mouse product line has set the standard for quality and innovation.

On the other hand, Microsoft is one of the most hated companies on the face of the planet. They are constantly attacked in newspapers, magazines and online publications for being an arrogant, greedy bully who is only interested in maximizing profit for shareholders at the expense of the consumers who made them in the first place. The are reviled by their competitors in the tech marketplace. They have been ganged up on by the governors and attorney generals of many states across this country, and they have become so powerful that they have incurred the wrath of their very own democratic government.

How is it that one company can be both loved and hated at the same time with such passion and fervor? How is it that one of the greatest business success stories in the history of the United States has been so viciously challenged and attacked by their own country and customers? In this editorial we will take some time and speculate on the possible answers to those questions. We will take a look at some of the things that Microsoft has and hasn't done to deserve this bi-polar reputation.

Left Brain (LOGIC and ORDER), Right Brain (RANDOM, ART AND CHAOS)

On one side you have the software developers, undeniably some of the very best in the business. Yet on the other you have the corporation that is mystifyingly inept at public relations but masterful at bringing in truckloads of cash. How do these disparate visions coexist? Frankly, I have no idea. But I do know that not all things Microsoft are bad, nor are they necessarily good. My support and praise does not go to the corporation, but to the developers who actually work on the products that we can use and enjoy. Some are fairly frivolous but most are pretty darn good. But the same cannot be said for the tone and decisions of the master Microsoft corporate engine. To pay homage to this confusing personality split, I'll spend some time talking about some of the good products that Microsoft has contributed, and then some of the pathetic decisions the company has made. Hopefully by the end there will be some element of balance.

Doctor Jekyll

Back in the Day, there was DOS 5.0, and it was good. It was light years ahead of the DOS of days past. You had some memory management, some much improved on-disk help, a pseudo-graphical file manager and a host of integrated utilities and features including a full-screen text editor, Un-delete, Un-format, basic task switching and the integration of Qbasic instead of GW Basic. It was a monumental step forward and set a solid foundation for what was to follow. With this release, we could see that Microsoft was listening to their clients and trying to address some of those concerns. Of course, part of the decision was likely motivated by the growing DOS enhancement market, lead by companies like Quarterdeck and their QEMM and Desqview products. It was also motivated by competition from DR DOS, but in the end the software itself was a pretty good step. The step to DOS 6.22 was much less about innovation and quality code, but more about adding value to the package with a variety of third party utilities. As far as consumers were concerned, however, it was again a step forward. An all-in-one solution that was more compatible and more flexible than previous DOS solutions had been.

Then came Windows. Regardless of how it all came about, when Windows 3.1 became a reality, users flocked to it in droves. One thing that people have overlooked in casual conversation about Windows 3.1 was the full-blown inclusion of scalable typefaces at no additional cost. This was truly one of the very best additions to the package from a value standpoint, and for many, it helped make desktop publishing and complex document creation a reality on the PC. Before, the only real options for scalable fonts were expensive offerings by Bitstream and Adobe, both involving around PostScript font collections. These tended to be extremely expensive, easily in the hundreds of dollars per type face, and were one of the biggest expenses that Macintosh document publishers faced. It was a near monopoly dictated by a few, and with the introduction of True Type fonts on the PC side, Microsoft engineers had saved our collective bacon and offered us what could be considered the first "killer app" of the Windows era up to that point. As a result of this bold step by Microsoft, cost barriers have crumbled and scalable fonts are widely available for little or no cost to the masses. One stranglehold was broken, and others would soon follow.

In order to sell people on the Windows platform, Microsoft developed their Office Suite of products. Excel was surely a best-of-breed application and was strong enough to get people to take the leap. Microsoft Word for Windows was, and always has been a less than elegant solution when compared to some other word processing applications, but when you threw it in with the impressive Excel at a reduced cost, consumers couldn't really resist. As awkward as it was, it was still easier to use for many people than Word Perfect for DOS. Perhaps another key selling point was the inclusion of the Windows Clipboard. At first people may not have known what the benefits were, but as time went on, consumers found it to be an indispensable tool. We can debate about the effectiveness and value of OLE, but the simple cut and paste functionality of the clip board allowed for easy data transfer between applications unlike anything we had really seen before on the PC side.

As time went on, Microsoft added further bells and whistles to both Windows and Office, including the integration of 2D and 3D charts and support for graphic frames with drag and drop control. The drag and drop file management in Windows 3.1 was a welcome addition, as were the multimedia features later introduced. Yes, Windows was certainly not a pretty beast in the beginning, but the simple fact was Microsoft programmers successfully pushed the envelope where few had bothered in the past.

Doctor Jekyll (continued)

Microsoft would go on to include some of the best features of the competition into their Office suites and before you knew it, you pretty much had all of the tools you needed to get your job done. They acquired a database that would later become Access, and increased the power of PowerPoint. The programmers were doing a solid job of adding value to their consumer and business lines, and I know that in general, I was happy in spite of all the problems.

Another key contribution in my mind was the introduction of Microsoft Publisher. For many of us, PageMaker was about the only option on the PC side if you wanted a capable graphics oriented desktop publisher. Even one or two page documents often needed features that Word just did not have. But much as they had done with True Type fonts, Microsoft programmers helped break the stranglehold that other companies had on a specific market niche, and as a result those of us with simple to moderate desktop publishing needs now had a solution that cost far less than the $600 to $900 that other products commanded. They even threw in some basic clip-art collections to further the value, and I for one was extremely glad to see this product hit the market.

Another great area where Microsoft programmers gave some great contributions was in the rise of the Basic programming language. Quick Basic 4.5 will forever be burned into my mind as one of the most useful rapid development tools I've ever used. There was a rocky period with Basic Pro 7 and Visual Basic for DOS, but when Visual Basic hit Windows with full force, there was really no stopping the momentum. In short order it blew away the competition and even the great Turbo Pascal could not maintain a foothold. By the time Visual Basic hit critical mass, it was all over for the other guys. Unfortunately, Visual Basic has been diluted somewhat in recent years and has lost that "Super Easy To Use" feeling, but still, the contribution can't be knocked. The only thing I have seen challenge it lately has been Delphi, but I'm not sure if it will be able to remain a top-level RAD player.

Then, there is of course, the legendary Microsoft Mouse. What more can be said? It set the standard for how things are done, and frankly, still does. From the scroll wheel to the optical eye in their latest offerings, these beauties have become a mainstay in homes and companies across the globe. Very few people have even come close to the level of awesomeness that these bad boys possess, and even when the competition does catch up, Microsoft engineers seem to find a way to beat them back with an impressive new entry. When Microsoft gets something right, they sure don't mess around.

As you can see, the developers at Microsoft have added a lot of good things to the fabric of our computing experience. While they have not been known for their innovation, they have a tendency to keep on beating their head against the wall until they find a good balance between features and value. Not everything they make is perfect, not by any means, but there have been some truly shining moments in the history of Microsoft development, and I'm glad that they have invested so much into the PC world. I use Microsoft products every day, partially out of necessity and partially out of want. I've fired up Linux and have found Apple OS X to be as compelling as they come, but when I want to get my work done, I still find that most of the effort revolves around Microsoft products.

Mr. Hyde

As much as I admire and appreciate the development and engineering talent over at Microsoft, I have come to absolutely despise their marketplace policies. They have become the bully on the beach who kicks sand in the face of 98 pound weaklings. They have become arrogant, hostile and out of touch with the consumers they purport to serve. Their actions are at times extremely unfair and in fact, may very well be illegal. If you look back, you can see fairly early where this pattern of monopolistic behavior got its start, and clearly, their attitude has only gotten worse as time has gone forward.

Beyond the actual beginnings of DOS and the whole Gary Kildall and CP/M debacle, the first time that many of us became aware of the "Microsoft Attitude" was when DR-DOS first came out. This clone operating system evolved into a very competitive release with a bundle of features and its early success had Microsoft in a real panic. They began to spread Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about the product, and worked to develop improved versions of DOS while spreading the word about how "incompatible" and "unstable" DR-DOS was. According to some, they even made the in-your-face decision to ensure that DR-DOS would have specific problems with their newer updates to MS-DOS and other applications they controlled, such as Windows 3.1.

In order to respond to DR-DOS 5, which included a task switcher, memory manager, the ViewMAX graphical shell among other things, Microsoft released MS-DOS 5. When DR-DOS 6 hit the streets, it included a disk optimizer, a remote file transfer utility, and a file-undelete application. In addition, it included a built in disk compression program based on SuperStor. This release became a runaway hit, and Microsoft was not at all happy about it. They responded with DOS 6, which bundled a variety of utilities to respond to DR-DOS, like a disk defragmenter and ScanDisk. Microsoft at this point wanted to include disk compression into the mix, but did not feel they had the time to develop their own technology, so began discussions with STAC to license the technology used in their Stacker compression program. Microsoft and STAC were unable to come to an agreement regarding licensing fees, so Microsoft took a step that would become infamous. Instead of paying for the technology, they buddied up to STAC, learned all they could about their program and processes and then reverse-engineered the product, wrote their own version of it and told STAC to take a hike. They released DOS 6.2 with DoubleSpace, their own version of Stacker. STAC was furious, and sued in court. While it turns out that STAC itself was ruled as having infringed on Microsoft technology also, the courts ended up ordering Microsoft to pull DoubleSpace from their product line. Dos 6.21 was released sans compression, and later 6.22 was released with a re-written compression engine called DriveSpace. Overall, the courts had ordered Microsoft to pay STAC $120 million in damages, and also that STAC pay Microsoft some $13.7 million for their transgressions. In the end, Microsoft made a deal with STAC. They agreed to a cross-licensing pact that involved royalty payments to STAC of $1 million per month for some 43 months, and also bought some $39.9 million in STAC shares.

The battle with STAC was over, but would establish a few key patterns that would set the tone for other situations that would follow. Microsoft developed a reputation for "buddying up" to companies in order to get access to their technologies, then tell them to take a hike as they decided to build their own interpretation of that technology using some of the information that they had learned during that period of faux-friendship. They had been accused of doing that with QDOS, with STAC, and even with Apple and their Macintosh GUI technology. In fairness, the same has been said of Apple regarding Xerox technology, but it was now Microsoft that was getting the brunt of the attention and resentment from the industry as a whole.

The resentment would be furthered with the introduction of Windows NT. Microsoft had been working closely with IBM on the OS/2 project for some time, yet it turns out that in secret they had started their own project later called NT that would compete directly with OS/2 and in fact include some of the technology and engineering data that they had learned during their collaboration with IBM. When NT was announced, IBM was understandably upset and many felt that OS/2 was now doomed by this "stab in the back" maneuver by Microsoft. However, Microsoft moved boldly and arrogantly forward, defiant in its success. They left IBM in the dust and moved forward with their growing domination in the consumer market.

They would gain further critics as they "bought off" other companies to stop competing with them. After Steve Jobs was brought back to resurrect Apple in the wake of the disastrous "Benedict Scully" era, he stunned an August MacWorld Expo crowd by announcing a $150 million bailout from their arch-rival Microsoft. It was a shock to see a gloating Bill Gates up on the big screen touting how great some of the Microsoft technology was and how Apple users would benefit from it. It was a way for Microsoft to ensure that the Netscape browser would die an ugly death on the Mac in favor of their new Internet Explorer browser. Some may call Jobs a traitor, but Microsoft had merely lived by the law of Corporate Darwinism: Survival of the Fittest. They had taken advantage of the weakness of Apple and thrown money at the problem to in essence buy them off. If this deal was looked at by itself, it may not have angered the masses so much, but given the history of brutal, anti-competitive behavior that Microsoft had exhibited in the past, it was to many another example of the power and arrogance of what was becoming one of the most hated corporations in the American landscape.

When Corel had pinned its future on Linux and released what would turn out to be the second most popular desktop version of Linux to date, just behind Red Hat, Microsoft again took notice. They had been able to keep the Corel Office Suite relegated to a small niche market by using its exclusionary licensing and bundling agreements with many OEM and Vendor organizations, and had been hammering away at their graphics business with their own vector based efforts. The purchase of Visio helped seal the deal in terms of face to face obliteration, and Corel, in part because of its own horrible mismanagement, was left wounded and very vulnerable. In what some consider an act of mercy, Microsoft bailed out Corel with a $135 million cash infusion. This cash came with a cost, however. Soon, the founder was ousted, Corel had promised to get out of the Linux business, to stop supporting their new and popular Corel Office for Linux and to sell off their Linux OS product entirely. They had agreed to refocus their efforts on the graphics business with a new commander at the helm and had further agreed to support the upcoming Microsoft .NET strategy as a partner. Microsoft had done it again, and the shareholders were happy.

Of Monopolies And Men

In addition to those aforementioned examples, the Corporate Microsoft had been receiving increasing criticism for their anti-competitive business practices. They had taken advantage of their early bundling agreements to help strengthen their stranglehold on the marketplace. They refused to allow vendors who wanted to bundle any Microsoft products with their systems to also bundle products from competitors. They used pricing pressures to help force OEM's to exclude any non-Windows operating systems from their configurations. They used the growing power to help force OEM's who bundled their Windows software to also bundle their Office software, again, at the exclusion of all others.

As they solidified their dominance, they used that "pacified" OEM market to force the adoption of their new Internet Explorer web browser, all at the expense of Netscape. In short order they were able to rise from a ZERO market share, to nearly 50%, and there was no stopping them at all. Netscape suddenly had to become a free product just to compete, but the damage was done, the infrastructure of exclusion in place and now Netscape is a mere blip on the browser radar.

In some ways, Microsoft is simply taking advantage of the misfortunes and missteps that other companies have and make. But in other ways, Microsoft has become greedy and gluttonous, using unfair and possibly illegal tactics to ensure domination in the marketplace. I guess one of the ironic parts is that Microsoft would still win the battle if it played fair. Their engineers and developers are some of the best in the business, and their marketing department has got to be a gold medal winner. Companies like Lotus, Ashton-Tate and Word Perfect would still have imploded on their own - it just may have taken a little bit longer.

IBM has a history of screwing things up. They invented the PC and are now barely even a tiny player in the market. When they bought Lotus, they had a winning suite on their hands, one that should have driven Microsoft into the ground. They had Lotus Notes, the premier groupware tool of its age. They had masses of cash and a dominant market presence. But they demonstrated yet again their own ineptness and did more to kill off their own software division than anything Microsoft could have possibly done.

Adobe has remained a big, slow-moving behemoth and slowly but surely, their market share has been eroding as more capable contenders have entered the picture. JASC, Inc. has an outstanding competitor in Paint Shop Pro, and HP is one of many companies that have chosen to write their own PostScript emulation rather than pay the excessive fees for licensing the true Adobe code. Microsoft Engineers released True Type fonts with Windows 3.1, and that font technology has quietly and fairly come to dominate the market for scalable font technology. Microsoft Publisher has risen to be a huge player in the small to moderate page layout market, and is another example of how fair competition and quality coding can put you right up there with the big guns. Let Quark and Adobe fight for position on the cliffs, Publisher will just keep on staking out the middle-ground and bask in the profitability of their modesty.

Final Words

For me, the bottom line is that Microsoft does not need to be such a horrible corporate citizen in order to survive and prosper. It is not like they produce a bunch of junk. In fact, Windows 2000 Professional, no matter how long in coming, is a fantastic product. Their Internet Explorer 6.0 browser, along with Outlook Express 6.0, have grown to be very, very good products. They show that it is not necessary for them to be a monopolistic bully in order to have great applications. They don't use these types of tactics with their hardware division, yet still manage to have some of the best selling, most highly regarded products out there. Their optical mice are just flat out awesome, and their new trackballs are some of the very best of breed. To be frank, Linux in the desktop market is a mess, and since Corel agreed to kill off their Linux division, they really have nothing left to fear. There is no reason to shove Windows XP down the throats of consumers and OEM's alike. There is no longer any reason to put so much pressure on retailers to get the competition off the shelf.

As Windows XP comes closer to market, Microsoft seems to be showing us that it really doesn't care about giving us options. They are content to load XP up with all sorts of bloated code without easy options to uninstall what we don't want. They seem as angry, arrogant and defiant as ever, even though the court has indeed upheld the fact that they are a Monopoly and has used unfair business practices to maintain that monopoly. They seem perfectly willing to stick it to the business community that helped make them a mainstay. They do this through changes in the licensing agreements that are not only designed to force users to upgrade to the XP generation, but to wring as much cash out of them as possible. There is no reward for loyalty, no recognition of their existing investments and no effort to listen to the concerns of a growingly vocal audience of former devotees.

Microsoft seems uninterested in heeding the warnings of an increasingly angry and resentful marketplace. They seem unwilling to pause in their effort to milk the general public for cash in a move to shore up the bottom line and put stockholders ahead of customers. They seem to tune out those who ask the simple questions: "How many billions in profit does it take before you will act like you give a damn about the people who buy your products?" and "Why don't you just give us some flexibility and let us choose what parts we want to install and remove?".

It is easy to put the blame on Microsoft for their wicked behavior, but unfortunately those great men and women who toil away on the code, who actually create some of those great products, remain overshadowed by the pathetic and greedy corporate decision making process. It is hard to be recognized as the only sweet-smelling flower in a garden of putrid compost. It really is too bad. If someone could just slap Gates and Balmer across the face and wake them up from their frenzied state of oppressive dictatorship, perhaps they would realize that they can rest easy in the knowledge that they can actually compete on the merits. That their cash reserves give them a great deal of flexibility to sit back and respond to any innovations that may come up from other areas of the industry. They have the tools to compete, but it seems no longer the will. They have the potential to be a good corporate citizen, but it seems no longer the compassion to do so. They could be so many things to so many people, but instead of reaching out and becoming a partner in the community, they choose to continue their campaign of rigid control and deceptive manipulation.

It is also sad that consumers and businesses don't have the stomach for a good fight. If only a few dozen major corporations and a cadre of devoted consumers would put their foot down and let Microsoft know that their actions would not be tolerated, perhaps things would change. But as long as we remain in the shadows, unwilling to stand up and be counted, we only foster the very problem we complain about. We are like hapless sheep being moved blindly and stupidly from pasture to pasture, only caring about how easy and convenient grazing can be, not worrying about the quality of the grass or the impact on the landscape. As long as we feel fat and happy, we seem content to sit back and let someone else dictate our direction and limit our options. As bad as the Microsoft Corporate Culture may be, our apathy and lack of self-respect must certainly be just as distasteful. I hope that one day the numbed, unwashed masses will wake to their complicity in this plight, but fear that the more things change, the more things will stay the same.