PULP
Stuff that doesn't suck
Stuff that really sucks
Opinions on Stuff that Matters
14 Reasons Why Breaking Up Microsoft is
the Wrong Thing to Do
(Posted to the web on January 2000)
Below is the letter that I sent to the boneheaded politicians that are trying
to run for office this year. Feel free to use any part of it to argue against
the DOJ boneheads. Then you can show people how smart you really are.....
======================
Dear ___________________
Everyone else seems to be writing and posturing about the Microsoft vs. DOJ
anti-trust case as if they are experts on it. But there is so much faulty logic
in what they are writing, it is obvious they are amateurs and they don't
understand business or the high-tech industry, and the history behind operating
systems. Politicians, lawyers, DOJ employees, most of the press, and 90% of the
general public cannot comprehend what the TRUE issues are on this topic unless
they have actually WORKED in the software industry for a company that builds
applications and operating systems. It is kinda like you can't expect a male
bachelor to understand what the issues are for a single female parent to be
pregnant, and nurse and take care of a baby. The male bachelor cannot understand the issues,
because he has never been there. Below is an opinion from someone who has been
in the software industry put into plain words so the ordinary voters can understand.
14 Reasons Why Breaking Up Microsoft is the Wrong
Thing to Do
- Consumers are not complaining. I know of very few end user consumers that
are screaming that Microsoft is a monopoly and must be stopped. It is the
COMPETITORS, the competitor's lawyers, and the DOJ, and the Attorney
Generals (more lawyer bastards) that are complaining. Competitors want to
make more money from consumers, so they object when Microsoft gives stuff
away for free, like Internet Explorer. The DOJ and the attorney generals
have a political career they are trying to pursue, which means they have to
win a big splashy case at all costs. Lawyers in general are scumbags, as
they want as much litigation as possible so they can change unlimited hours
at $400 an hour so they can go out and buy Ferraris. Consumers, on the other
hand, like getting stuff for free. They want stuff for free. They like
TCP/IP stacks that are free and included in the operating system so they can
connect to the Internet. They like disk defragmenters for free. They like
networking software built in. They like fax software built in. They like
printer sharing and file sharing built in for free. They like disk
compression built in for free. When Microsoft put all of these previous
technologies into Windows for free, it was a great thing for consumers and
end users and people responsible for rolling out 1000's of computers in big
companies. Because everything they needed was free, and was there when they
installed their operating system the first time. Microsoft had the foresight
in 1995 to see that the Internet was going to be all encompassing, thus like
the other technologies mentioned, Microsoft bundled Internet Explorer for
free because Microsoft knew that everyone would need a browser. Many years
ago, when the DOJ started this case, it wasn't apparent that a browser is an
OBVIOUS thing that HAS to be in the operating system, as the DOJ is not
composed of forward thinking computer nerds like Microsoft is. Today, we all
take it for granted that when you open up the box for your new computer, you
click a couple of buttons and you are connected to the Internet and are able
to get the information you want. You don't have to buy a separate CD, you
don't have to download 7 meg of files over a slow 28.8 link to get your
browser, it is simply there when you turn on your computer. My computer
illiterate friends and family love this feature.
- Creating a separate operating system company and a separate apps company
is bad for consumers. If you are a large corporate customer (Ford, Boeing,
etc), now you have to deal with two different sales forces (MS-Apps and
MS-Systems), two different support organizations, two organizations for
testing for software bugs, two different consulting organizations, two
different purchasing systems, two different legal departments for contract
negotiations, etc. It is bad enough dealing with Microsoft as a single
company, creating duplicity will make things at least twice as bad to deal
with, if not make it EXPONENTIALLY harder to deal with. The government
doesn't understand this, as they are used to working inefficiently on a
daily basis. This will make life miserable and unproductive for businesses
that currently deal with Microsoft. It will also slow down Microsoft from
creating new versions of operating systems and applications. Think of DOS to
Windows 3.0 to Windows 3.1 to Windows 95 to Window 98. There are quantum
leaps in usability for consumers. Consumers want this to continue at a rapid
rate. Don't slow Microsoft down!
- As a consumer, if your Microsoft Excel isn't working properly, you make
one call into Microsoft and you get it fixed, and they can diagnose whether
or not it is an application problem, or an operating system problem. Under
the proposed DOJ plan, now you have to figure out if you have to wait on the
line for 20 minutes for MS-Apps, or MS-Systems, and MS-Apps and MS-Systems
will point the figure at each other as to whose product ain't working. You
will be screwed when trying to figure out what is wrong.
- As a consumer, if you want to heard CD quality audio and watch videos on the Internet, and
you have a PC, some of your choices are downloading:
a. Real Audio's Real
player for $29.99 (they offer a free version, but it doesn't have all the
features. They give you the el cheapo version free in hopes you will
give them $29.99 to get all the features)
OR
b. Microsoft's Media Player. For free. For ALL the features, not the stripped
down version.
And you can bet Microsoft will bundle for free this Media Player the next time you upgrade your operating system if the
DOJ drops its case against Microsoft. And with the latest version beta of
Microsoft's Media Player 7.0 that you can download for free, one can make the argument that it
is BETTER than the existing Real Audio player that you have to PAY for. Under the DOJ's
proposal makes it seem like your options would be to buy either the Real
player for $29.99 or buy the Microsoft Media Player for whatever Microsoft feels
like charging you, because it is bad to give stuff away for FREE. Maybe
Microsoft wants to maximize profits, and they know it is better than the
Real Audio player, so they charge 29.98, or a penny less than Real Audio's
inferior player, which means now I have to go out and shell out 29.98 x 5,
or about $150 so my five computers can play videos and music from the
Internet. THIS SUCKS, I want this stuff for free, yet the DOJ and 19
Attorney generals are essentially saying Microsoft can't bundle it for free
or give it away for free, that it is illegal.
Now think about this……in
the future, there will be voice recognition, hand writing recognition, and a
zillion other cool technologies to make life easier. As a consumer, do you
want to have to pay and download all this software, or would your rather get
it FOR FREE with your operating system? Am I going to end up having to
buy 5 copies of speech recognitions software, 5 copies of handwriting
software, 5 copies of music players? Pretty soon, according to the DOJ
logic, I might as well give
Microsoft my whole damn paycheck in order to use these new technologies that
will be coming out in the future as Microsoft will not be allowed to bundle
them for free. Who is getting hurt here by free stuff? It sure ain't Joe
Consumer! Remember, 10 years ago, stuff like printer sharing software, file
sharing software, networking software was high tech, future wish list stuff,
because it wasn't widely used yet. Back in 1990, people used to have to buy
Windows 3.0 and buy a TCP/IP software for an extra $100 bucks in order to
connect to the network. Now, we take it for granted that TCP/IP will be
bundled for FREE. Like we are starting to do with the Internet Browser.
Otherwise, you would be paying another $100 to connect to the
Internet. That is $100 PER COMPUTER that you have to connect to the
Internet.
Click here to download the Media Player 7.0 for free. It is 7
meg. It is a cool piece of software. Doesn't it SUCK downloading 7 meg
over your slow ass modem? Wouldn't it be cool if it was BUNDLED in
your operating system and installed on your PC when you bought it?
Wouldn't it SUCK if you had to pay for it AND download it? Wouldn't it
be cool that if in the year 2002, bundled in your operating system for free
was speech recognition, handwriting recognition, hand signal recognition,
(so you could give the finger to your computer and then with a single click
send this image to the DOJ), Napster like capabilities, GPS software,
wireless networking software, and VCR software so you could program your VCR
via email from work? Or would you rather have the "choice"
as the DOJ puts it, to download them one by one over your slow ass modem
link just the ones that you want, and have have to pay for it. THIS is
what the consequences of the DOJ winning it case against having Microsoft
bundle Internet Explorer with every copy of the operating system. It
will be bad to give stuff away for free. This is why Microsoft wants
to take this case to the Appeals Court and if necessary, to the Supreme
Court.....because Microsoft knows what Joe Consumer wants, and Microsoft
will fight to the death for the right to bundle new stuff in new versions of
the operating system. Why else would you buy Windows 2002,
unless you got cool stuff in it for free?
- The cost of Windows 98 is about $90 or so to consumers. Amortized over two
years (figuring major upgrade every two years), the consumer cost is about
$45 a year, or about 14 cents a day to use the Windows 98 operating system
if the customer upgraded from Windows 95. So the DOJ is wasting all this
time an effort on a product that cost me less than a 14 cents a day? Who
gives a damn about a 14 cents a day? If you bought a PC and Windows 98 was
already on the PC, then the cost to the consumer is cheaper (because
Microsoft gives PC manufacturers a discount for volume pricing), so your
cost is now probably 6 cents a day! Go and persecute those cable bastards
that are charging me 90 dollars A MONTH to watch crummy television shows,
and sometime even shutting down the crummy television shows (ABC) that I
might choose to watch. Now that is a monopoly. Don't bother me about
this nickel and dime stuff, it is not worth the time and effort.
- The Sun Solaris 7 operating system for the Intel platform is $450 bucks,
or five times the amount that Windows 98 costs. Could it be that Sun is
ripping people off? Why do you think Sun is upset that Microsoft is giving
away lots of stuff for free. When Microsoft starts charging $450 per
computer for Windows 98 or Windows 2000, then start filing charges against
Microsoft.
- The DOJ is causing havoc in the stock market. The stock market doesn't
like any uncertainty. Billions of dollars are in mutual funds that have
bought Microsoft stock because Microsoft knows how to run a profitable
business. The DOJ is making the NASDAQ market crash. When the market
crashes, people don't buy as much stuff. People want to retire with their
mutual funds. Buying stuff is good, it keeps people employed.
Update:, May 16th - Article in Wall Street Journal, says that The
National Taxpayer's Union, (a "non-profit" group that is funded by
Microsoft), says that the 19 state attorney generals, in a mad dash to seek
a Microsoft breakup, finally delivered their first return to their
constituents: Massive state fund pension loses. It said that the
pension funds for teachers, policemen, and other public servants in the 8 of
the 19 states that they surveyed lost a total of 38 BILLION dollars in value
in the days after the April 3 ruling against Microsoft by Judge
Jackson. Michigan alone lost $2.4 billion dollars in their pension
fund, of which $1.8 billion was in technology stocks that were owned by the
Michigan Pension fund. Good Michigan, you are trying to save people 15
cents a day in the cost of Windows 98 and a browser, and it only cost you
$2.4 billion. Yeah, Mr Attorney General, you know what is good for the
people. Of course, they will say, "Well, it ain't just the
Microsoft case that is dragging down the stock market.". BUT,
what triggered this whole massive collaspe? It sure wasn't cause by
BUNDLING INTERNET BROWSERS.
- You need to have a browser EMBEDDED in the operating system when you turn
on your computer. Why you might ask? Many of the applications you are buying
today are putting their help systems, readme files, and their documentation
in HTML (the format that browsers read), since HTML is becoming a universal
language, and installing the documentation on the hard drive to make it easy
for users who can't find their manuals. In order to read HTML, guess what you need? You need a browser. If
you don't have a browser on your operating system, you won't be able to RTFM
(Read the F****** Manual) to figure out why things aren't working.
- As a consumer, I want my operating system to come with every bell,
whistle, tool, and freebie that I can get my hands on. Bundle EVERYTHING
possible when I buy my computer. I don't want to download anything from the
internet, I don't want to have to buy extra software, I don't want to load
extra CDs. When my computer illiterate friends buy a computer, I don't want
to help them load ANYTHING. I just want to turn on the computer and have
everything work smoothly.
- All major operating systems bundle browsers for free. Sun Solaris, Linux,
etc. Heck, with Apple Computer, they also bundle their Quicktime media
player, and they bundle the HARDWARE box, and they bundle the browser, AND
they bundle a video editing software so you can make your own movies. So why
not let Microsoft bundle their browser and their added features also?
- Companies that make inferior or marginal products should be left to die in
the consumer market place. Instead, the DOJ wants to help these companies
gouge consumers ("Buy this Browser for $29.99", "Buy this
video player for $29.99", "Buy this speech recognition software
for $29.99") instead of allowing their competitor (Microsoft) to bundle
better software and more features in the operating system. Stop the madness,
stop the lawyers, stop the DOJ, and help me, the innocent consumer! It is
the right thing to do…..IF you are on the side of the consumer.
- The DOJ thinks that by splitting up Microsoft, that Microsoft-Apps company
will then make Microsoft Office for Linux, which will allow the Linux
operating system to compete better with Windows. This shows utter
stupidity by the government. The reason Microsoft doesn't make Office
for Linux is because:
a. There is a finite number of world class developers in the
world. Has your company tried to hire an awesome software developer
recently? You can't find a single one that REALLY knows how to write
software. You can find a lot of marginal ones out there. But a
REALLY good one is worth five marginal ones, as one good one can generate
better, faster code than five marginal ones.
b. Given there are a finite number of world class developers, and you
know you have 150+ million people using Windows and Office for Windows, and
you have 1 million or so unix geeks using Linux, do you even waste your time
having a full team of 1000+ developers working on Office for Linux?
OR, do you keep all those developers working on the next version of Office
2002, so you can get the latest and greatest software out to 150 Million
people ASAP, and collect the profits there, and collect the profits
faster? If you were a business person, what would you do?
If you were a consumer, don't you want the next latest and greatest software
for Windows ASAP? Don't slow it down by trying to force Office for
Linux down the throats of the unix geeks, who probably won't buy it anyway.
c. Does the DOJ have any CLUE about how hard it would be to port
Office for Linux? Everything is different, API calls are different,
etc. It would take years and years and years to port it, at a
cost of 1000+ developers. It is not worth the cost to
build this product.
d. Microsoft is the ultimate capitalist. They smell profits and
figure out how to make profits on innovation before anyone else in the
game. If they could MAKE a profit by porting Office to Linux, they
would do it in a heartbeat. Microsoft makes Office for the Apple
Macintosh because Microsoft customers have Mac, and there are a lot of Macs
out there, and Microsoft did the research and figured out they could make a
profit on it.
- The DOJ thinks that Microsoft should write its Microsoft Exchange Mail
Server that currently runs on Windows NT, and write a version that runs on
Linux, so it doesn't force people to use Windows NT Server. HELLO JOE
KLEIN. It took Microsoft FOUR agonizing years to write the Microsoft
Exchange Server for Windows NT, in which customers were ready to shoot
Microsoft because it took so long to write this extremely complex server
software, and developers were having nervous breakdowns trying to finish
this enormously complex product. AND, Microsoft controlled the
operating system development in this case, which theoretically makes
it easier to develop. It would take Microsoft 4+ more years of
agony by a 1000 developers to port this existing server software to Linux or
any other system, and then they WOULDN'T SELL ANY, because it would not have
the same features as the NT version, since Microsoft can build new features
on top of the existing Exchange Server. The DOJ seems to think that
you just take the existing software code, run it through a complier program,
and out spits a lovely Linux program. That ain't the case Joe.
Asking Microsoft to do this is the equivalent of asking Ford to bring out a
new SUV with a different chassis size and engine/powertrain. It would
take Ford 3 or 4 years to build this product, as everything has to be
re-engineered from scratch.
- The DOJ claims that Microsoft Office is killing the competition, and that
is bad for consumers. What the DOJ doesn't tell you is that back in
prior to Windows 3.0 (1990), if you needed to use a Spreadsheet, you
probably bought Lotus 123, and it cost you a retail price of $400. If
you wanted a word processor, you probably used Word Perfect, which cost you
a retail price of $400. If you wanted to use a database program, you
bought Dbase for about $400. If you wanted to use a
graphics/presentation software, you bought Chartmaster for $200. Total
cost in 1990? That is about $1400 in software for these DOS based
programs, and you could not "cut and paste" between the various
programs. Now contrast this today when you can buy Microsoft Office
that contains a spreadsheet, word processor, database program, and graphics
programs for about $400 TOTAL. Microsoft just save you $1000 bucks
from you 1990 prices. And that doesn't take into the cost of
inflation. Yeah, it is a shame that Microsoft killed off Ashton Tate,
Lotus, Word Perfect, etc, in their fight to the top and forced these
companies to merge or get killed off. But I as a consumer have to
spend less money for more functionality. When I send a word processing
document to a friend, I don't have to decide if I should export it and save
it out in Word Perfect format, or Multimate format, or raw text format, or
some other format, I just send it in Microsoft Word format because 95% of
the people use Microsoft Word. But it is not because Microsoft
illegally forced them out or illegally killed off these companies. It
is because Microsoft made the investment to spend millions of labor hours
with brilliant computer hackers that worked 100 hours a week to make
products that were better in the Windows environment, priced cheaper, and
were integrated so you could cut and paste data between the various
programs, and got them to market quicker than the competition, and thus
created a new "standard". That is what is great about
America, you work your ass off, you should reap the rewards.
The DOJ should only be concerned about stuff that the general public is
concerned about. Take all the time and money that they are spending on the
Microsoft case for lawyers, press conferences, airline tickets, hotel/food
expense reports, staff, etc, and use it to make the city streets safer from
crime, spend it on chasing down corrupt government officials, spend it on
computers for schools, spend it on feeding the poor, spend it on cases involving
illegal campaign funds, spend it on drug rehabilitation. If you want to
attack monopolies, make my phone bill cheaper, make my cable bill cheaper, make
my electric bill cheaper, make my gas bill cheaper. DON'T make my software
MORE expensive, MORE difficult to use, and DON'T slow down Microsoft from coming
out with new updates every two years. And most of all, DON'T cause havoc
and uncertainty in the NASDAQ, because we need some cash profits so we can go-fast
on the race track, and let our parents/grandparents retire with some money in
their mutual funds..
Just my opinions, I could be wrong...but I doubt it. If you think I am
wrong, give it your best shot. dougha@msn.com.
All letters and responses will become property of Pulp Racing.
More Pulp commentary (but most of it is old stuff), click
here...