His Divine Shadow wrote:Maybe I'm just naive, maybe I should listen to those who scream bloody murder everytime something like this happens.
Heck this Palladium thing i even illegal if it's all it's cracked up to be, isn't it?
HDS, I think the reason people (me included) get somewhat . . . vehement . . . about Microsoft is that they have used the same tactics again and again to leverage their way into markets beyond their original one (desktop OS's) in addition to further cementing their control of the desktop market.
And so, when people like us see yet another attempt from Microsoft to gain even more control, there is an attitude of 'Here we go again, typical bloody Microsoft' which may come across as highly biased to newcomers who may not be quite as fluent with the history that grates on our nerves.
Summarising the 'evils' of Microsoft (not to mention oversimplying a number of the issues involved) :
Their first trick (i.e. the most annoying factor in their rise to monopoly) was to persuade a number of PC vendors to sign deals which meant the vendor paid Microsoft a licensing fee for
every PC sold,
even if MS-DOS was not installed on the PC being sold.
The natural result? The vendors shipped every PC with MS-DOS as the operating system, since the vendor would have to pay for it anyway. Essentially, Apple aside, everyone began selling IBM clones with MS-DOS installed.
Over time (along with a few other factors like IBM shooting themselves in the foot with OS/2), this has led directly to Microsoft's current dominant position in the desktop market. We have the first leg in "What Microsoft does, Microsoft does for Microsoft's benefit".
There is an important thing to understand about the vast majority of PC users: What comes with the system, stays with the system. Anything which doesn't come with the system, probably won't get looked at. In other words, if the machine comes with Outlook and IE preconfigured, that's what people will use. If the machine comes with Windows pre-installed, that's what people will use. Installing games is enough of a challenge for them - the concept of installing a different operating system is enough to make them run screaming in fear (with good reason - changing OS's is a major pain)
The deals cut with the PC vendors have meant that Microsoft has the leverage in the desktop OS market, and has used that to shut out other vendors in other areas. They succeeded spectacularly with Web browsers and email clients, they generally failed with the Web itself.
The second reason to dislike Microsoft is their philosophy of 'embrace-and-extend'. They take an open standard (e.g. HTML) and 'enhance' it, giving Web designers the ability to do funky tricks on their web pages. Problem: these funky tricks only work with IE - they cause any other browsers to die. Wait, it doesn't matter! Almost all our clients use IE anyway - and so the Microsoft monopoly becomes even more entrenched.
Microsoft have tried to use similar stunts to break into the server market - making it difficult for non-Microsoft servers to interact with Microsoft clients (and vice-versa). Some of these have worked, some haven't, the jury is still out on the rest. In a related area, Microsoft's monopolistic presence gives them the ability to create 'de-facto' standards, which are not publically available. A major example of this is the Microsoft Office file formats (Word, PowerPoint, Excel). The first question asked about most office suites is "Can it read Microsoft formats?" - the answering is usually 'most of the time', but only due to painstaking reverse engineering. Odd cases can still be misinterpreted, and of course, it all goes out the window as soon as Microsoft decide to change formats again (usually every couple of releases). Other examples are DirectX and the centralised .NET security architecture (note that the essence of .NET itself isn't that bad an idea - it's the centralisation of power in Microsoft's hands that _other_ aspects of the architecture entail which is the problem)
And the third major reason to dislike Microsoft's business practices is their ongoing willingness to exploit the gullibility of the general and business communities. This tactic, called FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt), ultimately boils down to lying. They make unsubstantiated claims about alternatives to Microsoft (e.g. 'Linux is unsupported, there is no point of contact when you have problems' Someone really should mention this situation to RedHat, MandrakeSoft, SuSE, Caldera, etc.) and _also_ make unsubstantiated claims about their own products ('We're more secure, really, we mean it this time!').
So, what it boils down to is that Microsoft are very, very good at what they do - making more money for Microsoft. Along the way, they even do some incidental good (umm, specific suggestions for this point? All the examples I can think of were actually a case of Microsoft co-opting and popularising someone else's idea - I guess they did help make the PC the near-ubiquitous Western household item it is today).
The problem is that their goal of making more money for Microsoft does not necessarily equal "what is in the best interests of society". Now, some might argue 'well, why should that be their problem?' And, if they were a normal company, with a market share like that of, say Cisco (extremely dominant, but not monopolistic), this argument would be true. However, the simple fact is that too much power has become invested in a company which is
not accountable to anyone except itself. The recent DoJ 'slap-on-the-wrist' is yet more evidence of that.
In the specific case of Palladium, the MPAA and RIAA, by means of both Senator Fritz Hollings (D-Disney) and other avenues such as the Broadband Protection Discussion Group are pushing for legislation which would make something like Palladium not only legal, but mandatory.
Of course, it's always presented in the guise of 'protecting intellectual property' and 'encouraging innovation by protecting copyright holder's interests' and 'benefitting consumers by providing high quality digital content'. And the question concerned individuals are trying to make heard is "At what cost to our personal rights and liberties?".
And the reason I'm interested is because, where the US goes, Australia will often follow (not always, for which fact I am extremely grateful. . .)
Cheers,
Nick.