by Gary Welz
Microsoft Plays the Endgame
Microsoft CEO, Bill Gates, appeared on the Charlie Rose program on PBS on Monday, November 25. He told Rose that his two goals for 1997 were to bring "simplicity" to Microsoft products and to make Windows NT server software "scalable" to the point where it could handle traffic loads greater than Unix-based server software. Although he denied wanting to put Apple, Netscape, Sun, or anyone else out of business, he's implicitly going after what's left of his competition--the Mac OS and Unix.Microsoft seems to have an edge, but it irritates many users and computer professionals because it so relentlessly and aggressively presses its advantage--plainly intent on capturing the whole enchilada, that is, all desktops and all Intranet/Internet servers. This is capitalism; he does have a right to sell as much as he can. But is it really good for everyone if he does?
Now arguably 90% of the world's PCs use the Window's operating system. As it gains increasing shares of the Web browser (16%) and Web server (7%) markets, Microsoft seems poised for the endgame in which it gobbles up Macinosh and Unix.
By and large, Microsoft is making good products, no one will argue that it shouldn't. What galls many people though is that it won't let you take part of its line--Microsoft makes it an all-or-nothing, enterprisewide or none, proposition. How? By declining to make its systems interoperate with others and by making its own products unique in ways that are appealing but close off options to non-Microsoft technologies.
(Don't you wonder why you can't put a Mac diskette into a PC and translate Mac files into PC ones, even for applications like MS Word? You've been able to put a PC diskette into a Mac and translate into a Mac file for years. What's going on here? Have I missed something?)
In my column last week, I compared user interface solutions offered by Wintel (Windows and Intel) with those offered by Netscape and other vendors. Wintel integrates software and hardware using DirectX and ActiveX controls. ActiveX will run on other platforms, but DirectX makes it work faster and more efficiently on Intel hardware--a not so subtle lever to get users to buy into the whole package. It's fair, but subtly anti-competitive, like having a feature of AT&T's phone service only available on a phone manufactured by AT&T. They won't be sued for this, but I feel like I'm being seduced.
Nescape is staking its hopes for survival on offering interoperability across a range of different systems. It embraces ActiveX and Windows, but also offers versions of its products for Mac and Unix platforms. Microsoft, however, does not fully reciprocate their embrace.
David Coursey in his column in the November 18, 1996 Interactive Week points out that Microsoft is again being criticized for pushing its propreitary standards as though they were open. He asks whether the recently launched Active Platform is really an open Internet/Intranet platform as Redmond would have us believe when they asked The Open Group consortium to declare ActiveX a standard.
Coursey explains that Microsoft is not releasing the 32-bit Windows programming interfaces and source code for ActiveX desktop controls. Furthermore, it is releasing only the ActivePlatform desktop technologies and not the network and server techologies, which means that Netscape and other server software makers will not be able to compete equally.
"If you choose the Active Platform," Coursey says, "you'll still have to depend on Microsoft for a server, and you'll be wedded to Internet Explorer because IE 4.0 will be the main delivery vehicle for the Active Desktop technology, unless Nescape decides to play [on the browser side, the only place it can]." He laments that Microsoft would still be able to compete successfully if it released all its standards.
Where will this lead us? I'm not sure that either the Mac OS or Unix platform will survive. Apple recently decided to halt development of Copland, its next-generation Mac OS, and will be integrating features of it into future releases of System 7. Apple has expressed an interest in the Be OS. This is supposed to be good, but it's too early to tell if it will be a serious competitor to Windows.
As for Unix, if Windows NT can compete with its scalability, I believe it's in serious trouble. Gates points out that Microsoft systems offer the same OS (i.e., Windows) on clients and servers alike. Systems that can be maintained by workers with less sophisticated programming skills have always been favored over more complex ones. Unix is still the domain of the geekiest guys in the office, and geeks are expensive and increasingly rare. Don't expect business people to choose hardware five times more expensive than a Pentium PC, and an OS more arcane than Windows, if there is no significant benefit in scalability.
No one likes to see a bully win, but that may be what we're in for. I want to have Windows on my desktop, but I want my Mac OS, too, and I don't want Microsoft to be the only game in town. That won't be good for anyone. Still, it's hard to see how the Justice Dept., which has been hounding Microsoft for years, or anyone else for that matter will be able to break the anaconda-like grip that Mr. Gates has on the world of computing. We can only pray that he uses his power for good instead of evil.
