COMMENT People have bashed Microsoft since its early days, whether it deserves it or not. Charles Cooper looks at where all this ill will came from.
The Monday morning missive from a reader got right to the point:
"I find it simultaneously strange, amazing and utterly incomprehensible that your news publications continue to write business articles about Microsoft that appear to elevate and lend credibility to their organisation. It's almost as if I am reading something coming out of the Pyongyang press!"
The email was not altogether exceptional, when you consider how Microsoft has become a latter-day Rorschach test for people who are passionate about their technology.
But it takes on a larger context when you tally in years of Microsoft-hating feedback detailing the enormity of this single company's misdeeds.
Sociologists would need to spend years getting to a root explanation, but this much is incontestable: There's a certain something about this particular company that pushes certain folks over the edge.
Microsoft bashing was in vogue long before the US Department of Justice hauled the company into court on antitrust charges in 1998. Some trace the resentment to the storied 1976 'Open Letter to Hobbyists' in which a 21-year-old Gates publicly chastised a group of developers for pirating his software. The backlash was immediate. (Paying for software? What a whiner!)
The label stuck. In time, Gates - and by extension, Microsoft - came to be viewed through a different prism. Unlike other early PC entrepreneurs doing their thing to make the world a better place for humanity, Microsoft got slammed for conducting business like marauding Huns. They were without morals, they were without ethics and on top of everything else, they made lousy software.
Even the anarchists got pissed at Gates, nailing him a few years ago with a cream pie.
Microsoft has public-relations baggage that's hard to shake. And as the technology industry's most famous convicted predatory monopolist, the company will never again win the benefit of the doubt. Still, the psycho nature of the conspiracy theorists is something to behold.
So much so that even Microsoft's ostensible good deeds only serve as more fodder for trashing. Consider the company's decision to sell Windows XP to developing nations at sharp discounts and expand computer literacy programmes in local markets. To be sure, there's an element of self-interest involved. But when was the last time you read about Oracle or Apple doing something on the same scale?
It doesn't matter, because the wackos already uncovered evidence of Microsoft's nefarious hidden hand. Dim the lights, tune the music and insert Bill Gates into the starring role of Ming the Merciless.
Thus we are told that Microsoft won the legendary operating system war against IBM's OS/2 because of dirty dealing. Forget that Big Blue was utterly incompetent in marketing its software against Windows. Forget that Windows finally improved to the point where it became a better product. All that pales in comparison with the Microsoft's indelible malevolence that attends the company's business dealings. Similar ravings have informed the debates about Microsoft versus Mac or Microsoft versus Linux - or Microsoft against anything, for that matter.
Back on Earth, I don't think there's anything wrong bringing Microsoft down a notch or two. As a charter member of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club, I've thoroughly enjoyed holding Gates Inc. up to public ridicule for poor behaviour and appallingly bad judgment. I'd still like to know why nobody in Redmond had the brains - let alone the guts - to stop its home science project (aka MSNBC) from hiring a knucklehead like Michael Savage.
None of that should detract from Microsoft's track record as one of the great corporate successes of this - or any - era. Comparing Microsoft with the likes of Enron and WorldCom speaks volumes about the relative immaturity of the computer industry. Unfortunately, I know it's only a matter of time before somebody drops me an email claiming to possess proof that Gates was on the grassy knoll in 1963.
Sigh.
Charles Cooper is executive editor of commentary at CNET News.com
Comments
There are 2 comments. Join the discussion
1. Steve Burrows
I've been using Microsoft products for 25 years. Many, perhaps most, have been technically inferior to other products, but through superior marketing the Microsoft product has won out. This has been a shame for computer users around the world, we are not choosing best of breed software, we are selecting best of breed marketing. But that is our right.
Unfortunately, not content with massive legitimate and earned success, Microsoft have behaved unethically and illegally when their products have failed to be adopted as the market choice, so we have had PC suppliers forced to adopt a "Microsoft Only" policy if they wanted to supply Microsoft's OS, we've had the IE scandal to break the popularity of Netscape, we've seen innumerable lawsuits against Microsoft by those they have wronged, both corporate victims and nation governments.
Given that much of the global technical community feels they are driven into using second-rate products offering second-rate reliability, security and service at premium prices from a company which has been repeatedly shown to behave unethically and dishonestly in order to protect it's market position it's not really suprising that Microsoft is the bete noir of the IT industry.
2. Steve Berry
Steve-your comments are spot on.
Gates&Co knew from the very early days they were dealing with potentially the ultimate mass market and needed to commoditize software as much as they could. Whether the software is better or worse never has been the point - the point is it exists, it's there for people to use if they choose to do so and MS have/always will approach the software industry as a mass-market poker game where being second sucks.
Ask most of the long-term Opensource peeps why they have chosen Opensource rather than MS and it comes down to a few simple points:
1-Cost.
2-Cathedral vs Bazaar. Major sociological issues - the main one why should any one company have that much control / dominance over what the rest of the world sees / does / believes. Tend to believe Linus knew this was the logical extensions of MSs activities.
3-Quality of software - nah don't actually believe that one.
When it comes down to it, the reason most people really hate MS is that they understood probably better than anyone else exactly what they were dealing with and managed to find / cultivate the talent to pull it off before anyone else really had the chance to examine how they operate as a business.
Whatever one thinks, you've got to give em' kudos for that.