Software giant Microsoft was planning to
have a good week ending October 26, when it
expected to wow the world with a brand new
operating system, Windows 8. It hoped to finally
put to bed the epic disaster that was the Windows
Vista operating system, and its more successful
but no less clunky successor, Windows 7.
As with all carefully planned coups, this
one met with some surprising twists, both from old
foes of Microsoft. First came bete noire Apple,
which suddenly announced a media event on October
23. On the very next day, the European Union
announced that it was miffed after its initial
review of the upcoming Windows 8 software (no word
on how they got hold of a copy; maybe someone
shipped in a bootleg from Shenzhen) showed that
Microsoft had failed to
provide a browser choice; an old battleground
between the EU anti-trust folks and Microsoft.
Before jumping any further into this
story, I should clarify here that I am an avowed
Apple devotee with a visceral, gut-clenching
hatred for everything that Microsoft produces,
except perhaps its amazing ergonomic keyboard.
Still, I was more than puzzled by the EU
action. Since the time of their last moves back in
2009 - I mean, a time when every country in core
Europe was rated triple-A - the world has changed
a lot. Specifically, the part of the world that
Microsoft lives in has changed almost inexorably.
Back in 2009, you could have picked up
Apple shares for a fraction of their current,
stratospheric price. Google, which was merely a
search engine residing in other people’s browsers,
had just debuted its own browser to compete with
Microsoft Internet Explorer; and in a superbly
strange twist that typified the ways of the
technology world, built an operating system out of
its browser. Computers came equipped with the
Chrome o/s, bereft of any function until and
unless connected to the Internet. Once in the
machine, you were taken to your Google drive,
encouraged to launch your Google docs, and all the
time monitor your email and calendar with Gmail.
Talk about lack of choice.
On the other
end of the spectrum, Apple started with some
superbly smart and cute devices but ensured
complete dominance of the operating system as well
as application software. The last time I checked
(earlier today) the only way to access the iPad,
iPhone and i-Whatever-Next was the iTunes software
and the only place to buy stuff to use on these
machines was the (Apple) App Store. Talk again
about lack of choice.
Microsoft itself has
had a bad few years meanwhile. The Vista disaster
from 2005 when, thanks to changes in its operating
libraries and the absence of pre-information to
hardware suppliers, users actually ended up with
less capabilities after an "upgrade" proved a
turning point for both Microsoft and Apple (not to
mention Google). Many people including your author
chose to downgrade from Vista back to Windows XP
which, while basic, at least didn't crash as often
and didn't try to offer any clever suggestions
either.
The attempt at a version two - R2
in Microsoft speak - was rebranded Windows 7,
that's how bad the public perception of Windows
Vista was. The damage had been done though - with
the door to the consumer market wide open, both
Apple and Google jumped straight in and took over
significant market share from disaffected
Microsoft users.
As all this was
unfolding, antitrust folks in both the US and
Europe were still hearing cases against Microsoft,
initially brought about by Sun and later on by
other plaintiffs. In one of those ironical
developments that can only ever be conjured up by
committee, a whole bunch of fines was imposed on
the hapless Microsoft pretty much simultaneously
with its self-created woes. The look on the faces
of key Microsoft employees was priceless - a bit
like someone being handed a speeding ticket after
they had been hit by (not driving) a speeding car.
Whilst those fines are still acceptable
from the point of due process, it is the
subsequent actions of regulators - particularly in
the EU - that appears gallingly clueless to say
the least. Only someone who has been hiding under
a rock for the past five years would even
contemplate the words "monopoly" and "Microsoft"
in the same sentence.
The company is a
has-been, it has kicked the bucket, has left its
mortal coil and all the other stuff that John
Cleese raves about in the Monty Python sketch.
Why then do regulators not comprehend
that? Quite simply, because they don't get out
much. The job of regulators is to implement the
laws of their land, focusing on the letter but not
the spirit of the legislation. So technically,
they are right in the new Microsoft complaint as
well - the company still dominates a particular
industry - PCs - and often does fail to provide a
choice in various applications.
The
"spirit" of the law though will inform the EU
regulators that nothing Microsoft does matters to
anyone anymore. Don't give me a browser choice? No
worries, I can download Firefox, Chrome or Safari
freely and almost immediately when connected to
the Internet. What's more, each of these pieces of
software installs itself as the "default" browser.
Don't give me a choice for "office"
software? No worries, I have many others to choose
from, most of which are free, and some are
available on an "as used" basis. Plus no one tells
me I have to bundle "Access" in order to have
"Powerpoint" in my "Office" pack. Ask today's kids
what those things are and you'd get a very blank
look indeed.
That is why markets are
superior to governments. When a previously
competent supplier of a product or service
stumbles either by delivering substandard products
or overpriced services, markets create a competing
product or service.
In contrast,
governments rarely fix problems but have an
uncanny ability to make things worse. Faced with
banks that were imploding back in 2008, EU
regulators did not just step away from the falling
objects; instead, they attempted to save the banks
and in the process destroyed their economies by
disallowing the elimination of overcapacity.
There is an old joke from before the
dotcom bubble burst, about a Microsoft engineer
making fun of the automobile industry for its
relative lack of progress compared to the
technology space:
"If GM had kept up with
technology like the computer industry has, we
would all be driving $25 cars that got 1,000 miles
to the gallon."
In response, the GM
executive said:
"If GM had developed
technology like Microsoft, we would all be driving
cars with the following characteristics: 1. For no
reason whatsoever your car would crash twice
daily. 2. Every time they repainted the lines
on the road, you would have to buy a new car.
3. Occasionally, executing a maneuver, such as
a left turn, would cause your car to shut down and
refuse to restart, in which case you would have to
reinstall the engine. 4. Only one person at a
time could use the car, unless you bought "Car95"
or "CarNT". But then you would have to buy more
seats. 5. Macintosh would make a car that was
powered by the sun, reliable, five times as fast
and twice as easy to drive and yet no one would
buy them. 6. The oil, water temperature and
alternator warning lights would be replaced by one
"general car default" warning light. 7. New
seats would force everyone to have the same size
bottom. 8. The airbag system would ask "Are
you sure?" before going off. 9. Occasionally,
for no reason whatsoever, your car would lock you
out and refuse to let you in until you
simultaneously lifted the door handle, turned the
key, and grabbed hold of the radio antenna.
10. GM would require all car buyers to also
purchase a deluxe set of Rand McNally road maps
(now a GM subsidiary), even though they neither
needed nor wanted them. Attempting to delete this
option would immediately cause the car`s
performance to diminish by 50% or more. Moreover,
GM would become a target for investigation by the
Justice Department. 11. Every time GM
introduced a new model car, buyers would have to
learn to drive all over again because none of the
controls would operate in the same manner as the
old car. 12. You`d press the "start" button to
shut off the engine."
Replace "GM" with
"Microsoft" and "Microsoft" with "government"
(with sundry adjustments for product names and so
on) and you suddenly have a revised dynamic of how
the world works today. I would like to write more
on the subject, but my Windows PC has just
informed me that my quota of anti-government
writing is up for this week due to the company's
previous settlement with the Justice Department.
(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online
(Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
