Re: "stable" platforms

** Reply to note from "James W. Kilgore" <qappdsn@ibm.net> Sat, 21 Mar 1998 
21:35:32 -0800


> Well that was just a daydream testimony.  Do you think that the people on the 
> "hill" would actually get the point?

I tried to stop myself, but I have to respond. First, yes, the people on
the hill would and do get the point. 

Please allow me to review some points in the case, a little of which was
alluded to in your post. I do wish to point out that although we have seen
many articles and much testimony about these items over the last several
years, that does not constitute proof:

As machines began to outgrew DOS, Microsoft's licensing agreements were
structured so that if a hardware vendor wanted to ship MS-DOS and Windows
they could pay a flat rate per machine shipped. This meant that all
machines shipped included a DOS/Windows license. This did not stop any
users from buying and installing other operating systems, but it meant
that they would receive no discount from the hardware vendor for not
buying Windows. 

This practice may have been aimed at OS/2 and BlueWave (HPs Windows
alternative), but it also eliminated such contenders as DR-DOS and GEOS
(is that the right spelling?) and other OS startups that were more
functional and stable than MS-DOS at less cost. While these little guys
may have been willing to slash margins to the bone, it would really have
been necessary for them to pay hardware vendors to ship their software
just to compete at equal price to the consumer (But we make it up in
volume!).

Microsoft used negotiating leverage to make bundling deals with the same
hardware vendors for shipping the Microsoft Office suite. First, Microsoft
Works was bundled for free. This eliminated startup companies as buyers
willing to accept a lower end solution got one for free already installed.
Then, the Office suite could be bundled during OS installation. Complaints
from other software vendors with superior products were treated like so
many "sour grapes". Lost in the hubbub was reports that Microsoft's own
products used unpublished API's while published ones remained buggy,
making it impossible for competing products to solve customer complaints. 

Microsoft published all APIs and the clamor to split the company into two
divisions (OS and products) died down to only the competing product
developers. Microsoft's advantage in getting bundling deals was attributed
to simply using market position, rather than a monopolistic practice. 

Microsoft manipulated the Apple marketplace by alternating support levels.
One year they would announce that they loved Apple and that the Mac was
dear to their hearts. Upgrades and strong support were promised. Mac users
remembering the days when MS kept the Mac alive (and vise versa) would
flock to MS products and many Mac developers would fade. Later, when the
upgrades didn't happen or Microsoft would withdraw support for some
products (or the products would simply remain at older
version/functionality levels) Mac customers would migrate office tasks to
PCs using more up to date MS products (and an MS-DOS/Windows license).

The part here where Microsoft stole technology from Stac isn't really
relevant in this case.

Microsoft purchased the finest PC based data base development environment
on the market, FoxPro. Up until this point FoxPro and Clarion were the
contenders (I will toss out the "salt in the wounds" mention of DBase
IV) and the competition meant that both products saw updates rapidly. Once
MS purchased FoxPro a variety of odd announcements about it's future (free
or bundled distribution, product focus within MS, etc.) stopped Clarion in
it's tracks. A year or so later, Clarion was nearly gone and FoxPro was
de-emphasized, presumably because the purchase included a licensing fee to
be paid to the FoxPro developers. 

When Microsoft wanted Windows 95 developers it informed product developers
that they would no longer be able to advertise "Windows compatible" or use
the Windows logo on their products unless they produced a Windows 95
version of their product. Some vendors were put off by this, prefering to
wait and see how well the platform took off before sinking money into new
development. Some were told that there needn't be any development
involved, all they needed to do was create a 32-bit "envelope" that called
their Windows 3.1 product. This would create a number of "32-bit Windows"
applications. Vendors that failed to comply would lose the brand
recognition as well as other things (like booth space at Windows
conventions). 

I don't think that stuff like the "To be released next quarter" push back
that went on from 1st quarter '92 to 4th quarter '95 with Windows 95
counts as unfair trade, but I do know that for four years people told me
they didn't feel they should bother trying OS/2 because soon Microsoft
would be releasing Chicago with all the same features. This would be more
of a "false advertising" claim and in order to see any form of recourse
people would have to admit they were stupid enough to believe the same
"Real soon now" promise every three months for four years. 

Now, there is another big threat to Microsoft, the internet and network
computing. The reason the threat is a combination of the two items is that
just network computing alone doesn't cause a problem. 

What is happening is that the browser is becoming the interface. On the
internet there are many source machines availble so the browser must be
controllable through industry standard, widely available, published specs.
That means each source machine producing the apps interpreted by the
browser competes on an even footing with each other one. 

This isn't good for MS which wants to own some of those corporate web
sites. They do not wish to compete with Unix (and OS/400 for that matter)
on a technology basis, they lose in this type of competition. 

So, the solution for MS is to make sure a proprietary standard is
developed. This standard should give advantages to people who connect to
NT servers. To get there, Microsoft will need to eliminate the browser
competion, so bundling a browser becomes important. MS tells hardware
vendors that a copy of Win95 shipped with IE costs less than a copy of
Win95 shipped without. 

Second, MS must move develoment away from use of an industry standard
language. So, MS provides the J++ environment for Java, but the GUI
development portion uses proprietary functions. Then, IE is advertised as
"Java compliant", but some components are left out. Microsoft puts those
components on an FTP site because their contract with Sun is that they
must be "made available." Sun doesn't think the average user will know to
hunt down Java standard components on MSs Web site and sues. 

Microsoft touts ActiveX as the key to their future. IBM develops and
publishes an application that converts ActiveX objects into JavaBeans. IBM
develops a fully Java compliant ActiveX component for IE so that IE users
can install a fully industry standard Java environment in spite of MS. It
turns out that IBM owns the patents for ActiveX and they are licensed to
MS. MS de-emphasizes ActiveX. The new key to the future is COM and DCOM.

The people on the hill DO understand this. 

They have seen monopolies step on competition before. However, in this
case it is particularly hard to stop. With IBM, they were a "faceless
corporation" and the public could identify with pouncing on them. But Bill
Gates is everyone's favorite geek. He hangs on to the cowlick and
glasses to keep that image. Plus, the political environment is pretty
friendly to big corporations these days. Add that to the fact that Wall
Street really likes a company that can loot their customers (especially
when the customers seem to think that their vendor declaring huge profit
margins shows they bought from the right vendor), and you get
a climate where it is difficult to act against MS. 

I was very proud of the judge who refused to sign the last consent decree
with MS. He reviewed it and said it did nothing to resolve the issue. Of
course, he was simply removed from the case and it was handed to someone
who would rubber stamp it for the administration (Bill Gates had had lunch
with Bill Clinton, and then with Al Gore the prior week). Now I see that
he flushed his career for nothing. It is just insult to injury that MS
wouldn't even follow the consent decree so weak that he wouldn't sign it.

Now, I recall reading how much Bill Clinton charged (in donations to the
DNC) for riding on Air Force One, and how much for staying in the Lincoln
bedroom. I don't recall reading how much he charges for making sure laws
don't apply to rich friends, but whatever it is I am sure Bill Gates can
pay it. 

These days I figure that I can do whatever I want, as long as when end of
month rolls around I pay the appropriate Bill. ;-)

I guess my feelings get sort of apparent, eh? Well, last week they were
more obvious. A junior programmer came into my office to ask about a
project and I was talking to a senior programmer from another team. I
mentioned something about the Code/400 port from OS/2 to Win95 and me not
being sure if all the components were across yet. The junior programmer
made some comment about "The market's choice" showing which was "the
superior product". I lost it. He may be emotionally scarred for life. 




Chris Rehm
Mr.AS400@ibm.net

How often can you afford to be unexpectedly out of business?
Get an AS/400.
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---