I love watching cartoons.
I'm particularly famous for sitting in my underwear and zoning out everything but the television for hours on end. Sometimes, when I'm diligently watching cartoons, I will drool. Other times, when I'm really watching cartoons diligently, I will forget to breathe.
I particularly like watching shows about superheroes. I like the battle between good and evil. There's something special about distinctions between the two that usually is present only in cartoons.
Notice I said usually. Sometimes reality mimics cartoons, and at those times I have an excuse to turn on CNN, sit in my underwear, drool and forget to breathe. The Microsoft trial has been like that. U.S. District Judge Thomas "The Enforcer" Penfield Jackson ruled Friday that Microsoft is, in fact, a monopoly, and had, in fact, used its market dominance to work-over the competition.
Microsoft is not the good guy in this case.
I should make a distinction. It is important to note that a monopoly is not just a large company. Many large companies become large and stay large because they make a better product. Microsoft became large, and then maintained that status by asserting influence. In a competitive market, innovative companies that deliver an improved or cheaper product go head-to-head with the big dogs, because the advantage incurred by the consumer choosing a different product is enough for them to switch loyalties.
In the Microsoft market, there is no room for another product to squeeze in. Windows comes already loaded on every PC. That means that if someone wants to choose a new operating system, they pay for it on top of the price of the computer. The fact that Windows is incorporated into the cost of a new PC also means that Microsoft can set the price for Windows well above anything reasonably competitive without consumers raising an eyebrow. Think about it: what's another $30, $40 or $50 for the application compared to the price of a computer?
There's evidence of this, namely that IBM's OS/2 Warp died as soon as it took its first breath and Apple's Mac-OS continues to fail to attract many converts. Part of the problem is loyalty, even though much of OS/2 incorporated Windows-like interfaces. Consumers tend to believe that the reduction in efficiency they experience as a result of changing software is a result of poor software design. I can use Excel easily and efficiently. If I had to use Lotus1-2-3, the result would be clumsy and inefficient. Lotus1-2-3 might be designed better than Excel and even easier to use, but I would be unable to recognize these attributes without extending the effort to learn.
Microsoft's dominance is further magnified by the wealth of applications created to run on Windows-based software. At one point, Microsoft required applications to make its operating system successful, but now Windows is so dominant that software companies clamor to write for it. Any new operating system trying to enter the market could not be as competitive as Windows, because it would lack the wealth of different programs Windows offers. Computer manufacturers know this, too. A computer is only as good as the programs written to run on it. When certain applications were in a position to challenge Microsoft's dominance, such as Netscape's Navigator, Microsoft threatened to increase the price of Windows to those manufacturers that included Navigator in their setup. Since manufacturers had no alternative to Windows, they had to oblige.
Some pundits herald the decision as a new era in government control over business, but it is a popular misconception that government should like big business. Big business has the ability to challenge the government's power and influence. So, the government only tolerates big business as long as it is good for the economy. If a company grows so large as to threaten the natural flow of commerce and competition, that company is going down. Period.
I particularly like cartoons where an evil boss-person tries to formulate a plan to kill the pesky do-gooders. It's funny because every time the do-gooders win, which they invariably do, the boss-person invariably blames the spineless, blubbering, witless staff working for him. He screams, he yells, he gets red in the face, he stomps his feet and says things like, "I'll get you Gadget!" or "I would have succeeded, too, if it wasn't for those pesky kids!"
The boss-person, of course, always is a party to his own demise. He goes down because his plan is dumb and evil.
BOSS: "The plan is foolproof, even you blubbering idiots can handle this."
STAFF: "What will we do, boss?"
BOSS: "You will ruin all companies that offer popular multi-platform applications by telling computer manufacturers we will raise the price of our operating system to them if they choose the other guy's application. You then will lie to try to get people to believe that our alternative application is essential to our operating system and that they must have both if they want their computer to work. Simple."
STAFF: "Huh? What if people find out that you can separate the operating system from the application?"
BOSS: "The plan is ruined. Do not fail me. Ha, Ha, Ha, Hahhh."
In the end, the boss-persons always get a taste of their own medicine.
No decision has yet been made on what sort of sanctions will be imposed on Microsoft, but the judge's ruling was made with such conviction that there is little doubt the government will order Microsoft to split like Bell in the '90s, withdraw certain products from the market, or change the way it handles licensing or any of another host of penalties the justice department can lay on rogue companies.
It was bound to happen.
The bad guy never wins in cartoons, despite his best efforts.
Even Jackson seemed bent on taking out the software giant. When news was released that Netscape merged with America Online, analysts pointed to it as a tic in Microsoft's win column. The Microsoft lawyers pointed to it as evidence of thriving competition in the computing industry. Jackson, however, went to great lengths to introduce evidence from an interview with AOL's Steve Case that strengthened the government's contentions that Microsoft wielded monopoly powers.
Microsoft is afraid of Netscape because it created a program that can be run on Windows machines and non-Windows machines easily. Web browsers are becoming increasingly powerful tools as the computer industry shifts its focus to the World Wide Web. Because Netscape can be installed on more machines than those with Windows-based operating systems, it has the potential to win a bigger market than Microsoft's Internet Explorer. It can use that market to challenge Windows' dominance.
Microsoft originally hit it big because it distributed MS-DOS in IBMs, then the most trusted name in the business. Microsoft grew because it didn't really matter who the manufacturer was. All MS-DOS programs ran the same, whether on a Dell computer or an IBM.
Netscape and AOL have been doing well because it doesn't matter what machine or operating system you run them on. They behave basically the same on a Mac and on a PC. As the Internet becomes increasingly important, operating systems will become less and less relevant. Microsoft knows this.
Windows is being thrown out the window.