Microsoft penalties might set technology back 20 years? davidk in hollywood

An article in C|Net today highlights AMD CEO Jerry Sanders' written testimony that stripped down versions of Windows would be bad for everyone: Microsoft, AMD, the market, and consumers. Some of his comments deserve some reflection and scrutiny. Sanders testifies that (I'm quoting CNet now) the proposal, he argued, could lead to the fragmentation of Windows and "would set the computer industry back almost 20 years." Isn't this the primary reason that states and others have brought antitrust suits against Microsoft in the first place? Marvin Price opined in this very manner almost ten years ago in a piece entitled "Boycott Microsoft," that was distributed from his bulletin board and distributed over the erstwhile OneNet network of First Class hosts (back when Apple was still the hobgoblin of the GNU crowd). Enthusiastic, blind adoption of the Microsoft Way, coupled with anti-competitive practices and the overbearing force of near-monopoly has posed major barriers to entry to most software ventures. The idea isn't new, and the last few years has seen only more and higher profile proponents, from Eric Raymond to Judge Robert Bork. Those who do succeed in the shadow of Microsoft do so only out of sheer luck or the fortunate disinterest of MS in their particular niche. It isn't surprising to hear Sanders stumping for Microsoft. AMD is the only serious competitor to Intel in the desktop chip market, and the desktop computing market is dominated my Microsoft Windows. AMD has made a big deal about Windows XP compatability in their Athlon XP Processor, and AMD claims a 20% share of the PC chip market. AMD remains a strong supporter of GNU/Linux et al., but that's not where the volume is. Most computing these days is done by receptionists, accountants, grocers, moms, and students, and most of them will continue to use Windows in whatever form it takes. Sanders, according to the C|Net article, asserts that Microsoft's dominance fosters diversity rather than limiting consumer choice, indicating the thousands of manufacturers whose products use Microsoft Windows as a platform. While he has a valid point, I can't help but think he'd feel differently if his company actually competed with Microsoft rather than relied substantially on its omnipresence. Microsoft's big business is not microchips. It is word processors, spreadsheets, presentation software, database software, web server software, e-commerce software, media delivery software, and operating systems. Microsoft dominates on the desktop. There are no legitimate competitors. They are rapidly closing in on the server markets -- their .NET strategy is a major component of this -- and a quick survey of digital media offerings makes it clear that they have significant experience momentum in delivering DRM'ed media to the desktop. This leads us back to the assertion that either Microsoft or some injunction against it will "set the industry back" x number of years. Technology adoption is always a chicken-and-egg proposition: developers won't write for a platform with no users. Users won't buy a component for which there is no developer support. Right now, nobody but Microsoft has the power to popularize new ways of processing words and ideas on a computer. That is the sole purview of Word. To go against the grain is to have your ideas mangled, chopped, and translated poorly. If we're talking about technological setbacks, let's place the marker at the point where there really was no legitimate alternative to using Word. Why use another word processor, even if you like it better than Word, if you can't read everyone else's Word documents? And you just send others plaintexts and HTML? Similar arguments could be made about Excel and the whole of MS Office. As a de facto standard, this one is a doozie. Microsoft dictates how and with whom you can distribute your data. Look closely, and you'll notice that this is the direction they've been heading for quite some time. The focus on digital media by the undisputed masters of the office and home computing experience is especially disconcerting, considering recent changes to copyright law, Microsoft's increasing interest in media and broadcasting, and the aggressive tactics in which those partners are engaged. It stands to reason that the larger scope of the Microsoft antitrust cases includes those that affect a society in the throes of a nominal information revolution. Microsoft is very much a pivotal player, and it could very well be that setting the industry back 20 years would be a good thing, giving us all a little more time to figure out what the heck's going on.