Manage updates with the Download App
February 16, 2007 4:00 AM PST
Perspective: Meet the tech world's latest odd couple
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft calls IBM hypocritical on document standards
February 14, 2007 -
Microsoft sails through document standard vote
December 7, 2006 -
Microsoft's document gambit moves ahead
December 7, 2006 -
Microsoft to standardize Office formats
November 21, 2005 -
OpenDocument format gathers steam
November 10, 2005
Instead of mindlessly mouthing the usual marketing mumbo-jumbo, Microsoft finally decided to publicly embarrass IBM by posting an open letter to the industry that charges Big Blue with limiting consumer choice.
"We just became frustrated," Tom Robertson, co-author of the missive, said in explaining why Microsoft finally decided to let it all hang out.
You normally wouldn't expect something like the mind-numbingly boring world of document formatting to be grounds enough to call out one of your biggest business partners. But IBM also is one of Microsoft's biggest business rivals, and the latest dustup fits with the tempestuous narrative that's defined the companies' interactions over the last quarter century.
This also is a throwback moment. The last time Microsoft and IBM took their love-hate relationship so public dates back to the operating systems war of the early '90s. That's when Big Blue's OS/2 had the briefest of opportunities to challenge Windows as the preferred mainstream desktop operating system.
Any tech reporter covering that era had gads of fun. You'd sit down with midlevel executives from IBM and Microsoft--folks who learned their press skills by mimicking the Stepford Wives--only to get blown away by their uncharacteristic frankness. Real bile would flow.
Of course, billions of dollars in potential sales were riding on the outcome of that contest, so this was much more than simply competitive sport. What's more, there was a personal element at play. IBM was smarting from what it considered to be a mean double cross. Instead of positioning Windows as an operating system for low-end computing, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates had unleashed his minions to crush OS/2--and ultimately succeeded in doing exactly that.
Call it the invasion of the MBAs, or maybe it's part of the maturing process, but you rarely get straight dope from companies anymore. Everyone's pushing an agenda these days and they're scripted down to the last period of their PowerPoint presentations. Truth be told, there have been meetings where I've been tempted to rip my brains out with a plastic fork.
So it happens that Microsoft must really be fed up. Indeed, Robertson acknowledged that the OK came from the highest levels of the company. Translation: Steve Ballmer is ready to mix it up.
What triggered the latest contretemps? Microsoft accuses IBM of lobbying on behalf of a document format that competes against the default document formats found in Office 2007. For both companies, this is all about looking out for No. 1. After all, if Microsoft were able to standardize its Office document formats, that would chiefly benefit you-know-who. But Microsoft is being careful not to sound shrill. Instead, its representatives say IBM's tactic would only hurt choice and benefit Big Blue's products.
"It's a compete play," Robertson told me.
For that matter, he could have added the following "compete plays":
• DB/2 versus SQL Server
• Notes versus Outlook/Exchange
• Linux versus Windows
That last item particularly gnaws at Microsoft. IBM has done more to promote Linux than any other big technology company. In part, call it payback for the demise of OS/2 and the thorough thumping of the Lotus SmartSuite applications suite. It's also a lot more. IBM has built a lucrative business by embracing open source. And if that winds up giving Microsoft more fits in the process, all the better.
So it is that the biggest technology companies in their respective categories will continue to cooperate in many fields--they have to. They are also destined to increasingly butt heads. When it comes to Microsoft and IBM, it's a case of can't live with 'em, can't live without 'em.
Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.
See more CNET content tagged:
IBM OS/2, IBM Corp., technology company, Microsoft Corp., Linux
14 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment
As we say on the big lists, "Spy vs Spy". Limiting choice for consumers to one's own products while expanding the choices among one's own products is the soul of competition. Thus the reference to the MAD cartoon that illustrates to each generation of truth-seeking kids that the truth is, both sides have the same goals, use the same tactics and ultimately in each issue, are only known by who is on top today.
So in the end it comes down to the numbers.
Given the numbers, the Office document formats from Microsoft are on top. Microsoft can build bridges to other technologies or buy them, but they will take care of their own customers first as they should. The rest of the noise is noise generated to cover the noise coming their way. As the moderator of the panel at the Atlanta XML conference where representatives of both sides met to discuss this, I can say with first person certainty that neither side yields and both sides know that if they do, the other side steals their lunch money.
IBM makes big$$$ selling services. The day that a different technology yields better $$$ for services, they switch. The game of standards (and it is a game) is chump change in that market. Interoperability and sustainability are for them longlife cycle maintenance costs borne by the customer and paid to them. It is not in their interests to make that a seamless process; it is in their interests to make it affordable.
And so it goes. Capitalism is the never-ending passing of costs from peak to valley with an emergent frequency of transfers of capital up into every increasing sinks of wealth which the wealthy will tell you trickles down but the savvy will tell you has to be burgled to be taken back.
How did George Wallace put it? Not a dime's worth of difference.
As we say on the big lists, "Spy vs Spy". Limiting choice for consumers to one's own products while expanding the choices among one's own products is the soul of competition. Thus the reference to the MAD cartoon that illustrates to each generation of truth-seeking kids that the truth is, both sides have the same goals, use the same tactics and ultimately in each issue, are only known by who is on top today.
So in the end it comes down to the numbers.
Given the numbers, the Office document formats from Microsoft are on top. Microsoft can build bridges to other technologies or buy them, but they will take care of their own customers first as they should. The rest of the noise is noise generated to cover the noise coming their way. As the moderator of the panel at the Atlanta XML conference where representatives of both sides met to discuss this, I can say with first person certainty that neither side yields and both sides know that if they do, the other side steals their lunch money.
IBM makes big$$$ selling services. The day that a different technology yields better $$$ for services, they switch. The game of standards (and it is a game) is chump change in that market. Interoperability and sustainability are for them longlife cycle maintenance costs borne by the customer and paid to them. It is not in their interests to make that a seamless process; it is in their interests to make it affordable.
And so it goes. Capitalism is the never-ending passing of costs from peak to valley with an emergent frequency of transfers of capital up into every increasing sinks of wealth which the wealthy will tell you trickles down but the savvy will tell you has to be burgled to be taken back.
How did George Wallace put it? Not a dime's worth of difference.
I find it humourously ironic that Microsoft criticizes IBM for it's tactics. In the referenced open letter, Microsoft says "...in other words, that Open XML should not even be considered on its technical merits because a competing standard had already been adopted.".
Back in the day, Microsoft was on the other side of the fence with Win3.1 and IBM's albeit brief attempt to make OS/2 Warp's superior technology the standard.
Like with any "odd couple", it's fun to watch the bickering -- as long as you're not caught in the crossfire.
I find it humourously ironic that Microsoft criticizes IBM for it's tactics. In the referenced open letter, Microsoft says "...in other words, that Open XML should not even be considered on its technical merits because a competing standard had already been adopted.".
Back in the day, Microsoft was on the other side of the fence with Win3.1 and IBM's albeit brief attempt to make OS/2 Warp's superior technology the standard.
Like with any "odd couple", it's fun to watch the bickering -- as long as you're not caught in the crossfire.
That's just not true, MS found themselves with a run-away success in the Windows product and tried to talk IBM into making OS/2 the "grown up" version of that product but IBM wanted MS and all the programmers who developed Windows applications to recode everything for the Presentation Manager API despite the fact that the tools for Windows were a lot less expensive (thanks to Borland), a lot more complete and better documented. Not to mention the $700+ price for OS/2.
MS saw it as better to fit the OS to the code than trying to get the users to switch to a different set of tools and API.
In any case, IBM's first 32-bit release of OS/2 (OS/2 2.0) was released in the spring of 1992 just on the heels of Windows 3.l, meaning Microsoft had a little momentum going into that head-to-head contest but arguably not enough to make the race a slam-dunk.
Instead, Microsoft relied on so-called "per-CPU" licensing contracts with OEMs (effectively limiting the bundling of any other OS) and platform-limiting deals with key software developers (restricting access to key Windows APIs in exchange for a promise to develop only for Windows) in order to make it difficult for IBM's offering to compete head-to-head in the marketplace.
The expensive development kits and high pricetag for OS/2 did exist, but well before any real head-to=head competition between the two ever took place. Those things did do some damage, especially in the eyes of smaller developers, but most of the damage was done to OS/2 by MS in other ways.
Want more information? Read more about it through court documents on Groklaw's Microsoft Litigation Page:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653" target="_newWindow">http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653</a>
That's just not true, MS found themselves with a run-away success in the Windows product and tried to talk IBM into making OS/2 the "grown up" version of that product but IBM wanted MS and all the programmers who developed Windows applications to recode everything for the Presentation Manager API despite the fact that the tools for Windows were a lot less expensive (thanks to Borland), a lot more complete and better documented. Not to mention the $700+ price for OS/2.
MS saw it as better to fit the OS to the code than trying to get the users to switch to a different set of tools and API.
In any case, IBM's first 32-bit release of OS/2 (OS/2 2.0) was released in the spring of 1992 just on the heels of Windows 3.l, meaning Microsoft had a little momentum going into that head-to-head contest but arguably not enough to make the race a slam-dunk.
Instead, Microsoft relied on so-called "per-CPU" licensing contracts with OEMs (effectively limiting the bundling of any other OS) and platform-limiting deals with key software developers (restricting access to key Windows APIs in exchange for a promise to develop only for Windows) in order to make it difficult for IBM's offering to compete head-to-head in the marketplace.
The expensive development kits and high pricetag for OS/2 did exist, but well before any real head-to=head competition between the two ever took place. Those things did do some damage, especially in the eyes of smaller developers, but most of the damage was done to OS/2 by MS in other ways.
Want more information? Read more about it through court documents on Groklaw's Microsoft Litigation Page:
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653" target="_newWindow">http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107100653</a>