Perspective: Taking Microsoft's Rorschach test

The Monday morning missive got right to the point:

"I find it simultaneously strange, amazing and utterly incomprehensible that your news publications continue to write business articles about Microsoft that appear to elevate and lend credibility to their organization. It's almost as if I am reading something coming out of the Pyongyang press!"

There's no doubt that Kim Jong-il longs to direct technology coverage at CNET News.com, though I can assure one and all that neither the dear leader nor any of his comrades are in line to direct our editorial operations any time soon.

The e-mail was not altogether exceptional, when you consider how Microsoft has become a latter-day Rorschach test for people who are passionate about their technology.

There's a certain something about this particular company that pushes certain folks over the edge.

But it takes on a larger context when you tally in years of Microsoft-hating feedback detailing the enormity of this single company's misdeeds.

Sociologists would need to spend years getting to a root explanation, but this much is incontestable: There's a certain something about this particular company that pushes certain folks over the edge.

Microsoft bashing was in vogue long before the U.S. Department of Justice hauled the company into court on antitrust charges in 1998. Some trace the resentment to the storied 1976 "Open Letter to Hobbyists" in which a 21-year-old Gates publicly chastised a group of developers for pirating his software. The backlash was immediate. (Paying for software? What a whiner!)

The label stuck. In time, Gates--and by extension, Microsoft--came to be viewed through a different prism. Unlike other early PC entrepreneurs doing their thing to make the world a better place for humanity, Microsoft got slammed for conducting business like marauding Huns. They were without morals, they were without ethics and on top of everything else, they made lousy software.

Even the anarchists got pissed at Gates, nailing him a few years ago with a cream pie.

Microsoft has public-relations baggage that's hard to shake. And as the technology industry's most famous convicted predatory

As the technology industry's most famous convicted predatory monopolist, Microsoft will never again have the benefit of the doubt.

monopolist, the company will never again win the benefit of the doubt. Still, the psycho nature of the conspiracy theorists is something to behold.

So much so that even Microsoft's ostensible good deeds only serve as more fodder for trashing. Consider the company's decision to sell Windows XP to developing nations at sharp discounts and expand computer literacy programs in local markets. To be sure, there's an element of self-interest involved. But when was the last time you read about Oracle or Apple Computer doing something on the same scale?

It doesn't matter, because the wackos already uncovered evidence of Microsoft's nefarious hidden hand. Dim the lights, tune the music, and insert Bill Gates into the starring role of Ming the Merciless.

Thus we are told that Microsoft won the legendary operating-system war against IBM's OS/2 because of dirty dealing. Forget that Big Blue was utterly incompetent in marketing its software against Windows. Forget that Windows finally improved to the point where it became a better product. All that pales in comparison with the Microsoft's indelible malevolence that attends the company's business dealings. Similar ravings have informed the debates about Microsoft versus Mac or Microsoft versus Linux--or Microsoft against anything, for that matter.

Back on Earth, I don't think there's anything wrong bringing Microsoft down a notch or two. As a charter member of the Monday Morning Quarterback Club, I've thoroughly enjoyed holding Gates Inc. up to public ridicule for poor behavior and appallingly bad judgment. I'd still like to know why nobody in Redmond had the brains--let alone the guts--to stop its home science project (aka MSNBC) from hiring a knucklehead like Michael Savage.

None of that should detract from Microsoft's track record as one of the great corporate successes of this--or any--era. Comparing Microsoft with the likes of Enron and WorldCom speaks volumes about the relative immaturity of the computer industry. Unfortunately, I know it's only a matter of time before somebody drops me an e-mail claiming to possess proof that Gates was on the grassy knoll in 1963.

Sigh.

Biography
Charles Cooper is CNET News.com's executive editor of commentary.

More Perspectives

[systemcleaner]

Flawed reasoning. Too many incompetent analysts around.

"To be sure, there's an element of self-interest involved. But when was the last time you read about Oracle or Apple Computer doing something on the same scale? "<br /><br />Why ask this question? It is so obvious that even a kid will know the answer.<br /><br />It is because Microsoft is a monopoly and it has money to throw away while others don't. Look at the X-Box and PPC for instances. Microsoft is losing money badly on them but still selling them. Why? Because Microsoft is using money from the monopoly desktop OS and Office to throw money up in the air trying to impress people. It is the money Oracle and Apple don't have just like all other normal companies.<br /><br />Why compare kids of rich parents with kids of working class parents? It is ridiculous to compare.

Ad Hominum

Hmmm.<br /><br />Perhaps a better approach would be to attack the 'wackos' argument as opposed to attacking them. That's a classic philosophical fallacy called Ad Hominum (latin for 'to the man') and a horrible argument.<br /><br />Fact: Microsoft makes security for computer users exceptionally difficult through shoddy quality control efforts.<br /><br />Fact: Microsoft has used its monopoly to eliminate competition, which inevitably retards innovation.<br /><br />Fact: Apple brought computing to the masses, though Microsoft marketed their product more efficiently and took the market.<br /><br />My question to the media: why is it only the most extremist viewpoints get the airtime? I suppose better copy to sell the advertising dollar, eh?<br /><br />You may want to consider your arguments a bit more carefully in the future.

[charlie cooper]

Ad Hominum?

Actually, I believe it's "Ad Hominem" but it's a while since Mr. McGrevey's Latin classes. I think you're too stuck on Apple to clearly see my point. The fact of the matter is that rabid MS bashing -- sometimes justified, other times not -- is a phenomenom. Personally, I don't get the holy war aspect of the debate that a lot of folks cling to when MS is the subject.<br /><br />Charlie Cooper<br />CNET News.com

Because That's Where The Money Is

Take any brutalized population in history, from the Aztecs to the Iraquis, and out of it emerges a criminal element particularly just after the brutalizing regime collapses. Take that rhetoric down a notch and you have Microsoft. I'm old enough to remember when the Purple People Eaters were IBM and General Motors. If you think its scary now, consider what will happen were MS to suddenly collapse. It won't happen but it's a fun scenario. However, fighting them is where the money is when there isn't much visible difference among products. Remember, consumers don't know about kernels.<br /><br />The young are like snakes shedding their skins and bears scratching their behinds. They need something rough to scratch against that doesn't move regardless of the pressure put on it. Because this emotionalism feeds their productivity, it is useful. The facts are that MS is returning a heckuva big piece of the US GNP and for that reason alone, they won't collapse. The Aztecs sacrificed their enemies and that made Cortez's recruitment of their enemies a simple task. The anybodyButMicrosoft recruiters can't find enough disembowled hearts.<br /><br />What the pundits ignore is for all the whining and the press, a much larger percentage of us are sitting out here building middle tier software over the Microsoft framework and making money. So from one point of view, Microsoft is predatory. From our point of view, Microsoft is a dominant member of a symbiotic ecosystem. It is when MS decides they want our niche that they become predators. If they start walking us up the steep slopes to the big stone with the feathered cat with an obsidian knife, then we get nervous. Until then, it's life among the mammals.

taking it to the next level...

Last I heard, the only products Microsoft has that make money <br />are Windows and Office. The fact of the matter is, they have no <br />idea whatsoever about where technology is going, so they let the <br />little guys do all the work and then use their big cash hords to <br />develop competing products, run the the others out of business <br />and then claim that they've been innovative. It doesn't matter <br />that their product is no better or even worse than the little guy's.<br /><br />I think the reason that a lot of Microsoft's haters hate the <br />company so much is because depite all their promises of the <br />promised land in their new software, they never come close to <br />delivering what they've promised. In the meantime, all the fear, <br />uncertianty and doubt they've created about the other's products <br />leaves them plenty of time to over-promise and under-deliver. <br />By the time Microsoft's product actually ships, it's too late; IT <br />has already planned for how they'll use the next new version.

[charlie cooper]

Reply to D. Schuster

You wrote:<br /><br />"The fact of the matter is, they have no <br />idea whatsoever about where technology is going, so they let the little guys do all the work and then use their big cash hords to develop competing products, run the the others out of business and then claim that they've been innovative. It doesn't matter that their product is no better or even worse than the little guy's."<br /><br />Dunno Dan but have you been up to visit their Labs? I have and you're flat wrong about MS not having any idea where things might be going. That said, they do turn up some stinkers (Remember Microsoft Bob?) But they're hardly as clueles as you suggest. Considering how many companies have made bad bets about the future of technology these last few years -- both big and small -- there are enough dunce hats for everyone to wear.

[sunergeos]

Bad inference

Having a lot of projects going on does not necessary indicate purposeful research. I see it as simply thrashing around until something sticks. You can do that with billions backing you up. What is interesting is that with all that "development" going on that you speak of, the fruition of that research in the market place shows up as a "me too" product. Everything they do is patterned after an exsiting technology or product. Xbox is Playstation, .NET is the Java virtual machine (CLR), C# is Java, etc.<br /><br />Charles, I have followed your articles for years. I honestly look forward to what you write - until lately. You're acting as though "you don't get it" and I wonder why you're doing that? You're making statments about subjects that lact depth and thoughtful considerations. Why are you baiting us this way?<br /><br />I've worked for two companies that were JAD with MS and both of them suffered huge setbacks becauase of MS dealings. One company ran with their Normandy server software while they secretly developed a different platform (Blackbird). That company was a year into development of Mormandy when MS released Blackbird. All that time wasted. The other company had APIs withheld and then was declared not ready for release on their Windows 2000 release CD - after 6 months of working with them trying to get them to release the APIs! It is interesting that these tactics showed up in the antitrust trials. This is Microsoft - this is how they do business. As a mater of fact, for one of these cases, I'm under contractual agreement not to discuss particulars and I've been paid to never divulge the details. My situation may be different than most, but I understand the reasons for the venting. I'm disappointed with your reponses. You don't have to be rabid - just thoughtful like you used to be.

[nealda]

Ideological Test

Your Rorschach test is actually an ideological test.<br />Those with fascist tendencies are comfortable with the arrogant abuse of power. They believe it shows strength and virtue.<br />Those without fascist tendencies view the arrogant abuse of power as oppressive and will resist in word and deed.<br />Microsoft has set these wheels in motion with their arrogant behavior. I sense more than a little fear from Mr. Cooper in this article that the tide of opposition is rising. Why else would you start calling people with legitimate opinions "wackos?"

[charlie cooper]

Tech fascism? Get real, dude

You are rivializing one of the most repugnant and murderous ideologies to come out of the 20th century. You also proved my point in spades.

[charlie cooper]

Misspelled: Should be (t)rivializing

stet "rivialize" in previous message. should have been "trivializing"

Wackos

Its because of Cooper's agenda. Look how he cannot help but mention "Michael Savage" or "Freedom Fries" in his articles. He is a cheap political hack. He wh0res himself and his column out to the highest bidder.<br /><br />The winning bidders this month are obviously Microsoft, SCO, and John Kerry. Nice.

Microsoft treats me like a king

I'm only a technical grunt. Well I did jump the hoops and pay the toll to be a Certified Partner. But that means nothing more than that I jumped a few hoops and paid the toll.<br /><br />However, I've been supporting grumpy software from mainframes to micros since late 1968 and have dealt with quite a few software vendors over the years.<br /><br />Microsoft spends a great deal of money and effort to keep me happy. They support their software far, far better than any other vendor I've encountered. <br /><br />I leave to others the task of keeping them honest in their business practices. (Judge Jackson appeared to have just as big a mouth and ego as Mr. Gates.) As for me, my professional life is much easier! <br /><br />Thank You Microsoft!