Please visit our sponsor today, click the banner below! Member of the Ad Club Network

	Opinion - "DOJ won -- but you didn't"; think not, John Dodge! by: Anthony Frausto-Robledo (afrausto@architosh.com) 1999.11.8
	John Dodge, of PC WEEK, wrote an opinion editorial over this weekend which really peaked my interest by its title. His title, "DOJ won -- but you didn't" is actually fair when you realize that the hardest part of all of this antitrust case may very well be what to do about it if Microsoft loses, which after US Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson's harsh tones seems all but destined unless the Microsoft Empire settles beforehand. However, what really bothered me was his suggestion that the reason why Microsoft has no competition in the desktop operating system space is because it is somehow unreasonable for any computer rival to create a rival product. And that without Windows it would be unreasonable to expect any company to fill the void. This is hog wash! "I haven't heard that IBM is clamoring to climb back into the PC operating system arena. Or anyone else with deep enough pockets required to launch such a risky venture. Who, I ask, is willing to step on that landmine? Netscape? Sun? Compaq? Dell? Sony? eBay?" -- John Dodge "What company wants to write a system with 70 million lines of code?" -- J. Dodge The suggestion that no reasonable company would even attempt to develop a rival operating system for the PC space is just plain wrong. Furthermore, that it takes 70 million lines of code (or in other words, the same amount of code as MS) to make a good (or superior) operating system is also wrong. What do you call Be Inc. and the BeOS? Not only is it reasonable for them to create from scratch a viable alternative OS with superior abilities to Windows (so superior, in fact, that Apple almost bought the OS to form the basis of their next generation Mac OS) but very reasonable, indeed, that they could develop from scratch a younger, more modern operating system that could out run any Windows OS (especially the non-modern Windows 9x class of OS's) any day of the week. So reasonable, in fact, that they did it. "Linux, schminnix!, Apple, crapple! It's not going to be them. They exist already and in many ways perform better than Windows. Do they matter?" -- John Dodge If we deem BeOS as truly worthy of being a rival in some specific market segment of the OS space (which most experts would agree on for its multimedia abilities compared to Windows), why is it unreasonable to suggest that -- given the opportunity -- that the BeOS could be a very viable alternative OS for the PC space in general? And, as Palm has proved with its Palm OS, its not size that matters (as in lines of code) in determining the quality and effectiveness of a great OS. The Palm OS is not only kicking serious butt on "the over--bloated" (mini-desktop) OS for handhelds known as Windows CE, but Linux is deemed by many programmers and experts as superior to Windows NT Server. The bottom line is, bigger is not better (not always, and not in these examples, and probably rarely). It stands to reason that given a fair shot at the market -- by not being hamstrung by strong-arm tactics by MS -- that a computer firm could step up to compete at the OS level for general market applications for consumers on PC-compatible computers. I'm almost certain Gasse, CEO of Be, would, if he felt he could honestly do so without negative repercussions from Gates and Co. In fact, when Be started that was never ruled out as an idea at all -- at least that's not what they were telling us at trade shows. "It stands to reason that given a fair shot at the market -- by not being hamstrung by strong-arm tactics by MS -- that a computer firm could step up to compete at the OS level for general market applications for consumers on PC-compatible computers" -- AFR, Architosh The question is, if MS is truly responsible for bullying the market and stifling competition -- and hence innovation -- then how does the public benefit from a ruling in favor of the DOJ? And what should be done to Microsoft? Splitting up the company into three equal baby MS's (what John Dodge suggested) with identical assets may be just what the doctor ordered. Then again, it may not? "Microsoft is a monopoly and they have striven hard to protect that monopoly through tactics that hurt their rivals' ability to compete with them. In doing so they reduce choice, eliminate competition and stifle innovation by eliminating innovative companies altogether -- like Netscape Communications." -- AFR, Architosh Yet until that time for decision is required one thing should become increasing clear to the general public: Microsoft is a monopoly and they have striven hard to protect that monopoly through tactics that hurt their rivals' ability to compete with them. In doing so they reduce choice, eliminate competition and stifle innovation by eliminating innovative companies altogether -- like Netscape Communications. If this isn't deemed harmful behavior to the consumer than I don't know what is. Consumers stand to win if this behavior is stopped, period. Anthony Frausto-Robledo, B.Arch., Publisher Cambridge, Mass.     About the Publisher Anthony Frausto-Robledo, B.Arch., is the founder, publisher, and editor of the award-winning Architosh Web site. Educated as an architect, he has been an AEC professional for over 15 years and has been a designer with distinguished Boston architectural firms prior to launching his company BritasMedia. As president of BritasMedia, Anthony consults AEC firms on design, Web and IT-design related issues in addition to publishing the Architosh site daily. He has been a member of the Thesis Studio and History & Theory faculty at the Boston Architectural Center College of Architecture and Interior Design since 1997. BritasMedia's mission with the Architosh Website is to again establish the Apple Macintosh platform as the premier worldwide leading computer system for technical design professionals.

Please visit our sponsor today, click the banner below! Member of the Ad Club Network