|
Jack T. Boling of Woodstock, Ga.: In my opinion, breaking up the Microsoft Corporation would be a tragic mistake and harmful to consumers and the economy. The U.S. Justice Dept. is working on the behalf of Sun Microsystems and other competitors of Microsoft, and not in the interest of the consumer. I was a programmer in the early sixties and have experienced many OS. In my experience of over 25 years in technology, the one problem above all others was compatibility between OS and languages and communication between computers. We formed committees and wrote standardization rules for computer programs in an attempt to allow companies within an industry to communicate electronically. Microsoft has gone a long way in bringing standardization and compatibility to technology across industry lines. This standardization has powered productivity and the economy to new heights. Now that we have achieved standardization, do we want to go backwards to incompatible OS and software? Do we now want to purchase separately software that was once included with the OS for free? I think not. And let's not forget the integrated Explorer software that started this whole 'breakup' talk. I had Netscape and found Explorer to be a superior product, as did most users. That is the reason for Microsoft's dominance on the desktop -- consumer choice. If the Government forces us to employ different OS on our computers and users must purchase separate software which may or may not be compatible with their OS, they will be harming consumers and the economy. The Justice Dept. and the government should back off and go after Coke and Pepsi in defense of R.C. Cola. Win Cope of Ludington, Mich.: Your article favoring a Microsoft breakup is the best and most thoughtful analysis I've seen on this subject. Most of the opinions against the breakup are far too simplistic. Bill Gates has it backwards when he cries that innovation will be stifled. With the proposed breakup, innovation within the two new camps will be more in demand and more necessary, both in quantity and originality. I hope the breakup succeeds. Dean Scallorn: I am very disappointed with your coverage of the antitrust suit against Microsoft. How can a publication directed toward the business climate in the U.S. consistently back the antibusiness stance of the government in continually condemning Microsoft? I have not seen a single article about Microsoft that does not blast it as being anticompetitive and insensitive. Fred L. Pinkney of Gilbert, Ariz.: You must be kidding! Win-win-win for whom? The only winners in a breakup of Microsoft will be its competitors, not the consumer. As an information technology student and user going back to the era of Cromemcos, Tandys, and Commodores, I can say with complete certainty that Microsoft got to its position of dominance by giving the customers what we needed and wanted. The following is proof: First, people forget, and the technology idiots at Justice probably do not know, that the preferred and best PC operating system 10-15 years ago was Apple. By its own admission, Apple saw itself as the BMW of computer makers, providing pricey models with few applications. Microsoft, on the other hand, saw the potential of computers in the hand of the masses, much like Henry Ford did the automobile. Microsoft made computers affordable, easy to use, and productive. Microsoft has earned its position because it keenly catered to the average individual. Second, consumers have not been hurt on price because of Microsoft. Evidence is clear that we have been aided significantly. In 1985 a Wang Word Processor cost $10,000. The federal/institutional discount rate was $8,000, and five or more could be had at the public rate of $7,500 each. One year ago I paid $1,799 for a 450 MHz Pentium III system that had 12.9 GB of storage, 96 MB of memory, high-end sound card, high-end video card, math coprocessors, L1 and L2 memory caches, external speakers, Word, Excel, etc., standard. In summary we get 1,000 times more capability for far less money. And it took all of 30 minutes for me to set up. Third, the consumer certainly has not been hurt because Microsoft bundles its products. We love it! That is exactly what we want. We want the WinTel standard, or something better and cheaper. We do not want a government-imposed mishmash. Finally, Linux is a no-go for the average computer user. It is not user-friendly, requiring extensive commands for simple tasks. Microsoft is by far the best consumer product, and it got there the old-fashioned way. They earned it. Even the whining losers have to admit there would be no technology revolution, e-commerce, or even extensive PC sales without Microsoft. Competitors and programmers will be the only beneficiaries of a government imposed breakup, or restraint of Microsoft. Consumers and free enterprise will be the big losers. Ed Kimball: I generally agree with your assessment that splitting Microsoft into an OS company and an applications company is a good idea. I disagree, however, with your claim that Office 98 shows that Microsoft can write non-Windows software that can succeed because it's better. The only part of Office 98 for Mac that Microsoft wrote that is better than the competition is Excel. But Word is not clearly better than WordPerfect or even MacWrite II. Nor is PowerPoint clearly better than Aldus' Persuasion nor the late, lamented More III from Symantec. Besides, Microsoft didn't write PowerPoint originally -- they bought it. To my mind, Office 98 won on the Mac by combining the best spreadsheet with satisfactory, but hardly exceptional, word processing and presentation applications at a package price that made buying competing applications separately not cost-effective. Good marketing, but hardly outstanding software development skills. James M. Ryan, President of Ryan Associates in Plano, Tex.: One of the problems of breakup is that it moves the original developers of the software away from those who upgrade and add features. With over 4 million lines of code, only a handful of programmers know where all the "skeletons" are in the system. And disclosure won't solve that problem. The ability to integrate applications into the operating system is a very subtle, very difficult task. Even Microsoft is having problems with this integration. Breakup would make the problem much worse. The real villain in the Microsoft hold on the market is the noncompetitive pricing of its products. Microsoft Office 2000 is now priced at $539.95 -- at discount! The predatory pricing bears absolutely no relationship to the actual cost of R&D, development, production, and delivery. The only place Microsoft can really be effectively contained is in the pricing -- and that's what most of the attorneys general of the states have objected to. Questions? Comments? E-mail Steve Wildstrom, Business Week's Tech & You columnist |
