By Gary Kirchherr
Apple Computer's history of incompetent management notwithstanding, the company itself isn't entirely to blame for the continued erosion of the Macintosh OS market share. Much of the blame lies in the Micro$oft herd mentality that "reputable" sources promote. The thinking is that because Windows is "the standard," we must all be assimilated because resistance is futile.
I got a refresher course in this lemming mind-set this summer, shortly after Apple announced its new board of directors and peace treaty with Microsoft. Bloomberg Business News published an interview with one Richard Scocozza, a stock analyst with Brown Brothers Harriman & Co., who gave his opinion of Apple stock.
But Scocozza wasn't content merely to talk about the admittedly dim prospects of Apple stock. For some reason, he believed he needed to thrust his Micro$oft Lemming mentality on the masses.
"Frankly, as a consumer, I'd go buy a Windows machine," the 33-year-old suit informs us. But why? Because Windows is better? Because Apple has ceased to exist? The only clue to his reasoning is that Apple has a small market share. Never mind that Windows is an inferior OS, and that maintaining its software and equipment is a nightmare compared with working with Macs. Apparently, all that matters is siding with the majority.
The kicker is Scocozza's gushing about the "choices" that Wintel users have. The article paraphrases him as saying "Consumers can choose from a lot of non-Apple brands, which use Intel Corp.-standard PCs and generally run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software."
Hello? Hello? Anybody home? Hey, Wall Street Boy, here's a free clue for you. The Wintel platform may offer a wide variety of computers, but guess what - they all have to run Windows! A Pacer engine in a Porsche may be a pretty car on the outside, but it's still a piece of crap.
Quality computers are a dime a dozen; it's the software that runs it that counts. Bill Gates figured that out, and that insight made him the richest man in the world. IBM didn't figure it out until it was too late, and by then the term "IBM-compatible" had all but disappeared from the English language. Don't you remember, Dick? Maybe you were too young. Run along and play, now.
When Junior pontificated on the many wonderful hardware choices Wintel users have, he forgot (or else just didn't know) the Macintosh platform at the time also was supported by a number of quality computer manufacturers. Of course, within weeks of that Bloomberg article, Apple killed cloning.
Steve Jobs thinks the way to save the company is to tell its Macintosh customers they're stuck with Apple computers or nothing, like it or lump it. He just doesn't understand that angry customers, and more-neutral buyers who don't want to rely on just one company for their hardware, are going to tell him to lump it. Lisa Bowman's Oct. 29 column quotes Dataquest analyst James Staten as predicting that as much as 40 percent of the Mac clone market will switch to Windows. I wouldn't be surprised. This isn't just a question of dollars and sense; it's a subject of perceived betrayal and greed.
How can Apple be so arrogant as to act like a monopoly? Well, in a way, it is one. It's the only practical alternative to Wintel. So the customer now has to face not just one monopoly, but two. And Micro$oft, the real monopoly, is flexing its muscles more and more.
ZDNet AnchorDesk Editorial Director Jesse Berst suggested in his Sept. 17 column that monopolistic arrogance led Micro$oft to delay Windows 98. Berst says Micro$oft has delayed the release of Win98 for "technical problems" not because these problems can't be fixed on time. No, Berst says; Micro$oft is stalling because, well, it can. What are the Wintel users going to do - use something else? Heaven forbid they forsake their god Bill Gates!
Berst blames Apple, IBM and Novell for allowing M$ to become such an arrogant monopoly. I agree these companies must share the blame, but don't underestimate the impact of Micro$oft lemmings like Scocozza, who wouldn't think of trying an alternative to "the standard" regardless of how poorly their Redmond, Wash., masters treat them.
Treating one's customers with such contempt is one thing. But Micro$oft may have pushed the envelope a bit too far by taking on the Department of Justice over Micro$oft's forcing computer makers to put its Web browser, Internet Explorer, on Windows 95 boxes. Janet Reno and the gang at Justice want to fine Micro$oft $1 million a day - not exactly chump change, not even for M$ - until the company backs off.
An Oct. 22 article in PC Week details in shocking detail how Micro$oft bullied Compaq, Gateway 2000 and Micron Electronics into including M$IE on the machines, and the program's icon on the respective computers' desktops. M$ literally made the companies an offer they couldn't refuse - put the program and its icon where we tell you, or you lose your Windows 95 license. Micron's case especially shows how out of control Micro$oft has become. Micron already has M$IE bundled with its own SpryNet package, which has its own M$IE icon on desktops, but Micro$oft still wouldn't let Micron take off Micro$oft's program and icon.
Count me in as one of those who is sick and tired of Micro$oft's evil monopolistic practices. I've also had enough of Micro$oft apologists saying the government is picking on the poor company, and that its critics are just "jealous." Hey, the government broke up Standard Oil and AT&T, and guess what - the sun continues to rise every day, and the world is a better place besides. Micro$oft certainly is as insidious an entity as the old Standard Oil was; it's time M$ met a similar fate.
The best way to return some good old-fashioned capitalism to the computing world would be to break Micro$oft into three companies - two for system software, and one for everything else. The two OS companies would take Windows, and work separately on respective successors. The result - competition. Would either of these companies dawdle over an OS upgrade? Not likely. And with two healthy OS companies developing Windows, Apple too would be forced to get off its complacent butt. You'd really be killing two monopolies with one stone.
The government really has no choice. It has to smash Micro$oft, or allow personal computing to slide into its own Dark Ages from which it may not recover.
|
Talk online to the author by appointment |