|
|
|
|
Why Boycott Microsoft? |
|
|
|
|
A Modest ManifestoFriends, consumers, computer users... we come here to neither praise Microsoft, nor to bury Microsoft. Quite to the contrary, we are here not to bury, but to dig -- to unearth, to define and investigate the "Microsoft Problem" as it exists today, and to place those findings before the technology consuming public, for them to do with as they may. For they are we, and we can never be too well informed. More specifically, this site is designed as an antidote -- as a partial cure for the mass media's constricted view of Microsoft and the issues surrounding their domination of the computer industry. Regrettably, the press habitually interprets this question only in terms of the battle between the most visible, self-interested parties: Microsoft vs. its competitors, Microsoft vs. the government, Microsoft vs. consumer groups, and of course, as a fight between the phalanxes of lawyers who do the respective party's biddings. But this analysis, which is also shared by Microsoft's management, often leaves out of the equation the very real facts of Microsoft's behavior in the marketplace, which places quite evident emphasis on eliminating consumer choice. And more importantly, it omits the most significant stake-holders in the conflict: Us. As in, you and me, the consumers of high technology products. The position taken by Bill Gates and other Microsoft officials is certainly clear enough. The company has consistently attributed all questions directed towards their business practices, all concerns expressed about an industry increasingly dominated by one company and one man, and all worries about the impending loss of meaningful consumer choice, to a cynical combination of greed, envy and confusion -- and of course, to competitors attempting to achieve by legalistic means that which they are unable to accomplish in the marketplace. In Gate's view, anyone who fails to embrace Microsoft without qualifications is an enemy of capitalism. End of story. To a limited extent, Bill Gates and company are correct; a great deal of cold, hard cash has been placed on the high technology table, and the various parties angling for advantage recognize few limits to their desire to claim a healthy portion of it. And yet, this analysis tells only a small part of the story. This site is founded on the premise that we, as consumers, need to know more than what is typically revealed in the media. Much more -- including some of the surprising facts of how Microsoft came to its present state of marketplace mastery (a circumstance wrapped in layers of mythology), to understand what the company is doing every day to remain in control, how it plans to extend its influence into other arenas -- and finally, but not least of all, what all of this may mean to us. Despite its initial appearance, it is not by any means the intention of the boycott effort to make Microsoft "go away," or even to place any unreasonable demands on the company's behavior. No matter what else occurs, the company is, and likely will remain, the single most important player in the computer industry. This is a given, and a fact of life this effort will not alter. The purpose of this effort is simply to compel Microsoft to recognize that its excessively domineering and greedy behavior is unproductive, unappreciated and harmful, and that it is damaging not only to the interests of consumers, but over the long haul, to Microsoft's continued growth and wellbeing. The message of the boycott is simple: if Microsoft does not wish to be viewed by the public as a corporate pariah, and to expose themselves to the endless legal scrutiny and the regulatory environment that will inevitably follow, they must begin to revise their attitude towards the marketplace. And if only to benefit our individual self-interests, this site urges readers to ponder the implications of Microsoft's achieving the goal of positioning itself as the world's solitary provider of information technologies. Even given this explanation, some readers will remain wary of the purpose of this site, assuming that its true purpose is to promote the interests of one player in the industry over another. Still others have fully rationalized the growing Microsoft domination of everything digital as a natural progression of economic events. To these readers, unfettered capitalism can rarely be seen to produce detrimental side effects. If the technology business turns out to be a "natural monopoly," they might argue, then so be it. Both of these points of view are understandable. We have, after all, become gripped with a peculiar "computer religion," producing an unqualified faith in our own choices and an easy disdain for the choices made by others. Further, we have good reason to expect free markets to be efficient engines of wealth production, and most of us harbor sincere expectations that the "invisible hand of the marketplace" will automatically correct any drifts towards dangerous concentrations of economic power. Unfortunately, these viewpoints tend to blind us when we need to be the most clear-eyed. And they do nothing to help us recognize when a marketplace becomes so impossibly distorted that the competitive environment itself becomes short-circuited. Towards the end of detailing Microsoft's often anticompetitive practices, the site features a series of articles describing the various methods used by Microsoft to hobble competition, the Monopolist's Cookbook. Current and topical issues are covered in a series of feature articles. Other regular features include a constantly updated list of Microsoft's acquisitions and strategic alliances, The (nearly) Whole Microsoft Catalog. From this lengthy and constantly expanding list, we can witness Microsoft's efforts to transform the rich field of potential competitors into the equivalent of a Microsoft farm league. Samples of Microsoft's unfortunate habit of punching below-the-belt are documented in brief in the Dirty Tricks department. The Monopoly Clock follows the trend towards or away from a Microsoft's total domination of the industry. Finally, it should be noted, that despite its rather blunt headline, this effort does not condemn anyone's informed individual choices, nor does it dogmatically dictate any specific courses of action. In particular, it does not advocate or promote antitrust action, or other forms of government regulation. This effort's modest manifesto boils down to this: a marketplace is best regulated by consumers knowing their best interests, and acting on those interests. Nevertheless, it is recognized that boycotting Microsoft products can become a reality only to those exercising control over their work environments, an option available to depressingly few. To others, whose technology choices are made for them, it is understood that avoiding Microsoft products might regarded as little more than an interesting, but impractical, theory. No matter which category you fall into, keep in mind that your actions and your words have influence. Individually, we may each constitute only one voice within the mass of public opinion, and it may often seem that our lonely voices (and our solitary choices) buried in that mass count for little. Yet each voice and each choice, when joined together with others, forms a chorus, a chorus that can generate an echo that will resound all the way to Redmond, Washington. So whatever else you choose to do, stand up. Stand up and be counted. Stand up and demand that serious competition be allowed to survive and prosper in the computer industry. And if you come to believe that free competition and choice are under threat, let that belief inform your activities as a consumer. For without question, freedom of consumer choice, like political freedom, is a "use it or lose it" proposition. In that respect, this effort may be able to suggest some of the lyrics, but it is ultimately up to each and every one of us, in our own ways, to stand up and sing for choice. Published: 26 March 1998; last revised: 28 March 1998 |
They're hell-bent on dominating the entire
information infrastructure of the world, and it scares the
daylights out of me. GARY REBACK, Antitrust
attorney |
|||
 |
||||||
|
|
