Mention Microsoft, and some think of Bill Gates, the Windows computer platform and the world's largest (and richest) software company. For a certain group of people, however, Microsoft is the embodiment of an evil empire lead by a Dark Prince, conducting questionable business practices toward maintaining its (monopolistic?) market leadership.
An example of these debatable tactics, according to some industry pundits, was observed a while back when Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer stated that the open sourced Linux Operating System -- a darling within the IT world as it provides a free software platform -- had potentially violated 235 of the company's IT patents portfolio. This simple statement, said IT observers, could produce a chilling affect on the usage of Linux.
Fortune magazine reports that over half of Fortune 500 companies use Linux in their data centers. Internet powerhouse Google utilizes thousands of Linux servers to host its popular services. All use a free operating system that does not require any licensing fees. Now it seems Microsoft wants a cut of the action.
Many call this latest declaration a campaign of fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) -- or as Wikipedia defines it, "a sales or marketing strategy of disseminating negative (and vague) information on a competitor's product" -- especially since Microsoft has yet to take any alleged patent violators in this case to court.
This is not the first time Redmond has tussled with an alternative yet proven operating system created and tested (for free) by programmers around the world.
In 2004, Microsoft launched its "Get the Facts" campaign, attacking the perceived savings for using Linux. It contended that using the open source system was actually 10 times more expensive than using Microsoft's Windows Server.
Unfortunately, the Advertising Standards Authority in the U.K. deemed the campaign ads to be misleading, as the two software platforms were tested on different server hardware. Guess which one turned out to be more expensive?
Critics have called the company "not a true innovator", but one that copies then merges feature sets into its proprietary operating system, which is used by over 90 percent of computer users around the world. It is said that by using this "embrace, extend and extinguish" strategy, Microsoft can obtain "de facto" ownership of certain software standards and maintain its market dominance. This also could make it difficult for small third-party companies to create software and compete.
On the other side of the coin, you have a large company filled with some of the world's brightest people. This writer has met many Microsoft employees over the years and found them to be warm and decent people. The company has embraced the blogosphere and one of its former champions, Robert Scoble, had managed to put a gentler, kinder face to the Redmond-based company through his popular blog (www.scobleizer.com).
The man who started it all, Bill Gates, has formed the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, a charitable organization that focuses on "improving health, reducing extreme poverty, and increasing access to technology in public libraries worldwide" by giving away billions of dollars in support. Gates was also named Time's 2005 Persons of the Year, along with his wife Melinda and U2 front man Bono.
And so, which is the real Microsoft? A majority of people may not know and probably do not care about a company's business practices. Others have higher standards of ethics, prompting them to avoid products that are animal tested or manufactured in sweat shop-like conditions. It seems that the left hand of Microsoft does not know what the right hand is doing. Any goodwill developed by one part of the organization can be immediately extinguished with a simple confrontational statement.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailfeatures.asp?fileid=20070709.Q02&irec=1
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home