InformationWeek
Defining The Business Value Of Technology
August 18, 1998
Your letters to my print
column and this E-mail forum ask some serious questions about managing information
technology in today's world. Since today's world is essentially absurd, my serious responses may
sometimes sound a little whimsical, and my occasional whimsical ones, serious. In any case, if
you want to participate, write to me at lovelace@home.com. I'll respond to those letters that I
can. I reserve the right to edit for size and content. Just sign your E-mail the way you want it to
appear online.
Dear Herb:
I really enjoy your columns, but was very surprised at your opinion offered in "Free Doesn't Mean No-Cost." Seems like you might need to roll up your sleeves and go write a bugless OS or two.
My hat is off to Gates and his hardball tactics with the Department of Justice. Gates essentially doesn't think it's right to bribe Congress or Justice to get a fair shake. And he's not afraid to call a fool "a fool" to his face. While that may send shudders up your PR buddy's spine, we need a lot more of that in this country. There aren't enough hours in a 1,000 lifetimes to keep an OS running that has been crafted or otherwise touched by our less-than-stellar government.
Regards,
Chip H.
Dear Chip:
I'm glad that you enjoy the columns and I'm sorry that I can't agree with you on either of your points: the futility of seeking a bug-free operating system or the admiration of Mr. Gates' tactics.
It seems to me that Microsoft pays a lot more attention to crushing competition than in fixing bugs in systems where they have overwhelming market domination. I have to admit I do have a bias; I'm not willing to accept that either operating systems or applications have to contain errors. But to be fair, I have that same desire for perfection in the programs that run the air traffic controller system.
We have all been sold a bill of goods to assume that the buggy trash we buy must be that way. Remember when cars produced by the Big Three in Detroit had horrible quality control? We were told that it would be too expensive to make them better. Then the Japanese autos hit the shores of this country. Why should we expect less quality from our software than our cars?
Personal computer software can be written so as to be magnitudes better than what we see today. If you compare Windows 95 to IBM's MVS, for example, you'll find that the mainframe software operating system is a lot more stable--and I can't help but think that one of the reasons is that we demand it. Mr. Gates and associates are far too busy trying to corner all markets of the world instead of improving the code they have already sold. Think about it: Windows 98 is essentially a bug-fix of Windows 95 and they charge for it! Amazing.
So far as Mr. Gates and his hardball tactics are concerned, I wonder who he views as the fool--the government or us. In the areas where Microsoft has overwhelming market dominance, such as the office suite, the price we pay for his products are three to four times the price of the essentially equivalent Corel and Lotus offerings. Why do we do it? We do it because of the need for standardization and the fact that file conversions between Office and the other suites are difficult.
The issue the Justice Department is investigating is whether Microsoft is using its monopoly in one area, operating systems, to stifle competition in other markets. I think it is a fair question to ask, and one worth examining.
Dear Herb:
I was wondering, what is your perception of data mining?
Does it have real value? Is it a tough sell?
Regards,
Rob C.
Dear Rob:
Some time ago, I wrote a column titled "The Data Said What?" in which I related a saga of what happens when people mine data without regard to ensuring that they understand the relationships among the data elements. One of the points I tried to make is that data mining can be oversold. Just because you can correlate two items--hem length and the economy, for example--doesn't mean they are really related, or, even if they are, that you can use the relationship.
However, having said all of that, I do think that data mining can have real value to a corporation. If you are looking for an understanding of your customer base, or attempting to relate all aspects of a customer relationship, such as seeing how much total business a customer is doing with you, then a good data mining system is useful. Along these lines, the big enterprise resource planning system vendors, such as SAP, are gearing up to provide data mining tools to those companies that use their software.
Your question about whether data mining is a tough sell is an important one. Depending on the company, reaction to a pitch for investing in a data mining project will vary tremendously. Some executives will see it as the answer to their prayers; others will remember all of the other technologies that were supposed to make their life easier and will be highly skeptical.
Dear Herb:
Regarding your InformationWeek article, " 'Free' Doesn't Mean No-Cost," you quoted Crawford Huggins (VP of public affairs) saying, "Well, I don't know about all that; I'm not a technical person. But I do know that anyone contemptuous of public opinion can't be trusted with power over people."
Are you saying that "public opinion" would rather have Microsoft not incorporate the browser with its operating system? Or are you saying that the public, in particular the stockholders of Microsoft, would love to see the browser tied with the operating system?
Sincerely,
Doug F.
Dear Doug:
Even though Microsoft is a widely held company, I don't know that I would classify its shareholders as constituting public opinion. Even if we did, I'm not sure all of these people would agree with Bill Gates' approach to competitive practices.
Crawford's concern is that anyone, especially someone of immense wealth, who has little regard for what people think, has lost one very important principle of leadership.
The issue that needs to be resolved is not whether the browser should be tied to the operating system. The question is whether Microsoft is unfairly using its monopoly in the desktop operating system world in an attempt to destroy competition in other areas of computing. I know that Microsoft rejects this line of reasoning, because they deny that they have a monopoly in the PC operating system world, but if they really believe that, they can't read their own sales figures very well.
Dear Herb:
Just saw "Free' Doesn't Mean No-Cost." Excellent article!
After I read Crawford's reply to your comments, I just went "wow!"
Very insightful, especially after Microsoft's posting of their "No support to NT customers who use NDS for NT."
JPT
Dear JPT:
Even though Microsoft has backed away from that position, I think it is indicative of how zealously it intends to do what is necessary to conquer its markets.
It is now up to the court system to determine whether this desire to win violates the laws of the nation. Just as the Standard Oil Trust case was a landmark decision in curbing the power of John D. Rockefeller, I suspect that the Department of Justice case against Microsoft will be cited for many years, regardless of which way the final resolution goes.
Dear Herb:
Your article hit a nerve. We often say, "You've just been Bill Gates'd," when a Microsoft product hangs, quits, does something out of the ordinary, takes up too much memory, or just plain doesn't work.
The other comment we hear a lot is "Bill won, get over it!" when confronted with someone complaining about the good-old days of Apple Computer.
Ross T.
Dear Ross:
At the risk of offending a very vocal group, let me say that while I love and respect people who adore the Mac, even those machines have been known to burp on occasion. The problem I have with Microsoft software is that there seems to be much more emphasis on pushing the latest version out the door (or at least announcing it way in advance so as to freeze purchases of competitors' products) and conquering new worlds than there is on fixing the stuff that we all use.
Dear Herb:
You still haven't answered the two basic questions that this whole thing revolves around:
Why is it the government's concern to protect Microsoft's rivals?
Why is it the government's business to determine what may be bundled with a company's products?
This is an attack on success and capitalism; but we should expect that from anyone associated with the Clinton administration.
RAG
Dear RAG:
I don't remember writing anything that elicited so much passionate mail, pro and con, since "Why Did You Promote Him?" and the follow-up "Serving Food For Thought," about why Fred did not get the job he wanted so badly.
To answer your first question, I don't see that the government is trying to protect Microsoft's rivals. I think Microsoft's aggressive behavior, seeing multiple areas of commerce as its arena, is the cause of the antitrust suit. To the extent that someone wants to invent another operating system or another office suite, the government is doing nothing to protect these people. The question is whether Microsoft is using a monopoly in one area to achieve a monopoly in another--the Internet browser.
As to your second question about why is it the government's business to determine what may be bundled with a company's products: In fact, there is a long history of court decisions including such things as prohibiting Eastman Kodak from bundling film processing with its film, and movie studios from owning local theaters, that give the government just such a right. The government, under existing antitrust legislation has the right--and some would say the obligation--to pursue the Microsoft case.
I can understand your feelings that you view this case as an attack on success and capitalism; but I would question whether it is solely dependent on which administration appointed the leaders of the Justice Department. Even though some administrations pursue antitrust cases more vigorously than others, it is unlikely we are dealing with partisan politics here. There are plenty of people on both sides of the political fence taking various views on this one. What we have is an attempt to set new law in an area that has not had much precedent. While we may or may not like the outcome, it will at least be interesting to watch.
Herbert W. Lovelace is CIO at a multibillion-dollar international company. Herb practices his day job under an alias and has changed the names of colleagues to protect the guilty.
Got a question for The Secret CIO? Just send an E-mail
Send Us Your Feedback
Top of the Page
Featured Microsite
