Welcome Guest. | Log In| Register | Membership Benefits

AuthorITies: Redmond Watch


June 28, 1999

Sorting Out The Spin

By Stuart J. Johnston

T his will be my last Redmond Watch column as a staff writer for InformationWeek. After 11-1/2 years covering Microsoft, more than three of those at this wild ride named InformationWeek, I'm hanging up my news goggles to take a year off to write a book. (I will continue Redmond Watch as a freelancer).

As a parting shot, I'd just like to share an old adage about the news: "Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you read."

That clichı is probably more true today than it was 100 or more years ago when it was newly minted. Weıre not just "living in Internet time." In fact, the reporters and editors who serve up news and analysis like gourmet fast food every day are living in our old world with weekly deadlines, while at the same time fulfilling the duties of daily publications as well as the wire services.

With business, the news, and life moving at Net speed, there is something to be said about the value of philosopher George Santayana's exhortation that "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Historical perspective is something that our industries--both the technology news industry and the IT industry--often seem to be sadly lacking. Today, all manner of computer company executives hold press conferences to state that such and such is what happened in years past. However, unfortunately for them, there are a few of us old fogies still around who remember different versions of reality.

Perhaps it's because our two industries are driven by youth and an insatiable appetite for "the new" that hardly anyone ever challenges those statements about the past that are, at best, certainly not as cut and dried as they'd like them to seem, and at worst, an outright recasting of history. It's too bad because important decisions about the future are being decided on the basis of partial fact and public-relations spin.

I will point out one recent incident here. In the continuing melodrama of Microsoft's antitrust trial, an IBM executive testified that, in order to get even with IBM for shipping OS/2 on its PCs as well as Windows, Microsoft jacked up the price of Windows 95 to IBM.

That may well have been part of the story. But the statements that were made ran something like this: IBM had been paying less than $10 a copy for Windows 3.1, but suddenly those costs jumped by five or six times. Sure, it came out that part of the issue was back royalties that IBM owed.

But no reporter ever asked: What about the fact that the IBM executive never mentioned the license fees for DOS? Up until Windows 95, PC vendors always had to ship both DOS, which was the operating system, and Windows, which was just the graphical user interface. I don't remember exactly when IBM's deal with Microsoft for DOS expired, but prior to that, according to the book "Gates" by Stephen Manes and Paul Andrews, there were apparently no royalties due from IBM to ship DOS.

Windows 95 includes the DOS functions in the box with the user interface. If you want to debate whether the two are integrated, that's up to you. But that doesn't address the question why the IBM executive, in testifying about the huge leap in royalty costs to IBM, never mentioned the DOS royalty. It may well be that there were legitimate reasons why he didn't mention that issue. But the fact is itıs still a question that should have been asked.

Secondly, the same IBM executive testified that IBM was certain that its PC business would be greatly imperiled if the company didnıt have a license for Windows 95. But this is clearly revisionist spin.

Why? Hereıs a line from a story that a colleague and I filed in late November 1994, citing sources inside IBM's PC division: "IBM is questioning when it will bundle Windows 95. Sources inside the company said that it was currently unclear whether there would be significant demand for the new operating system out of the block."

That is, the story that IBM was putting out to the press was that they weren't sure there was any reason to ship Windows 95. In the same story, those same IBM sources said that the price of $40 to $45 a copy--the price IBM now admits it paid--was not bad, in fact, lower than prices quoted to other manufacturers. So why is IBM complaining in court now, alleging Microsoft pressured them into signing an exorbitant license for Windows 95, just 15 minutes before the launch event in August of 1995?

"Spin" seems like the obvious answer. Spin of some sort in the courtroom and spin back in 1994 when IBM maintained they didn't know if there would be demand for Windows 95.

The lesson in all of this? It's important to remain a skeptical, educated reader. As we continue to move in Internet time, I trust that my colleagues here at InformationWeek will continue to do the sterling job that they've been doing.

And as the news, product developments, and technology advancements keep hurtling toward you, keep Mr. Santayana's quote in mind. Examine every news story you read carefully. With the pressures on news people to get you the news while it's still hot, and with the understanding that many vendors--and I'm not excusing Microsoft here--believe that you will have no memory of history, you need to make your own judgments. Be fair, but be tough.


AuthorITies Archive

Send Us Your Feedback

Top of the Page

Karyl Scott:
Enterprise View
Karyl will explore the business and technology issues surrounding enterprise systems. 		Charles Pelon:
Eye On IT
Charles explores IT management issues and strategies that business and technology managers face. 		Jason Levitt:
Internet Zone
Jason focuses on the strange, egregious, and the standard technologies of the intranet/Internet. 		Sean Gallagher:
The Bleeding Edge
From his vantage point of managing editor of InformationWeek Labs, Sean will explore the impact of new technologies on the evolving world of electronic business.