InformationWeek
Defining The Business Value Of Technology
March 8, 2000
 Printer ready |
Where's the Outrage?
By Fred Langa
| Threads |
| Why do so few complain when AOL, Sun, and others employ exactly the same bad behavior for which Microsoft was justifiably nailed? Is the unequal treatment in fact due to hypocrisy, or is some other factor at play? Do the notions of fair play and equal justice apply here, or is Fred off the mark? Join the discussion! |
| Recent Columns |
|
Yea Or Nay On Windows 2000? Mozilla's New M13 'Bug Killer' Build |
| Bio |
| Fred Langa is a senior consulting editor and columnist for Windows Magazine. Fred's free weekly newsletter is available via subscribe@langa.com. You can contact him at fred@langa.com or via his website at http://www.langa.com. |
AOL has often played the "open-standards" and "fair competition" cards when it wanted something from a competitor--cable access, browser unbundling, or whatnot. It has pleaded its case about openness and a "level playing field" to Congress, to the Department of Justice, and to the public. But AOL's actions often have been exactly the opposite of its public posturing.
For example, instant messaging is becoming increasingly important as a business tool. But after gobbling up some innovative startups in the instant-messaging arena, AOL locked down its instant-messaging services and jiggered its code deliberately to prevent interoperability with competing systems. First, AOL blocked Microsoft's MSN Messenger; just last week, it blocked iCast's iCaster (which contains the popular Tribal Voice instant-messaging component). It appears that it will block interoperability with any competitor.
One could, in fact, say that AOL has a de facto monopoly in instant messaging; and it's doing all it can to retain that monopoly through proprietary technology, to the detriment of its customers (who cannot communicate with non-AOL systems) and to its competitors.
Where's the outrage?
Yes, AOL has said it will work toward interoperability, but it's actually done very little. Plus, history shows AOL is massively averse to interoperability: Just look at the proprietary and very nonstandard E-mail client that AOL foists on it 20 million-plus users. It wouldn't be that hard for AOL to migrate to the well-known, thoroughly debugged, and nearly universal POP3/SMTP E-mail--but in doing so, AOL would expose its now-captive audience to other (perhaps better) alternatives. And so AOL drags its feet.
Where's the outrage?
Or take the Netscape arm of AOL, which has talked the talk of open standards for two years now, but which just shipped a new version of its browser that still eschews World Wide Web Consortium standards in many important areas (Cascading Style Sheet, Dynamic HTML, Extensible Markup Language ...) in favor of proprietary and nonstandard Netscape-only tags.
Where's the outrage?
It's not just AOL. Look at Sun Microsystems' moves with Java during the last few months. After appearances before governmental bodies to bemoan how Microsoft was threatening the open, interoperable nature of Java (and winning a lawsuit based on those arguments), Sun then withdrew Java from ECMA, a European industry group focused on developing technology and communications standards, and it is busy setting up a pseudo-standards body of its own--one that Sun can control.
Where's the outrage?
Microsoft was justifiably pilloried in the courts and in public opinion for many of these same kinds of actions. Why have so many turned a blind eye to the actions of AOL, Sun, and others? Isn't it gross hypocrisy to call for Microsoft's destruction because the software giant tried to unfairly lock up the browser market, but not to make a sound when AOL, the overwhelming online giant, tries to lock up instant messaging?
Where's the outrage?
What's your take? Is the unequal treatment of the various cases in fact due to hypocrisy, or is some other factor at play? Do the notions of fair play and equal justice apply here, or is Fred off the mark? Join the discussion!
