Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: Anti-Microsoft sentiment

Author:Joshua Allen
Posted:9/15/2000; 8:24:53 PM
Topic:Debunking the OSS Bazaar?
Msg #:21374 (In response to 21359)
Prev/Next:21373 / 21375

That's an interesting list. I have at one time crafted a list of about 150 or so reasons that people dislike Microsoft, and your list has some new ones for me. I guess the only one I am really surprised at is the "permeating the media" part. I certainly didn't see the media as being favorable to Microsoft; but that's my perspective. Thanks for the list, though.

One issue that you hit upon is trust, and the hard work that Microsoft has to do to regain (or gain) that trust with many people. I (personally, speaking as some guy) think you hit the bullseye there. Many of your bullet points about the substance of anti-ms sentiment use subjective interpretations of motive behind various actions. The negative interpretation of motive is really a function of the lack of trust. The lack of trust is a function of some really nasty portrayals that came out of DOJ trial and a whole slew of other factors. It would be stupid and unnecessary for me to say if I think the lack of trust is due to MS actions or others' actions, or to what degree either. The fact is, though, there is a lack of trust, and that is the basis for much of the sentiment.

Now, trust is something that has to be earned over continuous consistent action. Even when MS does things like UDDI, there will be newspaper reports that this is an attempt by MS to take over the market. There will probably be many things that MS does to attempt to prove trustworthiness that nevertheless will be characterized as something different. This will hurt people's feelings, but is just the way that trust works. Trust takes time. Sure, a public "mea culpa" (wether you believed it or not) might help some people trust you. Sure, pointing out how your competitors stand to gain by perpetuating the sentiment and hiding their own considerable shortcomings might help some people trust you. In the end, though, it just takes alot of consistently trustworthy behavior and the faith that people will eventually respond to it.

I know Microsoft was many employees every bit as smart as me, and many others even smarter. And all of them have marching orders that say my place in the world is not useful to them unless I work for Microsoft. There is no sentiment of "the more the merrier." The game is played as if it is zero sum most of the time, when it most obviously is not.

I see a couple of things there, but one that jumps out in this and other points you make is perceived arrogance. Once again I respectfully refrain from arguing correctness of the perception, but will agree that the perception of Microsoft being arrogant does seem to be a major factor in the anti-MS sentiment. I'm not sure what the five best ways to change that would be..

Doc Searls has written before on the mixed metaphors used by competing folks, where some folks were sports based but others were war based.

OK, this is the one part of your discussion I have the most difficulty following. I have seen the Doc Searls thing before (sorry don't have a link) and I dismissed it as sophism. Sports has many analogies for business. Some sports you win only by winning (think of a 100 meter sprint). Other sports you win by making the other guy lose (think of wrestling, basketball, etc.). That is one analogy that always interested me -- why is it that in some sports it is OK to interfere with the competition's ability to play the game? Maybe that is what Doc Searls was getting at?

To me, the only difference between war and sports is that people don't die in sports. Like the nintendo game, you can always get up and try over, sports is not terminal. I also think sports is simply a practice for business. When you are a kid you learn sports, and when you enter the real world, you do sports for real. The fact that people don't die in business is my primary reason for being a supporter of massive globalization. More and more, large groups of people settle collective disputes in the marketplace rather than by killing each other. It is not perfect, but way better than the previous system.

The other think I think is important about business, is that exchange is (or at least should be) always voluntary. If you do not want something, you do not buy it. So the law of voluntary exchange guarantees that all transactions should create a net positive outcome for bith sides involved (or esle they would not transact). So when you talk about fighting for survival, I am a bit puzzled. No company should have a "right to survive". As long as we believe that it is moral for all exchanges to be voluntary and that all consumers should be able to choose whether to buy or not, then it is impossible to guarantee all companies the right to survive. Companies are made of individuals, and when a company dies, the individuals go elsewhere. The faster we accelerate the process of irrelevant companies dying, the faster their talents can be swallowed up somewhere that the market has more urgent needs.

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:43 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.