Microsoft Did Us a Favor - Andreessen

I don’t normally like to praise Microsoft for things. Not only am I not a Microsoft fan-boy, but I think some of the ways that the software company has done business in the past have been — well, bordering on unethical. I also think many of its products suck in terms of usability, and give new meaning to the word bloat-ware. But I’m glad that Marc Andreessen (of all people) said something that I’ve often said in the past, which is that love them or hate them, at least Microsoft standardized the operating-system market around something.

Maybe it wasn’t the best something — maybe DR-DOS was better, or whichever flavour you happened to like if you are old enough to remember those days (and yes, I am; thanks for asking), or IBM’s various tries at recapturing its lost glory. But that doesn’t really matter. You may think DOS was bad and Windows was worse, but at least Microsoft stabilized what was a fragmented and chaotic market, and that arguably pushed us further ahead faster. If they hadn’t done it, someone else would have had to, and it might have taken longer and been even worse. More from Marc Andreessen’s chat with John Battelle here.

Comments

[DP]

I dont see the point of this article.
It is not that cool to state the obvious.

[peter02l]

Mathew, are you a communist by any chance?

[mike.ca]

It is very fashinable to talk about Microsoft, I mean to talk
bad about things about the company. To say something bad about
the company is considered tobe very cool usually among uneducated
people. You hear people all the time saying: "vista sucks",
"windows not good", "word is not working". I am surprised that
you are going to the same level. I am sorry, but you sound like
an idiot.
What other options do you have? Linux? Mac OS? Apple can't even
make a good operating system controlling their own hardware
production. I want to see them come up with the operating system
that will support thousands of hardware devices currently on the
market. Like them or not, Microsoft is the only company that could
pull it together.

[blah-blah]

mike.ca is correct - any uniformed user-mentality idiot can Microbash - god knows that Seeking Alpha is ripe with them

It takes someone with brains to actually look at things objectively. Microbashers are famous for calling the company the same thing it was in 1995, like nothing has changed. That said though, this article has greatly changed my opinion of Mathew Ingram who until now I respected.

[nScout]

Conformism is an application of the least effort rule and most often supports stupid ideas, those that do not require too much effort at researching and thinking. Politicians love it as an opportunity to pander to the crowds. Microsoft bashing is conformism. Human cause of global warming is another. The Web is the strongest conformism spreader ever but it also is the greatest opportunity to fight it and, as individuals, we should.

[Danthemason]

When you're going down the wrong road, he that turns around first is the smartest. The article is true in that like the government, MS provided a center around which all activity was directed. But also true is that innovation and initiative are not encouraged in these type large organizations. So while the herds had a method to channel their daily labors for the collective, we all knew that there had to be a better way.

[jeff a]

"That said though, this article has greatly changed my opinion of Mathew Ingram who until now I respected."

If one opinion can change your mind that quickly I wouldn't want you as a supporter any.

[wallawallabingbang]

This article is devoid of anything but Microsoft dronespeak...

And the comments are worse:

"Apple can't even
make a good operating system controlling their own hardware
production. I want to see them come up with the operating system
that will support thousands of hardware devices currently on the
market."

Who the H-E-double hockey sticks would want to support thousands of disparate devices? Or even try...Isn't that a fool's game?

That's why windows is imploding, collapsing under its own weight like a drunken elephant.

Show some awareness, people.

Any company that tries to be all things to all people becomes nothing in the end.

Go Apple. Think Different.

[Zach Bass]

The reason Microsoft has stabilized the market, has nothing to do with standardizing the operating system. In fact, they've ignored virtually every industry standard to the consternation of developers and users. Only if one could calculate the thousands of man-years and billions of dollars wasted on ensuring cross-platform compatibility, all due to Microsoft's blind ambition for "market standardization," and their snubbing of the end-user.

Ironically, this snubbing of the user is their secret sauce, and the reason for their success; 1) ignore what user wants, and 2) cow-tow to what corporate buyers want. Buyers are only interested in the bottom line, and Microsoft is a master of trolling the bottom. Bow to the buyers will, and the door is wide open.

-zach bass
www.zachbass.com

[LongAPPL]

OK, by your logic we should all bow down and thank Alexander Bell for standardizing the telephone. Good, but let's move on people! Windows is to Computer Operating Systems what the Rotary Dial Phone was to your telephone. It's a dinosaur and Steve Ballmer just doesn't get it. An open source BSD based Operating system that runs on multiple chipsets efficiently and elegantly with an intuitive user interface and now has gone mobile is the future.

OS X

[GregoryY]

Candidus - Very well articulated. I am immensely impressed.

[Jon T]

Microsoft makes rubbish products.

Full stop.

Apple and its OSX/Mac/iPod/iPhone are now at least a generation ahead of the stagnating/bloated/smu... Microsoft that politely speaking represents computing in the 19th century.

Good riddance Microsoft, the writing is on the wall.

[mike.ca]

re: Who the H-E-double hockey sticks would want to support thousands of
disparate devices? Or even try...Isn't that a fool's game?


No, it is not a fool's game. There are thousands of hardware developers
and manufacturers around the globe. This is a whole industry. Microsoft
is a leader in software development for PC market, but there are huge
companies that create hardware. Lots of jobs created in manufacturing,
support etc. If Microsoft would be like Apple creating their own computer
and after that choosing only one CDrom manufacturer for their computer,
only one CPU for their computer, only one memory manufacturer - than in
that case thousands of companies would stop to exist. We would loose 10%
of stockmarket overnight.

Like it or not, Microsoft creates the market, Apple is a good business
but it doesn't create a new market. Apple is a very good company, good
business, with very innovative products, but it didn't change the market
like Microsoft did. Microsoft doesn't have falshy toys, but they are good
for the economy. It is easy to discuss now how cool Apple is, but where
was it when the main task was simply to put a computer on every desk in
every house?



re: That's why windows is imploding, collapsing under its own weight like
a drunken elephant. Show some awareness, people. Any company that tries
to be all things to all people becomes nothing in the end. Go Apple. Think
Different.

Who told you that it is collapsing? Not enough people convert to vistas?
Ok, they like a lot Windows XP, so what? I understand that you use Apple
computers, but do you really have to be so subjective? Closing your eyes
and ignoring reality won't make you right.



re: Windows is to Computer Operating Systems what the Rotary Dial Phone
was to your telephone. It's a dinosaur and Steve Ballmer just doesn't get
it. An open source BSD based Operating system that runs on multiple chipsets
efficiently and elegantly with an intuitive user interface and now has gone
mobile is the future.
OS X


Mobile operating systems not sticky. Not at this point. For instance you
buy a PC and you start using windows, you stuck with it for a long time in
most cases. You use it because you like it. Yes, yes, you Apple guys will
start to scream now: "no I don't like it, I hate it!". The reality is that
there are many options on the market, but nothing compared to Windows at this
point. Apple will be able to convert people into OS x only if they continue
to introduce nice looking hardware designs. Windows is sticky it makes people
use it for a long time. If you buy a mobile phone like iPhone for instance,
it doesn't make you to use it for a long time. I easily switched to Nokia E90
because it is better, and I will switch to something else if it would be a lot
better.




Microsoft problems

There are some problems coming for Microsoft though. Technology attracted
millions of people to computers, and now vast majority of them use computer
only for purpose of going online. Microsoft will be facing with problems to
sell their "offline" operating system later on. Instead of trying to catch
google in search, they should think about creating "online os" in addition
to the "offline os" what they currently have. I know they are working in this
direction.

[Mac'em X]

Microsoft's business practices have been "bordering on unethical"?

That's like saying the Pope's doings are "bordering on Catholic".

[FreeRange]

While this argument may have held water in the early days of MSFT, in fact their anti-competitive and oppressive business practices over time suppressed innovation, destroyed competition, and has held us all back while we wasted countless billions of dollars on training, support and downtime while using buggy counter-intuitive MSFT products. Their market dominance has hurt us all and continues to do so. One only needs to read through some of the MSFT documents available to the public from the justice dept. proceedings against them to see how evil and anti-competitive this company truly is.

[AlanAnderson]

"For instance you buy a PC and you start using windows, you stuck with it for a long time in most cases. You use it because you like it."

WRONG.

I use Windows because it's what my employer puts in front of me and supports. I do not like it. I tolerate it. I am even pretty good at using it. But I do not like it. It gets in the way of what I want to do. I used to like Excel a lot for its capabilities and its power, but even it has its own idea of what I "should" do which increasingly does not match what I want to do. On the other hand, my Macintosh "gets it right" to a much greater extent.

[TanToday]

GOOGLE MOTTO: -> "Do no evil."

MSFT MOTTO: -> "Evil? Whatzzat?"

[PlayUltimate]

These comments are so 1980s. Back in those days, creating some semblance of order was needed. With Commodores, Apples, Ataris, TIs, Sinclairs, the OS landscape was a mess. However, the sleeping giant was always IBM. When they entered the market, the OS standard was created. Microsoft was fortunate that a) IBM selected them and b) IBM allowed them to continue to own and market the OS. This latter strategic mistake by IBM created the clone market and the world as we know it today. To give credit to MS is somewhat simplistic thinking.

However, the landscape has changed. MS is now been fighting a battle of maintaining marketshare and relevance in a world that no longer needs a corporation to define the standard.

[jmmx]

@Candidus

Conformism is exactly what has driven the world to Microsoft OSs. It was NOT any inherent quality that made DOS the standard, but rather it was that which was used when IBM first issued their PC. It was a slavish run to this new de facto standard that established the MS lead.

As for human cause of global warming - you can hide your head in the sand if you wish as you kowtow to the propaganda of the energy industry and Republican ideologues - who depend on the most outrageous conformism amongst their constituents as they continually, thoughtlessly chant out the prescribed mantra du jour of Carl Rove.

[GS]

I hate people saying that DOS was better than Windows. When there was Dos, Apple already had Photoshop, Macromedia, Pro Tools, windows, trash, folders and finder.
DOS WAS CRAP AS WINDOWS IS

[mikey72]

People back in the 80s and 90s thought the market needed a standard OS. What the market needed was for the PC to be commoditized to increase competition and drive down the price. At the time, the hardware costs were very high. IBM set the standard in corporations and those corporations bought the majority of PCs and the PC vendors quickly conformed to the IBM standard. This succeeded in driving down the hardware price, but they were all stuck with MS as the OS. IBM tried to recover by building OS/2 as the MS alternative but they were not nimble enough a competitor. Apple's mistake (both then and now) was thinking that IBM (and the PC compatible vendors) were their competition. Apple's made their hardware different as well as their OS. While their OS was better, their hardware was not. So they had an aggressive campaign to get Apples in schools thinking graduates would demand Apples in their new jobs. That's how they'd outmaneuver IBM. Nonsense. Graduates can't demand anything. IBM controlled the IT Directors who decided the corporate PC standard. Apple should have realized IBM and the "PC-AT compatible vendors" were not the competitors - Microsoft was. If they made MAC OS run on all PC compatible hardware, frustrated Windows users would have had a CHOICE - without replacing their hardware. Corporations could have offered MAC OS as an alternative if they didn't have to replace hardware. Increased OS competition would improve the product and reduce costs. And right now every PC would be sold with BOTH OS's pre-loaded allowing the users to pick at boot time. Vendors would pay Apple or MS based on that choice. Apple is STILL competing against MS AND the hardware vendors instead just MS. Too bad.

[sbjforever]

It's sickening to see what folks will say when with hidden identity. A requirement to list home address would go a long way to eradicating these brutally ignoramuses. One only has to read the first two or three comments to vow never again scroll down the page.

[User 77690]

Mr. Mikey, Apple is not competing against hardware vendors, in fact now, there is a level field. If you care to put bios-efi hack on your bios based pc and go through a checklist of on which hardware parts other than the cpu (Intel) you must swap then Mac OS 10.4.9+ or Mac OS 10.5.2+ will run on your Mod-PC. What Apple can not do and I do not agree with you or others like you is - to make Mac OS X run on any old cheapo clone PC out there. I want it to run on the best hardware for PC there is, the one that gives the least bit of trouble. You probably don't know how much better the Apple hardware has always been (regardless of CPU's mhz) to the PC hardware. And that, has been Apple's choice all along.

[economist]

Has anyone commenting added any value, given any insight, expressed a unique thought or idea. If you like windows, you write one set of comments... you like Mac you write a different set. You all should copy and paste from your previous bashing comments and totally eliminate any chance that you might just maybe write something insightful this time.

[wishchild]

To mike.ca... When you are talking about "thousands of companies", are you talking talking about PC companies? Because you are comparing these "thousands of companies" to Apple. There are actually only handful of PC companies that controls majority of the PC market not thousands. Just HP and Dell own almost half of the PC market. These "thousands" of companies include chip makers, optical sensors, motors, DRAM, power supplies, and etc. For your information, Apple's various product lines and models carry components that are just as diversified as Dell or HP.

[mikey72]

User77690: Over the last 20+ years of PC use I can think of maybe 4-5 times that HARDWARE issues have impacted my productivity, but maybe a MILLION times Microsoft's monopolistic mediocrity has. AAPL is adding NO VALUE to the market by having different hardware. I (and the market) do NOT have a hardware problem. We have a MICROSOFT problem. They need a true competitor on the OS front to improve quality and lower prices. Standard hardware components and a choice of OS's would deliver true value to the market - and the market is not interested in hacking its BIOS to run MAC OS.

[Dr. Dan]

Candidus: Your ID is very apt, since your philosophy seems to echo that of the sadly naive and ill-fated Candide. Of course people don't cause global warming, because this is the best of all possible worlds, and in this best of all possible worlds only the best of all possible explanations can be true, and that would be that they don't. The painful part is when you apply conformism, or "stupid ideas, those that do not require too much effort at researching and thinking" to global warming. While thousands of scientists all over the world spend their careers researching, publishing, and discussing the data and worrying about how to deal with an obvious and present crisis, you listen to propagandists like Rush and Fox News and decide that they're all idiots, and only the handful of nay-sayers with minimal work in the area (but corporate funding to nay-say) could be right. That's your constitutional right, of course, but for someone like that to rail against conformism - in the same post! - is just too painfully dumb to put up with. Then again, you seem to also believe that anyone who believes that Microsoft is a company with a long history of illegally using monopolistic practices to crush or co-opt companies with superior products is only doing so out of trendy conformism, and that anyone who finds their bloated, buggy software annoying is just deluded. That sort of smug ignorance is a sad but common feature of the true conformists in this society.

[LongAPPL]

mikey 72 sais:

"AAPL is adding NO VALUE to the market by having different hardware. I (and the market) do NOT have a hardware problem. We have a MICROSOFT problem. They need a true competitor on the OS front to improve quality and lower prices. Standard hardware components and a choice of OS's would deliver true value to the market - and the market is not interested in hacking its BIOS to run MAC OS."

You apparently know nothing about Mac OSX or Apple Computers:

1. Apple computers no longer use different hardware, the only non-standard thing on a mac nowadays is the new EFIS that replaces the age old BIOS when the computer starts up. EFIS allows much more advanced programming and flexibility than BIOS and is one reason that Macs work seamlessly with new peripheral devices. After Apple started using EFIS, Microsoft bragged that Vista would use it, but that never came to be. The EFIS gives Macs the ability to boot off different drives and operating systems at startup, which BIOS does not accommodate.

2. Every piece of a modern mac, except the motherboard, is industry standard and the very same as a comparable component in any PC. The reason that Apple computers cost more is that they are premium components with a higher than average quality of manufacture. You have to pay more for better quality control and design no matter what company makes the PC. You are also paying a premium for the software package that is included with every mac sold. OS X includes applications that you have to pay extra for in the Windows world. If you don't want a premium machine and a full compliment of software, then go buy a Dell or HP or whatever.

3. You can easily and affordably use a modern mac as an ACTUAL WINDOWS PC. By booting into a windows drive. It is in fact an actual windows PC! Apple does not allow you to hack your hardware to run OS X, but if you really want to run OS X (and more and more people do every day) you have to buy a premium machine at a higher price . If you don't like that scenario, then don't buy it. There are plenty of people that put a higher price on their time and productivity and will pay for the best. Apple does not need or want to sell computers to everyone just to those that can afford a better product. Sorry.

[mikey72]

ugh

[Brewer]

Every day, without fail
Microsoft fanboys
unravel further

Desperate apologists
know only forest
what is tree?

Gates got out
Ballmer wishes
For a new roomate

Courts ruled
guilty was verdict
No punishment

Evil skated
oppressed groaning
Justice waits

[nScout]

Dr Dan: Whatever the number of scientists in favor of the human cause of global warming there is at least an equal number of scientists against it, including most prominent ones at that. But the latter, being more interested in true scientific pursuit than in publicity, are not "politically correct" meaning they have not seduced the media. That is natural for the media which find more fodder in sensational news about our impending demise than in the discussion of an unproven hypothesis. Scaremongering is an old tactic to get attention and it is once more working, for the moment. Seeing this, the demagogues were not slow to jump on the bandwagon. Furthermore I do not listen to any of the names you mention for the simple reason that I have no use for television.

Now about Microsoft; they achieved a monopolistic position because they did not find any competition to speak of and because their products have some merit otherwise you would not find them on 90% of personal computers unless you think all these people are morons. They may have abused their position, with the help of the hardware builders, but they paid their fines, did they not? Conformism of the snobs who could not possibly be part of those 90%, this is what drives Microsoft bashing.