The Consumer Republic

The Right to Byte Forget about whether you're a Republican or a Democrat. No one cares what you think about nuclear bombs in India or the fate of the Irish peace proposal. Your opinion on campaign finance scandals - if you have one - is a bore. There's only one topic out there likely to draw a crowd around the metaphorical watercooler: U.S. v. Microsoft. Just when you thought nothing could rouse Americans from their political somnambulism, along comes an audience-grabbing issue that enflames consumer passions. As the old union organizers' song asked, "Which side are you on boys? Which side are you on?" On one side is the Microsoft party - let's call them Microsofties - who believe government meddling squashes innovation and consumer access to better and cheaper software. In our era of anti-government sentiment, this is the ruling party. In the opposition are the Microhardheads, who insist consumer choice is thwarted by Microsoft's ability to either freeze out or swallow the competition. Like politicians flogging family values, each party insists it's fighting the good fight to protect consumer choice. Yet for all the genuflecting to the consumer, the issue of choice may be moot. Only one camp is right. In a world in which 90 percent of personal computers run on Microsoft's operating system, it's safe to say that consumers already have chosen - and their choice is not to choose. By consumers, I mean Microsoft's front-end customers, the computer manufacturers that load software onto our machines before we even get them. Were Microsoft to drop its exclusivity requirements with PC makers tomorrow, there isn't any evidence to suggest they'd rush to find an alternative. Why bother, when bundling it all together is so efficient and delivers value to retail customers? Meanwhile, end users are happy as long as everything works when they turn it on. It is reported that the Justice Department's strategy is to cast Microsoft as a public utility. If so, it's merely catching up with consumers, who've already decided that software is a utility. They realize that software works best when it's a universal service. Of course, we know what's happening to utility monopolies these days. They are being opened to competition in the interest of the consumer. Judging from the nonplussed reaction of Californians to a recent campaign selling them utility deregulation, there is even less consumer demand for the dismantling of public utilities than for the breakup of Microsoft. But that hasn't stopped the political juggernaut for deregulation. And who will you find among the most enthusiastic boosters of competition? Ardent Softies such as The Wall Street Journal, which regularly lends its editorial space to Bill Gates for use as a personal Web page. Apparently, government-sanctioned monopolies, such as your local electrical company, are by definition bad. Consumer-sanctioned monopolies, such as Microsoft, are by definition good. Companies that want a level playing field with the former are heroes of the Consumer Republic. Companies that want the same from Microsoft are crybaby losers thwarting the will of the marketplace. Sounds like a lot of double-talk to me. I suggest, as the folk saying goes, if Microsoft quacks like a monopolistic duck, it is a monopolistic duck. The claim that a government-approved monopoly functions any differently from the consumer version is a leap of faith, not an observable fact. Besides, does Microsoft owe its dominance to consumer choice or to the customer's recognition that there is no choice? The network hive does the choosing for us; we either join in or fall out of the loop. Just ask the folks at Apple, who have seen their market share dwindle to near oblivion. When deciding whether you're a Softie or a Hardhead, remember that in its entire corporate life, Microsoft has been credited with inventing one product: DOS. I had to chuckle at Gates' description of Microsoft's founding "vision" in The Wall Street Journal: "To develop affordable, accessible software that would help consumers everywhere own a computer." By that criterion, clunky DOS was a miserable failure from the start. Rival Apple solved the accessibility puzzle - and Windows was born. Netscape created the browser, and Microsoft caught up with Explorer. Web TV developed a technology that promises to make the Internet a mass phenomenon, and Microsoft bought it. History tells us that Microsoft is like any other monopoly. It has no internal imperative to innovate, which is the worst thing you can say about a company these days. To remain the "choice" of consumers, Microsoft need only have enough money and clout to glom on to competitors' innovations - as long as there are competitors, that is.

Brand Marketing

The Consumer Republic

Debra Goldman

About

Subscriptions

Events

Publications

WORK SMARTER - LEARN, GROW AND BE INSPIRED.

Subscribe today!

Debra Goldman