Common criticisms of Microsoft
|
|
Microsoft Corporation has been the focus of much controversy in the computer industry since the 1980s. This article explores some of the areas in which it has received frequent criticism.
| Contents |
Public perception
For a long time, Microsoft was widely seen as the "good guy" in the computer software market, providing an inexpensive alternative to the expensive systems provided by the major mainframe and UNIX vendors, and it was admired for the large amounts of money it made in doing so. By the 1990s, however, the perception that Microsoft had become the "bad guy" had increased substantially. It was frequently accused of leveraging its market dominance in desktop computing in order to try to exploit its customers unfairly. In recent years, Microsoft has been accused of anti-competitive business practices by the US government, the European Union, Japan, and Microsoft's competitors; this has generated huge negative perceptions.
Microsoft has been called "the Borg" after the fictional race of aliens in the Star Trek universe. The name began to be used in reference to Microsoft soon after the Borg's first appearance in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It reflects the perception that Microsoft tends to acquire technology from competitors rather than developing it in-house, as well as to Microsoft's ability to adapt to and overwhelm its opponents' strategies by having vastly superior resources. Despite Microsoft's advertising focusing on the company's innovation, Microsoft has historically copied ideas after its competitors have paid for their research and development and proven them viable in the marketplace. This practice is certainly not unique to Microsoft, but the sheer muscle of Microsoft's resources makes it harder for any other company in its marketplace to capitalize on a popular idea.
Critics decry Microsoft's perceived "embrace and extend" strategy of adding proprietary features to open, de facto standards, thereby using its market dominance to gain de facto ownership of standards "extended" in this way. Microsoft meanwhile depicts its actions as its response to customer demand, and has accused governments of trying to interfere with its desire to innovate and to bring consumers better technology at lower prices.
Microsoft is also frequently accused of overloading terms to refer to its proprietary technology and then attempting to control them using trademark law and patent law. Examples are computing terms such as ".net", "DNS", and "CLI" which are already in use to mean other things but which Microsoft co-opts as Microsoft .NET, "Digital Nervous System", and Common Language Infrastructure, as well as generic terms such as "Windows" and "Word".
Microsoft contributes money to several think tanks, including the American Enterprise Institute, the Center for Strategic and International Studies, the Heritage Foundation, the Cato Institute and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution. These organizations have often been called "shills" by Microsoft's critics, who allege that the groups are paid by Microsoft in order to spread Microsoft propaganda under the appearance of being neutral and unaffiliated, and that they attempt to harm Microsoft's competitors by spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt (for example, by stating that open-source software offers a target for terrorists). [1] (http://news.com.com/Linux+makes+a+run+for+government/2100-1001_3-950083.html) [2] (http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/linuxunix/0,39020390,39155268,00.htm) [3] (http://www.businessweek.com/2000/00_20/b3681219.htm) [4] (http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/2004/06#tanks)
Ease of use
Microsoft's focus on software usability was a large factor in its early successes. In recent years, however, Microsoft has been criticized for making features more important than usability and for allowing the user interface of its products to become inconsistent and overly complicated, frustrating users by actions which should be simple to perform and requiring interactive "wizards" to function as an extra layer between the user and the interface. Many books (such as "Windows for Dummies") and web sites (such as Annoyances.org (http://www.annoyances.org)) have been created to help users navigate Microsoft products.
At the same time, in its efforts to make its products "friendlier" for users, the default settings in some Microsoft software have facilitated the spread of computer viruses and worms. For example, Windows operating systems released since 1995 hide file extensions by default, which can help malicious programmers trick unwitting e-mail recipients into opening dangerous file attachments which masquerade as harmless files with innocent-looking extensions. (See security, below.)
Total cost of ownership
The full cost of software extends far beyond the purchase of the software itself; it can include costs for support, training, and upgrades. There is an ongoing debate regarding how to accurately measure the cost of software.
Microsoft supporters argue that the position and architecture of Microsoft software results in a lower "total cost of ownership" than competing open-source solutions such as Linux, the Apache web server, or the MySQL database.
- Microsoft software is designed to be easy to configure, allowing companies to hire lower-paid non-expert systems administrators.
- There is a large pool of trained and certified Microsoft administrators available to help in deploying and managing Microsoft systems.
- The Microsoft software ecosystem is designed to work well together since many products come from the same vendor.
Detractors argue that users do not own Microsoft software - it is licensed, forcing the user to have to obey the vendor's licensing agreements, and requiring regular upgrade costs - and therefore "total cost of ownership" comparisons with open source software do not compare like with like. Furthermore:
- Lower base staff competence and less reliable software spells more problems.
- Reducing computer insecurity requires highly trained systems administrators, regardless of the operating system in use.
In August 2004, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) of the United Kingdom ordered Microsoft to stop a run of print ads which claimed that the total cost of ownership of Linux servers was ten times that of Windows Server 2003. According to the ASA, the comparison put the Windows servers on Intel Xeon processors which were less expensive and offered better performance than the IBM z900 mainframe on which it put Linux; therefore the comparison included the hardware, and it was misleading to claim that the cost difference involved only the operating systems. [5] (http://www.asa.org.uk/adjudications/show_adjudication.asp?adjudication_id=38475&from_index=by_sector&dates_of_adjudications_id=578) [6] (http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3400131)
Security
By 2002, several of Microsoft's networking- and Internet-related products had become the subject of intense criticism following several high-profile security lapses. Malicious programmers increasingly exploited weaknesses in Microsoft software by creating and distributing worms, viruses, and Trojan horses designed to spread across the Internet and waste computing resources or destroy data. These exploits targeted Microsoft's Outlook and Outlook Express e-mail programs, Internet Information Server (IIS) Web server, and SQL database server software.
Microsoft contends that its dominant position in several Internet-related software categories naturally subjects the company's products to more attacks, because the products themselves are so widespread. In addition, Microsoft contends that its security record on critical vulnerabilities has substantially improved and compared favorably to that of its competitors.
Critics counter that these attacks also target Microsoft products that do not hold commanding market shares, and suggest that this is because Microsoft products in general are fundamentally less secure than those of the company's competitors. This problem is compounded by the very ubiquity of Microsoft software. Once a working virus is released, it is almost certain to spread very widely because almost every computer it comes across is able to replicate and spread the virus. This effect has recently been dubbed the "Microsoft monoculture", by analogy to the problems associated with lack of biodiversity in an ecosystem. As an acknowledgement of the problem, the National Science Foundation on November 25, 2003 announced it had granted US$750,000 (Lemos, 2003) to computer scientists at Carnegie Mellon University and the University of New Mexico to further understand the causes and the (presumably) negative effects of the homogenization of the world's computing platforms (National Science Foundation, 2003).
In January 2002, Gates announced the Trustworthy Computing initiative, which he described as a long-term, companywide initiative to make the computing experience as trustworthy as other established experiences such as the telephone. Many people focused on the aspect of trustworthy computing that focused on the new emphasis on security and privacy in all of Microsoft's products. The initiative prompted the company to reevaluate and redesign several of its practices and processes, and delayed the release of Windows Server 2003, the successor to the Windows 2000 Server family of operating systems. Reaction to the Trustworthy Computing initiative has been mixed, with observers lauding Microsoft's increased focus on security but charging that the company still has a lot of work to do.
Earlier versions of Microsoft products had a security stance of "permitted unless forbidden", which is hard to change, as much Microsoft software relies on this policy. This stance can be taken advantage of to cause security problems. For example, macros embedded in documents or HTML in email can run programs allowing an attacker to take over the user's computer. However, a chief cause in the spread of viruses has been unskilled users failing to apply available patches even months after they have been released. In fact, Microsoft blames the spread of viruses on the very fact that it issues patches to fix security holes; crackers examine the patches, find out what problems they are meant to fix, then create exploits to attack systems which have not been patched. Windows XP Service Pack 2 attempts to address this by encouraging users to automatically apply patches and making the system "secure by default" (for example, by turning on the firewall).
Microsoft's licensing policy has actually aided the spread of viruses, because the first service pack for Windows XP checked for known pirate keys and refused to patch Windows XP installations which had been pirated. This resulted in a large number of Windows XP systems which were left vulnerable. To combat this, Microsoft briefly considered letting Windows XP Service Pack 2 be installable on pirated copies of Windows XP, but later decided against this as it would encourage further piracy. [7] (http://www.betanews.com/article/1084264398)
In February 2004, partial source code from the Windows 2000 kernel was illegally leaked and widely distributed on filesharing networks. The leak contains source code for network protocols, parts of Internet Explorer, and certificate handling. Examination of the code revealed flaws (such as a negligence in checking for out-of-bounds values), and some people developed theoretical attacks to show how easily this leaked code could allow current versions of Windows to be compromised, but these flaws are not yet known to have been exploited maliciously.
Vendor lock-in
From its very inception, Microsoft defined itself as a platform company and understood the importance of attracting third-party programmers. It did so by providing development tools, training, access to proprietary APIs in early versions, and partner programs. The solutions and plugins built by third-party programmers in turn led to more Microsoft sales.
Now the ubiquity of Microsoft software allows a user to benefit from network effects. For example, the large installed base of Microsoft Word makes MS Word files the de-facto standard word-processor format, making it essential for most business users. In addition, more potential employees have training in MS Office than on competing products. Hence using MS Office can result in reduced training requirements, especially in the case of temporary employment.
Microsoft software also represents a "safe" choice for IT managers purchasing software systems, in that the ubiquity of Microsoft software allows them to claim that they are following accepted best practices. This is a particularly attractive option for IT managers with limited technical knowledge.
The European Commission quotes Microsoft head of C++ development Aaron Contorer as stating in an internal Microsoft report for senior management:
- "The Windows API is so broad, so deep, and so functional that most ISVs would be crazy not to use it. And it is so deeply embedded in the source code of many Windows apps that there is a huge switching cost to using a different operating system instead... It is this switching cost that has given the customers the patience to stick with Windows through all our mistakes, our buggy drivers, our high TCO [total cost of ownership], our lack of a sexy vision at times, and many other difficulties [...] Customers constantly evaluate other desktop platforms, [but] it would be so much work to move over that they hope we just improve Windows rather than force them to move. In short, without this exclusive franchise called the Windows API, we would have been dead a long time ago."
Monopoly and legal issues
In a 2003 publication, Dan Geer argued the prevalence of Microsoft products has resulted in a monoculture which is dangerously easy for viruses to exploit. (A response was published in MCP Magazine (http://www.mcpmag.com/columns/article.asp?EditorialsID=610), which is sympathetic to Microsoft.)
There is no doubt that:
- In most mass-market desktop software application markets, Microsoft is a dominant player.
- This dominance attracts widespread resentment.
- This resentment is not restricted to its competitors.
Critics of Microsoft have accused it of using its dominance in desktop operating system to leverage market share in other sectors of the computer market, such as web browsers (Internet Explorer), server operating systems (Windows NT), office software suites (Microsoft Office), and streaming media (Windows Media). They blame this on Microsoft's tactics of illegally tying software so that a new product can ride on the success of a monopoly product. For example, by including Microsoft Messenger and Windows Media Player with every copy of Windows, Windows users have less need to download and use competing products such as AOL Instant Messenger or RealPlayer, and will stick with the Microsoft alternatives even if the competing products are superior. Critics see this as a clear case of vertical integration based monopoly. This tends to starve the rival companies while giving Microsoft time to adopt their features. Microsoft defends its behavior by stating that it is giving its customers more software for free, and that it is doing the best it can to innovate and compete in a capitalist market.
The behavior of Microsoft executives during the United States v. Microsoft case - for example, Bill Gates quibbling over the meaning of simple words, and a Microsoft vice president insisting the judge had told him to ship a version of Windows which did not work - earned astonishment, amusement, and ridicule in the press.
Many companies have sued Microsoft over allegations of stolen intellectual property and anticompetitive business practices, and many of these cases have been decided against Microsoft. However, the cases often drag on for years due to appeals and delays initiated by Microsoft, so that by the time a verdict is delivered, the case has long since become irrelevant and the targeted company is no longer a viable competitor.
It has been argued that violations of antitrust and intellectual property laws, as well as of the restrictions which have been placed on Microsoft's behavior, are in fact an intentional business tactic of the company. Even if alleged misbehavior is discovered, bringing a case to court, to a verdict, and through appeals can take several years. Even when Microsoft is hit with penalties, it has never yet failed to negotiate these down to something which has had negligible effect on its operations and finances. Microsoft meanwhile defends itself in the public arena, portraying itself to consumers as a champion of popular software which its jealous rivals are trying to shackle.
Linux and open source
The open source movement is traditionally at odds with Microsoft over:
- Microsoft's closed standards (such as NTFS, Windows Media, and the Microsoft Word file format) which reduce interoperability with open source software
- What is perceived as the selling of inferior (especially with regards to security, stability and overall quality of engineering) products at high prices by means of monopolistic practices.
- Microsoft's supposed spreading of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (Commonly known as "FUD") about open source and other competing software
Microsoft characterizes open-source software as being "potentially viral" [8] (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/06/25/open_source_terror_stalks_microsofts/) and the GNU General Public License itself as a "viral license" which "infects" proprietary software and forces its developer to have to release proprietary source to the public. [9] (http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34292.html)
The Halloween documents, internal Microsoft memos which were leaked to the open source community beginning in 1998, indicate that Microsoft perceives open source software in general (and the freely available Linux operating system in particular) as a growing long-term threat to Microsoft's dominance of the software industry. In marked contrast to the company's public statements, which tend to downplay or ignore open source software, the Halloween documents acknowledge the technical superiority of Linux and outline a strategy of "de-commoditiz[ing] protocols & applications"; in other words, basing networks and documents around proprietary standards so that they can only interoperate with other computers which use Microsoft products. Opponents of Microsoft have dubbed this strategy "embrace, extend, and extinguish".
At the same time as Microsoft has been fighting the open source movement, it has tested the waters with its own concept it calls shared source. A shared source license generally allows someone to see code, but not to modify or reuse it. Microsoft has tried to use this to attract mind share, but shared source is generally criticized within the open-source developer community for leaving too much control in the hands of the shared-source code's owner.
A far more serious concern is that Microsoft is using the distribution of shared source programs to harvest names of developers who have been exposed to Microsoft code; these developers could someday be the target of lawsuits if they were ever to participate in the development of competing products. This question was addressed in April 2004 by the American Bar Association in a published paper, Open Source Software - A Legal Framework (http://www.abanet.org/intelprop/spring2004/course_materials/02_webbink.pdf) (page 26):
- One of the great dangers of participating in Microsoft's Shared Source programs is that a key tenet of the programs is maintaining the confidentiality of the source code that is shared. Participants need to be aware that once their developers have had access to Microsoft source code, they are "contaminated" and are subject to intellectual property infringement claims if they should later use knowledge acquired under Shared Source in a manner not permitted by Microsoft. ... All in all, developers, equipment manufacturers, enterprise users, and governments should be cautious about participating in this non-open source approach for sharing source code and see it for what it is, a trap for the unwary.
That paper quotes another paper, titled "Shared Source: A Dangerous Virus" [10] (http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/shared_source.php), released by the Open Source Initiative:
- Shared source, therefore, behaves like a virus that infects developers' brains. Once you let it into your organization, you must keep careful track of which developers have been contaminated, avoid deploying them to any projects which might compete with a Microsoft product, and even erect "Chinese walls" between projects so that no knowledge from shared source can leak into projects with competitive implications. Failing to implement any of those precautions could result in your organization's being sued for ruinous compensatory damages by Microsoft's armies of lawyers.
- If you are an academic contemplating exposing your students to shared source, consider the risk that you may be making the ones conscientious enough to disclose this to employers unemployable — and the others into time bombs that could blow up their employers if Microsoft ever goes looking for a cause of action.
References
- Charles, John. "Indecent proposal? Doing Business With Microsoft". IEEE Software. January/February 1998. pp. 113-117.
- Clark, Jim with Owen Edwards. Netscape Time: The Making of the Billion Dollar Start-up That Took on Microsoft. New York, Saint Martin's Press, 1999
- Cusumano, Michael A.; Selby, Richard W. Microsoft Secrets: How the World's Most Powerful Software Company Creates Technology, Shapes Markets and Manages People (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2VQCBE84TR&isbn=0684855313&itm=1). New York: Free Press, 1995.
- Edstrom, Jennifer; Eller, Marlin. Barbarians Led by Bill Gates: Microsoft from inside: How the World's Richest Corporation Wields its Power (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2VQCBE84TR&isbn=0805057544&itm=2). N.Y. Holt, 1998.
- Lemos, Robert. (2003). U.S. funds study of tech monocultures. Retrieved December 20, 2003, from http://news.com.com/2100-7355-5111905.html?tag=nefd_hed
- Moody, Fred. I Sing the Body Electronic: A Year With Microsoft on the Multimedia Frontier. New York: Viking, 1995.
- National Science Foundation. (2003). Taking Cues from Mother Nature to Foil Cyber Attacks. Retrieved December 20, 2003, from http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/03/pr03130.htm
External links
Discussions whether MS is monopolistic
- http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm
- http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/PatentPlayersMicrosoft
- http://wiki.ael.be/index.php/MsAntitrust
- FAQ on the Microsoft Antitrust case (http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft/Antitrust_FAQ/default.htm) by The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism (a pro-Microsoft site)
- Disinfopedia about Microsoft (http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Microsoft)
- KMFMS - Kein Mitleid für Microsoft (http://kmfms.com/)
- Novell/SuSE Response to Steve Ballmer's Letter to the Linux Community (http://www.novell.com/news/press/pressroom/news_brief/archive/2004/suse_archive/response.html)
Alternatives to Microsoft products
- Apple Computer (http://www.apple.com)
- Free Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org)
- Just Say No to Microsoft (http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com) – A site offering alternatives to Microsoft products
- Open Source Initiative website (http://www.opensource.org)
- Sun Microsystems (http://www.sun.com)