On the Microsoft Giant
From owner-depth-probe@blob.best.net Sat Jul 22 21:36:54 1995
http: //www.atdesign.com
Reply-To: ake@atdesign.com
Content-Length: 13023
Status: RO
Depth Probe: On Camelot
ON THE MICROSOFT GIANT
I was invited to speak at the Microsoft Interactive Media Conference
which was my first Microsoft event. I've been a Macintosh snob since
1984 when I first fell victim to the visual beauty of MacPaint. Then,
I slowly matured into Nextstep around 1989. But you see, both of those
worlds are fringe. Their culture revolves around fringe. Everybody in
those scenes believe they are on some lost quest, some Quixotic voyage
to make their subversive platform and dogma the market dominating
force. The people tend to lose the vision that their religious fervor
is over a machine. Not just a computer, but a real machine. Apple, the
huge corporate giant that routinely hiccups and fires several hundred
religious devotees at a time, has nothing left to do with religion,
fervor, or the alternative. What is left is a hollow illusion.
Needless to say, Next has gone down the same path. What was monumental
technology back in 1989, has laid fairly stagnant in an ocean filled
with tough competitors who stole all of the best ideas.
THE EVIL EMPIRE
So, I find myself a new-born anarchist inside the chambers of Darth
Vader's empire. Bill Gates, with uncombed hair and a rough,
uncharismatic tone, talks about about the merits of Microsoft Network.
For the first few minutes, I'm thinking, "Oh, another America Online."
As he continues talking, I see a little bit more of his vision, an AOL
integrated into a working and improved desktop environment.
And he continues talking, and I see that Microsoft Network (MSN) is
probably going to pioneer Interactive Television. Then I realize that
the only real competitors it has is Turner Broadcasting Network, NBC
and CBS!
Then I realize that those people don't even understand what Bill has
in mind because they probably don't understand the technology.
Everybody making other presentations on all aspects of the MSN, from
the Marketing to the Technical presentations all know what they are
talking about. They are not bozos.
Then I see Gates' big picture: global media domination. It took me a
while to see his vision, and I at least like to think I think big. His
vision is huge. How does anybody think that way?
There was a standard graphic that everyone used throughout the day to
represent the Internet and MSN. The Internet was represented as a big,
white cloud and MSN was represented as a smaller blue cloud. Now, I
don't know if they intentionally planned this, but the cloud got
bigger on everybody's slides as the day progressed! Subtle, but
accurate.
EVOLUTION AND SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST
Bill is on stage showing an incredible education game called
MovieMaker, based on SoftImage's animation technology, when he changes
the subject to an encyclopedia. His assistant asks, "Bill, choose a
subject and we'll look it up in the encyclopedia."
"Well, I like basketball. Do you have anything on Shaquil O'Neill?"
"I'll look it up."
And as the assistant looks up the name, the real Shaquil and all 7'6"+
feet of him walks up behind Bill and says, "you rang?"
Shaquil uses this moment to show off "Shaquil-World," an amazing
display of cool graphics selling stupid products like the new Shaquil
Disney movie. Then Shaquil says, "Hey Bill, I'll play a little one on
one for the Network."
"No," Bill authoritively says. Now, I'm going to try to describe the
next microsecond in detail. Shaquil is pushed back by an invisible
force only comparable to Darth's Death Grip, he hunches over and steps
back a bit. Bill, who is probably about 2 feet shorter than the
monster that is Shaquil, looks as proud and as dominant as a next
generation evolutionary leap in our human species. The man is all
mind.
Even 200 years ago, not to even consider 2000, a man like Bill would
be squashed and eaten for dinner by a man like Shaquil. However, in
today's world, Bill stands as a symbol of mind over matter.
As I look at the slick new window design in Windows 95, I find it
eerily familiar to the Nextstep look and feel. When you drag the
windows around, they update in real time, no outlines, no nothing. You
get a tactile feel which I believe was the greatest feature in
Nextstep. Everything, drags 'live' in Windows 95.
Bill shows off the new Mail package which includes support for
drag-and-drop. Bill demos this by dragging a link to his favorite Web
page into a mail message and the audience "oohs" and "aahs" so loudly,
you'd think we were watching David Copperfield in a Las Vegas venue.
The first time I saw this feature was probably 1989 on a Nextstep
machine.
And this is not to mention how most of Windows is a rip-off of the
Macintosh's rip-off of Xerox's Star.
Which brings me to an analysis of the evolution of software in terms
of Darwinian evolution.
Although Nextstep and Macintosh may have been pioneers in so many
different aspects, they were the fringe developments. They were the
first fish that walked on land with the first implementation of feet
and found themselves attacked by external forces too great to survive.
Although it was a reasonable new feature that would be eventually
mimicked by the 'slower' evolving lifeforms, the first to have the new
feature probably did not survive.
Bill is the fish waiting in the pond, watching the other, more
adventurous fish come out of the pond. Over and over again, the fish
come out and fail. Finally, Bill builds a nice set of feet and walks
dominantly on the land with no other life form around.
TOON-O-RAMA
Bill shows a chart showing computers and television merging together
towards a grand unified Microsoft blob. Then, he shows a new title in
interactive-television called "Toon-o-Rama." Toon-o-rama is a front
end to a limited database of cartoons. You can click on one of five
areas in order to activate one intense animation that finally takes
you to a pre-packaged cartoon. One lets you choose the elements that
you want in a cartoon. For example, you throw in a music icon, a dance
icon and out comes an Archie cartoon of people dancing.
At first, the incredible graphics were stunning, then it strikes me
that there is an incredible amount of technology being used in order
to display fairly meaningless cartoons. Think about the fact that this
title is geared towards privileged kids. Think of how useless and
positively brainless this title is. Meeting the market demand does not
always create the most intelligent system.
ON CENSORSHIP
At the end of Bill's talk, he had a question and answer session, which
I used to interject a thought virus into the room.
"It seems like the new communication bill passed by Congress gives
large communication conglomerates unbound and unparalleled freedome
while at the same time, it seems to be destroying the First Amendment
rights of individuals. How can Microsoft prevent electronic
communication just becoming another tool of indoctrination for the
multi-national forces?"
At which point, he looked down pensively and paused. Then, in a
rhetorical form only to be compared to slick politico-speak, he said
absolutely nothing for the next five minutes.
OTHER VICTIMS
Later in the day, I went to a marketing meeting where Microsoft
announced some preposterous rates for an icon link in the MSN
hierarchy. Forget about the fact that most people can't pay $7500 a
month to be 'put on the map,' and that it destroys the anarchistic
model found in the Internet where anybody can have a site and have it
linked by others. Forget that for $7500 a month, you could buy a PC
every month and have it on a T1 line for only $300 a month.
But think about the fact that "The New York Times" seemed a little
scared when they asked the question, "What about other content
providers who make their revenue off of advertising?"
"Well, we are not out to take your business."
"But some MSN salesperson told one of our clients that they could
still get access to our content if the client advertised with MSN,"
said the hostile NYT representative.
"I am sure no one said that. I am the sales department and I've been
playing golf lately."
[a small laughter filled the room.]
Another woman raises her hand and says, "This is not a joke. We are
hearing many conflicting stories from our customers and what they have
been told by Microsoft. If you want us to work as partners, you have
to be more honest with us."
Forget the death of the small independents, consider the fact that NYT
was running scared.
EVOLUTION
Microsoft's cohesive electronic communication solution will eventually
win because they have the staying power to see this through many
rounds of development and because, quite honestly, their integrated
solution works incredibly well.
However, will it be the death of the Web as we know it (or has it
already died)? Will large companies stop their efforts to get on the
Web when Microsoft's solution is tailored to serve the needs of
e-commerce?
Will Microsoft find that they cannot 'create order' against the Chaos
that has been the earth-mother of the Web and the Internet for so
long?
Or is Microsoft fulfilling its natural role by being a dominant force?
If they become the dominant force in yet a new field, will they ever
stand up and make an alternative opinion and question our power
structures instead of just using the existing power structures in
order to continue dominating the world?
POWER
I'm driving down Highway 1 when an urge hits me to pull over north of
San Luis Obispo to see Hearst's ostentacious Castle. Was Hearst
anything like Mr. Kane? That is, did he ever have a bleeding heart
that originally cared to look after the best interests of the people?
Gates has proven that his persistence of vision can conquer in an
industry where flighty leaders are the norm. He has proven that he can
build a serf-like environment to create a pseudo-Camelot where
everyone is equally subservient.
But can he break through and reinvent 'popular culture' with his
Encarta-like products or will we just have new technology presenting
us "Interactive-Melrose-Place" and "Virtual-Baywatch" a few years from
now?
FIRST KNIGHT
I saw this movie earlier this week feeling like I had seen a great
example of the Hollywood machine in action. The script was absolutely
perfect in every way (except it was boringly predictable). I mean, it
had love, it had suspense, it had deception, it had a positive
message, it was even remotely entertaining. And who is this Richard
Gere guy anyway? He was so perfect as the rebellious, earth-child,
Lancelot. (He really was. I always thought of him as an empty-headed
Hollywood dream-boat. He is, he can work it, and that is what this
role required.)
Sean Connery, as King Arthur was not as wonderful, but he filled his
role. At one point, he brings Lancelot into the Round Table room and
says, "everybody at this table is equal."
Yet, at no point in the movie do we see any equality at the Round
Table. For example, when King Arthur wants to make Lancelot a knight,
the other knights question the decision and Arthur shuts them up.
In fact, the freedom and the ideals that seem to be at the surface
level of Camelot are actually a disguised form of servitude to some
other power perceived as good, but cleverly deceiving.
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Start