Published: July 13, 2008 12:00 pm            

You-know-who and its software

First a warning. This column may have all of the qualities, including the lack of offered solutions, of the ravings of an angry geezer.

Today’s rant is about the computer industry, in particular the software industry, and in particular the maker of the operating system on which most PCs operate. I will call them You-Know-Who, since they probably employ attorneys who earn salaries the size of some small countries’ economies.

Can you imagine what would happen to a maker of refrigerators if its refrigerators, aside from any ongoing problems, completely failed every three years and the manufacturer would not supply any replacement parts for repair after three years, telling you that the refrigerator was “no longer supported” and followed this announced policy by telling you that you will just need to “upgrade to” (that means “buy”) their new model refrigerator?

Well, the company would be out of business-you would just buy someone else's refrigerator, and so would the rest of the public. But wait. What if there were only one maker of refrigerators in the country? What if the public had no where else to go? I don't think the country would take this lying down.

In fact, as much as I abhor unnecessary governmental regulation or interference with the market, I feel sure that this company's monopoly on refrigerators would be broken up, or the company would be forced to “support” its products for more than a few years.

And it would not matter if the company said that folks did not really “own” the refrigerators-that, in fact, they were being allowed to “use” the refrigerators under a “licensing agreement” and that it is the company's own affair whether or not it wants to support ancient, three year old products.

As long as that company had a monopoly on refrigerators and was leveraging that monopoly to force people to buy new products, something would be done about it, and creative legal arguments would not prevail. A better analogy might be this. Suppose the electric company changed something about the electrical supply every three years-something for which you were forced to “upgrade” and pay new fees. And after you upgraded, your “old” appliances would not work on your new, upgraded, power supply. So in addition to paying for the upgraded power, you had to replace all of your appliances, which had been working just fine, but will not work on the new power supply. How would that go over? This analogy, in my view, is an accurate one for what is happening in the computer industry-driven by You-Know-Who.

The vast majority of computers in the country run on an operating system supplied by You-Know-Who. Since You-Know-Who wants to make money, which is normal and proper for a business, it seeks steadily to improve and even redefine its operating systems-“new and improved” versions-so that it will have something new to sell to people who are already customers. Nothing wrong or unusual so far.

But here is where it gets wrong and unusual. Once the company comes out with its “new and improved” (sometimes this is questionable) operating system, it requires the major manufacturers of computers to purchase only the new system for the computers being built. And since You-Know-Who has no real competition, the major computer manufacturers have no where else to go. Play ball or get lost. So they play ball.

And then begins the chain reaction. The now “old” software programs-programs that were working fine on an operating system and computer that was working fine-now become obsolete. They all have to be “upgraded.”

This has nothing to do with anything that is inevitable or inherent to technology or to progress. Instead, this is why monopolies are a danger to the market and a disservice to the public.

People, including schools, corporations, and private companies, should buy new products because they choose to and are motivated by the benefit to themselves, not because they are forced to do so by a software monopoly with a stranglehold on the entire industry.

Give You-Know-Who some real competition, and this situation will change overnight. Let them compete with companies who can find a way to “support” products to its customers-even products as ancient as five years old-while giving customers an opportunity to buy a new and improved version if they so desire. That’s how other industries operate. And if America’s software giant had competition, it would, too.

        

• Click to discuss this story with other readers on our forums.