Microsoft's dangerous game
Following a series of announcements and counter-announcements over the past year, I confess to being left a little flummoxed at Microsoft's attitude to its partners and customers.
First it says it is going to charge for every virtualised server instance as part of the virtualisation capabilities planned for Longhorn, then it
changes its mind - perhaps it backs down - and says that there will be a single license cost for however many virtualised instances, for users of the Datacenter edition.
Then it launches Windows Genuine Advantage having convinced the pundits that its going to be non-intrusive, then it incorporates non-removable code to check in with Microsoft every time a computer connected to the internet; it also limits Microsoft Updates to people that run the WGA tool. Then it
backs down, admits mistakes and apologises. By the way, I now understand the name - I thought it meant that there was a genuine advantage to Windows, now I understand it refers to the advantage of Windows genuine...
Then Microsoft prevents its security ecosystem partners (so they
claim) from having direct access into the Vista kernel, claiming it would destabilise the operating system. It then changes its mind - backs down
under pressure from the EU - and re-instates such hooks. Either the first premise was false (if it was the case, is Microsoft going to ban Intel from writing display drivers now?) or Vista will now be less stable than before.
Now, and back to WGA, we understand that Microsoft somehow roped in its
volume customers - first by accident but with future plans to
test validity of Vista and Longhorn whether they like it or not - no doubt Microsoft retains the right to "change its mind" should sufficient customers kick up a fuss. Plus there will now be
limitations on how many times a Vista license can be moved from one machine to another. Plus, and back to virtualisation, Microsoft is going to limit the older versions of Windows that can run on top of Microsoft's virtualised platform.
Now call me an cynical old buff, but I'd say Microsoft is trying to put restrictive limitations on its products in order to maximise its revenues, adversely impact the competition and resctrict the flexibility it offers its customers. Or perhaps, Microsoft is just pushing the cart as close to the edge of the cliff as it can, being very careful to pull it back just a bit every time it looks like it is going to fall off.
Maybe I'm wrong but its a dangerous game nonetheless. The company is perhaps quick to forget that it was ease of distribution (among other things - its a good product) that helped Microsoft Office win over Lotus and WordPerfect. From the operating system side, Microsoft relied heavily on the open-ness of Windows to build an ecosystem of developers and partners, without which the success of Windows was less than guaranteed. Today, it might have the desktop monopoly but only
a minority of companies is planning to migrate to Vista. Some pundits are suggesting there may be a mass conversion to other platforms - I think organisations tend to be more conservative than that, and they will hang onto their existing choices right up to the point where they realise its best to just walk away.
Where is that point? Frankly, I have absolutely no idea. Equally however, nor does Microsoft.
