Apple Idealist
I don't think I've read a better analysis of Microsoft in years ["Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow," June 2]. I'm amazed and disappointed that such a huge entity of smart people, with all the resources a company could wish for, produces such mediocre products.
It's important that the industry keep moving forward, with as many visionaries pushing the limits of innovation as possible. Microsoft stifles the industry instead of leading it in new directions. On paper, their potential seems endless. But their passion to change the world is apparently not as strong as their passion for the bottom line.
The difference can be summed up by comparing the founders of Microsoft and Apple. When I use Apple products, a deep, satisfying passion is stirred and I feel as though they're trying to change the world. Jeff Reifman sums up most people's response when using Microsoft products: a lack of passion, disinterest, and often frustration. Both Steve Jobs and Bill Gates leave undeniable stamps on their products that reflect who they are and their true vision (or lack thereof).
Microsoft is not taking advantage of its fortune to harness its limitless resources and help propel this industry aggressively into the future. I often imagine what the world would have been like if the Steve Jobses of the world had enjoyed such success and parlayed their fortune as per their vision.
Art Nelson
Kingston
Don't Call it 'Innovation'
Jeff Reifman makes many good points ["Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow," June 2]. One can tell he worked at Microsoft, though, by the way he misuses the word "innovate" and its derivatives. An innovation is a new idea. He uses "innovate" when he should use words like "improve" or "enhance," or sometimes even "imitate" or "emulate."
It's clear to me that Microsoft's lack of ability to excite the author (and others) is primarily due to the fact that its focus is squarely on its competitors. Its customers are only visible in its periphery. They are seen only as a revenue stream to be herded and milked like livestock in an agrarian economic model (now that the Viking economic model has played out). Microsoft's products are conceived and developed as weapons to be used against competitors rather than effective tools for customers. Once competing corporations are eliminated, though, how long can Microsoft keep the herd fenced in when they see that lush, green open-source grass just beyond the fence?
David Neal
South Charleston, WV
Game, Set, match
Jeff Reifman states, "Microsoft doesn't evoke passion in me anymore" ["Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow," June 2]. Microsoft has evoked passion in me for years: My passion has been and remains utter contempt and disgust for a firm that has devoted its energy to squashing competition by theft, intimidation, and bullying, then sitting on markets with second-grade products at monopoly prices.
I'm not surprised to hear about Bill Gates' put-down of Reifman. If true, it provides an ugly example of Gates' reputed need to dominate and win every pursuit, however trivial or ill-conceived. But innovators quickly move on when they are not received kindly. I guess Reifman is a case in point.
As for his predictions of a Microsoft comeuppance, these are unlikely to come about anytime soon. Microsoft is not only financially powerful but exceedingly influential over the millions of IT people who derive job and retirement security from the Windows world. These people have a stake in not challenging the status quo. As most have spent their careers supporting first DOS and then Windows products, they simply don't know or care about alternatives. Most are dependent on the high degree of job demand generated by Microsoft's second-rate products and are too intimidated by the better but unfamiliar alternatives to take the leap. To them, processors are made by Intel and operating systems by Microsoft. That is Microsoft's insurance policy for continuing hegemony. Game, set, and match. I hope Reifman is right and I am wrong. I suspect that Ballmer, Allchin, Gates & Co. are not as nervous as he'd like them to be.
Malcolm Ross
Gaithersburg, MD
More on Microsoft
We received a large number of letters about Jeff Reifman's June 2 cover story, "Microsoft's Sacred Cash Cow." Below are several that did not appear in this week's print edition. To read Reifman's response to the feedback on his article, visit his blog, www.idealog.us.
Great feature. Jeff Reifman is absolutely right on so many things. I'm not as privy to the Microsoft inside as he is, but I think somewhere along the line, when they saw the margins and revenues rolling in Office, operating system, and server upgrades, that became the corporate mantra. They are so caught up in only developing products that can produce a monthly revenue stream that they've pretty much lost purpose as to why they are around.
Look at the MS wristwatch fiasco: Here is a company that is supposed to be on the cutting edge and what do they devote resources to? Wristwatch OS? Really? And they are not even cool looking. They look like a watch a 6-year-old kid might buy that has candy inside. And what does this clunky beast have? Not even candy. It can tell you the weather and the time. Well, I can buy a $3 watch that will tell me the time, and if I look up from the watch, I can tell what the weather is for free.
