August 13, 2001

Will manufacturers and consumers bite?
A Saturday report from CNET News.com has the not unexpected news that Microsoft is trying to moot threatened injunctions against the release of Windows XP by allowing PC makers to ship the operating system a full month before its scheduled release date. And lest anyone think I am inventing motives for the world's largest software company, here is what CNET staff writer Steve Musil has to say:

"The early release would benefit Microsoft by beating any possible injunction that would delay the new operating system's debut, analysts said. Getting Windows XP to market may have been behind Microsoft asking the Supreme Court to take its antitrust appeal. The action could make it more difficult for the Justice Department and 18 states to seek an injunction against the upcoming operating system."

Given that Windows XP is likely to be rife with problems -- despite improved stability and interface enhancements -- there is also the widely documented security problem that will make any new Windows PC in consumers' hands an open door for hackers. Since I know very little about the industry and have no direct experience with Windows other than an occasional distasteful encounter in my local public library, I am free to ask silly questions like: isn't any PC manufacturer who ships consumer machines with Windows XP setting itself up for serious legal trouble or at least some awfully bad PR? This reminds me of an Interstate driving technique I used to employ, where you fall in behind a phalanx of speeding semis in hope of avoiding a ticket: "Hey, they'll never catch me 'cause the big guys are in front."

The law is not a game
Microsoft is obviously worried about the very real possibility of legal action against the XP release. At the same time, they are taking advantage of a soft PC market to tempt money-losing manufacturers with the plum of shipping the bundled software before it's available at retail. I imagine the executives in Redmond are cackling with self-satisfied glee at this propitious combination of circumstances, but the company is on ever shakier moral ground. The now all-but-certain early release is clearly seen by market analysts as an attempt to "beat the feds" by squirming past the closing gates, while journalists keep tabs on the "score" as if we were talking about a baseball game!

But the federal appeals court that overturned Judge Jackson's breakup order did so because of what it considered judicial improprieties, NOT because of any finding that Microsoft was innocent. Moreover, the company's behavior under these circumstances amounts to an admission of guilt -- why would the innocent seek to delay judgement? -- and will surely be seen as such by anyone with the sense to ask why Windows XP is being rushed out the door. Throughout the long struggle with the Justice Department and the 18 states currently engaged in legal action against the company, Microsoft has acted as if it were dealing with a business rival, not the government of the United States of America. If Microsoft were a nation, the Air Force would have bombed it into sullen submission years ago.

Earlier this year, one of my younger brothers -- a barely-competent methamphetamine addict -- either allowed or was threatened and forced to accept the operation of a drug manufacturing setup on residential property he rented from my mother. The law is not a game, however, and a S.W.A.T. team with helicopters soon descended on his ragged mobile home and hauled his "friends" off to jail. Though he was not directly involved, my brother is awaiting trial on related federal charges in October. The law is not a game, and poor Bill, who already has a record, may have to go to prison. In some ways this could be considered an improvement, as he is currently homeless and wandering the sleazy streets of Tucson. (Do you suppose Mr. Gates would let him camp out in one of his mansion's many bathrooms?) I am not for one minute suggesting that operating a meth lab is cool -- but it's too bad the anti-trust laws are a game and the drug laws are not.

And now for something a little lighter...
Microsoft will die, whether I help push it over the cliff or not (oh, the vanity), so I will now leave this topic in search of some perspective. A very wise gentleman has recommended a biography of Buddha to me and I know I need to read it. Some particularly strong woo-woo I indulged in recently presented me with the admonition to play at life and let the fear roll off my back. Sounds good, so on to:

Said to be in well-deserved great decline, the death of Life as We Know It is signaled by the profusion of ever more irritating Web advertising formats, gimmicks, and perversion of content, even on news sites. These will not encourage more people to visit sites employing them, yet even now my favorite weather site has begun to add pop-up ad windows, the fools. (Bye-bye!)

In the Mac world and elsewhere, increasing the number of hits has always been a goal of choice. Why? To encourage advertisers and give a rationale for increasing ad rates, of course, even though no one knows if such ads do the purchasers any good, and everyone's ad rates are falling anyway. There is some evidence that "branding" is enhanced by Web advertising. Good, good -- and I actually clicked on several tiny ads at Ramseeker.com the other day, since they promised acceptable prices on just the memory I was looking for. So Web advertising helps with branding and communicating specifc bits of information, cool. Hits, however, may not matter at all, and the business of trying to increase them at all costs may be a case of chasing our own tails. Some of the largest sites on the Internet are even concealing their traffic statistics, for example, refusing to play that game.

What, me worry?
What a mess! The only sure thing, therefore, is that selling advertising is a very unsure way to make money with a Web site. The other day we visited a very well-known Mac site that has adopted large format ads, you know, the ones that take up most of the space where the writing once was. Yuck! But if this brings in the advertising revenue, I expect you'll see them on these pages too. You may not like them, but who does? We're are all scrambling around for solutions. You got one?

To wit: subscriptions to pornography and very specifically-targeted professional niche sites aside (including limited e-commerce operations), this medium is probably a really stupid thing to use to make money. What we have here is a medium of communication, like speech, and breaking up the communication with advertising is like inserting ads into your spoken sentences. Who would stand for it? But if there is something valuable to be said, something cool to be communicated, perhaps people would pay. Isn't that why we subscribe to magazines, to get information in a form we can enjoy over a peanut butter sandwich or on the john? Some Web sites are selling subscriptions with different come-ons, like rumors via email, so you can get your fake news before it's published. Salon sells an ad-free version. A job site I just found sells its reputation for posting "real jobs" that people actually get. And so on and so on. SOMETHING for your money, in other words. Otherwise, you expect the 'Net to be free, and most of it is.

Belief is everything
How much longer can this go on? As long as we want it to, I suppose. After all, Amazon .com hasn't turned a profit yet. There are plenty of other companies in the same situation too, though not nearly as many as there were a year ago. Without something like direct grants from Apple Computer, a year from now there won't be as many Mac sites, either. Say, there's an idea! The question of journalistic integrity in this realm is one best not asked anyway, so I'm not afraid.

I haven't turned a profit yet either, after all...Must be doing something right!

Senior Applelinks editor and columnist John H. Farr pledges to have more fun and kick butt at the same time. 'Nuff said. :-)

* * * * * * * * *

Put this into the <head> section of all your Web pages and preserve the editorial integrity of your site. (GRACK! is already smart tag free.)

The new GRACK! Update mailing list is now operational. To receive your own weekly notice of new column postings, just CLICK HERE and send a blank email.

AUDIO CREDIT: embedded 44k file, European Birds -- Sounds and Sonograms.

DESIGN CREDIT: GRACK! byline graphic by Bob Farr.