Placeholder-ware
(home)I was just reading a well written article on some architectural flaws in Windows that are solved in OS X. In and of itself it’s an interesting topic and the points are made well. However, in the middle the author delves into a bit of commentary on the MS psychology that sits at the root of some of these problems. It was such a good little passage that I had to share it here:
Bill Gates sold IBM the idea of MS DOS, then rushed to deliver it, and his company has been selling vaporware ideas for the last twenty five years. Microsoft only attempts to deliver a product when the licensing market cycle requires it. The company sells placeholder-ware; products described to fit a solution. Once the sale is made, then work on delivering the product is begun.
Windows itself was placeholder-ware; Microsoft wanted Apple to license the Mac system software for PCs; when they didn’t, Microsoft announced they would themselves. Microsoft fudged a graphical analog on top of DOS, and ported their existing Mac Office apps to run on it, but they delivered Windows 95 over a decade after the Mac, despite starting Windows prior to the initial release of the Macintosh.
Windows NT was also placeholder-ware to solve a gap: the lack of a real operating system for Windows 3. After abandoning OS/2 development with IBM, Microsoft hired a technically savvy operating system guru and delivered Windows NT 3.5.
Microsoft avoids competition by pitting its placeholder-ware product definition against real products for sale in new and emerging markets. By instilling fear, uncertainty and doubt surrounding the threat of Microsoft’s entry into the market, kowtowed market analysts advise customers to wait for Microsoft to fill in placeholder products. Meanwhile, the competition dies of starvation, and Microsoft begins work on developing, or buying, an acceptable product that rarely meets the originally promised feature set.
The security problem related to Microsoft’s marketing driven focus is that the company is only interested in a market position until they own it. After establishing a monopoly, they lose interest in (and motivation for) ongoing development, particularly in the area of security flaws which do not result in features that drive the next version of their product.
Go read the rest.
