Today I read an interesting commentary on The Register that proposed to tell me “Why Microsoft vs. Mankind Still Matters.” Before wading in too deeply, I’d like to point out that I’m aware that most writers for proper periodicals have to pass their work through editors, and have little influence on the titles and headlines that are slapped atop their words. Having been a computer geek long since before there was any hope of being perceived as both “cool” and “owning a computer,” I’m familiar with the concept of Microsoft-as-evil-empire, and have been exposed to a long, droning litany of the crimes that Microsoft has committed against the market, freedom, justice, and small woodland creatures. Was somebody proposing that Microsoft’s eternal struggle to subjugate us all was no longer important?

Apparently Benjamin Cohen was, and Andrew Orlowski was out to prove him wrong. What follows, instead, is a rather strong and reasoned refutation of the notion that Microsoft is doing anything terribly wrong at a basic level. The various free operating systems consistently shoot themselves in the foot and Apple refuses to even try to gain real market share with its Macintosh OS. Microsoft pumps billions of dollars into developing markets of consumers and networks of 3rd party developers to create an environment it can thrive in. IBM does basically the same thing with Linux, but the herds of roaming Linux geeks have thus far failed to make a real case for their free software.

Remember that the music and movie industries are complaining about the lengths people go through to get free entertainment on the Internet. Yet very few people actually get themselves a free operating system. The people have consistently voted with their wallets that they’d rather pay Microsoft for an operating system they don’t actually like (I know few people who are enthusiastic about their Windows OS) than receive a free copy of Ubuntu, Red Hat, Debian, Mandriva, or whatever the hip flavor of open source is today.

In Orlowski’s own words:

Firstly, the proportion of national wealth that goes to Microsoft is higher than ever. More people have Windows PCs at home, and as more countries acquire more PCs, so the dependence on Microsoft software grows. As a measure of how much, look at the earnings. Microsoft earned $36bn in 2004, and is projected to earn $63bn in FY 2009. Some “declining relevance”.

In addition, Microsoft now has the desktop computing franchise for as long as it wants it – because its rivals have given up and gone home, or carefully avoid competing too hard with it. This is a hard truth for many people to accept.

Linux has failed to compete on the desktop because it isn’t up to the task of being a consumer operating system, and Apple avoids competing because its focus is on digital media, and the Mac is a nice little earner as it is. Why should it rock the boat?

He goes on to argue that network-based applications (thin-client, web 2.0, insert-new-buzzword-here) may not yet be ready for prime time. Orlowski’s scepticism here is reasonable, but the importance of Microsoft’s monopoly on its software (due to patent and copyright law) hasn’t been demonstrated. What do I care if Microsoft dominates the desktop environment? Where is the harm to me? What grave injustices will my young child have to face in a world where desktop computers have Start buttons? They won’t innovate? So what! They get sued every time they try to. Remember what happened when they had the gall to bundle a browser with their software? Who sued KDE for including Konqueror? Who sued Apple for including Safari? Nearly every regulatory action Microsoft is facing today revolves around efforts to improve their product and enhance the work, play, and creative experience of its customers.

Rather than paint Microsoft as the bad guys that many would like to see them as, Andrew Orlowski simply highlights them for what they may well be: the last best competitor in the desktop OS market, which now has to deal with the necessary repercussions: wrestling with bureaucrats that don’t want a monopoly to act like a competitive business. Since the governments that pay these bureaucracies are ostensibly following the will of the people, it seems to me that the real gripe we have with Microsoft is that they have the gall to try to improve the operating system most of us use.

Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want
–Devo