Editorial:Analogies and Monopolies

Tuomas Lukka has written a feature for us on a real problem- you've heard MSs Analogy arguements in their defense (Forcing Coke to ship a can of Pepsi with each 6 pack for example). Tuomas explains how this finely crafted piece of PR is flawed, and attempts to propose an alternative Analogy that better explains the situation. This is a good one folks.

The following is an editorial by Slashdot Reader Tuomas Lukka

Ok, the chase is on! Microsoft has been sued by the Justice Department.

(in order for me not to be sued, I must request you, the reader, to mentally insert the word "allegedly" in large, friendly letters before each verb below)

What does this mean for us, ordinary [insert your favorite "alternative" OS here] fans? It's PR time, in a major way.

Microsoft is getting a lot of press for what they want to say. The basic rhetoric that they want people to absorb seems to be

Forcing MS to bundle Netscape is like forcing Coca-cola to ship Pepsi with each sixpack / force McDonalds customers to visit Burger King first.

This is a very dangerous meme for us, because it is

1. simple enough to propagate
2. easy enough for non-technical people to accept
3. catchy

and most of all

1. a completely false analogy that distorts the matter and makes it appear that they (and consumers with them) are the victims of arbitrary government interference.

This analogy is probably crafted by a high-profile PR firm who know very well how to make people believe in something: make that something catchy enough and then just keep repeating it over and over. In the end it becomes true in peoples' minds.

In order to retain a positive public opinion about the DOJ on this suit, we must start spreading information about our side of the case. Whenever you get a chance, talk with people you know about this matter. Especially, do it in a crowded place, because people *do* listen in on other peoples' conversations. Even if you are talking to another person who knows what is going on, still keep talking - just spreading the general attitude to people around you in the crowd (coffeeshop/whatever) who don't know *will help*. This works on not only the lawsuit but Linux/other matters in general. The reason this works to spread information is that people don't like having things pushed at them - they fight back (witness the .advocacy groups). But if they overhear something that they think they were not supposed to, they will go home thinking "Oh, I'm glad I heard that...").

Also, remember to use those linux stickers on your laptops. Gets a lot of attention ;)

As if you didn't know, the easiest way to show how false the analogy they are making is: Coca-cola sells coke and makes profit for every bottle. McDonalds sells burgers and makes profit for every burger. Browsers are currently free. Forcing Microsoft to distribute netscape browsers won't cost anything to them, rather it will actually increase the value of the OS they can provide for the same amount of money. So from a purely operating-system perspective, the analogy makes no sense whatsoever.

The reason Microsoft does not want to increase the value of their operating system product is that they want to give customers a strong incentive (laziness, "it came with the system") to use the Microsoft browser to access the internet as well as their list of favorite sites, their web streaming technologies and whatever. Why? Because they can make considerable revenue in these markets by selling places on the list of favorite sites, selling their technology for web servers etc, as well as maintain their windows monopoly by creating proprietary formats which only their browser under windows can display.

So, a better analogy to the MS situation would be:

Your electricity company telling you that they will provide you with a toaster that they manufacture.

In this way, they would be achieving market dominance with another product because of their monopoly in one product, driving out of market the other toaster companies and providing you with an inferior product.

Toasters would not compete on merit but rather, the electricity company would promote their product via leveraging their monopoly.

Good for consumer choice? Best innovation? (once the electricity company drove the other out of the market, it would never need to really improve its browser .. oops, toaster).

I think this already makes enough of a case against their rhetoric -- demonstrating for the public how the DOJ is working *for* consumers, but *against* Microsoft. What MS would like to have everyone believe is that what is good for Microsoft is good for the people -- that is why they keep talking about "the government theories" in a derogatory fashion.

It is actually hard to come by a *really* good and catchy real-world analogy -- simply because monopolies like Microsoft do not currently exist in most other fields. People need to be reminded of this.

So, again, to repeat my call for grassroots PR: the reason our opinions have not been heard so much before is that we don't talk enough. Let us talk more and get the public opinion on our side. The best weapon is information. Remember to keep explaining until you get your point through, no matter how tiresome it seems. However, don't attack people directly and make them feel that they have missed the boat -- this will just make them angry and stop listening to you. Rather, try hard to make them feel that they are catching in on something before others, e.g. by just letting them overhear your conversation with your friends. Also, make sure you are delivering this message with a good image: be polite, act intelligent and knowledgeable, and don't overdo things.

We have a better OS than Microsoft, now let's show that we can also do better PR!