The editorial below will appear in this week's TIME magazine, whose cover
story this week is Bill Gates. I liked it enough to waste a little bandwidth;
I've reproduced it here in full (a note to anyone from TIME's legal staff, my
address is: PO Box 4691, University Park, NM  88003).
 
I still consider it more than interesting that the Macintosh was designed
with the HP3000 as its philosophical model, a "machine that never cracked a
smile in its life," according to David Levy, and that Guy Kawasaki, formerly
of Apple, writes a book entitled, "The Macintosh Way," in direct imitation of
"The HP Way" (which is now the title a very recently released book written by
David Packard).
 
Both the Macintosh and the HP3000 have large installed bases, but are
relegated to "minor players" status -- a way of constantly foretelling their
doom by those in the know. Are we all destined to eventually live with
mediocrity? In the case of the Macintosh, the author of the editorial below
blames bad business decisions on Apple's part for not capturing more of the
market share. In the case of the HP3000, I hold HP itself responsible; it is
an extraordinary business machine, but no system, no matter how good, can
survive ten or fifteen years of apathetic promotion and marketing.
 
Wirt Atmar
 
==================================
 
BY JOSHUA QUITTNER
 
My computer doesn't work. If you own a computer, I'm sure this admission
doesn't surprise you. This morning, for instance, I powered up my  new,
$3,000 machine, hoping to check my E-mail. I launched (an optimistic verb) a
communications program, and double-clicked an on-screen button.
 
The button refused to respond. I couldn't get my E-mail.
 
When my computer doesn't work, I engage in a few modern rituals. I turn it
off, then on again--the equivalent of throwing a cup of cold water in its
face. Or I try starting it while holding down the shift key; that secret
handshake tells my computer to load only its most essential programs. Then, I
add the one I need, hoping it won't crash my system. I've found that rapping
my machine smartly on its side never cures the problem. It does, however,
precipitate a brief but gratifying starburst pattern on the monitor, much as
if it had been punched in the nose.
 
My behavior is within the normal range of human-computer interactions. I know
an editor at a computer magazine who treats his machine as if it were
organic, a delicate ecology of microchips and electric pulsing code. He's put
a word-processing program and some bland communications software on it.
Nothing more. While every new, cool program comes to him (laser-'em-up games,
flight sims, goofy utilities that promise to make his computer bark like a
Schnauzer), he refuses to put any of them on his hard drive for fear that
doing so would expose it to grave biological risk.
 
We're not stupid and neither are you. It's 1995 and we're no longer
technological naifs. Many of us don't need how-to books like Windows for
Dummies or Macs for Dummies because we've been using (or trying to use)
computers for more than 15 years. We neither fear them, nor want them to go
away. When they work, they help organize our thoughts and simplify our lives.
When they don't, we want to rap them smartly on their sides. Repeatedly.
Until the nurse comes and leads us to a quiet room.
The problem is not in us, it's in our computers. And I am fed up. I don't
want to have to deal with software conflicts and bugs and crashes anymore. I
don't want to waste another second waiting at the checkout counter of the
grocery store because the cash-machine network is down. I want to be online,
not on line. Most of all, I want to read my E-mail without having to
sacrifice a tethered goat.
 
So I offer a modest proposal: Let Bill Gates rule the digital world.
 
Gates doesn't control too much, he controls too little. Encourage him to
finish building his monopoly. Let him manage the flow of bits end-to-end,
from the boxes that sit on our desktops to the servers that run mighty
networks. Let him provide the digital dial tone for the information
superhighway. Look the other way while Microsoft gobbles up cable and
telephone companies so it can have a direct information pipeline into every
home. Ignore it when Gates colonizes Hollywood and starts running the film
and TV industry. Give him Intuit. And throw in the banks too.
 
Things work under monopolies. Remember how great the telephone system
functioned when AT&T was the phone company? Competition threatens to ruin
technology for all of us. Too many companies manufacture software and
hardware, and none of it works together. Only the losers want to set new
standards. Microsoft operating systems already run 80% of the desktop
computers in the world. Why should Gates agree to someone else's standards?
 
I make my proposal selflessly, objectively, recognizing that from a
programming standpoint, Windows isn't exactly poetry. It's counterintuitive
and clunky, which is peculiar after all these years. Microsoft, you'll
recall, came into being when Gates licensed to IBM his Disk Operating System,
or dos, which was supposed to make PCs easier to use. Later, Windows was
supposed to make DOS easier to use. And a few months ago, Microsoft unleashed
something called Bob, a program that's supposed to make Windows easier to
use. Until a Bob helper is born, you can look forward to reading--I swear
this is true--Microsoft Bob for Dummies.
 
By contrast, Apple Computer's operating system is easy to use. In fact, it's
joy and light, clears up your complexion and allows you to lose weight
effortlessly. Then why aren't Macs on 80% of the world's desktops? Apple made
too many bad business decisions. It failed to license Apple technology in
time to create a cheap Mac clone market; it underestimated demand for
PowerPCs when the product turned out to be a hit, etc. ... Who cares anymore?
The battle is over. Soon, Windows 95 will land in the stores and while the
technical press has given it mixed reviews, one good thing you'll hear is
that it's more "Mac-like."
 
This is wonderful news--at least the company is moving in the proper
direction--and if it's true, maybe I'll start using the IBM clone that sits
on my desk, stupid as a lawn jockey. But this isn't about me. This is about
what's good for the entire digital world. And what's good for the digital
world has nothing to do with smart technology versus stupid technology. It
has to do with who's biggest and most likely to put all the pieces together.
More important, it has to do with someone finally being responsible for our
computer malfunctions.
 
Someone we can blame. Someone like Bill Gates.
 
Copyright 1995 Time Inc. All rights reserved.
 
====================================