I guess I can’t just sit idly by and not make any statements regarding the Microsoft trial. While I won’t bore you with any rehashed analysis of who’s doing what to who, and with an extended dissertation on why a browser is an application or a part of the OS, There is a somewhat puzzling element with the latest government witness, Avie Tevanian (and by association, Apple.) The particulars of the testimony are not very relevant to Apple’s best interests, and may not even be the clinical truth, but the desired effect was to hurt Microsoft.

Many Mac owners and users bear an enmity to Microsoft. Maybe some feel its legitimate, others feel that Microsoft is the natural enemy of Apple and therefore, their own. But the truth is more insidious- Apple needs Microsoft to survive, which is the ultimate insult.

Pregnant pause.

For those who have not fired a “die you Microsoft loving bastard” email yet, read on.

Microsoft and Apple go a long way. It was Microsoft that developed Dos and the Basic interpreter for the Apple II. Microsoft cut its teeth on Apple’s GUI, before they could sell OS/2 to IBM- in the mid 80’s, Microsoft had more engineers working on Apple related technologies than Apple itself. Microsoft made Macintosh the supreme Office application platform with products such as Word and Excel, which were the absolute BEST. It was also Microsoft that developed their OWN GUI, much to the chagrin of Apple. They ported, and subsequently improved these “Office” Applications for their own GUI. They grew, improved, and took the entire computer world, while Apple stood still, losing ground and money, until they reached the brink of extinction. What Microsoft gave Apple, they subsequently took away.

So now we’re at the end of 1998. Apple pulled its head from the sand, stopped trying to blame everything and everyone for their failures, killed a mass amount of money draining pet projects, and shrunk their production to a few, well positioned boxes that are selling well, with reasonable profitability. Part of the comeback process included a public making nice with Microsoft, where Microsoft agreed to put more effort (read: release) a new version of Office and a healthy investment ($150M disclosed, god knows how much undisclosed) in Apple, and in return Apple agreed to make IE more prominent and drop a patent infringement suit. But examining the particulars of this deal reveals the true vulnerability of Apple- They didn’t need the money, even at that point they had more than a billion dollars solvency, and they certainly didn’t need IE. Clearly, Apple understands now that they need Microsoft Application support for any growth potential. In his testimony, Tevanian declared this to the public, perhaps for the first time, and there is nothing more difficult than to credit your survival to your biggest enemy. Or more painful, which is why at the same breath Apple offered some very damning evidence against Microsoft. But is this really the best way for Apple to respond to this situation, and is this the best step to take with the opportunity?

Apple is still a very proud organization, driven by a very unconventional, almost feudalistic management. As such, they still make dumb mistakes that could be caught if there was more scrutiny of the decisions than the monarch’s. I think Apple should have stayed as far away from this suit as possible- if you want to kick a man when he’s down, you wait until you know he can’t get back up. Apple still has much to gain from a Microsoft connection, and I'd hate to see them lose that because of their pride.

And payback is a BITCH.

I welcome all questions and comments at akoyshman@jps.net or designamics@jps.net