A couple of years back, at a time when the US authorities looked serious about reining in Microsoft, there seemed a real possibility that the company would be broken up. There was a precedent in the 1984 break-up of the US phone giant AT&T into seven 'Baby Bells', and it was argued that Microsoft had similarly grown too big for anybody's good.
There was also a very good argument for holding the company together. Microsoft gained its near-monopoly because computing needed a standard platform; and, whatever you may feel about its business practices, it has done a pretty good job over the years in providing a mix of stability and innovation.
I fear, nevertheless, that the US courts did both Microsoft and the industry a disservice by not forcing it to split into two. I got to thinking about this after hearing Palmsoft chief executive Dave Nagel talk about the next-generation PalmOS, codenamed Sahara, which is clearly designed to head off Microsoft's encroachment into mobile devices.
A major reason for the success of Palm handhelds, apart from their ground-breaking pen interface, was the ease with which they shared information with a base machine. Contacts and appointments data held on the base and mobile machines would be reconciled on both whenever you slotted the Palm into its cradle. The word synchronisation was misapplied to this operation, but I guess we are stuck with it.
Read More...