"Working very hard ..."

Naturally we can criticize this choice of words.

I remember one Microsoft technical presentation I attended over a decade ago where I lost
count of the number of times the speaker (a high to mid-level development manager for
Microsoft) used phrases like: "we're focusing on ..." and "our focus is on ..."

It wasn't merely that I lost count of the variations and repetitions of that phrase.  It was
that I noted the irony that objects of his "focus" were so varied.

The unintended theme of his talk, as it emerged from this distracting verbal tic was that
Microsof was (at the time) focused on everything. It was a thousand, nay a million razor sharp
laser beams of focus.

Naturally to mere mortals such as me this would seem to be lead to rather diffused, even
blurred results.

Of course the cynics and critics among us know that Microsoft's true focus has been on
dominance of the mainstream, commodity computing marketplace.  Their goal as been nothing less
than global control over design, manufacture and distribution of as broad a range of general
purpose computing devices as they could.

This has not been achieved by technical excellence.  They have excelled at shipping products
that are "good enough."  Because the road to marketplace dominance is figuratively a matter of
firepower.

It may seem crude to draw on an analogy from military history --- but Microsoft has repeatedly
demonstrated that their attitude towards business competition is a "take-no-prisoners"
engagement in economic warfare.  It is notable that the introduction of firearms in warfare
rapidly lead to the discovery that the single most important element of success shifted from
individual prowess to numbers --- and supply lines; the victor is the one who can send the
majority of bullets and shrapnel hurtling at the enemy --- and supply their front lines with
the ammo to do that.  Tactics are not irrelevant --- they have to be "good enough."  However,
the importance of individual valor, and tactical superiority was no longer tantamount). (Don't
get me wrong, either --- logistics weren't irrelevant in medieval warfare ... but they took a
back seat to training, discipline and individual mastery at arms).

So, we see that Microsoft's focus continues to be on control of the market.  They cannot allow
the enemy (not a competitor ... their culture internalizes any competitor as the enemy) ...
they cannot allow the enemy to gain ground and become entrenched in the emerging markets
surrounding their territory.

I've seen endless press about how it seems like Microsoft is quibbling over these
insignificant markets ... and how they might be scared of some ripple back effect on their
core (first world, industrialized) market.

However we must keep in mind that "investor value" (stock prices ... the primary legal
responsibility of any publicly traded company) is all about future growth potential.  The
stock market doesn't care how much money you made last year --- only about how that portends
towards your future earnings.  When you own 80 or 90% of an existing market then your growth
opportunities within that market are limited to the expansion of that market as a whole ...
and to minor additional gains in market share.  So those companies which dominate in one
market have an imperative to seek new markets.  That is their fiscal responsibility to their
shareholders. (Philosophically we can lament that ethical, ecological and other considerations
are given such low priority in these matters; but it is ignorant not to recognize the stark
reality of the Western economy).

So, Microsoft has to work hard on the XO ... they have to work hard on worming their way into
your cell phone ... they have to find new niches into which to grow.  In fact they arguably
have to work harder on that than on new product releases in their existing strongholds.
(Those just have to be "good enough" to maintain the status quo and provide upgrade driven
revenue).

As for Negroponte, he can honestly say that he is working hard with Microsoft.  That doesn't
mean that he is diverting other resources away from the existing open source based work.  Far
from it.  It can simply mean that he is working hard on the negotiations --- pressing them to
devote their considerable resources (and using their emnity towards free software as a key
bargaining chip).

I don't begrudge him nor the OLPC project at large, any of the concessions they get from
Microsoft.  Naturally I would offer caveats.  Microsoft will take any opportunity to chew them
up and spit them out.  (I don't know if Novell suffered in any significant way from the
gnashing of teeth over their "covenants"  last year --- but they certainly lost quite a bit of
community support).  I hope, and suspect, that Negroponte is well aware of the risks.

Free software purists will rail and complain.  However OLPC is not about promoting free
software for its own sake.  It's about making modern computing and communications available to
a new generation of billions of kids --- and the hope that this will open up opportunities far
greater than their parents were ever able to hope for.

Yes, we know that Microsoft wants to worm its way in, and slip shackles on  these kids.  I'm
sure Negroponte will strive to ensure that the CHOICE is always there.  Let OLPC run MS
Windows ... perhaps not this year ... but when Moore's Law spins the cost and size/power
constraints down another notch.  Ultimately I will be far happier with an OLPC that runs open
source software because it is the BEST choice  than I would with one that offered no other
option.

Anyway, it's not an either-or proposition.  The phrase "working hard" is not amenable to
simple arithmetic calculations.

JimD