Re: "Is Nader right?"

["Scott K. McGrath" <mcgrats@ix.netcom.com>]

  Neele; &Hotplace, Microsoft already wedgied IBM into installing its
  desktops throughout the company, why should some little dweeb company
  like KPMG be any different?
  
  Regards,
  
  Scott K. McGrath
  mcgrats@ix.netcom.com
  
  Neele Johnston wrote:
  
  > Chuck Swiger wrote:
  > >  But is there any documented evidence that MS used some
  > >  sort of leverage, hints of retribution, economic threats,
  > >  threats of isolation, explicit or implicit, to coerce
  > >  Williams or anybody into using MS against their will?
  >
  > Well, I wouldn't call this documented evidence, but there
  > is anecdotal evidence being collected by Ric Ford, a
  > respected Mac market journalist, on his web site at
  > http://www.macintouch.com/hughes.html regarding large
  > companies that traditionally supported Macs, who are forcing
  > their employees to migrate to Microsoft.  The one anecdote
  > that I found particularly galling was the following (this
  > is quite long -- apologies in advance, but if the
  > allegations are true, this is relevant to the list):
  >
  > >  _"I am using a friends account to send this since I wish
  > >  to be kept anonymous for fear of retribution. I am writing
  > >  this to help spread the word about how Microsoft has used
  > >  unethical business practices to kill off their competition
  > >  at my current employer KPMG.
  > >
  > >  KPMG has been a big user of the Macintosh platform since
  > >  1985. Our consulting group has had a long standing close
  > >  relationship with Apple Computer. Last year Apple Computer
  > >  chose KPMG to be their auditor. In 1996 we were about
  > >  60% Macintosh, although the Wintel platform was becoming
  > >  more prevalent(Due to Office 97), the Macintosh platform
  > >  seemed to be holding ground.
  > >
  > >  This past summer an edict came down from our CIO stating
  > >  that Apple was no longer on the "approved vendor list".
  > >  This made it impossible for any Macs to be purchased.
  > >  Someone publicly asked the CIO why, his answer was "Apple
  > >  didn't deliver on the promise to sell NT servers" (??
  > >  Huh ??).
  > >
  > >  One month after this, KPMG announced an alliance with
  > >  Microsoft. This agreement included a massive change in
  > >  the firms technical direction. This decision was not made
  > >  on cost analysis or user requirements, it was made
  > >  strictly on politics. Traditionally KPMG would select
  > >  technology based on our business needs. We would choose
  > >  the technology that would allow our business to run
  > >  smoothly and efficiently. This is why we chose a Softarc
  > >  as our vendor for our corporate wide Knowledge Manager
  > >  (BBS) instead of Lotus. (Click _here_ to read about it.)
  > >
  > >  Microsoft Attacks (How they infiltrated KPMG):
  > >
  > >  Late in 1996, KPMG had spent several months evaluating
  > >  Intranet software. The firm chose Netscape's suite as
  > >  the tool set for KPMG's National Intranet (Kweb).(Click
  > >  _here_ to see the details of the netscape deal). After
  > >  this announcement, Microsoft began calling KPMG at all
  > >  levels to find some way in. By the summer, they had
  > >  secured buy-in from several members of the board of
  > >  directors, soon after the MS deal was made. KPMG would
  > >  replace all technologies with MS solutions. This included
  > >  Macs, Novell File Servers, Unix, Netscape Navigator,
  > >  Netscape SuiteSpot, and any other technologies that can
  > >  be replaced with a Microsoft product. We will be rolling
  > >  out Windows NT Client out as our new Desktop OS (this
  > >  explains why the CIO said Apple's NT boxes were an issue),
  > >  Exchange for Email, and NT across the board as our Server
  > >  OS.
  > >
  > >  Inside the Confusion begins (Just a few samples)
  > >
  > >  (1) Just after the deal was made, many internal projects
  > >  were canceled (both national and international) with all
  > >  of the funds begin re-routed to our CIO. (I suspect this
  > >  money will be used for the costly unnecessary transplant
  > >  of MS technology.)
  > >
  > >  (2) Our intranet has been developed over the past 8 months
  > >  using netscape technologies. Tens of applications and
  > >  hundreds of web pages have been created using netscape
  > >  specific html/java script code. No one has considered
  > >  the cost and time to change all of these pages to work
  > >  correctly with Explorer.
  > >
  > >  (3) Our auditors have been using the Macintosh as their
  > >  base for years. They have developed highly specialized
  > >  programs on the Mac for performing their job. Someone
  > >  asked about what the firms plans for these programs were.
  > >  "Use Excel" was the answer. These tools are being thrown
  > >  away without any plan to replace them.
  > >
  > >  (4) KPMG has had a group of specialized R&D Labs, these
  > >  labs were responsible for understanding technologies so
  > >  that KPMG can stay on top of technical advances. Their
  > >  future looks dim since the MS deal puts KPMG in a position
  > >  to only work with MS based technologies. At our last
  > >  management meeting, our leadership said "we don't know
  > >  what we are doing with the labs" How can KPMG be a
  > >  technology leader without the freedom to look at the
  > >  possibilities (other than MS).
  > >
  > >  The MS deal (Gains and losses):
  > >
  > >  KPMG gets:
  > >
  > >  $300,000,000.00+ in future consulting business from
  > >  Microsoft.  (Is that from or with... How much would we
  > >  get without this agreement? How much MS consulting work
  > >  were we doing before?)
  > >
  > >  Free access to Microsoft software for consulting purposes
  > >  (basically a site license for use in demos, training and
  > >  evaluations, most vendors give us this type of access by
  > >  signing a non disclosure agreement).
  > >
  > >  Microsoft gets:
  > >
  > >  All desktop technology in the firm (world wide) must be
  > >  switched to MS technology by the summer of 98 with a
  > >  total transition time of 3 years.
  > >
  > >  Control of technology in all of the big 4 consulting
  > >  firms, KPMG was the last one.
  > >
  > >  A 500 person Windows NT practice within KPMG that will
  > >  help proliferate Microsoft's vision of the future Windows
  > >  NT.
  > >
  > >  Another battle won on several technical fronts,
  > >  eliminating more strong holds of the competition.
  > >
  > >  Here are some of the "Leverage" points that Microsoft
  > >  used during the Negotiation:
  > >
  > >  (1) Microsoft stated that there were other consulting
  > >  organizations that could be called on to perform Microsoft
  > >  integration. If KPMG wanted a piece of that pie, KPMG
  > >  must be part of the team and therefore agree with the
  > >  terms of the proposed agreement. Otherwise MS would be
  > >  forced to recommend another consulting organization to
  > >  perform the work for MS/KPMG clients.
  > >
  > >  (2) MS threatened us with a "Very Public" investigation.
  > >  MS claimed that they had information that our firm was
  > >  in major violation of our Microsoft licensing agreements.
  > >  We have site licenses for some of the MS products that
  > >  are used internally. Since KPMG's purchases of non-site
  > >  licensed products is performed by individual partners
  > >  and projects, it is difficult for KPMG to track (at a
  > >  corporate level) how many copies of each piece of software
  > >  we own. The partnership felt it was best to avoid any
  > >  investigation or possible lawsuit and give in to
  > >  Microsoft's terms.
  > >
  > >  [Some articles on the KPMG MS deal can be found by
  > >  clicking _here_.]
  > >
  > >  In conclusion, Microsoft "muscled" their way into KPMG
  > >  and kicked out many if not all of the competition. They
  > >  used techniques that can be seen as bribery and blackmail
  > >  to achieve their goals. Can we say "Racketeering" folks??
  > >
  > >  To the KPMG people out their, I know that many of you
  > >  are frustrated with the technology decisions being made...
  > >  remember KPMG is a partnership... If you feel that the
  > >  decisions are being made in a vacuum, tell your partner,
  > >  let them know what you think... Partners have the power
  > >  to make change. Speak up about your needs. If you are
  > >  more productive on a Macintosh, let it be known !!! If
  > >  you know that NT is not the most effective server platform
  > >  for Intranet delivery, tell someone. We all have a
  > >  voice... let the facts be heard.. You can make a
  > >  difference!!"
  >
  > The element of this that smacks of coercion is the
  > discussion of "leverage" that MS allegedly used in
  > negotiation with KPMG.  MS's ability to align the "Big Six"
  > firms to their cause by forcing them to choose to be either
  > completely with MS and against their competitors, or be
  > completely out of the MS business and face reprisals, is
  > one of the biggest issues we need to concern ourselves with.
  > This would be an invincible weapon in the corporate market,
  > which is where most of the money is.  It also sounds like
  > they are requiring the consulting firms to violate ethical
  > standards by completely compromising their objectivity and
  > balance of expertise, if they have not already done so
  > anyway.
  >
  > Of course, all of this is unsubstantiated.  :-(
  >
  > --Neele
  >
  > *** speaking only for myself, not my employer ***