Last month I spent 8 hours removing "Error Guard" from my father's computer. He said it "looked official" so he installed it. Later I spent another 4 hours removing spyware/adware crap from his lap top. On one hand I'm happy to do it since I can be the hero son, but I also resent the need to do it because:

1) Microsoft makes an operating system that is constantly breaking.

2) Microsoft will charge YOU to fix THEIR buggy software.

3) Third party companies that make crap like "Error Guard" or "Search Assistant" can mess up a computer and get nary a slap on the wrist. These aren't teens in a basement creating these products to cause havok. These companies can be found, they have assets. Somewhere money is changing hands to make and sell these products.

4) Hardware and software manufacturers have pushed the support of their products further and further down the responsibility chain. They know that as long as they can get someone else to take the responsibility to fix the problem they are off the hook.

Over the years we have come to accept these practices as the norm. Why is it okay for Microsoft to charge money to fix their broken product? Yes you can come up with all sorts of reasons WHY it is okay, but ask yourself, "Why am I defending this practice?" Are you so worried that Microsoft will lose money and you will stop getting calls to fix your families' computers? Do you work in an industry that makes money fixing broken computer software and hardware? Or have you accepted the premise offered by so many EULAs `even if it breaks it's not our fault'.

Companies are not rewarded by the marketplace or Wall Street for taking responsibility for their products. They are rewarded for passing the buck, charging money to fix their problems, doing it as cheaply as possible and using tech support desks of major companies and a legion of "free" technical support people to do their dirty work for them.

Lately I've become disappointed in the power of the media to accurately grasp and address these issues. They too have bought into the Microsoft paradigm "Our product breaks, you fix it!"(maybe because they don't have to fix their own computers!). Would a campaign from someone like Walt Mossberg yelling at companies about this issue make a difference? We can't use Walt because he is no long a befuddled person facing paying $35 bucks a shot for technical support at Microsoft or getting the run around from Dell in India. Additionally, a high level person who will talk about this probably won't admit to bursting into tears at the thought of opening his computer. And if he did, would he get sympathy or scorn?

Yet these people clearly are out there. They are our fathers and mothers, our Aunt Mary and our Uncle Jim. They are the ones who taught us about personal responsibility and how to balance our own checkbook and own up to our mistakes.

Who speaks for those people?

Is Elliot Spitzer our only hope? He seems to be the only person on the national scene who is looking out for the needs of the people first and not the needs of the companies. People create "if cars were like computers" jokes all the time. Maybe it is because nobody dies if a computer crashes. Is that what it will take for companies to financially and philosophically take responsibility for their own mistakes? Will they need to be sued and punished by some force other than a rigged "free market place" or a corrupt political system?

Create Account
Nickname:
Password: