A Commonplace Book

Oddly, Microsoft's pitch sounds like that of a government--and not the U.S. government, but the former Soviet government. It's convenient for Microsoft to control the software business. Things will be more efficient if we take care of everything. Consumers benefit from the standardization. Microsoft products work better with other Microsoft products.

If we run everything, the promise goes (whoever is making it), we can make sure that everything is coordinated, that resources are appropriately allocated, that waste and errors are minimized. People won't waste time and resources on diversionary efforts. (But we're seeing another side of the lack of diversity when computer viruses hit: They sweep through almost the entire population.)

In the short run, that's true. In the short term, it is indeed more efficient just to leave everything to Microsoft. But in the long term, some of those wasted resources end up being exciting start-ups that offer new and better solutions.

Both the Internet economy and the market overall depend on competition to flourish. Even waste and errors can lead to better results in the long run. Economist Joseph Schumpeter called it creative destruction.