Open Source Leaving Microsoft Sitting on the Fence?

The open source model, with special regard to Linux, has no doubt
become a formidable competitor to the once sole giant of the software
industry, Microsoft. It is expected when the market share of an
industry leader becomes threatened, retaliation with new product or
service offerings and marketing campaigns refuting the claims of the
new found competition are inevitable. However, in the case of
Microsoft, it seems they have not taken a solid or plausible position
on the use of open source applications as an alternative to Windows.

I read on a daily basis the latest ventures of Microsoft from the much
publicized "war on Linux" to surrendering and publishing portions of
their source code. In their first argument, executives of the Redmond
Washington company regard Linux as everything from a "waste of money"
to a threat to the well-being of the software industry. During these
arguments, Microsoft executives stick by their original perception,
attempting to position open source software as a less secure, less
technologically sound option that does not only offer inferior
solutions but is inherently bad for the financial and developmental
growth of the industry. Although proved wrong time and time again by
accredited analysts, journalists and customers it is a fair position
for a corporation to take when their competition has them against the
ropes.

However, what is puzzling to me is that Microsoft never seems to stick
with that argument. Whether they are intentionally or unintentionally
releasing portions of their source code to the public, they themselves
have implemented a "shared source initiative" in recent years.
Coincidentally, this program mirrors the benefits brought fourth by
the open source development process in which segments of their source
code are released to the public intended to be used as a resource for
developers. Originally, backing up the view that open source was
substandard and dangerous, the program operated under a "look don't
touch" policy, however, in recent months the software giant has
changed its tune offering participating developers the chance to
modify and propose ways to improve upon the available code.

Rest of article at
http://www.linuxsecurity.com/feature...story-168.html

DaveAI wrote:

> The open source model, with special regard to Linux, has no doubt
> become a formidable competitor to the once sole giant of the software
> industry, Microsoft. It is expected when the market share of an
> industry leader becomes threatened, retaliation with new product or
> service offerings and marketing campaigns refuting the claims of the
> new found competition are inevitable. However, in the case of
> Microsoft, it seems they have not taken a solid or plausible position
> on the use of open source applications as an alternative to Windows.
>
> I read on a daily basis the latest ventures of Microsoft from the much
> publicized "war on Linux" to surrendering and publishing portions of
> their source code. In their first argument, executives of the Redmond
> Washington company regard Linux as everything from a "waste of money"
> to a threat to the well-being of the software industry.

I think M$ should ask Clippy for advise.
They need to separate business from love
of their creations. Follow the lead of IBM,
by sacking the internal managers opposed to
free software as a way to start dealing
with a problem these unproductive managers
are clearly unable to focus on and resolve.
IBM has already achieved the breakthrough,
and created billions in new jobs and winning new contracts.
There is no real room for these managers in M$
who can't cooperate with the open source community.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 16:55:20 +0000, e7 wrote:
> DaveAI wrote:
>> Microsoft, it seems they have not taken a solid or plausible position
>> on the use of open source applications as an alternative to Windows.

They're stuck. Fishing around for a "good story".

>> I read on a daily basis the latest ventures of Microsoft from the much
>> publicized "war on Linux" to surrendering and publishing portions of
>> their source code. In their first argument, executives of the Redmond
>> Washington company regard Linux as everything from a "waste of money"
>> to a threat to the well-being of the software industry.

Spin doctoring. Trying to figure out a "bait and switch" tactic?

> ...Follow the lead of IBM,...
> IBM has already achieved the breakthrough,
> and created billions in new jobs and winning new contracts.
> There is no real room for these managers in M$
> who can't cooperate with the open source community.

Ah, but there is a problem. M$ really only sells software.

I've been intrigued with the marketing and business rationale behind open
source concept for decades (since Richard Stallman's GNU project started).
The main problem is that all individuals/organizations have to generate
revenue to live/survive. Somehow they have to at least pay the bills, and
even make some profit? If all software is free, and it takes you
time/effort to use it and fix it and create it, then where is this money
going to come from?

I think Richard Stallman's original idea was that open source free
software was going to "pull through" sales of services (consulting,
contract software modifications, support, addon products, etc.). Many
companies are wrestling with these concepts and their implications.
Stallman's essential principle was that programmers should be paid for
what they actually do (now! today! this hour!) and not some "residuals"
(like more savvy musicians or actors, in perpetuity?) for previous work. I
suspect Stallman likened cost structures required to support "residuals"
to be restrictive to development and dissemination of S/W invention. The
new trend to S/W patents is even worse (an extension on what was wrong!).
He thought that people should be paid for work they actually do. Hmm.

RedHat and SuSE (and others?) have spun off "enterprise" versions of their
software packaging, including some kind of update service, support,
perception of "validity", some other intangibles, etc. Hey, if someone
likes that deal, and feels warm and fuzzy, then it is good for them to
buy. So, they are implicitly "pulling through" sales of other services.

IBM's take seems to be a bit different. I read somewhere a simplistic
analysis of product costing/pricing. They made the point that if you can
"commoditize" co-products (other products that work together with your
main product, or are required by your main product) then you enhance the
marketing position of your own product. Makes sense: $Y < $X + $Y. So, if
you can drive the cost/price of $X down to zero, then $Y is better! This
writer claimed that IBM was taking that tack: they want to commoditize
software so they can enhance the sales of... hardware (I guess?), and
services (which is becoming IBM's most profitable business these days?).

Back to M$... Their problem is that they really ONLY sell S/W. They have
managed to create a sweet deal: self-sustaining (co)monopoly of sorts: M$
Office requires Windoze & the main applications for Windoze is M$ Office
(thanks in part to a number of dirty tricks over the years!). This is the
1,2 sucker punch to most in the PC computer buying marketplace. Then once
that is sown up, and Windoze & Office have the majority of the market it
acquires an inertia of its own. How is someone going to get rid of Windoze
and Office when they have 1000s office workers using it? Easier to upgrade.

Maybe that is also what lulled M$ into some kind of complacency? relying
on that monopolistic hold? The suckers couldn't possibly run away, could
they? If/when the tide turns, though, the effects will be brutal! It might
slowly be happening now? M$ increased license costs accelerates the trend.

So, M$ only sell software (leaving aside keyboards, mice, network boards,
Xbox, dunno if any of those actually make any significant profit?). They
CANNOT take the approach of commoditizing (i.e. driving the cost down to
0) software, because they have no other products who's sales will be
supported or enhanced! If they support commoditizing software, they are
effectively cutting their own throats! I expect them to fight: tooth and
nail, every dirty trick in the book, right down to the bitter end. They're
really big and they could last a long time, in any case.

You might say, why don't M$ do like IBM and refocus on "services" and
"consulting"? I don't think they have any credibility there. Furthermore,
their slash and burn co-marketing deals in the past (check out Intuit:
Quicken vs. M$ Money?) make any company wary of cooperating with M$. Next
thing you know they might try to steal your market out from under you! Can
you affort to fight their marketing might? Their lawyers? How long can you?

I find some of these analyses interesting, fascinating even.

Note: IANAL

--
Juhan Leemet
Logicognosis, Inc.

Juhan Leemet wrote:

[Much Snipped}

>
> Back to M$... Their problem is that they really ONLY sell S/W. They have
> managed to create a sweet deal: self-sustaining (co)monopoly of sorts: M$
> Office requires Windoze & the main applications for Windoze is M$ Office
> (thanks in part to a number of dirty tricks over the years!). This is the
> 1,2 sucker punch to most in the PC computer buying marketplace. Then once
> that is sown up, and Windoze & Office have the majority of the market it
> acquires an inertia of its own. How is someone going to get rid of Windoze
> and Office when they have 1000s office workers using it? Easier to upgrade.

Being rather a cynic, I have also harbored a suspicion that with this
business model there is *zero* incentive to make Microsoft
software efficient. When you buy the "new improved"
version of Office and it's dog slow on your PC, the party
line is "buy a faster machine." Since Microshaft is the only
game in town for most companies (as you say), you get to
pay for yet another version of Windoze on that new PC (although the
cost is hidden because it's part of the manufacturer's price).

(By the way, this strategy also puts more money into the chip
manufacturer's wallets and the PC manufacturer's wallets, etc.
Do I smell a conspiracy here? 8^)

>
> Maybe that is also what lulled M$ into some kind of complacency? relying
> on that monopolistic hold? The suckers couldn't possibly run away, could
> they? If/when the tide turns, though, the effects will be brutal! It might
> slowly be happening now? M$ increased license costs accelerates the trend.
>

Nope, the suckers always seem to come back to buy that 2.5
GHZ machine, rather than run away. This puts
even more money in M$'s pockets. Don't know how soon the tide
will turn. Their licensing strategy may accelerate
the trend but not for a while yet. Remember, the vast majority
of the folks who use computers are not computer literate
and will accept whatever spit is thrown at them because
they don't know any better.

[MORE SNIP]

--
"It is impossible to make anything foolproof
because fools are so ingenious"
- A. Bloch

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

In comp.os.linux.misc Nick Landsberg <SPAMhukolauTRAP@spamworldnettrap.att.net> suggested:
> Juhan Leemet wrote:

[Even more Snipped - Followup-To comp.os.linux.misc]

> Being rather a cynic, I have also harbored a suspicion that with this
> business model there is *zero* incentive to make Microsoft
> software efficient. When you buy the "new improved"
> version of Office and it's dog slow on your PC, the party
> line is "buy a faster machine." Since Microshaft is the only

Isn't that among the most important "law" of the wintel mafia, to
suck even more money out of customers?
"Every 18 month, speed of software half's."

In addition, virus scanning and alike might need even more CPU
performance, to give people a warm and fuzzy feeling, while
happily clicking around in a broken, rather undocumented OS until
the next worm or alike reboots their machine, which they had
expected anyway.;)

--
Michael Heiming (GPG-Key ID: 0xEDD27B94)
mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/'
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFBAKyTAkPEju3Se5QRAsWOAKCHvLn2UhDVj2wKydha6E zn7CNvkQCfQmF6
Cojjg+q8Ev88V6oqPe15HAA=
=6l4T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Was that a draft for a "National Enquirer" or "Weekly World News" article?

Op 22 Jul 2004 09:33:35 -0700 schreef DaveAI:

> The open source model, with special regard to Linux, has no doubt
> become a formidable competitor to the once sole giant of the software
> industry, Microsoft. It is expected when the market share of an
> industry leader becomes threatened, retaliation with new product or
> service offerings and marketing campaigns refuting the claims of the
> new found competition are inevitable. However, in the case of
> Microsoft, it seems they have not taken a solid or plausible position
> on the use of open source applications as an alternative to Windows.
>
> I read on a daily basis the latest ventures of Microsoft from the much
> publicized "war on Linux" to surrendering and publishing portions of
> their source code. In their first argument, executives of the Redmond
> Washington company regard Linux as everything from a "waste of money"
> to a threat to the well-being of the software industry. During these
> arguments, Microsoft executives stick by their original perception,
> attempting to position open source software as a less secure, less
> technologically sound option that does not only offer inferior
> solutions but is inherently bad for the financial and developmental
> growth of the industry. Although proved wrong time and time again by
> accredited analysts, journalists and customers it is a fair position
> for a corporation to take when their competition has them against the
> ropes.
>
> However, what is puzzling to me is that Microsoft never seems to stick
> with that argument. Whether they are intentionally or unintentionally
> releasing portions of their source code to the public, they themselves
> have implemented a "shared source initiative" in recent years.
> Coincidentally, this program mirrors the benefits brought fourth by
> the open source development process in which segments of their source
> code are released to the public intended to be used as a resource for
> developers. Originally, backing up the view that open source was
> substandard and dangerous, the program operated under a "look don't
> touch" policy, however, in recent months the software giant has
> changed its tune offering participating developers the chance to
> modify and propose ways to improve upon the available code.
>
> Rest of article at
> http://www.linuxsecurity.com/feature...story-168.html

Fence? What fence? See my signature.
--
There's no place like 127.0.0.1
Gerard Wassink http://linux.family.filternet.nl
Linux counter #360967, "In a world without fences, who needs gates?"