Slashdot Mirror
Software "Open Monopoly"
garoush writes "The following article is at C|Net.news Software "open monopoly". In it "Sun developers Petr Hrebejk and Tim Boudreau say the economics of open-source software will break Microsoft's operating system hammerlock and replace it with a what they describe as an 'open monopoly.'"
I Personally have issues with such claims. With .NET, MS is positioning the company at "services" -- in effect MS is now gearing up to take on a new monopoly: "services" at the "consumer" level. If you agree, I don't see how "open monopoly" can break MS. After all, your average "Joe the consumer" doesn't know a thing about open source. " The submittor has an interesting point - but I think that even if John Q Public knows nothing about open source, if the services he uses are running open source, it doesn't matter.
We already have open monopoly!
an open monopoly? I haer people saying that "it is just as bad to have an open source monopoly as it is for MS to have on".
I never under stood this reasoning because if it is an OSS monopoly, would that not mean that the people are in total control?
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
...but I think that even if John Q Public knows nothing about open source, if the services he uses are running open source, it doesn't matter.
And the inverse works just the same (John Q Public would be perfectly happy with closed source services). This is a battle that won't be won at the consumer level.
Jim Allchin, the company's Windows operating-system chief, was quoted by Bloomberg News earlier this year as saying: "Open source is an intellectual-property destroyer. I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software business and the intellectual-property business." He added, "I'm an American, I believe in the American Way. I worry if the government encourages open source, and I don't think we've done enough education of policy-makers to understand the threat."
Translation: I support a laissez-faire business model. For me. But please shut down our competitors.
I believe that the article's point about today's corporate open source usage vs. that three years agos says just as much about the corporate world being pissed off with Microsoft's licensing practices as it does about the improving quality of open source products.
I'm an IT buyer, I budget and spend dollars on an annual basis. It doesn't take a big whack from the clue stick to realize that MS is trying to AOL-ize their revenue stream.
Cheers,
- RLJ
No one will correctly predict where things are going. Computers and the devices that run them are too varied and change too quickly. No one ever expected Microsoft to go anywhere early on. Microsoft never expected the internet to go anywhere, which is why they are still having a hard time getting their shit together. Eventually, something strange and surprising will come out of the kludge that is screwball desktop OSs and people trying to connect everything in the universe to the net, and it will change everything. Such is that nature of the chaotic beast that is the transistor.
A truly Open Source version of Monopoly would be neatoh to play. I mean - I've played the ASCII versions, the BBS versions, some version for Windows, but one for my Linux box would be fun to play...
Oh wait - you're not talking about the game are you?
I donate all spillover Karma to the charity of my choice... Ada was still a babe despite what people may say...
This is just like open source politics/economics (socialism).
I really like socialism and spread the virus wherever I go, since I think bottom-up control of stuff by the people who design things is a good idea.
Unfortunately, for a world socialist society, its proponents would have to wage a war against the entrenched interests of capitalism.
A very chaotic, damaging, bloody war.
Similarly, the Open Source Monopoly would enforce rigorous peer review on all software while encouraging long-term profitability trends. It's a damn good idea!
The problem with the idea isn't the IDEA, it's the fact that large corporations think on the short term and don't want to risk losing the "asset" they think they have built up with their closed source technologies.
They don't care about the long term future of the software industry, they care about the need to compete with voracious rivals in THIS economy!
Open Sourcers, they won't listen to your reason, your arguments, or your technology benchmarks.
They will cast a chill over your free speech and beer with intellectually unsupportable, unconstitutional laws because they can. Despite the irrationality of their actions. They'll do it every time.
Goat sex free since 2001
The reason for this is that capitalism is capitalism, and although some take the Fabien position that it can be reformed to cater for the needs of the majority, it seems pretty clear to me that only a radical overthrow of the entire system can improve our lot and stop the evils.
What does this mean in an Open Source context? Well, there is nothing in the OSS liscence preventing corporate PLC's from using software code. It merely addresses the symptoms, and not the cause. A more restrictive liscence for the people denying access to selfish concerns would be a great boost and a bigger threat to MS than anything.
At present there is nothing stopping MS from using OSS software and still dominating, despite the left reformist nature of OSS. Frankly, a new liscence is needed if we really want to see the back of such companies and corporate practises for all time.
I think technically (and from a usability point of view) linux is pretty much there but it will take (lots of) time for it to permeate the non-geek computing circles. It took MSFT 25 years to get where they are today; it will take quite some time for them to loose their position of influence.
The biggest irony may well be that by the time linux became competitive on the desktop (ie: the last 12-18 months), MSFT was (for the first time) able to respond with a product which didn't suck (Win2K).
However, MSFT may still shoot itself in the foot by being too overbearing (restrictive licencing, 'forced' upgrades, cumbersome product activation, etc). If they squeeze to hard, people will look much harder at any alternatives out there. I for one think this is the biggest danger they face
This is something that I think that the OSS movement underemphasizes due to the socialist image that is so feared in the software industry.
.Net in the way of application servers.
OSS is a very socialist movement. That's not necessarily a bad thing. It's been made into a bad thing by decades of 'red scare' propoganda and negative indoctrination by the companies who stand to be hurt by a less capitalist system of software development.
Software companies, like all companies, beleive as if they have a right to exist and profit. There would be no such thing as 'intellectual property' if they didn't. They've been telling everybody else this same thing for so long that it's become 'unamerican' to try to deny a company its profit. Thus, when a mode of business has become obsoleted (Are you listening, music distributors?), that company starts engaging in negative propoganda to try to preserve their business model. Thus Disney's anti-napster cartoon and things like the 'Virus' speech from MS.
Companies do not have the right to exist and profit. The existance of a company should never be protected from consumer pressure.
In this case, it is the pressure to use free software. Here, I am referring to the cost, and not the ideology. Microsoft puts enormous pressure on businesses to use IIS, despite the fact that Apache is better, more stable, and costs 100% less. The same is true for all the Java servlet engines. Jakarta is the best, despite a wealth of options. The same will probably be true of Mono over
OSS Developers: Stress the 'free' nature of your product. In cases like Star Office/Open Office, it has already started to win 'Normal Joe' converts from pay for software.
VirtualDub, the GPL'd video editor, has already become a defacto standard for internet video publishing. This is mostly because it combines excellent usage with zero cost.
If you want Joe-sixpack to use your OS app, stress how much he gets and how little it costs.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
As usual, M$ is going after the money. This is not new, IBM realized that service is where the money is almost a decade ago. Open Source is, at least in part, an ideological movement and therefore can naturally plug the holes where there is less money to be made. Fighting with M$ over market share in OS was a noble thing, and we may win ultimately with some DoJ help, but this will not change the fact that M$ is going after the money. We all know that they aren't really technology innovators, their strength has always been seeing where the market is (even if they realize it later than others) and going after it with a well-oiled marketing machine. That's what they're trying to do now with services.
With companies such as IBM and SUN backing Open Source the question remains as to where do these companies see there future revenue being generated. These companies invest in the ideology with there future revenue being more focused away from the Shelf Software solutions (as per MS) and more to the Hardware and Services that are required to implement the Opens Source solutions. Either way in the long run the consumer is always going to have to pay for a quality solution, if it is against hardware, services or software is unknown!
Given that the people most likely to participate in an open-source project are also users of the application being worked on, what would happen if the customers for a software product actually participated in its design and creation? It would be impossible to create a product that is not what the market wants!
Unfortunately, the only people who are able to participate effectively in the design and creation of an open source project under existing models are computer programmers. So yes, they will be able to create programs that computer programmers want to use, and they already have, which is why the only examples of open source successes the article could cite (Apache and BIND) are targeted at programmer/sysadmins. The problem is that the larger market doesn't want programs for programmers, and programmers are really poor at designing systems for non-programmers.
This is not to say there may not be future open source models which allow the participation of non-programmers, but so far the only way seems to be for companies to take losses investing in open-source development meant to unseat a closed-source competitor -- and this strategic pressure would not exist in the imagined open-source utopia.
How can user-centered design be reconciled with open source?
Tim
The $500 billion question is whether or not MS can move their revenue base to services before their monopoly on the desktop runs out. I think they might just be able to pull it off, but the odds are against them.
I figure the Linux desktop (including productivity applications) will be feature comparible to Windows/Office in about two years. That's about one iteration of Windows away. At that point the trickle of users moving their desktops to Linux will become a flood and MS won't have anything to use as leverage to take over new markets.
So what are the chances that MS will be able to build their services business from almost nothing to $30 billion dollars within that time? Considering that the services don't even exist yet, I'd say their chances are pretty slim. When you consider the fact that IBM, AOL, Sun, Sony, Oracle, and others will be fighting MS all the way, I'd say MS is screwed.
The best MS can do is become like every other IT company struggling to compete on merit. Sure they'll always be big, but in five years they won't be any more influentual than the other major players.
It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
Has Slashdot started a new department entitled "Yet-Another-Intro-To-Open-Source-Article Department." Not to be critical, but the only thing his article shows us is that C|Net continues to cover and introduce Open Source through tough economic times.
Of course, for those of you unaware of Open Source software, read the article.
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
What open source does is something very logical and economically rational. The technologies underlying Windows and UNIX were developed years ago and do not require much investment to keep up or "manufacture", yet commercial vendors keep charging a premium. Open source software simply reflects the fact that these old technologies should cost little or nothing nowadays. Open source is simply a mechanism of a rational, efficient market. And as such, open source software will indeed become dominant, unless the government enacts market-distorting laws for the benefit of companies like Microsoft.
I'm not sure that I like the term "Open Monopoly" any more than I am that crazy about the term "Open Source Movement". I am inclined to think of it more in terms of simple supply and demand. For the first time in history, it is possible for any individual to produce a product (i.e., a piece of software) and to distribute it to the entire world with essentially no distribution costs -- merely the cost of an internet connection. The net effect of this enormous overhead supply is exactly what economics would predict: the price of software is plummetting.
With regard to Microsoft, they have the reputation and the refinement of product to dominate current installations. They also have a cozy relationship with computer vendors that makes John Q. Public think he's getting things for free. But the quality of Linux products is improving rapidly. These days there are far fewer differences that similarities between a Windows and a KDE desktop. One of these days Microsoft is going to make a misstep, and I suspect their rate of their collapse will be a shock to most people.
RM
Did you just type this up randomly, expecting to get moderated up just for rebellously bashing slashdot, with a bit of "get real" attitude added to it?
The article wasn't brilliant, but it brought up one point, and then took an acid-induced trip out into left field at the end.
It was basically saying that OSS products will gradually eclipse propriatery solutions, because there are too many problems and costs associated with properiatary software nowadays. Not just monetary costs, but also costs for downtime, costs for cleaning up after a worm takes out your office network for 2 days, and (potentially) reduced hardware costs.
OSS doesn't have licencing costs (which are a huge factor and headache for smaller companies), and are (generally) more reliable with respect to issues such as viruses, worms and trojans.
It's actually fairly ironic -- just as OSS software is trying to figure out how to make themselves profitable, MS is right alongside them scrambling to find new revenue streams for thier flagship products, because they're not as relatively profitable as they used to be.
The problem with the article (which any english teacher would tell you -- wait, these are web writers, they probably failed english class) is that it suddenly decided to go off into left field at the end talking about how companies that provide OSS can be profitable, which has really nothing to do with it's first point -- in that the gradual increase in the use of OSS is inevitable.
so the creator of the software just needs to relicense it. Licensing under the GPL does not mean you are giving it to stallman, you are letting others play with it while you retain ownership.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Who pays to educate a student to PHD level, where upon he/she can write the complicated algorithms needed to do *insert subject here* within an 'open source' program?
... and yes they can dedicate their time to helping along open source programs.
Are all your ideas going to come out of academics locked behind the desk? Or do you think someone with a HS education and lots of free time can do the complicated calculations while pounding out code?
No, this isn't a troll- but *someone* has to think and spend the time to write these algorithms, and that costs money. Education costs money. Yes, you can have 3 million people working on it, and yes they are paid by employers
Don't patent anything? Where's the profit motive? How will you pay off your 10 years of college for your PHD by giving away your ideas freely? Oh, get a job and then give those ideas away freely?? Sorry... can't work that way.
Anways, I see OS as a more potent form of QA- force the corporations to incorporate the stability of newer platforms... if at least customers are expecting that kind of stability then that raises the stakes.
Although this statement is factually correct, that should not mean that we stop trying to promote Linux at every opportunity.
I see the upcoming launch of XP as a chance for Linux evangelism on a huge scale.
Don't like product activation ? - Linux
Don't want to pay $200 ? - Linux
I have managed to convert three of my friends to mandrake without really trying. Once you explain to them how Microsoft works, its like a light goes on in their heads and they are like, "where can I get Linux ?".
For me at least it was like shooting fish in a barrel. Perhaps if more of us took an active approach to evangelism, there would be even more Linux users than there are already.
Some people are still clinging to their microsoft comforter, but I'll bet product activation makes a few of those people think twice! :-)
who's speaking?
Petr Hrebejk is a senior software architect and developer on the open source NetBeans Tools Platform project at NetBeans, working for Sun Microsystems in the Czech Republic.
Tim Boudreau is a software developer, writer and marketing manager on the same project, also working for Sun Microsystems in the Czech Republic.
Now can you spell a-d-v-o-c-a-c-y ?
This puff piece was meant for the suits.
It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine.
By even conservative estimates, Linux et al should have depleted Microsoft of several percent of market share. This isn't happening, except in some high-end businesses, and even that might be more attributable to the economic dark-age we're in.
Worse, the likely result of the DOJ vs. MS trial is that the "settlement" will be quietly forgotten and the case dropped. Sure, MS has been found guilty, but if the settlement is a fine of $0.00, then that's the end of it. Right now, America is more focussed on "other" news, giving both MS and the DOJ a chance to wriggle out of the mess, if not smelling like roses, then at least having a stench that is totally overpowered by current events.
To wrap it all up, Microsoft, Sun and Oracle seem to be keen on out-Orwelling each other. Seriously, I would not be surprised if one of those three companies effectively had the power to dictate and licence ALL computer use, of any kind, anywhere. At which point, we might as well all give up and go home. If Open Source becomes illegal through some piece of legislation or other (it nearly happened, not that long ago!), and/or information becomes purely licenced intellectual property (including common & public knowledge), then there is no point in even trying.
The scary thing is, these are not so improbable, today. Ten years ago, nobody would even dream of trying to restrict even the most hazardous of texts on the Internet. I believe that the "Anarchist's Cookbook" even won in a court action, under the first ammendment. I'm not so sure that it would fare so well, today. There are plenty of public records that document the location of grounds contaminated with deadly bacteria and viruses. Given the genuine potential for abuse, I'd be amazed if these records stayed public for long. And if some records "vanish", then you can expect to see others slip into the "vanish" tray. "Accidents" happen, especially when people are too busy worrying about potential lawsuits & covering their back.
The end result is almost inevitable. For very real security reasons, the Government and Corporations are going to have to re-think their attitudes towards disclosure. And since nobody likes to be vulnerable, that means that it's equally inevitable that we'll end up with some private enterprise that will graciously handle all that drudgery for everyone. At some point, it may well become mandatory to filter everything through such a company. At which point, "openness" will not exist and those who yearn for a reneissance will be deemed a hazard, or worse. The recently-dropped bill shows clearly that this is not some desperate attempt at an Orwellian nightmare, set in a Corporate-owned post-apocolyptic world, but something that today's Senators are willing to openly consider.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
yeah, well, what do you expect.....hey...perhaps oneday all those annoying Technophobes will be second class citizens in the new Technocracy of the U.....or wait, it will be a Mediocracy since we will be controled by ATW and Universal and Sony, etc.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
In the open source world, the freedom to modify that software to get you that one extra feature is a great strength.
Mr. Public is quite likely to have a computer, and quite likely to learn a lot by using it. A 'we're smarter than them' mentality isn't going to help anything. If this community really does care about 'our rights online' maybe they should be in places where John Q. Public hangs out, telling him why he should care.
Anyway, I'm veering of topic. I just know that I used to be a computer illiterate AOL user, and it was online activism in the Nader campaign, and then here on Slashdot that woke me up from the dreamy, free, unchallenged democratic paradise I thought I was lounging around in. Although, it was not being able to play Quake online that got me off AOL. But I sure learned to hate'em even more afterwards! And if some of the short-and-to-the-point arguements that are made here against MS, or AOL, or the DMCA, were made in an AOL chatroom, they'd have a much larger impact.
well, they need to give a perpetual IP licence to stallman that allows him to defend the code, but at the same time allows you to retract the Licence at any time you see fit.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
The important thing to note about the Open Source is that it is a new process for the creation of software products. It is more efficient that the traditional means of creating software, so much so that the resulting software products are often free.
Before Henry Ford, there were lots of little companies that built cars by hand. Ford's new process for creating cars made them cheaper. The small car companies at the time said, "But most people will always want hand-built cars, because they are custom built and better quality." They were of course wrong - the more efficient process won in the end. The only way that car manufacturers of the time could survive was by producing cars by the same process, so very few of the companies survived.
Microsoft will try everything they can to stop the progress of open source, but in the long term, the more efficient process will win. Just like the car manufacturers of old, the only way that Microsoft can survive is to start using the new process. Unfortunately for Microsoft, it's a loose-loose situation, because the new process is so efficient that it is hardly possible to make a profit from it. So, either way, Microsoft dies. I give it ten years max.
Ten years may not seem like a long time, but remember that it is less than ten years since the launch of Windows 3.1
If corporations want to increase the viability of open source, one very important action they can do (and have been doing to some extent) is to hire open source programmers. That way the features they want will be more likely to get included, and the bugs they discover are more likely to be fixed. One difficulty is to ensure that any of their proprietary software does not "infected" with any GPLed software.
One point where the article is plain wrong is where it says OS software will be the best because the users will program the features they want. Sorry, but l^Husers can't program. But users can get the features they want by paying OS programmers, e.g., by buying (favorite brandname) Linux or *BSD and/or service agreements.
And maybe one more point. The nicest thing about the open monopoly is that everyone can join.
well, then a GPL project should get that Lawyer thing that was on /. a month or so ago where you pay $25 a month to have lawyer services sort of like Medical coverage.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
An open monopoly is immossible. There are no problems with point of entry into a market with opensource. For closed source software companies, this can be a problem. The reason why Microsoft has such a huge monoppoly is because it has all the distribution points at the pc level and invenstors support. If I were to start an OS company as an example, I would be automatically destined to lose. Consumers may want a competitive OS but they would not invest in such an alternative OS because they are unsure if I would stay in bussiness. Also no sane investor would ever invest in such a risky proposition. This is the second problem. You need lots of money to start out. You really have to prove to investors that your product can win and your company can make money.
With opensource all you need is an idea and some code. If its good or there is a demand other programmers will pick up. If one app monopolizes everythign and innovation stagnates then another project will form.
Gnome is a classic example as well as Samba TNG. KDE was the only full desktop envirnoment and that made lots of developers uneasy. TrollTEch could screw the whole environment if they decided to stop distributing the QT libraries for free. Gnome was then born. Many members of the SAMBA team were unhappy with the way SAMBA was going. THey formed Samba TNG. Microsoft has made the whole bussiness by illegally wiping out points of entries into the software market making it really difficult or impossible to get in. The harder it is to enter the less compettion Microsoft will have. Thats all changed with opensource. Linux can't be bought out or crippled. Even if Microsoft somehow manages to really screw RedHat, another company will arise to take its place. If one product owns all the marketshare and its open and free, another one will form.
http://saveie6.com/
Won't happen. If one group in a project starts to try and force issues that compromise what other interested parties want, then a legitimate fork will develop based on what the users want/need. If the CLI fork compromises ease of use and the other fork allows ease of use without compromising too much more, then the CLI fork will die off from lack of interest outside that small CLI group.
Working advantage of open source development: the vendor/developers can't force the project down paths that compromise what the users need. If they try, somebody else with an itch not being scratched will pick up the ball and the users will follow that instead.
... a "Non-opoly." Because it doesn't have any of the same effects.
The problem with a corporation having a monopoly over a physical product, like the Standard Oil monopoly early in this century, is that they literally controlled all the oil, and could fix prices. With an IP monopoly like microsoft's, it's not quite like that. It's more that everyone is so deeply in the habit of using their stuff, that changing would cost too much, thus enabling microsoft to set prices.
The so-called "Open monopoly" would have neither of those problems because... it's not run by a corporation! Basically all it would amount to if, say, Apache took over the webserver market, is a lot of people getting an inexpensive webserver. If someone tried to raise their IT consulting rates because "Apache is the only game out there," someone else would jump in with all the knowledge for half the price, and the problem would be solved.
Basically, it's impossible for open systems to cause the bad effects of a corporate monopoly, since no single entity can strangle any particular market in the same way. Personally, I'm looking forward to the ubiquity of open source software, and I don't fear that I will be unable to use an alternative should Linux run 85% of the servers.
An additional problem for Sun is with workstations, where Linux seems to be making headway against Solaris (whether on a SPARC or on a high-end PC).
Right now, Sun is in good financial shape, with lots of cash and revenues. As the above shows, though, in the long run, Linux could threaten Sun's survival.
Open Source will never have a monopoly, legally speaking because no one company will ever have market power, not because single products won't arise to overwhelming dominance.
Look at Apache, for example. 60% of domains run on it and the next runner-up is IIS with about 25%. No other OSS web server (and there are several) can touch Apache's market share. The same can happen with other products too. Market power in terms of products is OK, but in terms of economic entities, like persons or corporations, it is a BAD thing because it can damage the very foundation of the market economy and turn Capitalism into everything that its opponents think that it is.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
And economists should stick to economics.
... from which no vendor can be excluded from participating, including the big companies now joining the open-source movement."
:)
An "open monopoly"? Come on. This is gobbledy-gook, senseless babbling.
They say Microsoft is threatened by open source because they are the current proprietary software monopoly. But MSFT's competitors - who are not the monopoly - are alleged to understand that "...in the end, there will be a monopoly again. The one-winner principle still applies. To them, the world will not change greatly whether open-source or proprietary software is running the world's computers. The end result will still be decreasing average costs, and the same barriers to entering the market will still apply."
But then they go on in the next paragraph and negate the previous paragraph's thesis: "What is different, however, is that in an open-source monopoly the barriers to participation and influence will disappear. This will be a different kind of monopoly
Well then, where is the monopoly? Where is the "one winner"? Maybe programmers should stay away from logic, too.
Edith Keeler Must Die
While I think you're right that we should stress "Free" when talking to consumers/users, we need to be careful in how we say it.
Many people associate free with less quality. We need to imply both Free and Better. In fact, that is what we should say:
"Open Source Software is both Free and Better than closed source."
When talking to corporations, trying to convince them to use open source, you need to talk about "lower cost to maintain and operate" and "lower cost to purchase". They won't be getting it free, as they will pay for service contracts and documentation and training. But it is true that it is Less Expensive and Better.
It's all about the marketing. That and a little brute force piracy won Bill G the keys to the kingdowm.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
..."ignoramus'" PCs...and they love it! especially when I explain that their lack of a qualifying product for an upgrade will mean that they will have to shell out 650 bucks (Cdn) for a full version. Free is a pretty strong persuader. I'm not sure if StarOffice qualifies as open source (for the purposes of our discussion), but the same argument can be applied to genuine open source products, including O/S's. Money remaining in the user's pocket instead of streaming into Bill's pocket is a concept that needs to be allowed to speak a little louder.
You're using her as bait, Master!
Microsoft is DOOMED.
I suggest people consult some facts before making pronouncements of Microsoft's impending doom. Look at Microsoft's earnings and think for a moment about where that company gets its money. Go here then you can begin to understand exactly how Microsoft is dying.
Microsoft's most recent quarterly earnings for Three Months Ended September 30 per region:
South Pacific and Americas Region: 2,433 million
Europe, Middle East, and Africa Region: 1,105 million
Asia Region: 604 million
Now for the same period last year:
South Pacific and Americas Region: 2,154 million
Europe, Middle East, and Africa Region: 1,085 million
Asia Region: 708 million
The only region in which MS earnings actually went up in this comparison is in the United States of America. The rest of the world is quickly figuring out that it doesn't need to be paying a tax to Microsoft. The fat US corporations are the only ones who can still afford MS software. That's why IBM says over half of its DB2 installations in China run on Linux. There is a similarity between US corporate use of Microsoft tax-ware and the bloated US car industry of the 1970s and 1980s. The US car industry had to reform in order to compete. The same will probably happen in regard to wasting revenue on tax-ware given the recent economic downturn.
- monopoly #1: servers (Linux)
- monopoly #2: games (Windows & X-box converge)
- monopoly #3: office desktops (some new OS)
I can easily believe the future desktop monopoly won't be Windows, because Windows is a disaster, but I also am skeptical that it will be Linux, because so far the ease of use and installation is too much of a problem.Now consider this. Given that the people most likely to participate in an open-source project are also users of the application being worked on, what would happen if the customers for a software product actually participated in its design and creation? It would be impossible to create a product that is not what the market wants!
Well, it would be impossible to create a product that is not what the active developers want. That's a whole different thing.
Find free books.
IIRC, in the case of, say, a TelCo considered to be a natural monopoly, the old-school supporting arguments centered around the idea that it's inefficient to have a redundant network of phone lines. The same notion was applied to utility companies. It's not clear at all to me that M$'s product development (and software development in general) is an analogous process (in terms of high infrastructure costs) to connecting phone lines or distributing electric power. To me, M$ is more of an old-school monopoly a la Standard Oil, that uses its market power to drive out competitors, even when they have arguably superior products.
If, by "open monopoly," Hrebejk means "everyone around the globe using open-source software for most of their computing" then I hope he's right, although that situation wouldn't be a true monopoly unless one company (Sun? Red Hat?) ends up controlling most of the software market.
-Rene
See you on the playa.
Read and learn.
It's quite simple: Good open source programs are category killers. That is, if there is a good (ie feature-complete, stable, fast etc. ) program that does X and is open, there is little or no opportunity for a company to try to enter the X market with an expensive product.
This works to an extent in existing markets - for e.g. all proprietary unix vendors are feeling the Linux pinch. MS can't sell IIS for much, due to Apache's presence.
Thus, open-source can be a barrier to entry, and have a monopoly on a market. A monopoly of sorts - Here's an old quote (I forget who from)
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
There's a very simple way for "the people" to take control of open source development: donate money to projects they like. Those who do so demonstrate that catering to their tastes will be rewarded, and then it's in commercial developers' best interests to make OSS with established donors in mind.
It's the simplest, most direct exchange of the relevant scarce resources: money for control over what is produced.
If you're interested, follow my sig.
Yeah, I saw it too... But:
Internet advertising is the redheaded stepchild of the marketing family. Old media ads have no need to justify themselves with inanities like "click-through"; they know their demographic and their real estate is mindshare, that precious commodity which they assume that they're purchasing with their ad dollars, regardless of whether or not this purchase translates into a product purchase immediately or down the road.
Personally, I think internet advertising was doomed because it was the first place where advertising's effectiveness could be measured. Unfortunately for them, the measurement was very low. In the end it was blamed on the mode, rather than the fact that ads aren't nearly as effective as they'd thought. It's important that an ad be available when someone wants that type of product (Google-type ads), but ads 'pushed' on people are annoying, and will become less effective over time, as people either block them on the web, or skip them on TV recordings, or just leave the room during commercials.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
The end users can't fork, no. But if the project's not satisfying the needs of a large number of end users, then it's likely that either a number of them are also developers who'll fork the project to scratch their own unsatisfied itch or they'll attract the interest of some developers. Remember that, unlike closed-source systems, the project developers in open-source projects can't prevent a fork. Community pressure tends to prevent forks when they aren't productive, but it also tends to create them when they are going to be productive ( see the gcc/egcs split, for example ).
Well, you "forgot" to mention the OEM sales channel:_ channelbusiness.htm
OEM $1,819 $1,984
Apparently, the OEM channel is too opaque to be region-based, which isn't very surprising. And of course total revenue:
Total revenue $5,766 $6,126
But yes, Asia-Pacific did go down significantly year-over-year. And that is interesting. And the URL is here: http://www.microsoft.com/msft/earnings/FY02/Q02_1
It'd have to be all developers everywhere. If it weren't, some of them would be heeding the user's calls for easier-to-use. And with open-source, it doesn't matter what the original developers think. If they're too out of touch with what the users want, the users switch away from their branch because, well, it's not what the users want. The X Consortium tried to take their ball and bat and go home with their licensing, remember that one? That's a classic example of what'd happen in the situation you posit.
I think that even if John Q Public knows nothing about open source, if the services he uses are running open source, it doesn't matter.
.sig here on /. recently that I found very interesting: "anyone who says that "X" is manipulating you is trying to take "X's" job."
Lets make them "Usefull Idiots" eh? I am appauled(sp?) that you believe it fruitfull to mislead people to direct their 'weight'.
What is the purpose in advocating the "moral superiority(sp?)" of Free Software" if you are not willing to take the time to discuss it with the "masses" - jesus man, are the unwashed not smart enough to understand what "we" are talking about? Should we just lead them through the dark with half-truths and bullshite?
Im drunk, a little in-=articulate(sP?), and frankly insulted - what makes you the "saviour of people who dont know whats good for themselves"?
I read a
Only full disclosure, education and complete honesty will build our desired future.
Hey whatwhat is this? If what you have to say isnt 'self-evident' its not that important... lets find some basic thruths mmmm, kay?
Microsoft ARE in serious financial trouble, their earning are down, the share price is down;
http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011022/06/earns-m ic rosoft
A recession looks set to help the Free/OS Software community at Microsoft expense and finish them as the dominant player, with cost cutting accelerating Open Source/Free Software installations in place of M$. My employers is increasingly deploying Linux instead of Windows, currently mainly as servers, but this is from an IT Services division that 6months ago was a strongly pro-M$, the XP licencing issue has turned them.
This declining share price issue is going to cause M$ major trouble. The M$ share price will fall, they will cut investment, the share price will fall more, they will lose their 'famous names' the shares will fall further, it is a vicious feed back loop. Before long the Microsoft Empire will be shadow of it's former self, like IBM in the 80's.
We can also help the share price fall. We short M$ on global scale.
http://www.fool.com/FoolFAQ/FoolFAQ0033.htm
Not only will we get to engineer the fall of Microsoft, we'll be able to turn a profit by doing it, personally I love the irony.