Slashdot Mirror
What Should Microsoft's Open Source Strategy Be?
JWinterboy asks: "I'm guessing that everyone here has a valid criticism of Microsoft's attacks on, and approach towards the Open Source model. To me, that begs the question of what we think would be an "appropriate" reaction from Microsoft towards the Open Source model. It doesn't have a service arm, so IBM's approach isn't really viable. At the same time, non-service related business models haven't fared very well.
What would we like to see Microsoft do? How can it work with the Open Source community, leverage its resources, and still make a buck?"
I'd be satisfied if they stopped breaking the anti-trust laws. Beyond that, let the market decide. Open source will win in the market. I think MS knows that and that's why they're increasingly afraid.
Miko O'Sullivan
I think Apple has proved Open Source's usefulness for businesses and the general consumer market. Yes, their license is strictly controlled, but look at the innovation that has come out of it. They have the first and only viable "Unix for the Masses(tm)".
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
If Microsoft's products are worth the money, then people will buy them without being coerced to by incompatible file formats, protocols, and APIs. Their strategy should be good citizenship in the software community (open AND closed source), by making a good faith effort to make interoperability possible.
I think a lot of the animosity toward Microsoft comes from the obstacles they put in the way of fair competition. Standards are the means by which software can compete on the basis of merit, and Microsoft takes advantage of the fact that pragmatically, a market leader's de facto standard speaks much louder than any written document.
The principle difficulty with using Microsoft products is that they seem barely capable of communicating with anything but other Microsoft products. I'd like MS to consider putting all libraries useful for interoperability available in open-source (without the useless licence) form. That way, well, if their software was better than the free version one could use them, and MS and non-MS software could be used together...
Basically it doesn't seem that Microsoft can totally change to an open-source strategy now. Even if they weren't too embarassed/unrepentantly monopolistic to want to.
I don't really see that they would open-source the entirety of Office, but it'd be nice if Microsoft were to make owning Office an option rather than a restrictive locked-in technology (yeah, I know. Word viewer available, inconsistent specs available. Not quite the same as working source code).
In any case, if the arguments about Linux's unsuitability for the desktop are correct, they have nothing to fear - if Linux users were to create Word documents or WMV or whatever with the code they were graciously permitted to use, the average human being would prefer to buy a nice user-friendly copy of Windows and view them on that.
Of course, if somebody were to create a piece of word processing software that happened to be better than Word and utterly interoperable, they'd lose out, but we all know that'd never happen (yeah, right).
"2) the Linux kernel changes almost daily, while Windows stagnates for 3-5 years at a time."
Stagnates? One of the reasons that Windows makes a good Desktop OS is that it doesn't change that much over time. As a tweaker and a twiddler, it's fun to go in and make every little update that you can. But consider the major desktop audience. They want their computer to be as simple as 'turn on, do stuff, turn off.'.
For Linux to try to de-throne Windows, it will have to be a lot more like Windows. Unfortunately, I think most of the Linux community barfs at this concept. Driver installs, for example, are a lot easier to do because Windows 'stagnates', or as I prefer to call, sticks to its standard.
Unfortunately the Win9X line could never be considered a serious OS, just too unstable and inflexible. Because of this, a lot of people like to look at what's wrong with Windows and try to fix those problems. They forget to look at what they did right. Linux would seriously benefit from that if it seriously wants to battle Windows where it is strongest.
Personally, I think Linux is better off staying off of the average desktop. The people who love it so much today will lose a lot of what they love in the process.
"Derp de derp."
Well, it is. Now, whethor or not a threat to capitalism is a good or bad thing is left to the reader to determine.
I disagree. Capitalist businesses will benefit greatly by not having to pay for restrictive software licenses.
Although I don't have hard data, I would venture that most people in software are not employed writing and testing closed source products that are sold, but making custom mods for internal use, supporting installed systems, doing system installation and integration and other services. These endevours can all benefit from Open Source.
Furthermore, the closed source companies seem to be doing OK. Microsoft is making record profits. Oracle, Siebold, SAP all seem to be unaffected, so far, from Open Source.
Open Source represents competition to the Closed Source companies, but I believe that everyone benefits from competition. For example, the improved reliability of W2K and WXP over earlier offerings is, IMHO, a direct reaction, to some extent, to Linux and FreeBSD. I think that MS has actually benefitted from this renewed focus on stability. You can actually learn your best lessons from your competitors, if you are listening.
All this speculation about how OSS will kill the software companies is, so far, just speculation.
Actually, it will have to be a lot better than windows
Interestingly, I was at an Entrepreneurial Conference put on by SEA (www.sea.org.au) in 1999, and a gentlemen pointed out that you'll never be successful making a better product, You're successful by making your product different.
To be quite honest, open source products are not going to be chosen simply because they are "better" - you have to show the consumer what's in it for them, what the product is going to give them over the competition.
One cannot think of Microsoft products individually, the difference/value that Microsoft provides its customers is a family of integrated/all work-together products. That's where Microsoft's success is: in it's product cohesion.
Cohesion/Consistency is what the consumer wants and ironically are willing to put up with a few BSODs every week (tho if you've used XP, this is a hell of a lot less...). Most "Joe Average's" I know associate "free" with "cheap/nasty". Until such times as Open-source products can get past this mis-informed attitude, then it will be relegated to the back office and those adventurous souls that actually know better.
As for Microsoft and Open-source co-existing? I think today that Microsoft would probably be happy as far as the consumer market is concerned... However, in the server arena they are more worried...
-- Dan "Maybe I should have done marketing instead of Software Engineering" Thomas =)
I would love to see MS cooperating with open and free software as much as the next /.er (actually, I am not too certain how much that is), but this point strikes me as a) unfair and b) unworkable. While it's certainly reasonable to hold a company to a standard (which makes competition more fair) it's hardly reasonable to expect them to baby-sit a competing product (which would not help fairness in competition). And we can't epect them (much as we dislike them) to be held accountable for things that are not under their control, but under the control of a competitor.
sic transit gloria mundi
I think a great many people would be satisfied if Microsoft would simply keep their interfaces, configurations, and standards open and reasonably constant. It's the hidden stuff that makes my applets and programs break. It's the secret "upgrades" hidden in dll libraries amounting to only a few bytes code change but which also happen to completely break a competitors program, that irritates people.
Who really CARES about microsoft code? Get the API and hooks out in the open so we can SEE when they're deliberately forcing you to replace that "win95 only" application that still works fine but somehow doesn't run under win98 or XP. That's the "open source" I want.
No, this isn't flamebait. I keep a collection of system files archived because about once a year microsoft releases an "update" that breaks one program or another. I've seen this since MS deliberately broke netscape with a small dll file and Netscape support was forced to redistribute that dll file as a fix. Get the standards in the open and we'll be happier than we'd be with the actual code.
You are absolutely correct except for one small thing.
MS is a predatory monopoly. This isn't just rhetoric, it's been the case of an earlier consent decree and the recent criminal conviction.
Predatory monopolies are the free market equivalence of singularities (black holes) in physics. They change all of the rules around them.
E.g., let's say I'm an OEM and I know that 5% of my customers want a non-MS OS. In a free market, I could offer the alternative at a reasonable price (including overhead for the cost of maintaining a second product line) and the alternative will sink or swim on its own.
But since MS is a predatory monopoly, it has written contracts that say the sale of a single non-MS system puts the OEM in a new category and ALL licenses cost an extra $10. The price of this license has nothing to do with the what's offered for sale, for volume, or any other purpose of any economic value to anyone. (MS does not gain from it since it never expects the clause to be enforced.)
No - the sole purpose for that clause is to artifically raise the entry barrier to the competition. It's the difference between a natural monopoly because, gosh darn it, every time we hear that Windows chime we have spontaneous orgasms because the software is such an incredible joy to work with and a predatory monopoly where the software is universally condemned as one of the worst products on the market yet it's impossible for most people to find alternatives.
The problem, of course, is that this is no longer a free market. A free market may have a Gateway offering a Linux box for 50% more than a Windows box because of the need to avoid the cheap win-hardware, and to cover additional overhead costs. A free market would never tolerate an OEM being forced to pay a third party uninvolved in the transaction in any way tens of millions of dollars in penalties.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Browsing at +3, and seeing no responses that really answer the question: What should Microsoft do? What would be the "right" thing?
.NOT. It might be their "database" file system. It might be their "subscription" model for Win XP.
As others have noted, while Microsoft put pressure on its competitors, now found to be illegal pressure, much of the demise of MS's competitors has been their own dang fault.
For example, MS did everything they could to get IE as the "default browser" that it is today, but who here has used any recent version of Netscape and been happy with it? 4.x sucks, 6.x is worse, and IE is quite usable. Throw the politics out - which would you prefer?
Mozilla will hopefully change the story, but it's YEARS too late in an industry that works on Internet time.
Word Perfect didn't come out with a decent word processor for Windows for YEARS after Win 3.x became popular.
And so on.
If Linux takes Microsoft, it will be because Microsoft makes a fatal mistake. We don't know what it will be. It might actually be
Whatever it be, it will be when they make a mistake, bet their farm on it, and lose the farm. So far, they've avoided the big mistakes, and the small/medium mistakes have been offset up by strong-arm tactics and backroom deals.
But, if MS sticks to making products that generally work as expected, and don't charge too much for them, and don't hassle their clients too much, it would be damn near impossible to beat 'em.
How would MS beat Linux?
1) Charge reasonable prices for Windows.
2) Make sure it works reasonably well.
3) Make their products inter-operate.
MS has our fury because they have consistently tried to lock the user in. If they were to follow the above three, they'd be no worse off than google, which despite approaching a monopoly on Internet searching, still has our good will. The boys at google have shown time and again a staunch and admirable "stick to basics" approach to their business that inspires trust and confidence.
MS, on the other hand, lies openly and repeatedly to anybody who will listen about whatever suits their fancy.
I don't know what it will be, but MS will make that fatal mistake - and after making it, they will either go the way of DEC (which was once a titan) or learn from their mistakes like IBM. (who now has our love and grace)
So, my advice? Back off Bill! Take it easy a bit, and work WITH the industry forces, (Internet and related, like Linux) inter-operate, and for once, show some ethics!
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
It's true that Apple's end goal is selling more hardware. The particular way in which open source has done this, however, it to make their hardware more attractive by raising the quality of the software that it will run.
So, Microsoft could use open source in manner parallel to Darwin (and Apple's treatment of Apache, SSH, Perl, etc etc) to improve their software. Whether or not they're a hardware vendor, improving their software should make it more attractive to customers, and thus Increase Shareholder Value.
Actually, I suppose that competing on the cutting edge of quality is a novel strategy for MS. But heck, if they wanted to start doing that more more often....