Slashdot Mirror
What's the Business Case for Microsoft and Open Source?
Friend of perl developers everywhere, Jeremy Zawodny, has an intriguing question: "If you had to explain to Microsoft why they should change their
attitude toward Open Source, what would you say?" For more about this, read on...
From Jeremy: "If you had to explain to Microsoft why they should change their
attitude toward Open Source, what would you say? More to the point,
how can Microsoft benefit from better supporting or even adopting
Open Source in their business? (Replace IIS with Apache, for
example.) Does it make sense for them? Are there ways that they can
use Open Source as a competitive advantage without pissing off the
Open Source community in the process? Which of their products would
make sense on Open Source platforms? How can the Open Source
community help Microsoft? Or is this a lost cause? IBM has made it
work. Can Microsoft?
I ask these questions because I may have the chance to talk with folks at Microsoft about Open Source. And it only makes sense that I look to the community for input. So let's hear it. Flames won't help. Thoughtful answers and ideas very well could."
Microsoft have no intention of changing to open source, it's like trying to get someone to change their religion, not likely to happen. Why bother asking those questions, and concentrate on tackling MS head-on with quality open-source products?
Microsoft is a corporation, bound to it's shareholders, and is chartered to make a profit. In order to adopt an open source mentality, it would need to be demonstrated that open source is as profitable as closed-source projects. And, in the many years of the open source movement, I have not seen many open source projects that are highly profitable. So, therefore, I don't think that there is an argument that would convince microsoft to change their approach, other than federal injunction.
Weaseling out of things is important to learn. It's what separates us from the animals... except the weasel. -
As a guy who has to support IIS in mission-critical apps, I'd have to say that it would give them a lot of credibility in the enterprise if they opened the source just for IIS, for starters. At least once a quarter, somebody in our organization asks why we're not using Apache yet, and with the IIS security problems that crop up all the time, it's getting harder to answer that question.
I know what their answer is going to be, though. They don't want to open up IIS because it will expose all of the existing installations to attacks until patches are written. They'd rather keep it closed to protect the morons who don't apply patches than to open it up to fix the rest of the holes.
What's your damage, Heather?
Even though they may not consider it now, and they have considered it before, they should start embracing open source simply for choice.
I have a laptop which is a Sony Vaio, with WinXP Home, and it has one email client and one browser, among other one things.
I also have a dual-boot desktop (Win2K and Mandrake 8.2), and I enjoy working on the Mandrake side, because there's a choice of applications.
If I want to browse the web, I have Mozilla, Netscape, Konqueror, Galeon, Lynx... I'm not tied to one browser EVER. Even when an url is highlighted, I can choose which browser to open it into.
With email, again, there are many choices for me. I also have many security choices easily found, like do not display HTML email, do not allow JavaScript or popups, etc.
I prefer choice packaged with my OS. Not that I choose which ONE I get when I install, but the ability to choose them after install, using the best software for the task at hand.
With Microsoft, I'd wish that they'd embrace this notion, packaging not only their products, but also open source alternatives, so people can choose. And they should also take the notions that many of the open source projects have taken, and allow people to decide on their own security, and install with max security and let them open themselves as they desire.
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
Unlike the pro-open source evangelists like RMS, ESR etc. the whole pro and cons OSS thing is not an ideological question for MS.
The problem is that some open source program are a threat to MS market dominance. And MS gained that dominance by ruthlessly destroying all competitors. They act shark like - see, attack, kill. This made them the no. 1 in the software business. And not the quality of their products. (Some of their products are good despite what OSS zealots say.) If they give up their attitude towards OSS, they would have to give up their attitude towards competitors. And this would destroy their market dominance, making them an ordinary software company like any other.
So, "convincing MS of the benefits of OSS" is nonsense. There is no real benefit for them and they will never be convinced. And they have at least one very good argument for their behavoir - their outstanding economic success. You cannot convert a predator to a vegetarian.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
On top of that, most opensource OSes are very modular. If you don't want this piece, you don't have to install it (Win2K server is a pain for changing some setups, like the dhcp server, the dns server, the active directory server, WINS master/backup -- at least, for me it was a pain to try to change, but, I'm not a MSCE). People like modular. I know that there is some fix for WinXP that does this to an extent (or it is supposed to).
Perhaps also the idea that, for the most part, you don't have to pay $100 for your bug fixes/upgrades. Granted, the upgrade money is how MS stays in buisness (ok, I know people will argue with this, but, it have probably been said before and will be again, they license software, that is how they make money), some people can't afford all of the upgrades -- and if they can, they don't know how the bugs were fixed or how to work with some of the new things -- sometimes old programs don't work anymore.
Those are a few ideas, I know that others will have lots more.
-CPM
---You're all I need, When the water runs deep, You're all I need, Now I cry my soul to sleep -- Collective Soul, Needs
personally I'd be happy if MS would just adopt and adhere to open standards, even if there code wasn't open, at least then MS systems would be able to operate with other things without a lot of effort wasted on reverse engineering (is it a fault with 3rd party apps/sytems or is it an undocumented feature of MS? - most CEO's and the likes toe the MS party line so the 3rd party apps/systems are at fault, which in alot of cases is just plain wrong)
Most software sits in embedded systems, drivers that comes with hardware or are used for in-house solutions. It serves no need, or favors none, that such software is kept proprietary.....When companies build systems that they do not intend to sell
Drivers and embedded systems are indeed sold. Take video cards, for example - the difference between two high-end models often boils down to which company executed their drivers better. When review sites measure the difference between models in terms of a single frame per second, every competitive edge counts. Even though you don't see those drivers offered separately in the software section of CompUSA, that doesn't mean the drivers aren't sold.
What's your damage, Heather?
It seems to me that Linux and open source are classic disruptive technologies. In this case the technology is not the OS itself (anyone here who can't name a dozen OS's in one breath?) but the GPL, the development model, and the worldwide linking of motivated developers into a slightly-cohesive competing co-operating group.
The GPL has provided a framework whereby a self-sustaining body of software has come into being. The body of developers don't rely on traditional business models to sustain themselves.
If Linux and open source become at all successful Microsoft is going to lose billions of dollars in revenue. Heck, they probably already are. I'm suprised they haven't sent the boys around to break RMS' and Linus Torvalds' kneecaps or roll over them with a bus.
This is a 'company' or community MS can't fight using traditional business models. They can't lower their prices enough to beat free. Many of open source products are at least of equivalent quality to MS products.
They've tried running attack PR campaigns, but to some extent attacking open source is as hard as attacking any other community spirited organisation, such as (for example) the Scouts or Guides, and all the bad press has so far rebounded on MS, it's a bit transparent after all. And how do you effectively attack people who are giving things away for free? It's like trying to claim that "Meals on Wheels" volunteers are evil because the food they deliver sometimes isn't absolutely perfect.
As an aside, I was in the Science Museum in London a few years ago and I saw a gas-fire powered room fan. The idea was that when it got too hot in summer, you lit this gas-fired engine and it turned a fan to blow (now warmer) air around the room to cool you down. It was a last trump of the old monopoly gas companies trying to show their product was as versatile as the new-fangled electricity. It shows the lengths an old monopoly would go to, to try and preserve their old business model in the face of a disruptive technology.
So, in a possibly vain attempt to get back on topic... I'll be interested to hear what you have to say. Because I feel only one of a few possibilities can actually happen. One is that open source limps along as a permanent embarrassing cousin to shrink wrap proprietary software. The other is that it more or less displaces shrink wrap commercial software.
My money is on the latter, and for a simple reason. MS has sent many companies down the tube by the simple expedient of knowing that the other company will eventually make a mistake, and then they are dead. MS has made many mistakes too - but the synergy of owning the OS and some popular apps meant they've had the revenue to recover from them, whereas companies reliant on a single app only had to trip once and they were gone.
Now the tables are turned. Open source isn't going away. If it can survive and get to where it has now, on an insignificant market share and difficult to use products, it isn't going away now it has growing market share and great things like KDE3 and Moz and GNOME and open office and so on that stand up against MS' core products.
Now it's MS that has to avoid making mistakes.... In my view that classic mistake they are making is concentrating on their market share and revenue rather than the customers. Look at the PR and mindshare disaster that Licencing 6 has proven to be. Just goes to prove the old saying that once a monopoly finishes dealing with it's competitors, it starts beating up on its customers.
MS contains some of the greatest developers in the world under one roof, probably THE greatest number of developers working for a single company. The problem is that so much of their work seems to be directed towards a 'scam' - keeping MS on top and killing other companies, rather than just turning out great products. It's proven a very effective strategy so far, the issue is can it survive against a community who isn't playing the same game?
So what can you say to MS about open source in general? It'll either eat them or live alongside them. Either way, they lose. And it's as inevitable as what happened to the horse and cart when the automobile was invented, and nothing they do can really change how this game is going to play out economically. So they may as well ignore it and hope it'll go away.
I work with people who use Windows, although I
use Linux. Microsoft could help me and my
colleagues by trying to make their products work
better with my products. They seem to do the
opposite now. Just to take a minor example of
hundreds. I write text files with 80 character
lines. Word does not have a way of importing
these without taking line breaks as paragraph
breaks, and it cannot make them. (Apparently.
At least none of my very smart colleagues can
figure out how to get Word to do this.)
Some scientists use Microsoft Word, and others
use TeX/LaTeX. Microsoft could HELP the former
group by making Word, for example, easily import
eps. (Another thing my colleagues can't
manage to do.)
And then there is Xwindow. Why doesn't Windows
include something like VNC?
The answer is that Microsoft does not want to
make life easy for its customers who interact
with people like me. This is an attitude they
might change without serious harm to their
business model. They are using their customers
as pawns in their struggle to crush competition.
That is a strategy thay may not even be in their
long-term self-interest.
Fact: "30% of Microsoft its revenue comes from the Operating System licensing alone."
This means they'll do practically anything to protect that.
Linux is moving quickly to 'embrace and extend' Windows with projects like wine, wineX and CrossOffice getting very good.
The Linux-Windows war used to be a kernel war initially, but soon it will be a win32 api war. If Microsoft doesn't launch it's version of Windows with a linux kernel underneath (MacOS X system architecture), they'll loose massive market share in the bigger enterprise market and OEM's. If that happens, all will be lost for Microsoft.
They currently are in a position to create a 'Microsoft Linux'; a linux kernel with their dll-base inserted with a proprietary kernel module (kernel fork needed because of Linus' policy). In that case they would be able to create the best 'Lindows' around, possibly loose some market space with applications like IIS being replaced with Apache and such, but with again a dominant position in the Intel OS marketplace.
Microsoft is afraid of such a move, because it'll be expensive and because of the antitrust suit (although, such a move could settle it: "We will make the following version of our kernel OpenSource").
BTW, Microsoft currently already sponsors certain GNU development, like with Perl on NT.
Conclusion:
- A Linux system running windows apps is a huge opportunity for the enterprise market and OEM's.
- If that happens MS will have lost their foundation. Either they try to make the ultimate mix of their Intellectual Property and the OpenSource world, or they'll face utter destruction. They have a window of oppertunity here, but wine is getting better fast!
- Getting them to understand this is quiet simple: they initially had the same fear of the Internet and the old MS guys understand the comparisation: the Internet was a chaotic and anarchistic network, Bill Gates said "they would never invest in it". Time has proven the contrary.
To beat a Microsoft Linux, we just need to work a little harder on wine and its integration in the desktop environments.
www.microsoftlinux.com
It's hard to believe that, even among "the Community" itself, so many people are barking up the wrong tree. The question asked about open source software, not free software. Obviously Microsoft can't justify free (beer) software to its shareholders. The relevant, and more subtle, question is whether Microsoft can justify releasing its source code. Releasing source code is distinct from giving away software.
Bear in mind, that Microsoft already does reveal its source code to people who pay enough. However, if it supplied its source code to anyone who bought the built product (even with side-conditions that the source could not be used to commercial advantage etc etc), that would still constitute open source software. And the advantage to Microsoft would be many, many more knowledgeable people finding bugs. And the disadvantages would be that someone might pinch some ideas from it to help a competing product and also that a million custom patches for their products would appear, and be sure to interfere with each other.
Any sufficiently self-referential snowcloned
I sure hope those aren't PUBLIC sites!
To date, I have only heard two reasons to use anything other than W3C and open standards. The first is always "I learned to do it Microsoft's way, it has cost me a lot of pain and effort and I do not want to go through that again." The second is more substantial, "those standards don't do what I need."
How about lower operating costs, fewer medical expenses for you (headaches, migranes, ulcers), and almost immessurably more modular and more standards compliant design? A more nimble design that can take any changes you want to make quickly and elegantly, instead of a six month jaunt through gehenna?
Then, you must consider if you really enjoy being tied to a platform because you've put so much effort into it for such fragile results. Consider the psychological game gone into this, binding you to an inferior platform through your blood, sweat, and time. You're tied to IIS because you've already spent for it. In the future, you'll have to spend more time, money, blood, and sweat, just to make up for the ground being lost to competitors using better implimentations.
I, personally, would probably break down and cry after going through all that effort and realizing it was so much wasted time and effort, that you could have done it SO much faster, with better tools, and had better results. I know most people become violent rather than facing the possibility, nevermind considering it.
I'm as mimsy as the next borogove but your mome raths are completely outgrabe.
"They want choice?! If people had choice, then they'd take all of three seconds to decide they like the free stuff better than our OS". Bill slammed his hand on the table of the boardroom, waking up a grougy Balmer who had slept through the whole meeting, tired after last nights piss-up with the pretty lasses from Marketing
A young excecutive raised his hand, hesitating. "But... people who use Windows may prefer to use a different browser or e-mail client. Why not give them that choice? They...". Bill looked at him and the executive fell silent. "You assume they know what is good for them. Pah! Besides, have you forgotten our deal with the RIAA and the MPAA? They will push our standards and products, and we will put in suitable content copy protection.". He put his fists on the table, leaned forward and looked around the assembled executives. "Don't forget this, gentlemen. Soon, we will control all sides of the equation. Choice, gentlemen, is our enemy."
The devil gazed down through the clouds upon his most faithful minion, and smiled.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Microsoft is the only successful proprietary software product company. That is, they're the only company that can sell shrink-wrap software (or user licenses), walk away from them, and still make billions of dollars.
Every other proprietary software company must back up their products with service and support or they're kaput. These are the companies you can possibly convince to open source since their true business is supporting their products or supplying services based on them.
Microsoft going open source would be throwing away an extremely lucrative and unique monopoly.
* Games are an exception, and you may find some niche companies with a similar business model.
Corporate infastructure is more of a "yes, sir" environment that does not allow for that much original thought. While original thought is a novel idea these days, great ideas can still spawn from free thinkers. Technology is about great ideas. Open Source is about collectively implementing ideas.
3. The Access back-end.
As I said, nobody buys Access because it's a great database.
Yeah, and they'll never improve that back end because it drives sales of SQL server. Let me make this perfectly clear: making Access a better product would cannibalize sales of SQL Server, so MS will never make it good
Making good products is at odds with market segmentation. This is one of the fundamental benefits of free software- there is no market segmentation for code so the perfect never becomes the enemy of the good, as we see in the Access situation.
microsoftword.mp3 - it doesn't care that they're not words...
Yes?
"Do you want this built in a month using VB, or in 6 months using C?"
"I don't have the money to support a development team for 6 months"
But, point was, I don't really care what platform I use, or what language, or what technology, I use the one I feel comfortable with and that allows me to provide a working solution to the person requesting a job done. I don't cling to MS because they're MS, I stick to MS for the moment because that's what I know best. People should stick to Linux (or whatever) because they feel comfortable with it, not because of some zealous religious conviction. If Apache is the best webserver for a job, I'll go with it, it's just a damn webserver, if VB can do the same thing as a C program can, I'll use VB, it's just a damn language. To me these small MS/Linux/Mac fights are utterly pointless, use the tool that you feel comfortable with. A program is just code to make a computer do something useful, it's not a means to itself, no matter how lyrical people are about *their* language.
Wax-Museum Fire Results In Hundreds Of New Danny DeVito Statues
It is not in Microsoft's interest to change to open source. They have a tremendously successful business model making them one of the richest companies in the world. They are the sole-source supplier for the most popular computer software in the world. There is no rational reason for them to switch to selling and/or supporting open-source software.
Sure, we can all bitch about Microsoft products' security holes. We can gripe about performance and architectural issues. And many of those complaints are valid ones, but Microsoft is not in business to produces the most secure, high-performance, well-designed software in the world. Microsoft is in business to make money -- which they do very well.
The only rational points to argue are:
1. Microsoft's continued attacks on the open source movement are damaging their credibility and hurting their customers, many of whom want to integrate open source products into their Microsoft networks.
2. Microsoft's data storage and transmission formats should be opened up to allow value-added third-party vendors to produce products that use and manipulate the data. All that leaving the formats closed accomplishes is a delay while third-parties reverse engineer them.
3. Continued battles with the open source community are going to result in more public outcry for anti-trust action.
4. Microsoft has a PR problem right now due to their insistence on software audits at cash-strapped school systems, security holes, the Justice Department case against them, etc. Extending an olive branch to the open source movement might help reduce that PR problem.
Above all, remember that Microsoft is a for-profit business. They aren't going to get teary-eyed when you tell them about the comaraderie and inspiration that you feel when working on open-source products. They don't want to be part of some big, happy family. They want to rule the world.
IBM has changed its business model: they no longer sell software products; they sell a "solution to a problem", which they use some of their own software products to solve. They provide a service, which is what their customers need, and it provides them with steady, subscription-style income that fosters a better and more honest relationship with their clients than the hit-and-run attitude developed by salespeople who only need to sell a product once. Plus, because it's clear from the outset that they're going to be selling a service, customers don't get pissed off (as they do with Microsoft) having to pay continuous fees. Make no mistake, both companies charge continuously: however, Microsoft charges for support (which gets people pissed off -- the product is supposed to work without help!) while IBM charges for the service (which includes support when things go wrong). It's the same thing, but with important psychological differences on both sides.
Microsoft is already seeing the value of selling services rather than products (spurred by the success of subscription-based AOL) and is slowly moving to software-as-a-service. However, their legacy of selling expensive products is making software-as-a-service very unpopular with their customers, who see it only as a way of charging many times for a product they used to buy only once. By changing their model to being entirely service-based, they would be free to use open source wherever it happened to be better than their in-house solutions (e.g. Apache) without it costing them any revenue. They could then contribute to the open-source products they use just like everybody else does.
It's interesting to see Apple and how OS X uses an Open Source kernel (Darwin). Why shouldn't Microsoft be able to do the same thing?
They can keep closed sourced programs and user interface portion, but why not open up the kernel?
Ciryon
Microsoft is positioned (if they dodge antitrust bullets for a little longer, and get government help) for being the only software vendor for all intents and purposes. They're quite capable of leveraging that until it snaps off in their hands, too. You have no idea how ruthless they can become in ideal circumstances. It's like taking advantage of loopholes in the rules: you cannot beat them in fair competition, because it isn't.
That makes it Them on one side, and The World on the other. Hence, Free Software, which is what you do when you can't ever get rich (or in some cases even survive) selling software in competition with Microsoft, but you want to get your software out there, and you don't want them to use it against you. It's not about competing with Microsoft at all, it's a doomsday scenario based on the idea that people will carry proprietary software to the most obscene and ugly extreme.
The only thing Microsoft can do in relation to Free Software is try and make it illegal, or cripple as many Free Software authors as possible- it makes no sense for them to embrace the ecological reaction to their damaging presence. So, they are putting out viral licensing that makes anyone who has agreed to the terms, liable for Microsoft prosecution at any time, and vulnerable to several admissions of guilt contained in the 'shared source' license itself. I don't know if they're pushing for legislation to make Free Software illegal, but it would be an effective way of using their lobbying situation (they've dumped millions into lobbying and have in fact bought off ALL the available lobbyists so competing interests cannot get their view across to the politicians).
Your advice on the topic of Free Software should be "milk the current situation as hard as you possibly can, because unlike any previous proprietary software vendor you have destroyed the market so completely that people code for nothing now, if they're not working for you. Short of killing or disabling those people, you can't compete or make use of that, because they're doing this in direct reaction to what you've done, and there's more of them, and they're better than you, and self-perpetuating."
"So cash in now, and run like hell, because you've managed to scorch your own earth, and you have all the future of typewriter-ribbon monopolies or a ruthless guild of shoeshine boys. People will pick worse and cheaper over better and more expensive, even if you do manage to do better work- and cleaning up the mess you've caused doing 'worse and cheaper' will cost you, hugely."
"Pretend to be listening, cash in bigtime, and bail out before your company does an Enron. You've destroyed your own 'biological niche' and all that remains is a clever exit strategy."
Look there is no way M$ is going to either OS its s/w or adopt OS. It simply doesnt make business sense for them to do so. M$ is primarily a software company (neglect Xbox, webtv et al) unlike IBM which is a service based company. With the whole industry transitioning to services-centric focus from a product-centric focus, its time M$ ditched its product only approach and moved to a service based approach.
What M$ should do to adopt OS is bundle OS s/w with Windows. For e.g. it need not write IIS and other s/w which do not provide way more returns. Just bundle apache with Windows. Saves them a hell lot of developement effort. Then provide support for apache on Windows and mint money outta it. Similarly, to fight the increasing trend of linux being adopted, why not release a version of Linux on Windows. Stuff like that..should interest M$.
Assuming M$ does that there are two ways it could go. Ppl will start using Linux more. So either the Linux base will increase or ppl being comfortable with Linux on Win, will ditch pure linux installs, choosing to use the M4 version of Linux instead.
Either way, M$ can always provide support and service and mint money. Whether it is helpful for the OSS community or not, is something that remains to be seen.
Why should they ?
Just because some nerds on slashdot don't like MS ?
MS is doing really well. That may change in the future, but for now I have to say they know what they are doing, so whatever open source policy they come up with is probably best for them and their shareholders.