Microsoft's New Hurdles

gnuadam writes "The New York Times (free reg. required) is now running a piece about how the recently accepted settlement between Microsoft and the DOJ will affect the ever-so-loving relationship between them and the "worldwide community of volunteer programmers" who work on Linux and associated programs. Of interest, one interviewee quipped, "My prediction is that within three years time, Microsoft will `give away' its operating system to preserve its revenue in the applications business." Would Microsoft give away Windows to sell Office? Stay tuned." Update: 11/04 19:33 GMT by T : In related news, an anonymous reader writes "In an interview with Linux and Main Free Software Foundation General Counsel Eben Moglen reacts to Friday's U.S. v. Microsoft ruling and describes how it and 'trusted computing' will figure in formulating the next version of the GPL, expected in the next few months."

Comments

Never

[crumbz]

Microsoft will never give away the crown jewels to save the application side of the house. It can keep the source closed and fight open source for the next twenty years and make billions at it.

If they were foolish enough to open their Windows source, all the links and hooks for Office would be out for everyone to integrate into Open Office. That would kill their app business within a couple of years.

No, they will depend on:

1) DMCA
2) Palladium
3) Congressional lobbying
4) DRM
5) FUD

to maintain their lead.

Just my 2 cents.

I'd actually like that

[kannibal_klown]

I know I will get a lot of heat for this, but I think getting windows for free would be good for the consumer (though might screw Linux over big-time).

First, let me say I am an avid fan of Linux. I only use it for light desktop work, but I see that it is great for servers and such.

Now, let me also say that Windows is a good OS. While many people (most of which on this site) flame Windows XP... I think it's a great OS. The only thing that sucks is the draconian Activation scheme they used with it. Other than that, it's been even more stable than my Win2K box.

Now, while this would be great for the average consumner, I'm afraid Linux would take a big hit. I mean, sure... Linux would be more powerful and not have all the GUI fluff of windows for server stuff. But a lot of people will look at the situation and say "Well, Linux was cool 'cause it was free, but now I can get Windows for free too. Who needs linux?"

This might actually be the biggest step MS could take to squash Linux in the home.

I think so,

[iplayfast]

MS is in the business of selling software. The juggernaut of OS's is comming to a close, so they have for the last few years been expanding into other areas. (If you own 99% of the market in one area, why would you stay there?)

So now they've got office software, game software, mouse hardware, keyboard hardware, xbox hardware...

They need to decide what is the best way to keep making money. Competing against OS which they cannot compete against, (and have already gotten the most market share they will ever get). Or giving the OS away, to keep the monopoly of other areas viable.

It's a no brainer folks.

In The Beginning...

[Bonker]

"My prediction is that within three years time, Microsoft will `give away' its operating system to preserve its revenue in the applications business."

Stephenson hints around this concept in 'In the Beginning was the Command Line'. I don't remember the exact wording, but the concept was that the operating system is basically a commodity when compared to application software. The only thing that makes an OS necessary is that you'll use it to accomplish tasks necessary to run an application.

We've seen this kind of commoditization in browser software. I know I'm not the only who remembers walking into an EB and seeing a boxed copy of Netscape on the wall. What Netscape realized and MS copied was that the browser was merely a commodity necessary for individuals to access the internet. There were already freeware browsers. Netscape essentially gave away its browser so that it's compliment, Netscape Web Server-- later iPlanet server-- would sell better.

OS's are going the same way. Where does MS make its money? Windows revenue accounts for precisely *dick* when measured up against a million OEM MSOffice licenses, per-seat DB licenses, multiprocessor Exchange licenses, etc. (My company recently dropped $15k for MSSQL on a 2 processor box.) If Windows was more important in terms of revenue than Office, why is Microsoft still making Office for Mac? Why not force those users to switch to Windows to use Office?

Microsoft wants to charge for Windows and bust people for using pirated copies simply because they still can get away with it at this point. When they can't-- such as currently is the case in the PRChina-- they'll start turning a blind eye to OS piracy and may even tacitly circulate a few copies themselves to increase 'market penetration'. Eventually, they'll start offering ridiculously low-priced 'Student Discount' copies of Windows, like they have in the past, with both OS's and development tools. Eventually, as OpenOffice, AbiWord, and other Office competitors mature, You'll start being able to get more and more Windows feature for free while MS continues to extract flesh for licenses for Office, MSSQL, Exchange, and other servers and apps.

Re:Crossover Office their biggest threat

[WCMI92]

"Right now, the biggest threat to their OS is Crossover Office. Why use Windows to run OFfice when Linux can do it so much better?"

I wonder how long before MS uses the EULA hammer and the DMCA anvil to crush things like Crossover Office and WINE? Not long now that CKK has given Ballmer and Co. a mild tap on the wrist (not even a slap) despite their being CONVICTED of a corporate felony.

Reading the CKK ruling, MS is going to be "monitored" by a comitte that will be made up of... MS board members. Not likely to see any evil.

Frankly, I see one great silver lining in the stupid ruling of yet another federal judgetrix: MS will not be saved from ITSELF by the government.

MS's greatest enemy isn't Linux, but itself. Management that thinks it's shit doesn't stink. Management that thinks that they can REALLY foist anything on the public, charge ANY price, and they will buy it.

If you think what MS has done with XP, product activation, Office XP, and Licensing 6.0 are bad, just you WAIT until their strategy gets emboldened by their "win" in CKK's court.

Every time you read about them sending the BSA after a school, threatening to block a merger (Bluelight), or price increases to the point where Windows/Office is by far the single most expensive part of a PC, Microsoft is marketing Linux.

A billion dollars spent on Linux marketing couldn't do as good a job as MS's own actions.

Ashcroft and CKK saved MS from breakup. But who will save MS from themselves?