Slashdot Mirror
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."
Microsoft will probably start giving away a *nix-based .Net runtime first. Once you have all your products running on an abstraction layer, the OS becsome irrelevant.
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 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.
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.
What would be a fair settlement is Microsoft doing exactly that. GPL'ing Windows would then allow a Red Hat Windows (if they so chose) or whatever. It would create competition in the desktop os category (or os for idiots category...call it what you will). Personally, I don't see them as a monopoly but it makes things difficult when exchange users continually spread worms thus causing the internet excess traffic thanks to the infectious messages being transmitted.
Gorkman
How about asking this, can MS afford NOT to give away their OS in a few years? Wine is making good strides in fucntionality, besides that a LOT of people are already skipping the next Office upgrade(s). I know our fortune 500 company is, we're bowing out of the OS XP and Office XP all together.
My prediction is that within three years time, Microsoft will `give away' its operating system to preserve its revenue in the applications business.
In other news, Microsoft announced that it will 'give away' its operating system to schools in Namibia to preserve their education system.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
1. Free operating systems like Linux will become more popular. Revenue on Windows will drop and cease to be profitable.
2. Microsoft will get into the service market. Be it enterprise services, or internet/media (they're not close to the xxAAs' positions for nothing), the nature of their core product will change.
Giving the platform away will only encourage both enterprise and home users to go with the services that make the OS useful. Whether or not this is a Good Thing for the open-source community, I guess, is yet to be seen.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
Speech is conveniently located midway between thought and action, where it often substitutes for both.
Ignore the noise.
Keep coding.
Keep releasing.
That's what will win the battle.
"It remains to be seen if the human brain is powerful enough to solve the problems it has created." Dr. Richard Wallace
as time extends out, the need for a "visible" operating system" is going to be less and less necessary. The OS will be a part of the hardware. When was the last time you upgrade the operating software of your television?
As OS's become invisble, the need for upgrading them is going to be lost on consumers, so MS would have a hard time trying to sell it as a product. It will become a commodity only.
I think MS's only options for maintaining a business model are to either expand into other software areas (there aren't many left) or to start renting software, which they seem inline to do.
The Linux strategy is to undercut Microsoft,
Wow, is this really the Linux mission statement? I thought it was more about making a great operating system for free, not controlling the market.
This article really doesn't say anything, and says the above quite wrongly I think. I doubt Microsoft will ever give away windows...that would be an interesting day if they did. Over here in East Germany, almost everybody uses StarOffice because it's free and just as good. Free Windows and Free StarOffice...nobody would complain (except microsoft)!
The Right Reverend K. Reid Wightman,
And you thought AOL was over zealous when it came to mailing out CDs...
"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.
The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
The price of Linux and it's many apps are starting to eat into Microsofts profit center and to combat that, expect to see the price for MS Windows to drop by shipping a bootable MSN client that stays running as long as you pay your monthly MSN bill.
I wouldn't be surprised if the MSN client actually updated an INSTALLED MS Windows OS so that it is disabled if you stop using MSN. Of course this could only happen legally if you installed SP3 on w2k or wxp( via new EULA ).
This would not surprise me at all. Opening up the source to MS Windows will not happen. IMHO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
The first, as you appear to assume (apologies if I'm misinterpreting where you're coming from), is that Microsoft opens Windows in the same way as AOL opened Netscape Communicator, or Sun opened StarOffice. This, however, seems unlikely - what would it benefit them?
The other is that Microsoft "gives away" Windows like bars "give away" peanuts, or in software terms, like Microsoft already "gives away" Microsoft Internet Explorer, or Sun "gives away" Java. Microsoft continues to control the platform, and could offer any number of degrees of openness, including none whatsoever. However, Microsoft allows users to freely distribute its product, to obtain it for free.
By doing the latter, Microsoft controls the APIs. At the same time, competition is reduced for the operating system because any cost advantage disappears and alternatives repidly become (er, always were?) the province of an interested minority rather than the mainstream majority.
I can certainly see the latter being possible. If it means giving the OS out for free for Microsoft to continue to control the APIs, then all precedents are that they will do this. Whatever it takes. The means justifying the ends. Microsoft has certainly given away software for free in the past, software that's phenominally expensive to develop, in order to crush potential rival APIs (such as with MSIE) and has made enemies and reduced the power of its own system because of a desire to prevent a new API from being controlled by an outside party (as they did to Intel when Intel came up with a Multimedia API, the details are in the FoF.) This is, in some ways, far sighted. Microsoft knows exactly what it needs to control in order to survive. And that's what it's doing.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Microsoft's own Steve Ballmer: "Linux is a tough competitor."
Sombebody's been lying...
This completely inane (I mean it, what I wrote IS inane!) moral sermon brought to you by someone who's not an AC. (now just try to figure out what I mean by that...)
.. I'm pretty confident we'll see MS giving away Windows very soon after they get Palladium and Digital Restrictions Management up and running properly.
The reason being is that they know damn well that Palladium has the benefit of:
1. Consistent, adjustable revenue streams
2. Heavy network effects (as in, good luck finding an Open Office to translate Palladium documents)
3. Governmental backing
4. Removing unwanted illegal evidence
5. Burying free software.
The only trick to getting all of these is to get a widespread base of people using Palladium in the first place. What better way then to "concede" victory to Linux in the OS market and start giving away Windows? This would take away the one immediately tangible benefit that Linux boosters can point to.
My reasoning to these benefits can be found at this here.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
"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?
Corporatism != Free Market
Same thing that the original article means, the author is speaking out the back of his trousers.
Microsoft has no intention to make Windows free, the anonymous comment came from a Linux weenie in need of a clue, the revenue comment was a deliberate troll.
The Microsoft decision means only that the states lost and in the process the cases brought by Sun et al were gutted. Sure they can rely upon the monopoly findings by Jackson, but the appeals court threw out the singificant ones. In particular CK-K found that Microsoft had a right to bundle an incompatible VM. Microsoft has a right to rely on that finding of fact in the Sun suit.
Microsoft will publish a small amount of additional information about their product. That is pretty unimportant since what is really needed is for Microsoft to write an architecture guide for Windows. VMS used to be like Windows, a vast operating system with an amazing amount of complexity. The key to understanding the 'gray wall' was a single volume called the VMS architecture guide. If you read that you knew how to use the rest of the documentation. There is no single similar guide for Windows, there are twenty partial attempts.
My experience of programmers set to work on Windows stuff is that they frequently cry 'Microsoft is the fault' when the real problem is that they can't be bothered to read the manual. Blaming Microsoft is a great excuse for the lazy or incompetent programmer. Now Microsoft certainly does not put out all the info it should, but don't think that it is any different out there in Redmond. If you work with those guys you will soon hear them complaining of having to do the type of reverse engineering that non Microsofties complain of.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Besides, their OS is on virtually every new PC sold in the last 20 years, so why bother to give it away? The only people who would benefit from that would be Dell, HP, Toshiba, etc.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
MS was virtually non-existant in the applications space till the Windows OS (with its secret apis) became a desktop standard
Well, that isn't 100% true, which of course means that it isn't 100% false also.
What MS did do, was buy, early and completely, into the windowing metaphor. They did make use of undocumented MS Windows APIs, yes. But I really don't believe that made any substantive difference between their products and the competitors.
For example, before MS Windows was ever released, even in V1.0 form, MS was working on its Excel application, on the Mac. Not only that, they listened to the customers and Apple's user interface gurus on how to improve the product. The end result was that when MS Windows 1.0 came out, MS had a reasonably good worksheet program for it; and had a several year head start on the competition in how to create windowed applications.
Anyone who claims that building windowed applications is the same, and a quick port, from DOS based ones hasn't even had to do that port. It isn't easy or intuitive.
Add on to this the fact that many or MS competitors tried to create menu structures and interface conventions different from the "standard" (which, yes, was written by MS) only hurt them. I remember many journalists making a mark for themselves in the early Mac and MS Windows days by just finding and attacking those products which didn't follow the guidelines. (This was particularly true in the Apple world, where not following the guidelines was tantamount to being a satanist during the Spanish Inquisitions.)
Microsoft has done many illegal and morally corrupt actions in their history, including the use of undocumented APIs. But that use of "hidden" APIs was not the main reason their applications succeeded and others failed.
I don't see things in black and white; I see the gray. Heck, I actually see in color, which makes things more difficult
Those bastards! Not supporting Windows 95! How dare them end-of-life a 9 year old piece of software!
Nevermind the fact that Apple no longer supports anything other than OS X, and is planning on making most systems not boot into OS 9 after a date in the very near future.
Mooniacs for iOS and Android
Think on this for a moment. When Microsoft developed the Win32 API, one of the design goals was to take full advantage of the 32 bit chips from Intel. No problem. The other design goal was to make it as backwards-compatible as possible with Win16 and OS/2. Serious problem. While developers were able to easily port Windows 3.x apps to 95 and NT, the OS was crippled.
Just as an example, the worst part of NT's core security protocol, NTLM, was not even written by Microsoft. It was coded by IBM for OS/2... and left in for backwards-compatability.
Fast forward to the present. Microsoft Windows, as a platform, is insanely difficult to develop for (unless you are using VB). The learning curve to get started with C or C++ is insane. (eg: COM, COM+, OLE, OLE2, OLEDB, ATL, MFC, ADO, RDO, etc.) Not to mention the cost of getting your hands on Visual Studio.
Linux, on the other hand, is easy to develop for. The tools are free, the compiler is free, and getting your code up and running is as simple as make, make install. It is one of the biggest advantages Linux has (forget security and stability for a moment). Also, Java never worked out on Windows. Even with the WFC extentions, Windows developers never used it to code Win32 apps.
Now, however, MS has .NET. Thanks to its deployment mechanism (assemblies), its somewhat unique object code (CLI, the rough equivilent of Java's VM), and its code libraries (covering about 99% of the Win32 API, but not dependent on Win32), .NET is in a position to make Win32 obsolete.
My guess is that the interviewee is right. MS's next version of Windows will most likely be a platform for .NET, with a stripped down API for 'native' apps. And MS wants .NET ported to everything. In fact, becuase the JITC compiles down to assembly, how much effort would it take to port .NET to Linux? On the IA-32 platform? That the JITC already compiles to? Think on that for a while.
Windows is dead. .NET lives.
For all intents and purposes, from the perspective of the average user who gets Windows bundled with their OEMbox, MS has been giving away the OS for a long time. Sure, they charge you for it, but the cost is lumped in with the cost of the hardware and you never notice it unless you look carefully.
Nowadays, of course, this point is somewhat diluted, since you *can* buy a blank-slate PC with no OS pre-installed, but even today 99% of your average computer users will want to buy a computer that comes with an OS installed on it, as it will be fairly useless until one can be installed.
But during the crucial period when MS was building its monopoly on the strength of its control of the desktop OS, you really couldn't buy an OEM built PC that didn't have an OS already installed on it.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
Windows has NEVER been free to new PC buyers. It's been "included" yes. But MS charges the manufacturer of the PC, and ALWAYS has. And I guarantee that Michael Dell isn't fronting the cost for you. It's absolutely included in the price of the computer. And for that matter, has grown to become one of the largest single costs of a new computer. How do you think WalMart can afford to sell the No-OS PC's so cheap. Because they don't have to give MS over $100 for a copy of XP. That's how.
And why in gods name would MS care about drumming up interest in hardware upgrades? Last I checked they didn't market any of the parts that actually need to be upgraded regularly. Intel, Seagate, and the Dramurai owe their businesses to MS pushing upgrades. But MS doesn't get squat from that side of things.
"Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs." P.J. O'Rourke
Considering the licensing requirements of SP3 can put a compliant company on the wrong side of the law (1, 2) I would not consider it to be free (in any sense of the term). But considering the number of problems/issues that SP3 supposedly addresses (in the areas of "application compatibility, operating system reliability, security, and setup"), leaving your system as is (in a potentially vulnerable state) is also not something that people would feel free to do. Because of one law, they are in violation if they don't patch, and because of Microsoft's licensing, they're in violation of the law if they do patch.
So forcing users to make/keep their computers ineligible to be used legally seems to me to be a rather significant loss of functionality.
Not that I usually criticize Slashdot for lack of editorial judgement - that would be like criticizing the devil for being naughty - but the "one interviewee" who foretold MS giving away Windows for free was Brian Behlendorf, who can't exactly be called neutral where questions about Microsoft and open source software are concerned.
In other news, Bill Gates says "We will crush Linux like a bug," and Steve Jobs says, "Mac OS X is just so insanely great, it's insane in its greatness." Ho hum.
This BBC Article Microsoft looks beyond the court: :-)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2399857.stm
is pretty hopeful. At one point they say, "By contrast Linux is free and much more secure than Windows in any of its incarnations." Its nice to see that in print.
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do.
Never use a lawyer to fix an economic condition. Throughout history, whenever a particular company has a commanding lead in a particular market, its gross profit margin is very high.
Examples of former companies with high gross profit margins in their industries: IBM (computing), Rockefeller oil company (oil industry), US Steel (steel).
Why is this the case? Because hardly anyone knew anything about the business of that industry at the time because it was tied to a new technology. The oil and steel were tightly attached to the automobile, train, electrical appliances, and electrical machine industries.
In each of these cases, it took the consumer and technological investments from other companies to overtake these companies and make them just another company in the industry.
Forget what the government does--it matters what you do and how you (the person or the manager) spend your money that determines the outcome of Microsoft and any other monopoly. Research your decisions properly and make a wise business investment based on 1) your company's goals, 2) your division's goals, and 3) your ideas about the technology industry and how it can be used as a tool.
I truely believe that if people simply research the many different ways to solve a problem using technology that Microsoft would be by now simply one of many software companies out there.