Microsoft Responds to Leaked Memo

AbbeyRoad writes "CNN, has a story on Microsoft's response the internal memo previous leaked: "Microsoft believes many of its efforts to market its products against Linux and open source are backfiring, according to a memo posted on the Internet. ... Microsoft declined to comment on the authenticity of the memo, and did not answer when asked if it believes its marketing against Linux and open source has been effective. ... Microsoft spokesman Jon Murchinson said: ''The document in question seems to suggest that the basis for evaluating products has been long-term customer value, and that's something we agree with. I think our marketing is geared toward that issue, toward long-term customer value.'' ""

Comments

Microsoft better be concerned

[Goalie_Ca]

They are dependant on the marketing and business schemes and not the quality of their product. If the above isn't working then they better become concerned.

Re:Microsoft better be concerned

[signine]

They are dependant on the marketing and business schemes and not the quality of their product. If the above isn't working then they better become concerned.

Actually, Microsoft does produce a quality product, despite what the Linux-obsessed masses seem to think. It does have it's shortcomings, not the least of which being the price tag, but when it comes down to it, what Microsoft should be keeping in mind is that they have the edge when it comes to support and useability. Linux and Apache may well perform 10% faster, but an existing company typically has to hire a Linux admin to do that. Instead they can just throw money at buying a Windows Server License, IIS, and make a couple support calls to Microsoft to get it all up and running properly. If it ever breaks and the admin can't figure out the ridiculously simple administration tools, he can call Microsoft and have them fix it.

Sun does essentially the same thing, but is substantially more expensive, has less application support, and generally also requires hiring expert technicians. Microsoft products just do what they're supposed to do, and do them reasonably well. This is why Microsoft has the edge, it's EASY. MacOS might be a challenger if they had Enterprise level server support and hardware that didn't cost an arm and a leg, and third party support.

Lets face it, Linux has a long time to beat out Microsoft in Workstation land, and for companies that want to be able to hire any random Joe for pennies and not have to document every step of their network, Microsoft is more or less the only choice.

Interface, support, cost. The overhead to pay MS for software and support is less than hiring Senior UNIX Admins, and that's basically what it all comes down to.

Re:Microsoft better be concerned

[kableh]

You obviously haven't read the EULA for SP3. Many users have more than stability to be concerned about.

Re:Microsoft better be concerned

[pmz]

Sun does essentially the same thing...

Okay.

...but is substantially more expensive...

How so?

...has less application support...

It depends on your point-of-view.

...and generally also requires hiring expert technicians.

You'd rather have non-experts running systems that your business depends on? All but the smallest networks require experts from initial network architecture to end-user support.

Microsoft products just do what they're supposed to do, and do them reasonably well.

Other options, such as OS/2, Beos, Wordperfect, etc. have all come and gone at Microsoft's whims yet they were all arguable better than MS' offerings. Microsoft's products do approximately what their marketing department says they do, but not nearly as well as advertised. It's pretty rare that I'm actually impressed by one of Microsoft's products after I get to use it.

This is why Microsoft has the edge, it's EASY.

Not really. Microsoft's current edge really is founded on their downright predatory business and marketing tactics over the past two decades.

The overhead to pay MS for software and support is less than hiring Senior UNIX Admins, and that's basically what it all comes down to.

It really depends on the size of the network. UNIX scales better in cost as the size of the network increases. Unless, of course, the company is locked into Exchange, for example.

Re:Microsoft better be concerned

[ReelOddeeo]

Actually, Microsoft does produce a quality product

Only now do they produce some quality products. This can be attributed to the fact that they have buckets of money to pour into development. Money that can be extorted from other market segments that have no choice but to buy.

You don't think Microsoft spend $150 million improving IE just to give it away out of the goodness of their hearts? ($150 million according to trial testimony.)

You don't think, a few years ago, Microsoft was giving away Microsoft Money for free out of the goodness of their hearts? (Prior to giving up on the idea of killing Quicken and then trying to buy them instead.)

These are the classic tricks of the monopolist.

• You can give away products for free, subsidizing them from customers who are locked in to something else you make.
• You can develop quality products, after many poor releases that would have killed any other non-monopoly. Microsoft can afford as many screwed up releases as necessary to develop quality products. It simply doesn't matter. After some number of years, they'll get it right, and a whole new generation of Microsoft shills will appear to trumpet the goodness that is Microsoft.

Lets face it, Linux has a long time to beat out Microsoft in Workstation land

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, people were saying that anybody, including Microsoft has a long time to beat out IBM in PC land. Now we have commodity hardware, and Microsoft, not IBM, makes all the profits. And it didn't take very long either. By 1985/6 the war was over. Things can have a way of snowballing. Microsoft seems to be very much on the defensive.

You mentioned support and service. Modern Linux distros are getting pretty darned good if you hadn't noticed. Now both Red Hat has announced their intentions to go after the desktop. SuSe, and others, too.

for companies that want to be able to hire any random Joe for pennies and not have to document every step of their network, Microsoft is more or less the only choice.

Trained chimpanzees for admins? No documentation? Sounds like either:

• A recipe for disaster
• nothing custom or innovative being done (In which case, the same reasoning would apply to Linux, install out of the box, nothing custom.)

This is why Microsoft has the edge, it's EASY

This is why Microsoft has the edge: It's a MONOPOLY!

With an already segmented market!

(Segmentation is another monopolist trick. Take an identical product, and at no cost, or tiny cose, turn it into multiple market segments. Hence, XP Home, XP Embedded, XP Pro, XP Advanced Server, XP DataCenter, XP Media PC, etc. Got competition in one segment? Crush it, subsidizing it by charging the other segments.)

Re:Microsoft better be concerned

[mangu]

we couldn't get XP Pro to spit out BSODs when 2K would do it running the same tests on the same hardware.

You must be mistaken. According to Microsoft, Windows 2000 NEVER BSODs. And neither do XP, NT4, Me, 98, 95, WfW, 3.1, or 3.0 either.

On the other hand, Linux DOES freeze from time to time. Happened to me this afternoon. Had to go all the way to the neighboring cube and telnet to the machine and run top to see which X-windows application was eating 99% of the cpu time, and then kill -9 it. That's what happens when one develops real time applications under root. Lucky for me, Linux has the /var/log/messages file to see what happened.

Yeah, sure, Linux is something only those fanatics at /. can work with. Now excuse me, you can go back to your wonderful 6Mb binary registry file, I'm sure you love the power it gives you. I wonder how many thousands of consultants have made millions of $, just by changing a few registry entries...

Re:Microsoft better be concerned

[siskbc]

Linux and Apache may well perform 10% faster, but an existing company typically has to hire a Linux admin to do that. Instead they can just throw money at buying a Windows Server License, IIS, and make a couple support calls to Microsoft to get it all up and running properly.

I guess I can go ahead and thank you for Nimda, Klez....et al. Yes, MS is just easy enough to get going...with swiss cheese security, a trillion buffer-overflow explots and general weaknesses. If you want to have any degree of security, I do believe apache is cheaper. In the short term, in the medium term, and in the long term. How soon until your network is melted from all the script kiddies and viruses killing it? A month?

Re:Microsoft better be concerned

[hubie]

I think one could argue that the perceived lack of local expert support (i.e., a sysadmin) has cost US businesses billions of dollars due to all the MS Outlook and IIS worms and viruses. If these systems were so easy to administer, then why are there so many unpatched systems? If Joe Blow wants to set up a "it just works" server or Outlook account out of the box and doesn't pay attention to the administrative details, then he shouldn't be surprised when his system goes down and lots of money in time, software, and hardware have to be thrown at it because some l33t scriptkiddie took him down. That is one of the backend costs that others have referred to, and I think that if some of the larger companies that took a big "I Love You" or Code Red hit, that the cost in downtime and repairing/reinstalling their systems was much more than hiring and keeping the aforementioned pricy Unix admins on staff for years.

I think your support argument doesn't hold up because at least Red Hat provides very reasonably priced support. I can't answer for Sun, though my experience with them is that everything they provide is expensive.

I've also never understood the "long way to go" for the desktop argument. Why is Linux so far away from the desktop? What can't you do in Linux that you can do with Windows? I run RH with Gnome and StarOffice. There is nothing I have run into that prevents me from using this as my everyday computer. The only argument against it is that it can't view proprietary MS media formats, that it lags behind deciphering quirky formatting in the latest Office documents. If your standard of argument for equaling MS on the desktop rests on those points, then you'll be disappointed as Linux can never reach that standard unless you think OpenOffice developers can anticipate the next round of formatting commands before the Redmond developers do. And don't even mention the "Joe Blow can't set up Linux" because you apparently never have had to set up a Windows business machine for a neophyte secretary (as well as having them completely relearn the OS when moving from 98 to NT). The "not ready for the desktop" argument has always sounded to me like a catch-all excuse for Linux not having much marketshare and not based on any technical or otherwise decent argument.

reality check

[iterations]

''The document in question seems to suggest that the basis for evaluating products has been long-term customer value, and that's something we agree with. I think our marketing is geared toward that issue, toward long-term customer value.''

hmm.. marketing and product development are two VERY different things, no?

Re:reality check

[Anonymous Coward]

Marketting always drives product development. Would you write something that nobody wants? No.

If you want to make money (and, yes, that's what corporations do), you first find something that people want, and then develop products to fill that need.

Re:reality check

[sql*kitten]

hmm.. marketing and product development are two VERY different things, no?

Marketing is the process by which companies work out what the market wants, and how its products can meet that want. Good marketing - and no-one can deny that Microsoft are excellent marketers - is tightly integrated with development, so that customer demands can influence development priorities and technological developments can be pitched to customers. There should also be a lot of cross pollination, it's not uncommon for developers to do a stint as "pre-sales engineers" and marketers to do a stint as a "product manager".

Re:reality check

[Uma Thurman]

The purpose of marketing is to convince people to buy a product by subverting their reasoning process. If people bought things based on reason, they would pick the products that met their needs for the best price. Instead, we have marketers that convince people to buy things based on "brand" or "image" or something fuzzy like that. That's the reason why Nike sells so many ugly high priced shoes, when for most people a cheaper shoe would do. That's the reason why Levis brand jeans are bought instead of an off-brand that's just as comfy and durable. That's the reason why so many people Chevy Suburbans are occupied by a single driver, when a much smaller car would meet their needs.

Do not confuse marketing with sales. The purpose of sales is to answer the customer's questions about a product. It's inherently an educational process, where the customer is taught the answer to the question "why should I choose this product over a competitor's product."

Marketing usually solves a problem by making the product in a different color, or making the package just a bit larger and brighter so it catches the eye on the shelf. Sales solves the problem by putting the specifications for the product on the box, and giving the customers the information they need to make a decision based on the facts, not a warm/fuzzy feeling.

To push this thing over the top: Sales makes things that look like a FAQ that answers questions and educates people they call "customers". Marketing makes things that look like crack cocaine that bamboozles people they call "consumers".

OK, I'm done with that little rant now.

Re:reality check

[jonadab]

> If you want to make money..., you first find something that people
> want, and then develop products to fill that need.

That works if you want to make a reasonable amount of money, but if
you want to make trainloads of money, you have to find something you
can produce in large quantities cheaply, that other corporations will
be unable to exactly duplicate. That's the hard part. Then you hire
a bunch of marketing people to make everyone WANT this product, and
you're all set. Whether the product was something people really
wanted before your marketing people got to them is of only partial
importance. It does make the marketing job easier, but its impact
is not nearly as significant as you might think. With the right
marketing campaign, you can sell anything. I'm convinced you could
sell used dental floss with the right marketing. (That would not
be a useful business strategy, of course, because other companies
could readily produce lots of their own used dental floss to sell,
driving down the price to next-to-nothing, and then you could no
longer afford to pay your marketing people. The trick is to find
something nobody else can produce, so you can set the price where
you want it.)

And BTW, when I originally came up with that explanation, I was not
thinking of MS. I was thinking of McDonalds. There are other fast
food joints, yes, but McDs employs creative use of trademarks and
customer perception to make sure that none of the competitors can
really deliver quite exactly the same product in the eyes of the
consumer. That said, Microsoft is another example of the same phenomenon.

Re:reality check

[sql*kitten]

If people bought things based on reason, they would pick the products that met their needs for the best price. Instead, we have marketers that convince people to buy things based on "brand" or "image" or something fuzzy like that. That's the reason why Nike sells so many ugly high priced shoes, when for most people a cheaper shoe would do.

Ah, you are misunderstanding need. Consider: do people just want to keep their feet warm and to avoid slipping on the pavement? No, they want to look good and make a statement about themselves. Nike create a brand image, and people who buy their products do so because they want to associate themselves with that image. Look up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs. People always buy products that represent the lifestyle they aspire to. The fact that they are exclusive is a big part of that - otherwise you might as well wear cardboard boxes on your feet.

Re:reality check

[Monkelectric]

ohh you were so close ... you almost discovered the true power of American capitalism ... When a company becomes large enough, they *tell * consumers what to want. That was the real innovation behind MTV, tell kids what kind of music they want to listen to. Tell people "be original" and drink Dr Pepper. If I believe the commercials, a Nokia phone with a red faceplate would get me laid. Pepsi, "for those who think young."

Microsoft picks some technology, convinces everyone they want it, and then when the industry catches up, MS has already moved on.

Is it just me....

[Joe5678]

... or is this article not about Microsoft responding to the leaked memo at all, but rather posting the cnn version about the fact that there is a leaked memo...

Oops, re-phrase it quickly

[jki]

I think our marketing is geared toward that issue, toward long-term customer value.

That was supposed to be: .... toward long-term shareholder value.

Advocacy howto

[sql*kitten]

Really, is the Microsoft memo so different from this and similar documents?

Organizations refine their marketing all the time. And incidentally, Linux and open source in general is the #1 threat to Microsoft... and also to Sun. I don't doubt there is a similar pro-Solaris, pro-SPARC, anti-Linux, anti-Intel memo within Sun's sales organization.

Truly amazing

[slayer99]

A CNN story and a Slashdot article about 39 words of vapid marketspeak from some random Microsoft employee.

Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row

[Anonymous Coward]

I propose that this site state its purpose: does it exist to provide news, or is it merely attempting to blast Microsoft in a selfish, childish, jealous manner?

You pretty much hit the nail on the head.

Why am I here? I like a lot of the articles that are posted. While /. might've started out as a pro-linux page (which it still is), it's expanded to encompass other facets of technology. Unfortunately, that seems to include a healthy smattering of MS-bashing.

I don't hold it against anyone - its natural to fear one more powerful than you.

Running through the Truth Filter...

[RailGunner]

"The document in question seems to suggest that the basis for evaluating products has been long-term customer value, and that's something we agree with. I think our marketing is geared toward that issue, toward long-term customer value."

Translation: I wasn't aware of this memo existing because I'm just a PR Weasel, and totally out of the loop, but just in case this is a real memo then I'd better praise it before I'm selling French Fries.

Seriously though - if it wasn't authentic, they would have vehemently denied it was authentic in a way to discredit Eric Raymond.

From the post...

[the_real_tigga]

I think our marketing is geared toward that issue, toward long-term customer value.

Well, I can't comment on the marketing, but the products certainly are. In the long-term, I put a lot of "value" into MS products once I as a customer have become dependent of them (think Exchange server and upgrade costs).

Perhaps Apple is Not Quite So Predatory

[ausoleil]

"Rather than attempting to promote Linux and Open Source as worthwhile competitors, Slashdot and its parent company insist on attacking Microsoft."

You are implying that VA Software created the memo and leaked it to CNN?

It would seem that the article was written by a bona fide news source, and that it is onl;y being echoed here.

Fact is, the battle for market supremacy in the server room and on the desktop is of paramount importance to most of the readers of /.

Fact is, Microsoft itself created this "bad news."

You imply it is cowardly to post these articles rather than extol the virtues of the competition. Hmmm, I daresay that you are being cowardly for attacking the messenger rather than the message.

"Apple is every bit as proprietary as Microsoft, even going so far as to monopolize their hardware market and filing numerous lawsuits to combat those attempting to mimic their 'look and feel', something that even Microsoft does not attempt to do."

The most famous suit was the one against Windows, and Microsoft.

They lost, BTW.

"I propose that this site state its purpose"

I think they do.

Look upward at the banner at the top of the screen.

It says "News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters."

I fail to see how this memo fails to qualify as exactly that.

Re:Where's the Source?

[buzzdecafe]

Nothing funny about it. If he has a source inside Microsoft, why should he announce: "Hey, I got this internal Microsoft document from Joe Blow in cubicle 35A!" How long do you think that guy would last? And who would ever tell anything to Raymond ever again?

Re:2 Microsoft articles in a row

[belloc]

The increasing number of articles devoted to Microsoft is somewhat disturbing.

One great thing about Slashdot is cusomization. Almost everything is customizeable. That means that the Anti-MS zealots could choose to block every story except MS-related stories, effectively turning their Slashdot experience into the limit of what you're describing. They could then bash MS to their hearts' content.

Also, you could block out every MS-related story, and never see another one again. Why don't you just do that?

Belloc

Microsoft's achilles heel is communicable

[Zoarre]

Microsoft believes many of its efforts to market its products against Linux and open source are backfiring

The way I see it, the greatest strength of free software is that the people involved have not traditionally been greedy in their pursuits. Conversely, greed is Microsoft's achilles heel. Even if stroking the egos of those involved in open software is unintentional, the movement will most likely fail if the community acquires a lust for something other than making high-quality software available to all, without discrimination.

That being said, I ask why we care (within reason) about what Microsoft says about Linux, be it good or bad?

Re:Microsoft's achilles heel is communicable

[Omnifarious]

Because Microsoft's very existence is an impediment to creating quality software. If for nothing else than that you're required to implement whatever brain damaged 'standard' Microsoft has foisted off on everybody for interoperability reasons.

Re:Who to sue?

[GigsVT]

Nearest deep pocket is the rule of thumb in any civil suit.

That would be Red Hat, with their 200 million in the bank. Small change for a company like MS, but at least it could pay the legal fees if they won, and take down the largest pure play Linux company.

Of course, IBM might just have a problem with that little strategy, and has the muscle to beat MS into the ground, or at least cost them a lot of money. I could see IBM buying Red Hat just to avoid the precedent should MS win.

Red Hat knows this, which is why you don't see NTFS in their kernels, or MP3 players in their distro, things like that. They know they are the nearest deep pockets in a lot of these cases.

Re:And...

[kalidasa]

Parent should have been modded up as insightful, rather than merely funny. How can MS with a straight face say they are about "long-term customer value" when they design for short-term (3 years or so) obsolescence?

And in other news

[cjmckenzie]

And in other news, Microsoft STILL runs some of its servers on FreeBSD, Linux. Check out http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph/?host=a147.ms. a.microsoft.com and http://www.netcraft.com/whats/?host=ad.law10.hotma il.com for info. (see how they try to secure this information by obscuring it down a few layers? How Effective!) MS using linux is like Senator Joseph McCarthy carrying around The Communist Manifesto with him.

Re:And in other news

[KidSock]

And in other news, Microsoft STILL runs some of its servers on FreeBSD, Linux. Check out http://uptime.netcraft.com/up....

These are probably just DNS servers operated by one of their isps. It's kinda hard not to use *BSD or Linux for something like a DNS server that needs absolutly no other configuration than network and bind. Very cheap setup. Just hardware and bandwidth.

Authenticity of the halloween docs...

[Raleel]

Really, I might believe one of these, maybe even 2 or 3, but 7? Come on...where are these coming from, and what are their motivations? Are these really leaked? or are these deliberate misinformation?

Please stand by

[person-0.9a]

"The document in question seems to suggest that the basis for evaluating products has been long-term customer value, and that's something we agree with. I think our marketing is geared toward that issue, toward long-term customer value."

And now that they have their marketing all fixed up to be a long-term customer value, they're ready to address the long term value of their products -- please stand by for Bill Gates to announce Microsoft's "Value Computing" initiative.

Microsoft Fails to "Get It"

[zentec]

Oh Microsoft, you don't get it, let me count the ways.

Bad-mouthing Linux doesn't work. It fails because people _like_ Linux, and Linux _works_. What else can you say? Trying to tell people that a free operating system has a higher cost of ownership than their product which costs hundreds or thousands of dollars makes Microsoft look foolish. Arguing that "you'll need to pay people to maintain it" is almost laughable.

Microsoft, the life cycle of your products is deplorable. It used to be that businesses were willing to cede that due to hardware advances, they'd have to replace office PCs every 3-5 years. That's no longer the case. The office staff will hardly tell a difference between a Celeron 800 and the new Pentium 4 machines. So, businesses are finally going to get some realistic life out of the investment. However, Microsoft still wants to maintain the same life cycle of their operating systems. Even worse, if you don't fit into their upgrade schedule, you have security problems that are likely to be unresolved as your version of their OS retires. Microsoft, people are understanding that the insecurities of your operating system _work in your favor_ to promote the obscenely short life-cycles of your product.

Microsoft fails to understand that their money grab in licensing changes, their unmitigated gall at calling their customers thieves via the BSA and many other ways of annoying the IT managers through-out the world has -- Microsoft, get ready for the clue here --

_alienated customers_!

That's right. Microsoft, take a long hard look at the likes of large monopolistic phone companies and see why people will opt for something that's not necessarily better, but tolerable in order to eliminate the intolerable dealings with Microsoft.

Re:Open Source v. M$

[flippet]

M$, however, is not a threat to Linux.

Tell that to the guys who earn a wage from linux coding, supporting linux, all the rest. If Microsoft stuff gets to the point where linux alternatives aren't viable for companies and the like, there goes a lot of linux support down the drain.

Yes, linux won't die because there'll always be the hackers and free-time coders, but without the support of large, money-making organisations that's where it'll stay.

Phil, just me

Re:Advocacy howto (I care)

[gosand]

Organizations refine their marketing all the time. And incidentally, Linux and open source in general is the #1 threat to Microsoft... and also to Sun. I don't doubt there is a similar pro-Solaris, pro-SPARC, anti-Linux, anti-Intel memo within Sun's sales organization.

To state the obvious, Sun isn't Microsoft. Microsoft is a convicted, predatory monopolist. They have the money and the power to completely ruin OSS, as soon as they figure out how to do it. Don't think they aren't trying.

OSS isn't a company they can buy. It is difficult to sqaush something that is intangible and revolutionary. This is interesting to me because I love OSS, GNU/Linux in particular. I don't want to see it go away, and I want to know what Microsoft thinks about it, and what their strategies are. I want everyone else to know this too, especially the people who are able to fight against Microsoft.

This memo might have them running scared...

[the unbeliever]

If it's real, at least. If it's fake, it's a very well done fake. I doubt we'll see a confession from MS that this was real.

Re:And...

[McKing]

It is not usually the IT people (although in some companies it is). What usually happens is that once a company locks into a particular version of Windows and a particular version of Office, outside forces cause the IT department to gradually upgrade to newer versions.

Example: company A stablizes on Win98 clients, WinNT servers and Office98. After a while, the payroll department needs to 'upgrade' to win2k/xp clients because their new payroll system only runs on win2k. The purchasing office starts getting hassled by a couple of suppliers because the suppliers use a later version of Office, and the automated order forms that get emailed in are garbled by this later version. some members of the sales staff needs to upgrade to an even later version of Office because their clients have a similar problem with win98's Word docs. and so on and so on. The IT staff tries to fulfill these requests as best they can, but employees sometimes install personal software from home on their machines (not understanding/caring about licensing issues), and not the machines in the company are a hodgepodge of OS'es and Office versions.

So the IT department recommends a company-wide upgrade to WinXP clients/servers and the latest Office. Which drives their clients and suppliers using earlier versions to upgrade, and the vicious cycle continues. All to Microsoft's benefit.

Re:And...

[walt-sjc]

When MS stops releasing service packs and hot fixes, what choice will you have? Can you afford to be a target for every script kiddie on the planet? It's not open source where anyone can pick up and maintain old versions of the OS.

MS announced that Office 11 won't run on Windows 98. What do you bet that Office 12 won't run on Win2K? History proves that MS changes the .doc format at every release. If you want to continue to seamlessly integrate with other users of MS products, you will have no choice but to upgrade. This will probably force you to upgrade your OS if nothing else will.

So the answer to your question is "Microsoft." They are pretty good at forcing people to upgrade through planned obsolecence.

IMHO, not releasing sercurity fixes for some of their not-so-old products is a crime. Win98 is only 4 years old, Nt4 was sold as recently as 2 years ago. MS has made MORE than enough off those products to support them (from a security standpoint) for at LEAST 10 - 15 years.

Most other OS vendors charge customers an annual maintenance fee (generally about 20% of the purchase price) per year if you want to continue to get updates. IBM still maintains and supports OS's and HARDWARE for machines that are 25 years old or MORE - and they don't have NEAR the userbase of ANY windows product.

MS has other options too. Sell off support to some third party company. Let THAT company charge for, and provide updates for MS's old code. MS WILL NOT do that because it breaks their business model of forcing upgrades.

Now I'll go out on a limb here (I'm not an MS fan by any stretch of the imagination) but MS has every right to do this (yeah, I just said above that it should be a crime, but it currently isn't.) For the way they designed their revenue stream, it's the right move for them. I'll go further to say that anyone who buys MS products should be aware of this, and plan (budget) for this. It's part of your TCO. Note that you can actually go to MS Licensing v 6 and pay through the nose anually, but that still won't get you support for older releases.

OSS is immortal

[MikeFM]

Free/Opensource software is really pretty immortal as a movement and product. Microsoft could keep people from using it but not from developing it. Their efforts to do just that, as the article says, have mixed results for them at best.

If Microsoft really wants to compete with Linux they'll release the source to Windows. Eventually I think they'll do just that but not until they think they've pumped every dime out of Windows they can. Having Windows opensourced would of course benefit their competition also but as with most OSS projects the original owner of the code carries the big stick. Everyone else is free to split their own trees.. resell.. etc but if the original owner is selling it themselves then they'll get 90% of the business. Also they'll have a better chance at selling their apps, hardware, and support.

I believe that is one reason Linus does not sell a Linux dist. RedHat is not the first Linux dist but it's been doing it a long time and has had the most solid business of the different dists so it usually gets a large majority of the business.. but does not corner the market because Linus doesn't work for them.

Microsoft may bully some countries, the US included, into a protection racket for their software but in doing so would probably cause a backlash from many businesses.. even those currently using Microsoft products. Companies may like Microsoft software but having their choice forcible removed would give them reason to turn against Microsoft the company. So really I can't see DRM and such as a real stick for Microsoft to beat Linux up with.

So look for M$ OpenWindows one of these days. Microsoft is slow to pick up on trends but once they grasp the way the wind is blowing they play the game well. You can't compete with the community that makes your software and the community that uses your software when there is an alternative. They'll have to change their business model to stay in business but once having done so they'll no doubt execute the change better than most others and probably come out stronger for the change.

They'll probably follow a MacOS path of porting Windows to FreeBSD with some semi-open UI layer though my guess would be they'll be more likely to use KDE/Gnome as their base than start from scratch. Then they'll keep the applications commercial as long as they can.. slowly releasing layers of source as those layers are no longer profitable. I think Office will follow not to long after Windows as OSS because competition is strong there. That is one reason for their current XML push for file formats. I think they'll focus on the entertainment and business markets. Games have little direct OSS competition because large portions of them are more art than code. Games have a somwhat short profit lifetime so even if an OSS alternative comes out eventually Microsoft would have earned the profits from the game already. Vertical business apps just aren't very fun so most OSS devers don't make them. A few businesses release their own but usually they don't want to release anything that gives them a wedge over their competition.

Re:How many have noticed?

[crusher-1]

Our in otherwords, it's referred to a "Pax Microsoftia". Many advances have come along due to the reality of the Pax Microsftia but at what cost? Standards determined not by a governing body but by a corporate manifesto for dominance?

Common computing environments that also serve to quash competition and further advancements?

Just like the Pax Romania, many advances were/are gained but at what cost? And how will history record this when it's but a distant memory?

The industrial age is past and the dawn of the imformation age is at hand. And at the forefront of the this new day is Microsoft. How long will the Empire reign? The down fall of the Roman Empire was due to it's own complacency and arrogance, along with uncontrollable forces from outside the empire. IMHO, I predict a similar end to the Pax Microsoftia.

and forced upgrades are a problem all of their own

[Lewis Mettler, Esq.]

Forced upgrades are a bad idea to start with.

Just today Oracle is taking some real heat for dropping support on old applications software. The reason is simple. Corporations want to upgrade when they want to upgrade and not at any other time.

Microsoft's pitch to pay a lot and upgrade often only assumes the expenses remain high relative to Linux.

And, having the source code available means that customers can even support themselves long after a company stops doing so. Anyone can maintain their version of Linux as long as they wish. Microsoft screws everyone by forcing the upgrade, making it too expensive not to upgrade or simply dropping support for older versions.

Open source brings with it some very real advantages over the long haul. With Linux you can upgrade every 6 months or so if you are so inclined. (And, many are.) Or, you can hold off until the need justifies the upgrade and you are good and ready. (And, again many corporations would prefer that.)

To bad that Microsoft forces higher prices whether or not you upgrade frequently. Frequent upgrades may sound better at times but that process comes with additional costs too mitigating and savings permitted by Microsoft.

The industry is better off the quicker Microsoft goes away.