Slashdot Mirror
OSS Officially On Microsoft's Financial Radar Screen
seldo writes "More news from Microsoft's latest quarterly filing: according to eWeek, Microsoft says it may have to lower its prices in response to competition from open-source software. From the filing: "To the extent the open source model gains increasing market acceptance, sales of the company's products may decline, the company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and operating margins may consequently decline". This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft, and if it happens, it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!"
Most definitely: It is good to not have a monopoly controlling a market.
perl -e 'printf("%x!\n",49153)'
By forcing Microsoft to release polished and well documented code at a reasonable price, OSS has pretty much achieved its goal.
Before the muppets start talking about products can't compete with free, remember support costs, staff costs etc etc.
One element on margin is that it is estimated that Microsoft work around the 30% mark, while IBM work around 7% and are booking multi-millions in association with Linux. So this means that Microsoft will be reducing their margin, not becoming unprofitable.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
for a copy of Lindows perhaps it is the linux distibutors who need to lower prices.
EGG, the Electronic Gamers Guild
PR... nothing more than PR...
It's not that they're wholly unaffected by the advance of Linux, but this statement should be bundled with others they use to show that "We have brutal competition... really!"
It was about time.
The thing that pushes ppl to Linux and Open Source is the price. Depending if MS lower its prices too much, it may cause a lot of ppl not to consider OSS software at all.
Who would want use and a disgruntled OS if they may get nice box, nice gradient buttons, stylish consistent GUI for a reasonable price?
Maybe it forces OSS software to evolve from merely copying proprietary functionalities to actually improve users' life in order to make a differentiation. A reason for ppl to use it. For now, it's price.
Microsoft has to put everything they could possibly think of that might conceivably cause the stock to go down even slightly in there, otherwise they could be held liable by their stockholders.
So while it's certainly nice that they finally have to publically announce this as a possibility, it really doesn't mean anything. I've seen some wild things in quarterly and annual reports.
-Todd
"The details of my life are quite inconsequential..."
So this is why the Microsoft Home Of The Future has no bathroom. They can't afford it anymore. Sweet.
Animals are most dangerous when they are cornered.
Expect to see this beast with its hackles up, coming out fighting.
Get your own free personal location tracker
Here's my scenario:
First, MS Office revenues will be hit and hit hard. OpenOffice does almost anything MS Office can do and it is not more difficult to upgrade from Office97 to OpenOffice than it is to upgrade to OfficeXP. - But a lot cheaper.
Only after an organization has successfully converted to OpenOffice, we will see full conversion to Linux.
Now we'll all have to see what Microsoft does without the hefty MS Office sales... Maybe XBox-gamers will have to pay a lot more because Microsoft can no longer afford losing millions over millions on it?
"OSS Officially On Microsoft's Financial Radar Screen"
First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
Then you win.
- Gandhi.
This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft, and if it happens, it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!"
...Now if Microsoft interpreted the OSS threat the way they should and decided to counter it by open sourcing their stuff... THAT would be a major win for the OSS (by definition)!
Sigh. Since when was lowering Microsoft's prices a major objective of OSS?
This is *not* a big win. Contrary: it reduces the perceived difference between OSS and MS from a consumer's perspective and may even force Linux vendors to lower their prices and thus reduce their revenues.
This is really quite analogous with what happned when MS's cheaper solutions began to eat the Unix market from the workstation up.
At first, MS's main advantage was price, but gradually they innovated(*) and re-engineered so that their product was always high enough quality to attack the next layer up -- from word processing platform up through file/print server to heavy-duty servers and workstations.
Now MS are being eaten from below by a new generation of even cheaper systems. Like early MS systems, these open source offerings are both derivative and weak except for their price advantage. However, a price advantage is enough to secure a foothold, and over time open source systems will be strengthened and will begin to innovate and will be able to take over better and better MS-held markets.
In about 10-15 years, the cycle will probably start again, taking us another step further from the days of monolithic systems and proprietry hardware/os/support lock-in (which is where we were at before the Attack of the Killer Micros, young'uns). It's all good.
(*)Rather than freaking out and writing posts about 'M$' and so on, why not go outside and get some fresh air?
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
I love OSS, but just think...
OSS wins and almost all the servers and desktops are OSS. Then the companies that "bought" into the OSS, get annoyed that Linus is not releasing the fixes quick enough. Forks start appearing left right and center and suddenly every company has its own sponsered Linux distro.
Mr Gates waits patriently in the wings waiting for chaos to reach its peak before finally saying..."Well there is a reasonable, inexpensive option for your OS problems, you know?"....(thinks to himself "once more the wheel of fate turns in Bill's direction...mwhahahahaha!")
"I kill you! You no good 56'ing!"
Linux was on the space shuttle, and look what happened to it! Linux proliferation will only cause more disasters. Fuck linux!
Don't talk crap. NASA uses embedded BSD for their critical stuff. Anyway, the disaster was a hardware fault, not a software fault.
At my university (www.unbsj.ca) there are posters everywhere that advertise MS products for 90% off of the 'estimated retail price'.
But who wants XP anyway?
I suppose the continuing sluggish growth in the US economy has nothing at all to do with it either. Isn't this the same sort of argument that the RIAA used to explain the drop in CD sales? "The competition from free sources is reducing our sales!" In fact, slow growth in the economy impacts all kinds of sales, including Microsoft's products.
Sometimes I worry that I'll develop Alzheimer's disease, but no one will notice.
A translation for those not fiscally inclined.
*large puffs of smoke appear, and a talking face begs you*
"Gosh darn it! Open Source is digging into our revenue. Lord knows that Open Source will be the down fall of all things good, look whats happening to our profits! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here** I mean, we weren't really price gouging before, we were just looking out for our stock holders. Now our profits are going to go down because we have to lower our already, really, really, really fair prices or else we won't keep market share. It's unfair competition! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here**"
***second translation***
"G*d d*mn this sucks, we have to compete now, we just can't buy Linus out. So much for our past competitive strategy"
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Now they have a taste of what they did to Netscape by giving away IE. What goes around comes around.
Despite all the comments on here about Slashdot readers, their Mum, Dad, Grandmother, Aunt, Uncle and kids using Linux on the desktop - I don't think the desktop users are making any significant decreases to sales of Windows XP just yet.
A year down the line though, who knows ...?
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
I don't think OSS is making a big dent in MS revenues - it's still virtually impossible to buy a new PC without windows pre-installed (and pre-licensed).
Instead, I think MS is suffering from a lack of innovation. There is simply no compelling reason for corporates to upgrade their software anymore - Windows 2K is fine for business use, they don't get anything in XP other than support problems. You might upgrade Office to be able to read other people's files, but there are precious few "must-have" features to differentiate the current offering from Office 97.
The most significant reason for users to upgrade in the recent past has been MS's change in licensing policy - signing up before the deadline gives "free" access to upgrades for a limited period. I know that many corporates bitterly resented this pressure. However, the next version of "Windows for Servers" keeps getting pushed back, and many corporates are only now upgrading their servers from NT4 to W2K - not to take advantage of new features, but because support is being withdrawn.
So, while OSS is undoubtedly snapping at MS's heels, providing a much-needed alternative and nibbling away at the revenues, the bigger problem is that historically, Microsoft have taken ideas developed elsewhere and "embraced and extended" them. Right now, there are precious few radically new ideas to embrace, and the only way for MS to continue to grow their revenue is to find new must-have features. In short, they need to innovate under their own power.
Welcome to the real world, Bill....
It's all very well in practice, but it will never work in theory.
No perhaps Joe will get to keep his job since he is mearly a line worker. Joes IT dept saved 1/4 million allowing Joe keep working. For most companies software is a total write off. Now what if marketing takes that 1/4 million and uses it to market some actual product. Now perhaps a few more Joe's get hired. In a down economy it is all about bang for the buck
Got Code?
Really, I don't see how Microsoft lowering their prices could be good for anybody but them.
Well, it would save a whole lot of people a whole lot of money, so I guess that IS good, I guess. But really I see Microsoft just strengthening their foothold, which is bad for everyone in the long wrong.
Imagine if Windows cost $25? Instead of Joe-Blow doing cartwheels to get around XP Activation, they'd just buy 3 copies, one for each machine.
Imagine if Windows cost $9.99? People would buy copies for their mothers, friends, families, etc, just to "free them of those stupid problems they have with Windows 98/ME".
The fact is, Microsoft could probably still make some changes internally that would allow them to profit off of Windows if it sold for almost nothing, and THEN what would open source have to bank on? Moral righteousness? HAH. That'll sell.
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
I don't believe Microsoft is being greatly harmed by this. There is no way to truly damage so large a company in any quick or irrevocable way.
However, I do think that this is a good thing. Microsoft has always done business how it wants to without regard for competitors or allies so much as they were stepping stones to greater profit margins and superior dominance.
I will be both amused and relived if OSS's success forces Microsoft to reevaluate its obviously predatory practices. I might even(loosely) suggest this is much like the situation with RIAA. Software is changing when it comes to how some things are done. Microsoft must either adapt properly or miss the boat.
If they miss the boat, no great loss. Greater competition can only aid technological development and further thrust down Microsoft's prices.
Kalen D'arrie
This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft
No it isn't, it's just financial boilerplate text that the lawyers bolted on. It's to cover their asses in case anyone tries to file a class-action suit against them if their profits fall. I used to work for a NASDAQ-traded company, and we had this crap in our quarterlies all the time. You have to enumerate every possible risk to your business, even stuff like we operate in country X and there is a risk of an earthquake, which may materially affect our revenue in that market, blah blah.
Nothing to see here, move along...
You gotta be kidding me! This reminds me of the old joke... a US Navy Carrier sees a big blip on the radar, and sends out of the radio:
"This is the USS Big Ship to unidentified target, please change course." The response comes back:
"That's a negative, Big Ship".
"We are a Aircraft Carrier from the US Navy. Now please change course!"
"That's a negative, Big Ship. We're a lighthouse"
For chrissakes, OSS has got to be the biggest stack of rocks sitting on MS's radar that they've had in a long, long time.
-- james
... or less then OSS is dead (unless it really starts embracing the making of Win apps). It's a lesson the music industry may learn as well if they want to truly end the Napster Clone Wars.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Back in the day, computer users like me were power users. You can compare us to the car afficionado, but to Joe Blow, a computer is a tool that helps him browse websites, instant message, MP3s, porn, whatever. Back in the day I enjoyed BBSing and posting in forums thru my 9600 baud modem, back then Joe Blow didn't have a computer.
What I have noticed throughout all this is people use certain things as tools, once they can't do what they want to do, they will find another way. With the advent of XP, windows hasn't become easier to use. I have a hard time figuring out how to do what. Desktop sharing? WHat a joke that is. What about Media PLayer 9, all that drm crap is going to make things HARDER on people. MS is not making the computer experience any friendlier, they are siding with the corprorations that are against the people anyways. THIS is what will lead people to Linux, software that people want, not corporations.
MS is becoming desperate because they KNOW they made bad choices and OSS is going to bite em back. Not today, not tomorrow, but SOMEDAY. THem lowering the price make no difference, ultimatly its going to be what the people decide they want and not be told what they have to have.
I couldn't care less about the price, and I think the majority of OSS users isn't motivated by the low price. Hell, I can get windows for free just as well, just talk to my l33t h4ck0r neighbour kid and ask him to burn me a copy. The price argument is old & tired: get off it!
Even companies don't or shouldn't use OSS for it's price; dozens of researches have shown that the TCO (total cost of ownership) for windows and e.g. linux don't differ that much. They should use, as should individuals, OSS because they believe in the OSS philosophy and because the OSS style fits their own style of computer usage.
For me, it's about these things:
- From kernel to application, I can see exactly what it's doing and why
- If it doesn't work the way I like it, I can change it or try to find someone who already has
- I'm not a newbie, I know computers and I don't want to be treated as such
- If the configuration changes, I want to be the one who does it, not the OS itself
All these things add up to a package microsoft can't compete with, even if it would cost me more, not less that propriety software. And I wish everyone would stop hoping every last computer user starts using OSS, because it's just not going to happen, and it's just not necessary. Some people want ease-of-use, and others want power. Just so.
---
"The chances of a demonic possession spreading are remote -- relax."
I was sure that I read somewhere that the price of the software isn't an important factor in the total package, and thus the free-ness of Linux was irrelevant. Let's see, what company was it that was saying that over and over?
Liberty uber alles.
I am unsure that this is a good thing. I think you all should be a little skeptical too.
Why does anyone want to see Microsoft go down the tubes?
Sure, they have been overcharging us for their OS and office software for years, but it isn't like the money didn't go to good use. After all, most of the features that we see in OpenOffice and other useful apps for Linux came from ideas that were original or at least perfected (I use the term loosely here) in MS apps.
Sure, I love the GNU project, Linux, and OSS in general, but would we even have a target to hit with our free software if we didn't have a company like Microsoft to chase after?
I hate to see the mob mentality take over with this 'Linux vs. Windows' stuff rather than contemplate what a collapse of Microsoft would really mean to us (as developers, users, etc.)
If it's not one thing, it's Steve's Mother
You don't list things on your 10-Q that are complete nonsense though. Investment analysts use a company's 10-Q as a standard research tool and putting unnecessarily negative information on your 10-Q risks a lot. I would dispute the notion that "This comment doesn't mean MS thinks there is a threat." Certainly when one reads MS' 10-Q with Ballmer's statement that Linux is MS' #1 threat I think one has no other choice but to conclude that MS is very worried about competing with a lower cost alternative.
G. Washington on Government "it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
Businesses are willing to pay for value delivered. They are not, however, willing to be raked over the coals, especially by someone who is making the profit margins that Microsoft makes in an economy that has everyone else scrambling to make a buck.
Add in the costs of continual upgrades -- required by Software Assurance, BTW -- and the hardware to support them, and the lost productivity due to bugs and security flaws, and we have some unhappy campers out there.
OSS alternatives mean that Microsoft will have to lower prices, probably to a level lower than pre Software Assurance days. Customer anger and memories mean that it may not be enough to keep some of those customers from going away for good.
it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software
So - is the OSS movement about crushing Microsoft now?
I didn't realize that the OSS community was at war with Microsoft. I thought it was about making good software, and keeping the source open...
[Connection closed by foreign host]
As shown in previous reports, Microsoft's only profitable areas are the products directly threatened by OSS. The other Microsoft activities are currently losing money and are being propped up by profits from Microsoft's OS and Office products. If those products are going to achieve lower margins, then will the ventures losing money be cut? And if so, any predictions on which ones they will close first?
...It may just kill off a lot of the incentive for people to switch to Linux.
/. are pretty experienced computer users, people who are willing to spend the time to carefully tweak Linux to their own satisfaction and spend the time to chase down proper Linux hardware drivers.
What would happen if Microsoft suddenly cuts the pricing of a legal copy of Windows XP desktop editions by 50% or more for everyone? Because Windows is vastly better-supported in terms of hardware support than Linux, sales would definitely increase quite a bit.
Yes, Linux is cheap when you get the personal edition distributions, but when you have to spend time to tweak it to support the latest hardware, plus the fact a lot of the latest hardware lack Linux drivers, the result is a potentially frustrating experience for non-experienced users. I think a lot of people don't realize that many of the posters on
Altough it is nice and warming to see that MS may have to lower their insane prices i dont feel that happy. If this is true then Linux is really in the line of fire from Redmond. The ones who have proven time and time again that nothing is too evil or shoddy if it helps remove competition.
I think we linux users should brace for an attack like nothing before from MS. They will use any meens avaliable to sustain their high revenues. A slight fall of the revenues and MS stocks will likely fall like a ton of brick. Considering how much stocks is owned by staff in all levels i presume there is an enormous internal incentive to thwart linux in its cradle.
We should have a central site documenting every shoddy move and backdoor mudshot contest from Redmond HQ. I assume that would be some horrific reading on a site like that pretty soon now.
HTTP/1.1 400
This has nothing to do with what the common citizen is thinking.
This is because of governments such as Germany's opting to mandate open source instead of mandating using the best available package, regardless of what that is*
* = Could be OSS, could be MicroSoft, could be a proprietary UNIX, could be Mac, etc.
Most people already pay for Windows for each of their machines, whether they want to or not. I certainly have a Windows license for each of the dozen PCs that I have, and only one of them actually runs Windows.
So, your notion that people use open source because they have to pay for Windows flies in the face of reality. People use open source software because it simply works better for them.
Depressing for Microsoft, isn't it, that people throw Windows away even though it is pre-installed and they have actually been forced to pay for it and wouldn't incur any additional costs by just using it.
Most of the rest of the people couldn't give a rat's ass what OS is on their computer as long as it works. Now that Macintoshes are both a good deal and affordable, OS X will be popular in that group.
However, StarOffice and OpenOffice run on MS-Windows, OS X, Linux and others -- without the bloat, security problems and incompatibility problems bundled with MS-Office.
Even without all that above, License 6.0, software-as-subscription, DRM and DMCA pretty much ensured the demise of MS-Office.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
It's not virtually impossible to buy a new PC without Windows pre-installed. I can look in my newspaper, and see ads for brand new PCs that don't come with Windows, or any other OS at all. You can buy the PC and install what you want on it. And there's always buying a "new" PC from parts on Price Watch and assembling it yourself. Then you can add whatever OS you want. See, it's not that hard to find a PC without Windows on it.
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
...sales of the company's products may decline, the company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products...
Wow, if this sort of brave new thinking catches on, there might be cheaper compact discs from the RIAA and lower movie ticket prices from the MPAA!
Microsoft really *DOES* innovate, after all! And to think, the previous "best practice" by other companies was raising prices by collusion and suing the dissentors!
This is not big news. Companies don't want to be sued by shareholders if their business goes bad, so they mention everything they can think of that might hurt them in their SEC filings. It's just an ass-covering exercise.
In fact, this is from their last quarterly report, in November:
1) Go read a history of UNIX / M.I.T / Stephen Levy's "Hackers" book. Then you'll understand people were giving away software long before they had any ideas before making money out of it. Selling software is a newer idea... 2) OSS/FSF/GPL exist purely to protect the rights of those who *choose* to distribute software freely to continue to do that, to allow them (and anyone else) the ability to use and modify that software and to ensure that nothing is hidden behind proprietary standards. 3) Microsoft *sell* software. They are not innovaters, just damn good at repackaging the ideas of others and marketing it - or just buying the company that innovated it in the first place. They can, and have, used Open Source software ideas in their own products but, then, that's what it's designed for. (Yes, when you Windows people venture to the command line on your Windows boxes, whenever you "ping" something, you're using software that originated from the dirty, disgusting free software movement.) 4) OSS does not give a damn about Microsoft "competition". OSS/Linux/FreeBSD users, who probably have experience with Windows, might hate Microsoft (yes, I'm one of them) because of their business methods, rubbish software or simply because it's "cool". But OSS was there long before Microsoft as a defence against predatory practices from UNIX vendors and will be there long after. 5) Microsoft reducing the cost of their products / turning Windows into an operating system / sticking Gates' head on a pole outside 1 Microsoft Way might slow down the migration from Windows to OSS but it probably won't do anything whatsoever to those already using / developing OSS software. 6) Microsoft cannot buy OSS because there's nothing tangible to own, they can't stamp on OSS because it's too widespread, they can just continue to spread FUD as they've always done. End of OSS lesson...
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
Microsoft has only two profitable products (Office and Windows) that strongly depend on each other.
I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots. Microsoft has three profitable divisions: Client, Server Platform, and Information Worker. I'm hardly surprized that some dullards interpreted that as "Office and Windowz!", yet in reality those three divisions account for the overwhelming majority of products with the Microsoft name on it. SQL Server? Yup. Visual Studio? Yup. Visio? Yup. SNA Server? Yup. Indeed, if you looked within even the unprofitable divisions you would find a bevy of highly profitable items: The Home and Entertainment Divison encapsulates Microsoft hardware, such as mice and keyboards, which themselves are highly lauded and tremendously profitable, however their profitability is being masked by the xbox.
This is all so laughable anyways, and indicates the core naevity of most open sourcers. Egads Microsoft mentioned open source! The reality, of course, is that such filings must include forward looking risks of any sort, including potential lawsuits, and envisioned risks by the pundit community. The fact that open source is mentioned in there is a given. To make this even more hilarious, though, the prior quarterly report included the same risk statement, while the quarterly report before that included the statement "the availability of competitive products or services such as the Linux operating system at prices below Microsoft's prices or for no charge" as a risk factor. Looking at the annual report from 3 years ago yields the statement "With an increased attention toward open-source software, the Linux operating system has gained increasing acceptance. Several computer manufacturers preinstall Linux on PC Servers and many leading software developers have written applications that run on Linux. Microsoft Windows operating systems are also threatened by alternative platforms such as those based on Internet browsing software and Java technology promoted by AOL and Sun Microsystems. " and " The Company continues to face movements from PC-based applications to server-based applications or Web-based application hosting services, from proprietary software to open source software, and from PCs to Internet-based devices.". I'm sure I could go back two more years and find similar forward looking risk statements.
I suspect that someone read an SEC filing for the first time in their life and thought they found a real revelation (as did the Slashdot editors when they posted this), when it's the same thing that has appeared in their filings for years now.
This is not PR. This is CYA. (Otherwise called "Cover Your Posterior".)
Companies have to disclose anything that might materially affect their business to both the SEC and investors.
IMHO, it is high time that Microsoft started realistically stating how much of a threat Open Source is. It's not like Open Source is going to hurt Microsoft in the next couple of quarters. But it is a long term concern, which means something of interest to investors.
The price of freedom is eternal litigation.
Hang on a minute.
One minute Supreme Court Judge oops, sorry - forgot she hadn't been paid yet, Judge Collar Cotelly comes out with her "Open Source is not a credible alternative to Microsoft" during her verdict and the next minute M$ are moaning that OSS is forcing them to push their prices down.
Surely this is indicative of the fact that either CKK didn't have a grasp of the facts of the case or other factors were at work during her writing up of the outcome.
Whatever, both scenarios surely show CKKs verdict to be flawed and any lawyers wanting to rack up another big bill should start packing their briefcases immeadiatly. And this time can we have someone who actually understands the terms monopoly and level playing field?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
In Microsoft's case, they are following the SEC's guidelines like many other companies. This is a change for many companies. In Microsoft's situation, we have seen these very recient changes;
Years ago, they should have issued dividends...now they plan to.
Decades ago, they should have broken out each division of the company and discussed profits and losses in each...now they do.
Decades ago, they should have discussed all reasonable impacts on thier profits for each division...now they acknowledge open source.
Don't think this is a new thing for them. Open source has been a potential impact on MS's profits for a couple years. The only thing that has changed is that MS must acknowledge it as a possibility. If they have suffered an actual loss due to open source, the SEC will pressure and eventually require MS to report the loss after it has happened. As of now, no loss is obvious. Microsoft is speculating and has not acknowledged a loss due to open source -- yet. f they did not point this out, it could be the basis for a future lawsuit if a loss occurs.
Thank the SEC, though late themselves, for doing things now that force transparency...that forces some information into the open so we have a better chance to judge on merit not PR.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
Slashdot is reading way too much into this. It is common knowledge in the financial industry that 10-Qs are little more than a way of management teams protecting themselves from shareholder lawsuits. It is common practice to state virtually every conceivable risk, no matter how unlikely it is, no matter how far beyond control of management it is to minimize that risk, no matter how unlikely a different investment is to minimize that risk, etc..., so that management cannot be so easily sued if, god forbid, that event actually occurs. Unfortunately in our overly litigious society managements teams have been destroyed financially by frivilous lawsuits like that. In any event, as a result of all of this, it is really a mistake to read anything into 10-Qs. The shear volume of all the disclaimers and the generalities that they must make prevent management from being able to make an honest assesment of the far more likely threats; they get lost in the clutter and in the generalities. They are practically pointless to read these days. In other words, this is not proof that MS takes OSS seriously.
---1) Go read a history of UNIX / M.I.T / Stephen Levy's "Hackers" book. Then you'll understand people were giving away software long before they had any ideas before making money out of it. Selling software is a newer idea...
;-) The compiler is probably the biggest reason for me to 'switch'. If I could develop Windows stuff (and see basic windows programming like seeing the source for notepad and calc), I'd probably wouldnt have went to Linux.
What you talk about is the original Unix Way. If every program is a simple single minded program, and somebodt else would like to borrow a snippet of code, why not? And no, selling software is NOT a new idea. It's just another way to pay the programmers on code. And of course, if they open that code up, why buy their product (enter vicious circle)
---2) OSS/FSF/GPL exist purely to protect the rights of those who *choose* to distribute software freely to continue to do that, to allow them (and anyone else) the ability to use and modify that software and to ensure that nothing is hidden behind proprietary standards.
I think you misunderstand standards documents. Standards can be wrote in plain language that describe how something happens. Code is just an implementation of that standard.
---3) Microsoft *sell* software. They are not innovaters, just damn good at repackaging the ideas of others and marketing it - or just buying the company that innovated it in the first place. They can, and have, used Open Source software ideas in their own products but, then, that's what it's designed for. (Yes, when you Windows people venture to the command line on your Windows boxes, whenever you "ping" something, you're using software that originated from the dirty, disgusting free software movement.)
Oh fun. Yet another "I hate MS" person. Get this straight. They are a business. They are in the software business to make money. They arent in there to evangelize, bemoan, or any other religious war that MANY linux users get suckered into. Even the FreeBSD people are worse in that regard. Does "My shit does not smell" make sense to you?
---4) OSS does not give a damn about Microsoft "competition". OSS/Linux/FreeBSD users, who probably have experience with Windows, might hate Microsoft (yes, I'm one of them) because of their business methods, rubbish software or simply because it's "cool". But OSS was there long before Microsoft as a defence against predatory practices from UNIX vendors and will be there long after.
There's plenty of reasons why you would use Linux, rather than Microsoft stuff that would not be "I hate MS" topic.
First, Linux on the servers makes sense because MS has a bad tendancy to break stuff/leave servers unpatched.
Secondly, Linux is coming up to common recognition. I'm just riding the wave so I'll have an edge on the new Linux users.
Third, I cant afford a Legit copy of MS programming suite, so I use GCC. That pisses me off more than anything, cause I remember the days where MS gave away compiliers (Quick Basic) so you could do basic programming stuff. Now, you have to fork over 300$ to get a copy. With Linux, GCC is free, along with all the libs, and additional compilers. And I get multiple CPU compiles
---5) Microsoft reducing the cost of their products / turning Windows into an operating system / sticking Gates' head on a pole outside 1 Microsoft Way might slow down the migration from Windows to OSS but it probably won't do anything whatsoever to those already using / developing OSS software.
What? So you wanna stick Gates' head to a pole which will speed up Open source?
--6) Microsoft cannot buy OSS because there's nothing tangible to own, they can't stamp on OSS because it's too widespread, they can just continue to spread FUD as they've always done. End of OSS lesson...
!THUMP! What was that? Oh, just the dead horse getting beat.
Unless I'm mistaken, VB was the first programming tool which allowed programmers to build applications with a click and drag GUI interface.
You're *very* mistaken. The first incarnation of graphical interface builders was probably at Xerox PARC in the late 70s. I say "probably" because there may have been an earlier one that I don't know about. Through the 80s there were at least two different competing Smalltalk development toolsets, each with a graphical UI app tools.
I personally worked with a half-dozen different tools that pre-dated VB. One of the best (*still* one of the best, over a decade later) was the NeXTstep UI Builder. Fantastic tool. Even back in the days of DOS applications, prior to Windows, I used a number of click-n-drag UI tools to build both text and graphics mode interfaces. I would imagine there were some early tools for the Mac as well, although I didn't use them.
In the research world, there have been a number of attempts to build *purely* graphical programming environments, in which you never typed any code whatsoever. The earliest of these that I'm familiar with was completed in the mid-80s (unfortunately I forget the name -- can anyone help)?
So, no, MS did not invent click-n-drag app development. I'm sure that somewhere along the way MS must have invented *something*, but I can't think what it might be.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The Anonymous Coward raises a great point. My brother in law is a rabid anti-MS zealot. My best man in my wedding joined the Sun jihad (his term, not mine) against Microsoft.
/.'ers honestly address. Businesses need to make money - that's why they exist. Yet the mantra of OSS is free, open and innovative. I just don't see the full expression of this mantra to be possible in a capitalist economy. On this point, many OS advocates are silent and strike me as a bit dishonest. Or naive.
Both of them have ranted for years about how MS suppresses innovation. They cite examples of how MS embraces by buying out and extends by either shit-canning the competing product or assimilating it into an existing product mix.
My challenge to both of them has been: Show me an example of suppressed innovation. Neither of them have been able to do so.
My in-law keeps telling me that Linux is the future, and that Amiga runs circles around MS. So, finally, in order to maintain credibility in the debate, I used a Pentium 133 to build a Mandrake Linux box.
While I was amazed that Linux would set up on a 133 with 128MB of RAM, and that it ran quickly on that hardware, I was not impressed with the GUI and open source software. The GUI looked like Windows and the OSS GUI had the sophistication of Win3.1! My first response on viewing the GUI was an audible: "This is it? This looks like Windows?" And the OS software had nowhere near the sophistication of commercial products.
Is this because the OSS programmers suck? Not at all. It is because OSS programmers need to eat. Consequently, they devote their best time and energy to the things that put food on the table.
The whole OSS/MS debate is a philosophical battle measured against price and the romance of open-source, self-organizing communities of programmers who do some really cool stuff but who don't have the money or bandwidth to truly innovate.
The key problem with open source software is economic. It's very difficult for people to make a living writing free software with the hope that people will contribute money to the cause. It is impossible to go to the grocery store and take home a cart full of groceries in exchange for job satisfaction or status as an open source programmer. Grocery stores, car dealerships, malls, dry cleaners, gas stations... capitalist bastards all of them. They want money for their products and services.
The only way OSS can flourish in its ideal incarnation is in a socialist economy. OSS will struggle in a capitalist economy because of the nature of competition, purchaser motivations and the basic material needs of OSS programmers and businesses.
In fact, the idea of an "OSS business" is a paradox that I haven't seen many
OSS may find itself on the cutting edge of the Innovator's Dilemma. However, I suspect that there will be market space for both OSS and commercial software. Further, they will balance each other and lift one another to higher levels: OSS will cause price drag on commercial software and commercial software will require OSS to rise to increasing levels of usability. And, though both camps shout loudly that they corner the market on innovation, both will motivate each other to innovate in pretty cool ways.
Fortunately, innovation is a commodity that flows from the limitless expanse of creativity rather than from a particular ideology.
-Everyone laughs at lemmings but no one ever wants to admit to ever being one.
I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots.
and then go on to chatter about keyboards and Visual studio. Can you reasonably compare the proffit bassed on M$'s O$ to keyboard sales? The price of VB may pain individuals who cling to M$, but that individual pain does not collectivly match the vast revenues had when big dumb corporations stick Office on every one of their 7,000 peons desks. No, it's true that M$ is using it's O$ monopoly rent to get into other areas.
The fact is that there is nothing new here but failure. M$ gets into each new market the same way, by dumping . The used IBM to make an O$ monopoly then dumped Windoze 3.1 to establish a desktop hegemity. They then used anti-competitive agreements with vendors to keep other O$ out and dumped their office to make familiarity. To this day M$ dumps their software on schools, then turns around and screws them in quater million dollar BSA raids. Their reduction of prices of their vastly inferior "server" software is par for the course but it will not be enough this time.
People are realizing that free makes economic sense. They are starting to see that free software is better software and always will be. Better software does make for a lower total cost of ownership as it eliminates the intentional waste propriatory software vendors are famous for. More importantly, it does what YOU want it to do rather than what some marketdroid thinks it should do and it does it according to best practices. Slammer, Code Red, Nmedia, SirCam, I love you, Klez, la te da te da, the list goes on and on because the closed source, rape the user method does not work for anyone but the vendor.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
OSS is only making inroads because it plays outside the rules. There is no profit center, there is no company organization, there is no ownership...
It's unhelpful to give credence to the fallacy that Microsoft has "competition".
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
What you talk about is the original Unix Way. If every program is a simple single minded program, and somebodt else would like to borrow a snippet of code, why not? And no, selling software is NOT a new idea. It's just another way to pay the programmers on code. And of course, if they open that code up, why buy their product (enter vicious circle)
Sorry, I don't see the point you are arguing. OSS software originates from the geek/MIT hacker/hippie (delete where applicable) mentality where by keeping code open, you allow it to be improved upon. That mentality was carried on by Stallman (love him ot hate him) with the FSF and GPL. I was just defining that to less informed people in this discussion.
If programming pays your mortgage, great - and if the software you create is useful, usable and good value for money, I'll buy it! As long as you support it, you keep the code as closed as you want.
I think you misunderstand standards documents. Standards can be wrote in plain language that describe how something happens. Code is just an implementation of that standard.
Yeah, fine but I knew how to "suck eggs" before you very kindly told me how to. What point are you making here?
There's plenty of reasons why you would use Linux, rather than Microsoft stuff that would not be "I hate MS" topic.
Yes, I just covered them also if you'd have read it properly rather than jumping in all emotional... bad software, illicit business practices, "cool factor", all reasons why people might choose Linux over Windows. I admitted I hate Microsoft but I'm no martyr - I've been around UNIX (and Windows/DOS) for about 15 years and found Linux a relatively easy transition. But I never forced myself to use it simply because of a personal MS backlash.
If I could develop Windows stuff (and see basic windows programming like seeing the source for notepad and calc), I'd probably wouldnt have went to Linux.
Erm, why do you equate OSS directly to Linux? There's a heap of Open Source Software on Windows and free compilers / programming tools also.
I cant afford a Legit copy of MS programming suite, so I use GCC.
Ahhh, so Microsoft didn't support you properly as a Windows developer so you moved to Linux. I'll add that to my list of reasons...
What? So you wanna stick Gates' head to a pole which will speed up Open source?
It's called "humour". A flippant, throwaway comment to cover all the bases - namely, it doesn't matter what gestures Microsoft makes, it won't damage OSS. It might slow down migrations but why does the OSS movement care anyway? It survived for years with a handful of hackers...
Apologies for offending the pedantic amongst the Slashdot readership...
Oh, just the dead horse getting beat.
It'd be nice if you joined the same race I'm in first...
How about some rational argument first, then we'll decide who won if that's important to you.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
...I firmly believe we'll see the first release of MSlinux. No-one can deny they have some of the world's most talented programmers working for them, their main problem is simply the code base they're working from.
If the wind of change starts to blow 'due linux' then MS aren't going to sit quietly and die, they'll put together the biggest team ever applied to a linux project and release a distro that will blow RH/MDK/etc out of the water (assuming they survive till then of course). The geeks will still want debian/slackware/etc but MS will create a linux desktop as easy as XP/Win2k for the rest of the world.
Once they're in the OSS game they won't be able to trample all over standards in their usual haphazard fashion because their distro won't be compatible then.
Make no mistake, if linux starts to be where the money is then MS will go there.
Yes, and I am sure that they make money off the gumball machine out in their front lobby too. That doesn't mean that the proceeds from said gumball machine have any great effect on Microsoft's bottom line. Last quarter Microsoft generated an operating income of $1.97 billion on revenues of $2.44 billion. MS Office had similarly ridiculous profit margins with an operating income of $1.88 billion on revenue of $2.41 billion. There are plenty of companies with those kinds of revenues, but only Microsoft has the combination of high revenues and ridiculously high profit margins. Even Microsoft's server software margins are only about half of the Windows and Office profit margins. I can guarantee you that, compared to Windows and Office, the profits on keyboards and mice are insignificant. What's more, there is no possible way that Microsoft could ever be even a tenth as profitable selling hardware.
Thanks to Windows and Office Microsoft is the software powerhouse, without the huge profit margins from these two products they probably wouldn't even be competitive.
...what do you know -- competition works!
Uhm....
Competition hardly works. So far, Microsoft has been able to kill everything that would present true commercial competition. Linux had to completely re-write the rules (from Microsoft's perspective) by providing not only binaries, but source, for Free.
Linux is not "competing" with Microsoft. Most Linux folks I know hardly give a damn about Microsoft. In fact, the way this whole affair has gone with me (since 1993) is (from Microsoft's perspective):
First you [Microsoft] win
Then they fight you
Then they laugh at you
Then they ignore you
I think we are in the "Then they laugh at you" phase, in which we realize the fight is over, and that really, there was no fight; it was just us, writing code and letting people know we have something worth looking into.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I find it interesting that the debate of "competition" even comes up.
The way I see it, Microsoft can only lose market share to Apple (MacOS X), Sun (Solaris), IBM (AIX), and other companies that decide to sell and operating system. OSS products aren't sold, as such there is no market for them. It's like air. Do we pay for air? Could there be a market for "commodity air?" --probably.
See, Microsoft fails to realize that Linux and it's ilk are not created by some company that can be smacked down. Sure, there's companies that assist in the development of OSS, but they're business philosophy does not revolve around the sale of the software. Microsoft, on the other hand, sinks or swims based on software sales.
Anything that is free will slowly undermine a market for the same type of product. It's only natural. The progression from non-free to free software may be slow, but it's an eventuality.
This is why Microsoft needs to change it's business plan. The hardware end is good. The 'web service' idea may have worked. The pushing of .NET probably won't get them anywhere, but if they offer unique services and products over it... they might do well.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
Paraphrasing a quote (by whom, I forget): an Operating System, by definition, does nothing.
The point being, an OS is a platform for applications, which do the work.
MSWindows notoriously bundles lots of applications into the platform, so it doesn't really count as a bare-bones OS.
Ideally, there would be one OS as a middleware between applications and hardware. Then applications could be platform-neutral. Linux is the closest thing we have to such a definition. Unix tried to be that, but it fragmented into vendor-specific releases. It's yet to be seen whether Linux does the same thing.
See also: difference between a Linux and a Distro.
I love kde, I live innovation, I feel like freebsd is a close friend or familty member, but microsoft makes the widest range of _solid_ products. They get their fingers into every last bit of marketplace, and they aim to do it well.
Windows is slightly boring, but that's why my freebsd box sits next to it. When I have problems with zope, I read the source. when I want zope up quick and running fast, I put it on windows. WHen I want to get my design document for my senior project done, I do it on windows. When I want an industry-superior real-time audio application running on a state of the art driver sbstraction layer, I comply with ASIO on WINDOWS. fact.
I love facts.
-P
This is not really signifigant news. When preparing to post financial news, publicly held companies (as part of the "full disclosure/safe harbor" process) are required to state any risks, however remote, that may impact future earnings.
Some smart lawyer in Microsoft's legal department probably said "Hey, we'd probably better start quoting open source software as a possible financial risk to avoid shareholder lawsuits in the future."
This is probably just typical legal boilerplate stuff, not any signifigant change in MS's assessment of the impact of OSS.