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
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.
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?
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!"
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.
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.
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.
This quote appears on pretty much every "MS is scared of linux" article and has long since ceased to be "insightful".
Can we drop, it please?
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 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
Yeah, can't you write something more original like:
... <-- possibly a beowulf cluster of ghandis
1. ignore you,
2. laugh at you,
3. fight you,
4.
5. Profit!
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]
...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
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.
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.
---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.
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.
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.
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.