Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Software Philanthropy: The Goodwill Ploy
bethanie writes "The New York Times has printed a story concerning Microsoft's plans to 'significantly increase its donation of software to the nation's nonprofit organizations, to a level that may approach $1 billion annually in the next three to four years. ...But the increase has also drawn objections from developers of 'open source' programs (programs for which the source code is freely distributed). Those critics say they believe Microsoft is using a giveaway strategy to undercut the so-called free software movement in the potentially promising nonprofit market.' What do you think? Is it true philanthropy or just another tactic to assimilate everyone into the MS collective?"
When you're one of the richest companies on the planet, "philanthropy" always has an aim.
Never argue with an idiot, he'll just lower you to his level and beat you with experience.
What do you think? Is it true philanthropy or just another tactic to assimilate everyone into the MS collective?
/.
Duh, I read
A good read is here
I'm not Seth.
Unbelievable. Yes it is a ploy to gather interest in the non-profit camp and to keep OSS and GNU/Linux out. It is only that though, for you still have to have maintenance and for that - you will pay eventually. Especially when it comes time to get support.
;P
If it wasn't MS, anybody would call it transparent. The fact that it is MS, someone will say they are doing it from their *good intentions*.
All Ad hominem replies happily ignored as the sender shall be deemed to lack the faculties to comprehend the equation.
Those critics say they believe Microsoft is using a giveaway strategy to undercut the so-called free software movement in the potentially promising nonprofit market
Where do I start with this one? Undercut the free software market??? WTF.
Microsoft didn't make it where they are by playing fair. They use their monopoly position to their advantage by all legal means, and then some.
Read the subject :)
"The first one's free"
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
...how "free" undercuts "free"?
When both prices are nil, what's left to compare but individual merit and the availability of technical support?
The coolest voice ever.
Of course, if the scuttlebutt is that MS uses other loopholes to dodge all its taxes are true, then it's a moot point.
Call (206) 338-5780 COLLECT for information about a genuine BA, BS, MA, MS, MBA, or Ph.D.
Nobody is forcing people to use MS. Now MS is just playing level. They give their shit out [or at extreme cut] it means OSS has to be *that much better* to win over users.
Is that not competition?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Anyone would think he had a Christian upbringing
How do you slashdotters feel about the metaphysical?
Or must you judge a man (by his OS I guess)
But to be honest if Microsoft didn't give away the money, people would be crying and moaning about that.
As much as we all hate the evil empire, for them it's damned if they do, and damned if they don't.
Look at it this way, the money is going to worthwhile causes, be happy it's doing someone other than a rich investor, or evil Bill himself, some good.
Mike
They're going after markets that don't have much money in the first place. They realize internally, though would never admit, that giving away software to people who wouldn't buy it otherwise doesn't cost them money. Externally, they'll say how they're doing such good things, and say how "We gave away a billion dollars in software last year.", but that wasn't a billion dollars that they could have had otherwise.
This is basically the same as the RIAA giving me a bunch of MP3 files of music I wouldn't have bought anyhow and claiming they gave me a thousand dollars of music.
Or like me saying I have a baseball card that's worth $100,000. It's only worth that if someone will buy it. If no one will buy it, then it's a piece of cardboard with a picture on it.
The moral of the story is that they're giving away something that costs them nothing to a market group that wouldn't have bought their stuff otherwise, and keeping Free software out.
"Most European technology just isn't worth our stealing," -- Former CIA chief James Woolsey, referring to Echelon
Yes, this may be another dastardly Microsoft ploy to gain more converts, but lets not forget the end result: these non-profit organizations get software. We can't complain too much about that, can we? Maybe fight fire with fire -- it can't be too hard, seeing as "our" software is just as free as Microsoft's when they donate?
If the organizations they are giving the software to are allowed under license to resell them, then I'd have to say I'm impressed with Microsoft's generosity. Otherwise... yeah, it's probably just a ploy as the value of anything decreases with its diminishing level of scarcity.
Since there is no such thing as scarcity of Microsoft software, the value is obviously low. Other factors acting on the value of Microsoft software, of course, is demand... the problem is people are demanding software fixes and aren't getting them.
Is it true philanthropy or just another tactic to assimilate everyone into the MS collective?
We do not really need sarcasm in this debate. We all know that microsoft is there to make some $, like everyone out there with a job. Hell, we are technos arn't we? This, however, is simmilar to the project that apple spearheaded in maine, where every schoolkid has an iBook, isn't it? While they weren't free, they were cheap, but they had a Mac OS, just the same as they will have a Windows. Remember that having Windows does not force someone to buy microsoft, isn't it?
In Canada, we don't fancy things like socks
Did somebody forget to proofread this article before posting? That makes no sense - how in the fuck can you undercut a free product? How is such a market "promising" if no sales are made? How is there even what could be called a "market" for something that is free? Doesn't one have to buy or sell in a market?
I think the Free Software people are just jealous because Microsoft, too, figured out that giving away their software for free is a good idea. God, it's like you people want to see non-profits be deprived of choices or special benefits in the market. Truly the mark of a zealot - you people were probably the same people who wanted to see Skylarov kept in prison so he could be the test case for your DMCA challange.
--sdem
Unless they are going to take tax break they get as a result of the donation and give that to charity as well this does seem like simply a way to decrease the influence of open source.
Free!?! Actually, they'd have to pay me to use Windows!
Hey... perhaps I should reply to that "Bill Gates Gives Away Money" spam that comes into my inbox every 2 or 3 months...
It helps them undercut other software and they get to write off a billion dollars a year against their income and it costs them almost nothing. A win-win-win situation.
This was one of the major holdups in the antitrust settlement. MS wanted to inundate the schools with free software vouchers and its competitors cried foul and demanded that the vouchers be replaced with straight-out cash grants. A similar tale has been repeated in europe as well.
The problem is that until there is a legal ruling on whether software-gifts are anticompetitive, MS will continue to do this. However, when you start to regulate software gifts, you risk classifying other similar acts as anticompetitive. Is it OK for apple to give free software? What about open source software? Its not long until the whole house of cards falls down.
And each consumer has the right to decide if it's a ploy or a good offer.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
I have always wondered if seeding an OS out in the world really helps business all that much. I agree that it makes common sense; however, I have never seen the proof.
For example, Apple flooded the school systems 15 years ago with pretty good little systems. They were used to teach typing, accounting, and basic computer skills... What did all that effort earn Apple?
Not much in my opinion. Maybe it always works... maybe the Apple episode is the exception.
Risking Karma here... I am predominately a windows user; however, I cheer for linux as much as humanly possible. I think the competition is wonderful for the consumer and the market.
Davak
Chapter 12 of Free for All analyzes the differences between Microsoft's version of charity and the open source's version. It sort of anticipated this debate by a few years and it also asks the very interesting question about tax deductions. Just how much did M$ write off for these deductions? The full cost of the software? The list price? Or just the amortized cost of development? Or perhaps the most honorable, nothing at all. That's how much the FSF takes off their taxes.
Next to nothing. Their margin is 84%, so we are looking at $160 million max. And they can easily make it a lot less than that by making it pre-installed through hardware vendors, so no CD's etc are required. It's just the license.
And it's not neccessarily a lost license either. Most non-profit orgs have better things to do withg their $$$ than give to M$.
The terms of the EULA will state that the license is non-transferable. You'd have to be a complete moron to think this has anything to do with philanthropy.
-- Knowledge shared is power lost. -- Aleister Crowley
I think it's 75% assimilation and 25% tax break. $1,000,000,000 off MS taxes would be VERY, VERY nice. Plus, more customers stuck with buying MS software equals boo-koo cha-ching for the Redmond Robots.
While at some level it is possible that Microsoft will be donating "value" to the organizations involved, the value has nothing to do with the actual cost of the software.
As far as the packaged software is concerned, a copy of Windows (any version) Office (any version) or any other piece of software Microsoft donates to charity, the cost is the raw material involved in the package, and the cost of duplication for the content. Also by donating copies of software packages to charity, they bring down the total cost of production per unit.
The 1 Billion dollar value, per year, is far more likely to be related to the MSRP price Microsoft puts on the product, than on the material cost.
While I am sure that a part of this has to do with Microsoft doing just about anything in it's power to undercut it's competition, (which does include Open Source Software these days) it is also potentially valuable to them in that so far the company has been able to escape taxes in a number of ways. This provides another way for them to write off proffits that they would otherwise have to claim when it came time to file State and Federal taxes.
Perhaps of more concern is the fact that by using these applications, charities are going to be locking themselves into a proprietary set of file formats that they may not later be able to extract information from without Microsoft's blessings.
Then again, that's just my opinion. I have been wrong before, it will probably happen again.
-Rusty
You never know...
Donations are tax deductable. Theoretically, if they donate enough, they'll eventually wipe out all their taxable income.
"Sure Mr. Elementary School Principal, every one of your students needs XP Super Advanced Enterpri$e on their desktops. Let me just fire up the printing presses!"
Me start my own Linux distribution, charge $1 billion per CD, "donate" CDs to nonprofit organizations. So me donate several billions and beat Microsoft on top of philanthropic ladder.
lets face it .. the vast majority of these organizations are probably using pirated copies of office .. or whatever else they could not afford .. so if faced with the choice piracy vs. donations i think donations is a pretty good option.
...
the question we should be asking is what is making linux so inacessable to all of the masses that are running a pirated copy of winxp and office xp on their build your own box
The part that worries me about this is the tax deduction they get from doing this. My understanding of this is that traditionally (or otherwise) companies get the full value tax deducted off of their expenses. That is the "1 Billion $" of virtual licenses "given" away to people who would otherwise not buy your software provides a huge tax writeoff. As software isn't made of "tangible assets" in the same way that hardware is a tangible asset, this would be an easy scam for many software companies to pull to avoid paying any taxes. (Though MS doesn't pay any tax for other reasons)
If philanthropy was genuine, these companies would have been doing it from day one.
On the one hand, Microsloth is helping SCO in the frivilous lawsuit to scare business away from Linux, and on the other hand they are undercutting Linux in the non-profit sector. Sounds like they have everything tied up.
We can only hope they damage their company to such an extent that it is irrepairable. Of course, the perpetrators will have thier golden parachutes - or will keep the company by laying off thousands of workers.
It is disgusting.
It is all a big game, until someone gets their eye poked out...
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
Gates and Ballmer cannot but help digging into their pocketbooks at the sight of this. How grateful we should all be.
And then there's those third-world nations, fumbling around with chmod and tr while half their country is dying of AIDS...
Yes, we are lucky that in today's world a multi-billion dollar company can be spare so much without self-interest. :)
It only makes sense. MS wants everyone to use their software, even if they have to give it away. Then, when the competetion is dead, they can start charging through the nose.
Also, it makes the free software junkies look silly when they rant about how MS is evil. Afterall, to everyone who reads the paper, they're not evil, rather bearers of free software.
What is Microsoft's definition of 'give away'?
Do they mean -
- A charity/NPO can obtain a master CD which they can install on as many PC's as they like, forever more?
- A charity/NPO will be able to download the latest updates, the latest operating system and the latest features at no cost into the forseeable future (say 100 years)?
- A charity/NPO will be granted total exemption from licence tracking and auditing into the forseeable future?
No? Perhaps they mean.
- We will give away our software and do whatever else is necessary, by whatever means, to destroy all current and future competition in the desktop operating system market, and THEN when our monopoly is returned and assured, we will review those charity/NPO software licences and collect our rightful due?
Even free is a bad deal when someone can enforce a EULA at some future date. Under the EULA, Microsoft (and many other software companies) are not selling a product they are granting a licence. A product, once purchased, becomes the property of the purchaser, whereas a licence can be revoked.
>>
I am the director, and this is my movie
Technology expenses are really high for nonprofits. They need computers and computer systems to do their jobs, but it costs them a fortune in money, time, and effort to build and keep up the systems. They spend generally 1-2% of their money on tech systems, as compared to 6% in the private sector.
This has a couple of effects. The most obvious is that that's money that could be going towards their goals or causes. Money that is in some sense wasted, if there's a way to get technology without having to pay for it.
A second effect is that they are generally using very old and outdated equipment. Why? Because they modernized to a computer system in the 90s, and aren't willing to spend the money to do it again now. This means that as technology improves in ways that would be useful for them, they are in general lagging behind, unable to aquire or use it.
So whatever your feelings for Microsoft, it's clear that this sort of donation is really good for nonprofits. And if you think that nonprofits in general are good for society (which I certainly do), then it's clear that Microsoft is doing something good for society.
It may, of course, benefit them as well. But there's no harm in helping yourself while you help others, is there?
- target
i need to keep 2 dozen PCs at school up to date - they're all donations, they have whatever OS the giver had, I need them all to be on a par so kids can go from one to another without a brain freeze, and though a part of me wishes they'd play fair on a lot of other things, this seems like it's more needed than evil.
apple has been known to give the OS at a significant discount to teachers, i'm surprised they made a stink.
plus how long would i be working there if i told the boss 'we can get this for free, but on principle i'll just run down to staples and pick up 24 of them at the sell thru price...'
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
More than Both. If they can get:
1. Tax credit
2. Press (preferably good press)
3. Good will of the charities.
4. Make themselves feel like good giving citizens
5. AND keep Open Source from gaining mindshare
They win all the way around, and without costing them a dime. I mean really. Charities can't afford 200 dollar Operating Systems and 3 or 400 dollar Office Suites, let alone the people who know how to maintain it.
Which brings a potential 6th benefit for MS:
What if it crashes and these charites don't know how to reactivate it? Uh-oh, they might end up having to go out and BUY a new copy! Meaning more profit for Microsoft.
free... it's the 2nd one (upgrades, in this case) that will really cost ya...
"To make a mistake is only human; to persist in a mistake is idiotic." Cicero
I worked for a non-profit organization once.
For an organization of about 100 (maybe more) people, there was exactly ONE IT admin, plus one intern like myself.
Sad thing is, though, neither MS nor OSS, to me, provides the best solution - because non-profits are usually so cash strapped - which turns to be people-strapped, time-strapped, etc.
I remember back then we tried to set up a whole slew of services (this was before MS BackDoor erm BackOffice) came out - and tried to put almost the entire line of MS servers onto one NT4 machine. needless to say, the thing would crap out just sitting there idle. (and these were donated software. sorry to say but MS has been donating to non-profits for a loooong time, for good or bad)
With that kind of instability (and we can't afford shiny new dells, so we get all the systems either custom build very cheaply, or get donated used ones), MS servers won't do. Maybe now it's better, but with the kind of system requirements, I seriously doubt we can run XP / 2k Servers.
However, i don't really think linux would really do either - because user-support is the rest of the spent time when the IT group (the 1.5 person - one admin and the part-time intern) isn't fiddling with junk. And I just can't see any possibility in training 75 year old gradma's (seriously - some of them really were!) to do any new computing technology within any kind of resonable timeframe. I am sorry to say, guys, KDE and GNOME is not the easiest to figure out, and certainly not the easiest to teach. The UI design does not follow a strict standards across OSS software (okay, to me anyway), so that causes a lot of problems.
I personally think that if Apple gave us a huge slew of over-stocked iMacs, we'd been all set. I think macs tend to last a lot longer than PCs (average life span, anyway - maybe it's due to the higher per-unit cost?), but doesn't degrade into pitifulness nearly as fast; even right now the first-gen iMacs, I think, are still usable. And yes, Macs are more intuitive UI-wise.
But that never happened, so when I left, the lone IT admin was still holding back the fire, in the most endless, swamped way...
Okay, I am sure that was related somehow, though not sure HOW exactly.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Would you motherfuckers find something new to talk about already? I can't believe with all the hundreds of tech related stories out there, you guys choose to post about this drivel.
Ya'll a buncha paranoid fruitcakes.
And when BG does it, it's not philanthropic....not by a long shot. It is self-serving...and not in a karmic kind of way, either.
Philanthropy: The practice of helping people in need. Nothing there about it being a business practice!
When there are strings attached (and w/MS there are always strings), it's called 'manipulation'. Some may recall when one of the suggested penalties after MS was convicted, was for them to give away software? Hardly a penalty, and everyone knew that, including MS.
Remember, investing in MS is risking having your own resources used against you.
They'll be forced into an upgrade cycle. They'll be forced to buy all the little extras it takes to bring MS systems up to level with other systems. And so on. A big donation looks nice and free to the clueless, but once you get into what else you need to actually get work done, the price of the OS and basic software (heck, even just Office) isn't even close to your total cost.
What do I think? I think you are a cock sucker
Those critics say they believe Microsoft is using a giveaway strategy to undercut the so-called free software movement in the potentially promising nonprofit market.
Isn't this the argument OSS supporters have be using for years? It's free, it's free, it's free!
Perhaps Microsoft has realized the OS is a commodity. They can gain revenue from Office, other applications or at least keep their name out their until they create what they consider to be the next big thing.
Microsoft is the beneficiary of this. The software will be given away, and then MS will take a tax deduction (they MUST take it, or face a shareholder action).
It doesn't cost much to "make" the software, so MS will be laughing to the bank. Which is a good thing (speaking as a MS shareholder).
As far as philanthropy goes... it's really nothing. I have to admire Open Source developers, who give away time. And don't get a tax break for it. I WISH I could get tax back for time contributions to worthy projects. But this won't be recognized.
Maybe an OSS company should put a high price on a distribution, and then give it away for the tax benefit. Then, distribute the proceeds to the OSS developers.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
...eventually you pay the price. Free software is always free, but microsoft software is only free when they say it is, and never thereafter. I doubt that they are giving away their tech support, for example. It's like giving away 1,000 free tickets to Disneyland, but you still charge for everything once inside.
stuff |
OSS gives away billions of dollars worth of software every day! They give it to schools, universities, small businesses, large corps, non-profits, people (like me), governments, etc. Most of this is commercial grade software such as; gcc, Linux, Apache, etc. Now that is Philanthropy!
I want my rights back. I was actually using them when our government stole them after 9/11.
assimilate everyone into the MS collective ?
You post your story on Slashdot, so why do you have to ask ?
Yes, everybody knows Microsoft is evil, wants to take over the world, and that Bill Gates wants to stick fireants in Linus' and RMS' underwears.
Yes, everybody hates Microsoft, that Windows users are all stupid, that Linuxers have discovered the Virtuous Path.
Yes we know that Microsoft pulls the SCO puppet strings, that they make evil deals with the MPAA and RIAA.
Yes, we know all that by now, Slashdot crew. Can we move along now ? why do we have to read the same Microsoft articles with world-domination overtones over and over again ?
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
It is not right that MS has one price for some and a different price for others. It's discrimination.
In addition, this approach undercuts OSS. If you gi ve away MS products to schools, non-profits, etc. these people will use MS stuff rather than adopt OSS. This means there will be less testing, feedback, development and deployment of OSS.
Unless of course, you're a drug dealer....or BG.
Playing level...that's rich. Can't you 2D MS apologists be more subtle when when you shovel it? Try again....this sort of comedy is good for a laugh or two or three or....
i'm ignorant, stupid, lame, and uninformed. but what's wrong with Microsoft? they run a business, people buy their products, and they got rich. sure they can bully the small guy, but nobody can say they didn't earn the position their in. so, if they want to muscle out the small guy and monopolize the market, who cares? as long as consumer prices stay reasonable (reasonable - gov defined) what's the problem?
I think Microsoft is practicing proper philanthropy. Well like any organization they will not be donating to any not for profit that they are oposed to. While without the microsoft donation probably a small portion would use linux. But it is probably more of the case that they would go without computers or just use older version of windows, pirate, or find a way to buy the MS products. Linux is still a small player against Microsoft, and it is still easy for them to get a lot of buisness even with Linux as a competition. Plus there is nothing that stop NFP organization from switching to linux in the future, espectly if MS stop donating to them.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's going to be quite difficult to legally keep some one from giving to charity, no matter how hellbent on world domination they may appear to be.
Nothing from nowhere I'm no one at all
of the boxes, cd's etc...
.75 cubic feet = 200,000,000 * .75 = 150,000,000 cubic feet of waste. Thats 28409.09 cubic miles of waste.
wOOO, I can just see the landfills now!!!
1,000,000,000\$5 a box = 200,000,000 boxes at say,
Seriously though, they are giving away software so they can get deductions and even if not, they also get money for the support they will be selling. And lord only knows what they are asking these npc's to sign.
Candy-Coated Knowledge
Like crack, MS freebies seem harmless in the beginning, but before long you think the default XP theme is a stylistic achievement and you want to redecorate your house using the palette from the Slashdot games section.
Just say no!
As for wondering whether Microsoft is doing this for philanthropic reasons - the simple answer is "of course not". If I was a Microsoft shareholder, I would want to sack any Microsoft board of directors that used the company's resources for anything other than increasing the bottom-line.
I don't have anything to do with the modding here, but I do think you are special. Howzat?
We see that power is more important to Microsoft.
Not true. I recall we went back to the kitchen for a snack. I never saw the pimple face again. I ended up going down on her while she ate a sandwich.
Bill (and Missus) Gates received and deserved praise for their significant contribution to the eradication of malaria.
At face value, the donation of expensive software to not-for-profit organisations is a good thing.
On reflection, however, this is how they destroyed Netscape - they gave away Internet Explorer free, as in beer (okay, TCO budgets aside).
Verdict? Too soon to say. Applaud the effort, monitor the effects.
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
These guys just can't win. They get slagged off in the media for not contributing to schools (for not allowing the transfer of licenses, not offering free licenses to charities, etc).
Now they give in, do the right thing, and give the stuff away and they get in trouble for that!
If Microsoft stuff is free, and OSS stuff is free, surely the better product will win in that market sector? Sounds to me like OSS supporters are all-too-aware that their software has a way to go before anybody would choose it over Microsoft if it were free (other than the Germans perhaps...)
The nonprofits using CompuMentor's philanthropy program aren't giving up free (as in speech) software and swapping it for MicroSoft stuff because it's low cost. They're upgrading from old Microsoft programs to newer ones. If the program wasn't their very few of them would move to open source, they'd just stay on older technology for longer and be less efficient. This philanthropy program isn't where nonprofits get their first fix, that comes from pre-installed operating systems and software just as it does for most small businesses. CompuMentor's TechSoup.org site also distributes Lotus' 1-2-3 and Smartsuite Millenium, as well as providing links and resources for open source software, but the biggest demand is for Microsoft products. That demand will change in nonprofits when it changes in the for-profit sector.
Never, Microsoft has never done anything that i can thing of that would be considered for the public good. Its always backed by some other purpose and that is ussually to hold the windows domination in the marketplace. I think MS is making a mistake in relying to heavily on profits from Windows and office. But if linux cant put together a good desktop OS (Thats a another subject), then maybe they are just fine where they are.
In America we are imprisoned by our fear of them.
for the servers and internet gateways. But the only way to make things work after that was to buy licenses and hardware to replace the other dozen ancient but usable machines. but they were able to buy "modern" catalog software to run on NT.
And the vendor for the card catalog upgraded, which meant Win2000, which had to be purchased. Not a bargain at all.
It's called a strategic gift.
Wah, bunch of damn Linux zealots. It doesn't matter how hard they try, they could give the shit away to everyone, including you fucktards and you would still bitch.
This board has nothing to do with technology or news anymore, its just a public bitch session for all you guys not getting any. Acutally makes me feel good to read it knowing there are people out there with more depressing lives than I.
Giving away the money? What money? Microsoft is giving away copies of their software which cost them exactly $0 and serves to maintain their monopoly. There are practically no lost sales (non-profit organizations wouldn't be able to afford to pay for Microsoft's software anyway) and the monopoly effect (specifically, Microsoft's incompatible protocols and file formats) actually generates more sales out of the people who need to communicate with those non-profit organizations! Also, they may be able to get a huge tax writeoff by claiming the full retail cost of the giveaway software as business expense. (Any accountants on /. ? Please confirm.) So where is the philantropy?
This is really no different than the "punishment" Microsoft proposed to settle their antitrust suit: give away $1 billion worth of Microsoft's software to schools. Apple was very unimpressed with this proposition and said so to the judge. That was one of the reasons the deal fell through.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
by making mainland software a true - free - commodity Microsoft is only opening roads to Linux and other Open Source solutions ...
...
...
...
... and even it has sinked ...
The question that must be done is : why the heck are they giving these us for free when it used to cost big bucks, and why now ?
Either MS is dumping the market - illegal under all countries law - or have been abusing it dominant position and selling overpriced products until now
Either way it is a loose-loose equation
Quietly, with the Marketing machine from Microsoft helping the users and developers morale (even through SCO) to be higher and higher OSS solutions keep improving every day and even winning big time (see today's Munich 's Microsoft technical K.O.
Microsoft either adapts and change (as IBM did) or is condemned to a brutal dead
We may even get to see the day when shareholders sue - via a class action suit - Microsoft's Bill Gates and Steve Palmer for have failed to react and adapt to the new open-source reality.
Even the Roman Empire have fallen and MS is thinking as the Titanic
makers
Cheers from Portugal
Microsoft isn't giving away money, it's giving these charities a limited number of free licenses for its software.
No doubt, this donated software has strings attached, just as similar Microsoft donation have had in the past. Only last year, on this very website, I remember reading about the company "donating" copies of Office to a charity in a poverty-ridden African nation on the condition that the same number of copies of Windows were bought to run it on.* And I can recall other examples before that one too.
Almost without exception, Microsoft's donations are targetted to meet Microsoft's long-term goals. A few licenses here, a few there buys Microsoft lots of positive PR ("hey, look at how nice we are to the little kiddies") but anyone who thinks that the company's motives are purely philanthropic is living in cloud-cockoo land.
Microsoft is a company that has billions in the bank. The amount of good it could do with even a fraction of that wealth is unimaginable. Calling the giving away of its own software charity is a joke. Using some of its significant cash reserves to wipe out a large chunk of Third-World debt - now that would be real charity.
(*It seemed to be oblivious to the relevant marketing/public affairs people at Microsoft that a cash-strapped charity in a Third-World country didn't have the kind of resources to afford one copy of Windows to install on the recycled machines that it had luckily procured, let alone ten or twenty. Sometimes, people who think nothing of paying $2 for a cup of coffee seem to be really thick when it comes to visualising how the other half lives.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
The thing I myself am advocating for is moving forward to Linux Terminal Server. I envision large scale and low cost in hardware as well as software. Less headaches because you maintain one installation and a bunch of thin clients and more importantly no increase in tech staff needed (cause the state and federal 'powers that be' are clipping program 'administration' costs across the board.)
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
A decade or so back, Bill Gates and Microsoft got a lot of flak about being in the newer generation of wealthy that wasn't nearly as philanthropic as the old weathly.
After that, he made statements about shifting his focus to philanthropy after he retired (I think he said at age 50, at the time). Then after he got married, his wife has been extremely active in charitable donation (most notably with grants to urban schools and to youth in third world countries with disease problems).
One of the easiest ways for Microsoft itself to be philanthropic is to donate their products, rather than to donate cash. So it seems to make perfect sense for them, if they are trying to contribute to society in a charitable fashion, to donate their products to nonprofits and other needy organizations.
Yes, they may be helping improve their market share with these donations. But you people can't have your cake and eat it too -- if bitch about them not giving to charity, and then you can't turn around and bitch about them doing it, regardless of how they do it (unless they're giving all their money to the KK or something). This would be like bitching about Ford trying to increase their market share if they donated trucks to organizations that brought meals to the elderly that couldn't get out of the house. This is a totally ridiculous topic, the text describing the article itself is basically flamebait.
MS gives away "1 billion dollars" in free software. In other words, they give away 'n' copies of software that costs '$x' on the retail shelves, where 'n*x' is a billion dollars.
Philanthropy? Hardly. It's going to cost them a few thousand dollars, (OK, a few tens of thousands--maybe) and they'll take a tax deduction of $1b. Also, they're going to get their software on more systems, which means capturing market share.
Evil? Not really. It's an allowed and accepted way of doing business. If you give something away, you should get a tax rebate for it regardless of if you're a company or an individual. (The ethics of giving away software are a sticky matter, mind you)
Original? Go look at Sun. They gave away scads of 'free' software two months ago--again, something like a billion dollars worth. It's been going on roughly forever--much longer than the computer industry.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
This story is a dupe of epic proportions.
Worst... dupe... ever...
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a skull.
If it wasn't a business tactic, they could have just donated a billion dollars to charity, to do with what they wish. Instead they have given a "billion dollars" worth of software (which in all probability they can't resell) to charities that, had they been enterprising enough, used open source software and spent the money saved on something else.
just another tactic to assimilate everyone into the MS collective?
I've rarely seen a better example of when the [OBVIOUS] tag would be used.
Microsoft can't claim a tax deduction for the retail price of the software, only for the cost of providing the CD etc. to the nonprofits.
Since it all comes out of pre-tax income they don't get a return. They just get to say it is a legitimate business expense, so they don't have to pay tax on the money they actually spent administering the program.
Money or other gifts from an organization have to have a legitimate purose or they become taxable income as though they were actually profit (presumable this is to stop them giving gifts to share holders instead of paying tax on their profit before dispersing it).
The Billion dollar figure is just for public relations.
the bill gates future assasin club meets at 5 at the library.
Uhhm, no they couldn't. They didn't have that billion dollars in the first place. This is the point the parent post was making but it obviously went right over your head. Non-profit orgs can't spend the money on software. Microsoft can't charge them for software. But giving away the software actually benefits Microsoft.
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Microsoft could cure cancer and give the cure away for free, and RMS & co. would find some HORRIBLE fault in the way they released the cure.
If Microsofts intention by giving this software away is to enforce their monopoly, then presumably they intend to be in a posisition to force their software on these people eventually (unless they intend to give their software away forever, reminds me of: 1. Give software away for free 2. ...
3. Profit!)
But as free/open software is driven by volunteers (and IBM etc as well of course) how do then surely this strategy is flawed. If they were battling another compnay then this may work, as the other company may run out of money - but they are not, the free/open software commuinity isn't going to run out of money, as it doesn't need any. All that is required is money for web hosting and time.
The only way MS could beat free/open software is by making a more solid produuct, and possibly by improving their EULA and licensing agreements.
Last October, /. had an article on the topic. This described a fairly blatant case of "donating" a lot of software that couldn't run on the schools' computers unless the schools paid for expensive upgrades. The cost of the upgraded would have been much more than the claimed (i.e., retail) "value" of the donated software.
This is an old ruse. Before Microsoft, IBM used similar "gifts" to both tie schools into IBM hardware and make them pay for upgrades that the schools wouldn't have bought otherwise.
It's called "marketing".
Keeping the competition out is just part of it. Giving away freebies that require the mark to then buy something even more expensive is an old technique that long predates the existence of computers. When you buy a cheap laser or bubble-jet printer that then requires expensive ink cartridges every month, you are falling for the same tactic.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Every time a story like this comes out, there are always a few morons whining about how we're always critical of Microsoft, and we speak badly of them no matter what they do, blah blah blah. Some of them are even venturing to say that it's because we all know free software is inferior and can't match Microsoft products in quality.
So we don't like poor old Microsoft. No matter what they do, it has an evil motive. Where do you suppose we got that idea? Did we wake up one day and say to ourselves, "Let's find a company and try to make them look as bad as we can. Hmm, Microsoft sounds like a good choice"?
No! The reason we think Microsoft is always planning something evil is because history shows that Microsoft is always planning something evil! Well, that's certainly a funny reason to doubt their motives!
Those of you who keep coming to Microsoft's defense, who keep telling us to leave the innocent, misunderstood corporation alone, do you really think they've never done anything wrong? Do you truly believe in your hearts that Microsoft is doing something like this out of pure generosity?
And to those of you who keep calling it silly for Microsoft to compete with "free" software, what on earth don't you understand about "free speech, not free beer"?
Why does any company do donations? For that matter, why do many individuals donate? While it's nice to think that everybody is so generous, mostly it's due to tax breaks and the like. The critics of MS would find fault with anything it does or doesnt do. If MS didnt donate anything, people would say "Look at how arrogant MS is, it thinks it's too good to give non profits a donation" I'm more worried about Halliburton, they seem like truly sleazy types, more so than Microsoft.
This needs to be stopped! Free software made $0 dollars in total profits last year. If Microsoft continues to rob our market share, our precious $0 profit will be lessened, we might be down to 50% of last year's business!
Please help us maintain our $0 profit margin!
Sounds like the same strategy, get 'em hooked early.
Give it away, sell it cheap ($85 for Office X for the Mac at the San Jose State University bookstore if you're a student, compared to $499 at Fry's), then sock it to businesses.
Same strategy in many Asian markets -- make products available cheap/free, at least for now. You can bet that when copyright/intellectual property protection evolves in those markets, the price will go up.
Namaste-
I mean seriously you guys who are going "oh no this is a ploy to keep linux out of more places" the company doesn't have to choose to use microsoft products. The only way you should worry is your doubt that windows and other MS software products are superior to the other ones. MS are a large organisation this one billion dollar increase in charity isn't going to hurt there profits much and you will find most big organisations do this kind of thing it's called giving back to the comunity.
_
All I have left to say is that if the other OS's are better for the organisations then I will use them all this microsoft is trying to destroy linux again is your paranoia that MS products might be better for them. (notice them as MS is easy to use alot of non-profit organisation's use volunteers not all of them have the time to learn how to do everything they want the big button that does things aproach)
_______________________________________________
I wish I had a gun sometimes so I could put people out of my misery.
>Perhaps of more concern is the fact that by using these applications, charities are going to be locking themselves into a proprietary set of file
.doc files. I prefer the Word interface (probably because I'm used to it) but OpenOffice reads the files just as well.
.pp file, I open it with OpenOffice. When I need to make a .pp file, I create it with OpenOffice and then transfer it to a school computer, where I display it using Powerpoint. Compatability!
>formats that they may not later be able to extract information from without Microsoft's blessings.
A couple of people have mentioned this, but is it really true?
I have Word on my computer, and I use it frequently. (There, that should get me modded down quickly..) It's no LaTeX, but for everyday typing it gets things done quickly and easily, and it came with the computer; there's no reason not to use it.
But do you HAVE to have Word to read what I typed? No! Fire up OpenOffice and use that to read
The same applies to other parts of Microsoft Office. I don't own Powerpoint, but when I need to view a
While I'm sure Microsoft would like free alternatives like OpenOffice to just go away, they do exist, and as long as they remain compatable with Microsoft's efforts, we won't need thier software to read the files. Result: software can be chosen based on user preferences.. and isn't that what we all want?
Twenties Retirement
or at least Gates does. I remember seeing a program on it. There's an entire department dedicated to giving away something like $1BN p/a.
That one day, he does plan to give away most of his billions. If a portion of that is in software, so be it. I tend to view this as a good thing, if it brings computing, be it Windows based or not, to someone who can benefit from it in some way, then it's probably good.
I know my life, and the lives of most Slashdotters, have been significantly impacted by the existance of Windows/MS. And, ignoring the late night BSOD's, honestly, how "miserable" is your life because of MS? Can you honestly say that MS products and their impact has had no positive effect on your life and career?
Love MS or hate MS, you cannot deny the profound changes they have brought to PC's and computing everywhere.
Hey folks, keep in mind, Microsoft is a company. They have a responsibility, a legal responsibility, to benefit their shareholders to the maximum extent possible. Understanding they are in for the long haul, they are choosing to perform philanthropic efforts in order to better their reputation. In addition, they get the side effect of a larger user base.
If, as some seem to think, they even had the option of being "purely" philanthropic, as in doing something that had absolutely no benefit for them, not even a bit of good PR, doing so would violate their responsibilities to the shareholders.
Now, are there a few (many?) people employed at Microsoft who truly believe they have a good product line and are truly happy that the company is doing this? Heck yeah. But the motivation of the "company" is and must always be to satisfy shareholders.
That's a very big one lie:
a) They will give them a CD 75c value.
b) They will not lost 1 Billion of revenues because the people that received the donation don't have money to spend in a commodity like Free Software OS.
Why these people think we're stupid?
...but this is what RMS has been arguing for decades. Sure, Microsoft can give software away for free. But that's not as good as 'free software', beacuse then the recipient is locked in to proprietary formats, and they need to pay a specific company for upgrades (and possible support, manuals, and so on).
Sure you can knock Microsoft for tax deductions, but the whole point of this article is that software and file formats should be free ("and not as in beer").
For it hangs on the issue is this a gift or a sale? Which is hard with software that requires, typically, paid upgrades, which although clearly optional become more and more mandatory as the software ages.
I would say unless the gift includes free long-term upgrades/support that it's not a gift; it's a deferred or at best discounted payment.
http://www.hawknest.com/
I'd say ur nerdy mate is a fag.
why don't some Linux distros dive right in to that "market" and steal the benefits from Microsoft?
Resistance is futile.
"Some fight for law. Some fight for justice. What will you fight for? One day, you will see."
But the increase has also drawn objections from developers of 'open source' programs
Open what now?
(programs for which the source code is freely distributed)
Ohhhh! I think I get it! So these programs would be free like free speech... and like free beer! What an amazing concept! Now tell me one more thing: what is this New York Times you speak of?
Is this comment Insightful? No. You may agree with it but he didn't say anything useful, he's just spouting off.
So this begs the question: Are there organizations/groups/individuals out there who help get open source or even just non-MS software into use by non-profits? Does Apple do something like this? Redhat?
Yeah, 'cause philanthropy always helps the bottom line - sure, right. Economics 101 my friend - corporations are profit maximizers, and if that means taking some strategic losses to increase market share, then that's what they'll do. Nothing to do with goodwill towards man or that crap.
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Do I doubt the motives of their largesse? Not really... they're pretty clear. But what are we trying to accomplish, here? In criticizing this, the (free|open source) software world simply looks bad.
Generally, society tends to be happy enough when charitable contributions are made; scrutinizing the donors for their motives is just puritannical. If non-profits benefit, according to their own definition of 'benefit', that's good. Complaining about it allows writers to lead articles with lines like "Even when the Microsoft Corporation attempts to do good, its critics distrust its motives," and discount open source people as too partisan to be taken seriously. "Michelle Murrain, a member of the Nonprofit Open Source Initiative in Amherst, Mass., says that if Microsoft gives away Windows for a few years, nonprofit groups may be less likely to use free, open-source software." Great. We're complaining about charity because it doesn't benefit us.
On top of which, none of the arguments put forth are particularly convincing. Murrain says, "Microsoft could throw in all this software for the next two years and then just stop and people will be hooked." Hooked. Okay. As if none of these people had used Windows before. Or as if companies with tight budgets will, in two years' time, be willing to cough up more than they are now, because they've become hopeless Microsoft junkies in the interim.
And Michael Gilbert says, "As a monopoly, Microsoft's below-market-price distribution of software might very well be a form of illegal competition for a particular market." Presumably he's indulging in a bit of theoretical speculation, and doesn't really lack the sense to foresee such a legal claim promptly going down in a ball of flames.
Sometimes it seems that open source people aren't satisfied with the prospect of beating Microsoft... they're offended that Microsoft isn't willing to simply roll over and die. Or at least to provide a stationary target. Better to pick our battles, and keep the focus on all the good software being developed except when there's really something to complain about.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
I work for a non-profit org that was, in its startup, bankrolled by Microsoft (and some others) in a very, very big way. What I can tell you is that our relationship with Microsoft is currently fluid (as they are nearing the end of their promised obligation to us). So the org I work for is a non-profit that deal specifically with technology in the non-profit sector. I am in a unique position, I get to see many intertesting interactions. But the one that impacts me the most is that, in many cases, the free software that orgs get from Microsoft and other corporate donors is often the only software they can get, and in many cases, the best for their needs. The main need here, which the technology community and most slashdotters don't consider, is that non-profits are not only on the ropes in terms of the technology they have, but supporting and maintaining that technology is a huge problem too. If you want to see a better presence for open source in the non profit community, you need to support nonprofdits with free or extremely cheap support and training on open source solutions. non-profit professionals, like most non-techs, dont want to be technology experts. they are busy feeding people, helping them get off of drugs, and rebuilding the faces of little kids with deformities. take it from me, this is what i do for a living
----------------------
RKauffman s.e.c.r.e.t.m.e.d.i.a.g.r.o.u.p
I work for a NPO. We already use Microsoft products - Windows 2000, Office 2000, and Exchange would be the major apps. Due to budgetary constraints, we've decided not to upgrade until the Windows/Office version after the Longhorn release in 2005 (whatever that release may be... ); we started setting aside money for that upgrade in 2001. Budget is the #1 thing on the minds of every executive/manager at an NPO.
FWIW, at an NPO, any $ used comes out of a donation from a charitable person, institution, or corporation, who probably envisioned their donated $ going toward the benefit of whatever community the NPO services; I doubt seriously that most people envision their dontations going straight to Bill Gates & Co. when they sign their names on the check, be it for AIDS research, building homes for the homeless, etc. If MS is willing to provide NPO's with or reduced cost software, the end benefit is that the NPO will have more funds available to help their constituencies.
Oddly enough, I was involved in a discussion of this very topic today!
My mother is an office manager for a "Safety Council"; my wife is an administrator in the American Red Cross. I also worked for a compnay the designed a SQL Server-based databank for the Red Cross.
Both organizations are tied tightly to Microsoft, in part because of the freebies, and in part because of corporate culture. They'd be silly to turn down millions in free software, especially hwne it is the same software they already use.
Do I take the free (as in beer) software that I know, or the free (as in leberty) software that I'll need to retool and retrain my staff for? Add in data conversion and other factors to see why the non-profits drink the Microsoft beer.
I'd rather the Red Cross take free software from Microsoft than have them lay off disaster personnel so they can retrain and retool for "free" software. People don't give a flip about Linux-vs.-Microsoft when their house is spread across three counties.
As for non-profits being "lucrative" -- no organization that relies on donations is lucrative; non-profit means limited budgets.
That's not to say that Microsoft doesn't recognize the benefits of "giving." Perhaps someone at Microsoft gets a warm fuzzy feeling from donating software, and I'm certain that their accountants like the associated tax write-off. But I'm sure it hasn't been lost on Microsoft that giving software to non-profits is both good advertising and good training.
Is Microsoft being Machiavellian? Yes. Does it matter? Probably not.
All about me
"Donated property may generally be deducted at the fair market value of the property at the time of the contribution."
This generally means how much the donated property can be sold for. The source of the info
This means that Microsoft can deduct from their taxes the full retail price of any software donated, up to 10% of their total taxable income. Which was 3.2 billion dollars in 1999. But the whole tax point is kind of moot because if this guy is right they didn't pay any taxes before the current software donations began.
Of course the Gates family is well known for their philanthropic gestures, but any time someone is prepared to give away over a BILLION dollars, you have to question their motives
I went about doing half an hour's worth of Googling on unfair trade practices and international product dumping, and came to a conclusion: there is nothing legally wrong with what Microsoft is doing.
Microsoft is merely giving away their product at the same price as the open source people. If I trusted their motives, I would respect the donation, however, I think it is clear to everyone that Microsoft is attempting to attack open source software in one of their most promising markets. Their manner of doing it reaks of unfair trade practices, but for two things:
So, while I find Microsoft's practices mean spirited and anti-competitive, I think they are perfectly legal.
Yes.
This comment is no more of a troll than the content of the article summary text.
"Is it true philanthropy or just another tactic to assimilate everyone into the MS collective?"
Is there any debate on what the answers will all be?
Does anyone actually still enjoy the anti-MS articles on this site anymore?
Corporations are designed to do one thing, and one thing only: to increase the value of its stock. Only the naive believe that corporations are designed or operate to turn a profit, contribute anything useful to any community, "philanthropize", or anything else. These are solely a means to an end.
The value of a corporation's stock is determined by the demand for that stock (classic supply/demand relationship). This is accomplished by convincing investors that the stock has value (the perception of value is value). This is done by increasing net assets (i.e. improving the balance sheet), paying dividends, etc. etc. One way of doing it is to create the impresion that there is an intangible value in the company; i.e. provide a "return" to the community that some investors might consider valueable and worthy of their support. This explains how corporations can be philanthropic and still be acting in the best interests of the shareholders. (Ignoring the effects of good PR on sales, possible gov't regulation, and other market/operating environment considerations)
Absolutely everything that a corporation does is designed to increase the value of its stock. Anything else would be in violation of the duty of the officers of the company to its shareholders.
It is an error to think about corporations with the same "mental template" that you use to thing about people; they do not "think" in the same way; rather, corporations "think" more like simpler forms of life; almost like a program (really, like a program with the introduced factor of human error). A corporation being philanthropic is less like a person being philanthropic, more like those ants that keep and feed aphids for food.
Bottom line: Corporations give gifts, not out of concience, or goodwill, but from a perception of self benefit of some sort.
Some companies operate entirely to maximize the implicit derived from philanthropy, such as charities that are organized as corps, etc.
This is why corporations act without conscience. You think that environmentally friendly companies are so because they care about the environment? Yeah, right. They act that way for legal, PR, or other reasons (but they will sure as hell claim to care, for the very same reasons).
Granted, my attitude about corps is very, um, clinical (?); and granted, this holds true less for smaller companies, or, more correctly, companies that are controlled more by their own stockholders (i.e. the mom and pop shop where the shareholders are, in fact, the officers of the company), because in this situation, their duties are to themselves, so they can operate in a fashion that they deem to have the most value.
But I think you will find that the stark portrayal of companies is more accurate than most would like to believe when describing large, especially publicly traded companies.
My point is, given a proper understanding of how corporations operate; the question of "Are company A's actions philanthropy, or self-promoting" is really a question without meaning; It's like asking if the ocean is full of water, or is it full of dihydrogen oxide?"; the question arises from a misunderstanding of the definition of "philanthropy" in the context of corporate operations.
Give away their software probably for like the next 20 (maybe more!!) years, have no income, and still pay all their employees with their bank accounts.
These guys really could use all of the help they can get!
you didn't though.
hahahahahahahaahha
Gates Foundation gives computers, etc. to libraries, with latest windows on them. Combined with broadband, this is the best computer experience a lot of people get. Let's see Redhat or Lindows belly up to the bar and do the same!
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.
Just because everyone says it doesn't mean it isn't true.
It's fair to prevent MS from giving away their OS if you also forbid the Linux and BSD companies from likewise donating their software.
I18N == Intergalacticization
Recently, my fav webcaster, www.ckua.org, dropped real audio in favour of WiMP streaming for the simple reason that they couldn't justify the ridiculous cost of a proprietary protocol. I bet many, many NPO's (non profit organizations) are alos currently considering moving to open type systems in order to realize significant cost savings. The managers at MS and other monopolistically minded enterprises must be worried that this is the start of a mass migration towards low or no cost software alternatives.
I believe Microsoft is simply giving away Windows in order to maintain any market presence at all. They must be banking on the fact that if the licensing costs are equal, people will stay with what they use already, thereby denying Linux an opportunity to enter the lucrative corporate market at it's lowest level.
Isn't it a shame that all those well-paid, educated and supposedly honest senior managers are buzy devoting their energies to market manipulation rather that product development?
Personally, IMHO, MS has never been a engineering firm, but rather, a marketing concern; and lately, it seems, a haven for litigators. If MS has ever lead the IT field, surely it was only in a quest for undeserved profits. Really, is this the America we should be proud of?
Words to men, as air to birds.
This provides for Microsoft the perfect solution, make themselves look good and make open-source less attractive. Those are the motives behind it, but the same is true of just about any company out there that does philantrophical things. They are all in it for the money in the end (tax credits, good press, market share, etc.)
"What do you think? Is it true philanthropy or just another tactic to assimilate everyone into the MS collective?"
Umm... Is this a trick question?
Damiano
"I don't say this because I'm biased against proprietary software, I say this because the software has no resale value for the NPO"
Since Microsoft licensing prevents the non-profit from reselling the software, someone should complain to the IRS because it obviously doesn't have the loss deduction that Microsoft will claim for it.
If it does, then the charities should resell the $400 dollar office suit, buy a computer and load openoffice.org on it.
pope is the antichrist. catholic pedophile priest scandal: http://home.fuse.net/gospel
It brings the hip Slashbots out to bash Microsoft and impress their IRC Linux buddies, which generates page hits and therefore advertising revenue as well as potential subscribers.
Honestly, people constantly berate Microsoft for being a money-hungry company, but all companies are by definition money-hungry...and Slashdot itself happens to be corporate-owned...doesn't anybody else recognize the patterns? It seems we get at least three to four Microsoft articles a week, and they get more and more inane. Wow, Ballmer sold some stock! Ooh.
"Sufferin' succotash."
IANAA ( I am not an accountant) but I belive a corporation can only write off 10% of its taxable income, which in MS' case would be in the low billions.
Boo hoo, open source community. Before you mod this into oblivion, I would just like to say that I'm a strong open source advocate. That said, I get so tired of hearing about how Microsoft is doing such and such, which undermine the whole "movement" etc. Excuse me, but do you actually think MS is actually going to look at Linux and OSS and say, "Well boys, they're going to win... let's all wave the white flags and sit idly by while Linux rules the world!"??? Microsoft has a right to (legally) do what it can to survive. Often, that means bashing open source software. Often, that means agressive contracts and business practices. And often that means giving software to institutions and non-profits. But instead of seeing this is another twist in the plot to world domination, instead of rising to the occasion, the open source community whines and complains about MS not being fair. Sorry guys, but such is life. MS didn't get to where it is by crying everytime a competitor made it hard for them. They fought back, and became the largest company in the world. Can you people do the same?
You learned that from MS, no doubt.
Flash....I can think for myself. New concept for your crowd, but true nonetheless.
Your sort needs to spend time in the corner thinking about who and what you are endorsing. MS was convicted...found guilty. They are not considered an example of a good business, and any attempts to deflect that truth and/or further the lie that they need a break can't be changed by painting any/all opposition in the same bad light. Your argument is weak and obvious...as is normal w/the MS trolls.
Do you think that they (the charities and other non-profits) are so financially inept that you must save them from themselves by demanding that a choice be removed from the market, for their own good?
--sdem
...Vladinator, you fucking asshole?
So MS is giving away software. I really don't understand how it is wrong or harmful for anyone, monopoly or otherwise, to give away something. If a drug dealer went around giving away free samples, clearly stating that the drug was addictive and that future doses would not be free, would there be any problem with that? I personally think not - that would be fine with me. What MS is doing is giving these people a choice - in fact, if they wanted, the charities could throw away the donated software, or stash them in the back room unused. No one is FORCING them to use the donated software, and they know perfectly well the consequences (need for upgrades, bugs, patches) of using it.
Piracy was the best thing that ever happened to Microsoft.
Sure, people got to learn Word at home for free, but when they got a job it was Word they wanted to use. That's why WordPerfect died.
Giving MS software away to non-profit organizations will never be as good for MS as piracy was. Ten year olds don't work for non-profits.
We must be alert to the danger that public policy could become captive to a scientific-technological elite. - Eisenhower
YEARs ago and no one complained except the kids that learned on them is school and then found out that most companies use MS word, excell, and power point exclusively. Even Lucent (which invented the Unix operating system BTW) switched over to MS. And the documentation and support for Linux is so poor (as in incorrect, vague, or non-existant) that it just plain sucks to to try and learn or use for novices. MSoft may not be the best, but is the standard in most major companies until the above problems are fixed it will remain so.
and that's why MS has pulled it's offer of MS Office at a discounted price from the university i attend. and they claim if anyone owns a copy purchased via the university it's licsense will expire.
::scratch's head::
--the non profits have choices-accept, not accept, or just keep using what they already have perhaps, not get sucked into upgrading cycles. Here on slashdot, you also have a choice, in your user preferences, you can de select the microsoft articles, can't you? If they are burdensome? You can also keep the articles, then go to the link, read the entire article, then skip the commentary where the bashing might be offensive. Lot of choices there.
Now, because this is a forum and anyone may post their views, I would say, yes, microsoft deserves bashing. They have been proven many times to be highly predatory, to use questionable and illegal business tactics, and now, combined with all the other articles, you can plainly see they are afraid of open source and free software. They simply have no way in the future to keep making mega profits unless they maintain their mindshare. Them giving away "free" software that is in essence almost zero cost to them to make copies of, and getting "tax breaks" for that, is yet again another example of a deseperation move on their part, because they can SEE mindshare evaporating on them, daily now. They are big, powerful, so enamored of themselves they border on megalomaina, but buried inside them they are terrorized now. They waited too long. There was just one worm too many, one virus too many, open source and really free software has gotten too good. If I can be punny they lost their "window of opprtunity" for the new century already, they waited just too long. They have few options left, this is one of them. I expect them to be forced into dropping prices across the board soon. You could see this coming 3 years ago clearly. Right now, yes, still a big company, making profits, this is not likely to continue for much longer.
Tell you a story, I owned two different studebakers, when they were still a big company. Times change, don't they?
It may take awhile, but microsoft is on it's way back down to a much smaller and much less important company. All it will take is a few of the top retailers to have already installed linux on machines at the retail level that most people get exposed to, and wham, that's it. Add in some more governments, a few big other corporations. It'll happen.
You don't see many people switching back to microsoft, once they really start using linux, and it used to be macintosh. It just doesn't happen,but you will see people switching away, oine here, one there, a thousand here, ten thousand there. So microsoft has no choice now, like these car companies out there. 0% interest and cash back and all sorts of things they weren't offering just a few years ago. Business changes, times change, reality changes. Microsoft will increasingly just be forced to give it away,give it away, keep sweetning the pot, until they are free as well, if they want to stay in any sort of business, until there's a leveling, then it will be down to the concepts of useability and service versus useability and service. Paid-for software is dying out, and fast, except for custom in house written. The OS in particular.
Now if they were REALLY smart, they could shock the world, change overnight, and give it all away, just offer paid-for service plans at a reasonable rate, with automatic free upgrades. They are so used to making money the easy way, they have no conception of this as a business model, whereas with linux et al it's about the *whole* business model, which is *what most people think it's worth*.
This is just like the music business hanging onto to last centuries business model, doomed to failure unless they change with the times. And the reason WHY is that code or sounds or pictures are so EASILY copied and distributed now, there's no absolute reason to charge these huge amounts of money. You retail based on low volume, high profit, or huge volume, low profit, or service, and THAT'S IT, that's all business can offer..
Microsoft leveraged themselves into a near monopoly, charged a premium, then stopped producing like the
Why did you choose to open the article and post to it if you disliked it so much? How does thia make you an insightful person?
In severe cases of coporate criminality and corruption, the miscreant goes unpunished for years...in some cases they are never punished.
Welcome to America.
It must cost MS about 5 cents to punch a cd so at $1 billion they must be sending out about 2^10 cds!
Ok we know what MS is really saying. Heck why can't I make a program called "Mongoose's Image Viewer", charge 100,000$ for each copy but then "donate" it for free to organizations around the world. I will have donated millions of dollars then!
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
$1 billion annually
Would that be at full retail price? And what would be the level of the tax benefit claimed, considering that the cost to Microsoft is roughly $0.00 per piece, if you round it down.
And for the charities: what price pain?
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
I think the question should really be "Does it matter?" I can't speak for anyone else who uses Free/Open Source Software, but I did not start using it just to "kill Microsoft."
/. and complain that the Big Bad Evil Empire(tm) is being sneaky.
Now, I'm no big fan of MS, but even if they give everything they make away for free for the next 10 years (which I believe they have the cash on hand to do...), I will not trade in my Linux box. I believe the Bazaar model will win, in time, not because it is cheaper, or trendy, but because it simply makes more sense.
But I'm not on a mission to force FS/OSS down everyone's throat, either. Face it, many of these non-profit groups don't have a geek on hand, and the "gift," strings attached or not, will help them do good for the community they support.
If you don't want to see your favorite charity using MS software, get active! Volunteer at their center to install and support their software. Don't sit on
And if, by some miracle, MS suddenly starts giving away all of their software for free, opens their file formats for all to use, cleans up their security, kills off their bugs, becomes a responsible member of society, and everybody's best friend in the software world, didn't we win after all?
"Just another damned fool idealistic crusader..."
The fact is, most in the nonprofit sector are not tech gurus and their heads would explode if they had to deal with Linux/*BSDs. The sector is full of non-techies, and non-techies need Microsoft software, so getting WindowsXP Pro and all other MS products at a significantly reduced price via the MS COLP is a *VERY* good thing.
So, why is MS' doing this?
- Because these entities would not have bought MS software anyways, this costs them nothing; thus, they gain reputation in the community for free.
- This allows them to start locking non-profit organizations into proprietary formats, like MS' document format.
- Allows them to undercut their one serious competitive threat -- FOSS. By offering away software for free to these entities that wouldn't have paid them anyways, they eliminate one benefit of FOSS -- price. Though, in theory, FOSS can cost money, in practice it doesn't. Though informal support (e.g., helpfiles, FAQs, newsgroups, irc channels) is free, formal support costs money, but all formal support costs money. Now FOSS can only compete on two additional grounds: the actual quality of the software and end-user rights. In many cases, FOSS offers superior quality; however, there is still mass familiarity with Windows products. FOSS always offers the end-user more rights (as in, it places no restrictions on end-user activity) and allows for improvement, but these are concepts which the average user has difficulty grasping.
- Allows them to really undercut any other competitors (proprietary competitors).
- Allows them to possibly write these off as deductions. Again, it costs them nothing to do this. However, they can claim that they've donated billions to charity; thus, write off substantial amounts of tax.
- Create dependency of the individuals within that organization upon MS. Thus, while the organization may not pay MS, individuals may end up doing so.
- As they've locked non-profits into their proprietary formats, they are now in position to start charging non-profits at their will.
This is clearly anti-competitive behaviour for a monopoly. However, since the courts have not seriously done anything to stop MS' vast and braod anti-competitive behaviour, it is doubtful they will do anything about this.So, the question becomes what can we do about this?
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Linux is free, now MS is giving away it's stuff for free. What's the problem? It sounds like people are getting lots of free software to me.
Instead of everyone griping about M$ giving away software to these organizations why don't they encourage OSS developers to "seek out" the same or similar opportunities. That is to say, instead of just saying "It's free. Come and get it!" why don't they go after these markets as proactively as M$. Make some phone calls, presentations, giveaways etc...
If Mr. Gates seriously wanted to be philanthropic, he would direct his company to make good products.
Philanthropy is an amusement for the idle rich. No matter how badly you do, no one will complain, because you are giving them money.
Microsoft very much needs management attention now, and Mr. Gates' wife's amusements are drawing him away from the company.
Does it still count as philanthropy if you give away a crappy product?
___ alwaysBETA.com - Hey, you've got nothing better to do.
I doubt they would actually donate software. They would "donate" licenses.
For MS to make a difference, they would need to give away inital versions of MS Windows and then sell support, which they won't do, so ... ummm yeah.
I'm not attempting to pass judgement on whether such a donation would be good or bad, just asking the question of whether it's legal in light of MS's current conviction.
hmmm...
I seem to remember a story where ms offered to donate their software (for free) to a city or nation in Africa, and the leader there refused, because they couldn't afford it.
It seems that hardware upgrades were needed, that the server software wasn't free, that they were giving the os, but charging for office, or the other way around, or something like that. In this case, free turned out to be hundreds of dollars per computer. I think it was free os, but had to buy the office suite.
It may have been a story on Slashdot's sister site, Newsforge. Or on Slashdot. But I'm sure there's a story like I describes somewhere in the archives about ms donating "free" the software, and the African nation or city leader refusing because they couldn't afford "free".
Can someone provide the link?
Ok, MS has too much power and money, so you all bitch and moan about that; so they decide to give some away in a charitable fashion, and ... you bitch about that, too! Come on, if it was any other company you'd be dancing in the freaking streets. You all are giving MS waaaay too much credit for evil.
And I encourage people to use Linux. And I think people should at least consider changing. But I recognize that Linux is not for everyone. Probably not my parents. Nor lots of other people. I do encourage organizations to use linux when possible. I think if users spent the time to learn another system it would be better for them - and probably much better for the organization as they'd have more options for the future.
Do I hate Microsoft and wish that they'd just go away? No. I dislike their OS's. I dislike their Office suite (to be fair, I don't like Open Office much either). But for most people MS may be the only viable alternative - because they've already bought in to MS, learned how to use Office and Outlook and IE and all - and they're unwilling to learn anything new.
But I also feel very uncomfortable indeed with the idea that MS has a stranglehold on software. I don't want to have to pay for a Windows OS with my computer that I don't want to use. I don't want to find myself stuck with a video card that Linux can't use because the only drivers are for Windows. I really dislike getting MS Word format email. I get very frustrated when there is software written for Windows and the Mac and only a second rate version for Linux (though more and more frequently the Linux version is better than the others). I think the "update office every year" marketing ploy is pretty sleazy (and very clever). I get quite annoyed at the web pages that work on IE only. I've heard personally from people whose companies were destroyed by MS's corporate slash and burn strategies. And so on. And the assumption that "All the world's running Windows" helps to create just those situations.
So, yes. I admit it. Over the years I've developed a dislike of MS which has become fairly intense. And lots of linux people I know have come to feel the same way for much the same reasons. And I've also come to find that most seriously pro-MS people have a stake in MS of one sort or another. Whats yours?
Now - to respond to your comments :
company doesn't have to choose to use microsoft products
Not true in most cases. Most of the time companies have already purchased computers with Windows and Office installed and hired some MSCE types to run them. Changing systems would piss off the MSCE guys big time so they'll resist like hell. It would scare most of the users so they'll resist like hell. Microsoft will resist like hell. The organization will have to worry about changeover costs. If you say they don't have to choose MS, you demonstrate just a bit of ignorance. The pressures to use MS are immense - almost to the point where there is no viable choice.
MS is easy to use
Completely untrue. (I hope I'm not quoting out of context - but I'm not sure what the context was - your sentence got a bit confused there.) With the possible exception of the Mac, most computer systems are difficult to use and to learn. But all the users are taught MS by default (because MS has an effective monopoly on end user computer software), so users think its easy. They only remember enough of the learning process to know they don't want to do it again.
On the other hand, what you complain about may be indicative of the fact that most of the world feels about Microsoft like they do about rectal exams - they have little choice but to participate at some point in their lives, but no-one is gonna make them like it.
When they say $1 Billion, do they mean what the software would sell for in retail? Or do they mean what it actually costs to manufacture it? At a few cents per CD, that's probably enough to cover the planet in Windoze install disks. (Take *that*, AOL!)
"Screw causalilty!" -- Prof. Farnsworth
WOW! The open-source movement may actually be working - Microsoft is doing something they never have before - worrying about image. This is great! I doubt its going to work, but hell, maybe Microsoft is actually waking up?
... that Microsoft software represents values not consistent with their stated mission, they can refuse the donation, I'm sure.
Is the fact that competion generally reduces prices "good" this week or "bad"? How about choice? Good or no?
======================================
Writers get in shape by pumping irony.
Since free software is typically, well, free, you'd think the free software "movement" would have a significant advantage in a competition to provide software to the nonprofit sector. The fact that it doesn't is evidence that free software's distributed structure and lack of hierarchical governance can work to its disavantage.
In other words, there's no one in charge, so no one can say "Do This!".
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
$1,000,000,000 / ~$600 per windows/office bundle =
(drum roll please)
1,666,666.6 repeating.
not all that much software, folks.
It isn't illegal for Apple et al to give away software. It is illegal for a convicted monopoly abuser to try to perpetuate and extend said monopoly using anti-competive practices.
That "potentially promising" non-profit market is in reality only 1-2% of the software market, and a very financially limited one at that.
I think that it is very hard to see that this is a strategically important market segment for Microsoft. It seems to me that the primary benefits to Microsoft are good will (something intangible but important to corporations nonetheless), increasing use of computers in all segments of society as a general good thing for MS, and a tax writeoff.
When a coalition of engineering corporations donated ``$313,884,754'' worth of CAD software to my school last year, I smelt a rat. Well, I'm not exactly complaining, because now we have a bunch of expensive proprietary software that the school would not have ever purchased anyway, but it turns out to be a nice tax writeoff for the donating coalition. It is quite literally like printing money!
Just pick the highest market price you can get away with for your software, make and give away copies of your software, and then claim the donation on your tax forms for that year (which might explain why the donation was conveniently made in December). Interestingly enough, our school is only paying the ``cost of shipping'' for the software - $3,000 to $4,000 a year. I find it amusing that we are essentially paying the printing costs for the money they're printing up for us, analogically speaking.
This coalition gave away a grand total of $1.5 billion dollars worth of copies of their software to various schools. In the end, everyone wins out, except the IRS, which gets shorted whatever they feel was owed to them. It looks like this whole proprietary software tax loophole is very good news for some software companies.
MS for 20 years gave nothing away. Bill/Melissa also gave nothing away. Suddenly in the last 4 years, they see a need to do give aways. oh yeah, pure charity.
Personally, though, I say great. It is Bill's money (and yes, MS money is bill's to use and abuse) and he can do as he sees fit.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
As I said on slashdot a couple of years ago.. You ain't seen nothing yet - just wait until Microsoft starts to feel more seriously threatened..
The open source movement should spend some time thinking about what sorts of ruthless and nasty things msft might do in the future and try and plan accordingly.
The reality of software is that you own nothing other than the right to use. Free software you also do not own, however you are free to learn how to copy, change, and publish its functions, sell fair copy of your own software for its OS, if it has value. There is a big difference in philosophy. You can bet there will be no free use of any core developement software given away by Microsoft.
The very last thing on earth that Microsoft wants is people to be hired or learn to write regional appropriate interfaces. The real reason Microsoft is giving the use of its software away to third world countries is that it needs beta testers for language releases. You can bet your bottom dollar that the bug reports, spelling errors, reports of ill conceived interface naming, etc in many languages is one of the biggest benefits Microsoft is looking for in return.
The real threat to Microsoft comes from Unixses in the Orient, and to some extent eastern Europe where Linux and Unix have a big head start, especially in the Universities. Go to just about any eastern University and you will find Unix culture. Microsoft is a late comer to the University culture of the world, it is flexing its North America centric world view with its dollars and is in for a big suprise. The so called third world is not as backward as one here is taught to believe. Most of the best programmers are coming from India and many can C and Assembley code the Dickens out 99% of the info college Dot Net Visual Studio hackers, working in IS the US.
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
to a level that may approach $1 billion annually in the next three to four years
This must be the marketshare they expect to lose otherwise.
I did consulting for an academic/non-profit and they get Office XP for $40.
More details...
Open Charity License Overview
I'm not sure that an organization that "gives stuff away for free" can criticize ANOTHER organization that "gives stuff away for free". The fact that Microsoft is trying to slow open-source adoption is besides the point.
Other for profit organizations, do have reason to bitch given Microsoft's monopolistic practices.
If non-profits are getting some freeware, than that's good. The fact that they're not getting YOUR free software is really no reason to bitch.
If open-source has the effect of keeping prices low and getting Microsoft to behave in a more philanthropic fashion, than it is STILL a success.
In the web-server area, nothing can stop Linux taking over a rather DUHHHH task from both Microsoft AND Sun.
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
Any user of a current GNU/Linux distro knows that Microsoft software is lacking. Everyone needs to store, manipulate and exchange information. Microsoft formats and tools get in the way of all three needs by ignoring published standards and best practices. No one needs Microsoft tools except people who use Microsoft tools. Free software offers a tremendous selection of tools that do all of the above without crashing, with ease and platform independence.
The bigger picture story that John missed is a history of dumping software to defeat competition and then gouging the victims. Microsoft has pushed it's software on influential groups forever. Each "market" has been tiny, but the cumulative effect has been much larger. Witness past efforts to woo business students and the effect on corporate america. Now that they are hooked, here comes License 6. Microsoft is constanly "giving away" software to public shcools and at universities to keep the learning curve up. Yet the BSA has extorted hundreds of thousands of dollars from those same schools. He saw the Apple complaint but was unable to place it in it's propper perspective.
M$ has made it difficult to own a computer without their software on it. By vendor manipulation, you STILL can't buy a computer from a "mainstream" vendor without the latest and greatest M$ junk on it. Because free software answers all sofware needs at a lower price, this directly contradicts normal market forces. Microsoft has tried to make it hard to build a PC yourself and take advantage of the cost differential. John should look up. Microsoft's "Naked PC" campaign. He might also investigate the Microsoft Server market and think hard about the implications of IE only services for banks, government and professional offices. With that kind of perspecitve he can examine this new round of charity give aways.
Microsoft is trying to insure that those who ordinarilly can't afford a computer will get one with a M$ OS on it and may have ambitions for state sponsorship. The market is huge. Computers are becoming a necessity, and about half of the US does not have one in their home. Think what this means to efforts to eradicate the "digital devide". First come private charities, then come public, tax payer funded ones. The influential market now are are charities and governement offices. It's not new. Remember the US post office adverts for M$ that occured before the anti-trust suit was settled? Most government offices run M$, except a very few bright ones, in effect this is a government subsidy. The new potential market is going to see Microsoft and be influenced by people Microsoft is doing it's best to treat well. With enough encouragment and Astroturfing, the public might ask for M$ junk as part of the social safety net. It's perposterous when free software is available at no cost.
Those that take the bait will be punished in the end. If the public school model is followed, we can expect the BSA will visit tomorrow those who trusted Microsft today. They have already had a talk with the United Way. All of us will pay if M$ makes themselves the standard welfare computer.
John, get in touch with your local Linux User Group. Chances are they will set you up and be very happy to chat with you. You would be amazed at
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
of 'open source' programs (programs for which the source code is freely distributed). Uhmm, yeah I'm sure nobody here at slashdot knew that...
To me though this seems like two things. First, give them the software and make them pay for upgrades. And second giving "millions" of dollars for practically free.
Have any of you visited a NPO lately? Most of the ones I've helped out with don't have newer PC, and if they do they're limited in number.
So who wants to bet dollars for doughnuts that a lot of that donated software will be Windows XP and other resource hungry applications? And what will these excited NPO's do when they try loading XP on a Pentium II with 64MB of RAM?
Yeah, nice gift Bill. You're a real saint.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
I know most people don't study or have a clue about business on /., so let me challenge your conspiracy theory with, "No, MS can not get a tax writeoff for a $1000 Windows Server License", simply because a tax writeoff has to do with cost, not potential revenue.
There is no longer anything that can be done with computers that is nontrivial and clearly legal. -- Paul Phillips
Then I decided to think about it a little. Yeah, I wrote a big long post refuting the general notion that "everyone needs microsoft tools" and other trolly things. I looked up the author and found it on a page seved by "takedown". The bells were ringing,but I did not put it together.
Then it hit me. This is exactly the kind of clueless junk we could expect from someone who's still running on a reputation built in the late 80's and early 90's, and does not know squat about free software and hacker culture.
John, it's not about breaking into other people's computers, stealing things and getting something for nothing. It's about understanding how things work, owning your computer and making it do what you want it to do with the help of a community of like minded people. It's about peer review, free speech, enterprise, initiative, innovation and many fine Amercian things. Check it out and get into it or quit writing about it.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
... I mean, they testified in their antitrust trial that they hadn't erected any barriers to the market because the cost of burning a CD to distribute software on only cost what, $1? We've seen the math that says that they could cut two-thirds of the MSRP from their OS and Office products and still be making a profit -- that's the monopoly tax.
So how can they claim to donate $1B "worth" of software? If I donate $5 to a church, then it's a $5 itemizeable tax-deduction, not $500. If I donate a used car to 'drive away hunger,' then we've got a blue-book value to report to the IRS. Clearly any claim of Microsoft philanthropy needs to be taken with a shaker of salt -- or at least a decent economics text.
(I wonder if the IRS will audit them over their claimed value of software... "We sold one $2M software license to MegaCorp International, and donated another $2M license to the homeless shelter, such that we're a non-profit organization now..." Get Real.)
The Beast is angry -- lashing out as he tries to defeat the foe. But
where is this foe? Where does he aim? Where does he swing?
For this foe is everywhere, yet nowhere. True, there have been foes
in the past, hitherto they have been vanquished. One swipe of
the claw and it's sent them dead or running.
Yes, the Beast was in a tough spot several years ago. But the Beast
is smart. We saw the beast learn. He learned to make friends with
the folks who have the power. This lesson served him well.
But now the the Beast is on the run. Watch him fight. Watch him
run, running like we've never seen him before.
The Beast is scared.
First the European sales slush fund, next the Beast's proxy's flaming
arrow shot across the bow -- a vain and feeble attempt to arrest the
onslaught of the foe.
But my friends, while the battle rages on, the Beast has lost. As Pompeii
was to lava, the Beast will succumb. We're watching the beginning of
the end game. It's over. The dancing monkey man is cashing out. As we
do Newt Gingrich, we'll miss the Beast.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'd like to point out that the power of the foe in our story is the power
of thousands. But, love or hate him, the credit for the laying of the
foundation that made this all possible, with little more than pen and
paper (and attorney) goes to none other that RMS.
Just goes to show how far a good idea can go.
If this annoys all the pro-Free Software people, why don't you stop playing with your play station/xbox/whatever, and DO EXACTLY WHAT MICROSOFT IS DOING?!
Donate your time. Get up and go to your local charity, find out what software they're running, and see how you can help them. In this respect, your time is worth FAR more than just throwing $100 dollars at them once a year, especially if you can show them how to run a potentially superior OS on old, outdated hardware. Remember, these are non-profit organizations - they don't have 3.0GHz machines. This is where Linux is supposed to shine.
Instead of whining about how Open Office is superior to MS Office, SHOW PEOPLE. Convert your local charity to Free Software, and away from commercial. If they don't want to, find out why. Then when you know why, DON'T call them "n00bs". Address their concerns - tweak the interface, find or construct replacement software for whatever they need to do, etc.
This is just another example why the free software movement isn't as powerful as it could be - because the people behind it tend to make lousy advocates. MS is a marketing GOD. If the Free Software movement wants to run with the big dogs, it can't bitch and whine every time MS does something unexpected. I doubt you're shy of stealing their marketing ideas. Maybe you're afraid of some competition? Prove me wrong. You'll do yourself a favor.
clearly, nationalizing microsoft is the best outcome possible. they deserve it and we do to. it's time to stop being held hostage.
I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that dumping (selling way below cost) was illegal for monopolies. This is no different. Of course, this is what they got away with before, but now they have been declared a monopoly.
BTW, I suggest those DOJ lawyers take a look at Vernor Vinge's "Conquest by Default" (1968) for some serious anti-trust action! If monopoly is the *only* crime that exists, then the results can be rather serious...
For those of you who have forgotten, the marginal cost of producing another copy of Windows, Office, Linux, or any other software product is zero other than insignificant media and distribution costs. Microsoft's "cost" for this donation is essentially zero. So, forget about taxes, etc. What Microsoft is doing here is called "price discrimination" in Economics. They charge full price to those with deep pockets and less to others, like students, with more limited resources. Since there is a benefit to Microsoft when its market share increases, "selling" another unit at zero price makes sense. Selling at zero price only makes sense if the marginal cost of production is zero (or near zero) and there is some benefit to increasing the number of units sold. Price discrimination is not just a tool for monopolists. Movie theatres, for example, employ the technique when they charge seniors and children less than the rest of us. Although Microsoft's behavior is completely rational, it is clear that those who pay a zero price are being subsidized by those who pay a low price (e.g., students) and those who pay a high price (the rest of us).
Read the subject. Everyone who is asking the (dumb) question here, "How can you undercut a free product by giving away something for free?" has failed to realize one thing: Windows is still easier to use than Linux. Period.
If you don't agree with this then you're a real Linux zealot, or you just have no clue how actual non-technical users think and work with computers. Don't feel bad, I've fallen into the same fantasy several times. But every time I set a real user down in front of a Linux machine, I realize yet again that Linux has a long way to go. You cannot, I say again, you CANNOT find a Linux distro to this day that is truly the equivalent to Windows in terms of making your computer easy to work with. (The closest is probably Xandros, with its proprietary file manager.)
I can think of a lot of examples but one of the biggest ones in my mind is the fact that Linux makes it so damn complicated to work with all the different drives attached to your system. In Windows, if you attach an external Firewire or USB storage device, or anything else for that matter, it will first be installed and from then on it will automagically appear in the file manager. I have yet to find the equivalent behaviour in any Linux program or desktop environment.
Oh, and you'd like to eject a disk? Sorry, as long as a single obscure, hidden application or daemon is still messing with that drive, you can't unmount it (a totally foreign concept to most people) and thus you can't eject it. Supermount? I'm sorry, but supermount is still a total pain in the ass. I'm using Mandrake 9.1 and I have once again disabled supermount in favor of regular mount options. It just doesn't work the way a human needs it to work. It doesn't even approach the ease with which you can eject a disk in any Windows environment. Yes, I know it's unsafe, but it's EASY, and that's what non-techies care about.
I could fill a book with other usability problems with Linux and its various desktop environments. It's not just the fact that people have used Windows for years. Windows really is still easier to use in so many ways. That doesn't even bring in the application and device compatibility issues.
Last but not least, non-techies either don't know about, or don't care about, the hole they will be digging themselves into by accepting and using proprietary software to create all their documents, thus practically chaining themselves to the Beast from Redmond. They just don't care. They have actual lives and actual work to do, and they don't feel that any of this is important, if they're even aware of it at all.
All this adds up to exactly why "Free Windows" can definitely undercut "Free Linux". Because it's not just about the numbers on the price tag.
So...as soon as Microsoft starts competing at the "no-cost" software level, all the zealots cry fowl.
:)
Typical
If I was a Microsoft shareholder, I would want to sack any Microsoft board of directors that used the company's resources for anything other than increasing the bottom-line.
Really? Does that mean if a company had the opportunity to take action resulting in the deaths of many, many people, that you as a shareholder would be in favor of it as long as it benefitted the "bottom line"? That saddens me, and certainly such things happen (not really talking about MS here, it could be any company).
But many investors' wishes are more complex than that. Witness the growing number of "socially responsible" mutual funds. Those investors (and I'm one of them) have more on their mind than driving the stock price up at any cost.
Personally, I don't think giving away software should really count as a donation. If they really wanted to be charitable, they'd give out support contracts with the software.
http://www.iht.com/articles/97593.html
Found via google news. Fuck you, NYT.
python -c "x='python -c %sx=%s; print x%%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))%s'; print x%(chr(34),repr(x),chr(34))"
Couldn't this be considered illegal protection of a monopoly? Giving away software is certainly selling it below cost. If that is done to eliminate rivals wouldn't that be illegal?
Gee...what a nice guy.
why do school kids get their first bit of dope for free?
The way I see it, OSS is making software available for free whether it be directly or indirectly. Whatever Microsoft's motives may be, they'd probably be much less inclined to donate this much software at no cost if OSS hadn't pressured them into doing so. At the end of the day, these organizations are still able to save some money. What's wrong with that? It's not like this is going to make OSS disappear. We'll just have to polish our software up if we want these organizations to use our software in light of other free alternatives.
Let me point out that Slashdot could definitely use the reliability of a Microsoft-based server. Then, we wouldn't have to worry about the inavailability of... ... oh. wait a minute. nevermind...
[Looks up relationship between Slashdot, FSF]
FSF stands for free software foundation. Doesn't it? I guess they can get all the free software they want. [quietly sticks foot in mouth, hops away on remaining leg..]
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
The drug dealers of the world should suit microsoft for stealing their business model. They might be the only ones with the wallet to take them M$ :p
India has 10% of the software development force. By flooding the ccountry with MS systems, they are shielding themselves from Open Source or other competition.
I couldn't have said it any better. Horse cock indeed.
Over the years linux has been gaining strength at my university, appearing on more computers every year.
This year they put Windows XP Pro and Visual Studio.NET on all of the remaining windows pc's and gave free legal copies of both to any students who wanted to install them at home.
Who cares if its an attempt to compete against free software? Its a win-win for non-profits and MS, and if free software can't compete purely on features (minus the price advantage), then it should lose. Its the free market at work. Get over it.
Let me tell how it really is -- I'm the Director of I.T. for an NYC-based non-profit, high-end, very prominent. Your comments about MS hurting me more are pretty offensive, and wofeully uninformed. By the way, I'm a UNIX guy, I've been an admin, an engineer, all the way since 0.99pl4 so you're preaching to the choir about open source. But reality is different.
In the non-profit world, budgets are so slim as to be non-existent. You're working on yesterday's technology (for the most part), you cobble together what you can. But there are certain things that all non-profits must have, the basic "office services" that we all take for granted. But these places don't have them, they have a bastardised collection of w98 and w95 and god forbid novell on dos desktops, all somehow strung together with a chain of ancient hubs, etc. You get the picture. We as IT guys in these places have very little resources, both in terms of people and time - oh and the previously mentioned money. We need MAXIMUM bang for the buck.
As a UNIX zealot I already know that with OSS/Linux/*NIX there's nothing better than a free lunch. But - I also have 75 people in the office who know absolutely nothing about computers except to click Send/Receive and read their email, or use the Outlook calendar. Believe me, if I had the time and the resources to build and deploy my own Linux desktops, I'd do it - oh god would I do it. But I have to face cold, hard facts and the fact is that as an IT guy at a non-profit I have to give as much with as little as I get, and that little is the "Microsoft Office environment" and goddamnit thats what these people know, and its what they expect and it's all they'll ever know.
Having said that - the money that I don't have to spend on Microsoft Office and the various OS' that I need to run it on are ALWAYS used (at least anywhere that I work) on as many servers as possible to run the important stuff -- stuff like intranets running apache & php, monitoring with netsaint, my sendmail relay, my free/swan VPN - don't get me wrong. There is more than a huge void in the non-profit world where OSS could be used, and should be. And the more progressive IT people do I think head in that direction.
But the fact is that the non-profit will always be strapped for cash, and more importantly IT staff and time. And thats why a full *NIX adoption would always be difficult in that environment, along with the "standard" of MS Office being important in such a creative environment, with many files being passed in and out to such non-technical people. That said, the foresight and generosity of OSS folk and their beliefs and awesome software are appreciated by the more foresight-friendly non-profit IT guys.
I don't dispute that MS ultimately profits from their donations -- just look at the other side of the coin before you say the non-profits are being hurt, dude.
This isn't insightful, it's the paranoid delusions of a ranting fanboi.
Well, If MS really gives away the software. With FULL support, and no licensing restrictions regarding use of the software within the organization. (That is not forcing them to pay a cent for support, updates, bug fixes, upgrades, service packs, etc.) In addition, they respect the non-profits privacy, and they do not make too big a deal about it (not including taking the allowable tax deductions, press releases, etc, the normal stuff.) I think it is GREAT. Charities need all of the help they can get and if that gets the people who use their stuff into their fan base, user base, etc, thats great too, its part of doing business.
Having said that I obviously (why else would I be reading or posting here?) do not believe for a nanosecond that MS has any good intentions toward anything but the bottom line. So, what do we do? That is correct, I said what do WE do. I say (if you have not already) we should join or start an organization that does charitable work for non-profits that are in need of IT services but cannot support them. Donate your: time, talent, money, experience, old equipment, and open source software, to these organizations and give them a choice. If you show them the advantages, they will buy in to the open source model. I know some of the non-profits I worked for (used to be in the mental health field) would actually prefer both NOT having the corporate ties, AND having some one working with them who is doing it out of a true sense of charity and volunteerism, especially if it saves them money and gives them choices. Furthermore, if your volunteer work leads to referrals for paid work, great! Most of all, it seems to me, that this community was founded on values greater than getting free beer and an alternative business model. It would be fantastic if the community can get a foot in the door by servicing the non-profit sector (it is a HUGE market). We can start to make the world a better place, help those less fortunate, and get a nice warm fuzzy from doing good. Finally, show what open source can do for others in the marketplace as a whole.
[what?]
A lot of these Microsoft "donations" are not pure software donations. Rather, Microsoft donates money but imposes obligations that effectively require the recipient to buy a lot of Microsoft products in the market. That kind of "donation" may end up being tax deductible.
Hey, there is a long tradition of that. The US does something similar with foreign aid, "giving away" billions of dollars but requiring purchases of US goods and services.
Shit I admin over 200 linux kde desktops by myself and I think I can do well over 4 times that if asked. The 200 of them that I admin all run from a single server and takes me no more than 5 minutes a week to maintain. It sounds to me like a trip over to the Linux K12 project home page is in order for you.
Got Code?
Ok, no big deal fighting disease is good, but let's look a little more closely. Most of the foundations disease fighing is centered around providing expensive drug treatments. Now if this had happened before Chairman Bill bought massive quantities of stock in drug companies, it might be philantropy. However, since the purchases came first, it seems more like pumping up one's own stock portfolio...
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
But what kind of license are these people receiving? Are they going to have to pay for the next bug patches after their systems get fuxored (and they will), as per the new microsoft licensing scheme?
Part of this new messianic cult involves giving away all your riches, which is why Ballmer sold his stock, and why Microsoft is trying to give away its software to all and sundry.
Alternatively, they are just trying to make more money as always. Does the phrase: "drug pusher" make any sense here?
Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
Based on history lessons we alredy learned (or at least experienced without understanding them or acting upon them) I guess the seconds is the right anwser.
hany
While I don't want to come across as an apologist for Microsoft here, I have to compare my own charitable contributions with your list:
1. Tax credit - I claim tax deductions on my own contributions, whenever the amount of money involved makes it actually worthwhile. It's not just a freak of nature that tax credits exist for this type of stuff; governments realise that they can't financially support every single worthy cause out there, so they provide tax credits as a way of encouraging individuals to kick in their own dollars to the causes they're personally interested in
2. Press - MS gets it, I don't. MS probably gets good and bad press in roughly equal amounts, when you read about it across a broad spectrum of press sources. I figure this probably is a mild plus for them, since most decision makers responsible for MS product purchases would read press that would be broadly favorable to MS in terms of their charitable contributions
3. Good will of the charities - while this is (maybe) relevant to me personally, I don't think MS gives a stuff whether Charity Inc talks up MS or not. MS may even make visible displays of goodwill a condition on the supply of charitable contributions, but I can't see how that differs from corporate sponsorship of arts (such as opera) that aren't capable of being self-funding.
4. Making themselves feel like good citizens - guess what? That's a large component of why I personally donate to charities, and I bet that applies to most individuals. I certainly don't do it to make myself feel bad, and I can't see how you could criticise MS on this count
5. Keep open source from gaining mindshare - this doesn't directly apply to me, but I'd draw a parallel between this statement and someone like Christopher Reeve donating time to collecting money via charities for spinal research that's obviously in his own personal interest. While you could argue Reeve could devote his own time and influence towards something like curing AIDS (assuming he has no personal stake in an AIDS cure), why should he? If curing his own problems also results in cures for 1000s of others, so be it. I'm sure MS sees keeping open source under wraps as a benefit for society as a whole; everything they've said and done on this issue over the last few years demonstrates that the MS company absolutely believes open source=bad for the world at large
My point: nobody, NOBODY donates time and money to charity for absolutely altruistic reasons. At the very least, they get a feeling of satisfaction out of doing so, which is totally selfish (and totally reasonable as well).
I did some work with an extremely large corporation's charity spin-off many years ago; although that spinoff donated hundreds of millions of dollars each year, they had way more applications for money from deserving groups than they could actually support. Based on this, and among other criteria, they selected those causes that gave a good corporate return, if only so the underlying corporation could continue to prosper and thus have money to donate the following year... None of the people who worked there thought this was at all strange, and to a man they felt they were "doing good" for society as a whole. Maybe they were all fooling themselves, but I don't think so.
of a time when you'd find cigarette companies giving out free cigarettes all over thee place.
- I am made of meat.
Yeah right. You can bet that everything these guys do is FOR A REASON.
... (wait 3 minutes) Ok, got it. I'll mail it to you.
/home/timmy/documents
... (wait 3 seconds) Oh yeah, it says it's under /home/timmy/studies/important/paper/. I'll mail it to you.
...
And it's not philanthropy. If it were they would:
- Care about the safety of their customers, actually creating secure, bug-free software. "Mr Gates, I use Internet Exploiter to use my bank account and do transfers. Yesterday, a keylogger stole my code and now my bank account is empty! 'cause you are such a philanthropist, can't you grant me some of your cash?"
- Not sue every company they set eyes on
B. Gates: "Well, it's just a couple of hundreds of jobs. I'm sure they'll find a new job as MS tech support people, there's enough demand for them."
- Allow people to access their documents
- Scenario: Windows Versus Linux
Windows
-------
Timmy: * Hey, dad, this is Timmy. I need file X to finish my paper for tomorrow. It's on your win2000 laptop under folder Y.
Dad: * No, it's not there.
Timmy: * Ok, go to start->find->files or folders, type the name of the document and set 'Look in this computer'.
Dad: *
Timmy: * Hey, my scanner says there's a virus on this doc file! Can you clean it and send it back. Please, I need this soon!
Dad: * Good thing I installed this anti-virus last week... Phew, I got it sorted out. The scanner mentioned something about macro's. Don't know what that is, but it seems ok now. Here you go!
Timmy: * Hey, I can't open it!!! Come on, deadline's drawing near. Plus it takes me forever to finish this on this old machine.
Dad: * Wait, I'll call in a friend that knows more about computers... Aha, he says 'save as Word97'. Okay, here you go!
Timmy: * Thanks, I got it! 'Kay now.
***sound of typing***
***CRASH!!! BSOD***
Poor Timmy didn't make it... Better luck next year!
Linux
-----
Timmy: * Hey, dad, this is Timmy. I need file X to finish my paper for tomorrow. It's on your 'Mandrake/RedHat/Suse/whatever' Linux laptop under my home directory. Just go
Dad: * Sorry, but I can't seem to find it. You're sure you did put it here?
Timmy: * I forgot. Darn. Can you open up a terminal and type 'locate paper.doc'.
Dad: *
Timmy: * Thanks! Oh no! I haven't got OpenOffice installed
Dad: * Can't you download OpenOffice from the internet?
Timmy: * Would take way to long with this 56k modem.
Dad: * Try Koffice or Abiword. If nothing works, unzip the 'content file'. Your markup is lost, but at least you will still have the content.
Timmy: * No, it's okay, Abiword does the trick.
***sound of typing***
***yawn*** Better get some sleep for final exams tomorrow.
Timmy was able to finish his paper. A few weeks later, he could join his friends in celebration.
THE END
(note: I agree this is somewhat of a worst-case scenario. However, when I was writing my paper/thesis I encountered very similar, and REAL problems)
This looks like Dumping to me. I mean selling an item for a price lower that it costs to make it.
That is an illegal practice that a monopoly should be forbidden to do.
Notice that MS, as a business, doesn't have to give away anything. Maybe people, like Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer, can give goods to charity. But, if Microsoft does it, it's because it pretends to take some market and dump their rivals.
In this case, the rivals are open source projects. So this is not fair.
its a swindle, once M$ have the installed user base the NPOs well have to pay big $$ like everyone else. I finally moved to redhat because I got sick of forking out more money to M$.
I've also moved my gaming over to the PS2 because I got tired of trying to keep my game box 1337 with the latest hardware specs.
be vigilant, be pure, behave
No matter what you do, promote or fight Open Source you are giving it more publicity. Only thing we need is publicity.
Slowly, but inevitably we gain more installations, more users, and more potential contributors. We just need to make free software as good as possible (both technically flawless and easy to use). Those that fear what MicroSoft could do to Open Source, just open your editor and start hacking. The only think that COULD beat Open Source was if everybody though "the other guys will do it for me". As long as people itch and scratch we WILL rule the world.
I doubt GNU would be this powerful if it wasn't for MicroSoft and it's model.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
Is the pope catholic?
You want to be able to give away your substandard open source software for free, but when Microsoft wants to do the same thing you get upset? You're mad if they charge obscene amounts of money, your mad if they give it away, get over it. There needs to be a piece of oss that makes people who use it stop being such whiney bitches.
Someone in another message pointed out that a billion dollars in software is after the price markup. One billion divided by the total cost of Office XP and Windows XP home retail, $678, comes in at just under 1.5 million bundles. If it costs MS $.05 to stamp out the bundles, and I would consider even that a conservative estimate for 2-4 CDs in mass production, that comes in at around $75,000. So they're spending about $75K so they can claim a billion dollars in donations. Wow! Take that 75K and divide it by 1 billion to get the percentage MS is spending compared to what they're claiming to give away:
Perhaps Redhat/Mandrake/SuSE/any distro with some cash should make a special edition of their Linux distro with an important sounding name, set the MSRP at $1000 per copy, stamp out tens of thousands of CDs and mail 'em out like AOL CDs to charities and claim to have given up tens or hundreds of millions.
I'm having trouble believing my own numbers, so if I made a math error please feel free to correct me.
I used to work for an Australian non-profit. My not-even-taxable income with them was paid for with a government grant. This software offer from Microsoft does not fall into your lap, you have to apply for it. Granted, it's easier than applying for your average arts funding, but there is an application process and they're not randomly throwing software at you. We found that they are very tight with licenses (we applied for Office:Mac and two licenses; we got the software and one license). So they're not being quite as generous as they seem - for crissakes it's a piece of paper that the organisation can't even afford normally, so what's the loss?
.doc files from a local government organisation for free when there is no alternative program to use on Mac OS 9. Before you say "they should switch to Jaguar", they couldn't afford that either. (The only reason they could read any MS Office files up until now was because they received Word '97 for Mac when they last applied for a MS software donation.)
Nonprofits vary in size; I'm sure a behemoth like Greenpeace can afford to hire a consultant (however cheap) to implement OSS or get a broadband connection, but I can't argue against being able to open
I read on a site last week that Microsoft have a profit margin of over 30%. Philanthropy is all about damn well giving back to the community and that's what they're doing with that software donation program - it's a step above watching them trying to buy governments.
I'm sure people here will disagree with my views, but public conceptions of what a nonprofit is and how it works are in my experience a little distorted.
so if you give away your open source shit then its good will and peace for all but if microsoft gives away stuff to non-profits theyre trying to take over the fucking world. you people need to get a fucking life. every piece of news about microsoft isnt about taking over the world. bill gates (bill gates foundation) has given away billions, mostly for medicines to combat aids and other diseases in 3rd world countries. whats the sinister plot in this? you just cant stand it that microsoft/bill gates is doing anything good for anyone just for the sake of doing something good just because you cant match it. youre a bunch of ignorant fucking basement dwelling losers. get a fucking life for shits sake. i am so sick of the slashdot comm. bashing non-open source. its getting so god damn old. grow the fuck up if you ever want to make it in the real world. as a whole the linux community acts like an 8 year old who never gets his way, is always tattling on the other kids and is always trying to find the negative in everyone elses actions. what could microsoft possibly do that would be ok in your books? donate billions to feed and help poor africans? hmm, theyre doing that. help put computers (hardware) and software into our countries and other countries schools? hmm, theyre doing that. just because theyre your competitor you still have to give them credit where credit is due. you cant constantly rant and bitch about EVERYTHING they do or you make your opinion invalid and worthless.
Why am I so dumb that I actually pay for Windows?
It's MicroSoft `getting' the new economy. Giving away your product not only boosts brand awareness and the image of your company, it also increases the spread of your product, making it a de facto standard, thus increasing its value. After that, you can choose to charge users for support, upgrades and/or use.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
I realize this is probably a little redundant, but couldn't this qualify as predatory pricing? (Assuming someone could come up with evidence that Microsoft really is doing this to compete with open source?)
Maybe Redhat could step into the fray here...Or someone else with an army of lawyers..
(source - FTC) "....Price discrimination also might be used as a predatory pricing tactic -- setting prices below cost to certain customers -- to harm competition at the supplier's level. Antitrust authorities use the same standards applied to predatory pricing claims under the Sherman Act and the FTC Act to evaluate allegations of price discrimination used for this purpose"
People can say whatever they want, but all decisions coming from a corporate boardroom are financial in nature. This strategy involves Microsoft Office to a greater degree.
Here is one catch. In three years (or whenever) the upgrade for MS Office comes out the Non-Profit Organization will have all of it's documents in proprietary MS formats.
Here is another catch. MS will also own mindshare as "it is what I am used to using.". We know people hate change.
MS likes to be a wolf in sheep's clothing.
If you think it is just Big Bill being Kind, I have some ocean front property in Arizona for you.
Get a free ipod.
Your maths is off.
1 cu mile = 5280*5280*5280=147,197,952,000 cu ft
Your total is about 1/100th cu mile, or around 0.18 mile cube
Remember that the entire population of earth could fit in a cubic mile.
Is this really an increase in donated software or just an increase in the retail price MS claims on their taxes?
Allolex
Who was that again:
Pablo Gates or Bill Escobar?
I think its two fold. Of course it increases market share/whatever. But thats why all companies donate. They don't do it to make them selves feel rosy. The do it for commercial reasons. We shouldn't complain to much as they might take the stuff back. No matter home much you dislike M$, for poor students etc any OS is better than none. Microsoft is in a win-win-win situation. THey come off looking charitable, they get users onto their system and they get a huge tax write off.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Whatever they donate to qualified institutions, they can deduct in their corporate tax. Donate $1 billion 'worth' of software, and you have a handy way to reduce tax payments.
Whenever MS donates anything, they have a software component that creates a tax deduction much larger than the cash/equipment component of the 'charity'.
Those accountants know their stuff...
I'm in a Unix state of mind.
All they have to do is make their business products free for home use.
VB, VC++, Vstudio. Visio, Server 2003, Etc....
make it is as a home tinkerer doesn't have to break laws to play with it then they will win hands down.
but they nither have the smarts or the balls to do such a thing.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
IF open source software is better/easier/cost effective, these organisations will choose open source. (both are free, they have a free choice) If not, then quit complaining on the forums, and go write some better code. MS wasn't going to make money from these anyway, so they are not giving away any 'profits'.
He didn't but his wife did...
"Bill, if You love me you'll waste all of your hard earned money giving it away to save aids victims in Africa."
Big Bad Evil Empire(tm)
Are you talking about the United States?
This spring Microsoft gave every schoolteacher in Denmark a free MS Office XP CD (they are facing tough competition by StarOffice). That's 90000 CD's.
MS does under no curcumstances want to loose to Linux in public administration, even if means almost giving their software away. Apparantly they offered Munich up to 90% discounts, and it was not enough.
Now they donate software to non-profit organizations.
We have heard of people in academia being paid to use MS products.
So who is next? Who else is so important that they
can say: "give it to us or we go Open Source".
Maybe HP or Dell?
The naysayers are right on this one. It is just the state of the cash starved Not-For-Profit world they are ready to accept any kind of philanthropy, it is not their fault they are accepting a worm on a hook. Is it the fault of the "so called" Free Software movement that they have not done enough to increase awareness of the benefits of Free Software? A bunch of geeks who love to write code doing publicity? Some of these geeks work all day writing proprietary code, and for fun they come home and write open source code. They are not concerned about publicity like Gates is. We know that there is no marketing engine behind GNU/Linux. But look at how far it has come! My suggestion. Let's help the Free Software increase awareness by creating a website dedicated to who else? Gnubies! Free Software is elusive as Free Speech. I would like to publish some information targeted to people who have probably never even stopped to consider that yes software is information, and if it is not free that it is not software. Then what is it? Software that is not free is a PRODUCT. Yes Microsoft is giving away free products with or with out the hope that the recipients will buy more. Who cares. I'm not buying it. One more thing, for those of you who are concerned that this tactic might quell support for MS technology. Since when has a Microsoft marketing tactic not backfired? NFP's who get these grants are going to be blessed with some great hardware, and when the licensing runs out, what OS will run even better on that hardware? I registered gnubie.org in January. My fault the site doesn't look better right now, just haven't had time if anyone wants to help with the content let me know.
i'm not talking about adminning the machines - i need to get a common desktop for the windows machines that were donated, a licensed version of current (i'll go 98se or xp - you'll see why) for every machine. and the no cost option wins. i can't go $200 per machine for most likely non-upgrade-capable current OSs, as i'm likely looking at ram and disk upgrades to get to xp... ditto a decent productivity suite for wintel, etc...
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
As long as we continue to develop OSS applications that run on both platforms, the consumer won't know when their operating systems is switched to linux, they'll have everything that they had before working the same way they learned it, on the newest upgrade of the system.
The power lies in the Applications, not the Base.
IGNORE THEM. They are irrelevant.
As long as I can find software to do anything I want to do on Freshmeat for either platform, there is no problem.
... when they released Internet Explorer for free. This is the perfect way to stuff a rag into the open source movement.
1. Bill's 'charity' will buy the software from Bill's 'company' for 1 Billion.
2. Bill's 'company' gets a sale.
3. Bill's 'charity' gets to say that it used a Billion dollars for donations.
4. This is then used to keep its tax exempy status as it (charity) buys other companies in the back ground.
5. Bill's 'company' then donates a Billion back to Bill's 'charity' thus getting a tax right off.
6. Bill's 'charity' then really has paid nothing.
All this setup is for is to play the accounting shell game, going through loop holes like a three ring cirus in order to keep increasing M$ dominance while at the same time not paying for it.
The value in money is only it what we perceive it be. The only real cuurency is power and influence.
Much of the money Bill and company have 'earned' is through their stock manipulations - which is over valued to the point that if it was ever was corrected, the US would be in serious trouble.
This is why Bill has sold so much of his (while still staying in control of M$) and bought into so many other ventures - all the way from ship building to biotech.
This is also why the Bush administration was so nervous about continuing the M$ break up. It was fine to consider it when the US stock market was going insane, but not while M$ was pretty much the only thing holding it up in the TECH sector.
The long term problems with all of this stuff is going to be insane. Hopefully biotech/medicine will not make people live too much longer in the near future so that we can have Mr. Gates and company only for as long as their natural lifespans. Otherwise......
> Look at the Gates foundation sometime.
Yes, do this. Then compare dollar amounts. Using this simple formula:
foundation $'s / BG net worth = my charity / My net worth
I come up with giving less than one US dollar a year.
yup, real generous.
I'd agree with this assessment, but that is their problem. The old adage holds true, " You reap what you sow." Microsoft has built this reputation all by themselves, I don't feel one bit bad for them.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
As several have pointed out in this thread, most non-profits have cobbled together their infrastructure with donated hardware and the software that comes with it. Most of these organizations have no illusions of having Exchange, SharePoint Portal server, SQL and Active Directory. While it would be cool to be able to use Office XP to do direct file-sharing of Office files on a Team Services web site, non-profits are rightly expected to spend their money on delivering servies rather than have neato networks.
Having Office XP does not obligate organizations to other MS applications. Even organizations that accept OS software won't be obligated to MS in the future. At bare minimum, employees can do file sharing and printer sharing with a hodge-podge of Win 98, Me, 2000 and XP. Putting Windows XP on a computer doesn't obligate an organization to purchase more MS products.
The /. reactions among the OSS zealots are hysterical objections of Foul! because MS can outplay the free business model to the detriment of the OSS players.
The bottom line is that the "free" OSS business model cannot sustain itself over time. At some point, OSS will need to meet the challenge of commercially developed software in order to attain levels of usability that will be necessary in order for OSS to become widely accepted by end users and the IT staff who support them. To meet that challenge, OSS will need to generate significant revenue.
OSS can have ubiquity or it can be free. It cannot be both.
-Everyone laughs at lemmings but no one ever wants to admit to ever being one.
I thought it was hilarious that the article quoted a Mr. Smith from Microsoft's law department. I get a mental image of "Mr. Smith" from the Matrix speaking the quotes, suit and all...
Have you seen my stapler?
and my job is getting donated computers to other nonprofit agencies. I can tell you that not only do ALL of agencies to which I give computers demanding the latest MS software, they have not heard of, nor are the LEAST bit interested in, any other software. They know absolutely nothing other than what 'one of our volunteers told us...' Which is usually something like putting Windows2003 Advanced Server on a single CPU machine for a 7 workstation file sharer. But anyway, no, no one in the nonprofit sector wants anything but Microsoft. You can argue that it's because MS gives it away for free or that they don't know any better; I can't tell.
Is it true philanthropy or just another tactic to assimilate everyone into the MS collective?
You say that as if there is a difference.
forced to upgrade and most non-profits don't. You get by with what you've got. Most here are missing the point - these organizations focus on providing services, not buying hardware/software. I do IT work for a bunch of homeless shelters/soup kitches/etc and everything they have is donated. Even the bigger ones run mostly on donated hardware/software. The majority are running on NT or 98. They get what they can and figure out a way to make it work. When they have to turn in grant applications, they download a shareware pdf maker and print from Word 97 (gasp) and make a pdf. I can tell you from experience, if it's a choice between buying officeXP and feeding 20 hungry people, the people get fed. Everything else is secondary. Can't open that file I sent? Great, I'll paste it into an email....
And the point which you missed entirely is that it doesn't just benefit Microsoft, it also benefits the non-profit orgs. Microsoft is a company which produces several great products. There are also several great OSS "products" as well. Microsoft giving away software is somehow seen as "evil", at least on
Yay...Microsoft is so nice giving software to all those non-profits. Or are they? I mean...it very highly resembles the "hey, we did bad with anti-trust, so we'll pay our fines by providing schools with lots of our software." In other words "Let's flood the market with our product and make the non-profits rely on us then we can go with the nutty pricing scheme later on while also keeping Linux and Apple out of there". Maybe I'm just a crabby, cynical fella. Thoughts anyone?
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
wouldn't a sign of good faith, and a way to prove their intentions be for Microsoft to NOT provide any of those licenses, but provide the cash for licenses and for people to install software instead?
(AND let the charities install what they want, period)
It would prevent accusations of favoritism, cutting mindshare, etc...
Of course, it increases Microsoft revenue by ZERO, its marketplace only in places where the people hired would choose Microsoft products, increases customer's choices for charities, which usually have very few, and few people to investigate what they are...
I predict that Microsoft would rather be caught bribing a judge of the supreme court(or some other gross corporate violation of the law) than do this exact, simple, fortright thing...
What the ol' B.M. does is commoditize certain kinds of program so that nobody makes much money off of them. I am thinking about ftp, news, linux, etc. The free versions are good enough that it is very hard to push a commercial version.
The trendy part is that it is seen as cool to work on such projects, and nice to have on the resume as well. Slowly over time the OSS community will commoditize (heck, beyond commoditize
This is nice in that it frees up developers and money to work on other things, but troubling in that the GPL creates a separate, parallel public domain.
From a financial standpoint it makes very little sense for a programmer to write open source software, and almost no sense for a corporation [1]. OSS will always be around because it is driven by other considerations.
[1] There will be those (aka IBM) who find a way to make OSS pay off for them; more power to 'em.
Can you guys just leave it alone for once. If there is one thing Bill and friends shouldn't be accused of, it's PR-Philanthopy. /.'ers jump on some angle of how it is shameless self promotion.
Even when the company does something good,
Snicker this from the company that has without fail prosicuted more public schools for using "unliscensed" software without mercy! And Never a "philantropic" donation of any kind for any public school either.
Just how long do you think these "giveaways" will be free with the yearly fee liscense that M$ is trying to impose?
Who is dumb enough to install this software that M$ claims can never be removed nor the computer replaced without buying new software according to thier illegal dept.
PLOY YES! Its just more Redmond Smoke and Mirrors sleight of hand to make ther predatory practices look honest. So the bought politicians and the DOinJ (Department of InJustice) can claim to have done their job in the anti trust suit.
Just like the college near giveaways that carried "back door" agrements with the deans and trustees to lock out mention or use of any other operating system.
Honest? Redmond? When whales and elephants begin flying on their own full time!
End of Line!
There's a much older form of this marketing - Gilette. Give away the handles and sell the blades. Trouble is, Microsoft aren't selling the blades, or in this case, upgraded computers. Sometimes, there is no conspiracy.
It's competition that you can thank for driving prices down. So where's the thanks for Free Software? Unfortunately, most not-for-profits don't realize why they are about to receive this boon of software. Because M$ is afraid of loosing market share. M$ is also discounting software to European goverments. Hmm this doesn't have anything to do with the fact China developed their own version of GNU/Linux does it? If anything it should illegal for govt's to use proprietary software.
And once they get a free copy or two, what happens after, once they've gotten rid of their linux systems? I'm reminded of of drug dealers, or the baby food tests in India. Mothers stopped producing milk, and when the handouts stopped, the children starved. The same will happen to charities who take these handouts. They will become dependent on M$ software and formats, and be forced to pay for upgrades and further licences. There is nothing charitable about this.
Lets talk $400 boxen across the board that will give my users massive speedup and will still work well in the year that the $ is written off
You know, over at Walmart's web site, they are offering decent boxes (somehwere around 850Mhz-1.3Ghz) with perfect specs for office workers for around $199 (everything but monitors) and they come preloaded with Lindows or Mandrake Linux. Or, if you don't think your users could handle Linux with Open Office, Walmart does offer about the same hardware base with Windows preinstalled for about the $400 you mentioned. You should check out Mandrake 9.1 sometime. I have it on my work machine, with links on the desktop to the internet, mail, OpenOffice, etc., and the boss' wife (it's a very small company I'm at) used that system for 3 hours before she realized it wasn't windows she was using. She is no computer lover either, she's just like you described; internet, e-mail, faxing, and invoicing is all she ever uses a system for. I know the easy way is to just give the end user what they want, but you could maybe try a system or two, see how it works for some of your end-users, who knows, you may end up with a decent place to run IT at. I mean, free Windows is all well and good, but you'd better keep track of the licenses and assorted stuff, because the BSA doesn't care if you have no money to get a file cabinet to hold the paperwork. Hopefully, you are just over worked and tired, but your arguments almost sound trollish, or apologetic
For those who describe their systems as 'boxen', do you order multiple 'boxen' of corn flakes also?
SCO gives away 2 billion dollars worth of software.