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?"
A good read is here
I'm not Seth.
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, something like:
"We'll encrypt all your organisational data
into MS-specifc file formats... for free.."
Once the hapless nonprofit is hooked,
start charging market rates...
A price could still be charged for the software (albiet less than microsoft) and the company could offer enhanced support at an added cost. Microsoft giving away its software means it is cheaper than even the open source alternatives and if it is available, orginizations may not even begin to research alternatives.
Its not free vs free, its free(but used to be expensive) vs free (in concept, but lower in cost), that is why microsoft would be undercutting the open source alternatives
Bottles.
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.
Seems apt.
Ita erat quando hic adveni.
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
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.
Excellent points. Philanthropy should been neither seen nor heard - otherwise it's just fuckin' paid PR.
"Get off the cross - we need the wood" - Tori Amos
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..."
FWIW, I've been working with non-profits, mostly in a technical capacity, for nearly a decade.
I agree with the parent, however, a couple of thoughts:
Some of the largest organizations are non-profits: Hospitals and universities. Not all non-profits are scrabbling for cash. I personally draw a mental distinction between "establishment" non-profits and "scrappy" ones that are membership- or donation-driven. I've worked with the scrappy ones.
I have a full-time job (and consult independently) doing web programming, linux networking and various and sundry linux projects, almost exclusively for non-profits. I don't really have too much trouble getting clients willing to go with OSS (after all, they are interested in results, not the way you get there), but I have heard from some consultancies that the reason they are Microsoft-only for servers and networks is that "Microsoft gives this stuff out for next to nothing to non-profits, so why shouldn't we use it?"
I think it's a shame- small non-profits generally don't have the technical capacity to manage windows servers securely, and the linux boxes and applications I install just run and run. Not that they don't need management, but a couple of minutes a month is usually all that's needed.
Non-profits are full of folks that are willing to "go against the flow" and use OSS, but in some situations I'm definitely seeing folks go with Microsoft just because they're giving their stuff away. If you want to see how cheap, go here.