Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Dislikes Nations Trying to Escape Lock-in
Johnny Mnemonic writes "Reuters, link to C|Net, is reporting that Microsoft considers a possible collaboration among three Asian nations to produce their own OS "unfair". You just can't make this stuff up. Shouldn't Asian nations also have the Freedom to Innovate? Or is this merely a dodge by Microsoft to demonstrate that they really do face competition? Will they hire Boies to prosecute their case?"
From the article: "You would have to look at what a government does--whether it's a protectionist issue," Robertson said, "As with any trade-related issue, Microsoft would look to its peers and colleagues in the information technology community for guidance."
Who exactly are Microsoft's "peers"? IBM, Sun, Sony, the Open Source "community"? On one hand MS wants to create a "government security program" that it defines and implements, on the other they want their "peers" to say that doing anything else is unfair?! Good luck!
MS are simply copying the line of the US government (and a lot of US companies and even /. users).
Look at steel, farm goods, coding out-sourcing, skilled immigrants etc, etc.
In all these fields the US or a lot of its citizens are actively seeking to halt global competition and seeking to privilege US companies, producers and citizens.
MS are simply trying to get their piece of the action, though of course than means that they are already on a downward slope (ask any Pensylvannia steel worker about how effective trade sanctions have been at protecting the long term health of their industry).
Loosely translated, this means that Micro$oft hasn't contributed enough money to someone's political campaign just yet.
against Japanese TRON system to stop its penetration into PC market.
As a foreigner working in Japan for a tech company, I have realized that the expectations of quality and service here are MUCH higher than in the rest of the world.
People in my company really cant understand how thing like MSBLAST happen and there is nobody from MS on TV the next day apologizing (or committing seppuku =).
Now that things in the computer industry are settling down, they will slowly push Microsoft out of the picture.
Wait and see.
All I have to say to microsoft is: What goes around comes around!
That it doesn't own the copyright to an "operating system" (yet..) and that not only is it somebody's right to create and use their own operating system, it's also a right for countries, goverments to create and use their own operating system.
Comment: Yes I realise the username 'fuckfuck101' makes me sound intelligent, no you cannot buy it from me.
Well, Gates deserves it. Nobody ever said anything about Microsoft buying small goverments and locking whole countries into their scam. Now, faced with people who know better AND can't be bought, he whines like a 2 year old.
Yes, my country (Chile) was bought by microsoft, with a "generous" donation of software and money. And to think the government is socialist and tries to be not on big money's side... pha!
Then again, I'd say one out of three copies of windows here are legal. :)
"Pointing to a particular software vendor and to a particular software (standard) gets you nowhere," Robertson said."
So the fact that 90% of the nasty virii/worms/disfuntionality are associated with a "particular sofware" is meaningless or should be ignored? Dear God that's just too pathetic a statement to address...
Robertson said Microsoft has been working to have Japan participate in its Government Security Program, which gives national governments and international organizations access to Microsoft's source code, the underlying blueprint of its programs.
And how do they get the code changed if they see something they don't like? Anyway the underlying issue is control of critical infrastructure. OS software is becoming just that - a critical infrastructure item. Governments SHOULD be concerned about it.
Crocodille Tears.
Is the juice worth the sqeeze?
Everywhere we are seeing seeds of discontent. The first anger Microsoft planted in its customers was when it got greedy and ended licensing that permitted you to own only as many copies of software that you actually had running. Then all of these recent "software assurance" changes have angered folks more. Companies and countries are starting to understand that they are locked in and have little choice and they are looking for ways to bail. And Microsoft's actions are starting to look more and more desperate starting to scramble to hold on to what they have. This story, the viral GPL fud, their financial backing of SCO, their desperate and failed attempts to move into other markets, etc, etc.
Oh, people will disagree with me, but where does Microsoft have left to go? Nowhere but down, and the stock market doesn't like any downward movement, even if the company *is* making billions.
And Microsoft better not disagree with this danger either, for their own good. Complacency is the first step toward irrelevance. But I honestly believe they know this is coming and are scared shitless. Gates isn't stupid.
Why the are you complaining about non payment for MS software in asia? When this new proposal is part of the way to stop it. If you don't use MS junk you don't have to pay for it.
But ultimately governments making software isn't a whole lot better than governments making airplanes or computer chips. Microsoft does have a case.
That really depends on your viewpoint. If you (want to) see software as a commodity then a government making software is no different from an government building roads, maintaining a justice and police system or having a military. The fact that software is infinitely reproducable at virtually no cost makes software different from the other more traditional products you listed as examples. The government can provide something for the entire country that is beneficial to everyone without spending disproportionate amounts of money. It is even likely that it will create more wealth and possibilies in the long run for almost all the people.
Of course it sucks for Microsoft that governments are now starting to realize that software can be seen and treated as a commodity. That doesn't mean however that this change is actually unfair to Microsoft. They will have to cope with the changing rules and accept that their unlimited skies of the early software years might fade away once in the future.
Look, as an example, at the *BSD world. They have lots of talented people, many of the finest minds in the *nix world, and started with a good product. Yet a "college kid" in Finland started a product that kicked their collective arses in market penetration. Why? Linux mostly avoided the bueracracy and political infighting that has plagued *BSD. (neither an opinion of the technical merits of *BSD, nor a "BSD is dying troll)
What the nations should be doing is sponsering programmers, giving them a mandate to 1) contribute to open source, 2) spend a significant fraction of that contribution making open source more available to asians. Then let those programmers participlate wherever they want. I could imagine an army of programmers working with OpenOffice.org, for instance, improving the word processing software overall, and its ability to deal with asian character sets. Others would contribute to Debian and Gentoo, creating asian language documentation and binary versions of those distributions.
The only reason they might monitor the SCO situation is for humor value.
Asian countries are going to do unto MS as MS did to IBM. Let's not blame Linux, though; if not for Torvalds, the BSDs would BSOD MS soon enough.
Prediction: MS eventually splits into OS and application companies. The application arm ports the profitable bits of MS software to Linux, and continues to do decent business. The OS arm gradually tapers off, as the inexorable migration away from proprietary operating systems continues.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Here's a question how dose a government picking an operating system deside who the winners are aren't they just annother consummer?
Well no they aren't and when a government picks an operating system the public needs to remain compatable.
With Windows that means using Microsoft products or compatable products in free software.
With Linux that means... supporting open standards. Any operating system on the market will do that.
It also means Microsoft now has to activly support open standards like everyone else to maintain compatability with Linux systems in government.
I don't actually exist.
I'm still trying to figure out out how the decision by the three countries is any different than this or this.
Yes, that's priceless: essentially the same software that the U.S. army is buying for $950/computer, Microsoft will sell in Thailand for $36.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
MS is facing competition all right, but judging from the way they've been reacting to it, they're having real trouble accepting reality. At the moment they're frustrated with the success of the Open Source movement and are desperately trying to stem the tide with their usual lobbying efforts and bag of dirty tricks. When will they catch on? It's pathetic, but perhaps this behaviour is to be expected from any big company that's been in a monopoly position for over a decade.
If MS ever get smart, they'll face the music, cut their losses, drop Windows and start making graphical desktop environments and applications for Unix systems. Once they decide to go down this path, they can choose to remain closed source or go entirely Open Source, keep making money on a per-license basis or give some or all of it away for free (making money with support). If they put their minds to it, they could probably build some pretty decent products this way.
Does this sound like wishful thinking? Perhaps. But if they can't beat us, they might as well join us. It could take a while to come to this realization after they start loosing money, but with $50b in the bank I figure they should be able to buy themselves enough of time.
Either that or their (monopoly) days are numbered...
Actually, it is illegal in the USA for the government to compete with commercial industry. That's why fighter planes are defined by a big list of specifications (has to fly mach 1+ at 90% power, carry a payload of X, etc.) which are given to a number of airplane designers/manufactuerers and those companies bid on the cost of making the plane. Some review board then looks at the prototypes and such and decides which meet the specifications and which do not, and decides which company gets the contract. The difference in the previous scenario is that the new fighter plane has requirements that are not met by an existing plane in inventory. That's why they need a new one.
If the requirements of a government software project are met by an existing set of software from a commercial business, they aren't supposed to give money or commission something else. If their requirements are met by some software on MSWindows or Linux, then they are supposed to use what is there. If the software doesn't exist, then they provide specs and get bids for the work. etc.
Having a USA OS (doesn't matter what the thing is) is a VERY, VERY bad thing. Same as having the USA-2680 CPU (some made up processor). Other countries can do what they want, but in the USA there are laws (and good reasons for them) why this should not be.
I'll first disclaim that I'm unfairly biased against Microsoft. But then, that puts me in good company here.
Microsoft is no longer at the top of their game. They're still the dominant world superpower, but the world can now see that MSFT has vulnerabilities, and that we have alternatives.
As much as I'd like to see them go the way of the Roman Empire, Soviet Russia, and Enron, I'm afraid of what happens when MSFT falls. What does that do to the US economy? Does Microsoft fall with a "Splat!" like Enron and take a million jobs and half of every American's 401(k) with them, or do they quietly fade into obsoloscence like Atari?
These are the things that keep me up at night.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
That's not an accurate analogy; there is zero consumer market for fighter planes. At the risk of getting into a spiraling argument over the accuracy of a given analogy, I would offer the following: It would be like if the government funded the making of movies. I'm not talking about documentaries and the like, but "Hollywood style" movies that would be distributed freely. Would this be a sensible use of government resources?
Either way, I believe that it is perfectly acceptable for them to pay people to produce software for their purposes.
Of course it is, but there is a matter of scope. The implications of the present case is that these governments will essentially make an OS for mass distribution, in direct competetion with the market. Using the overwhelming resources available to them, they could swamp the market and essentially "force" consumers to use their product. This is similar to what critics of MS say they have essentially done. However, in this case, the resources available dwarf MS, both in terms of raw money and, more importantly, legal recourse to really enforce the use of their product.
So you mean governments shouldn't be allowed to buy stuff?
Of course they can buy stuff, though I would prefer if they bought as little as possible. However, there is a vast difference between buying a product, be it a plane or an OS, and getting into the business of making a product.
...who the winners are in many cases. I'm not trying to be some kind of loony conspiracy theorist here, but the fact of the matter is that the free market sometimes plays less of a role than personal interests do in government purchasing. Unfair? I think so, but it's nothing new. At least with the cases described here, it seems like it's being done with the country's best interests in mind, not with the intent of generating business for a "friend." (Okay, I'm done ranting now).
I produce electronic music and write little games. Have a look.
All the large consumer electronics companies have decided to standardize on linux (embedded).
All the large phone makers (Nokia, Sony Ericsson, Motorola) have very consciously decided against using MS software in their phones because they don't want MS to enter their market and screw them over. I bet Sony & IBM are working to make the PS3 such a killer console in order to stop microsoft from taking a larger market with the xbox.
If the State dept lends itself to promote microsoft they will just show themselves off as ignorant pawnsand be perceived as such by foreign govts. The US is not imperialist but MS certainly is.
Of those to whom much is given, much is required.
Probably. My dad had a saying. He said that "In a communist society, people use power to get money. In a capitalist society, people use money to get power."
So what's to stop them from buying other governments as well? They might have problems in China, but I doubt most of Europe would be a problem. I hope France continues to think independently...
I love Linux, but sometimes I kind of wish they'd step it up somehow. If Microsoft had less money, they couldn't buy as much power. Problem solved.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
The free market was unable to come up with a product the governments liked, so the governments are commissioning one to their specifications. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
This is a part of competition, though, even if it isn't free-market. Microsoft has had how many years to come up with a secure, and viable system for governments to use. They have been touting it for a long time, and are nearly forcing governments to use it. And suddenly they get all pissy when a government says, "Hrmm, your system isn't good enough. Neither is there any other system out there. I guess we'll have to make our own."
Governments are also Customers. If your customer isn't happy, they'll do something else to fill their need. In this case, the Customer is commissioning their own software.
It may be "unfair" because it's not free market, but then again, the customer is unhappy with the product.
How is that any different then the monopoly MS has been allowed to have in the world and backed by corrupted politicians? MS dumps millions into the pockets of politicians every year. In 2002, MS gave more then $4,213,198! MS pulls the strings of the US government all time to ensure their monopoly. Now there is finally some light at the end of the tunnel. Who cares if it is tax payer money? I don't. MS has taken tons of our taxpayers money here in the USA. MS gets these contracts by bribing the desicion makers. MS got 100 million from US taxpayer for the Homeland Security Contract and 471 million from the US Army
If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land,
it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. -James Madison
Microsoft labeling them as "Un-American" will give them a lot of credit which can't be achievable by any other way.
It seems that every country other than the US is trying to build on open source software, while the US is trying to protect Microsoft under the guise of "free" markets. (Now that's doublespeak!)
It's only a matter time when the US will be the only country stuck with proprietary software, while the rest of the world will be light years a head because their tools will not be hidden and obscured.
If you think the tech economy is bad in the US now, wait about ten years! All of our technology will come from abroad.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I find it facinating that MS presumes everybody will act just as evil as they do.
This is actually a pretty common thing. Have you noticed how evil people believe that everybody else is just like them?
War is necrophilia.
It's not even that. It's governments deciding to spend money on a development project. Arguing against it is the same as attacking UK + France for building the Tunnel instead of relying on British Airways and Air France for passenger and cargo transportation. :) And as a bonus, WTO bureaucrats probably are less sold out and not so clueless. I really can't imagine WTO asking Japan+China+Korea to stop this development.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
They cannot. China and Japan are biggest holders of US Gov Treasures bonds and bills. Although it is a matter of time, but imagine them starting to sell it all of sudden on such news.