Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft at the Tipover Point
David Gerard writes "In the wake of Microsoft's first flat quarter, The Inquirer brings us The IT Industry Is Shifting Away From Microsoft - Linux is being taken seriously, Microsoft is not trusted and our favorite monopoly is finding it harder and harder to compete with 'free.'"
On one hand, I'm breaking out the wine for a little celebration. On the other, this is the Inquirer we're talking about guys. I might save the bottle for when a reliable source follows up this story.
On the web server this may be true. In Germany it is even > 89% Apache.
But Microsoft still is strong in the Desktop market. Soon KDE 3.2 will be released and as Linux quickly matures on the desktop I don't see a reason why it will not be the default plattform in the enterprise desktop market.
Only software patents can stop Linux now, but today software patents and patent privateers harm Microsoft (eolas, SPX ecc.). But Microsoft performs well in the armsraise.
Sure, Microsoft will die away. It's only a matter of time.
Does more, is more secure and costs less. At least that's the argument that I have been pushing at my military contract where I work and lo and behold we are now switching to Zope (OSS CMS system). The fact that Oracle recommends Linux as it's platform has resulted in us installing a fair number of Linux boxes.
Government agencies have been feeling the pinch and they really have no choice but to consider it.
I think I may have been the only person at my contract to be REALLY excited about the fact that we needed a lot of new functionality without having much money.
Anyone who installed one of the earliest versions of Windows 95 (look, I crave forgiveness, I was younger and being paid to do it, OK!) will remember that it didnt come with MSIE, instead it came with the Microsoft Network. Back in the early '90s (so went the script) the internet wasnt going to happen, instead we were all going to use paid online services like AOL and Compuserve. MSN was on the roadmap as Microsoft's entry into the market and in the MSdream it was going to sweep aside AOL and Compuserve lust like MSIE swept aside Netscape a few years later.
Of course, we know it didnt happen that way. If MS had been IBM we'd have seen them soldier on with the MSN dream and suddenly have to backpedal in about 2000 just in time to miss the dotcom thing and lose loads of cash. As it was they dropped the idea like a hot potato and changed the direction of the entire company in record time to embrace the Internet. It's an overused phrase, but the rest is history.
My point? Dont write off Microsoft. They've stayed where they are by flexibility and they wont have lost that flexibility. It could be different this time of course because the flexibility of the OS movement is what makes it so cool, but I'll start dancing on Microsoft's grave when I see the headstone.
Oxford Dictionaries Online
As a Linux user/advocate and recent Mac "switcher", the issue of free software was not the one the deal maker for me when I decided on a PowerBook instead of an x86 lappy (i.e. Dell, Acer, Toshiba, etc). I didn't appreciate Dell, and many other reputable laptop makers telling me, "We're tacking an extra $200 to the bottom line for software you don't intend to use, you have no choice in the matter, and you have to agree to some arcane license just to take it off". The Microsoft Tax is what finally pushed me in the direction of the Mac. I use Linux exclusively at work, and had been running Windoze at home simply because I didn't feel like teaching my family how to use Linux systems. The last virus that hit our intranet was the straw that broke that camel's back and we went to a strictly 'Nix shop at home. So no, free was never an issue for me, reliability and integrity (both of which M$ has displayed less and less of IN SPITE of recent Anti-trust findings) is what sealed the deal for me.
The english language is in beta. It's evolving but has not yet reached a level of usability.
I have a feeling that Microsoft's slide won't be quick, nor complete... remember when IBM was supposedly going to fall into the ocean because they weren't able to compete with Sun, SGI, and HP in the UNIX market?
Functionally, the company can continue to generate revenue and remain "profitable" for a long time. If you look at Microsoft's strongest competitors in each business, how many of them can retain a lead on M$ for another 3-5 years while Microsoft tries to reinvent itself to boost profits?
IBM and HP each half-compete with Microsoft while shipping their products to their enterprise customers.
Sun and "The Linux Distros" (Red Hat, SuSE, etc...) all nudge Microsoft at the desktop level... although none of them may have the resources to survive a sustained competition with Microsoft. That said, Apple seems to thrive despite having a small market share because it has a loyal userbase.
Sony may have a real battle on its hands with the next generation consoles given that Nintendo's weakness and Microsoft's marketing muscle (and deep pockets) may give them a big boost to narrow the gap in marketshare.
And how is Palm weathering the Micro$oft assault on handheld operating systems?
Perhaps the most interesting thing will not be anticipating the inevitable downturn Microsoft will face, but to consider what form a "new" Microsoft will take when they try to claw their way back to the top? I have this gut feeling that X-Box and PocketPC create a new "low-end" strategy in markets where being the provider of an OS and a reference design can be very profitable.
I'll take the moderation hit in agreement.
.NET makes a lot of things a lot easier, and it makes some things more difficult. The Visual Studio IDE still blows away anything and everything Linux offers and developing world class web apps can be done with .NET faster than in Linux.
Yes,
Will is lead once again to MS growth? I don't know, it certainly could, but it just seems like too little...
--
Use Vobbo for Video Blogs
They'll learn to improve, and we'll once again have the good microsoft we did in the pre-1999 days
At least as far as I can tell, the "old" Bill Gates Microsoft is pretty much gone. That's the MS that valued universal adoption over vertical lock-in. That MS commoditized technology, priced things cheap, let people pirate them like crazy, and used it's muscle to get it's stuff everywhere possible.
(Whether or not the old MS was "good" is debatable. They certainly seemed like it coming out of the war with IBM in the early 90s, not so coming out of the war with Netscape.)
The "new" Ballmer Microsoft is trying to go Up Market and become a new mini-IBM. They don't really try to compete on price, they compete on a the level of integration they provide. Their new tier of products really only have value add when combined with other MS products.
Microsoft probably no longer cares if Office has a 95% marketshare or not. They are probably only really interested in Office customers that use all the network groupware, collaboration, and security functions. Much like IBM in the old days, if you aren't interested in becoming an end-to-end "Microsoft Shop", you aren't a very valuable customer anymore and you can go use StarOffice.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
For thirty years, Microsoft competed in a market that had essentially zero competition.
Actually, they had a tons of competition. However MS usually was usually off creating new markets for their products, while the competition was maximizing profits in the old markets.
Despite the fanboyism of the editorial, it's a real point that now Microsoft is the one playing profit maximization, and others are off blazing new markets.
Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
They actually don't cost that much. Take you M$ reps out to lunch when they visit. Tell one of the interns to walk by the cube at around 3:10 and casually mention something about the "linux server" banter with the reps mindlessly for another hour discussing your problems things you'd like to see etc, then ask for some software licenses, chances are they will give them too you. We do this every year or so, we call it our "M$ shake down", it works.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
With $50 billion in the bank comes political clout that no open source project can hope to counter. MS, along with their industry lackys, will push for, and we will have enacted legislation making it illegal to use software that doesn't have "content protection" built in at the hardware level. Of course only "approved" software will have any real access to the hardware, and any thought of truely open source operating systems will be lost. Major hardware vendors will produce motherboards, processors, and mass storage devices for sale in the USA that can only be accessed by approved software with proper digital ids and signatures. Of course this will be able to be hacked, but it will relagate open source back into a hobby! No amount of GPL'd code can overcome the fact that it will be a crime(as in DMCA) to break the "trusted computing" layer in hardware to allow code not certified "acceptable" to have free access to the CD/DVD/network/RAM/processor/video card etc.... Just a nightmare that Orwell would be proud of!
cheers, ben
Never miss a good chance to shut up -- Will Rogers
Microsoft may have been slowed by Linux, but if history has taught computer users anything over the last twenty-odd years, it's that Microsoft is exceptional adept at re-tooling itself and resuming it's domination of the software industry.
.NET and Longhorn product cycles. Then, of course, armed to the teeth with their own patent portfolios and unique proprietary technologies, their customer base will remain (they hope) safely in the Microsoft fold.
...And when Longhorn comes out and ties it all together, the One Evil Ring will very possibly remain firmly on Bill Gates finger.
Their doom has been forecast many times, yet it seems that they always rebound stronger and more profitable than ever before. Until they have shown YEARS of decline, I for one refuse to believe any reports of their death, much less serious injury.
To wit, they seem to have a palpable strategy in place to combat Linux. Basically, it is their hope that the questions of IP will slow adoption long enough for them to lock their corporate customers into the Windows 2003 server,
Remember that Office 2003 is actually a salvo in the Embrace, Extend and Extinguish strategy -- their XML formats are just proprietary enough to make that so, given the inertia that they have with the largest installed office-suite base as well as (frankly, like it or not) the most functionally integrated package on the market. Add to that the B2B interaction of sending Word, Powerpoint and Excel files and their strategy very well might work once again.
Windows Server 2003 and it's embedded technologies promises much of the same.
I say all this not as a Microsoft apologist but simply as a realist. While I strongly prefer Linux both on the server and on the desktop, the fact remains that there is much to be done, very much indeed, before it will topple the likes of a Microsoft.
Pardon me, but the article seems like a bunch of half-assed opinions with no facts to back them up, mixed in with a little bit of good old fashoned flaming/ranting.
/. talking about Microsoft are nothing but a bunch of half-assed opinions with no facts to back them up. Nothing new here, and certainly not unexpected.
Well to be honest, most articles on
Licensing 6.0 is a disaster, and so is Product Activation. At least we know that much.
Microsoft certainly took a hit with Licensing 6.0, they've admitted as much.(Which, BTW, is the secret to Microsoft's success... admitting failures and trying to correct them)
But Product Activation? Hasn't impacted Windows XP sales at all. In fact, one could point to it as evidence that Product Activation can work if done correctly.
Now Product Activation with Intuit's tax program, that was a disaster, and Intuit admitted as much.(again, another sign of a sucessful company) But then that's because they didn't implement it correctly.
One thing I don't get is the myth that if I operate a MS OS I'm locked into Microsoft software and paying MS eternally for updates etc. I just went through the software I use daily and while most of it runs on Windows XP, none of it's by Microsoft. Here's the list:
Acrobat (Adobe)
Agent (Forte)
Eudora (Qualcomm)
Ghostscript (AFPL/OSS)
GSView (Ghostgum)
Mathematica (Wolfram Research)
MikTeX (OSS)
Mozilla (OSS)
Octave (OSS)
Paint Shop Pro (JASC)
PuTTY (OSS)
Winamp (Nullsoft)
Notice especially how many great open-source or otherwise free packages there exist in fields that Microsoft haven't got anything to offer. Then why do I constantly read on /. that MS have a complete monopoly on software like nothing else was available?
Note also the complete lack of Office of any kind. I rarely need a word processor, and if I do there's Wordpad or KOffice and whatever spreadsheet it comes with on Linux. Oh, I guess I use WMP or RealPlayer (blegh) occasionally.
That said, there are still a great many IT people and users who still believe that Microsoft defines IT these days, and it will take years for the views expressed in the Inquirer article to catch up with them. I view this as a normal process, and I often see that perception lags progress by 18 months or more.
My most serious problem with this article is that I cannot show it to any serious business clients; the article shows almost nothing but contempt for them as a whole, and they will (wrongly) take that as a reflection on the Linux community; the editorial choices made indicate that the author is very blatantly pro-Linux. This tends to reinforce the perception that Linux and OSS folk are rather anti-business, playing into the hands of FUD spreaders.
We need this message delivered, but with better packaging, primarily since it will be more effective. Note that packaging and presenting is perhaps Microsoft's greatest strength, and we would do well to improve our packing as much as possible, although we certainly don't need to follow Microsoft in this regard.
It's perhaps ironic that China might become the beacon of freedom in computer software, when corporate America tries to tighten it's stranglehold around American (and even European) courtrooms...
I just hope they are far enough in the road to general freedom, that even if the "regime" of China decides they want to go back to hard line Communism, they can't any more...
Your stupid DRM laws won't apply to us, the rest of the World. We don't care for them.
What if big multinational corporations strong-arm governments to give in? This is why some countries have accepted large parts of the stupid US software patent system.
It will be an interesting fight.
Table-ized A.I.
"Now that Phoenix has signed on to "Trusted Computing" we are facing the very real possibility that the next generation of hardware (and MS OS) will have a very difficult to break content lock in. I doubt they'd do anything as blatient as making Linux impossible to run, but it'd have to run in "Non-Trusted" mode, MS webservers wouldn't serve to a non-trusted computer, movies, sounds, and images built with "trusted" packages won't open on non-trusted OSes.
Its likely that a group of hackers would crack it, and allow Linux to open the "secure" content, but that would be illegal, which kinda kills the idea of Linux as an OS for the masses... "
Ok, a bit of background. I wrote that story on the Inq that is the topic here, and as part of my job, I have been following the Trusted Computing/Palladium/whatever very closely. It isn't that bad. The technology is not evil, and it won't lock you out. The technology simply is.
Before you go blathering on and on about how linux won't run on it, or it will be a bitch for the average user to port, I hate to tell you, but Linux was up and running on a 'trusted' platform at IDF this fall. Intel wants it, IBM wants it, and so does everyone else. It is already there, don't lose any sleep over this any more.
That said, the whole idea is stupid, unworkable and won't achieve anything that they are aiming for, but that is for a totally different reason. If you want a great example of how people don't get it, go watch the fall '03 IDF keynote, it is probably on the Intel web site somewhere. You will understand how they missed the mark (A big wet kiss to the first person to link it in a comment).
Now, if you want evil, and I do mean evil, that IS meant to lock you out, look to EFI and the new bootloaders. That is where MS is going to try to cut linux off at the knees, or maybe already has. I am working on this story, but it is slow going. Be very afraid of EFI people.....
-Charlie
I am a severe skeptic of every technology company around, but have found myself engulfed by Microsoft as a Windows Geek because they just keep surprising me by not going totally braindead. (in spite of The Inquirer's article) Is it just me or didn't MS servers go from 10 percent of the market (LAN Manager on DOS or OS/2), to 20 percent (Novell ignored this), to 38 percent (where I thought they would peak), to 55 percent now? These Windows 200X Servers are pretty impressive examples of how the Borg has expanded through embrace and extend. In the meantime, Linux has been killing off the NIX'es and Novell to become the other big kid on this block. All the while, I have seen boneheaded move after boneheaded move by MS that tempted me to write them off, learn Java and Linux, and start looking for a job with "The Rebel Alliance". The phenomenal price hikes, the horrific defense they put on against David Boies and the Justice Department, SQL Slammer, Blaster, the refusal to backport Active Directory's Group Policies to pre-Windows 2X (Windows 2000, XP, 2003) machines, the forcing of Exchange customers wanting Exchange 2000 to deploy Active Directory (on Windows 200X Servers only), MSN, losing their lawsuit with Sun over Java, the threatened arbitrary defrocking of Windows NT 4.0 MCSE's (Microsoft Certified Sales Engineers :) )that was only averted four months from the deadline, and more. This company has committed about a zillion errors and it keeps coming back from them all smiling, profitable, and supremely confident like some sort of liquid metal-based Terminator soaking up shotgun blasts. Sixty billion in the bank will do that for you, I suppose.
What to make of this? An old friend long ago advised me that whatever IBM is doing, do the opposite. He has long been an MS guy and it has paid off for both of us. Will it go on forever? Extremely unlikely. When twenty year olds come to me these days asking for long-range IT advice, I recommend Open Source. You will learn more, you have the time to learn it, and it's not going away. If they need to learn MS later, it will be easy after Open Source. MS won't be going away any time soon, but eventually we will ALL perceive that IT is not just about desktops, servers, and mainframes. When it comes to money, we need to remember those cell phones, Blackberry's, PDA's, gaming consoles, set top boxes, supercomputers, Distributed.net, manufacturing control systems, routers, firewalls, and dozens of things that don't come to mind. When viewed in its' totality, this market has MANY big players. The winds of change are blowing and the devices are bypassing MS's chokehold on innovation in its markets. Adam Smith's invisible hand will crash right through MS discounts, Justice Department inaction, and legions of lawyers to bring us the computing solutions we need. A pox on Darl McBride!
In principio erat Verbum.
A few years ago, I worked at HP on EFI firmware for IA-64 machines. Like all technologies, it can be used for good or evil.
EFI, short for External Firmware Interface can be described as BIOS on steroids, combined with MS-DOS. It's a programming API in firmware used specifically for low-level hardware configuration and bootstraping of OSes. It comes with a command shell that looks much like MS-DOS - it reads FAT filesystems, runs a TCP/IP stack, lets you manipulate files from the command line, set up scripts and execute programs. For the most part, these programs do things like boot OSes (from disk or network), splash screens & hardware configuration. I personally have seen Linux boot through a version of LILO hacked for EFI (though that was three years ago). It's much more flexible than the PC-style BIOS for such things. For those of you with Unix backgrounds, it's somewhat like the firmware in PA-RISC workstations that normally bootstraps HP-UX.
It isn't much of a stretch to suggest EFI can be used to set up Trusted Computing software or DRM, and even to lock out software that the Powers That Be consider to be undesireable, by running an initdrm program in the boot script just before it executes the hwconfig, splashscreen or bootos programs. As I said, EFI can be used for good or evil. EFI can be used for this, but doesn't have to be.
I personally doubt EFI will be used to cut off Linux, since a lot of the big players like HP and IBM have too much at stake to let themselves be shut out.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
Ever wonder what all those uppity protesters were up in arms about in Seattle a few years back? They're protesting against NAFTA, FTAA, GATT, WTO, and MAI because these groups and agreements allow investors to override laws.
To quote from a recent article "NAFTA: North American Deal Dismal After a Decade"
NAFTA rules also limit each country's domestic policies to deal with issues ranging from environmental health and food safety to banking and truck safety regulation.
Under the unprecedented investor rights sewn into the deal, investors are allowed to demand compensation for "indirect expropriation", which has been interpreted to mean any government act -- including those directed at public health and the environment -- that diminishes the value of a foreign investment.
Following one such suit, the Mexican government was ordered in August 2000 to pay nearly 17 million dollars to a California firm that was denied a permit from a Mexican municipality to operate a hazardous waste treatment facility in an environmentally sensitive location.
Yeah, that's what everyone was so up in arms about it. Too bad the media only told you about some dumb kids who threw some bricks at a Starbucks. If you want to understand the sort of societal structures that underly this situation, I recommend the book Understanding Power.
"The Inquirer's article is interesting, but the underlying forces have little to do with open source, and have been building for years." ...
"What happens when your company hits the limits of its growth? The dilemma MS faces is its own success. They own 95% of the desktop world. Almost everyone who _can_ use Windows and Office _does_ use it. They won't get continuing double-digit increases in revenue and profit from their core business, because they've saturated their market."
Good point, but you are only partially right. MS has saturated the US market for sure. The world market is just starting up in many places, and if MS could count on similar success in China, Brazil, India and so on they would be able to run their ponzi scheme a lot longer. The existence of Open Source, finally has presented a barrier through which they will not pass unchanged. Had Open Source been more prevalent back in the OS/2 vs Windows days I'm not sure we would still have a Microsoft any more. As it is, thanks to their war chest, they still have an opportunity to mutate themselves into something else.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them do a merger with someone like Dell to get into hardware and with one of the remaining big consulting companies to try and become a body-shop powerhouse. That is, of course if the government will allow them to do it. They will lose to Sony and friends if they keep pounding on the consumer electronics door. With margins like they are used to they just don't have a chance. Really, with the exception of the dirty tricks they pulled to create the Windows and Office monopolies Microsoft's history reads like a comedy of errors.
Basically Microsoft needs to once again go head to head with IBM. If they can't manage to do so they will simply start to evaporate. I'm not too sure they will be able to change fast enough to make a difference. That $40B will go fast.
Some defections were headed off, like the Thai government, which pays $36 for Office and Windows XP comes with a 95% discount if you compare it to list.
This kind of glosses over the fact that this price was available only for government program offering low-cost computers to Thais. These computers were set to come with the government's own version of Linux and other programs localized for Thai. One million computers with Linux pre-installed scared MS enough that the program put the first crack in the "One Price Around the World" dam that MS had erected to that point.
Prices for regular software dropped somewhat shortly after, but not to the level quoted in the article. Despite this, the MS initiative seems to have succeeded because the Thai gov't has signed at least one huge contract with MS since then and has all but ceased the open source propoganda that it was pushing before.
Put identity in the browser.
2. It will be avaliable to everyone
While Microsoft will continue playing typical Microsoft-games, Trusted Computing itself is "available to everyone". Someone can even make a Trusted Computing version of linux, open source code and all. That source code is ABSOLUTELY USELESS however - Trusted Computing defeats/destroys the GPL. If you try to change a single line of that code then it no longer works.
where copyrights are enforced in digital media and all related media.
No. DRM restrictions have some resemblance to copyright rules, and they are motivated by copyright intrests, DRM restrictions do not equal copyright restrictions. For one thing it exterminates Fair Use. For another thing DRM enforces any restriction the publisher cares to impose, restrictions with absolutely no coneection to copyright law, restictions such as DVD region coding and blocking out the fast forward button on certain parts of DVD's.
we will also get a completly trusted computing environment for banking...
Imagine two identical computers. One is "new hardware" and you are given a printed copy of your Master Keys. You put that peice of paper in your safety-deposit box in a bank vault. The second computer is Trusted Computing. The only difference is that Trusted Computing FORBIDS you to know YOUR OWN MASTER KEY. Both machines have identical hardware and identical capabilities. I defy you to tell me how "new hardware" (where you know your key) is any less able to protect you than the Trusted Computer.
The mere fact that you know something CANNOT reduce your computer's ability to protect you from viruses or worms or trojans or hackers or anything.
What Trusted Computing really does is take away your ownership of your own computer. If you know your master Keys then no one could use your computer as a weapon against you. They cannot lock you in, they cannot lock you out, they cannot enforce DRM restrictions - in particular they cannot enforce DRM restrictions which have absolutely no basis in law like blocking Fair Use and enforcing DVD region coding.
That is the central design feature of Trusted Computing - that you are forbidden to know your own Master Keys. You could get all of the claimed benefits of Trusted Computing with a system that lets you know your keys, but they don't want to let you have such a machine. The real purpose of Trusted Computing is to deny you ownership and control your your own computer, they will only give you a version carrying this poison pill.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.