Slashdot Mirror
Gates: Open Source Kills Jobs
theodp writes "On the Malaysian leg of a whirlwind Asian tour, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates voiced his concerns over the growing goodwill towards open source, especially in Asia, emphasizing how damaging open source software can be. 'If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property, then there is a tendency to develop open source. It is not something you do as a day job. If you want to give it away, you work on it at night,' he said. Gates, who apparently has never contended with the horrors of a VB upgrade, when on to say that '[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility.'"
More nonsense from Gates.
He's on the losing side, but he still knows how to fight. Notice his sales pitch to the asian governments:
FTA:
In the case of software piracy, Gates said Microsoft is having "good dialogues" with Asian governments, one area being their loss of tax revenue "when people don't pay for software".
The obvious corollary to this is that if you're using free (as in beer) open source software then you aren't paying taxes either. The technological solution to both of this problem and the piracy one is the same: trusted (by Them not You) Computing.
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
Gates is showing once and again that he is a smart guy who will take any advantage he can to get what he wants.
I remember a settlement Microsoft made with some school district. But instead of sending a check to the school, Microsoft offered them computers with the windows operating system. By negotiating a settlement in such a way, it is like getting free advertising. Most people do not want to learn 2 or 3 operating systems, they just want one they know how to use. How many of those high school students went on to use Windows based PC's in college and beyond? I don't know the anwser, but I do bet some would have used Apple if they had Apple computers in their lab.
I think the problem with Gates and Microsoft is they are unethical. It is one thing to make a product and sell it, another thing to use strong arm tactics to force people to use it. It has been said many times, but my local CompUSA and Circuit City only sell computers with Windows on them. And what is worse, my Sony Vaio laptop came with Windows, but not the CD to install it as I wish. Instead it reformats the hard drive into pre-determined partitions. And I can not pick what programs to install from that CD, it installs everything as it was when I first turned the laptop on. Getting some of that unwanted software off the PC was real work. Yuck.
But there are things Gates can do to be more friendly. Don't force windows to want a whole drive all to itself. If I have drive, and want to have a small partition for linux, don't force windows to reformat that partition to ntsc or fat. Let it be. It is a pain to have to do everything after windows is installed.
I think Bill Gates is obsessed with controlling the entire market share for computer operating systems, and now is moving into media control with his DRM technology and windows media player 9. What people really want is choice. What Windows does is take away choice.
Also from the article, and this scares me:
Earlier, Gates talked about the contributions Windows has made to the Asian economy. "Windows has opened up opportunities for computers and chips to be built in Asia. This will continue to be true for [such] software in providing high-paying jobs," he said.
Can we expect many of these high paying jobs to leave the USA? Is this Gates master plan. Make the USA dependant on Windows based software, then move as much of the production outside the USA?
Also:
Gates said Microsoft is having "good dialogues" with Asian governments, one area being their loss of tax revenue "when people don't pay for software".
Does this mean Gates will want some terrif imposed on all software, then work out some exemption for Microsoft? He has proven to be smart and creative in making thinks work out the way he wants it to, and he has proven to be unethical. I would not be suprised if he tried to stifle competition.
Rosco: "If brains were gunpowder, Enos couldn't blow his nose."
As far as Gates' comment goes, it's about like standing waist-deep in a room full of gasoline and pleading for no one to light a match (in a sneaky way - almost claiming it'll ruin anyone who uses it and can't remain compatible with everyone else in the business they communicate with - it'll ruin the business world.
... IBM. Yes, IBM still has a lot of research, makes a lot of money from selling iron and some of their other OSes, but they don't turn as many people loose with the intentions of wanton freedom for the specific purposes of smothering a market where they have no challenge. If Microsoft were to fall into the same level as IBM, they would still have freedom to a certain degree, but they wouldn't be calling the shots whenever they chose to. .net were summoned to Mr. Bill's office to explain the purpose of XML and what it could be used for (long-term), guess what? I'll give up what I've one so far and take what's behind "Curtain #2 of Almost Missed Opportunities". Suddenly, things within Micro$soft became "XML is my hammer and the entire world looks nailes to be pounded."
The entire Microsoft legacy is built around selling software (aside from some of the peripheral mouse|keyboards and SideWinder game devices (are they ever going to get around to supporting these again?).
Anyway, Microsoft's biggest fear is not losing money. It's becoming another IBM . Microsoft loves being in the pilot's chair and doing whatever they want to with practically no oversight (except the occasional lawsuit which they make go away). They don't pay dividends on stock (which Ralph Nader has been working on for years) - which provides them with $50B or $60B of ca$h in the bank, let alone the value of outstanding shares. They pretty much can work on whatever they want to, whenever they want to, and for whatever period of time, etc. They have any number of persons (or "IQ Points" as they used to call them, presuming there were "150 IQ Points" for each person (on average); e.g., "We need 3'000 IQ Points for this project." If you follow the common press (and read it tongue-in-cheek), it's obvious they have a lot of things down the road. When you assemble a dozen or two Ph.Ds in an an arcane subject and turn them loose, what could be happening? Certainly nothing now.
Back to Microsoft
Has Microsoft shown its vulnerability? You betcha. We all know Microsoft almost missed the Internet boat, supposedly striking WHG III during one of his Summer Sabbaticals where he reads and comes up with personal ideas when he returns with great insight as to what should happen next. When the architects of
My prediction?
This is finally the thing where Microsoft misses the wrong boat and spells the end of Microsoft pounding everyone else as though they were a hammer. They missed the boat because they saw it as a fad which had no chance of passing the real-world chance. "Who (and why) would subscribe to 'free' software? This is ridiculous. In the meantime, we'll continual making software for sale and when they come crawling back to us, we'll be there, passing the hat, and collecting their money."
Also interesting is that Cringley has often written about Microsoft's technology making "full employement" for msft technicians. Interestingly, though, he thinks Apples kill more IT jobs than Linux.
Software isn't sold. It's the licenses for the software which are. Mostly they come with a copy of the software (a "copy"). The license grants you permission to run their proprietary. If the BSA comes in your business, they'll check out what you run AND wether you have a license for it. Not if you have the (a number of) official CD's laying around.
Why is this important to say? Because from a text and technologic point of view it LOWERS the worth of the software. I think it's a psychologic thing, sortoff like propaganda, manipulation.
Selling software never happened with proprietary software, at least not in this very way it is explained to the common man ("buy XP for $100!"). Support contracts, licenses, those are sold. Or when Apple gets bought by Microsoft (example) then part of it is the ownership of some properties of Apple which including software (even FLOSS!).
But that's just it! The majority of people aren't choosing free software over MS products. Linux is at around 3-5% market share! And it's been free for years! A better question would be: What is preventing millions upon millions of people from switching to a free OS? Quality would be my guess. Mod me down but a reply attempting to answer my question would be appreciated.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
It is not a bad thing per se if jobs are eliminated. Open source software can be looked at as simply a technological improvement, with improved efficiency over proprietary software. Now, if this happens to eliminate the jobs of some proprietary developers, that is a good thing for the economy. Previously wasteful labor is no-longer being employed, so resources are being used more efficiently. The former-programmer must find a new job, doing something that the market values more highly than what he formerly did.
For example, consider the following situation:
Microsoft employs 100 people to work on Internet Explorer and all of its problems. These individuals work 40 hours a week and are paid $50,000 a year. All is well. Microsoft has a team which works on fixing problems in IE, the team-member get paid, and customers get a security update in IE every blue moon or so.
Now, along comes another group, Mozilla. They give away source code to the gecko core and get a small group of volunteers to work on Phoenix for free. These individuals choose to do this in their spare time, off of the job. They produce a browser which is arguably superior to IE.
Now, lets say that Phoenix drives IE out of the market, and Microsoft thus has to can it's IE project, meaning the workers get fired. Is this a bad thing? Well, obviously MS and their employees don't like it. But it is still good for society over-all.
Previously, customers had to pay money to MS for a browser. Now, they don't. They can conserve the resources (money) that they would have spent on the browser, and spend it elsewhere, on their highest valued use.
And what of Microsoft and the workers? Well, either they can make their product good enough that people will pay for it over a free alternative, or they have to eliminate the product-line or sell it off to whoever will buy it. What about the former MS employees working on IE? Well, it is unfortunate for them, but no-one has the right to be employed. Certainly, consumers in such a case would have demonstrated that they aren't willing to pay a higher price for an inferior product.
If they are laid off, they can find jobs else-where, where their labor will go towards a use more highly valued by consumers than what they had been doing. This is simply the reallocation of labor from less highly-valued uses to more highly-valued uses, resulting in greater overall efficiency.
If any programmer here is going to complain, I would ask you this: Given two computer-systems, both of the same quality in your estimation, would you buy the one that is priced higher or priced lower? The answer is you'd buy the one that's priced lower. Now, why would you expect anyone to pay more for a product of the same or lesser quality, when they can pay less for a product of the same or greater quality? It is hypocrisy to ask others to pay more money for inferior products.
I wouldn't be surprised if next thing, Bill Gates is going to file lawsuite against FOSS developers. After all, they are undercutting their competitors, and this is an evil anti-competitive strategy. Of course, if they price their products at the same price, they can be accused of collusion; and heaven forbid if they price them higher, then they're accused of price-gouging.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Again, it comes down to the IT Department Full Employment Act. Adopting Linux allows organizations to increase their IT efficiency without requiring the IT department to increase ITS efficiency. It takes just as many nerds to support 100 Linux boxes as 100 Windows boxes, yet Linux boxes are cheaper and can support more users. The organization is better off while the IT department is unscathed and unchallenged.
It's funny that you quote that. At my last job, we made the opposite change. Went from about 100 linux boxes/x-terminals to a 100 windows boxes. There were two of us techs, and our workload increased significantly. We no longer had time to work on "fun" projects that people wanted - web access to e-mail, trying new products, etc. We spent all of our time patching OSs, fighting viruses, and reinstalling hosed systems. Sure, we still used the same two techs, but I finally quit from the tedium of the job. It was no longer fun.
I think it all depends on what you want your IT people doing. Use windows, and they'll spend a lot of time fixing windows boxes. Use unix/linux, and there's a good chance that you'll be able to assign interesting projects that improve everyone's effectiveness and efficiency.
What kind of jobs, Mr. Gates? Point-of-sale software programming jobs seems to be the only possibility--a mere fraction of programming jobs out there--which just happens to be the business that you are in. It diminishes Bill's field and invigorates the industries that have anything to do with customization, localization, and face-to-face service and support.
"[Open source] doesn't guarantee upward compatibility or do that kind of integration [for seamless computing to work]."
"We certainly will have open-source apps that compete with and that run on Windows. But when it comes to a guarantee or having someone who stands behind your software, [open source] is typically not something done in a capital approach."
Hail, Prince of the Obvious! More obvious information: Microsoft doesn't exactly specialize in guarantees either. Open Source doesn't do all those things, but companies can. Bill's statment is like me saying that closed-source doesn't guarantee free croissants. Of course it doesn't, but Microsoft sure would if it meant keeping Linux out of Paris.
As for the integration thing, he's right. Open Source environments don't integrate like Microsoft does. And is probably better off for it. Isn't that what got us into all this IE trouble in the first place? How frenzied integration is somehow an advantage is a mystery to me.
He's stating a few half-truths and presuming that his fragment of the truth leads everyone to his MSFT-centric conclusions. He makes about as much sense as a Linux zealot might. His only advantage is that he knows the business vocabulary that will get the attention of the bureaucrats. That, and he's Bill Fucking Gates and what he says goes. Outside of Slashdot, the man is perceived as a technological messiah.
Their current dividends are basically meaningless. They're "token" dividends meant to keep investors complacent. The unofficial rule is that a publicly traded company is to retain profits for the purpose of increasing corporate growth in the near future (e.g. new hires, purchases, etc.) and as a security reserve (e.g. to cover lawsuits). Any money which is saved just for the sake of saving is supposed to be given to investors as dividends. That's the purpose of dividends: to share profit. Microsoft witheld profits for over a decade and their dividends today barely touch the $50 billion they have saved up.
What are those savings for? To buy a small nation? To buy all the companies left in the software industry? To buy another industry? To buy favor with government officials? They're not spending it, so it's owed to investors.
Developers: We can use your help.
One of MS's biggest vulnerabilities is that the financial model for the company has always been based on revenue growth and zero control of costs. When growth stops, the model will collapse. We're already seeing that in Balmer's latest memo.
Not sure that it is so tied to growth. If it stops growing, but remains constant, then Microsoft's growth will come from new markets and will be slow.
The bigger problem is this: Microsoft has been so successful because no other proprietary software maker can touch them on scale. They can therefore leverage a huge economy of scale, sell their products at prices which make their competitors go bankrupt, and still make a profit. This works up to a point untill.....
You guessed it.... Free Software.
The problem with FLOSS is that it spreads the cost of development more efficiently than even Microsoft's model. Therefore, it has a much lower critical mass than Microsoft. Hence as the software beginst to grow, it undermines the scale which makes Microsoft competitive.
I used to work for Microsoft. Personally I think that they are not agile enough to come out of this with their business model in tact because they are too successful. They cannot just move to greener pastures like, say, Intuit. There are no greener pastures.
They will survive no doubt, but not as the company they are today. Expect to see them go through an extremely painful transition resembling the finest medieval torture techniques.... What comes out may not resemble what went in....
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
A better question would be: What is preventing millions upon millions of people from switching to a free OS? Quality would be my guess.
Well, I've asked a lot of MS users about this, and so far every one of them has disagreed with you. Their answer is always of the form "The software I want/need is only available on DOS/Windows (depending on the year that I asked)."
So then I ask my followup question: "How many other kinds of computer systems did you look at?" And their answer is always the same: "None."
Invariably, MS users just know that software is only available on MS systems. They don't need to do any market research, because they already know the answer. There's no point in wasting time looking for something that doesn't exist.
There are, of course, lots of people who have done the obvious searches. They aren't MS users. They easily find alternatives, determine that the alternative is almost always of higher quality, and go with it.
But BillG and company (and IBM before them) have become rich betting that the great majority will never do even the slightest study of what's available. All it takes is a good-size marketing budget, and whatever you make will be the market leader, whether it's good or bad quality, because few people will ever look for alternatives.
Bill himself was in the enviable position to be able to use daddy's money to get into Harvard B-school, where he made the connections that allowed him to leverage an IBM marketing budget and do an end run against all those pipsqueaks who had demoed the viability of a "desktop" computer market. His marketing budget has remained greater than the total operating budget of all his competitors combined. So the great majority who just go with the "market leader" continue to buy from him, because they know there's no point at looking at anyone else's nonexistent software.
Anyway, try it yourself. Ask random MS users to name a single piece of software that runs on linux. I'll predict that, with very few exceptions, most of them will be unable to come up with anything at all. They have never looked, and they never will.
This shoots down the idea that they're buying based on any sort of "quality" determination. They're buying from the only software supplier that exists in their world.
(In the mainframe world, the same situation still exists, with "IBM" for "Microsoft" throughout.)
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
If not for open source technologies, I would not have a job.
Because of my exprience in Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP, Perl and various other technologies, I have a job at a company that uses these technologies exclusively. And the company is able to be competitive because it doesn't have to pay all of those licensing fees that would have to be paid if we used Windows Servers running IIS, ASP, SQL server, etc...
And of course, the entire internet runs on technologies that are open to everyone, http, tcp/ip, ftp, ssl, etc... many businesses would not exist if not for open source technologies.
Long live open source.
-- Does anybody know where the 'any' key is on the keyboard?
Ah, but you forget, that back in the day, Microsoft did not ignore the Internet.
.DOC format, for example), other times it doesn't (MS's bastardized HTML, .NET), and other times they're beat upside the head with a cluebrick hard enough to change their ways in time ("The Microsoft Network").
Rather, they saw it as competition for "The Microsoft Network."
This represents the main problem facing Microsoft, and the stupid move they have done repeatedly: Rather than work with other people's standards, Microsoft has repeatedly tried to reinvent the wheel so that they get to be in the drivers seat. (And get to put up toll booths on the way, of course.)
Sometimes this works well (MS Word
THIS is where Microsoft will eventually screw up, royally. Microsoft will try to reinvent something fundamental to computing, for example, "TCP/MS" as a "secure replacement for TCP/IP (with mint sprinkles!)" and GNU/Linux + Apple will be there to smack them around for it. MS will either steadfastily try to force it, or change their tune too late, and they will start to lose clients because of it.
Ummm.. I agree with a lot in your post,
but you are WAY off about IBM.
Microsoft 'research & innovation' (if you are willing to call it that), has NOTHING on IBM. IBM is on the bleeding edge of MANY advanced engineering techniques, with really fantastic stuff in such fields like quantum computing and advanced materials (semiconducter).
MS is working on MS Bob. And reinventing Win32 as Avalon.
It's not just some research. IBM, every year for the last 10 years, has filed more patents then the next 10 companies/organizations put together. Sure, some of these are BS patents on rather silly things, but many are serious patents on products really worthy of patent protection.
IBM labs lets people loose to research whatever they want, really long-term stuff---Stuff that won't pay off for 20 years.
MS is worried about tomorrow. MS missing the boat means they are done for---they need to survive every generation.
IBM missing the boat means that they get to play again in round 2, round 3, and round 100.
I have a great deal more respect for IBM's research--- It is brilliant stuff, it is way ahead of its time, and it will change the world.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
As a Mac/Unix programmer, I'd love to find a job in or around Seattle. But for obvious reasons, almost everything up there is Windows-oriented. As far as I can tell, jobs for someone with my set of skills are few and far between.
From my point of view, it's Microsoft that's bad for the job market.
If Bill wants to stop open source, he should hire away the open source programmers who have proven their abilities.
I've always thought that setting out to design and code up a project from thin air is a big risk. Much better to find an open source project that is nearly what you want, and hire the team who produced it to turn it into the product you want.
A viable open source project already has most of the risk removed because you know it works and you know it's wanted.
This would solve the problem caused by the two opposing forces; companies like microsoft who want to charge for software, and programmers who have too much time on their hands, who write open source projects to add to their portfolio.
Face it, a lot of open source projects are started by programmers just looking to get some credibility and get a real job. Everyone has to have an incoming for food, shelter and whatever.