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.'"
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
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.
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