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.'"

Comments

whew...

[Anonymous Coward]

I read that as Gates kills Jobs (Steve)

Re:whew...

[TastyWords]

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.

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 ... 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.
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 .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."

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."

Re:whew...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!).

History is against him.

[h4rm0ny]

This comes up again and again. The basis of it is the idea that if people write their own software then there will be no market for others to sell it to them.

This seems true in general, but there are three important points.

• There will still be a market for customising this software. It is likely to be smaller though.
• There will be a market for supporting this software. Due to it being cheaper and thus more widespread, and due to it being less homogenous. This market, and the education needed to work in it, is likely to grow.
• Without having to spend their money on propritary closed source software, people will have more money to spend on other things - resulting in a net gain for any society that uses Free software. Note this effect is even more greatly enhanced by the fact that the free software will not be taxed unlike proprietary software.

The software industry has to face up to the fact that programming is no longer such a specialist skill. A good parallel to this might be writing. It was once quite mystical to the majority of the population. But I think we can all see that our world has benefited from the skill not remaining the part of a small guild or group.

And yes, I have read the article already (I'm a subscriber). Billy Gates seems to be falling back to his old tactics of targeting schools with US$20 million in cash grants in Asia. Can't see it working myself.

Re:History is against him.

[FauxPasIII]

> Buggy whip makers were put out of work by the automobile

-nod- Microsoft suffers from the same problem - there's just no market for their buggy products anymore.

Re:History is against him.

[Chess_the_cat]

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.

Jobs: Open Source will kill Gates.

[topynate]

Apple to remain unaffected, release 35" computer screen.

Visual Basic generates jobs

[damm0]

Visual Basic generates jobs. The kinds where real professionals are called in to fix a big mess.

stupid argument

[Coneasfast]

this is one of the most stupid arguments that gates is saying.

this is like saying "volunteer work is causing unemployment for people who wish to do the same work for pay"

open source doesn't create jobs but the ultimate end result will benefit mankind as a whole. gates either knows nothing about economics or is really trying to push some BS onto us.

Re:stupid argument

[h4rm0ny]

"volunteer work is causing unemployment for people who wish to do the same work for pay"

I have nothing worthwhile to add to what you said, but I just want to let you know I'm going to steal that analogy and use it every chance I get.

You've just shot down every argument against Open Source in a single sentance. Quite Beautiful.

No Jobs?

[danielrm26]

It's true that while open source is taking off it will have many of the characteristics that Gates is describing, but ultimately all software needs skilled people to install it and maintain it. An entire infrastructure for a business, city, or government is not going to run itself and generate no jobs just because the development of the software itself was done for free.

Open Source doens't guarantee upward compatability

[FuzzyFurB]

Open Source doens't guarantee upward compatability? Puhlease! Neither does Microsoft with their proprietary office suite. Didn't Office 97 break compatability with older versions forcing companies to upgrade ALL machines in their workplaces at the same time? Talk about a horrible leg to stand on!

Wait.

[labratuk]

Objectively speaking for a moment.

Surely he has just said that open source is more efficient.

If fewer people are having to be employed to do something, that must mean that the process of sharing and having standards is working more efficiently. Surely that's more economical for a business, as they're having to fork out less for these things.

What he's advocating is creating a false economy of software and 'technology' by having a hideously ineffective development and business process.

Or is that an oversimplified concept of economics?

Upward compatibility?

[PCM2]

I'm not even sure I understand what that means. I understand when something isn't backward compatible -- like when Windows XP can't run software written for Windows 95. But upward compatible? Is he talking about the failure of today's software to run on tomorrow's systems -- like how Windows XP won't run on Intel Nocoma chips?

Re:Poor Bill

[poofyhairguy82]

In 10 years he will be eating out of a dumpster Maybe a platinum dumpster filled with caviar. Tens of billions don't disappear that easily.

Bill is right!

[earthforce_1]

It does kill the job market for MCSEs.

Re:More nonsense

[finkployd]

And US Democrats, who he gives just about the exact same amount of money to.

Oops, sorry, did I let facts get in the way or your ignorant political ranting. Republicans are always evil, Democrats are always good. Ignorance is knowledge.

Finkployd

Re:Gates is right

[Waffle Iron]

Windows has a much better track on binary and source compatibility, my company still uses a DOS program of the '80s working under XP.

Your '80s DOS program will probably run fine under Linux as well. In both cases, the 16-bit environment runs in a VM.

Let's make an important distinction

[e6003]

Gates says "If you don't want to create jobs or intellectual property..." (emphasis added). What kinds of intellectual property are there, and what might be affected by open source?

- Copyrights: open source software is still copyrighted as much as closed source software. He can't be talking about this sort of intellectual property.

- Patents: can also apply equally well to open or closed source software - indeed, some people call for software patents to explicitly include source code showing how the claimed "invention" is implemented.

- Trademarks: not really relevant; they're concerned with brand names and don't depend on if one chooses to share the underlying source code to a program or not.

- Trade secrets. Ah. We might be onto something here! Yes, something isn't a secret if you share it openly. Gee whizz - who'da thunk that?!

Yes, what Gates is saying is that you can't have trade secrets if you have open source software - only that's far too obvious a statement to make and any audience would see straight through it. So he uses the meta-FUD term "intellectual property" instead. What a sham. As with the RIAA and MPAA, what Microsoft really needs is a law that forbids circumventing an "effective" business model...

History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better tech

[ron_ivi]

Textile workeres in 1811 were losing their jobs to stocking-machines that did knitting more cheaply than themselves, and indeed decided to destroy the machines. They organized into a group known as the Luddites, until England cracked down hard on them - wikipedia reporting that "at one time, there were more British troops fighting the Luddites than Napoleon Bonaparte". Funny I never would have thought of Gates as a Luddite trying to fight advancements in technology. (especially interesting since we know Bill Joy has luddite tendancies)

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.

Macs threaten the livelihood of IT staffs. If you recommend purchasing a computer that requires only half the support of the machine it is replacing, aren't you putting your job in danger? Exactly.

Ideally, the IT department ought to recommend the best computer for the job, but more often than not, they recommend the best computer for the IT department's job.
...
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.

Proof that open source kills puppies...

[rlanctot]

1) Open source gives away software for free.
2) Giving something away for free is anti-capitalist.
3) Anti-capitalism is Communism!
4) Communists don't think like you and I do.
5) You or I would never kill a puppy.
6) As neither of us would kill a puppy, and communists don't think like you or I do, communists will kill puppies.
7) Therefore, Open Source Kills puppies.
8) Hence: Chewbacca.

(It's satire people...)

Re:History - Since 1811 jobs were lost to better t

[hazem]

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.

Scale, not growth.

[einhverfr]

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....