Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Advised To Learn To Love Linux
mikael writes "ZDnet is reporting that the management guru Clayton Christensen (author of "The Innovator's Dilemma") has advised Microsoft to learn to love Linux. In particular he advises Microsoft to purchase "Research in Motion", otherwise they will see their applications sucked off from the desktop and onto handheld devices such as the Blackberry."
Microsoft's revenues/profits have been positive so far. Maybe they will face "oblivion"...but not in this decade.
I almost feel sorry for Microsoft reading this article. He's right, and what's more I'd be surprised if many people at Microsoft didn't know it.
But they can't; how precisely can Microsoft remain a profitable publicly traded company while embracing open source? Their software is all they have.
IBM was in a fortunate position of being a major hardware vendor and therefore capable of switching revenue stream focus.
But Microsoft?
Can anyone else imagine Microsoft five years from now being known more and more as that company that makes really nice mice and peripherals?
Blearf. Blearf, I say.
All of the above will receive scant support and will be axed after one release. A MS spokesman will cite 'no interest' for the reason even though the half-baked, shitty software and uncertain future has more to do with it.
While I think this is encouraging, I feel that it's a little alarmist: Microsoft still have an incredible monopoly. Of you non-techie friends (if you have any unconverted) how many *don't* run Windows? How many are terrified by the prospect of having to learn something other than Windows? How many think that Windows, OfficeXP, IE, and Outlook are the only applications they need, apart from games, which lets face it, are mostly written for Windows.
I think Microsoft would have to play a lot of consecutive bad hands before they'll cede their desktop stranglehold.
History is full of companies who fell out of the limelight because they couldn't or wouldn't adapt to new technology. One is happening right now as Kodak struggles to remain relevant in the world of digital photography (and it seems to me, they are trying to earn money from "traditional" photographic services such as printing, applied to digital photography - I'm not sure this will be successful). Where are all the typewriter manufacturers in a world of word processing? Despite the FUD and lock-in tactics (tactics that are becoming less and less successful with each iteration IMO), the same fate awaits Microsoft it they refuse to adapt. In contrast, look at IBM - in hibernation throughout much of the 1990s but emerging ready to do business with open source - and that's just one example of how they've adapted over the course of their history. Gates and Ballmer would do well to study this.
MS needs a competitor they can point to and say "see, we're not a monopoly". Apple has done this "service" for years, and I see them continuing to do so as long as MS has any fear from monopoly proceedings (and as long as MS Office pays its way and then some).
If Office were on Linux I could port all my end users to Linux without issue.
/Star/Koffice/whatever just aren't good enough to prevent the person proposing the change losing their job once the end users have trouble interoperating with Windows clients. If it's Office, just blame Microsoft and keep your job.
OOO
And yes, I would keep a copy to stop from having to dual boot like I do now.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
If Office were on Linux I could port all my end users to Linux without issue.
I completely agree. Think about everything that your average user uses their computer for. You get internet/email and office, and a couple other programs such as Quicken... and games.
If you have Office, it makes it so much easier for the user because instead of having to learn ALL new programs, they just have to use a different internet browser.
Even in the Windows world, where users are used to paying exorbitant fees for software, Office would still be in trouble without OEM deals, bundling, and other reductions. Without those, and in a market used to getting software for free, the prospects can't look good...
Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.
If MS Office was ported to Linux, do you think it would operate in the same way? With the same features? I've seen other applications ported from Windows to Linux and the Linux version did not have nearly the same capabilities. For example, IM clients like AIM and Yahoo Messenger. The Linux ports of those apps are a bit different from the Windows versions. They may have less bugs (perhaps), but the application itself has a different interface. If MS Office were ported, I can see the same thing happening. MS ports a watered-down, ugly version of MS Office to Linux so they can say "See, Linux isn't so great." If the Linux port of Office isn't exactly the same as the Windows port, Windows users won't so easily switch.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Well, Christensen argues, according to many examples in many fields, ranging from excavating equipment to department stores, the new businesses, despite being apparently inferior in some ways, will end in dominating the whole field. That happens because the new way of doing business will evolve faster than the old, established way. Why evolve, if it's the best and most lucrative way? And, when the old managers wake up, it's too late.
Please don't give microsoft any survival tips.
signed,
A guy who does not miss macro viruses. (or any viruses for that matter.)
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
For writing letters, you really want to have a decent keyboard, and for spreadsheets, something that is larger than a 5" screen is probably a very good idea as well.
Now you are making the same mistake as DEC and other such companies described by Clayton in his book: "how could the PC ever replace mainframes? it doesn't have enough memory, it has no access to tapes where all the data resides" etc.
The mistake you are making is that you are comparing today's incarnation of an ascending technology (blackberry) with a highly mature platform (PC). By the time the blackberry has gone through a few iterations it will come with holographic keyboard and retina-projection screen.
I work in the "business world". And for 6 months, I have written everything in OpenOffice.org. And I'd rather send everything in PDF because fonts will be preserved, and there's less chance of someone altering it.
MS Linux exists, and has existed, for a while. It'll appear whenever there's a business need for it.
You really need to read Clayton Christensen's book. In it he describes how the old technology company keeps on asking its customers "do you need this new technology (e.g. Linux)" and the customers keep on saying no, we don't, because the new technology is so disruptive that it comes with its own set of customers.
For example while M$ is busy asking corporate IT if they want Linux and OpenOffice instead of WinXP and MS Office, and they keep on hearing that no, they don't.
Meanwhile average joe blow keeps on buying RIM blacberry's at a rate of a million per quarter, and suddenly you have a widely deployed platform. And yes, it turns out joe blow does want Linux and OpenOffice in his blackberry.
So the "business need" never arose. M$ customers never asked for it. It was the non-customers who took over.
To put it succintly.
Linux is to Microsoft today
what Microsoft was to IBM/OS in the 80's:
A cheap low quality alternative.
Seems fate is not without a sense of irony.
- these are not the droids you are looking for -
Agreed, at times people seem to think that Microsoft could just implode one day due to a bad business decision and almost immediately cease to exist.
I think that Microsoft *as we know it* could implode one day doe to a bad business decision. Does this mean that they will still be making software? Don't know....
People seem to forget that if Microsoft were to completely pull out of the Operating System, Office, games and internet markets (and just about everything else) and devote themselves to say... selling sol.exe (Solitaire for the non windows persons) for a dozen different platforms... even without a single sale, the pile of cash they are sitting on, in addition to their assets would be sufficient to keep them afloat for many many years.
The business has decided to give away a large portion of its cash pile to its stockholders in the form of a buyback program and a huge dividend.
That is not to say that Microsoft could not sustain their operations for a long time via debt financing...
Now, the software suffers from an extreme economy of scale (variable costs are very low, fixed costs are very high), so if sales of Windows start to fall, it impact's Microsoft's budget really fast. THey are still forecasting something like 6% growth next year. But what happens if they end up losing market share to Linux? They can afford to cut prices *now* without endangering their operations, but if they lose market share this will not necessarily be the case.
Microsoft is under attack from multiple angles from rapidly maturing and credible compeition: OpenOffice, Linux, etc. These programs threaten their conjoined twin cash cows of Windows and Office. And if they can get 30% of the market (assuming no market growth), they will render Windows and Office unprofitable at current prices and budgets. Even half that would cut their profit by 50%. Now if the market grows those numbers grow with it, of course. At that point, Microsoft can either increase prices (damage their competitivity) or cut costs (pay programmers less and spend less on marketing, thus damaging their competitivity).
At this point, I do not see a long-term future for Windows in the face of Linux. And by the time Longhorn ships, we may be at a critical point.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Available candidates:
Christensen tells you not to listen to your customers too much.
Drucker says that above all you must listen to your customers.
Peters says you must have a corporate culture in place and it's more important that you follow the values of the corporate culture than what those values happen to be.
I'm afraid I don't remember the name of the current that stress how vital it is to deliberately piss off and drive away the customers that are costing you money (e.g. by asking for tech support)...
Whatever you feel like doing with your customers, you can find a management "expert" to back you up.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!