Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft, Massachusetts, and IT
Andy Updegrove writes "A big story in Massachusetts last week was the announcement by Microsoft that it would give $30 million in software to Bay State high schools and universities. Less noticed was the fact that an important economic stimulus bill adopted by the legislature lacked the amendment that sought to gut the power of the State CIO to set any new IT policies that might require compliance with certain standards (like ODF) or favor open source software. Should these two dots be connected, and if so, how? After all, why would Microsoft reward Massachusetts for taking no action to curtail an IT policy that favored ODF and rejected Microsoft's own XML format, especially after Microsoft has by all accounts lobbied so aggressively to bring about a change? As it happens, the fact is that the game isn't over yet: I've learned that the IT policy language hasn't been permanently defeated — its just been shifted out of sight to an 'outside section' of the current budget bill."
For those software companies that don't have an academic injection strategy, I suggest you develop one.
Depending on the complexity/use of your software, you put it either in the primary schools (K-12) or secondary schools (colleges). And you make it free and secure. Use license pools/server or anything to get your product into the learning process. That's where the money is. That's where you ensure your future.
Back in my undergrad days, I had access to Matlab, Pro Engineer, Mathematica, MSDN licenses, Windows XP, Rational Rose, the list goes on. I think it was Macintosh that originally discovered that putting your technology into the hands of your youth ensures your future. Why? Because Americans are predominantly lazy and we hate to climb learning curves. Macs especially build a sort of security sense that the user is safe and the machine is super friendly.
You might call this the "bottom up" approach to seeding the public with your product. Because the students aren't customers but one day they will be raised to be customers and they will decide what will be used. If you don't believe this model works, you're a fool. Time and time again I've caught myself saying, I wish I could just script this in Matlab and let it dump it to an Excel sheet. It's not that it would be easier, it's just that I know precisely how to do computations in Matlab due to my undergrad years of using it.
Now you have Microsoft trying to stop a "top down" effect in Massachusetts. Whereby they try their "MSDN Academic Alliance" strategy targeting a state's public schools. But why are they only targeting Massachusetts? Probably because of the ODF movement in the state government. If the government mandates that everyone (schools included) use ODF files and ODF software, where does that leave Microsoft? No longer the primary tool of the children, that's where.
What's the lesson to learn from this article? The squeaky wheel gets the oil!
Not enough funding for computers and software at your school? Well then, simply alert your local media and just try to enforce the ODF standard. I think you'll find that Microsoft will suddenly come (with the national media) to meet all your software needs!
My work here is dung.
Regardless of the reasons why Microsoft donated the software the end result is that the kids are the winners. Their schools are now going to have some money that would have been spent on software that can now be spent on other things to improve their education. Motives aside, is that such a bad thing?
Should these two dots be connected, and if so, how?
Please tell me you're not from the US -- please!
Because if you're from the US the question is the height of naivete and clearly demonstrates you don't have a clue about how US politics work and the levels of bribery and corruption inherent in US politics.
Sometimes donations and campaign contributions are more akin to extortion payments than bribes.
Like Microsoft's monopoly or not (I don't), they ran into problems in the late 90s because they didn't give out much campaign contributions. They learned their lesson well.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
They want the schools to use Microsoft everything. They failed to change policy that would give people choice, so now they're just giving people Microsoft software.
Having a software monopoly helps to hold the monopoly together. They're smart, so they seek to maintain their monopoly even when it causes them to lose money.
In short, this is just a good investment for Microsoft.
Microsoft is embracing Open Source, haven't you heard? It's been all over Slashdot these last few days. Don't worry about Massachusetts, look some other direction. Hey! Look over there! A two-headed chicken...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
At the bottom of the
Microsoft offered $30 Million in *SOFTWARE* license. That's not money. That's advertising. It's the same principle as drug dealers on the corner of the street offering free shots. Once the kids are hooked, they have nowhere else to go.
The schools can keep their $30 Million in the pocket when they use Open Source software just as well. The difference being that in a year from now they can get the next version for free too...
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
Actually, yes. Unlike almost anyone else on line, I use my own name, so that people can tell when I (unlike, I'm sure, many others) offer their own writing. I've had c. 25 of my pieces taken by Slashdot, some submitted by me and some by others, presumably because the editors think I have something to say that other's would like to read - not just the news, but perspective on that news. Also, I have personally broken many of the most important stories in the ODF saga, such as Peter Quinn's resignation, the approval by ISO/IEC, and now the shifting of the public amendment to a budget bill, out of sight. - Andy (not "anonymous coward", not a pseudonym, and not with the "post anonymously block" checked)
Microsoft has a long history of donating to charity and then taking a large tax deduction for the full retail price of the product. Since the physical manufacturing costs are so low for software after the initial investment of developing it, free software for education is both a PR win for Microsoft as well as well as a great tax shelter. But more importantly the schools that accept their software will now be future customers. And, the kids that use them will grow up to be consumers. They have been doing this for some time. They even give themselves the full retail sales price deduction for the software which is not customary among corporate donators (or at least it was not in the past).
And don't forget about the anti-trust settlement which allowed them to print money in the form of free software on CDs. Now, that's a sweet deal any company would jump at. Apple's opposed the deal since it hurt them.
Yet even in the US I recently read on a republican blogger's page someone comparing emacs (she called it emac) with M$ Word and dubbing emacs of being a word processor of lesser quality.
Let's be fair here; being uninformed about what emacs is, and writing a poor comparison in her blog has NOTHING to do with being a Republican.
If Mass. can deploy OO.o or other office tools for free, then the value of M$'s office tools to those same institutions is...essentially nothing. So what we are finding is that M$ is giving away software that is being given away by others anyhow. Granted OO.o isn't the same thing, doesn't have the same shine or finish to it, and is probably several years behind M$ in terms of features, but I am willing to bet that the vast majority of schools and schoolkids won't notice the difference.
Heck, I use office products all day every day, on one machine that has M$ office, and one that has OO.o and I can't say that I have noticed a significant difference in terms of my productivity, either.
Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.
Never forget: 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
>Is this their new business model? Bribery and intimidation?
"New"?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
perhaps 'education' is best served by teaching students the principles of spreadsheets, wordprocessors, and presentations, rather than 'click button X to accomplish task Y'?
If that were the case, then perhaps educated students would be able to rapidly adapt to new interfaces rather than being stuck when a different product (or a new version of the product they were schooled on) is put in front of them?
IMO, kids that memorize button positions rather than learning principles are always going to be less productive, as even the same exact product will go through version changes, menus are replaced with ribbons, the UI flavor of the day (say docking windows or floating animated helpers) is tried out, etc.
IME, the real world in IT is one of constant change, and the folks best positioned to thrive there are the ones who are able to easily cope with multiple interfaces to the same basic task or principle.
This isn't a reward: this is good marketing. It's marketing because it costs Microsoft next to nothing to give software away (they've already paid to create it, and MA wouldn't buy it from them -- hence, very little lost $$). However, by giving it to students, they can train future generations on their software, thus helping to lock them into Windows & Office. When these students go out into the Real World, their only software experiences will be on MS stuff -- and thus, their employers will have incentives to use MS stuff rather than retrain them for something else. It's good marketing because, as stated above, it doesn't cost MS much $$. And smart companies always jump at the chance for cheap marketing.
/dev/random
Maybe you are really bad at teaching your students then. The "basics" of word processing, using a spreadsheet, or creating a presentation typically apply across most office suites. Rather than teaching students to memorize exactly how Microsoft wants you to do things why not teach them to think logically and learn how to "learn" and adapt.
When I was growing up and going through grade school MS Office didn't have the monopoly it does now. I learned on Word Perfect, a bit on Lotus products, and some other package on an old Apple. Today, unfortunately, I have the great pleasure of having to work with MS Office all the time. I am still able to do my job, and quit well. So did not learning MS Office specifically in high school disadvantage me? Absolutely not!
Teach your students...don't brainwash them
The schools would have a lot more than $30 million if they didn't spend any money at all on commercial software, using free software instead. Free software in schools is interesting in that it's one thing that's both better and cheaper at the same time.
What constitutes a better education? Should children learn to push buttons, or should they learn the fundamentals? Using MS-Office in schools because that's what most of them will use professionally later is like having them read the National Enquirer instead of Moby Dick.
Microsoft wins when it stick a new generation of kids with its software. The kids will then be on the "Microsoft track", much more likely to use their Microsoft skills to ensure more Microsoft software is bought for them, and the people they communicate with, for the rest of their lives.
With so many colleges, Massachusetts is very influential in forming "software habits", apart from its rank as the 4th most populous state.
If Microsoft can use those "free bags" of smack to lure the state into making Microsoft's brand of junk into law, that's a big bonus. But just getting the kids hooked is worth doing, even if they have to wait for the state to require addiction.
--
make install -not war
Recently governments in the US have begun working only for people who make the most campaign donations and not doing what is best for all. If the government were to invest its vast resources into supporting OSS instead of closed solutions, then all of the people would reap the benefits of their investment and not just a select few. I agree the government should be pragmatic in determining what to spend tax dollars on, but OSS is as capable or better than most of the same closed form solutions.
OSS also promotes transparency which always an improvement for government. The ideals that F/OSS promotes are beneficial enough for the government to spend a little extra money on implementation (if it is more expensive).
I work for the government and I know there are many cases when the government doesn't choose the cheapest option for reasons that are far less important.
So 50k machines out and say $300 per seat (IMO way too low but ...) equals $15M USD in hardware upgrade costs.
Before people freak clearly some machines would need replacing anyways but how many could be still used if they running something like ubuntu, xubuntu (lighter system requirements than the stock ubuntu) or even pupply gnu/linux? Why not phase in the upgrades and squeak an extra year or two out of the older hardware?
This is not a dig against MS but at the MA elected folks that agreed to this IMO costly "gift".
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST