Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Biggest Threat - Google or Open Source?
Glyn Moody writes "Google always plays down suggestions that there's any looming clash of the titans between itself and Microsoft. Meanwhile, the search giant is pushing open source in every way it can. They're contributing directly by contributing code to projects and employing top hackers like Andrew Morton, Jeremy Allison and Guido van Rossum, and indirectly through the $60 million fees it pays Mozilla, its Summer of Code scheme and various open source summits held at its offices. Google+OSS: could this be the killer combination that finally breaks Microsoft?"
Microsoft is the new IBM.
Huge company, which will never go away, but where innovation has died a long time ago.
After a few years, Google will follow them.
The Natural way of big companies.
I'm waiting for the day when Microsoft begins to wither and die under its own weight, and at the last minute, pulls an IBM, investing heavily in OSS to keep itself going more cost effectively.
/. love
Then MS will suddenly become a much loved company around here, 'cause 'round these parts, supporting OSS =
Then, in a need to fill the void left by Microsoft, Google will suddenly become the big bad guy. All of us on Slashdot will be praising Microsoft and hoping they can take down the big evil google.
or we could agree that both of these companies fulfil a certain niche that the other company cannot, and we need them both. one company provides employment for countless nerds due to its buggy software, while the other company helps those nerds find things, (like porn)
They are not in direct competition with each other.
-I only code in BASIC.-
Microsoft needs to stop selling new versions of Windows and Office, and transition to a yearly subscription model.
This would generate revenue while letting them hop off of the new version cycles that are intended to force upgrades without adding much in new features that out weigh the penalties of more and more problems.
I used to like Windows more than I do now. I shipped a commercial product on Windows 1.03 and for some business needs I still keep a Windows 2000 image on my MacBook.
Anyway I like to feel that I get good value for my IT investments (I am a one person consulting shop) and right now, I feel that I get best value from a nicely loaded MacBook and several leased managed Linux servers for my own stuff and Linux or Solaris servers for customer projects.
As a Linux user since about 1992 (I downloaded Slackware on a 2400baud modem - ouch!!) I continue to be a little disappointed with the 'Linux on the laptop' experience but I might eventually replace my MacBook with a Dell Linux laptop: it would be nice to just deal with just Linux. I have all but stopped using Common Lisp and Java for consulting, sticking with just Ruby - after many years of investing *lots* of time staying up to speed on many technologies, it is a refreshing change to concentrate more on problem solving than a wide mix of technologies.
Except for rare use on my Windows 2000 image, I would not even consider using any form of Windows for development work.
To be a threat to Microsoft, you'd have to be a potential barrier to a large amount of future profits. Google is basically two things: (1) A search engine and (2) a wildcard, pouring money into almost everything. Microsoft is not strongly invested into the search area, so (1) is not a threat to it. In fact, Microsoft is more of a threat to Google in that respect, not because Microsoft is doing better than Google, but because Google is the "established champion", and Microsoft (among others, like Yahoo) are the encroachers who are trying to steal that title. As for (2), there's always a chance that Google will discover/invent the next big paradigm shift that changes everything, but then again, so can any other startup, or even maybe big companies like Apple or IBM, or hell even Microsoft themselves (the "Microsoft Surface" looks pretty sweet, for example, though I'm not sure it'll be big enough to be a paradigm shift). It's getting hit by a lightning bolt: a possibility, but not something you worry about from day to day.
.NET, IIS, etc. Honestly, I don't think Microsoft is very worried about Linux on the desktop. I find Microsoft hard to read in terms of OS on the server side, so it's possible they may actually be *WORRIED* (e.g. managers thinking "Hey, if we don't do something, Linux'll win"), but I'm not sure. I *DO* know that Microsoft is getting anxious about their Office software, which is their second biggest cashcow. It's not any-one particular alternative that they are afraid of (e.g. OpenOffice), but that there seems to be a growing awareness of alternatives that they're worried about. I suspect they're aware that this particular type of software is about to become commoditized and are looking at appropriate strategies (e.g. moving to software-as-a-service, via that Office Live thing).
.NET, IIS, etc. for free), but rather from surrounding services (e.g. certification, training, etc.) and products (e.g. Visual Studio). Note that this is the same business model that OSS software later adapted (give the software away for free, make money on the services), which is one of the reasons why I find comments about Microsoft being anti-OSS to be a form of over-simplified ignorance. Microsoft is a corporation, not a fundamentalistic ideal. If they can make more money through OSS than closed-source-software, they'll switch in a heartbeat. In the particular case of Apache vs IIS, it's like the Google scenario: Apache isn't a "threat", because Microsoft isn't strongly invested into that market -- Apache is -- and Microsoft is attempting to grow into that market, rather than to hold onto it (and they seem to be quite successful, much more so than they have been against Google: IIS adoption is growing very rapidly).
OSS is a bigger threat, mainly because of free office suites, and to a lesser degree Apache. Most of Microsoft's money comes from OSes, then from Office, and then services associated around server technology like
For the server side technology, Microsoft doesn't directly make money off of these (they give away
So what *ARE* Microsoft's biggest threats? Well, one of them is a little bit obvious when you look at their history, and what has caused them to lose the greatest amounts of money: Government and law. Microsoft is in a difficult position there, because their desktop business centers around pushing new and improved versions of their old product. Consumers, before they buy the next version of Windows, want to know what are the new and improved features, and if there aren't enough new and improved features, they won't spend the money to upgrade. However, if Microsoft adds too many new and improved features (e.g. by bundling a media player with their OS), they may get in trouble with certain governments (namely the British and US ones).
Software design jokes aside, Microsoft isn't dumb. They're already predicting, in the long term (10-20 years) that all of software will eventually become commoditized, and they have plans in place to move entirely in t
The most lucrative of Microsoft's business models seem to have been based on the exploitation of customer and regulatory naivete in a new market. If this is true, and as long as Microsoft doesn't really change, their biggest threat is to have there market grow up, mature, and educate themselves about what has been going on.
Both FOSS and Google help that education process, to different extents, and in different ways. So both are threats. Which is the biggest immediate threat? Whichever one manages to get its message into the dense brains of middle managers first. It's a hard call to make from here.
FOSS's advanced messages (freedom, collaboration, transparency, technical education, etc.) will take a long time to be understood. The FOSS "Free & Cheap Stuff" message is already catching on, but it's not enough of an education in its own right to undo Microsoft's abuses. FOSS supporters who work to thoroughly school their organizations and contacts in the issues do make a big impact.
But I think Google is in a somewhat better position to be the immediate threat. Why? It has a greater power to punch simple "soundbyte" messages, one at a time, into the psyche of of the huddled masses yearning to breath free. I don't know if they're going to do that or not, but they could, and that's the threat.
It's close to the topic of politics -- I don't like soundbytes but recognize their power over the naive. Political discourse would be different if the electorate were uniformly wise and educated on the issues. Not the way it should be, but more the way I think things are, and just my opinion.
MS has invested in the neighborhood of 10 figures into the XBox line. Revenues from the XBox to date are only 7 or 8 figures. This is a deficit of tens of millions of dollars -- which turns into hundreds of millions when you consider that the XBox hardware is sold at or below cost. MS may be getting mindshare and establishing a place in the market, but not many companies would lose hundreds of millions to gain a number-two spot and call it a success.
Google Maps makes Google money through advertising. That is their business. MS Maps (or whatever they've renamed it to lately) is a loss-leader that does more losing than leading. Business Lesson #1: Money coming in is better than money going out.
Gmail makes Google money through advertising. See Business Lesson #1.
Many 'regular users' are much older than you and don't like having to relearn to walk. I don't think that redesigning the interface was a bad idea, but it is a bad idea to force it on people who were quite happy with what they had. In other words, the new interface is useful but that's no reason to prevent people from working in a way they already know and are comfortable with.
I didn't suggest that Google docs is a replacement. It's not, and won't be for quite some time. But I do see in the future that there will be a very valuable place for small, lightweight, and truly portable apps for those times when a full-blown office suite is just overkill. Yes, I do need MS Office, and I do appreciate the power that it has, particularly Excel. But at the same time, I've quit trying to make Office apps do things they're not really designed to do. For example, Yes MS Word can do document layout. But I got sick of trying to wrestle with it and am unimpressed by the primitiveness of MS Publisher. So I've found it easier and better looking to use a text editor and Scribus. I do still need MS Office, but there's one less thing I need it for.
Considering all the wild promises MS has made over the years of Really Cool Stuff (TM) in development that will be ready any day now, I treat anything from them that isn't in production and available as pure vapor. This is no exception.
It's inevitable that a huge chunk of what now resides on the desktop will move to the server. Everyone, including MS, is aware of this and is moving in this direction. That doesn't mean that you won't be able to work without a connection -- everyone is also aware that networks go down or are unavailable at times. We'll both still be able to edit our presentations on the plane without a net connection. But when we are connected the work will be synced, so when we leave our laptop in the cab on the way back home, the presentation will have already been saved remotely. If this is not the way of the future, then why is MS developing Office Live?
> What do you mean none of their other activities are successful?
;-)
> The XBox 360 has become the best gaming platform for hardcore gamers,
Which is a niche-market to start with.
> beating out the over-hyped (and -priced) Playstation 3.
But it got beaten by the Wii, which has a broader appeal and is more "family-friendly".
Which you conveniently left-out
> I'd say MS's game console division is quite successful.
If you call sinking at least 6 billion in hard cash over the years before finally making a small profit in a single quarter (until now) "a success", then, yes, the division is successful.
There must even be people in MSFT who believe the same and pay the execs there boni.
But the fact is: MSFT will *never* make back the money they put into the XBox (and later projects) - it's a money sink that would have killed every other company. Though, investors would have stopped the project long ago.
Currently, MSFT seems to be suffocating from themselves. AAPL and GOOG are standing aside while counting their cash.
Especially AAPL: do you realize that AAPL currently sits on some 15 billion USD of hard cash, adding about, I think, between a half and a full billion per quarter to it? They don't have a single project (even Apple-TV) that doesn't at least turn a small profit.
> unless you're just using it for simple word processing (little more than a text editor could do)
Incidentially, that's how a large portion of the large amount of users who use MS-Word actually use it: like an electronic typewriter.
I wonder how many people actually use tabs...
MSFT probably knows - and has no answer to this other then removing or crippling wordpad.
Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
More than that, now that they're a publicly traded corporation the board can be sued by investors if Google knew that closed source was more profitable but chose not to pursue that route. Public corporations (unfortunately) have the sole purpose of maximizing shareholder value, and they are legally obligated to do so. Theoretically, a more socially oriented government could require corporations to have goals other than this, but this won't happen for a loong time, if ever.
I would have to say Microsoft's biggest problem is Steve Ballmer. Near as I can tell, his chief asset is a friendship with the big guy. I am not aware of a single other accomplishment that can be laid at his feet in his almost 30 year history with MS. Microsoft really needs someone new at the helm to reinvigorate the company. Somebody like Steve Jobs, or even a Jack Welch. Somebody who is willing to look at things differently and who is able to induce changes in a corporation with all the inertia of Microsoft. MS today reminds me a lot of IBM in the 80's. Pretty much worthless, and yet everyone saw it as invincible. IBM is still around, but has only a fraction of the influence it once had.
Has anyone considered what the future looks like for MS when I can use my I can use my Apple i device of choice in conjunction with WiMax to access FOSS and other applications running on Google servers?
I'm not a Microsoft fan-boy. In fact, our company is totally run on FOSS and we've never looked back at MS for anything other than pointing out to people how much freer we were without the Beast of Redmond on our backs. But I'm always left a little confused by the monopoly charge and, since you seem to have a solid understanding of their business practices, I'd like to see if you can set me straight.
By definition a monopoly is a market where there are many buyers but only one seller. A good example of a this would be Bell Telephone in the 1970's and early 1980's before they were broken up. In those cases, there were no other alternatives and Bell could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Competition was non-existent. Compare that to the so-called Microsoft monopoly. Microsoft creates Microsoft Windows and a hosts of other software for the consumer market. But, if you don't like them or their products there are other choices out there. Don't like Windows? Go to Linux or OS X. Don't like SQL Server? Go to MySQL or PostgreSQL, or Oracle, don't like Internet Explorer? Go to Firefox or Opera or any of the other browsers that set you free from Microsoft. In fact, for every piece of the Microsoft pie you don't like, there is almost always at least one alternative that is not controlled by Microsoft.
Sorry, that doesn't scream monopoly to me.
Now, people always bring up the fact that Microsoft has twisted vendors arms to only supply PC's with Windows and MS software. They've charged higher fees to vendors who refused to be exclusive and, rumor has it, that they've even threatened some vendors. Many point to this as evidence of Microsoft's monopoly power. I say it's rubbish.
It points to greedy vendors
Do you really believe that Microsoft would refuse to deal with a major PC vendor at reasonable prices if the PC vendor simply said "Fine. Raise licensing costs and we'll dump you totally. We'll go to Linux on all of our 5 million+ PC sales this year". If you look at it carefully, the problem isn't Microsoft here but the PC vendors supporting and even CREATING the so-called monopoly. Want to penalize someone? Penalize Dell or Gateway or Acer (all of whom now also offer Linux alternatives on at least some PC's).
The fact of the matter is Microsoft is not a monopoly. People gravitate to Windows and Microsoft software because 1) it's easy to use and 2) until VERY recently there were simply no other real alternatives out there. Add to that the fact that people tend to go with what's familiar and you can understand why Microsoft, even as evil as they are, are so powerful.
But there is hope. Because Microsoft is NOT a monopoly, competition is rising up all over the place. More importantly, that competition is slowing taking speed and gaining market share. It took Microsoft nearly 30 years to gain the market it has. Its eventual market overthrow isn't going to happen overnight. But, if you look at how fast the alternatives are gaining ground, it should give even the most die-hard Microsoft marketer nightmares and chills at night. And, it should give those of us who truly believe in Open Source reason to smile. It might not be as quick as we'd like, but change is happening.
My Company is 100% open source. We don't use Windows or Microsoft products for ANYTHING. We've never run into a problem that we couldn't find an open solution for and we'll never go back to Microsoft again. But getting us to that point took education and time. And that is what the market needs: education and time. And maybe a few Windows vs Linux commercials...
Anthony Papillion
Advanced Data Concepts, Inc.
"Quality Custom Software and IT Services"
Comment removed based on user account deletion