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?"

29 of 240 comments (clear)

  1. Google is OSS by Cytlid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Google is Google because of things like Linux and OSS.

    Linux/OSS are the tools which allow Google to exist.

      I'm just waiting for the next big Google.

    --
    FLR
    1. Re:Google is OSS by Revotron · · Score: 3, Funny

      Microsoft had innovation?

      Maybe Traf-O-Data, but even that's a stretch...

    2. Re:Google is OSS by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Google, aside from its use of linux (which it could do without supporting FOSS in any other way incidentally, if it wanted to), has no choice but to pally up with FOSS if they want to keep profits up.

      FOSS would pose just as big a danger to them as it does to microsoft if they did otherwise.

      A tad cynical perhaps, but you can bet if they thought there was more money in closed source than open, they'd go that way.

      One more thing, where is the source for gmail? Or google maps (not the API), or many other google projects. If they're so into the foss, why are so many of their 'free' offerings all but proprietary in nature?

    3. Re:Google is OSS by RAMMS+EIN · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ``One more thing, where is the source for gmail? Or google maps (not the API), or many other google projects. If they're so into the foss, why are so many of their 'free' offerings all but proprietary in nature?''

      All but proprietary? How is Google implementing an appliaction they don't provide source for, but do publish an API for, different from, say, Microsoft implementing something they don't provide source for, but do publish an API for? Wait! I'll tell you how it's different. With Microsoft, you run the software and you store your data. With Google, they run the software and they store your data.

      --
      Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
    4. Re:Google is OSS by FudRucker · · Score: 4, Funny

      GNUgle?

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    5. Re:Google is OSS by darkfire5252 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A tad cynical perhaps, but you can bet if they thought there was more money in closed source than open, they'd go that way.

      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.
    6. Re:Google is OSS by rucs_hack · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They sell services not software. That doesn't mean they're so retarded to put themselves out of business by giving away source code that competitors could use to setup their own Gmail service and not use Google's.

      The whole idea of a service over software model is that the source code can be given away, it's the service that makes the cash.

      And no-one would bother setting up another gmail using the gmail source. They'd have to differentiate themselves significantly to appeal to the massed gmail users, or current non gmail users. That wouldn't be trivial.

      The point of opening the source is that while others can take it for use in their own things, they can also add to it and google could have those additions back.

    7. Re:Google is OSS by LingNoi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      That's all great yet you completely ignored my point. Why would they bother to create direct competitors with their services?

      They give back source code for many different projects but it would be completely stupid to give away the source code to Gmail because they would loose more then they gain.

      You need to stop looking at the advantages to yourself and look at what they get out of releasing code. It's their code they can do what they want with it.

      The whole idea of a service over software model is that the source code can be given away, it's the service that makes the cash.
      This boggles me. Yes it's the service that makes cash so why would they risk creating more companies offering the same service they are?

      I don't understand what opening the source code has to do with providing software as a service as you just wrote.

      "Software as a service" would be more akin with paying so much a year and getting free support, upgrades and bug fixes. You don't need to open source the code or distribute it for free to sell it as a service. I would describe what your are saying as an open source business model which differs slightly.
  2. Since when are these even direct competitors? by kapowaz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Google are an advertising company. Anything it invests in is done with the ultimate objective of selling more advertising. Microsoft is a software company who have, admittedly, recently taken an interest in Search tools, but not with the objective of selling advertising so much as adding value to its own software and services. One of the reasons Google doesn't talk up any direct competition with Microsoft is because they're not direct competitors. Until they're both directly selling software to the same target market this will remain the case.

    1. Re:Since when are these even direct competitors? by babbling · · Score: 5, Insightful

      GMail versus Hotmail.
      Live Search versus Google Search.
      Google Earth versus Virtual Earth.
      Windows Mobile versus Google Android.
      Google Docs and Google Pack (contains StarOffice) versus Microsoft Office.
      Google pumping money into Free Software (Summer of Code, employment of key developers) versus pretty much any proprietary software (Windows, Office, IE) that Microsoft tries to sell.

      The main way in which they're not competing is where their primary profit lies. Google doesn't make much money off software distribution yet, and Microsoft's primary source of revenue isn't advertising yet. There are certain areas (eg. document applications, mobile phone operating systems) where they plan to make money in different ways. Google wants to display ads alongside your documents, whereas Microsoft wants you to buy their office suite. Google is developing Android to get as many phones as they can internet-enabled so that people use the internet more and are exposed to more of their ads, whereas Microsoft wants mobile phone manufacturers to pay them a license fee for each mobile phone running Windows Mobile.

      I think we're all familiar with Microsoft's business strategy. It's fairly simple: they sell software. It works well. (or at least it has until now)

      Google's strategy makes it look like they're diversifying because of all the products they're launching, but I think they're actually just trying to put their ad network in as many different places as possible. They've done it for search, documents, emails, and videos. They're looking at putting internet onto phones across a wider audience, and they're surely hoping that some new types of services will emerge that are compatible with their advertising model.

    2. Re:Since when are these even direct competitors? by spisska · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Microsoft is a software company who have, admittedly, recently taken an interest in Search tools [...]

      MS is an OS and applications company that has recently taken an interest in search tools, and advertising, and game consoles, and live services, and mapping, and portable music hardware, and low-end laptops, and enterprise servers, and smartphones, and content delivery, and standards, and anything else involving binary code that they can get their hands into.

      The problem with MS is that they've lost focus on the business that built and sustains them -- Windows and Office. As it stands, Office is still the must-have application, which drives every business in which MS is successful. Replace Office, and you no longer need Windows, Exchange, MS Server, MS SQL, etc. None of their other activities are successful -- they're either gaping sinkholes of cash or so marginally profitable that they're unsustainable for anyone not sitting on $50 billion in cash.

      What Google gets right is that their entire business is focused on the core of search, advertising, and the organization of information. Everything they do points straight back to and reinforces the core business.

      Google's business is possible thanks to OSS tools, and Google deserves respect for going well beyond what is required under OSS licenses and actively contributing code and developer time to projects that are only marginally related, or completely unrelated to their core business. This doesn't cause them to lose focus, but it does keep their developers sharp and happy, and able to approach problems in completely new ways.

      Take the office suite, for example. MS' big innovation for the new Office: a redesigned interface that many users, at least initially, find confusing and frustrating. It's interesting but not really necessary, and it's inexcusable that there's no mechanism to display menus in a way that users are already used to. With the Google office tools (which admittedly are nowhere near ready to replace MS Office) you get something that really is groundbreaking: the ability for multiple people to edit the same document at the same time.

      There's also the difference in how these companies view business and threats. In MS' case, they see a threat in every business sector they don't control outright, and in many they do but where there are still upstarts who can't be bought, bullied, or sued. For companies like Google and others who rely on and develop OSS, competition means better software and improved opportunities for all.

      MS isn't going away any time soon and there will always be a place for proprietary software. But increasingly proprietary solutions will be limited to niche professional markets (AutoCAD, ProTools, Premier etc), common applications will move from desktop to server and become platform-agnostic (office suites, email/calendaring, collaboration and versioning), and OSS apps will become increasingly robust and capable for armchair enthusiasts and pros alike (Ardour, GIMP, Cinelerra, My/PostgreSQL, etc).

      MS can look for threats wherever it wants and they will find a lot. But the real threat doesn't come from any particular company, sector, or application. It's environmental -- the platform will simply become less and less relevant as time moves on. The real threat is that MS won't see this and won't react in time. It will be the beginning of the end as soon as there is a platform-neutral, drop-in replacement for Office + Outlook + Exchange + Sharepoint. We're not there yet, but the day is fast approaching.

  3. Missing option.. by Ckwop · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft's biggest enemy, at the moment is its self.

    After Vista they proved they've gotten far to large a head count to innovate. Unless they slim down their development team, they're going to go the way IBM did in the early 90s.

    Simon.

    1. Re:Missing option.. by QuietLagoon · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Microsoft's biggest enemy, at the moment is its self.

      It goes beyond the fact that Microsoft has lost its ability to innovate, though that is a significant portion.

      Microsoft still has the zero sum mindset, i.e., either it wins it all, or it walks away. Microsoft will do whatever needs to be done in order to preserve what it has, including watching the market move past them. Microsoft will always be the dominant player on the desktop, Microsoft's monopoly will assure that. However, what Microsoft's monoploy cannot prevent is another entity making the desktop significantly less important. Once the desktop loses its importance, Microsoft's very foundation is weakened.

      Unless they slim down their development team, they're going to go the way IBM did in the early 90s.

      The computing paradigm shifted away from IBM's mainframes in the early 90s. Will the paradigm shift away from Microsoft's desktops?

    2. Re:Missing option.. by Hangtime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Plenty of very good companies still have a zero-sum mindset and it works. Take for instance GE. GE wants to 1 or 2 in any industry in which it competes. If it can't it will divest the business and move-on. The reason? Regardless of what industry you inhabit, if you are NOT 1 or 2 you will be constantly battling for survival.

      BTW, every device I have wants to be hooked up to my PC including my Tivo, my phone, my camera, etc. If anything the proliferation of devices is making the desktop more important - not less. We are starting to see a network effect. It easy to have the PC as the hub because its a standard platform in which everything can interact.

  4. What did you say? by bogaboga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...Meanwhile, the search giant is pushing open source in every way it can....

    That statement refers to Google. While I recognize Google's contribution to Open Source by the mentioned means, I would not give it that much credit.

    Why is it that Picasa still does not run natively on Linux?

    Why is it that one cannot specify ODF as among the file formats available for search, http://www.google.ca/advanced_search?hl=en despite the fact that ODF has been in existence for several years and some estimates put the number of ODF documents on the web in greater numbers as compared to Microsoft's OOXML?

    Why is it that new products appear for the closed Windows platform before thet appear for the open Linux platform? They should appear simultaneously. [Emphasis mine].

    1. Re:What did you say? by sapphire+wyvern · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Why is it that new products appear for the closed Windows platform before thet appear for the open Linux platform? They should appear simultaneously. [Emphasis mine]."

      Surely that's obvious.

      It comes down to one thing: Google's products are intended to be profitable, not primarily to serve an ideology. Sure, Google does have an ideology, but they are also a business.

      And when it comes down to actually making a crust, what's more important... supporting an ideologically-rewarding OS, or actually getting your products out to a significant share of the marketplace?

  5. Kill office to kill MS by schklerg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People run windows primarily because of the applications on it. The most significant of these is MS Office. The competitors lack true compatibility with all MS generated files, which makes it tough to go with another office suite, no matter how good it is. I'm an open office fan, but there's some formatting that just doesn't work. Break MS Office dominance with another cross-platform app, be it from Google or anyone else, and you have put a HUGE dent in MS. Not only will the office cash cow lose some weight, but the perceived need for Windows will drop as well.

    --
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    1. Re:Kill office to kill MS by hal9000(jr) · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The competitors lack true compatibility with all MS generated files,

      I am glad you said this AND that you got modded up. Office is the app to kill. Make one that is better, works seamlessly with Office docs and you've got a chance. I use Office because I don't have the time or the desire to dick around with formatting issues and alot of companies are on the same playing field.

      But let me also add, making an Office killer is not as simple as making a word processor, spread sheet, and presentation app. Office is a *development environment* and many, many companies use the programatic capabilities of Office to build apps that cal pull on different parts of the office suite. Those programmatic features are used by companies, not necessarily consumers and I will posit that company sales drive Office profits more than consumer sales. so I think to reall make a dent, any competing office suite has to either run Office apps/macros/scripts or interpret/convert existing office apps/macros/scripts as well.

  6. Microsoft's greatest enemy is? by Fri13 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Greatest enemy for Microsoft, is Microsoft self.

    If they dont stop using monopoly for advance and supporting open standards, they get big enemies like EU.

    Microsoft would stay biggest software company if they would work together with industry, open standards and support competitors (Opera, Firefox, Openoffice.org etc) by ripping browser and mediaplayer off from OS (why OS should have red eye remover and music library?) so users can use what they want. Microsoft could install IE and WMP and other tools if they want to non-OEM windows version, but should allow OEM manufactures and end-users to remove them and install something else if wanted. Of course this would mean that Microsoft should start innovating and building better products and not just one big package what some people calls "OS", even it is more than just OS.

    GNU/Linux and different distributions from it what includes different desktops and applications, isn't biggest enemy, yet! But it is big wheel what can turn MS weapons against MS itself.

  7. ibm, ms and google by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    Then MS will suddenly become a much loved company around here, 'cause 'round these parts, supporting OSS = /. love

    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.-
  8. Will MS no longer be needed? by bmartin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The groundwork is already in place: Top OEMs are beginning to install alternate OSs on their machines. If Google has their way, most computing will eventually be done using thin clients; at that point, the internet and computing will become ubiquitous, and MS will no longer be a factor.

    The main reason people use Windows is because other operating systems don't meet their needs. It's mainly a software thing, such as is the case for PC gaming (which is still ahead of consoles, but not by as much as in the past). Wine is a helpful product in that it eases the transition for many people, but it's not a complete replacement for Windows yet.

    Since things like a suitable alternative for Photoshop (e.g., super GIMP) and a fully-featured Wine aren't going to appear over night, it'll be a long time before MS becomes irrelevant... unless computing moves online. Most business software is either written for Linux already (e.g., development IDEs) or can be COMPLETELY replaced by a combination of FOSS (e.g. Outlook -> Evolution). I replaced my Windows workstation with a Linux workstation at my last job when I became fed up with the task scheduling and constant SSHing in Windows (I had to work on Unix systems anyways).

    People are leaving Windows. It's a very slow but consistent process. Every piece of commercial software developed for Linux is a blow to MS. Every computer running Mac OS X is a blow to MS. A lot of little things will bring down MS; it's inevitable. Google, though not a direct competitor, is a huge point of leverage.

    Don't think Google's going to come out with Google OS. That's not in their plans. Their idea is to make the OS an irrelevant piece of software when it comes to doing your everyday computing tasks. MS is going to have to come up with a new strategy if they want to cease the antitrust legislation against them.

    --
    "You could almost look at defense of Microsoft as a form of the Stockholm syndrome." -neapolitan
  9. Still a secretive monopoly. by McDutchie · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Meanwhile, the search giant is pushing open source in every way it can.

    While remaining even more secretive and becoming even more of a monopoly than Microsoft on things that actually matter, like their search and advertising business, to say nothing of their total disregard for privacy.

    Can you say 'divide and conquer'? Thought you could.

  10. Microsoft is its own worst competition by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem with all the fences Microsoft built to protect itself is that fences not only fence out the competition, they also fence yourself into a corner. Just as the music industry's practices are what doom them, Microsoft has so much invested in reinventing the wheel to lock customers in that they dare not do anything truly innovative that would break the lockin. If they came out with any disruptive ideas, their customers would have to break their Microsoft lockin by definition, and if the customers had to face that choice, they might just as well use the chance to break away from Microsoft altogether.

    History dooms Microsft.

  11. Neither by Nebu · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    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 .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).

    For the server side technology, Microsoft doesn't directly make money off of these (they give away .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).

    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

  12. Microsoft's biggest threat is Microsoft. by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In my humble and unsubstantiated opinion, Microsoft is Microsoft's biggest threat. They have too many products and too many people, and it has made them uncompetitive. If they refocus on their core business, they can come back. Google and other OSS competitors are superfluous.

    Microsoft's Products include:
    Accounting software (5 distinct huge business packages plus Microsoft Money and a dozen bolt-on applications); Hardware (Mice, Keyboards, Joysticks, cameras, headsets, and game gear); Operating Systems (Servers, workstations, mobile devices, and embedded devices); online services (MSN, Live services, Search, Groups... this is a huge list); database services (Sql Server), Groupware (Exchange), Office Suites (Office, Works), 3 distinct sets of Mapping software, drawing software, desktop publishing software, Reference software, a graphing calculator application, Hardware and software media players, online media services with varying levels of compatibility, tv set top boxes, a dozen different development languages which may or may not be integrated into visual studio.. The list goes on and on,

    OSS is one of several competitors offering an alternative for people to switch away from MS products. If oss ceased to exist, some other competitor would arise. That is how a free market works.

    -Ellie

    p.s. Google, pay attention, you are spreading out too. Diversification is good, but stay good at what makes you great.
    1. Re:Microsoft's biggest threat is Microsoft. by dave87656 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Microsoft has been successful only in its ability to remove competition and control protocols. What real innovation has MS brought to the table? When you look at where they concentrate their efforts, it's in threatening competitors with IP lawsuites, buying out competitors and trying to own/control protocols to make sure noone else can play.

      Any successful computer-related product anywhere threatens MS.

  13. The Biggest Threat: Educated Customers by IronClad · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  14. Re:The True Measure by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Informative

    2006 Annual Net Income (IBM & GOOG don't show 2007 yet):
    MSFT: $12,599,000,000
    IBM: $9,492,000,000
    GOOG: $3,077,446,000

    What is amazing is Google's growth:

    2006 - $3,077,446,000
    2006 - $1,465,397,000
    2006 - $399,119,000

  15. The money machine which is Microsoft by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative
    they're either gaping sinkholes of cash or so marginally profitable that they're unsustainable for anyone not sitting on $50 billion in cash.

    Microsoft had a stand-out first quarter.

    Each of the company's five business divisions showed double-digit revenue growth.

    That was particularly important in the Client Div., the group where Microsoft counts Windows sales. There, revenue jumped 25%, to $4.1 billion, an astonishing gain for a mature market Microsoft Results Turn Heads

    Retail sales of Office 2007 have been breathtaking, numbers so big that they are difficult to grasp:

    Through end of November, U.S. retail PC software sales are up 10.3 percent year over year as measured in dollar volume...By comparison, Office sales are up 50.7 percent, by the same measure and in the same time frame.

    "Here's the really interesting statistic," said...NPD's director of Software Industry Analysis. "Over two-thirds of the dollar volume growth in the U.S. retail PC software market in 2007 can be attributed to Microsoft Office. In other words, the ratio of Office dollar growth to total PC software growth is 67 percent."

    The "magnitude of Office sales relative to the rest of the PC software market" is phenomenal, "It's the massively huge tail wagging the dog. If the senior execs at Best Buy, Office Depot, etc. don't buy Jeff Raikes [president of Microsoft's Business division] a beer the next time he's in town, something is seriously wrong." The Year of Office 2007

    Microsoft hasn't forgotten the Mac. From the same story:

    For Black Friday, Microsoft offered a surprising deal: for about 56 bucks, after rebates, Office 2004 Student and Teacher Edition and the forthcoming Office 2008 Special Media Edition. The new, top-of-the-line Mac Office version would otherwise sell for about $500.

    As measured in dollars, U.S. retail Black Friday sales of Mac Office were up 215.8 percent.