Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ties $235m IT Aid To Use of Windows
E5Rebel writes "Microsoft will spend $235m in schools worldwide over the next five years, part of a plan to
triple the number of students and teachers trained in its software programs to up to 270 million by 2013. 'Microsoft's investment shows how important it views developing markets to its future business. Last year, Microsoft introduced the Student Innovation Suite, which includes the XP Starter Edition plus educational applications, for $3 for qualifying countries. Microsoft faces heated competition from companies supporting the open-source OS Linux and associated software in developing countries. "I think as a company we welcome choice," [Orlando Ayala] said. "Frankly, we welcome the competition." The company's educational funding comes with a hitch: "Of course, that includes the fact they [the schools] use Windows," Ayala said.' If you don't use Windows you don't get the cash." Microsoft has long been interested in the education of children.
This isn't aid, its a subsidy to grow the Windows market. Aid would be focused on the end-goal of the people, not on the end-goal of the company.
This is a blatant case of a monopoly subsidising to establish itself in emerging markets.
The NYT has a page that is still up
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
I saw something similar to this this weekend as I was riding a bus to NYC. A billboard in Delaware or some other state said "FREE $50 When You Join!" referring to a casino membership. But in very fine print (hilariously fine for the size of the billboard) it said, "Money must be spent inside the casino within a half hour of joining." I remember thinking to myself, that sure is free.
How free is something when you're told what to spend it on? How free is money when it goes into a fund that invests in the United States companies and stock markets and you can't control that fund?
My answer would be 'not very' but, you know, when you see these 'donations' from the rich like Bill Gates, that seems to be the case every single time. I'm glad they're getting something, I'm upset about the strings attached. Better than nothing, yes. But sounding more and more like a fishy tax loophole or legacy purchase (he'll go down in history as a philanthropist no doubt) every day.
My work here is dung.
It looks like they are giving free software and support valued at the overinflated prices Microsoft gets for there product. Using this metric, Ubuntu is also donating $235 million to schools, students, businesses and people. (Support via Ubuntu Forums)
Maybe they're giving out, oh I dunno, licenses for Windows and free copies that amount to that much money? What the fuck do you expect them to do, buy the equivalent value of Macs and give that instead?
Isn't this pretty similar to what Apple was doing with schools back in the 80's?
Why wouldn't Microsoft offer support to Schools that teach Windows and not offer support to schools that do not?
This isn't some foundation it is a company. Sorry but this isn't shocking or news. Do you think Novell or Redhat would donate money to schools that teach Windows?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Isn't this sorta like those missionaries who will feed the starving if they convert?
Why would any decent school system accept an offer for a severely crippled OS at a severely discounted price when the school could just as easily get a full-featured OS for free?
If this is the best Microsoft can do to compete against free operating systems in the developing world, then they are throughly screwed. Even using an illegal full copy of XP would be a smarter decision than taking up this offer, despite the inherent liability involved.
MS can go ahead and fund Windows training... but they should call it 'funding Windows training' or 'advertising' or 'market capture' (depending how honest they want to be). Calling it 'foreign aid' is a stretch, and part of the problem.
There is also the fact that MS is, apparently, only offering free training to schools that agree to be purely Windows institutions. If a Linux outfit offered free support, but only on condition of NOT using any non-Linux software, you can be sure that the community would cry foul. Providing Windows-only support is fine. Providing support only to purely Windows institutes? Nasty.
Lastly, there is the usual monopoly issue. Things that might be fair game for most companies can quickly become unfair (even illegal) for monopolies. This appears to be another case of MS leveraging their existing dominance (and corresponding cash) to create a monopoly in a new market. Generally, allowing a monopoly to extend itself like this, at the expense of competitors, is a bad thing.
I seem to remember that along with using an existing monopoly to leverage one of the illegal sides of monopoly is the concept of predatory pricing, i.e. deliberately pricing a product well below it's market value in order to strike down a competitor.
With the cost of Windows as it is, "giving" software to schools along with a condition that they must be using Windows is about as predatory as you can get. What's the EU's phone number again?
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
It doesn't cost Ubuntu anything (in practical terms) to do that. It does cost Microsoft to do that. Microsoft pays people to work for them. Time absolutely is money.
You know, this wouldn't have happened without Linux. They'll charge as much as they can get away with. I guess they are starting to see real competition.
This is an example of how evil Microsoft is. They'll donate some "thing" only as long as it contributes to their business. Why this is wrong is pretty subtle. They have no intention of saving anyone any money. Typically with contributions, the outcome is a net gain for the organization receiving the contribution. Not with this deal, this will be a net loss for the schools receiving the "grants." Only the costs will be differed.
The "training" microsoft is talking about is their typical "training" where general concepts and understanding is not part of the instructional course except where necessary to use their product. If you have ever taken any Microsoft training courses you'll know what I'm talking about. A networking class is not about networking, but about "their" networking tools.
I have taken a couple Microsoft courses for various reasons, and have always come away saying (1) that was a huge waste of time. (2) It was like a big commercial for Microsoft products. (3) It was useless in any practical sense.
Now, all these nicely trained people aren't going to be looking at the cost-saving alternatives like OpenOffice and/or Linux, nope, they'll be revved up to buy MS Office and Windows (because that's what they were trained on!)
My Advice, when Microsoft offers you anything for free, turn it down, because it will always end up costing you.
Considering MS is already talking about Vista's replacement next year with Windows 7, is anyone else shocked that they are continuing to put development resources into XP?
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I am reminded of that Simpson's episode with the Oscar Myer periodic chart with "bolognium" and "delicium."
I think schools should turn this msft "gift" down. There is nothing that msft is offering, that does not have a free alternative.
I am sure a lot of people will label me a linux zealot. But the truth is, I completely understand that linux is not for everybody. But schools are a different matter. Schools should teach vendor-neutral concepts. Students should not be taught that vendor specific jargon and standards are somehow universal. For example, what msft calls a "domain" is different than what is commonly understood. I already notice a lot of students thinking that anything non-msft is non-standard.
Unlike commercial institutions, students do not have the same concerns about the acceptance of vendor specific document formats. For example, some accountants will only accept Intuit formated income statements - so some small businesses have to use Intuit, but students should be able to learn the concepts of accounting, and accounting concepts, without being tied to a specific vendor.
Again, I want to emphasize: students should be taught *concepts* then those concepts can be applied to software from any vendor. Schools should not be in the business of promoting a particular vendor - especially if that vendor does not offer anything that is that freely available anyway.
Sometimes it is very difficult to avoid vendor-lock, but for students, it's easy. So why be vendor locked if you don't have to be?
Let me see now. 270 million newly trained people for Microsoft applications. $235 million dollars being spent to train up said people. Cost of training 1 person $870 thousand US dollars.
I prefer alternatives to Microsoft applications, but if Microsoft would just pay me the $870 thousand US dollars to me directly I would gladly learn all the Microsoft applications. No one said I had to continue using them after I learned to use them.
Regards,
Ryan Pritchard
Fun Extends All Basic Life Expectancies
Wouldn't want kids to have any training on the software they're going to be using in the real world now would we?
When I was at school we were trained on Acorns (as was pretty much everyone in the UK at the time). Certainly not what is used in industry. I'm not convinced this caused harm - if anything I think it helped develop the skills needed to use *any* system rather than just learning MS software by rote.
In any case, whether you teach kids MS Office or OpenOffice when they are at school, by the time they get out into the real world no office software will look much like what they learnt - teaching the principles involved in using the software is far more important than teaching the software itself since the principles are transferable to whatever software they end up using in the real world - whether that be the latest greatest Microsoft software or something completely different.
http://blog.nexusuk.org