Slashdot Log In
OSS Officially On Microsoft's Financial Radar Screen
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Feb 04, 2003 07:37 AM
from the preemptive-boilerplate-yammering dept.
from the preemptive-boilerplate-yammering dept.
seldo writes "More news from Microsoft's latest quarterly filing: according to eWeek, Microsoft says it may have to lower its prices in response to competition from open-source software. From the filing: "To the extent the open source model gains increasing market acceptance, sales of the company's products may decline, the company may have to reduce the prices it charges for its products, and revenues and operating margins may consequently decline". This is a fairly major revelation from Microsoft, and if it happens, it may be one of the biggest wins yet for open-source software: what do you know -- competition works!"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
OSS Officially On Microsoft's Financial Radar Screen
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 639 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
|
2
(1)
|
2
good news (Score:3, Interesting)
MS Office will be hit first (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's my scenario:
First, MS Office revenues will be hit and hit hard. OpenOffice does almost anything MS Office can do and it is not more difficult to upgrade from Office97 to OpenOffice than it is to upgrade to OfficeXP. - But a lot cheaper.
Only after an organization has successfully converted to OpenOffice, we will see full conversion to Linux.
Now we'll all have to see what Microsoft does without the hefty MS Office sales... Maybe XBox-gamers will have to pay a lot more because Microsoft can no longer afford losing millions over millions on it?
Re:MS Office will be hit first (Score:5, Insightful)
-
Runs (nearly) all desktopsoftware, because they have 95% marketshare.
-
Support people are easy to find, because they have 95% marketshare.
-
If you hire new people they are already familiar with it, because it is so widespread.
-
All consumer hardware supports it, because it has 95% marketshare
-
OEMs preinstall Windows because it is so widespread.
All advantages of Windows vs. Linux are a result of it's domination. If you take that away, Windows is dead. The OSS comunity can write most drivers for thousands of different devices and architectures. - Microsoft can't even support Alpha without hand-holding from Compaq, never mind write all the drivers for all those devices!No. There will not be a lasting coexistance between Windows and something else. Windows will die within a few years once it no longer runs on the majority of desktops.
The pressure on Microsoft is getting bigger. Every year PCs become cheaper and the Microsoft tax represents a bigger and bigger share of OEMs revenues. They have just raised the cost for their corporate customers.
The question is, where shall all the revenue come from? Nobody really needs any MS Office version newer than Office97 and nobody is really excited about Longhorn or however it will be called.
Microsoft knows that they are doomed (that's why Bill Gates and all the other executives with a clue sell thousands of shares each month) and that it's right now just a matter of how much they can milk out of their customerbase.
Re:MS Office will be hit first (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm... Gates sells "thousands" (he actually sells about a million [yahoo.com]) of shares every month because 1) He's got 600 million of them gathering dust, 2) MSFT didn't start paying dividends until recently (even at $0.16/share that's only $96mm per year), and 3) the guy needs to live. Can you get by on a mere $96 million per year? I didn't think so.
Gates sells a fixed amount of shares every month - he always has and likely always will. One major reason is so that people can't draw weird conclusions from his personal stock sales.
When MS cuts prices.... (Score:5, Insightful)
What would happen if Microsoft suddenly cuts the pricing of a legal copy of Windows XP desktop editions by 50% or more for everyone? Because Windows is vastly better-supported in terms of hardware support than Linux, sales would definitely increase quite a bit.
Yes, Linux is cheap when you get the personal edition distributions, but when you have to spend time to tweak it to support the latest hardware, plus the fact a lot of the latest hardware lack Linux drivers, the result is a potentially frustrating experience for non-experienced users. I think a lot of people don't realize that many of the posters on
Re:When MS cuts prices.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Moreover, an upgrade cycle is drive by applications, and what's the added value of Office XP against office 97?
Re:When MS cuts prices.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:When MS cuts prices.... (Score:4, Informative)
Something to notice is that just about all of them need drivers for ME, 2000 and XP -- you need different drivers for every version of windows (OK, a bit of an exaggeration -- but only a bit!).
I don't remember having to hunt down a Linux driver for something since RH5.2. Windows, on the other hand....
Re:MS Office will be hit first (Score:4, Insightful)
Simpler setup with very few questions.
Smaller more focused set of default applications
Simpler, centralised, graphical configuration tools
Convenient, standardised help system with excellent searching and troubleshooting options
In built support, from time of consumer device launch, for peripherals and card types (PCMCIA, USB etc. - Linux got late to market here).
Advanced tools are hidden from basic users.
System files are protected from inadvertent change.
System rescue tools provided on disk (while Linux may die less frequently, when it does there's NO WAY for Joe User to recover).
No confusing messages on startup.
Linux has MANY advantages over Windows and is a technological marvel in some ways, but the sooner people realise Windows *is* better in some departments, the sooner Linux will start to catch up in those ways.
Re:Prices??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Prices??? (Score:5, Informative)
IIRC (I used to work for MS tech support. Don't flame me) rates are as follows:
Office gets 2 free application support incidents, with each incident thereafter costing $35, with no timed charges. Installation support is always free.
Most of the home products (Works, the games, etc) only get free support for installation. $35 for each incident for anything else. Even if it's a 30 second "Sorry, your data's hosed.".
Now here's where it gets tricky... Professional support for stuff like "I have this massive spread sheet in XL that isn't working, but all of my 900 lines of macro code appear to be right", "Access forms aren't working like I think they should", or "Exchange is acting funny" start at $245 per incident.
An incident is defined as follows:
I could be wrong tho. It has been over 6 months since I left tech support hell to do something else for a while. I worked my way out of support twice before, just to get shafted by the company that I was working for, so I'm kind of shying away from the IT industry.
Lower Prices?! (Score:3, Funny)
Tragic.
Re:Lower Prices?! (Score:4, Funny)
How can you not like butterscotch? HERETIC! Burn the HERETIC!
I don't believe it for a second. (Score:3, Funny)
- Oisin
Re:That's good (Score:5, Insightful)
Now I will grant you, XP does not blue screen nearly as often. However, if I had a nickel for every time I got one of those "Dude your program blew up and we would like to send the report to M$" dialog boxes I would be rich. My wife has made a rather lucrative career in on-site tech support, and her best customers run XP. It may not crash, but it doesn't really work either. (I still have equipment that worked perfectly well under 98 that we still don't have the drivers working properly for under XP on the same hardware.)
Now I do use linux on a day to day basis. It does crash a lot. Well, actually, the applications crash a lot. The operating system has locked up on me about 8 times in the last year, and that is over 12 Kiosks, 9 data center servers, and 10 or so desktops, all running experimental software.
And can you tell me the last time you managed to get a current version of Windows to run on a 3 year old computer?
Success! (Score:3, Insightful)
By forcing Microsoft to release polished and well documented code at a reasonable price, OSS has pretty much achieved its goal.
Margin comparison... (Score:5, Insightful)
Before the muppets start talking about products can't compete with free, remember support costs, staff costs etc etc.
One element on margin is that it is estimated that Microsoft work around the 30% mark, while IBM work around 7% and are booking multi-millions in association with Linux. So this means that Microsoft will be reducing their margin, not becoming unprofitable.
Re:Margin comparison... (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree that price of the box with OS/DB/whatever is only part of the equation, but since when MS/Oracle/whoever started to give away product support for free?
I mean, whatever software you are using, it usually requires some helpdesk/administration. And support that you've got in the price of the software package is good for nothing.
I know because I tried to get several times support for NT, MSSQL etc. About the only advice is to reinstall system, database, or (sic!) decrease the size of database.
And paid support for Oracle or MS SQL... Don't get me started. Prices of that software even in the highest version with unlimited users, processors etc are nothing compared to costs of those support contracts.
Robert
Re:MS has only two products, was :Margin compariso (Score:5, Informative)
I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots. Microsoft has three profitable divisions: Client, Server Platform, and Information Worker. I'm hardly surprized that some dullards interpreted that as "Office and Windowz!", yet in reality those three divisions account for the overwhelming majority of products with the Microsoft name on it. SQL Server? Yup. Visual Studio? Yup. Visio? Yup. SNA Server? Yup. Indeed, if you looked within even the unprofitable divisions you would find a bevy of highly profitable items: The Home and Entertainment Divison encapsulates Microsoft hardware, such as mice and keyboards, which themselves are highly lauded and tremendously profitable, however their profitability is being masked by the xbox.
This is all so laughable anyways, and indicates the core naevity of most open sourcers. Egads Microsoft mentioned open source! The reality, of course, is that such filings must include forward looking risks of any sort, including potential lawsuits, and envisioned risks by the pundit community. The fact that open source is mentioned in there is a given. To make this even more hilarious, though, the prior [nasdaq.com] quarterly report included the same risk statement, while the quarterly report before that included the statement "the availability of competitive products or services such as the Linux operating system at prices below Microsoft's prices or for no charge" as a risk factor. Looking at the annual report from 3 years ago [nasdaq.com] yields the statement "With an increased attention toward open-source software, the Linux operating system has gained increasing acceptance. Several computer manufacturers preinstall Linux on PC Servers and many leading software developers have written applications that run on Linux. Microsoft Windows operating systems are also threatened by alternative platforms such as those based on Internet browsing software and Java technology promoted by AOL and Sun Microsystems. " and " The Company continues to face movements from PC-based applications to server-based applications or Web-based application hosting services, from proprietary software to open source software, and from PCs to Internet-based devices.". I'm sure I could go back two more years and find similar forward looking risk statements.
I suspect that someone read an SEC filing for the first time in their life and thought they found a real revelation (as did the Slashdot editors when they posted this), when it's the same thing that has appeared in their filings for years now.
I'm your muppet in a sea of BS. (Score:5, Insightful)
I adore how cute it is when some FUD is propagated on Slashdot, and soon you can hear it being repeated verbatim as stone-cold facts time after time by Slashbots.
and then go on to chatter about keyboards and Visual studio. Can you reasonably compare the proffit bassed on M$'s O$ to keyboard sales? The price of VB may pain individuals who cling to M$, but that individual pain does not collectivly match the vast revenues had when big dumb corporations stick Office on every one of their 7,000 peons desks. No, it's true that M$ is using it's O$ monopoly rent to get into other areas.
The fact is that there is nothing new here but failure. M$ gets into each new market the same way, by dumping . The used IBM to make an O$ monopoly then dumped Windoze 3.1 to establish a desktop hegemity. They then used anti-competitive agreements with vendors to keep other O$ out and dumped their office to make familiarity. To this day M$ dumps their software on schools, then turns around and screws them in quater million dollar BSA raids. Their reduction of prices of their vastly inferior "server" software is par for the course but it will not be enough this time.
People are realizing that free makes economic sense. They are starting to see that free software is better software and always will be. Better software does make for a lower total cost of ownership as it eliminates the intentional waste propriatory software vendors are famous for. More importantly, it does what YOU want it to do rather than what some marketdroid thinks it should do and it does it according to best practices. Slammer, Code Red, Nmedia, SirCam, I love you, Klez, la te da te da, the list goes on and on because the closed source, rape the user method does not work for anyone but the vendor.
Re:MS has only two products, was :Margin compariso (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, and I am sure that they make money off the gumball machine out in their front lobby too. That doesn't mean that the proceeds from said gumball machine have any great effect on Microsoft's bottom line. Last quarter Microsoft generated an operating income of $1.97 billion on revenues of $2.44 billion. MS Office had similarly ridiculous profit margins with an operating income of $1.88 billion on revenue of $2.41 billion. There are plenty of companies with those kinds of revenues, but only Microsoft has the combination of high revenues and ridiculously high profit margins. Even Microsoft's server software margins are only about half of the Windows and Office profit margins. I can guarantee you that, compared to Windows and Office, the profits on keyboards and mice are insignificant. What's more, there is no possible way that Microsoft could ever be even a tenth as profitable selling hardware.
Thanks to Windows and Office Microsoft is the software powerhouse, without the huge profit margins from these two products they probably wouldn't even be competitive.
I think this is mostly... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that they're wholly unaffected by the advance of Linux, but this statement should be bundled with others they use to show that "We have brutal competition... really!"
Re:I think this is mostly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I think this is mostly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple may be on its own legs securely now, as may Linux. It will be interesting when Microsoft has apples-to-apples competition, but because of Microsoft's efforts to shove everyone else off the store shelf it will be years before they can no longer manipulate "the competition."
If Microsoft is smart -- how many sentences start with those words? -- it will begin to adapt, but also wring every last dime out of the legacy products. `They haven't done well in their efforts to dominate new markets where they don't benefit from the Windows foundation, such as the internet and little game boxes. Gates, despite his claims, has no vision.
Time to OSS evolve to the next level (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing that pushes ppl to Linux and Open Source is the price. Depending if MS lower its prices too much, it may cause a lot of ppl not to consider OSS software at all.
Who would want use and a disgruntled OS if they may get nice box, nice gradient buttons, stylish consistent GUI for a reasonable price?
Maybe it forces OSS software to evolve from merely copying proprietary functionalities to actually improve users' life in order to make a differentiation. A reason for ppl to use it. For now, it's price.
Re:Time to OSS evolve to the next level (Score:4, Funny)
Stylish? Stylish? You mean the big, colorful plastic looking WinXP buttons? You call that stylish? To quote a reviewer on the web (I forget where from):
The Windows XP interface looks like some kid ate a box of crayons and threw up on the screen.
Is it stylish because Microsoft made it?
Re:Time to OSS evolve to the next level (Score:4, Funny)
Price is my least concern (Score:5, Insightful)
Even companies don't or shouldn't use OSS for it's price; dozens of researches have shown that the TCO (total cost of ownership) for windows and e.g. linux don't differ that much. They should use, as should individuals, OSS because they believe in the OSS philosophy and because the OSS style fits their own style of computer usage.
For me, it's about these things:
- From kernel to application, I can see exactly what it's doing and why
- If it doesn't work the way I like it, I can change it or try to find someone who already has
- I'm not a newbie, I know computers and I don't want to be treated as such
- If the configuration changes, I want to be the one who does it, not the OS itself
All these things add up to a package microsoft can't compete with, even if it would cost me more, not less that propriety software. And I wish everyone would stop hoping every last computer user starts using OSS, because it's just not going to happen, and it's just not necessary. Some people want ease-of-use, and others want power. Just so.
Re:Price is my least concern (Score:4, Insightful)
Even companies don't or shouldn't use OSS for it's price; dozens of researches have shown that the TCO (total cost of ownership) for windows and e.g. linux don't differ that much. They should use, as should individuals, OSS because they believe in the OSS philosophy and because the OSS style fits their own style of computer usage.
After the XP license extortion, companies should begin to realise that they have been had..
Companies paid tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in license fees to Microsoft and their gangs of henchmen (resellers) just to "extend" their software contracts.
The company where I work paid about 230,000 Euros for the contract "Extension". And what did the company get in return ? Some upgrade called "XP" ??
The tough question is, how is management going to justify this expensive payment if the company doesn't use this thing called XP ??
And surely we installed XP. And what did it cost us ?? About 6-8-man years in preparation, testing and roll-out. And what did we get that we didn't have already in NT4 ?? Nothing !!
Being in charge of your upgrade cycle is priceless..
Hmmm, priceless...
1 copy of Linux = 20$ .... Priceless..
external consulting and training = 30,000$
The feeling you get when the year report comes out that shows you saved the company hundreds of thousands in licensing fees
It's really not that big a deal (Score:5, Insightful)
So while it's certainly nice that they finally have to publically announce this as a possibility, it really doesn't mean anything. I've seen some wild things in quarterly and annual reports.
-Todd
Hence, No Bathroom. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:First they ignore you... (Score:5, Insightful)
This quote appears on pretty much every "MS is scared of linux" article and has long since ceased to be "insightful".
Can we drop, it please?
Free (libre) vs. free (beer) (Score:5, Insightful)
Sigh. Since when was lowering Microsoft's prices a major objective of OSS?
This is *not* a big win. Contrary: it reduces the perceived difference between OSS and MS from a consumer's perspective and may even force Linux vendors to lower their prices and thus reduce their revenues.
This has happened before (Score:5, Insightful)
At first, MS's main advantage was price, but gradually they innovated(*) and re-engineered so that their product was always high enough quality to attack the next layer up -- from word processing platform up through file/print server to heavy-duty servers and workstations.
Now MS are being eaten from below by a new generation of even cheaper systems. Like early MS systems, these open source offerings are both derivative and weak except for their price advantage. However, a price advantage is enough to secure a foothold, and over time open source systems will be strengthened and will begin to innovate and will be able to take over better and better MS-held markets.
In about 10-15 years, the cycle will probably start again, taking us another step further from the days of monolithic systems and proprietry hardware/os/support lock-in (which is where we were at before the Attack of the Killer Micros, young'uns). It's all good.
(*)Rather than freaking out and writing posts about 'M$' and so on, why not go outside and get some fresh air?
Re:why the gratuitious propaganda? (Score:4, Informative)
Unless I'm mistaken, VB was the first programming tool which allowed programmers to build applications with a click and drag GUI interface.
You're *very* mistaken. The first incarnation of graphical interface builders was probably at Xerox PARC in the late 70s. I say "probably" because there may have been an earlier one that I don't know about. Through the 80s there were at least two different competing Smalltalk development toolsets, each with a graphical UI app tools.
I personally worked with a half-dozen different tools that pre-dated VB. One of the best (*still* one of the best, over a decade later) was the NeXTstep UI Builder. Fantastic tool. Even back in the days of DOS applications, prior to Windows, I used a number of click-n-drag UI tools to build both text and graphics mode interfaces. I would imagine there were some early tools for the Mac as well, although I didn't use them.
In the research world, there have been a number of attempts to build *purely* graphical programming environments, in which you never typed any code whatsoever. The earliest of these that I'm familiar with was completed in the mid-80s (unfortunately I forget the name -- can anyone help)?
So, no, MS did not invent click-n-drag app development. I'm sure that somewhere along the way MS must have invented *something*, but I can't think what it might be.
Waiting and watching (Score:3, Funny)
OSS wins and almost all the servers and desktops are OSS. Then the companies that "bought" into the OSS, get annoyed that Linus is not releasing the fixes quick enough. Forks start appearing left right and center and suddenly every company has its own sponsered Linux distro.
Mr Gates waits patriently in the wings waiting for chaos to reach its peak before finally saying..."Well there is a reasonable, inexpensive option for your OS problems, you know?"....(thinks to himself "once more the wheel of fate turns in Bill's direction...mwhahahahaha!")
Re:Waiting and watching (Score:4, Insightful)
What part of this is bad? If My company can make our OS do exactly what we want it to, that's a win, not a loss.
Failing economy is just irrelevent (Score:5, Interesting)
Quick Translation (Score:5, Funny)
*large puffs of smoke appear, and a talking face begs you*
"Gosh darn it! Open Source is digging into our revenue. Lord knows that Open Source will be the down fall of all things good, look whats happening to our profits! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here** I mean, we weren't really price gouging before, we were just looking out for our stock holders. Now our profits are going to go down because we have to lower our already, really, really, really fair prices or else we won't keep market share. It's unfair competition! **Ignore present world wide economic conditions they have no bearing here**"
***second translation***
"G*d d*mn this sucks, we have to compete now, we just can't buy Linus out. So much for our past competitive strategy"
Servers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite all the comments on here about Slashdot readers, their Mum, Dad, Grandmother, Aunt, Uncle and kids using Linux on the desktop - I don't think the desktop users are making any significant decreases to sales of Windows XP just yet.
A year down the line though, who knows ...?
Upgrade cycle slowing (Score:5, Interesting)
Instead, I think MS is suffering from a lack of innovation. There is simply no compelling reason for corporates to upgrade their software anymore - Windows 2K is fine for business use, they don't get anything in XP other than support problems. You might upgrade Office to be able to read other people's files, but there are precious few "must-have" features to differentiate the current offering from Office 97.
The most significant reason for users to upgrade in the recent past has been MS's change in licensing policy - signing up before the deadline gives "free" access to upgrades for a limited period. I know that many corporates bitterly resented this pressure. However, the next version of "Windows for Servers" keeps getting pushed back, and many corporates are only now upgrading their servers from NT4 to W2K - not to take advantage of new features, but because support is being withdrawn.
So, while OSS is undoubtedly snapping at MS's heels, providing a much-needed alternative and nibbling away at the revenues, the bigger problem is that historically, Microsoft have taken ideas developed elsewhere and "embraced and extended" them. Right now, there are precious few radically new ideas to embrace, and the only way for MS to continue to grow their revenue is to find new must-have features. In short, they need to innovate under their own power.
Welcome to the real world, Bill....
MS Price Drop Not Good...(TM) (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, it would save a whole lot of people a whole lot of money, so I guess that IS good, I guess. But really I see Microsoft just strengthening their foothold, which is bad for everyone in the long wrong.
Imagine if Windows cost $25? Instead of Joe-Blow doing cartwheels to get around XP Activation, they'd just buy 3 copies, one for each machine.
Imagine if Windows cost $9.99? People would buy copies for their mothers, friends, families, etc, just to "free them of those stupid problems they have with Windows 98/ME".
The fact is, Microsoft could probably still make some changes internally that would allow them to profit off of Windows if it sold for almost nothing, and THEN what would open source have to bank on? Moral righteousness? HAH. That'll sell.
price drop irrelevant (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people already pay for Windows for each of their machines, whether they want to or not. I certainly have a Windows license for each of the dozen PCs that I have, and only one of them actually runs Windows.
So, your notion that people use open source because they have to pay for Windows flies in the face of reality. People use open source software because it simply works better for them.
Depressing for Microsoft, isn't it, that people throw Windows away even though it is pre-installed and they have actually been forced to pay for it and wouldn't incur any additional costs by just using it.
Finance speak (Score:3, Insightful)
No it isn't, it's just financial boilerplate text that the lawyers bolted on. It's to cover their asses in case anyone tries to file a class-action suit against them if their profits fall. I used to work for a NASDAQ-traded company, and we had this crap in our quarterlies all the time. You have to enumerate every possible risk to your business, even stuff like we operate in country X and there is a risk of an earthquake, which may materially affect our revenue in that market, blah blah.
Nothing to see here, move along...
Micorsoft announce they are no longer a monopoly.. (Score:4, Funny)
Or am I just getting cynical in my old age?
and the propaganda mill cranks on.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now every Microsoft shareholder has become the enemy of OSS
Now Wall Street analysts will be announcing to the world that Microsoft profits will be impacted by OSS --
And if Microsoft is 'hurting', who else in this sensitive economy could be feeling the pinch from the free software terrorists?
Officially on their RADAR? (Score:5, Funny)
"This is the USS Big Ship to unidentified target, please change course." The response comes back:
"That's a negative, Big Ship".
"We are a Aircraft Carrier from the US Navy. Now please change course!"
"That's a negative, Big Ship. We're a lighthouse"
For chrissakes, OSS has got to be the biggest stack of rocks sitting on MS's radar that they've had in a long, long time.
-- james
If Windows drops to $100 ... (Score:3, Interesting)
WinXP (Score:3, Insightful)
Back in the day, computer users like me were power users. You can compare us to the car afficionado, but to Joe Blow, a computer is a tool that helps him browse websites, instant message, MP3s, porn, whatever. Back in the day I enjoyed BBSing and posting in forums thru my 9600 baud modem, back then Joe Blow didn't have a computer.
What I have noticed throughout all this is people use certain things as tools, once they can't do what they want to do, they will find another way. With the advent of XP, windows hasn't become easier to use. I have a hard time figuring out how to do what. Desktop sharing? WHat a joke that is. What about Media PLayer 9, all that drm crap is going to make things HARDER on people. MS is not making the computer experience any friendlier, they are siding with the corprorations that are against the people anyways. THIS is what will lead people to Linux, software that people want, not corporations.
MS is becoming desperate because they KNOW they made bad choices and OSS is going to bite em back. Not today, not tomorrow, but SOMEDAY. THem lowering the price make no difference, ultimatly its going to be what the people decide they want and not be told what they have to have.
wait wait wait wait wait wait wait... (Score:3, Funny)
How can we know if this is good? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does anyone want to see Microsoft go down the tubes?
Sure, they have been overcharging us for their OS and office software for years, but it isn't like the money didn't go to good use. After all, most of the features that we see in OpenOffice and other useful apps for Linux came from ideas that were original or at least perfected (I use the term loosely here) in MS apps.
Sure, I love the GNU project, Linux, and OSS in general, but would we even have a target to hit with our free software if we didn't have a company like Microsoft to chase after?
I hate to see the mob mentality take over with this 'Linux vs. Windows' stuff rather than contemplate what a collapse of Microsoft would really mean to us (as developers, users, etc.)
The real problem isn't OSS... (Score:5, Insightful)
Businesses are willing to pay for value delivered. They are not, however, willing to be raked over the coals, especially by someone who is making the profit margins that Microsoft makes in an economy that has everyone else scrambling to make a buck.
Add in the costs of continual upgrades -- required by Software Assurance, BTW -- and the hardware to support them, and the lost productivity due to bugs and security flaws, and we have some unhappy campers out there.
OSS alternatives mean that Microsoft will have to lower prices, probably to a level lower than pre Software Assurance days. Customer anger and memories mean that it may not be enough to keep some of those customers from going away for good.
OSS out of focus? (Score:3, Insightful)
So - is the OSS movement about crushing Microsoft now?
I didn't realize that the OSS community was at war with Microsoft. I thought it was about making good software, and keeping the source open...
What could this mean? (Score:3, Interesting)
Feeling like a target now... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think we linux users should brace for an attack like nothing before from MS. They will use any meens avaliable to sustain their high revenues. A slight fall of the revenues and MS stocks will likely fall like a ton of brick. Considering how much stocks is owned by staff in all levels i presume there is an enormous internal incentive to thwart linux in its cradle.
We should have a central site documenting every shoddy move and backdoor mudshot contest from Redmond HQ. I assume that would be some horrific reading on a site like that pretty soon now.
Government (Score:3, Informative)
This is because of governments such as Germany's opting to mandate open source instead of mandating using the best available package, regardless of what that is*
* = Could be OSS, could be MicroSoft, could be a proprietary UNIX, could be Mac, etc.
Open Source Software For (Microsoft) Dummies.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Open Source Software For (Microsoft) Dummies... (Score:4, Funny)
What you talk about is the original Unix Way. If every program is a simple single minded program, and somebodt else would like to borrow a snippet of code, why not? And no, selling software is NOT a new idea. It's just another way to pay the programmers on code. And of course, if they open that code up, why buy their product (enter vicious circle)
---2) OSS/FSF/GPL exist purely to protect the rights of those who *choose* to distribute software freely to continue to do that, to allow them (and anyone else) the ability to use and modify that software and to ensure that nothing is hidden behind proprietary standards.
I think you misunderstand standards documents. Standards can be wrote in plain language that describe how something happens. Code is just an implementation of that standard.
---3) Microsoft *sell* software. They are not innovaters, just damn good at repackaging the ideas of others and marketing it - or just buying the company that innovated it in the first place. They can, and have, used Open Source software ideas in their own products but, then, that's what it's designed for. (Yes, when you Windows people venture to the command line on your Windows boxes, whenever you "ping" something, you're using software that originated from the dirty, disgusting free software movement.)
Oh fun. Yet another "I hate MS" person. Get this straight. They are a business. They are in the software business to make money. They arent in there to evangelize, bemoan, or any other religious war that MANY linux users get suckered into. Even the FreeBSD people are worse in that regard. Does "My shit does not smell" make sense to you?
---4) OSS does not give a damn about Microsoft "competition". OSS/Linux/FreeBSD users, who probably have experience with Windows, might hate Microsoft (yes, I'm one of them) because of their business methods, rubbish software or simply because it's "cool". But OSS was there long before Microsoft as a defence against predatory practices from UNIX vendors and will be there long after.
There's plenty of reasons why you would use Linux, rather than Microsoft stuff that would not be "I hate MS" topic.
First, Linux on the servers makes sense because MS has a bad tendancy to break stuff/leave servers unpatched.
Secondly, Linux is coming up to common recognition. I'm just riding the wave so I'll have an edge on the new Linux users.
Third, I cant afford a Legit copy of MS programming suite, so I use GCC. That pisses me off more than anything, cause I remember the days where MS gave away compiliers (Quick Basic) so you could do basic programming stuff. Now, you have to fork over 300$ to get a copy. With Linux, GCC is free, along with all the libs, and additional compilers. And I get multiple CPU compiles
---5) Microsoft reducing the cost of their products / turning Windows into an operating system / sticking Gates' head on a pole outside 1 Microsoft Way might slow down the migration from Windows to OSS but it probably won't do anything whatsoever to those already using / developing OSS software.
What? So you wanna stick Gates' head to a pole which will speed up Open source?
--6) Microsoft cannot buy OSS because there's nothing tangible to own, they can't stamp on OSS because it's too widespread, they can just continue to spread FUD as they've always done. End of OSS lesson...
!THUMP! What was that? Oh, just the dead horse getting beat.
The SEC works...not competition... (Score:3, Informative)
In Microsoft's case, they are following the SEC's guidelines like many other companies. This is a change for many companies. In Microsoft's situation, we have seen these very recient changes;
Years ago, they should have issued dividends...now they plan to.
Decades ago, they should have broken out each division of the company and discussed profits and losses in each...now they do.
Decades ago, they should have discussed all reasonable impacts on thier profits for each division...now they acknowledge open source.
Don't think this is a new thing for them. Open source has been a potential impact on MS's profits for a couple years. The only thing that has changed is that MS must acknowledge it as a possibility. If they have suffered an actual loss due to open source, the SEC will pressure and eventually require MS to report the loss after it has happened. As of now, no loss is obvious. Microsoft is speculating and has not acknowledged a loss due to open source -- yet. f they did not point this out, it could be the basis for a future lawsuit if a loss occurs.
Thank the SEC, though late themselves, for doing things now that force transparency...that forces some information into the open so we have a better chance to judge on merit not PR.
Do not read too much into 10-Q filings! (Score:3, Informative)
nice excuse but just spin (Score:3, Insightful)
Despite MS, the modern PC + pre-installed s/w covers almost everybodies needs and the home market is very conservative and just will not re-buy the same s/w every 3 years just to maintain the MS share price.
Stop throwing the word "competition" around (Score:4, Insightful)
OSS is only making inroads because it plays outside the rules. There is no profit center, there is no company organization, there is no ownership...
It's unhelpful to give credence to the fallacy that Microsoft has "competition".
Within 10 years... (Score:3, Insightful)
If the wind of change starts to blow 'due linux' then MS aren't going to sit quietly and die, they'll put together the biggest team ever applied to a linux project and release a distro that will blow RH/MDK/etc out of the water (assuming they survive till then of course). The geeks will still want debian/slackware/etc but MS will create a linux desktop as easy as XP/Win2k for the rest of the world.
Once they're in the OSS game they won't be able to trample all over standards in their usual haphazard fashion because their distro won't be compatible then.
Make no mistake, if linux starts to be where the money is then MS will go there.
First you win... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uhm....
Competition hardly works. So far, Microsoft has been able to kill everything that would present true commercial competition. Linux had to completely re-write the rules (from Microsoft's perspective) by providing not only binaries, but source, for Free.
Linux is not "competing" with Microsoft. Most Linux folks I know hardly give a damn about Microsoft. In fact, the way this whole affair has gone with me (since 1993) is (from Microsoft's perspective):
First you [Microsoft] win
Then they fight you
Then they laugh at you
Then they ignore you
I think we are in the "Then they laugh at you" phase, in which we realize the fight is over, and that really, there was no fight; it was just us, writing code and letting people know we have something worth looking into.
Operating Systems should be Free (as in beer) (Score:3, Interesting)
The point being, an OS is a platform for applications, which do the work.
MSWindows notoriously bundles lots of applications into the platform, so it doesn't really count as a bare-bones OS.
Ideally, there would be one OS as a middleware between applications and hardware. Then applications could be platform-neutral. Linux is the closest thing we have to such a definition. Unix tried to be that, but it fragmented into vendor-specific releases. It's yet to be seen whether Linux does the same thing.
See also: difference between a Linux and a Distro.
There's less to this news than you think. . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Some smart lawyer in Microsoft's legal department probably said "Hey, we'd probably better start quoting open source software as a possible financial risk to avoid shareholder lawsuits in the future."
This is probably just typical legal boilerplate stuff, not any signifigant change in MS's assessment of the impact of OSS.
Re:great (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, Microsoft spent 5 to 50 million $ on campaigning (you know gala-dinners, nice flights for politicians, etc.) to stop the German Bundestag from migrating to Linux. article here (in German) [heise.de]
And the Bundestag still migrated the servers to Linux...
With over 5Million$ in expenses and 5000 desktops the Bundestag runs, Microsoft has paid at least 1000$/desktop in campaigning. Not even the dumbest Micorosft troll can claim they have made a profit on that...