Former Windows Chief on Microsoft Vs. Open-Source 387
prostoalex writes "Brad Silverberg, former chief of Microsoft Windows division, who left the company in 1999, is being interviewed by the Milestone Group, on Microsoft specifically, and the software venture capital world in general (Silverberg is currently working as managing partner for Ignition Partners). He provides an interesting viewpoint on Microsoft's understanding of open source: 'I don't think they have figured that out yet, I think that is clear. They are struggling with not so much open source, per se, but rather they are no longer the low price solution. In the past Microsoft was the low cost solution and Microsoft was then competing and attacking expensive proprietary systems from below. Now for the first time the tables are turned and it's Microsoft that's being attacked from below by a lower price solution. Microsoft needs to figure out how it can demonstrate better TCO to justify its higher prices. Another aspect to that, which is an area I think Microsoft is also struggling with, which is when you are as successful and dominant as they are, how do you continue to foster that ecosystem? What really propelled Microsoft Windows success was an ecosystem that they created that allowed other people to benefit from your success. Actually your success was really a side effect or byproduct of their own success.'"
Re:Bzzt (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bzzt (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, once upon a time, they were.
Back in the mid-80s, I worked for a little value added retailer which sold medical billing systems. They sold Xenix/Altos and Pick/General Automation systems with several users on several terminals, and competed with IBM, which sold mini computers which cost far more than the tens of thousands our systems cost.
When IBM PC compatibles became a major force in the market, we were able to undercut our old systems dramatically. We weren't selling MS systems, but every PC system we sold had MS-DOS on it. We were able to undercut ourselves, and cut our own throats.
Microsoft gets a bit of the credit for this, because they provided the standard and open[1] (but proprietary) base that companies like Peachtree, Kaypro and Compaq could build on. Suddenly, there was no need to support a group of engineers and programmers in your home town who could integrate hardware and write software to get the job done. Peachtree and the clones did it from the Bay Area, cheaper and better, as long as better meant cheaper.
MS was always cheaper than what it replaced, jsut as the platform it ran on was cheaper than the minis. MS was making it big on volume. Today, they've got more volume than ever before, but the new competition is able to cut prices all the way to zero, forever, and that's just the opening salvo in the price war. MS aren't stupid. They may figure it out eventually, but they may stumble badly on the way.
[1] The PC BIOS sourcecode was listed in the manual. Command.com was simple enough that you could figure it out using debug.exe.
FUD MS success is marketing. (Score:4, Informative)
This "forced" revenue stream continued until just recently when some companies started preloading Linux. MS no longer controls the forced upgrade market. If they stop supporting their older systems now, the 'big' users will start investigating other lower cost operating systems. MS is threatened by Linux because people do not like to be controlled and basically extorted.
Re:It's wrong to say that you succeed with Microso (Score:3, Informative)
Well, it wasn't what _anyone_ other than Microsoft wanted. That is, by default with with no warnings, it was very easy for your Java would become Windows-dependent, undermining the fundamental value of Java.
Microsoft could have done all of the innovative things (e.g. calling OS-specific COM objects and other routines easily, nice fast JVM) that they did with their JVM and runtime _without_ violating their Java license, simply by placing their OS-specific enhancements outside of the java.* class heirarchy, by warning developers when they were generating non-portable code, and by supporting all of Java properly. But MS decided that it was more important to try to tie Java developers to Windows than it was to honor the Java license (or, of course, to provide what Java developers wanted).
Re:Yet again, MS can destroy the Linux market... (Score:3, Informative)
<snicker> Uh, what, something strong like VMS [winntmag.com], perhaps?
They've munged it so much that it's taken until now to make an OS that almost doesn't suck, but that doesn't mean the foundation isn't there.
Lookout!!! MS contaminated by Open Source (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Linux TCO (Score:3, Informative)
Learning curve
Scarcity of available employees
Complexity
If it's an open project anyone can contribute, people with any preconcieved notions. I think it would be much more valuable to have a TCO analysis by people 'in the trenches' than by some biased, funded think tank that doesn't operate in the real world.
Re:Linux TCO (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Linux TCO (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cioupdate.com/article.php/10493_1477
http://management.itmanagersjournal.com/managem
are three stories saying that Linux has lower TCO than Microsoft.