For Microsoft, Market Dominance Isn't Enough 699
chemstar writes "Last summer Orlando Ayala, then the top sales executive at Microsoft Corp., sent an e-mail titled 'Microsoft Confidential' to senior managers laying out a strategy to dissuade governments across the globe from choosing cheaper alternatives to the ubiquitous Windows operating system. Ayala's e-mail told executives that if a deal involving governments or large institutions looked doomed, they were authorized to draw from a special internal fund to offer software at a steep discount, or free, if necessary. Steve Ballmer, the Microsoft chief executive, was sent a copy of the e-mail.
The memo, which focused on system software for desktop computers, specifically targeted Linux, a still small but emerging competitor. "Under NO circumstances lose against Linux," Ayala said." Perhaps that's because, as roomisigloomis writes, "Seems that MS' licensing practices are working against the company," pointing out this article which "suggests that open source, Linux and other software is actively being sought."
Microsoft can't dominate the BSD Babe! (Score:4, Funny)
You just can't take Linux [redhat.com] seriously when its fronted by losers [nylug.org] like these. You Linux groupies need to find some sexy girls like her [hope-2000.org]! I mean just look at this girl [madchat.org]! Doesn't she [madchat.org] make you hard? I know this little hottie [madchat.org] floats my boat! This guy looks like he is about to cream his pants standing next to such a fox [spilth.org]. As you can see, no man can resist this sexy [spilth.org] little cock teaser [spilth.org]. Even this old bearded Unix guru is apparently unable to take his eyes off her [spilth.org]!
Join the campaign for more cute [madchat.org] open source babes [madchat.org] today!
Re:Microsoft can't dominate the BSD Babe! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft can't dominate the BSD Babe! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Microsoft can't dominate the BSD Babe! (Score:4, Informative)
Just what does 'they' refer too.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Microsoft can't dominate the BSD Babe! (Score:5, Funny)
When will the madness end!
Re:Microsoft can't dominate the BSD Babe! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Microsoft can't dominate the BSD Babe! (Score:3, Funny)
You need to get out more... (Score:3, Funny)
Correction (Score:3, Informative)
that's great (Score:5, Funny)
Re:that's great (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, but Microsoft software is free only if your time is worthless.
Re:that's great (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:that's great (Score:4, Insightful)
<OL>
<LI>The initial one may be free. The upgrade certainly won't be.
<LI>If the TCO of a Linux server is less than that of a Microsoft one the free disk is a false economy.
<LI>If there are no alternatives Microsoft can apply monopoly pricing at some future date. This will raise the price at the next go-around. The only reason they are offering a more reasonable price is that there are credible threats.
<LI>Your taxes are not the only place you spend money. If governments go to Linux/Open Source/Free Software alternatives to Windows/Office/etc will be more readily available in general. The price you pay for your open source software will be lower. And even if you go with MS it will have to lower its prices to compete with its OS competitors.
Re:that's great (Score:5, Funny)
Download it from Kazaa?
Oh, wait, I forgot to RTFA.
Re:that's great (Score:5, Insightful)
The OS and Office are their only cash sources. They can't afford to give them away forever.
The first one is always free.
It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:5, Informative)
Nice Tap-Dancing There.... (Score:5, Interesting)
- Your Name
- Your Email Address
- Your Phone Number
- Your Gender
- Your Birthdate
You need this, so that you can login to the open licenses website and aquire your serial numbers. You need to repeat this activity for every new open license that you buy. It's WORSE than the damn license activation in Windows. In addition, I've noticed that you now need to license individual services in Windows Server 2003 (specifically, the Terminal Services service), and then you get to use your Passport account to add "client access licenses" to it. It's no wonder that people are beginning to choose Linux, where you only need to install XFree86-Server and go to work, and never have to worry about having too many clients accessing it at the same time...Re:Nice Tap-Dancing There.... (Score:5, Informative)
Charging for individual services is somethings that IBM has done in the Mainframe camp for years. DEC also did it with VAX/VMS and VAX Unix. To effectively do this, you need a (near) monopoly so no one has anywhere else to turn for less onerous alternatives. It's very hard to pull that kind of nickle-and-dime-them-to-death crap-ola in the open source world.
More recently, most of the commercially-available Unices (AIX, SCO, among others) were also sold piecemeal by services and per-user licenses.
You had to purchase an N-User license to run N-1 serial (or virtual, later) terminals on a given system.
Oh, you want TCP/IP networking? That'll cost you. X-Windows? That piece (Open Desktop) used to cost more than the base Unix (Open Server) package it ran under (Kinda like Windoze on DOS).
Print Services? Costs extra. PC Interoperability (PC-NFS File Services)? Ka-Ching.
This is the big reason I have been able to convince most of my consulting clients to switch away from SCO x86 Unix (once the IBCS2 emulation got all the bugs out) and run *free* Linux instead, which has all the bells and whistles the others charge an arm and a leg for *for free*, and would run their custom SCO binaries compatibly.
Fortunately, in recent days, because of the fierce market competition Linux has provided, most of the commercial Unix vendors have "gotten real" in their pricing structure - most now offer the base package for free or low (media) cost, but still charge big $$ for "optional" packages such as network, X-Windows, or multi-users.
if Microsoft doesn't learn from history - it'll be their fault if that policy causes big end-user backlash.
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:5, Funny)
Awww, why do licensing and product activation get to have all the fun?
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't forget the forced upgrades hand in hand with the nullification of the economic value of your old software.
zWhat support and stability? (Score:5, Interesting)
What support? MS requires you to PAY for technical support. Their web-site is extremely user-unfriendly, a real PITA to get useful information out of. In the end, if you want support for Microsoft software, you pay for it in the form of a Full-time Employee who supports your network, or by buying "Per Incident" support from MS.
What stability? There's a new "Security Patch" issued every two days that must be thoroughly tested to insure that it doesn't bring the entire office down in flames. (See story about Win 2k/XP patch from last month that made even the fastest machines crawl.)
While OSS doesn't eliminate the need to hire an FTE to support your network, it does drastically reduce your licensing expenses. In our office we just build the cost of licenses for MS software in the price of any PC we buy because otherwise the departments would bitch a blue streak about how much "extra" all that "Included" software costs them. (I know this because we used to break it down for them, and three times annually some manager would pitch a bitch about how "IT Should Be Paying For My Licensing Costs".)
nice try. (Score:3, Interesting)
On the licensing front, it's more like the mask is off. M$'s recent licensing was every bit as bad as the "zealots" and other free software advocates have said it would be all along. The Next Generation looks even worse than all but the most paranoid visions could predict [gnu.org]. There, bare faced, is the power hungry monster we all worried about. It's not easy to f
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:3, Interesting)
I once had a RH "support rep" send me an email with an attachment with technical info on how to make a particular IDE controller card work under RH6 that included the phrase "if you were an idiot and did 'x', then this is how you blah blah blah...".
Would not being insulted count?
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's Captain Stupendous, Master of the Obvious! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sure you're being honest, but given your track record as somebody rabidly pro-MS and often anti-Linux, allegations against random redhat employees carry less weight than they otherwise would.
Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Many large corporations drive prices down to crush the little guy.
Re:Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun is willing to give OpenOffice away for free, and they even will happily give you the source code. What exactly is the difference between giving away OpenOffice and giving away Microsoft Office?
Answer: there isn't any difference other than the fact that you probably like Sun, and you don't like Microsoft.
The fact of the matter is that, despite what Microsoft says publicly, the cost of MS Office and Windows is definitely a factor. Competing with Free Software in the long run is going to require that Microsoft lower their prices substantially. This is especially true when you are talking about key accounts like governments and large institutions. Microsoft will do what it takes to maintain these accounts.
The good news is that Microsoft can't really afford to lower the prices on their core products of Windows and MS Office. Sure, they have billions in the bank, but that doesn't mean that they want to become a charity. Microsoft currently has a price/earnings ratio of about 30. That means that Wall Street expects a very healthy amount of growth from Microsoft. As these discounts cut into Microsoft's profit margins and revenues then this trend will negatively effect MSFT's stock price. $43 billion is a lot of money for a business to have in the bank, but it is peanuts compared to the amount of wealth that Microsoft executives have tied up in their stock.
When push comes to shove Microsoft execs will defend their stock price at all costs, and that means coercing more money out of their current customers, not less.
Re:Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:3, Insightful)
The power of monopoly. And the fact it is illegal to use the wealth and power from one monopoly to create another.
Not that Ashcroft would care.
Re:Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Looking at it the other way, there's no way to get people to use an alternative office package except by giving it away. This is certain proof that MS has a monopoloy in office suites.
Let's stipulate for the time being that this monopoly was legally obtained. What's the differnce between Microsoft giving away its software and Sun giving aways Star Office? The difference is that in one case it will be done to stifle competition and the other case to preserve or increase competition.
So while you can argue that "they are doing the same thing", the effect on the public interest is exactly opposite.
Re:Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, I don't agree with the law. Apparently Mr. Ashcroft doesn't either.
I guess both of you wish that gasoline cost $10 per gallon and was only sold at subsidiaries of Standard Oil.
There are very good reasons why the Sherman Anti-Trust Act and follow-on legislation were passed, and your lack of understanding of both history and economics don't devalue them one bit.
I personally can't wait for Linux to achieve Total World Domination
What's interesting here is why open source appears to be the only viable competitor to Microsoft's dominance (and it actually *isn't* a competitor yet, and we don't really know for sure that it ever will be). Why does it require such a bizarre, apparently socialist structure to compete with MS? Because any ordinary product from would be pinned to the wall by Microsoft's monopoly power, which is being allowed to run virtually unconstrained. Only the ghost-like, hydra-headed and essentially non-commercial nature of open source makes Linux a viable competitor. That should tell you something about just how nasty monopolies can be.
Even if a Democrat gains the whitehouse in the next election there isn't much of a chance that the DOJ will go after Microsoft again.
Of course not. MS gives plenty of cash to both sides.
Microsoft won't be a monopoly by the time that the government looks at this case again.
I'm far less certain of that than you are, unless you're just trying to imply that the government will never look at it again. Don't get me wrong, I think it is likely. I run nothing but Linux on any of my systems (well, I'm considering moving my firewall to OpenBSD), and I don't think it's that far from being a viable competitor on the desktop. It's clearly a powerful competitor in the server market and it's currently making heavy inroads into the embedded market and preparing to really attack the PDA and cellphone markets. However, MS is a determined, wealthy, smart, ruthless and insanely powerful competitor.
But ... (Score:3, Insightful)
But in this case the corporation in question has a monopoly - traditionally, they should be required to play by different rules than corporations which do not.
zRe:But ... (Score:4, Insightful)
It does in the U.S. That Finding of Fact is permanent, legal, and binding. Their is no room for opinion: they are a monopoly. They must play by monopolist rules, which means they can't use the the market power and the wealth generated by that monopoly to dominate new markets.
The reason we do it that way is to prevent a total takeover, horizontally and vertially, of all markets by a small number of supercorporations, or even just ONE corporation.
If such laws were not passed early in the 20th century, Standard Oil would probably own all of the major businesses in the U.S. today.
Antitrust varies from country to country, and frankly we don't really bother to enforce ours, during this admin. So other countries by default have stronger laws.
Re:Not an uncommon business practice.. (Score:4, Funny)
Sun was/is so bent on destroying linux, when I discussed our setup with their sales engineers they were *throwing in* Cobalt Raq web servers to replace our linux web servers because they didnt want us running linux. They didnt see the irony :) (cobalt raq's run linux)
What do we really expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that every time there is a posting about something else MS does, it's the same old stuff: they want more market share, just like everyone else. That's it, it should be expected by now.
Keep in mind that I am not excusing them for any unethical practices, just something that nags at me.
Re:What do we really expect? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is exactly why Standard Oil and AT&T were split up.
When you say a company should do anything within their power to make their software as widespread as possible, do you include illegal things? Maybe a campaign of assassinating prominant open source developers until nobody is willing to work on Linux.
Jason
ProfQuotes [profquotes.com]
Re:Not dumping competing (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't dumping in this case related to how much it costs Microsoft?
The cost of the competing software is immaterial. If M$ are giving it away for free, that is dumping, no matter what, unless the cost to them of each unit is literally zero dollars, shekels, Flanian Pobble Beads, Triganic Pughs, or whatever...
We'd hope they'd stop breaking the law (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, most of us can easily imagine Microsoft salespeople approaching cash-poor, needy, developing nation government ministers with their "The first ones free" pitch, only to come back later when the government has set up some mission critical application and announcing "Time to pay the piper" .
Re:What do we really expect? (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but to do this for the long-term requires a modesty that Microsoft seems incapable of. Business is always give and take to make sure the customers willingly come back. Microsoft, on the other hand, is pretty much just take-take-take, where customers come back willing or not.
Re:What do we really expect? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What do we really expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good point, one which a friend and I were discussing just last night. Why do people who have a billion dollars feel the need to continue amassing more? They cannot spend that much money in a lifetime (without throwing it away or investing in more businesses). Is there really so much greed that they can't just be happy where they are?
I'm not Ballmer and I never want to do the monkey-boy.
Re:What do we really expect? (Score:4, Interesting)
They don't feel that need. You don't make a billion dollars by being stupid.
They are addicted to the risk. The risk of losing it all. The risk of a bad decision. No adrenelyn rush like it.
Dumping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Handout! (Score:5, Funny)
Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Antitrust? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: Antitrust? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Isn't this illegal? Here we have a convicted monopoly selling it's products at a loss to shut out a smaller competitor. Isn't that illegal?
Not under Republican administrations.
Re:Antitrust? (Score:3, Insightful)
How to make it as CIO (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Start up Linux replacement project.
2) Show it to MS sales rep.
3) Demand huge cutback in license fees.
Repeat.
My own experience (Score:5, Insightful)
After a while, we discovered that we were only being used as a tool of negotiation to get lower prices for WinCE licensing... it seems that using Linux as a disuasve weapon was effective. It seemed that they would do anything not to lose to Linux
Re: My own experience (Score:5, Informative)
> It seemed that they would do anything not to lose to Linux
They're crapola software engineers, but they do understand the concept of a landslide. If cutting over to Linux ever becomes the 'in' thing to do - for whatever reason, good or bad - then Microsoft stock will share a spot in the bathroom beside SCO's. Unlike IBM, Microsoft can't adopt free software and live off hardware sales and technical services.
This is raw survival for Microsoft. If it were almost anyone else I'd feel sorry for them.
Services (Score:3, Interesting)
Are you suggesting ... (Score:5, Funny)
I'm shocked. Shocked!
A sign of maturity (Score:5, Interesting)
This memo demonstrates an important shift in their strategy: they are now in a position where they are competing against Linux on thedesktop, having lost many key battles on the server side. This means that, despite religious crusades and many rifts in the Open Source community, the competition between such projects as KDE [kde.org], GNOME [gnome.org], and XFree86 [x11.org] has produced better products that are now able to compete on a level playing field with the Windows XP desktop. We know this only because Microsoft said so itself.
Eight years ago when I first started running Linux, I knew it wasn't ready for the desktop. During the internet gold rush of the late 1990s I knew it still wasn't ready for the desktop. But today it is. There is no turning back now - unless Microsoft manages to lock us out of our PCs [tcpa.org] they will have no chance to reverse the tide, and Windows will lose in the end.
Re:A sign of maturity (Score:4, Informative)
Windows NT is fading away. Win2003 is a good piece of work from what I've seen/heard - I wouldn't be so fast to declare Linux superior, not any more. If you think Microsoft are just going to sit still while Linux motors on, think again. They move fast too.
This memo demonstrates an important shift in their strategy: they are now in a position where they are competing against Linux on thedesktop, having lost many key battles on the server side.
I'm pretty sure Windows has a higher market share in the server side of things (still). Sure, Linux is growing quickly, and it's hurting Windows, but it's easy to forget amidst all the hype that Linux is still the little guy, even after all these years.
The last bit of the rant I can't agree with either. Desktop Linux is not "ready", where by ready I mean I would be happy giving it to most reasonably intelligent computer users. We're not there yet, the software generally needs more spit and polish, and we need to get software installation really nailed. Too much stuff is just currently plain old broken (menus anybody?)
Those heartless bastards (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, if MS had charged them full price, they'd be pilloried for contributing to the "digital divide."
Microsoft? Doing something we don't like? Hwah? (Score:5, Funny)
Random Businessman 1: "We're doomed! Only a miracle can save us now!"
Hysterical Woman: "We need Linux! Tux, where are you?? Save us!"
Random Businessman 2: "Look! Up there!"
cut to shot of Tux, soaring above city. Tux looks down, smiles and waves
Chorus of Schoolchildren: "Tux!!!!"
Yes kids, tune in next week when Tux saves the world from the evil clutches of Microsoft yet again ...
Re:Microsoft? Doing something we don't like? Hwah? (Score:5, Funny)
Let's call it Firebird.
Legal? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Legal? (Score:4, Insightful)
It costs maybe 25 cents to produce a copy of Windows 2003.
Dev costs are already written off/recouped.
Software isn't a tangible product. It only "costs" what people are willing to pay.
Fist o' Sand (Score:3, Insightful)
So now one of the US's foremost companies is going to try and squeeze other countries to use their system? Other countries can do little about our government's arrogance, but they sure can do something about Microsoft's!
Besides which, investing in open source allows them to grow their own in house experts to learn and take care of the software.
The funny part (Score:5, Funny)
While I still haven't figured out why I should be outraged that Microsoft's sales force, you know, sells stuff, that bit made me laugh. Like this guy is James Bond, successfully impersonating a consultant. I've worked the KDE booth at Linux conferences, alongside teenagers who know even less about the IT business than I do -- Steve Ballmer himself could walk up to the booth and unless he was sweating and screaming, "Developers! Developers!" no one would recognize him.
I mean, do Microsoft sales people have horns and a tail? Why would anyone doubt him?
Re:The funny part (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The funny part (Score:5, Funny)
That's OK - I am planning to attend a Microsoft Developer conference posing as an MCSE to see what "intelligence" I can gather. Let's check out my disguise:
- "Visual Studio
.NET Developer Program" golf shirt - check
- well ironed khakis - check
- lingo
... "You should consider developing your solution using the managed Windows .NET environment! Bah, Linux is for academics and tinkerers." - check
Yup, all set. We'll see who buys what "hook line and sinker".:-)
Just remember... (Score:5, Funny)
-Zipwow
(seemed fitting while we're throwing around sterotypes)
Market Neccessity (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows has kept essentially the same for the past few years, minus a few "enhancements" (a.k.a. extra features not many people need). This facilitates people turning their heads towards more customizeable software, where a kernel can be compiled for any given specific purpose, and only the required software runs.
Aside from the incredibly cheap software itself, the unmatched compatibility-for-purpose, and customizability make Open Source a very viable solution for previously proprietary, overpriced, "as is out of box" software. And as potential support people and developers materialize out of the mould, it's getting more and more serious consideration.
It's just plain sick of Microsoft that they would consider just giving their multi-thousand dollar software away simply to keep market share. Wonder how that would make me feel, if I were a business owner. Knowing I paid $2,500 for an enterprise server, when a friend of mine's business gets it free just so they remain a Microsoft customer. Really would make me consider the alternatives all the more, for fear of getting played like a fiddle by the monster of dominance.
Passive Resistence (acording to Gandhi) (Score:5, Interesting)
And those are the steps of the passive resistence:
2. ridicularize - they ridicularize the resistence as if it would avoid more people to join the movement
3. worry - they worry and notice that it is really a problem, but it could be easily avoided.
4. fight - they fight against the resistence with all its power.
5. lose - they lose the battle and assumes that they must live with the new reality.
That's the way it has always worked, from Gandhi to Luther King. All we need to do is keep living our lives with Linux (and FreeSoftware).
So Obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason that Microsoft is concerned about governments is that they know that governments have the power to set de-facto standards. If a business partner sends me an unreadable document I can probably work something out with him or her. If the government demands that any electronic communication be in a particular format, that's the format that you use. What's more, nearly everyone has at least some business contact with the government. If a government switches to StarOffice/OpenOffice then you can bet that within a few years StarOffice formats will be the standard in that particular country for almost everything. It won't matter that it some ways OpenOffice isn't as good as MS Word, because it is definitely "good enough," the price is right, and it is the format that you need to use to communicate with the government.
Large institutions are a similar deal. If your University demands that you turn in your assignments in Microsoft Office formats, then you don't use WordPerfect or OpenWriter (or if you do you make sure to double check the formatting with MS Office before actually turning the assignment in. Likewise, if you supply parts to Ford Motor Company and they require that documents you submit be in MS Word format, then you don't use something else.
Microsoft can't afford to lose these big accounts. If they do their entire monopoly will start to unravel around them. It is far better business for Microsoft to give away software to these key accounts than to lose them to the competition.
Re:So Obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft has been beating their competitors over the head for years by being "good enough" at a lower price. Microsoft executives were part of the wave that put commodity PC hardware everywhere, do you think that they don't know what commodity software is likely to do to their business plan?
Microsoft knows that in the long run the OS and the office suite (and a whole pile of other software) are going to become commodity products. That is why they are willing to lose so much money starting up some of their other businesses. Microsoft's current business plan has serious problems.
However, in the short term Microsoft has huge profit margins on Windows and MS Office. As long as they can keep up the appearance that they have a workable business model they get to rake in billions of dollars in cash, and, more importantly, they get to sell their stock options at an astronomically high price/earnings ratio. In other words, Microsoft's current business plan is part shell game and part extortion racket.
Microsoft could make Linux and OpenOffice disappear tomorrow simply by drastically reducing prices. Only the hardest core of the Free Software movement would be interested in Linux and OpenOffice if Windows and MS Office cost 30% of their current price, and Microsoft has that much profit margin to give. The reason that Microsoft doesn't respond this way is that the Microsoft executives are more concerned about their own personal fortunes (tied up primarily in MSFT stock) than in the longterm health of the company. If Microsoft lowered prices to compete with Linux then MSFT stock would drop like a rock.
Eventually Microsoft will lower prices to compete with Linux, but they won't do so until they have no other choice.
Because they're longer scared of Anti-Trust (Score:3, Informative)
I have to blame our dear president. I don't think he'd allow the Microsoft anti-trust case to go forward no matter how damning the evidence.
I like some of Bush's decisions, but he really sold out when he told DOJ's trust-busters to dismiss the Microsoft case. It was such a strong case too...
Bush has lost my 2004 vote over this alone.
How do you undercut a free product? (Score:3, Interesting)
You can't bid lower than zero! Even if Microsoft gives their software away for free, you still have to figure in the time and money you'll have to spend dealing with VBS bugs, SQL Server bugs, DRM bugs--oops, that's a feature--and so on.
I don't think this strategy is anticompetitive, since Linux is free (beer); but I also don't think it will be all that helpful for Microsoft, even in the short term.
Somebody get that company a CISSP! (Score:4, Insightful)
Ho-Hum (Score:5, Interesting)
So what's the surprise about this? Given the recent SEC filing, there's no surprise.
A significant step will be if MS decides that Linux is enough of a presence in the low-end server market (the one they're desperately trying to enter so there is some genuine growth of the company) that they decide to forgo the double leveraging strategy of tying products like SQL server, Exchange, and perhaps some parts of .NET so tightly to Windows. You know, like come out with a Linux version of these products to gain market share for them? If Linux keeps growing, then this will happen some day.
Secondly, the variable pricing strategy of Windows and affiliated software has already been in effect overseas: it's considered so damn expensive that illicit copies are endemic. Another way of viewing it is that people willing to pay zero dollars but pay the hidden cost of enduring the risk of running illicit MS software (what that risk really costs is a matter for insurance actuaries).
Those warez users have already made their own decision, with MS out of the loop, about the discount they want and what they are willing to pay for.
Furthermore, if MS clamps down tightly on "piracy" via more sophisticated technical measures, then they may end up losing this base of warez customer that just might possibly in the future begin sending money towards Redmond after they've become addicted to MS ware.
It's all very strange.
MS products "free" like cocaine is "free" (Score:5, Insightful)
MS will not continue giving it's products away for zero cost to anyone. They will do so long enough to ensure dependency, then charge full price. If they kept on giving it away at zero cost, they'd go out of business, despite everyone using their products. That's obviously not what they want. Their plan is obviously to make governments and citizens dependent on MS software using mechanisms like the Word incompatability fiasco.
At the very least, all government agencies should require that the formats in which they store information are completely OPEN and FREELY AVAILABLE for anyone to implement.
That figures (Score:3, Insightful)
Last week Steve Ballmer visited to have a meeting with the Minister of Administration. The most published result from the talk was that the government get disclosure of the source code. And probably, according to this, got an opportunity to renegotiate for a better deal.
Just an example. But what it means is that Linux and Open Source gives (large) organizations a hand in negotiating price and conditions with Microsoft. I'm not sure if that means anything to the Open Source Movement at all.
I'm not even sure if that's good for Open Source. Expensive and closed Microsoft is good for OSS, because that means Linux et al is where to go for open systems. If large corporations (in Norway, the government, military and one large corporation now has access to Microsofts source code) can get to the insides, that means a lot of resources that could go to the public good is kept locked up by MS anyway.
Microsoft's foot shooting (Score:5, Informative)
So we started a policy that banned XP for "security reasons" and made a sweet deal with Red Hat. Unless you had a valid reason to use an XP product, you used Win2K or Linux. Linux meant that we could use older machines on our server farms and pay virtually nothing because, funny enough, Red Hat gave us a site license for support. Not that we use it (or need to) very much.
Suddenly, Microsoft "produced" a disk with Product activation disabled (sort of, it's kind of complicated), but claimed all kinds of voodoo like it had a copy protection so complex, we couldn't burn a new one from the master... even sector-by-sector copying. Bollocks. You could use any XP disk, just as long as you followed the directions MS gave us for the "master CD." Now we have a lot of the CDs all over the place, with a site key (and no, I won't give it to you, use Linux and be free) and the "process" to make it work legally by our contract. It took them two years to backpedal that far.
It's weird, because for so long, Windows was essentially "free" (although, not legally) because until WinXP, more than half the people I knew had "borrowed" an OS CD from "somewhere." Microsoft knew that (I mean, come on), and like a drug pusher, made sure the buyer was hooked before they started charging (my proof is how they made MSIE a dominant browser over Netscape). But it's not that easy anymore. Linux desktops are getting better and better, and while Windows is easier to use for the most part, it's lack of flexibility, anti-customer anticompetitive stance, and their brazen arrogance in the field is really dulling their blade.
But in this case, I can't fault them for trying to give away freebies, I mean, trade shows do that all the time. But what we should really be wary of is when they get politics involved, and claim stuff like DeCSS is proof that Linux should be banned in the US or something equally as stupid to us techies, but is all greek to your average politician who could be $wayed by $ome other thing$...
__________________________________________________
www. [punkwalrus.com] - where else can you get blogged to death?
So how many Microsoft people are Astroturfing /.? (Score:4, Interesting)
Let me count the ways.. (Score:5, Informative)
Disclaimer: I'm an IT consultant for a small business using Access as its only DB.
I've currently got a project that is easily 2 months overdue because of stupid bugs in Access. The worst is this one: if one of the databases becomes corrupted, all of the databases which synchronize with that DB will become corrupted as well. I've actually witnessed databases losing records during a synchronize because some stupid jerk of a programmer at MS thought that the good thing to do would be to delete records to make the tables match. So instead of the good copy filling in missing records in the bad copy, just the opposite happens - good records get deleted from the good copy, and now both copies are bad.
At this point, it simply doesn't matter if Microsoft gives its software away - consultants like myself are going to charge you so much for working with their bit-trash that you won't be reaping any savings. Honestly, there's a reason why I charge more for MS support, and it's not because I'm greedy, but rather, because I recognize the headaches that it presents to the average developer.
Quite frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of explaining to my customers that the reason why they're losing thousands of dollars a day in downtime and lost data is precisely because they chose to use Microsoft software. Get clue! - Microsoft does not care what happens to your data; they've already got your money, stupid! .
Instead of whinging... (Score:3, Informative)
There was a glimmer of hope though, a couple of rack-mount linux boxes sitting idle. It was obvious that someone had attempted to set up some services at some point, but given up I presume so they were mostly badly configured or just plain broken. So I set to work in my (brief periods of) spare time. Samba, named, squid, apache, dhcpd, PHP, MySQL, iptables and some other bits and bobs later and just about everyone was impressed at how well they intgrated with the rest of the network. They actually make it much easier to manage the hundreds of Win98/2K PCs in use around the place! In fact, all server replacements/upgrades and additions will now be Linux boxes (currently changing all printing servers over too). I'm no hairy-chinned guru; so if I can manage this, I'm sure plenty of others (especially here) could take some time out to do some good
The only hurdle is Exchange, although I'm sure the management would be thrilled to find a "Free" replacement without the quota limits (the version in use has a limit on the amount of disk space that can be used for mail storage, apparently you can pay more for a version with the FILESIZE_LIMIT=xxx constant set to -1
Can't see the desktops changing over to KDE or Gnome, since the software just isn't available for our needs, but in the server room, MS is simply an innefficient and unnecessary expense.
This may not be a simple anti-trust problem (Score:4, Informative)
Now if RedHat, a competitor who could be monetarily harmed, were to complain, Microsoft could be held in violation of anti-trust laws
I don't know how to feel about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Some say this is dumping -- selling their product below cost just to push out a smaller competitor. Sure, it fits that definition, but Microsoft is lowering its price to that of a competitor who is also selling below cost. Alan Cox's labor alone probably ads up to more than a penny on the two debian machines I have right now which would be two more pennies than I spent on their software. (Aside, if each of us sent Alan a penny for each of our servers, how much money would he have?)
Some are calling this just another unfair tactic, losing money to maintain marketshare. Well, maybe it is, but isn't that what M$ is doing with the XBox? Rumor has it that Sony did it with the PS2 at least when it came out. Numerous other business models do this as well. Maybe Microsoft is turning to a business model where the software is free (under certain circumstances) and they earn their money on the support calls and Must Consult Someone Else certifications? Isn't that the business model all the free software people advocate?
I don't like Microsoft's history or how they do business, but I'm racking my brains here to find a way that they're evil and my favorite business OS, Linux, is good. All I'm coming up with is either ways to kill Linux accidently or ways that this is a legit thing to do.
Perhaps there's something to do with how the prices are different? Can it be proven discriminatory, or is it along the same lines as airline seat price differences?
The best I have is that foreign governments can prohibit or tariff Microsoft OS imports that are under priced because they're being dumped-- when and only when they have local developers working on Linux and consider that flavor to be domestic. Much like the US is doing (illegally due to WTO agreements) with steel.
Microsoft was evil, in my opinion, when they released IE for free against Netscape's paid-for product. Why is free as in beer Linux good when it's apparently forcing Microsoft to give their OS away for free? Aside from brand hatred of Microsoft, why do I want Linux to succeed? Simply because I can and have modified the source code (but that gets back to it being Free as in libre which I think should stay out of this argument).
If it's reasonable to cast licensing paranoia aside for a moment, Microsoft appears to be offering those who cannot afford their software the ability to get upgrades for free without having to pay for migrating proprietary code to the Linux platform. If I replaced "Microsoft" with another business name, that would be A Good Thing.
Can we write a law that refers to the Microsoft business entity specifically and prohibits them from "selling" their product at a loss as punishment for prior practices?
Re:I don't know how to feel about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know that it is reasonable to cast aside worries about MS's licensing schemes.
I'm sure that they would like nothing better than to have it appear thataway.
If I replaced "Microsoft" with another business name, that would be A Good Thing.
That would be a deeply insightful comment, EXCEPT: if we were talking about another company, we wouldn't be talking about a company which had been convicted of abusing its monopoly power. Then, we might believe that the object of the exercise was charity, and it would be A Good Thing.
Unfortunately, we are talking about MS, the convicted monopolist. The MS with a history of rude, rapacious behavior towards customers and competitors alike. The MS which has used all means possible to extend and maintain their monopoly, including `` ... offering those who cannot afford their software the ability to get upgrades for free ... ''. Thus, many of us don't see this as A Good Thing. In fact, we see it as more rude, rapacious behavior.
The situation is different when it's MS instead of, say, RedHat, because MS is different than RedHat. At some point, automatic suspicion becomes reasonable rather than paranoid. I think that MS and Charles Manson have past that point at least once. So did IBM, before most slashdotters were born, but IBM has come back to the ``safe'' side of that point since MS lead them down an alley and molested them.
By the way, the postage meter industry is just messy as the desk-top OS industry, except rougher. And except for the fact that anti-trust law worked there, sort of.
Re:I don't know how to feel about this... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a very big difference. Microsoft is a monopoly in the OS market as determined by a US court, and possibly would be in office suite market as well. This means there are actions that are legal for other companies that are illegal for them.
In particular, lowering prices below cost is easily used to destroy smaller competitors, because it's essentially a cash burning exercise. The problem is, after the competitor is destroyed, prices will rise back far beyond previous levels to recoup the "investment". The consumers will only get cheaper products for a limited time, and no competition among vendors in the long run. This is a Bad Thing for the consumers, which is why there are laws against competing this way.
Try to understand that the law is not primarily intended to protect the smaller competitor, but to protect the consumer.
This is a very smart move on M$' part.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Guess the BSA Hasn't Heard This... (Score:3, Interesting)
As a result, more and more of us are moving to Linux (developers can run whatever they want on their machines, so long as they get the job done). No licencing hassles, and no software-asset-management hassles.
Slashdot and Microsoft: Connecting the Dots (Score:5, Interesting)
Until now, that is. While helping my 16-year-old son (also an avid Slashdot reader) do research for a term paper on technology and journalism, I stumbled across some information that made me change my views about Slashdot completely. In a nutshell: Slashdot, and more accurately, its parent company VA Software, has deep and mutually influential ties to the Microsoft Corporation. In fact, Slashdot's own editors are paid (albeit indirectly) out of the coffers of Microsoft.
Yes. It's hard to believe. At first I couldn't believe it. But a few simple Google searches and 45 minutes' research on Lexis-Nexis (as well as a couple of phone calls to a friend of mine at the SEC) revealed the following:
At first I was more amused than shocked; I mean, the technology industry is notoriously incestuous and its leaders, even those who are in competition, often sit on the same boards and are members of the same organizations. So what if a few board members of Slashdot's parent company are also directors of a company funded by Microsoft? Well, it gets more interesting.
As it turns out, in May of 1999, VA Software submitted to the SEC Form 5506-D, Application for Direct Non-Ownership Subsidization. [sec.gov] This is the form that a corporation will submit to the SEC when it wants to directly fund a subsidiary from its own parent corporation. (It's basically a tax shelter for companies with a lot of subsidiaries) The application was approved in July 1999. The applicant name? OSDN. In other words, Form 5506-D basically eliminated the middleman between OSDN and Murberry-Slocomb. Following the money, I now saw that OSDN was being funded directly from an infusion of captal that Murberry-Slocomb has receved from Microsoft!
Weird. I know. But what does this all mean? Honestly I have no idea. I'm not the custodian of any privileged information. A look at VA Software's web site and a Google search is all anyone needs to find the same information that I found. Are Slashdot's staff being paid through Microsoft? I sincerely hope not. But the facts are there and it sure looks like it. More importantly, what does this mean for the future of Slashdot? Can any grain of objectivity or journalistic ethics be preserved? What happens when the company you are bashing, nay, the very company that you preach the loudest against, Microsoft, is the same company that signs your paycheck? Could there be a deeper link still? Who knows. As far as I'm concerned, I'll never look at Slashdot the same way, ever again.
These leaks will vanish when MS DRM hits (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft's RMS, in conjunction with Outlook, would prevent emails from being forwarded or printed by individuals who had not been preapproved by the sender. (And methods like "Print Screen" don't work, either.) Obviously, this becaomes even harder to crack once Palladium/NGSCB takes effect in 2005.
It was interesting listening to the NGSCB presentations at WinHEC. All I heard were MS employees describing how NGSCB would prevent company secrets from being leaked. Given the context of this story, is that a good or bad thing?
Re:And the dripping irony is (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:And the dripping irony is (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And the dripping irony is (Score:4, Insightful)
(sigh) Once again, somebody fails to recognize the segregation of editorial and advertising content. No biggie. It's just one of the fundamental principles of publishing. Hypothetical analogy follows:
Every issue, Car & Driver takes a moment to remind everybody that the Pontiac Aztek is the Ugliest Car On The Planet. Yet Pontiac doesn't seem to have a problem with buying a 4-page spread promoting the new Grand Prix.
Now, let's say General Motors has a hissy fit and withdraws their advertising from the magazine. The obvious message is "You won't get our advertising dollars..." with a thinly veiled "...unless you start writing good reviews of Pontiacs" in the fine print. Car & Driver is left with two choices. Either capitulate, praise the Aztek as the pinnacle of American design, and ruin their credibility for some filthy lucre; or tell GM "Bugger off. Chrysler wants that spread for a Pacifica ad." Either way, GM is screwed, because they're either denying themselves marketing opportunities in a key demographic, or they'll have to start paying for good reviews.
OK, now let's turn the scenario around. Say C&D refuses GM advertising because their cars suck. Who in the industry is going to try to buy space in C&D now? What's the point, if the ads can be refused on a whim? Now, C&D is screwed. Their ad space will become so devalued, the magazine will probably have to shut down, unless they can get by on ads for "magic" oil additives and gadgets that create turbulent air flow in manifolds designed for laminar flow.
Either way, somebody gets screwed. The only way to keep both parties happy is to keep editorial and advertising away from each other. Pontiac can still promote the Grand Prix, and C&D can still ridicule the Aztek, and neither interferes with the others' privilege to do so.
This is one of the few things Slashdot gets right. Microsoft gets the eyeballs of a large, diverse congregation of geeks, the Anyone But Microsoft crowd gets one more reason to add their two cents, and Michael gets to keep his job. See? Everybody's happy!
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah! (Score:3, Interesting)
I for one am disgusted and only hope that this evil is vanquished!
To aim for increased profits at the expense of the health of the global free marketplace is downright evil, in my book. Microsoft is the enemy of free trade and must be brought under control.
Re: Yeah! (Score:4, Funny)
> I once offered to mow the lawn of my neighbor for 50 cents less than whatever she normally pays the usual kid and I ended up spending 6 months in prison for it.
Leave the gun at home when you want to make an old lady an offer she can't refuse.
Illegal Monopoly (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Doesn't this violate securities laws (Score:3, Interesting)
In theory? No. If it leads to greater profits, or prevents the loss of a market or large customer (give the product, sell the service/support/maintenance, etc etc) then, arguably, it's fiduciary misconduct NOT to do it.
On the other hand, speaking from experience, watching my company's stock go from 40 bucks to 10, in an afternoon, now less than 1, STRICTLY because the shareholders didn't like the 'we're investing our profits in R&D so we can show EVEN GREATER profits a year down the road,' you're rig