I will state my bias up front, but hear me out. I think that free and open source software is a better way for companies to develop software and serves the consumer better. With that out of the way my big question to Microsoft (the linchpin software company) is when are you going to make a serious open source play?
It was obvious to some over 10 years ago that this was a movement that Microsoft had to embrace to stay relevant and yet they have completely failed to get it. It is obvious to anybody who enjoys coding that the great developers prefer free and open source software. There isn't a single category of product that isn't built using this methodology now. The worlds fastest supercomputers wouldn't dream of using Microsoft's operating software. Why is that? If Microsoft makes such great software, why can't they power the world's fastest and sexiest computers?
Microsoft is obsolete to many until they address this core issue. You can say all you want about them not making this or that online play but their core business as you point out is operating systems and office tools. Free and open source operating systems and office tools will one day break into that cash cow and when it does Microsoft had better be ready. I can't put it any more plainly than that.
You may now return to your scheduled programming :)
Why am I being down-voted? Others on this page have stated that Microsoft shall not be as profitable going forward for reason X or Y or Z. I have stated why I think this is the case. I can't of course _prove_ it which is why I said that I have a bias up front. But if you look to the mobile phone landscape you have a situation where Android and Symbian are free software. It took a long time to happen and it took two technology giant neither of whose core business was operating systems and office tools per se. Don't you think that this is significant? Let's repeat this, nobody had any success competing with Microsoft at its core competencies until open source competition came along and even then the market that Microsoft "owns" is still firmly within their grasp. Somebody else on this very page expressed their opinion that the technology disruptor would be thin clients/cloud computing and didn't get down-voted for it. But I do. Please do not down-vote me if you disagree with my opinion, express yourself and tell me why you think I merit down-voting. Thanks.
Probably because your post would have a hard time being further from reality. If this were back in the open source heyday it might not seem so out of place but at the end of 2010?
For some people open source was some sort of religion but the form it actually took was nothing more than loss leader. You can't break into the OS market because MS is too embedded? Then give your stuff away and make it up on the back end. This is what you're seeing, not some "power of open source" nonsense. Google doesn't care about open source, they care about getting an OS they can leverage on as many phones as possible so they can't be locked out on advertising. Unix vendors used to give their OS away because it was the hardware they made their money on.
Today the tides are changing. Now you can use micro-payments via the various application stores out there so developers no longer need to try and make some free source app in the hope of landing a job through it. Now they can take their shot at the market place and hopefully become self sufficient. Personally I'd rather become financially independent than land a "great job" working for someone else. I don't see how open source can offer me this.
Thanks for taking the time to reply. You may believe that my post is far from reality but surely that doesn't mean you should down-vote me for it. Debate me by all means, don't silence me. I tried to be honest and keep an even town. I was on topic. Just because you believe that my opinion is wrong doesn't mean that you have to down-vote me for it.
You make it seem like open source has had its day. It appears to me from looking at the software landscape that open source is becoming more and more pervasive all the time. If you are a software developer I would imagine that it is nigh on impossible to do your work by only using proprietary tools. This was always the case. Everyone agrees that the mobile market is the growth sector and the operating systems that are starting to dominate the sector are open source ones and the tools used to create the apps that go to the application stores you talk about are open source tools such as Eclipse and large parts of Xcode and the Symbian QT dev tools.
I did say I was biased. Granted. But it is not blind faith. That's unfair and unkind on your part to equate what I feel as pretty rational beliefs with religious thinking. Look at the valuation* of Redhat (the champion free software company) vs Microsoft (the champion proprietary company over the last two years for instance ... What does that stock movement tell you? You can't say that Redhat are making a better fist of the console market or a better cloud play or thin client play because Redhat outcompetes Microsoft on their own turf (server software and support) and this is all due to open source software.
I have no problem if you make your living selling closed source apps and for some verticals (games is an oft-cited instance) it might even make sense but I think in the long run everybody wins through the benefit of network effects and the reduced potential of lock-in when the free and open source software methodology is used. It seems to me that all the big IT companies get this - HP gets it, IBM get it, Oracle now get it through SUN, Yahoo gets it, Google definitely get it ... Microsoft are conspicuous by their absence to the party. And it is my thesis that this is going to begin hurting their bottom line despite the good results posted here.
>Debate me by all means, don't silence me. I tried to be honest and keep an even town. I was on topic. Just because you believe that my opinion is wrong doesn't mean that you have to down-vote me for it.
I think your post was downvoted for being dogmatic (e.g. "Open source is the way, the truth and the light!"), not for being wrong. On a side note, don't fret getting down voted so much. Who cares. Once you get 200 karma you can downvote people but other than that I don't know of anything that more karma buys.
>It appears to me from looking at the software landscape that open source is becoming more and more pervasive all the time.
This is because you're seeing it as some kind of ideology. It isn't. It's a loss leader. You see people doing loss leader all over the place (e.g. milk sold below cost, gaming consoles, television for free but with commercials, etc., etc.), do you think there is a growing trend of people who want to pay you for using their product? Of course not, it's part of a larger strategy. Just like open source.
>That's unfair and unkind on your part to equate what I feel as pretty rational beliefs with religious thinking.
When you see the same thing as everyone else but ascribe it to some "higher power" when there is no evidence of such what should I call it?
>Look at the valuation* of Redhat (the champion free software company) vs Microsoft (the champion proprietary company over the last two years for instance ... What does that stock movement tell you?
And bizarre examples like this further point to irrational thinking on your part. Microsoft dwarfs Redhat in every meaningful way. Are you comparing stock prices between the two [1]? And if you want to talk about the champion of proprietary software I think Apple has a better stake on that claim. They just recently blew past Microsoft in market cap (the metric you should be looking at if you're trying to judge valuation of a company).
>You can't say that Redhat are making a better fist of the console market or a better cloud play or thin client play because Redhat outcompetes Microsoft on their own turf (server software and support) and this is all due to open source software.
Redhat isn't remotely relevant to Microsoft. MS is worried about Google and Apple. I wouldn't be surprised if Ballmer didn't even know Redhat was still around as a company.
>It seems to me that all the big IT companies get this - HP gets it, IBM get it, Oracle now get it through SUN, Yahoo gets it, Google definitely get it ... Microsoft are conspicuous by their absence to the party.
No idea what you're talking about here. Frankly this sentence sounds absolutely delusional. Oracle "gets it" via Sun? Do you read the news? Every single one of those companies you mentioned rely on proprietary software. Sure, they use free software. Some even do some loss leader with it (e.g. Google). So what? Microsoft also gives away software btw. Out of that list it is beyond bizarre that you would give Oracle a pass but single out Microsoft. I feel like I'm having a conversation on slashdot in the late '90s.
Thanks for continuing this conversation with me. Lets put aside ideology for a moment and talk about facts.
>This is because you're seeing it as some kind of ideology. It isn't. It's a loss leader. You see people doing loss leader all over the place (e.g. milk sold below cost, gaming consoles, television for free but with commercials, etc., etc.), do you think there is a growing trend of people who want to pay you for using their product? Of course not, it's part of a larger strategy. Just like open source.
Because with open source software you get unhindered access to the source code and because sending bits over the internet is very cheap it is seen as pointless to charge for the media. But open source software charge and make a very fine business from support. Your example of milk is odd because farming is subsidized, something that a lot of people find unfair but that is necessary so that you don't become agriculturally subservient to someone who suddenly becomes your enemy. And what does milk lead to? Cheese? Gaming consoles, yes. But apparently Nintendo never has. Television programming uses the business model of advertising just like a whole bunch of websites do. This does not mean that your television programs are loss leaders because what do they lead to? Consoles lead to games. Programs lead to more programs which the advertisers like cuz they like eyeballs. With advertising you are the product, the advertisers are the customer. This is why probably you get better programming from subscription channels because they are not as beholden to their customers (the advertisers) but this is all beside the point. The example that is kind of true reinforces my point about software being exorbitantly priced.
>Microsoft dwarfs Redhat in every meaningful way. Are you comparing stock prices between the two [1]? And if you want to talk about the champion of proprietary software I think Apple has a better stake on that claim. They just recently blew past Microsoft in market cap (the metric you should be looking at if you're trying to judge valuation of a company).
It's not about size. It is about your return on your stock investment in terms of the share price going up and not down, and the dividends on the shares. The data I gave you showed that Redhat's shares have outperformed Microsoft's shares over the last 5 years even though Microsoft is phenomenally profitable. What does that tell you? I don't know about dividends, I haven't looked that up. Your talk about Apple is beside the point because I am not talking about market cap. Sure market cap gives you one evaluation of a company but so do lots of other things such as stock movement, volume of trading, price to earnings ratio and a whole bunch of other things. Judging things by just how "big" they are is not a great way to go about educating yourself.
>Redhat isn't remotely relevant to Microsoft. MS is worried about Google and Apple. I wouldn't be surprised if Ballmer didn't even know Redhat was still around as a company.
You are joking aren't? What is Microsft's main source of revenue. It was spelled out in this article. Windows and Office. Has been for years. Redhat competes with Windows in the enterprise. They are a direct competitor of Microsoft's cash cow. Apple is too but only kind of because Macos is not a general purpose OS and always comes wrapped in shiny hardware and so doesn't compete directly with Microsoft. It's more the other way, as Microsoft expands beyond its cash cows it enters the turf of others, into music devices or web search for instance. And Apple kind of proves my point cuz Darwin and LLVM are open source projects that Apple heavily invests in so gives them a competitive advantage. Check out http://www.apple.com/opensource/ "As the first major computer company to make Open Source development a key part of its ongoing software strategy, Apple remains committed to the Open Source development model. Major components of Mac OS X, including the UNIX core, are made available under Apple’s Open Source license"
Sure thing, that's what this site is about, no? :)
>Lets put aside ideology for a moment and talk about facts.
I'm not talking ideology, I would claim you are. Personally I care about what works. I care about what should work but I can't make it so and I refuse to imagine it to be so when it isn't.
>Because with open source software you get unhindered access to the source code and because sending bits over the internet is very cheap it is seen as pointless to charge for the media.
Seen by who? Just off the hip, I suspect that most software that's on computing devices today is paid for. I cite the massive profits MS makes on enterprise software and iPhone apps. What are you citing to backup your nonintuitive claim?
>But open source software charge and make a very fine business from support.
? This kind of thing is what really gives me the "back to the past" feeling about your posts. Giving away software and charging for support is a horrendous business model (at least if that's all you have. Places like IBM do make money doing this is an extra to their expensive software). I can't think of anyone besides Redhat to have a a lot of success with it. Everyone else has moved to advertising, freemium or some other technique to make it work.
Have you ever worked in support? Personally I can't think of a worse job in computer science. Listening to unreasonable assholes who feel they can demand anything because they're paying you. If the free software movement wants to tell me that my only option as a software developer (they don't but just to address this idea of making money via support) is to give away my code and be paid to support it, they can go to hell. I would learn another trade before I'd stoop to working in support again. And I love developing.
>Your example of milk is odd because farming is subsidized, something that a lot of people find unfair but that is necessary so that you don't become agriculturally subservient to someone who suddenly becomes your enemy.
Uhm, what does farming subsidy have to do with anything? Places like Walmart pay farmers more for the milk then what they charge themselves. I.e. they seel it at a loss. It isn't Walmart who gets these subsidies but the farmers.
>And what does milk lead to?
Are you serious? You don't know anything about this stuff? I chose the "milk as a loss leader" example because it should be familiar to most people.
Just to educate you on this; go into a Walmart. Do you know where the milk is? It's in the very back of the store. So you have to walk by all their other high-margin offerings to get it. Milk is something you have to get often so it makes a good lure to get people in the store so you can start advertising to them.
>Gaming consoles, yes. But apparently Nintendo never has.
I don't believe this is the case. They may have never sold the wii at a loss but Nintendo is one of the original console players. The wrote the blue print for this stuff, it's hard to believe that they never sold consoles at a loss.
>This does not mean that your television programs are loss leaders because what do they lead to?
They are loss leaders. The product is the viewers, the customers are the advertisers. The programs are the product they produce and then give away to get their high margin product (viewers) in the door.
>The example that is kind of true reinforces my point about software being exorbitantly priced.
Software is more difficult to price because it costs so much up front but costs nothing more to produce once made. I think the market is doing ok at finding the price for it though.
Why do you say "exorbitantly priced"? Have you ever produced anything substantial and found it was really cheap to do? Do you simply think everything should cost less than it does or are you picking on software only (e.g. if you think a BMW should cost so much but software shouldn't then why?)?
>It's not about size. It is about your return on your stock investment in terms of the share price going up and not down, and the dividends on the shares.
You're trying to change the game here. The reason people use market cap as the metric is because it's the best indicator we have. You've found some metric that shows what you want the result to be and chosen that. Do a little more research and I bet you could find a penny stock that beats MS and Redhat.
>Judging things by just how "big" they are is not a great way to go about educating yourself.
It is if you want to know who is more successful. Are you seriously trying to claim that Redhat is out-performing Microsoft? Seriously? That is just utter delusion talking. You were trying to call me out on ideology? I'd like to see MS go down as much as the next MS hater, but I won't lie to myself.
>You are joking aren't?
Are you? Who cares about Redhat?
>Redhat competes with Windows in the enterprise.
Along with a lot of other players. Of all the ones to worry about, Redhat would be the last on my list (if it made the list at all). They're just a support organization, big deal. I'd be much more worried about e.g. Oracle coming in and locking out my platform.
>They are a direct competitor of Microsoft's cash cow.
They have no offering that competes with MS. Be honest with yourself. Redhat Linux usually replaces the other Unix vendors that were there, not even Windows servers. And the desktop? Not in our lifetimes. OpenOffice can't take MS office on head to head and almost certainly never will. I'm sure Office will go down one day (maybe even in less than 10 years) but not to Redhat, come on.
>Apple is too but only kind of because Macos is not a general purpose OS and always comes wrapped in shiny hardware and so doesn't compete directly with Microsoft.
Do you have any idea what's going on in the wild? The landscape has changed over the last 2 years, you seem to have missed it. OSX is very much a general purpose OS. I've replaced all my windows machines with OSX ones in a way I would never have been able to with Linux. OSX is continuing to gain market on the desk and they're crushing on appliances. They're already in any enterprise that does graphics and they're making headway on regular corporate. I don't see them really trying too hard with corporate right now but they have a presence and a leverage point to exploit if they wanted in (IOS). Redhat has nothing to leverage because they have nothing compelling. They're just offering support on a cheap Unix variant, so companies replace their existing Unix vendor with Redhat and forget about them.
>It's more the other way, as Microsoft expands beyond its cash cows it enters the turf of others, into music devices or web search for instance.
That's worked great for them so far...
>And Apple kind of proves my point cuz Darwin and LLVM are open source projects that Apple heavily invests in so gives them a competitive advantage.
Darwin just helps them compete against apt/RPM/etc. so people want a Unix desktop can chose them over Linux. Another loss leader. LLVM is a better example though, but it's mainly competing against GCC.
>"As the first major computer company to make Open Source development a key part of its ongoing software strategy, Apple remains committed to the Open Source development model. Major components of Mac OS X, including the UNIX core, are made available under Apple’s Open Source license"
Sure, they play nice with open source developers for the same reason phone App developers develop for iPhone and Android. Android sells maybe 50% what you can do on iPhone but that's still 50% on the table, no reason to ignore it if you can afford to produce for two platforms.
Open source isn't dead. I release open source code myself (and I would release more if I wasn't busy making a living). But your original post claimed the reason MS is floundering is because they don't embrace open source! That has no relevance what so ever. Just playing nice with open source doesn't make you suddenly have a viable business. Ask Sun.
It was obvious to some over 10 years ago that this was a movement that Microsoft had to embrace to stay relevant and yet they have completely failed to get it. It is obvious to anybody who enjoys coding that the great developers prefer free and open source software. There isn't a single category of product that isn't built using this methodology now. The worlds fastest supercomputers wouldn't dream of using Microsoft's operating software. Why is that? If Microsoft makes such great software, why can't they power the world's fastest and sexiest computers?
Microsoft is obsolete to many until they address this core issue. You can say all you want about them not making this or that online play but their core business as you point out is operating systems and office tools. Free and open source operating systems and office tools will one day break into that cash cow and when it does Microsoft had better be ready. I can't put it any more plainly than that.
You may now return to your scheduled programming :)