How will Microsoft respond to Linux success?
Let the conspiracy theories begin! Seriously, I want to consider how Microsoft will respond if Linux begins to heavily impact their profitability. Consider these possible actions:
More anti-Linux marketing campaigns
Microsoft has billions of dollars of cash that they can use to create a massive storm of advertisements, comparative "studies", and similar marketing schemes. The question is, will this work, or will it backfire? I think Microsoft is smart enough to balance this effort without causing a backlash. If a lie is repeated enough times, it will become accepted as the truth. Fortunately, open source has the benefit of word-of-mouth recommendations and truth on our side.
Threatening customers with potential lawsuits
Microsoft has been using this technique for a few years now. They claim that Linux infringes on their software patents, but they never specify the exact details of this infringement. If they ever did provide these details, the open source community would have the ability to consider these infringements and replace any offending code with new open source code.
Microsoft uses this claim to cause doubt in the minds of customers, to give them one more reason NOT to use open source software. Microsoft then offers patent protection deals, in order to gain income simply from the threat of possible lawsuits.
Appear to be open source friendly
Microsoft is already "trying" to do this, without much success. First, they are working with open source companies (like Novell) to create deals that are supposed to improve interoperability between Windows and Linux. Interoperability by itself is a good thing, but Microsoft uses these deals to sneak in the patent protection deals that I mentioned above. They also have an open source forge, which is currently a pathetic list of mostly useless software.
If Microsoft truly wants to be taken seriously as "open source friendly", they need to release at least one popular application as open source. This action will generate HUGE mind-share and tons of positive marketing for Microsoft. It wouldn't even have to be a product that is currently generating a lot of profit. They could choose some second-tier product that would be quickly adopted and heralded by open source advocates.
Can you imagine the excitement if Microsoft released something like MS Works, MS Digital Imaging Suite, or MS Streets and Maps as open source? Come on Microsoft, is it that hard to figure out that this would help your business? If so, then please hire me to be your open source strategist.
Lower the price of their software
A price-war is a common way to compete with a similar product. But how can Microsoft compete with FREE? The truth of the matter is, some people will choose a familiar brand name just because of the name. This means that Microsoft can encourage people to stick with what they know, since they can now buy it at a lower price. Here is my question: In the face of stiff competition from Linux, how did Microsoft get away with increasing the price for Windows Vista? Unbelievable! I don't understand why they thought that was the right thing to do.
Sabotage open source communities
It would be very easy for proprietary software companies to cause huge negative impacts on open source projects by disrupting communication. They also stand to benefit greatly from this type of action. Let me explain how this could occur.
Open source community members greatly value each others opinions, but if a member is repeatedly disrupting communication processes then it is necessary to stop the interruption. If this is not stopped, it can grind progress to a halt. How do we determine what behaviors will require this action? Well, you need a Code of Conduct (see Ubuntu) and a Community Council (see Ubuntu).
There is also the issue of how to actually block the trouble-maker. Open source communication is an open process, with no pre-approval necessary. So how can we identify the trouble-maker if they can register under multiple different names? A mailing list can easily get overrun by an emotional confrontation caused by a single trouble-maker. Any ideas on how this can be stopped?
So when will this type of community sabotage begin, or is it happening already? (Cue X-Files music.)
Your ideas wanted
Do you have any other ideas on what actions Microsoft will take to protect their monopoly? If we can predict these actions in advance, it will provide us with two benefits. First, we will know that Linux is becoming very successful. Second, it will allow us to plan how to best defend against these actions.
More anti-Linux marketing campaigns
Microsoft has billions of dollars of cash that they can use to create a massive storm of advertisements, comparative "studies", and similar marketing schemes. The question is, will this work, or will it backfire? I think Microsoft is smart enough to balance this effort without causing a backlash. If a lie is repeated enough times, it will become accepted as the truth. Fortunately, open source has the benefit of word-of-mouth recommendations and truth on our side.
Threatening customers with potential lawsuits
Microsoft has been using this technique for a few years now. They claim that Linux infringes on their software patents, but they never specify the exact details of this infringement. If they ever did provide these details, the open source community would have the ability to consider these infringements and replace any offending code with new open source code.
Microsoft uses this claim to cause doubt in the minds of customers, to give them one more reason NOT to use open source software. Microsoft then offers patent protection deals, in order to gain income simply from the threat of possible lawsuits.
Appear to be open source friendly
Microsoft is already "trying" to do this, without much success. First, they are working with open source companies (like Novell) to create deals that are supposed to improve interoperability between Windows and Linux. Interoperability by itself is a good thing, but Microsoft uses these deals to sneak in the patent protection deals that I mentioned above. They also have an open source forge, which is currently a pathetic list of mostly useless software.
If Microsoft truly wants to be taken seriously as "open source friendly", they need to release at least one popular application as open source. This action will generate HUGE mind-share and tons of positive marketing for Microsoft. It wouldn't even have to be a product that is currently generating a lot of profit. They could choose some second-tier product that would be quickly adopted and heralded by open source advocates.
Can you imagine the excitement if Microsoft released something like MS Works, MS Digital Imaging Suite, or MS Streets and Maps as open source? Come on Microsoft, is it that hard to figure out that this would help your business? If so, then please hire me to be your open source strategist.
Lower the price of their software
A price-war is a common way to compete with a similar product. But how can Microsoft compete with FREE? The truth of the matter is, some people will choose a familiar brand name just because of the name. This means that Microsoft can encourage people to stick with what they know, since they can now buy it at a lower price. Here is my question: In the face of stiff competition from Linux, how did Microsoft get away with increasing the price for Windows Vista? Unbelievable! I don't understand why they thought that was the right thing to do.
Sabotage open source communities
It would be very easy for proprietary software companies to cause huge negative impacts on open source projects by disrupting communication. They also stand to benefit greatly from this type of action. Let me explain how this could occur.
Open source community members greatly value each others opinions, but if a member is repeatedly disrupting communication processes then it is necessary to stop the interruption. If this is not stopped, it can grind progress to a halt. How do we determine what behaviors will require this action? Well, you need a Code of Conduct (see Ubuntu) and a Community Council (see Ubuntu).
There is also the issue of how to actually block the trouble-maker. Open source communication is an open process, with no pre-approval necessary. So how can we identify the trouble-maker if they can register under multiple different names? A mailing list can easily get overrun by an emotional confrontation caused by a single trouble-maker. Any ideas on how this can be stopped?
So when will this type of community sabotage begin, or is it happening already? (Cue X-Files music.)
Your ideas wanted
Do you have any other ideas on what actions Microsoft will take to protect their monopoly? If we can predict these actions in advance, it will provide us with two benefits. First, we will know that Linux is becoming very successful. Second, it will allow us to plan how to best defend against these actions.
They'll respond with FUD.. like they always do. Their childish and immoral tactics are quite predictable.
ReplyDeleteI think it is clear with their trying to make deals with Linux distros: They want to be a Linux partner as a transition to a day where they try to dominate the open source world with a corporate twist.
ReplyDeleteGo for the big fishes.
ReplyDeleteWhy waste time with the small fish when you can go for the big one? By making sure government agencies, corporates, schools and universities continue to use their software, Microsoft is also forcing home users to use their product.
Also, the fact that it is easier to do and is more profitable to them didn't hurt either.
MS will certainly be more and more agressive with OEM dealer.
ReplyDeleteThat's the only waythey could be sure that Linux won't ever oust their business.
Simple equation : no oem linux = no drivers support + no linuxport = no more switchers
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeletePeople stick with what they know regardless of price. I have on many occassions chosen a more expensive option because I was familiar with it than a cheaper option I had never heard of. Digital cameras are a good example of this. Many people stick with the better-known manufacturers even though some of the no-names are getting surprisingly good. I think being "well-known" is one reason people stick to MS Office. Another is that schools keep "requiring" students to use it. People will struggle through problem after problem to get MS Office to work because they paid for it and it's required. After investing so much, they get hooked and refuse to leave. On the other hand, if they try OpenOffice and can't get something to work in 10 seconds (even though it took them weeks to figure out in MS Office), they give up.
ReplyDeleteMS may have long passed the point where they can release a completely original product. It's even been a while since MS has released a pitiful malformed stillborn of an app for free solely to drive out competition. The sad thing is, there have been a lot of amazing projects at MS Research. I just haven't seen any of the more interesting ones go into actual products. MS seems to be waiting for others to build useful applications, which it then buys out. I wouldn't doubt if it used its patent clout to drive down their purchase price.
ReplyDeleteThe threat of GPL-style licenses are they require people to give back to the community. There's no way for MS to buy it out and crush the competition. The application is its own competition. If all these applications switched to BSD-style licenses, MS would probably stop its various attacks. Because the Ms-CL and Ms-PL are so easily confused, they may be part of an effort to trick people into giving MS various rights to use various technologies.
"On the other hand, if they try OpenOffice and can't get something to work in 10 seconds (even though it took them weeks to figure out in MS Office), they give up."
ReplyDeleteIt's not just that. OOo sucks. Make me a table that does not look ugly. I want slightly rounded corners on outer line, thank you. I will be taking time.
Just one example out of a few hundreds that I could produce. MSO2007 is some 5-10 years ahead in development of features. It's not just commonality, it's about being plain superior on nearly every area.
I'm going to say the #1 point of attack would be schools. As pointed out before, regardless of what software is available and how it's marketed, whatever people use first is for the majority what they will always use. Additionally, while Edubuntu and others have become a great product line, the open-source community has a serious lack of mindshare in educational deployments, which I think should be a larger focus of our own marketing efforts. Schools are a ridiculously easy place to stay established once your foot is in the door, and Microsoft would be stupid not to cling to their current position with everything they can.
ReplyDeleteMicrosoft has been using this technique for a few years now. They claim that Linux infringes on their software patents, but they never specify the exact details of this infringement. If they ever did provide these details, the open source community would have the ability to consider these infringements and replace any offending code with new open source code.
ReplyDeleteThat has been claimed a lot, but it is also missing the point. At least if my understanding is correct.
A patent does not protect the code, it protects the idea. Or maybe one should say protecting the approach and methodology taken. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that one of the offending patents is how ntfs works and that Microsoft is right in asserting that the Linux implementations are violating their patent. If so, it doesn't matter how the programmers of ntfs-3g wrote it (by reading Microsoft's specs and implementing it on their own,most likely). Microsoft, and people having bought a license from them, are the only ones legally entitled to use the technology and approach used in the patent in question.
Or a more real example...font rendering. Microsoft owns several patents regarding the ClearType technology, a technology that is intended to optimize font rendering in some circumstances. Don't remember where I saw it, but the freetype libraries on Linux potentially violates this patent - which is why the offending parts are disabled by default in Ubuntu IIRC (not compiled in that is, they can't be re-activated with just a command line command).
Sure, in some cases it would be possible to code around the patent but I'm not sure how often that would be. Or if it would even be worthwhile all the time. Coding around the problem, when possible, may break the desired functionality.
In short, if Linux (used to encompass everything in a typical distro, and not just the kernel) indeed violates some of Microsoft's patents it might not be all that easy to remove while maintaining the current functionality. Even if Microsoft issues a press release about exactly what they think Linux infringes upon.
Re-posting for Anonymous, who had great ideas, but also included some obscene language:
ReplyDeleteLies? I have been unable to get one single logically solid actual argument how some of their marketing campaigns would have been wrong. I have been trying to ask it from several open source zealots but no one has taken the challenge for real so far. Please keep in mind that it is marketing however - they can't slap 500 pages of scientifically accurate studies at the customers. All they are saying that they offer a low risk adjusted TCO and actually pretty nice products. Which they do.
Speaking of which though, cost is not that important. "How do you compete with free?" is a pretty silly question as the price is only one of some dozen factors when doing selections. It might be major, but often it is just not. Surprisingly often spending for example a billion on application can be easily justified.
Could you also point the times they actually explicitly said "sue" or "lawsuit" when talking about their patents? You were played like fools in a pretty basic PR gig. It's cheap but it might also be that they are true. Microsoft does have a lot of patents and if something is infringing them they do have got in front of the law and morally the right to attack the open source projects that are leveraging their IP. It might be that they have been actually good when not shutting down those, have you considered that?
Take a look at sf.net. 156719 projects, of which roughly 50 are worth anything. Codeplex is just smaller, not that it would have statistically larger amount of bad projects. (A few of that top-25 are actually pretty good imho.) Why Microsoft would need that "HUGE mind-share"? They are doing fine already. They are literally leading a complete industry, and ecosystem where others base their products and services on theirs. Consulting, training, solid products, whatnot. It's huge. Adding some open sourced "Works" into that does not really produce enough value to be worth the effort. It's also better to find more solid revenue streams like by for instance releasing advertisement supported versions instead of open source. Which they are doing.
That eWeek article was actually pretty funny, some lamer complaining that the #1 project was built only for Vista. What's wrong in that, building applications for the #1 platform? Seriously, it will be the most sold piece of consumer software ever (the previous one being Windows XP), and also those technologies (WPF etc) are pretty awesome.
Not that they wouldn't open source some things. They have given also a lot for free in the past. A few just wonderful life saving tools, some source code too. Microsoft is however a company. Companies exist for generating revenue for owning. I can't see that in open source, especially after doing the risk adjustments.
Sabotage? Yeah they might. Throw in something that is worthless to them otherwise, just for giggles, and see the ants go haywire. I would do that. However it is also a pretty far fetched conspiracy story that they would on purpose take existing standards, change them slightly and re-release, just to cause confusion. That is something that has been claimed often. They are a company that builds products that sell. Often you have to do those adjustments to be able to build products that sell. If supporting others to build compatible products doesn't generate revenue (again their #1 reason for existence) why on earth they should do that.. It just doesn't make any sense.
But seriously, you missed the #1 way they can screw up open source. It is marketing. No, not "advertising", but genuine marketing. Finding out what the customers need, what could fit their needs, and building that product. Complete software product has got a lot more than just the code. Code is some 5% in the corner there. They can build that whole package, and leverage great amounts of resources the open source projects do not have. They also have genuine strategic leadership instead of the "argumentum ad populum" sort of complete fuckup that the open source projects have. Focusing is what creates results.
The only reason why Microsoft has not beaten many open source projects to death is that have not had to so far. When they'll have to they will get the required competencies for understanding the environment and acting properly. It just takes some time, it has become too large and slow company. Also the top management is too american. Avoiding risks (as the reward systems point that way as well), mismanaging, bureaucracy, .. There's simply just a lack of soul.
Originally posted at: 9/04/2007 8:18 AM
Sure MS will still go protect their main line of business but they're not dumb - they'll go look for other business, something which Linux as a whole won't really affect much unless an integrator makes it possible - that is have the software industry change as a service oriented industry. MS is already dipping its toes on such, but I guess the Linux desktop guys still have no clue.
ReplyDeleteIn the end, its just business! The one with the best strategy wins, and doesn't necessarily mean the best technology ;-)
"In the end, its just business! The one with the best strategy wins, and doesn't necessarily mean the best technology"
ReplyDeleteThat is what 'GM' thought.
Bloat is not in. 'GM' can learn from 'Toyota'.
I believe, dividing the community and confusing the novice users will reap them more than they expected. But the problem with dividing the community is that: it's a community and so hard to break 'em.
ReplyDeleteGood article... you've become one of my regulars... gotta read the rest.
"That is what 'GM' thought.
ReplyDeleteBloat is not in. 'GM' can learn from 'Toyota'."
Marketing == trying to understand what users want and need, how to delight them and make them happy and loyal. Reliable product, cheap, and environmental friendly is what users want and need, and those cars can really delight you in countless ways (I've owned a Toyota, it was simply FUN to drive!). Sometimes technology helps in achieving that. Sometimes it is not required. There's a logical link between those things only the other way.
I don't know much about GM's cars. I reckon they are like the American normal taste; size is the luxury, cheap materials and shoddy overall design. You might call it bloat, but the reason they suck is in that they have no clue about their (potential) customers.
I am just waiting for the day when either Ford or GM tips over, that might be enough to wake them up?
Make some key developers offers they can't refuse. If they do refuse, harass them as only a multi-billion dollar company can.
ReplyDeleteHarassment techniques might include:
Lawsuits
Calling in favours to effect tax audits, criminal or terrorist investigations or withdrawal of security clearance.
Create credit-rating problems.
Create problems with developers employer.
Do everything that was done to Bill Clinton (probably not by Microsoft).
the problem of M$ with Open source has always been the lack of a company to buy. When a technology is boring M$, what do they do? They simply buy it.
ReplyDeleteUntil now there was no company to buy to get a hand on Linux. But in the future, you can be sure M$ will be pleased to buy anyhing they can to be sure to get a hand on Linux technologies. And once it will be done They'll just have to claim fees to people using Linux technologies.
I have been working with computers since the late 60's and witnessed all phases of the Microsoft rise to fame. As we know Microsoft have never had the best product but they have always had the best business strategy.
ReplyDeleteMicrosoft is less successful in the server world because the customers are more technically minded and more able to choose products for their technical excellence. The desktop world is different. Customers here are computer users and are generally controlled by an IT manager who justs want something that works consistently out of the box and integrates seamlessly into their working environment. No Linux distro does this. Linux is all things to all men. You can do pretty much anything with Linux that you can imagine and different people imagine different things so fragmentation rules!
This fragmentation means IT managers are concerned about supporting a Linux network at their place of work. The typical IT department has two whiz kids who can make anything sing and dance and a room full of worried managers who, while being hopeless with computers, can give a million reasons why something can't be done and two million reasons why all change is risky.
My guess is that Microsoft will target these IT managers and put their efforts into making sure that no clear Desktop leader appears out of the Linux swamp for the IT managers to support.
Microsoft will ensure the continued fragmentation of Linux even if this means supporting the 3rd and 4th most popular players. I don't think they are that worried about patent infringements on an obscure font; this could be a diversionary tactic. I think their only concern is that one day a unified Linux will emerge which has the same look and feel to all its users, supports all standard hardware and can be maintained by a generic IT team. Ubuntu is making an effort in the right direction but, at best, will be Linux for the home not Linux for the workplace. And don't forget most people buy a computer for home that is similar to the one at work.
But all is not lost. Remember the IBM dominance. (I predicted their crash but my money was on DEC taking the lead, even though 4 KB of their core memory cost several months wages at the time.) Microsoft will implode one day but not until there is a cheaper alternative (i.e. not Apple) that users will think is a Windows variant and which doesn't require any bravery from the IT mangers.
>> If a lie is repeated enough times, it will become accepted as the truth.
ReplyDeleteRepetition is key. If they lie, we can say the truth just as much and things will stay status quo (meaning if MS is going down, this won't stop it).
>> Sure, in some cases it would be possible to code around the patent but I'm not sure how often that would be. Or if it would even be worthwhile all the time. Coding around the problem, when possible, may break the desired functionality.
>> In short, if Linux (used to encompass everything in a typical distro, and not just the kernel) indeed violates some of Microsoft's patents it might not be all that easy to remove while maintaining the current functionality. Even if Microsoft issues a press release about exactly what they think Linux infringes upon.
That is the same exact situation for Microsoft. Who do you think will hurt more for the patents on both sides that cannot be overcome? Microsoft will have a lot more dollars and market share to lose so they will not attack. They will try everything to get commercial companies to abandon the "volunteer" community, but they will not attack (unless they somehow managed to get a deal with virtually everyone but this is very unlikely as it only takes a few patents to hurt Microsoft's business and there are many individual patent holders).
A patent battle is a loss for Microsoft.. or they would have attacked. In fact, they recognize they have gone for quantity not quality.
>> People will struggle through problem after problem to get MS Office to work because they paid for it and it's required. After investing so much, they get hooked and refuse to leave. On the other hand, if they try OpenOffice and can't get something to work in 10 seconds (even though it took them weeks to figure out in MS Office), they give up.
This is an important point for going about "selling" Linux. It also shows that you can make money selling something you download for free (though customizing it a little would help a lot).
>> It's not just that. OOo sucks. Make me a table that does not look ugly. I want slightly rounded corners on outer line, thank you. I will be taking time.
>> Just one example out of a few hundreds that I could produce. MSO2007 is some 5-10 years ahead in development of features. It's not just commonality, it's about being plain superior on nearly every area.
I think you are full of it. "Beauty" is in the eye of the beholder. You'd be amazed how what some like others hate. Regardless, let me accept your overall view for argument's sake. When you factor in the prices of these two products, I think a few cosmetic differences will stop being that important for a majority of users. Honestly, if people can still use typewriters and Notepad when they need the occassional paper or letter, I think they will be favorably surprised with Openoffice.
For $0, you can pick between Notepad or instead get Openoffice (with macros and everything)?
I think I'll take option number 2, thank you very much.
>> I'm going to say the #1 point of attack would be schools. As pointed out before, regardless of what software is available and how it's marketed, whatever people use first is for the majority what they will always use. Additionally, while Edubuntu and others have become a great product line, the open-source community has a serious lack of mindshare in educational deployments, which I think should be a larger focus of our own marketing efforts. Schools are a ridiculously easy place to stay established once your foot is in the door, and Microsoft would be stupid not to cling to their current position with everything they can.
I agree schools are a great place and only partially because the kids will grow up to use these products. The products are all mostly the same. Remember that lost MS Office sales helps Linux a lot. Microsoft has no community loyalty that isn't bought. I would not be surprised to see an Enron at some point as they do everything imaginable to whip up money and sales on the books until the very end when they will have to take huge and repetitive write offs.
>> All they are saying that they offer a low risk adjusted TCO and actually pretty nice products. Which they do.
..not. I'm sorry but many real life cases disagree. Microsoft is spending a lot of money in discounts to get a few dummys to parade around. It's the bulk, the unseen unheard masses, that determine whether or not MS makes or loses money. For many of these people not getting discounts, the TCO situation is very different. Are you surprised MS can find 100 cases where they might win the TCO battle? What does that leave.. only several hundred million more cases? MS will be doing TCO studies for a long while yet, but so will we, just look around the net to see the many groups that found they were able to switch and are happy.
I don't remember the last time 300-500 bucks bought such little improvement over $0 [I'm only talking about an office suite here]. And MS is a security nightmare. People are catching on to these hidden loses. Vista is a huge disappointment, a real pig, a privacy nightmare.
MS's TCO advantage, where it exists, is for those that are up to the wazoo in MS legacy code and documents. But it only gets worse for them as time goes on and they don't plan their exit. A Linux pilot and slow migration is a lifesaver on this Titanic.
>> Take a look at sf.net. 156719 projects, of which roughly 50 are worth anything.
This shows how little you know about these project. It's obvious you have never tried a distro. Your ignorance explains why you are trying to defend Microsoft. Don't be afraid. Better to start now slowly than to wait.
I apologize, but I don't see the point in considering some of your other points. I really don't think you know what Linux has out there.
>> The desktop world is different. Customers here are computer users and are generally controlled by an IT manager who justs want something that works consistently out of the box and integrates seamlessly into their working environment.
MSware fails at this frequently enough.
You point out "work with environment." Most people will find they can change environment and have most of what they had before plus other things. Linux isn't an either/or proposition. Trying Linux on the side will do wonders.
>> You can do pretty much anything with Linux that you can imagine and different people imagine different things so fragmentation rules!
>> This fragmentation means IT managers are concerned about supporting a Linux network at their place of work.
Fragmentation? Is that why less than a handful of individuals support http://www.pclinuxos.com/ virtually by themselves? Trust me, fragmentation only happens among scientists and other nerds. Most people don't hack their Linux. The hard work is done by the mainteners so that the end user just clicks a button to get an appication installed or updated (for free). And even for distro and package mainteners, if the work was that hard, you wouldn't have so many distros supported by as little as one individual, now would you?
Fear of the unknown is normal.
>> My guess is that Microsoft will target these IT managers and put their efforts into making sure that no clear Desktop leader appears out of the Linux swamp for the IT managers to support.
Pound for pound, the Linux-aware tend to rule over their Windows counterpart (in part it is their skill at Windows that led them to Linux all by themselves), so Microsoft will not get very far with only this strategy.. without sinking the company so that eventually the customer will have no choice but to go for the free stuff.. and then find out how large were their misconceptions and what suckers they were for waiting so long, losing business momentum.
LOL @ Linux a Success. Damn sometimes you guys make me laugh.
ReplyDeleteLinux is only good as a server, not as a desktop. As a desktop it sucks like anything.
So get a life... I have been reading such articles for past 10 years, nothing happened. MS domination continues.
At the moment, its not MS that has to respond, its linux (rather open source).
Just a thought.... what do u think of linux? its a bloody kernel.. whenever writing an article please be good to GNU. They are the ones who have made linux what it is.