Slashdot Log In
Why Windows Must (and Will) Go Open Source
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Feb 04, 2009 06:00 PM
from the lacks-the-ring-of-inevitability dept.
from the lacks-the-ring-of-inevitability dept.
Attila Dimedici writes "Charles Babcock of Information Week published an interesting article suggesting that Microsoft will have to at least to some degree take Windows open source if they want to stay in business. He suggests that the money to be made from the things MS builds on top of Windows (Office, Server, SQL Server, Exchange, Sharepoint, etc.) is so much greater than what can be made from Windows itself that MS will have to give up the revenue stream from Windows in order to maintain these other, more valuable, revenue streams."
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Having to give the OS away for free in order to sell the apps only makes sense if you don't already have a stranglehold on the OS market. Sure, MS has gotten some bad press lately but they still enjoy the overwhelming share of the OS market, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.
The fact that they are not making a lot of money selling Vista does not mean people are moving away from MS in droves...they're just sticking to an older MS product for now. MS is still entrenched as simply the way people expect computers to work, and it's going to take a much longer series of much larger screwups from Microsoft to change that.
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Disclaimer: I'm not a business expert and the above statement could just be coming out of my ass.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. I read the article as follows:
1) MS does not get nearly as much revenue from a copy of Windows as it does from a copy of Office. (This is per copy revenue, not total, and besides, even if it is smaller, it doesn't mean it is insignificant.)
2) People are turning away from Windows because they do not like to pay for Windows, at least on the business desktop or in the server room. (Come on. Price is not the only reason for choosing an OS. Not even cost is.)
3) Ergo, Windows will need to be free(gratis) in order to keep market share. (What? Why? There are other ways to get/keep market share than competing on price. Windows is a nice case study.)
4) Windows needs market share so that MS can sell apps. (Why? They can't make apps for other operating systems?)
5) The author can't see why MS will make Windows free(gratis) without also making it free(libre). (What? Where on earth did that come from?)
Conlusion: Windows is going to go open source!
The premises are shaky, the logic is faulty, assumptions abound, and even if it were all true, MS is not necessarily going to be logical!
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Exactly. I read the article as follows:
1) MS does not get nearly as much revenue from a copy of Windows as it does from a copy of Office. (This is per copy revenue, not total, and besides, even if it is smaller, it doesn't mean it is insignificant.)
2) People are turning away from Windows because they do not like to pay for Windows, at least on the business desktop or in the server room. (Come on. Price is not the only reason for choosing an OS. Not even cost is.)
3) Ergo, Windows will need to be free(gratis) in order to keep market share. (What? Why? There are other ways to get/keep market share than competing on price. Windows is a nice case study.)
4) Windows needs market share so that MS can sell apps. (Why? They can't make apps for other operating systems?)
5) The author can't see why MS will make Windows free(gratis) without also making it free(libre). (What? Where on earth did that come from?)
Conlusion: Windows is going to go open source!
The premises are shaky, the logic is faulty, assumptions abound, and even if it were all true, MS is not necessarily going to be logical!
On point #4, the Macintosh Business Unit [wikipedia.org] has been rumored for years to have the highest profit margins of all units in Microsoft's domain. Though I question the veracity of that claim, they still have an estimated $350 million dollar yearly revenue according to wikipedia. If Linux continues its slow rise to fame expect a LinBU to complement the MacBU.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft already has Linux labs, wherein they probably torture Linux installations to extract strategic information.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
sudoapt-get install answers-devel
There fixed that for yah. No torture necessary, you just need ask the right way [xkcd.com].
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, but then the Microsoft version of Linux pops up a dialog box, and says:
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft already has Linux labs, wherein they probably torture Linux installations to extract strategic information.
Fortunately most chipsets do not take well to waterboarding and the system is soon out of it's misery.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Presumably, the Macintosh Business Unit has "higher profit margins" because they don't actually have to spend a lot developing Office, rather they just have to port it? The cost of developing each successive version goes into the "Windows" business unit (if such a thing exists in Microsoft, you know what I mean).
Or does my logic have an obvious flaw that was so obvious, I missed it?
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember hearing about a guy who walked into a CompUSA, plugged his iPod into a Mac, and dragged MS Office onto his iPod and walked out. Here's the story: http://tinyurl.com/dgf47d [tinyurl.com]
Parent
Price IS important (Score:5, Insightful)
I recycle old computers for various social organizations that dont have any money and money IS important to them, just like it is for the people who come to the food bank where I work on weekends.
Money is not important to you but in many countries it is. Heck, in your own country it is.
Just this winter, I had a single mother of two whose kids go at my son's school ask me about the costs of software since she heard I knew computers. She told me she could afford a second hand computer but that the prices of Windows, Office and Norton more than she can budget for. I let her use my backup laptop for a week to see how she liked OO instead of Office on her laptop and she was amazed that for $120 I was able to find her an Intel 2.66Ghz desktop that would run Gnu-Linux nicely.
She's not poor by any stretch but she still has to count her money carefully and a few hundred bucks is a big deal.
Try to think of people who arent in your financial situation when you say no one looks at price or cost.
We do pretty well but I hate spending money when I dont have to.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
> 1) MS does not get nearly as much revenue from a copy of Windows as it does from a copy of Office.
More precisely, the take from Windows is destined to trend towards zero. Netbooks are only part of the problem. The only barrier to sub $200 desktops is the price of an OEM copy of Vista. You never want to be "the only barrier" when talking about opening up a new lower price tier, especially in a down economy because all the pressure is on vendors to find a way around the barrier and gain an advantage over the chumps who didn't. Especially small hungry vendors looking to take a chunk out of Dell, HP, etc. Of course exactly the same argument will eventually be made about Office, SQL Server and all the rest. The existence of Open Source drives per unit pricing towards zero.
But for the short term the origional article has a point, Windows revenue is nice but it's ability to drive the larger revenue streams is more important.
Once HP broke the unwritten rule and displayed multiple operating systems in the same dropdown menu, with prices beside each option, the was cast. Windows will soon be going for near $0.
> 2) People are turning away from Windows because they do not like to pay for Windows, at
> least on the business desktop or in the server room.
Not exactly. It is the difficulty of maintaining the per copy licensing in a virtual world that is also a problem. But price is a factor, as noted above. So long as people either thought Windows was "free" in that it was an invisible and non-negotiable part of the price of buying a PC the price wasn't an issue. That is no longer true.
> 3) Windows will need to be free(gratis) in order to keep market share.
It won't have to be zero instantly but the price must be very low and heading towards zero. When a PC was $2,000 the cost of DOS/Windows was easilly borne. As the price plummets to where Windows is easilly the most expensive component it becomes an unstable situation. The smart thing would be for Microsoft to get ahead of the curve and try to control the process.
> 4) Windows needs market share so that MS can sell apps. (Why? They can't make
> apps for other operating systems?)
With the sole exception of Office for the Mac they have zero record of doing it successfully. That has to scare the piss out of em.
> 5) The author can't see why MS will make Windows free(gratis) without also making it
> free(libre). (What? Where on earth did that come from?)
Ask Sun. They did it a good five years too late and look at em. Microsoft could learn from that mistake.
My advice to Microsoft would be to submit to what must be and doing so while there is time to control the process. Don't do it all at once, attack the biggest problems first.
Stage One: Shared Source. Us RMS Pure types often forget that source code can be published under a normal copyright. So publish the source to Windows, stick it in the standard MSDN stuff. This gives developers many of the advantages of working on Linux, they can Use The Source when the published docs disagree with the actual code. Move all development to a public repo, available only to MSDN subscribers of course. This lets them see the direction the code is going, download development snapshots, etc. Accept contributions of code, but only with a copyright assignment. Be sure to loudly credit outside contributors.
Binaries wouldn't change much, but discount slightly reduced function copies ruthlessly to keep the netbook and budget PC markets from slipping away. 70% market share on netbooks is a disaster in the making.
Stage Two: Release free binaries. Not Free mind you, just free copies for 'non-commercial use', then free but unsupported (service contracts and per incident support available) when the OEM market demanded the move.
Stage Three: GPL. Move the source to the GPL (or other strong copyleft license) keeping the requirement for copyright assignment on contributions. This allows a more fun
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
MS is in no danger of going out of business, or becoming unprofitable, provided they manage their corporate affairs responsibly. They don't have to open source squat.
Now a question one might ask... would their profits be higher if they open sourced or made the Windows platform available for free?
Maybe so. But if they weren't very careful in choosing which components they open sourced, they'd be in danger of enabling a superior competitor.
One thing it could do is make their OS a better candidate for use in cloud computing and virtualization scenarios.
I.E. There could be custom virtual appliances based on _Windows_ that interoperate with the Windows-based desktop OSes, without hefty license costs.
Currently almost all virtual appliances are based on something like FreeBSD, Knoppix, Ubuntu, or JeOS.
It might make sense to open source the "core" of Windows, just enough, so virtual appliances like file sharing devices could work with Windows desktops, and be managed using windows tools (like the MMC), and be distributed without hefty licensing fees.
But still keep things like retail Desktop OS packages proprietary.
It would erase some of the competitive edge alternate OS solutions have.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to point out that open source does not have to mean free.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd like to point out that open source does not have to mean free.
And free does not have to mean open source. The article gives several reasons why MS might want to give Windows away but no compelling reasons why it should make it open source. Closed source isn't just about getting paid for software it's about control. They control the APIs and all the little gotchas that make producing a windows clone difficult. If Windows was fully open sourced, I'd bet we'd have a fully working Wine within months. At that point MS Windows just becomes "another Windows API implementation". You could say "so what!? they just start targeting the windows API for Linux, it's an even bigger market!". The problem is that controlling the API gives MS unique advantages. Exchange integrates tightly with active directory MS get to add features to the operating system API simply to make their apps work better. If the API is open they don't get to do that and in general they get pushed toward open standards rather than proprietary ones. No more "you can't get feature X,Y and Z unless you use Outlook", no more lockin.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
MS's revenue stream will increasingly become the annual license fee. The difference between NT5/2000 and XP was more in the nature of a major enhancement. "Stepping up" to Vista or eventually Win7 will likely be much the same for the average user. They may have completely rewritten the internals (or not), but the user will only want to see that all apps run smoothly and reliably and securely. They will not care about new features they do not perceive they need. Therefore, no new OS purchases.
On the other hand, users more or less understand that they need patches and bug fixes in the OS. MS bundles those with purchase at the moment. But they do sell extended support beyond the basic EOL. Expect that to increase so that the EOL horizon comes closer, and extended support becomes a series of 1 - 3 year support agreemnts.
MS will eventually become the IBM, DEC, Burroughs, etc. service and support dinosaur that it replaced, so many moons ago.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
They have clear market dominance now, but it's slipping.
We'll probably say "This is the year of the linux" desktop for along time, but when the time finally comes it won't be news anymore.
These kinds of things happen so gradually no one notices. Try and find any historical headlines about "the year of the lightbulb", "the year of the telephone", or the "year of the internet".
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Funny)
[citation needed [wikipedia.org]].
Wishing doesn't make it so. The shift, if any, is to MacOS, which took an open source OS and locked the fucker down. I want a family sized blunt of whatever the article author is smoking.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Informative)
"Windows market share as of Dec. 1 is 89.6 percent."
"Meanwhile, Mac OS X posted its largest gain in two years, with 8.9 percent market share at the end of November."
"On the browser side, Internet Explorer's market share dropped below 70 percent to 69.8 percent for the first time in more than a decade. IE slid 1.5 percentage points in November, totaling a 5.8 percent market share loss for 2008, according to Net Applications."
From: http://www.cio.com/article/467916/Microsoft_Market_Share_Slips_Pressure_s_On_for_Windows_and_IE_ [cio.com]
Parent
browser share declining very slowly (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:browser share declining very slowly (Score:5, Insightful)
I install Firefox and set it as the default browser on every new machine we get at my place of employment, and yet every few weeks I'll get an e-mail from someone having issues with a webpage - and it turns out they're using IE.
Some users, particularly older people, are scared of non-Microsoft software, even if said users are software developers themselves. No amount of "Company policy is that you should only use Firefox" convinces them otherwise.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't find it stunning at all ;)
Parent
The year of the Linux internet appliance (Score:5, Interesting)
Sorry folks, Linus essentially conceded this just yesterday. There will never be a 'year of the Linux desktop' because there will never be a single Linux desktop. Nobody seems to want it - or even to want to try to get as close as possible. Not the various distros, not Linus, not a hell of a lot of Linux fans.
Of course ISV's still want it. Businesses with a need for low-cost IT want it. I want it. So do [some of] you.
But Linus has a point. Yes folks, it is true that diversity is one of our strengths. It has been responsible for Linux becoming as good as it is as quickly as it has (and that's pretty damn good, and pretty damn quick). But let's face up to the downside of that strangth. Incompatible distros and a chaotic development cycle are non-starters as far as mainstream desktops are concerned. ISV's won't target you - ISV's can't target you. But most desktop users still want at least some 3rd party software that's not available from their distro's repositories.
I want it, and so, probably do you. Well, actually I don't want it so bad. I don't run TurboTax or Quicken (though my partner does run them via dual-boot on my machine). I don't run Photoshop or 3D games. But if Flash weren't there, I'd bail. Well, maybe not. Still, you get my point. My desktop essentially is an internet appliance. And (don't shoot me) I was given an iPod for my birthday a few years ago, and I actually like it - and dual-boot to Windows to maintain it. Even used it as an excuse to upgrade to an XP-based box so I could maintain it (linux worked fine on my old 1998-vintage PC before that).
For now, we in appliance land are lucky that there are enough non-desktop'y devices that can use linux that hardware gets at least grudging support from manufacturers. Better where the device applications are more obvious.
I'll end with what should be an obvious point. Why do you think Vista has failed so spectacularly? Because XP is still completely useable 8 years into its life cycle. Of course, if it weren't, then Windows may well have failed too. Backward compatibility is Windows' biggest strength - perhaps its only strength compared to the competition. And Linux will never have it, because it's creators don't want it, or don't understand why it's important, or just don't care. They're having a grand old time rewriting KDE and GNOME from the ground up every 2 years.
Parent
Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance (Score:5, Insightful)
Backward compatibility is Windows' biggest strength - perhaps its only strength compared to the competition. And Linux will never have it, because it's creators don't want it, or don't understand why it's important, or just don't care.
1. This is just FUD spread by people who want to ship binary drivers for Linux. Application level compatibility is actually quite good. For example you can still run GTK 1.x apps on modern Gnome desktops.
2. Backward compatibility mostly matters for legacy proprietary apps. Since there aren't too many of those for Linux, this issue is not an important factor in Linux adoption.
3. Stable kernel ABI would actually be harmful for Linux, because manufacturers wouldn't be as willing to release open-source drivers. Right now they do mainly because it takes considerable manpower to maintain a closed-source driver.
Parent
Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance (Score:5, Insightful)
1. This is just FUD spread by people who want to ship binary drivers for Linux. Application level compatibility is actually quite good. For example you can still run GTK 1.x apps on modern Gnome desktops.
If GNOME has that level of compatibility, kudos to them.
2. Backward compatibility mostly matters for legacy proprietary apps. Since there aren't too many of those for Linux, this issue is not an important factor in Linux adoption.
So backward compatibility doesn't matter, because there are no proprietary apps, because there isn't backward compatibility... Fun.
3. Stable kernel ABI would actually be harmful for Linux, because manufacturers wouldn't be as willing to release open-source drivers. Right now they do mainly because it takes considerable manpower to maintain a closed-source driver.
Finally the truth slips out. We don't want stable API's, because we don't want closed source code. Okay. So then say it. We don't want 'the year of the Linux desktop'. Or not enough to compromise ideological purity.
Sure. Open source drivers are definitely better than closed-source ones. But there are better ways to coax device makers along than by making their lives miserable when they actually *want* to support Linux. Like actually gaining enough marketshare so that they *really, really* want to support Linux...
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't "buy" Windows. They buy a PC and it just happens to be installed.
Until they're aware that they're paying for it then it makes no difference whether or not it's free.
If things get rough Microsoft can drop the price to $20 and nobody will care either way.
In short: Article fails.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
...Sure, MS has gotten some bad press lately but they still enjoy the overwhelming share of the OS market, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.
...
I think that Microsoft might face some significant challenges with the recession. The daily news reports of enormous amounts of people being laid off at very large companies, traditionally Microsoft's major source of income, indicate to me that almost all comanies expect to lose large amounts of money in the next few years before, and if, the economy starts to pick up again.
I think that the way these companies operate in such times is that IT dpartments will be under great pressure to economise as much as they possibly can. If that using Linux and Open Office means they can save 5% a year, after retraining and reequipping, I'm pretty sure they will do it.
What I'm almost sure practically no big company in their right mind would do right now, in these times, is upgrade to Windows Vista or Windows 7. Those OSes require greater hardware resources than WinXP does and more than Linux does. I am sure that companies will try to use the very cheapest lowest cost hardware they can find to run their businesses.
I am aware that many companies will not find it cheaper to migrate to Linux in these times, but sooner or later, as support for XP starts to die out, they will be forced to move one way or the other. I think very few will be willing to spend big on new expensive hardware and software in the next few years.
Parent
MS Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
The damage they would do to the other Linux resellers would be enormous (in the short term) and if they could do a good enough job, they could become a huge longterm player and maybe even kill off the other players.
Parent
Re:MS Linux (Score:5, Insightful)
If they release their apps for Linux, all the other Linux resellers would have them! All Linuxes (including MS's) would be in the same boat and then companies like RedHat could really fight MS's dominance in the OS market.
No, the worst thing they can do to Linux resellers is keeping the current business model.
Parent
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure, MS has gotten some bad press lately but they still enjoy the overwhelming share of the OS market, and that isn't likely to change anytime soon.
I respectfully disagree.
When you start talking about something as complex as an operating system, your biggest problem is managing the code base. This is best illustrated by all of Vista's canceled features - Microsoft simply can't manage the code in-house anymore. At least not in a timely manner. They might solve it temporarily, but it will just grow beyond their control, once again.
In a closed-source Microsoft, developers really only have one itch to scratch - their pay check. So the best ones move on once they have accomplished something, leaving someone to pick up where they left off. Even if this someone is worth their salt, it will still take them a lot of time to pick up the pieces and become productive. If they are really good, then rinse and repeat.
With open source, the developers are scratching a different itch. Often, they'll work on something out of passion alone, at which point some commercial entity may decide simply to start paying them full-time for doing what they enjoy. Recognition, pay - what could be better?
The speed at which some open source projects have progressed is astounding. Compiz went from nothing to everything in no-time flat (speaking from a business perspective) while it took Microsoft a LOT longer to pound out aero, which doesn't have nearly as much eye candy.
I think that it is more important to look at the rate of progression than it is to look at where we are today.
Parent
Re:Instead of pure open source... (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not think that MS is able to release Windows as Open Source. Most likely there is too much stuff in it that cannot be opened up (same issue as Sun had with Java).
If there was a day where Windows would be free, it would be free without source.
But honestly, I do not think that is going to happen. Free Windows comes with any new PC (consumer perception), so why throw a perfectly good revenue stream.
Parent
There is too much money in Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Ha hahaaa ha haha. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh goodness, that is so funny. Microsoft going open source with Windows.
Snort
Man, it hurts to laugh now.
Problem with Windows (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so much, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
While I really don't see MS taking Windows open source anytime soon (read: hell freezes over), I have sometimes thought what would happen if they did.
Linux would probably be sunk for one, as hobbyists and big business alike dig in to Windows source code. Apple would be annihilated too- theres no way they could compete with free, not if they had a 90% market share to beat. Thoughts of MS ever losing their monopoly would be right out.
The world would be stuck with Microsoft domination forever. Not a happy thought.
Good job Ballmer's on our side.
Re:Not so much, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
But within a year, you'd have a robust, performant windows operating system. In two years you'd have the complete *nix api supported. And it would all be free, so why would you care if linux lived or died at that point?
Parent
"open source," but not open?? (Score:5, Insightful)
title of article: Why Windows Must Go Open Source
Fourth sentence of article: "[...]Windows will never become an open source project in the same vein as Linux[...]"
Sixth sentence of article: "[...]I'll concede that some Windows source code probably will never see the light of day."
I think what he really wants to say is that the cost of Windows has to approach zero. That's completely different from being open source. It's the classic "free as in speech" (or as in freedom) versus "free as in beer."
I think it should be fairly obvious that MS can't open-source the whole OS. For one thing, I doubt that they own the copyright of every single line of code in Windows, and they've surely had to license a gazillion patents, make deals involving trade secrets, etc. Look at the situation with Linux and GPL 2 versus GPL 3 -- even if Linus changed his mind and wanted to make it GPL 3, it can't happen, because you won't get thousands of programmers to agree. With Windows it's bound to be even more complex.
Okay, so let's imagine that the price of Windows becomes zero dollars. So what? Then the US would be like China, just another country where everybody runs Windows and nobody pays for it. You'd still have banks telling you their web interface only works with IE. You'd still have people with hard disks full of documents that are in proprietary formats, preventing them from switching to Linux. Things like video encoders and color management would still be patent encumbered. The main effect would probably be to boost MS's market share, and that would probably allow them not just to sell more copies of Office, etc., but to abuse their monopoly more effectively for competitive advantage. That's essentially what the author of the article is talking about by the time he gets to pages 2 and 3.
And is anyone under the illusion that every version of Windows would cost zero dollars? No way. They'd very carefully set up a tiered system of price-differentiated versions of Windows in order to maximize their profits. Then it's like drug dealing: the first hit is free. This is what they're already doing in the third world, turning a blind eye to pirated versions of Windows because it helps to make those countries dependent on MS. The article says preinstalled Win XP is about $34 worth of the price of a new computer, and $34 is close enough to zero that I'd say that we're essentially already in that regime.
Why should Microsoft care? (Score:5, Interesting)
Microsoft, in the middle of one of the worst depressions since The Great (Old) One, is still reporting a profit. Not a loss, not even a small loss. It wasn't even a significantly lower profit than the ones they usually post. When companies like Intel were posting that their profit margins had slumped 90%, Microsoft's losses went from 4.5 billion to 4.1 billion.
Yes, Microsoft's bosses own a lot of Microsoft's shares, but the share prices will return to what they were and they get to buy back more now at discount rates. So they not only were richer than God to start off with, they'll be richer than most of the major pantheons combined once the market picks up.
So what possible incentive does Microsoft have to go Open Source? They have almost total control over 95-98% of the world's desktops. They have almost total control over virtually every OEM and every hardware manufacturer. People could boycott their entire product range for a decade and Microsoft would still be wealthier than every other OS vendor combined.
But people CAN'T boycott Microsoft. Virtually all manufacturers add in the cost of Windows into their systems. Even bare-bones systems likely carry some of that cost. I don't know how much Microsoft charges for permitting something to be classed as "certified", but no commercial company is going to permit the use of trademarks or promotional labels for free, which means all components will carry a Windows overhead as well.
So if you add up all these overheads that Microsoft gets for Windows, regardless of whether or not you actually buy the damn OS, my suspicion would be that you've paid the development costs long before you've paid the sticker price for the software. In which case, buying the OS is sheer profit for them. They can get along just fine if nobody actually buys a separate boxed copy ever again.
Sure, you can say that that means they have no motive to not switch to Open Source, but given their distaste for the methodology, I'd argue that it gives them even less motive to do so.
If the world's biggest software company can afford to underwrite fines larger than the GDP of some small countries, to the point where they're willing to keep infringing in total defiance of any rulings against them, and can swan through a severe global depression with a workforce cutback less than a third of either IBM or Panasonic (who have alternative revenue streams and no outstanding multi-billion-dollar fines), it's clear they are feeling next to no pressure to change their methods.
In fact, before this recession is over, it would not surprise me if Microsoft kills off the antivirus vendors (through questionable tactics, already well underway) and has made a bid for the software arm of IBM or Sun. They probably have more in loose change in the break rooms than Sun has in the bank, right about now. They might easily buy up Novell as well, crippling any competition SuSE might offer in the aftermath.
If they take out any two of those three, who precisely is going to form the competition?
Here's how Micrsosoft will make Windows OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
They'll do it by redefining open source. After all, they can wrap a proprietary file format up in XML so that instead of being a bunch of undocumented blobs in a binary stew they're a bunch of undocumented blobs in an XML stew, and manage to convince people to say things like this...
The proprietary file formats that have protected Microsoft apps have been offset by Office Open XML, the default format for Office 2007 and now an international standard.
Re:And nobody will care... (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is moving away from x86 arch
Like Apple did?
Parent
Re:And nobody will care... (Score:5, Insightful)
What planet are you from? PPC is dead. Sparc is dieing. Embedded is owned by ARM almost as completely as x86 rules the desktop. Intel attempted to kill x86 with IA-64, only to see it fail miserably to AMDs x86-64. Hell, x86 is even making inroads in embedded systems. A few very high end specialty devices like game consoles are doing other architectures, but that's about it. If anything the x86 stranglehold is stronger than ever.
Parent
Re:And nobody will care... (Score:5, Informative)
Sparc is dieing.
Hmmm, I thought they made chips on wafers, not dies.
Of course, it doesn't matter since Sparc is dying.
Parent
Re:And nobody will care... (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows NT 4.0 ran on x86, Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC. Nowadays, there are only (really) x86, x86_64, and IA-64 versions now (I say really because there is a PPC version of sorts -- the 360's OS, which is forked from that of the original Xbox (x86) which itself was forked from Windows 2000).
Windows has in the past not been bound to x86 for desktop use, it just never really caught on.
Parent
Re:And nobody will care... (Score:5, Interesting)
perhaps you should say "Windows NT 4.0 booted on Alpha, Mips, and PowerPC", as that is true. Running functionally on them is another matter entirely.
Parent
Re:And nobody will care... (Score:5, Informative)
As another poster already pointed out, this isnt really true. Windows NT booted on other architectures, but never really provided working systems on them for most purposes. This was a consequence of the unfree characteristics of the Windows ecosystem - the vast majority of the assortment of third party tools that need to be added to Windows to actually do most things never ported over to NT on other archs. The companies that made them had no motivation to allocate resources to port them, because the markets were not large enough, and the markets never grew because the apps werent ported. If you were lucky enough to have an Alpha machine at the time, for instance, you could boot NT on it and run a mean game of solitaire, but precious little more. MS tried to solve this with an emulator, but this worsened the problem - now you could boot NT and run an app, but once you started the app the emulated performance was comparable to an x86 machine you could have gotten at a fraction of the price, while the app makers were even less motivated to make a proper port because they could just tell you to use the emulator.
THIS is one huge advantage a Free OS with Free ecosystem has - the manufacturer doesnt have to allocate resources to port to new and promising architectures. Enthusiasts who use the apps can pitch in unbidden and do it themselves. This allows a promising new arch a chance to grow to critical mass without getting caught in an unsolvable chicken and egg problem.
Parent
Re:Sure (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Not likely (Score:5, Informative)
Windows Market Share Climbing
Windows 7 market share is climbing. From your linked article:
Although the beta of Windows 7 quickly grabbed one-tenth of 1% of the operating system market share last month, Microsoft Corp.'s operating system continued its downward trend...
You can't have a period of substantial increase for alternative OSs without that being indicative of something critical: true choice. If the alternatives are indeed practically viable, then the OS market has reached a tipping point. Expect all hell to break loose.
Parent
Re:I doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:New John Dvorak (Score:5, Funny)
Nah, if this was Dvorak it would have been like:
"Why Linux Must (and Will) Run on Windows By 2011"
Parent