Why Windows Must (and Will) Go Open Source 555
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."
There already is Open Source Windows (Score:1, Interesting)
WINE + SAMBA
Well, at least it isn't VISTA
Instead of pure open source... (Score:2, Interesting)
What if Microsoft offered their OS at a much cheaper price and modeled their revenue after, say, console makers? While the consoles are still expensive, the corporations sell them at a loss and instead plan on gaining a profit from selling video games.
In Microsoft's case, they would sell their software products like units at a profit, and they could concentrate on producing new types of software in house (like Apple does). Plus, if they went this route, they wouldn't necessarily have to pursue something stupid like new their software subscription services strategy.
And more... (Score:2, Interesting)
It will be a sad day when MS release the source code for Windows 8.5 ;-)
Think of the *x hackers that will die of laughter after reading the code!!!
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: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.
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?
browser share declining very slowly (Score:5, Interesting)
losing grip (Score:3, Interesting)
MS still have their hands around the market's throat, but they can't seem to get a good grip.
The "operating system" substrate has grown slippery. Virtual machines, API emulation layers, web, multi-platform development frameworks ... Applications find it increasingly easy to run in numerous places.
The "communications system" substrate has grown slippery, too. Web standards and office document standards are at a practically workable level. Boom, like that, IE has slipped from de facto standard to mere competitor.
You don't need MS anymore. The stranglehold falters.
The OS and protocol lock-ins have been unhealthy for us all, needlessly fragmenting the space in which apps can run. I'll be glad to see it go. I give it 8 years before it's effectively neutralized. Then companies will compete more with the merit of their works than with their influence.
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.
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.
Microsoft has dropped the ball (Score:1, Interesting)
It's not about Microsoft going to open source, it's about innovation, and Microsoft gets low marks in that area.
I'll be surprised if Microsoft is anything more than a shell for patents in the future. Their approach to locking down the market with proprietary technology has failed. People like to think Microsoft Office and Exchange will save them, but open source alternatives will eventually become more popular. The very nature of Exchange means they must license the technology and they are.
Windows Mobile or some previous incarnation of it has been around for almost a decade and according to the article, Apple in a fraction of that time has surpassed Microsoft share of the market. Who knows why Microsoft can't get it right, but they've had a long run.
There's a possibility Microsoft will actually innovate and surprise the public, but I doubt it.
Re:And nobody will care... (Score:4, Interesting)
Economies of scale and the familiarity of the evil we know will always triumph over superior technology. Intel and AMD are probably spending $1 billion a year improving x86. Even if somebody designs a better CPU, if they can't afford to throw the R&D dollars at it that Intel and AMD are spending, then it will fall behind in a few years. Hence MIPS, Sparc, and PA-RISC, all of which initially showed some promise, have gone by the wayside.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Why should Microsoft care? (Score:3, Interesting)
They have almost total control over 95-98% of the world's desktops.
More like 90-95%. Apple's share has grown significantly over the last few years, and Linux is still chugging away, and even growing through "netbooks".
And Google, Apple (iTunes, iPods, etc) and Mozilla are eating into some of that Windows desktop control. Imagine if there was any market shift towards OpenOffice - that would scare them. Hence the big battle over ODF and Microsoft Office's XML format.
Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance (Score:4, Interesting)
>Psst, that's mostly unnecessary, unless you're purchasing music off of iTunes
Yes, I know that. But since I already have my XP partition, and because y'know what, I just want to listen to the thing, and because iTunes makes it really easy to get podcasts from various sources. (yeah, amarok probably does too - I kinda like Songbird too).
Anyway, thanks for the help, but do you really think I was writing about iTunes? The issue isn't finding piecemeal workarounds for all the proprietary stuff in our lives. Ths issue is making Linux a mainstream (enough) platform that it doesn't matter. Let Apple figure out how to make iTunes work with Linux - why should I have to? Linux is far enough along, and if it were on a trajectory to large-scale desktop adoption, Apple would have to support it (well, maybe not Apple, but you get the picture...).
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?
Open Source would be useless for almost everyone (Score:3, Interesting)
I think most people misunderstand the difference between freeware, and open source. Microsoft may possibly make windows much cheaper one day to eliminate the competition (Mark Shuttleworth himself said, its difficult to compete when windows is free). However, Microsoft has enough developers, they certainly don't need community help. I don't mean to call the author of this article an idiot per say, but he clearly doesn't understand the benefits/cons between open source and freeware. Windows is already extendible enough these days to not require it being open sourced.
Furthermore, OSX Darwin is open, and nobody cares! The only reason Apple cares about open source is because they essentially take a lot of code from the community, but give very little back.
Microsoft isn't going bankrupt anytime soon so its not as though you will be making a risk by purchasing windows, and be unable to maintain it in the future!
Theres very little reason people would need to look at the source code.. Must go Open Source?? HAHAHA. NO! There is little point, both for Microsoft and users. Maybe it will go freeware though...
Like antivirus licences? (Score:4, Interesting)
Kind of like those annual antivirus program licences that many people who thought about it for half a second stopped paying for, and installed a freeware program instead.
Maybe it would work for Windows, if they found the right price point for a licence fee, but it might also backfire and encourage people to look at Mac or Linux options.
Re:Open Source would be useless for almost everyon (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, he doesn't suggest MSFT should or will open-source Windows "at this time." He suggests they will have to at some future point, and he makes some excellent points in TFA. I think he may well be right, and I used to work at Microsoft, so I know full well how hard it would be to turn that particular oil tanker.
Why open source and not freeware? Making it freeware would remove just as much revenue from the stream as open-sourcing it would, but it would leave both the entire support burden and the entire development burden on Microsoft. Compare that to the Linux model, where support and development (especially support) are very strongly community-oriented. Sure, there are companies paying kernel developers and some other developers, but there are plenty of developers in that ecosystem who contribute much or all of their time for free. Most of them, in fact. Nearly all Linux-support is community-based.
I'm not suggesting that open-sourcing Windows would alter the Windows ecosystem to the point where it would be just like the Linux ecosystem, but it would move somewhat in that direction. Look at all the buzz that OpenSolaris has generated for Sun. I would not be surprised to see Microsoft pursue a substantially identical strategy in the future. OpenWindows, anyone?
Developers already do everything they need to in Windows without seeing the source code? Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight. They do everything they're *allowed* to do, not everything they need or want.
Speaking of developers, the people who you say are the only ones who should care about open source (I disagree, there are very strong reasons why everyone should care, but those aren't necessarily relevant here, so I'll leave that), one of the main points TFA makes is that it will be necessary to open-source Windows in some form to retain developer mindshare among the over 6 million independent developers who develop for the Windows platform. Open source software is already making inroads there, and will continue to do so. If Microsoft were to open-source not only Windows but much or all of its development environment, that could go a long way to holding those developers to the Windows platform. Why do this? To keep Windows a viable platform for the Microsoft products that (it hopes) will continue to make a lot of money.
Of course, one of those may find its revenue-producing ability reduced to the point where they might as well open-source it or make it freeware: MS Office. If they don't, they'll have to cut the price to a small fraction of what they currently get. Google Docs on one side and OpenOffice.org on the other will prove themselves good enough for most people. At least good enough that paying hundreds of dollars for MS Office will not make sense.
What will they make money on, then? Exchange, Sharepoint, SQL Server, etc. Enterprise products that enterprises will pay for. However, that requires a strong OS ecosystem, something open-sourcing Windows would encourage. Or they can give up on the Windows franchise and sell versions of those products to run on Unix, Linux, and a Windows server product and basically exit the desktop OS business. That would make a lot of sense, but having worked there, I believe they're rather do anything - even open-source Windows - than do that.
Re:Nonsense (Score:4, Interesting)
That can't be it, Office for Mac is a self-contained, drag and drop installer and has been since Office 98. There's a theory that Mac users are more likely to pay for software, but I haven't seen a lot of numbers to back that up.
Decade of the Tarpit (Score:4, Interesting)
It is very interesting how this article compares with http://www.cyberconf.org/~cynbe/rants/lastdino.htm [cyberconf.org]The Last Dinosaur and the Tarpits of Doom, which is just this month a decade old.
If you just look on the surface, the Tarpit predictions were clearly wrong. 2010 is only 10 months away, so if Windows is going to be "as dead as CP/M", it had better get started.
On the other hand, a lot of the predictions in there do seem to be in the process of coming true. For instance, when Tarpit was written, MS never bothered to pay stock dividends because investors were always more than pleased with just the stock's growth. That has changed, and now they are having to pay a relatively huge dividend just to keep stockholders happy. This is the classic sign of a http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2009/01/microsoft-stock.html [latimes.com]dead growth stock. To top it off, TFA makes a lot of the same predictions. Both have as their thesis that Microsoft will have to OpenSource to survive. The main difference in tone is that Tarpit's author thought they probably wouldn't, and TFA's author thinks they probably will.
You could argue that their logic is just as much BS now as it was a decade ago. Could argue it well in fact. However, one could also argue that Tarpit's main flaw was in trying to "extrapolate the exponential" in the optimistic way it did, and that the rest of the argument is sound and in the process of becoming reality.
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]
The point (Score:1, Interesting)
You, Mr. Charles Babcock, understand nothing about IT world. Forget anything this sir writes. I don't know how Information Week lets you publish on their space stupid thing like this one.
How much do you get paid for each word? That's one reason of the current crisis. People like you must be 6 feet under, at least professionally speaking.
Note that I'm not M$ user...
In the other hand, what can be interesting is the rumor that Google is working on an operating system. That IS something to consider and to talk about, not an utopian desire that a big corp like MS "must" open source their gold egg chicken. HAHAHA! C'mon! you looser!
Re:browser share declining very slowly (Score:3, Interesting)
I had the same problem, so I changed the icon and name of Firefox in all locations to the IE name and icon, and deleted all the real IE shortcuts.
Now when they open what they *think*is IE they get firefox instead.
Most people never notice, the only difference an average user notices is that their favourites are suddenly called bookmarks instead! Give it a try! (-:
Re:The year of the Linux internet appliance (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nonsense (Score:5, Interesting)
"The underlying economic reality of maintaining a 100% proprietary stack tied to a proprietary foundation seems to dictate that MS will need to do something, but not necessarily this."
A more probable scenario is that they'll follow Apple's example of using and contributing to a steadily increasing number of open source projects for some parts of the overall stack, while keeping others proprietary to prevent third parties from building competing Windows "distros".
Re:Price IS important (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nonsense (Score:2, Interesting)
Windows will soon be going for near $0.
Microsoft can't offer Windows for free until it loses it's monopoly. Windows will have to drop to at least 50% market share and free Windows would have to mean no return to a higher percentage, or the DOJ would need to impose penalties.