Microsoft May Be Targeting the Ubuntu Desktop 583
mjasay writes "Microsoft is advertising for a new director of open source strategy, but this one has a specific purpose: fight the Linux desktop. 'The Windows Competitive Strategy team is looking for a strong team member to lead Microsoft's global desktop competitive strategy as it relates to open source competitors.' For a variety of reasons, this move is almost certainly targeted at Ubuntu Linux's desktop success. With the Mac, not Linux, apparently eating into Microsoft's Windows market share, what is it about desktop Linux, and specifically Ubuntu, that has Microsoft spooked?"
Reader christian.einfeldt notes Microsoft's acknowledgment of the FOSS threat to their business model within SEC filings, and suggests that this job posting could instead be about maintaining Internet Explorer's market share lead against Firefox.
Simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason for targeting Ubuntu is simple. Its getting attention as a credible desktop alternative by the main stream. If one Linux destop is a credible alternative than its only a short leap for the public to make that any Linux desktop solution might be a credible alternative. At that point products start getting evaluated on the merrits and how well they suit a the purchasers organization or individual needs. Windows may or may not come out on top if subjected to any rigor in the decision process.
Apple is one company and the sole provider of a Mac OS solution. They can be controled; there is a specific target to go after if they become more of a problem. Microsoft can deal Apple a good deal of hurt buy just shutting down their own Mac Business unit. Ubuntu on the other hand if allowed to become to popular can't be stopped so easily. If that popularity speads to Linux desktop distributions more generally then Microsoft no longer has a specific entity to go after. The want to make sure desktop a meaningful desktop Linux business remains something that is going to be still born so to speak.
Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe Microsoft has finally realized what the rest of the world knows. They simply have nothing new to offer. They have to find some way to beat Linux because they can't compete with it. It's only the momentum of their monopoly, 20+ years in the making, that is keeping them ahead now.
After releasing Windows XP-ME, er, Vista, it's obvious to see that Microsoft, despite its numerous "reboots" in the development process, is still so mired in its Soviet-style bureaucracy and upper management that thinks it is entitled to its 90%+ market share.
They are going to have to fall back on FUD more and more as more people (like me) are sharing success stories of unburdening themselves from Microsoft's shackles, even if the actual percentage of users is still small. What Microsoft is realizing is that number of people who are now seeing them as we've always known them to be, arrogant to the point of blindness, utterly contemptuous of users and completely beholden to their shady business practices and monopolistic behavior to be able to do anything else.
In short, time for more FUD.
Alternate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Alternate summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably the over 10 million desktop user base is my guess..
Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe it's the point that linux has been doing things on the desktop for 10+ years that microsoft is just barely starting to implement. And most of that is just the eye candy, they still need to copy all the extra functionality.
Netbooks, anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the other thing that scares them (Score:3, Insightful)
When you install Windows, you have to dig around for a key. When you install Linux, you just install it.
Terrifying, isn't it...
Linux must be fought abroad. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for Linux (on the desktop), that is a serious threat to Microsoft from abroad, not so much in the U.S. Face it, most (by far) Americans are not going to fiddle with Linux, even if they're told it's free and superior, merely because they don't want to relearn anything that was hard enough to learn the first time, and they just want to use whatever is on their computer (Windows). Abroad, developing countries choosing Linux for school and government is a threat because it raises generations of non-Microsoft users who they will have less control over.
Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)
If you try to start thinking straight for a second... ...you might start wondering about the correlation between the lowering prices of hardware and the impact this has on a company which depends on software license fees. There is a hard bottom limit to the price of any computing device with for-pay software: the price of the hardware (design, manufacture and distribution) + the ongoing costs of supporting said software + the desired profit for the software distributor. In case of Microsoft those profit margins are traditionally very high for the operating system and application software business, and that is the software which we're talking about here. The same hardware with for-free software can be priced much lower. Now that the for-free software is largely equivalent with the for-pay alternatives (and hold the incessant 'aslongasitdoesnotlookandworkexactlylikewindowsorofficeitisnotreadyforthedesktop' complaints) it is a very attractive proposition for a hardware manufacturer to use the for-free alternative. They can either keep the prices similar and reap much higher profits or lower the prices and most likely see higher sales, again leading to higher profits. They also don't have to bend to the will of an unreliable business partner which has shown time and time again that it has no qualms about backstabbing its partners.
Now I leave it to you as to whether free software is better than, worse than or equivalent to proprietary software. The answer to that question wholly depends on what you expect from the software, what you use it for, what you have used in the last few years and in what discipline you use the software. It has however become clear that for many common purposes there is free software which is fully adequate, and in several cases the free software is better than the closed alternatives.
Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)
A mac is expensive (i know, not always) and since OSX only comes with apple hardware (in theory) there isn't as much to worry about. With Ubuntu, any Dell, HP, Acer, etc, can have Ubuntu installed. That is a threat, since it runs on the hardware made by your best partners. Not to mention, new versions of Ubuntu (or other linux flavors) run great on Netbooks with a very small flash drive and ram. The only comparable Microsoft product is 9 years old, and about to be two versions behind.
Start handing out free Vista/Win7 discs (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Alternate summary (Score:4, Insightful)
There are several other goofy things about the summary.
As you pointed out, there's no evidence that this is specifically about Ubuntu. The other goofy thing in this sentence is the reference to "desktop success," which makes it sound as though Ubuntu is already a successful competitor, and MS is responding to that. Now I use Ubuntu, love Ubuntu, and I think it's great that companies like Asus and HP are shipping machines with Ubuntu preinstalled, but as far as anyone can tell, Linux's share of the desktop is still stalled at about 1%. Asus and OLPC are actually no longer exclusively tied to Linux. I think it's much more reasonable to interpret this as a move to fight against a competitor that is currently not successful at all in any quantitative sense, but threatens to become successful (i.e., start growing beyond 1% market share) in the future.
There's no evidence to back up the part about "specifically Ubuntu."
Uh, except that that MS job announcement specifically refers to desktop Windows. They're clearly advertising for a position for someone to be a cheerleader for Windows versus Linux, to head off any hypothetical future erosion of their market share to Linux.
The SEC filing refers only to servers when it comes to competition from OSS. That's because the server market, not the desktop market, is where MS currently has to compete with Linux and BSD on relatively even terms. So the final paragraph of the summary brings up two points that are unrelated to each other (browser versus OS) and unrelated to the job position (which is about desktop, not server).
I can tell you what they're afraid of (Score:5, Insightful)
I can tell you exactly what has them spooked. We have Ubuntu desktops in our office and users get along on them just fine. No massive retraining costs, no one whining they can't get their work done, no software licensing to manage, we can create a custom installation image and drop it on a network drive that comes complete with productivity software, graphics software, web browsing, everything you need. Combine that with corporate Gmail, PHP and MySQL and you have an office that runs just dandy without any Microsoft products or .NET in the mix.
That's what they're afraid of and for good reason. Because running a Ubuntu office is low-cost, low-stress and we can run twice the number of machines per admin we could with Windows. And we don't have to dance on MS's string for product activation, put up with their DRM, pay extra for anti-virus or site licensing. We don't have the virus/trojan of the day suddenly interrupting our day and we're free to focus on productive labor rather than putting so much effort into serving the software and MS.
And my wife, the most potentially destructive computer user anywhere, a person who can trash almost any computer and almost any OS. Always by accident. Ms. I wasn't doing anything and the screen just went black...the hard drive started making a funny noise...it just died...is the screen supposed to be all blue like that? A person who couldn't tell you what a command line was, let alone type anything into one. She gets along just fine on Ubuntu. I haven't had to work on that machine since installing 8.04.
MS should be worried. Ubuntu is a great product.
More scary than Apple? (Score:3, Insightful)
Regardless of how big a slice of the pie Apple might be taking, they ultimately work in more or less the same way as Microsoft. OSX and Windows are both traditional proprietary software which are written and sold on a per-license basis. I doubt that Microsoft appreciate the competition exactly, but at least they are both playing by the same set of rules.
Free Software is different, because obviously anyone can have the source code and fiddle about with it and you don't generally need to purchase licenses or whatever. The nature of Free Software is such that if its use ever becomes truly widespread in the consumer market, it is going to change what people (both end users and computer retailers) expect from software as a whole. Since the current way has obviously been very lucrative for Microsoft, that would explain why they would be so worried about Linux etc.
P.S. I'm trying not to make a value judgement on FOSS vs. proprietary software here, this is all Just What I Reckons TM.
They HAVE to fight Ubuntu (Score:5, Insightful)
The threat from Apple is somewhat contained because OS X only runs on premium-priced Apple hardware. Windows is still the OS of choice for the corporate sector and [ironically] the computer illiterate people who call upon their MS-based colleagues, friends and relatives for free tech support. I always found it amazing that the platform that needs the most tech support was so popular with the people who need the most assistance.
Ubuntu is a big threat, and it goes way beyond price. Nobody is going to take their existing Dell or HP machine and reformat it for OS X. But they can certainly do it with Linux. Ubuntu has the slickest packaging of the various Linux options, making it a "Poor man's OS X that can run on the hardware I already have." Historically, only a small percentage of users have abandoned Win2K or XP in favor of Linux. But Vista is another matter entirely.
Microsoft is a company built on the principle of Moore's law. Exponential increases in hardware capability means unlimited new possibilities for new features and a fresh desires from the user community (sometimes fueled by marketing hype but desires nonetheless). Each version of Windows was more bloated than the one before, but nothing stopped the users from merging a new version of Windows into their upgrade cycle.
Three events changed everything:
1. Vista "jumped the shark" on bloat while the rest of the market moved the other way.
2. Cheapie Ubuntu netbooks can do almost everything people really need to do.
3. The iPhone is threatening to turn itself into a hand-held OS X machine.
Running Windows XP on a netbook is like fitting a 350 pound driver into a golf cart. You can do it, but you won't carry many golf clubs. Running Vista on a netbook won't even pass the giggle test.
Windows Mobile was their only lightweight option but it never picked up enough traction to seriously compete with a "real" operating system. Apple had more apps running on the iPhone in the first six months than MS ever had for Windows Mobile.
Microsoft needs to slow down the adoption rate of Ubuntu netbooks while they figure out how to exist in the small, light, low-powered world of ultra-portable hardware. They will need a community of people other than themselves to provide a robust portfolio of applications.
MS is one of the few companies that tries to win a race by slowing the other guy down. In this case, they need to speed themselves up and get in the game.
Re:Start handing out free Vista/Win7 discs (Score:4, Insightful)
Ballmer did say he'd rather someone used an illegal copy of Windows over another operating system, so it's not outside the realms of possibility that they'll give you windows for free just to continue the monopoly.
Of course he says that, if you'd calculate the actual number of "Genuine" windows installations compared to the pirated ones their "95% installbase" would melt quicker than ice cubes in a firestorm.
I'll tell you what it is about desktop Linux. (Score:5, Insightful)
It demonstrates one simple, incontrovertable fact that is absolute poision to Microsoft's business model: operating systems aren't all that important.
Oh,back in the day, when you couldn't shoehorn a real operating system onto a machine with a sixteen bit address bus, it was a given that operating systems for personal computers were horribly inadequate. Every time a new version of the operating system came out, it'd take advantage of something that was now affordable on a desktop that never had been before. So you looked forward to an OS release as a release from some piece of pain or another. So an operating system release was a big deal.
We are in the era of diminishing returns when it comes to new OS releases. Oh, they maybe handle new version of hardware that are marginally better than they old hardware, like Sata vs. ATA, or going back farther in time, more convenient support for things like wifi. And, of course, the OS developers fix mistakes they made way back in the old days.
The problem for MS is trying to drum up the old excitement (with its influx of cash), like when we went from Windows 2 to Windows 3, which made it easy to run more than one application at a time (which was not a concern back when you'd only had 256K of RAM). You've got to add features and treat them like they're revolutionary.
Ubuntu is not without its problems, the biggest of which is getting to work on notebook hardware whose manufacturers consider getting the BIOS to work with Windows getting the job "done". But, once you get it running, you don't sit down to work at your computer and say, "gee I'm working on Ubuntu." Good Linux distros fade into the background, where they belong. Operating systems are just packages of functionality which make it easy for you to get at your data and manipulate it with your preferred tools.
What's scary about a distro like Ubuntu is that it doesn't compete against Windows. That's how Microsoft has won for years, when competitors look at MS products and decide they have to follow Microsoft's lead, even if they were first. With each new Linux distro release, you don't get an attempt to revolutionize the desktop experience. What you you do get the same experience you had yesterday, with a few problems sorted out and a couple of modest refinements. In contrast, with each new version of Windows, MS seems to scrape the bottom of the change barrel a bit deeper, down to renaming and shifting around control panel applets so there's absolutely no way you could mistakenly think you didn't get an upgrade.
Of course, MS has a great deal of opportunity for just fixing the mistakes of the past, which is a good thing. Vista could have been the best Windows ever, except it had too many competing agendas. Windows 7 is shaping up to be the kind of incremental release on Vista that we're used to in the Linux world, and by contrast it will seem wonderful with the XP to Vista transition.
Apple is selling hardware, not software (Score:3, Insightful)
I do believe Apple and Microsoft are not direct competitors, because Apple is selling computers and Microsoft is selling software. And many people even run Microsoft Windows on Apple computers. The only thing Apple does not do is sell computers preinstalled with Microsoft Windows like the other companies that build PCs.
Since Apple is not planning on licensing their os to other computer manufacturers (they did this and the company almost went bancrupt, but was saved by Microsoft) the only os that does compete with Microsoft for coming preinstalled is Linux. If you think of all the companies that sell PCs.
I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
People don't think that way. (Score:5, Insightful)
When you buy a DVD, can you watch it with friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
When you buy a book, can you loan it to friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
When you buy a CD, can you listen to it with friends? Or do they have to buy their own copy?
I'm sorry, but the license on the microwave doesn't allow other people to eat any of the food I heat up in it. And while I'm eating these nachos, I'll watch this DVD that can only be played in this DVD player attached to this TV.
Oops. The TV fell down and broke and it is out of warranty. Looks like I will have to buy all my DVD's again.
Yeah, that might be the wet dream of the execs at the movie studios. But real people don't see a problem with sharing things that you've just put down cash for.
Only one of many targets (Score:4, Insightful)
Once anything gets on their radar, its a target. Its how they do business.
Nothing new here.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. I find anti-Microsoft posts annoying, childish and a mere distraction. (But people who write "Micro$oft" are worse).
In my day to day life Windows, and Microsoft are simply irrelevant. I've got Linux on my machines here, Linux on my desktop at work, and Linux on the servers I manage.
Sure they hold a lot of sway, and they're certainly not an irrelevant company for most businesses and typical users - but me? If Microsoft and Linux remain in the same proportions for the next 20 years I'll not regard that as a failure.
So long as there are sufficient number of people writing, developing, and promoting free software so that we can keep using it in the future with advances in hardware then all is good.
I'd love to see a 50/50 split, but even if it is 80/20 I'm happy. These days Linux is on the radar of most people, and hardware support isn't a challenge.
Back in the late 90s I had a hellish time getting drivers for my Zip disk, my modem, or my webcam. These days? Its all good.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it is more a question of self defence. I am sure that Microsoft really wants to destroy any way that people can produce software which does not involve them or software that offers services without their involvement. They want to be the gatekeeper, they want to make money from all software usage across the whole world.
The very existence of Free Software, Open Source and even Apple undermines the notion that Microsoft wants to plant in everybodies head : that software is so complex that you need a company as big as them for research, development, production and support of software.
No Free Software or Open Source project has, AFAIK, been started to 'battle' Microsoft. Microsoft themselves, however, feel threatened and have initiated hostilities. It is everybodies right to defend themselves against this.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Its dangeorous (Score:1, Insightful)
The Average person on the street simply isn't interested in Linux. It's a large Slashdot spun fallacy that the majority of Windows users are pulling their hair out over issues that exist in Windows and don't exist in Ubuntu. It's also a fallacy that a majority of Windows users are frustrated over Vista. A Majority have never even seen Vista. Those who I know who run Vista have had no real issues with it.
Also note that the difference between Slashdot and the real world is that a large number of users out there do not care about the politics of open source versus closed source. Most people do not want to see Microsoft die. Most people don't hold a grudge against Bill Gates. Infact, more people probably admire the man than those who detest him. He's an icon of success to most people.
Until you Linux advocacy bunch can join us in the real world you'll never understand why Linux has taken roughly two decades to do what Apple has surpassed 5 fold in the past 2-3 year. It's not about the politics, it's not about open source. People really don't care about these things but these are the first two things off most of your lips. You guys are desperate to fight the good fight but, plainly, it's getting you nowhere. Most people just don't have that kind of attachment to their OS and, frankly, it makes you guys come off like loons to people who just want a working computer and not a soap opera or a political campaign.
Netbooks and Ubuntu (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:And the other thing that scares them (Score:3, Insightful)
That's because, at least in Apple's case, they know with 99.9% certainty that you are installing on Apple hardware, for which you paid dearly (and with which you bought an OSX license - aka the Apple tax).
Microsoft needs Apple; Linux is a threat (Score:3, Insightful)
As others have noted, Apple plays in it's own (hardware) sandbox. Since it's "competition," that's good to keep the DOJ off of their back. Linux, and Ubuntu specifically, can be installed on nearly any machine that can run Windows. It has a modern, friendly GUI which can be learned from scratch at the same pace as Windows. And, most importantly, it's free. When computers were $5k, tacking on another $300-$1000 for software wasn't as big a deal. Now that computers are $500, adding another $500 in software is big deal (when viewed as a percentage).
In a world where comparison shopping has yielded winners and losers over 3-4% difference in enduser pricing, the ability to strip out 20-50% of the cost of an installed machine makes Linux a formidable opponent. Apple will never compete with Microsoft for a race to the bottom - and that's by design. Hardware vendors with Linux need only determine if the manpower to make the Linux installs work seamlessly outweighs the cost of a Windows license and install budget. If the vendor is big enough, they don't even have to care about pissing off MS, since MS is dependent on that revenue.
Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People don't think that way. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:woo (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe it's the fact that no-one really knows how big the Linux share really is. The Linux "share of the market" is undefined, since it doesn't really take part in the "market" as such. The Mac or Windows share can (I guess) more or less be inferred from their bottom line on the balance sheet, but unless Linux users take the trouble to register at the Linux counter, the only stats that are available have to come from their browsers' useragent tagline, which is easily spoofed for convenience.
Re:woo (Score:5, Insightful)
actually with that FOSS is your friend. Open Office works better with Office 97 documents than MSFT word 2007 does. Up until at least 2003 a lot of legal departments were using Corel office as that is what they had all their stuff for the past decade.
you want to open tons of random and obscure formats then only FOSS apps supports them all. Comapnies that are stuck with MS Office are begiinng to realize that archiving it requires tons of secondary apps that either cost lots of money or FOSS products that can be upgraded to new hardware/software combinations faster and with minimal effort.
You have a format that only worked in Red Hat 5.0's version of star office. you have the source. you can pay someone to install that app to run, or pull out the format from the source and make a converter for it.
When office 95 doc's don't open for you right you can only beg MSFT to fix it, or try to manually convert them all, however they are giant binary blobs.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:4, Insightful)
$tevey hearts Micro$oft ;)
I don't really care about any split. I simply want open standards to be adhered to, especially in government projects. Then we're all on the same playing field and the split is determined by choice, and not a defacto government subsidized monopoly.
Re:It's about free software (Score:3, Insightful)
What if most people don't care about those 'rights'?
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:2, Insightful)
The very existence of Free Software, Open Source and even Apple undermines the notion that Microsoft wants to plant in everybodies head : that software is so complex that you need a company as big as them for research, development, production and support of software.
Paranoid much?
Microsoft is simply a corporation, trying to make as much money as it can. They want as much market share as possible, obviously, but you seem to be taking it out on an emotional limb there.
Re:People don't think that way. (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you could use Linux as your OS and experience freedom.
Re:And the other thing that scares them (Score:3, Insightful)
Try finding the windows install cd for your laptop. Oh right it isn't there, and microsoft won't let you download it. So now when you find a copy of a retail cd, you install it, enter the key and what is the very next thing you need to do? That's right, call tech support in Mumbai. All this for an operating system you legally purchased. If that isn't user-hostile, I don't know what is.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:5, Insightful)
The very existence of Free Software, Open Source and even Apple undermines the notion that Microsoft wants to plant in everybodies head : that software is so complex that you need a company as big as them for research, development, production and support of software.
Paranoid much?
Microsoft is simply a corporation, trying to make as much money as it can. They want as much market share as possible, obviously, but you seem to be taking it out on an emotional limb there.
That's not really paranoia. In fact marketers have a word for it; they call it "mindshare". There are related concepts. For example, what is advertising other than the manipulation of behavior (convincing you to do something you may not have done had you not seen the ad) brought about by "planting a message in everyone's head"? Advertisers will use humor, half-truths, small children, etc. to get you to associate laughter, an inaccurate but convenient worldview, or paternalistic/maternalistic feelings and instincts with their products. Absolutely nothing is sacred to them; nothing is so good or wholesome or precious or innocent or sacred that they won't use it as a tool to create an emotional association that allows them to implant a suggestion. They don't see you as a human being who is equal to them and worthy of respect. They can't, because if they saw you that way, they would be disinclined to manipulate you. They see you as a dehumanized resource to be mined just like so much coal or metallic ore. This is a good fit with the nature of a corporation and the way it calls on human beings to become interchangable parts in its machinery. Beings who are individuals and worthy of love and respect are not interchangable parts in a faceless machine.
If a company sees an increase in sales immediately following an advertising campaign, something has happened other than customers proactively considering all available options and choosing the best solution for their needs based on objective criteria. If the customers were doing that, no advertisement of any kind would change their minds because the dialog of a TV commercial does not change their needs or the facts of their situation. That something that has happened is manipulation by suggestion.
What you call paranoia is the realization that anyone willing to treat people in such an alienated, dehumanized fashion does this because he fancies himself to be their master. As mindless, sheeplike, obsessed with conformity, and unfamiliar with critical thinking as most people have become (yes I do level this charge; do you doubt it?), such a person is unfortunately correct in many cases. I realize that our current economy depends on this system and that the people participating in it are mostly well-meaning and ignorant of the damage that it does because it is difficult to quantify. You can't really assign a numer or an equation to it and our culture is terrible at handling anything for which this is the case because we celebrate cleverness but not wisdom.
Lots of people seem like they want to believe that there are no downsides to our current way of life. I am merely saying that we hear about the benefits of this system all the time; what so few are willing to discuss are its costs. No one is fully informed without a solid understanding of both the benefits and the costs. You were right, in a way, that it was being taken "out on an emotional limb", but that's because the manipulation upon which much of the modern economy is based is primarily accomplished by emotional impact. Contrast that with persuasion, which is done dispassionately with facts and reasoning, and you can then discern the motivation with ease.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
But that scheme does not function anymore. Open XML is a perfect example, it has its ISO stamp and all governments tell Microsoft its 'interesting' and adopt ODF as their standard. I am not sure ODF would be so popular without that attempt.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
Unfortunately, you do care about the split you just don't know it.
The main reason we don't have proper adherence to standards is that there's no pressure to conform. Microsoft etc can make up crappy standards for themselves that vaguely resemble the proper standards. Then anyone that develops to them pats them-self on the back for being "compliant", and nothing then safely works anywhere else. And then you get the "Linux is crappy, nothing works on it" nonsense.
With a 80/20 split, they just wouldn't get away with this.
Re:I'm not sure that either of you are correct... (Score:3, Insightful)
Agreed. The average citizen has no idea how much they'll hate their current attitude to software in future, when they realise just how important software is to their lives.