cc wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > MIT writer says Vista drove her to Mac
> > ,----[ Quote ]
> > | Erica Jonietz, writing for MIT's Technology Review magazine, had her
> > | moment while doing something that, for a self-confessed 20-year
> > | "Microsoft apologist... not just a fan, but a champion," should
> > | have been a big Windows shiver of delight: reviewing Windows
> > | Vista. Instead, the anticipation turned sour, and a light began
> > | to dawn...
> > http://www.tuaw.com/2007/01/19/mit-writer-says-vista-drove-her-to-mac/
> > http://badvista.fsf.org/blog/images/This2This.jpg/image_preview
>
> She left Windows and chose a Mac. And this has what to do with
> advocating Linux?
That's a very good question. It's very good news if you are Steve Jobs
or any other
major shareholder in Apple stock.
But what if you are a top executive at HP, Dell, Gateway, Lenovo,
Toshiba, Sony, Acer, or E-Machines?
This would not be good news.
The company has signed an exclusive deal with Microsoft, which means
that they can only install Windows, and Windows Vista at that. They
have no agreement with Apple, and Apple has a monopoly on not only the
OS/X operating system, but also the hardware that runs this operating
system.
Microsoft has these exclusive deals because these OEMs feel that
Windows, and Windows alone, is enough for them to sell a reasonable
number of machines at a reasonably high price, and make a reasonably
high profit. Many of these companies were sweating red ink as
Windows-only hardware not capable of running Linux was selling for
below cost. Gateway was loosing almost 10%. Even when the PCs are
making a profit on their PCs, it's only a few percent, and even that
profit comes mostly from "Linux Ready" machines such as 64 bit and
multicore processor based laptop and desktop machines. Clearly, it is
Linux, not Windows that is selling the high profit machines. Vista was
supposed to further improve those revenues and profit margins.
Instead, these "Vista Only" contracts make be greasing the slide to
bankruptcy for some of these OEMs. IBM has already sold off their PC
division because the profit margins were so poor. Since doing so,
their profit margins have improved substantially. Lennovo, the company
that purchased the division, may be looking very seriously at
alternatives to Vista-only, and may already be threatening to pull the
plug on Vista.
The timing couldn't me much worse for Microsoft either. Roughly 30
days after the official release of Vista, is the Linux Expo show in New
York City. If Microsoft can't demonstrate some real market-pulling
power, it's quite possible that at least a few of the "Top 10" OEMs
will be prepared to Publicly announce PCs to be sold with Linux
preinstalled, which will be distributed to retailers. Keep in mind
that the very strategy that Microsoft used to keep PCs running Linux
off retailer shelves could come back and bite them. The OEMs rent the
shelf space, which means they get to say WHAT gets displayed, how it
gets displayed, and what configuratons will be displayed.
If people can walk into the local Staples, WalMart, CompUSA, BestBuy,
Circuit City, or other major franchise retailer, and take a Linux
powered PC for a test drive, and right next to those PCs are boxes of
Crossover Pro, promising the that they can run Windows programs for an
extra $69, how many of those customers are likely to choose Windows
Vista instead of Linux or Mac?
As it is, how many are choosing Macs? Go to the local Starbucks and
count the iBooks. Go to the other WiFi hot spots and notice how many
of these machines are running loose.
Let's assue that these Linux machines will have a top-of-the-line
version of Linux, and that lots of applications will be installed on
the display models. Let's say SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 10.1. And
let's say that it comes preconfigured with Office, Kontact, Konqueror,
Firefox, Planner (Project Management tool), some of the games, some of
the other better appliations, say around 100 applications, on a KDE 4.0
display, and fully configured for high resolution 3D graphics (XGL) for
the graphics card on that PC. WiFi would be all configured and ready
to go, and so would networking and system support. In fact, there
would even be an invitation to get connected via AOL, and another one
for Optimum Online. There would also be bookmarks on the browser to
get you started with Skype. There would also be the Kivio (visio like
digraming tool), and the other Koffice applications as well as
OpenOffice. AND ALL OF IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PRICE!
Now, how many of these customers would chose Linux over Vista in that
side-by-side comparison?
20%? 40%? 60%? 80%?
Remember, it's perfectly OK if 100% of the people don't choose Linux.
Some will chose Macs, and some
will stick with Windows. That's completely OK. The whole point is
that if the only machines on the shelves are Macs and Vista, Apple will
be selling as many machines as it can produce, while HP, Dell, Sony,
Toshiba, Gateway and E-Machines have unsold inventory that has to be
sold at below cost just to avoid additional flooring charges.
We could break these groups into some subgroups.
The first group is people who are buying the machine for themselves,
using their own money. They want the best quality they can afford, at
the lost possible price. They will want Linux because they get so much
more functionality, and a price that is not significantly higher than
the competitors "Vista Only" machine.
The second group would be those who are buying machines for themselves
using other people's money. To them, price isn't even an issue. On
the other hand, they want as much functionality as they can possibly
get in one purchase, because each purchase involves getting approvals
and budget from the person who IS paying. This makes Linux very
attractive, since they don't have to get additional approvals for each
application.
The third group, would be those who are buying machines for others,
using their own money (or money they are accountable for). To these
people, price is very important, and functionality isn't such a big
deal. These are the people who typically buy a Mac for themselves, and
then buy the cheapest Windows machines they can for the others. This
group migth be a problem. After all, if a CIO can get 10,000 machines
and save $100 per machine by getting it with Windows instead of Linux,
because nobody wants the Windows machines, it's a very tempting
opportunity. On the other hand, if the CIO gets a knock on the door
from Micrososft, telling him that his support contract for Vista will
cost about 50% more than his contract for XP, and his XP contract cost
100% more than his support contract for Windows NT 4.0 or Windows 2000,
he might be seriously willing to consider purchasing Linux machines
instead.
Let's be conservative and say that only 20% of the customers coming
into the store chose Linux, another 20% chose Macs, and another 60%
chose Windows. What impact would this have on the indpendent software
vendors? Do you think you'd see more software that says "Runs on Mac,
Windows, SUSE 10, Linspire, or any other LSB-3.0 compatible version of
Linux"? Do you think you might see Quicken for Linux? How about
WordPerfect for Linux? And of course, there would be those software
packages that were marketed directly, via the Web. For $100, you can
upgread your planner with features that will make it as good as
project. For $40 your can upgrade OpenOffice to Star Office 8.x, or
perhaps you'd see start looking for the boxes in the software isle that
had Tux prominantly displayed next to the Windows logo.
In the last 20 years, Microsoft has not had to deal with any
significant competition. It was protected from DRI/GEM by IBM and
Compaq, it was able to get Novell to kill UnixWare Desktop, it was able
to keep SCO Desktop off the market as well. But now, Microsoft has two
very aggressive competitors, Mac OS/X, and Linux, not only competing in
the marketplace, but able to offer competitive marketplace advantages.
Microsoft could try to "close ranks", but this could also backfire, as
it has in several foreign countries. Microsoft tried to force these
governments into "Windows Only" solutions, and almost ended up getting
shut out entirely, forcing them to offer a more moderate "User's
choice" environment, and many users are choosing Linux anyway.
Keep in mind that even if only ONE of those top 10 OEMs starts putting
Linux machines on display at retailer shelves, it will pretty much
impact all of the others. If Acer suddenly starts shipping and
displaying Linux machines instead of, or in addition to Windows
machines, and 20% of those retail customers start buying Linux, that
could make Acer the instant front runner in the overall PC market. If
HP decides that the gamble to introduce the 64 bit processor paid off
so well, that it's now time to ship only one of the lines to retailers
with Linux preinstalled, and that model exceeded expectations, do you
think Microsoft could tell HP to stop selling Linux machines in retail
outlets?
Imagine Ford deciding that, from now on, they will only sell the
Taurus. If you want an economy car, buy another brand. If you want a
luxury car, buy another brand. If you want a truck, buy someone elses,
if you want an SUV, buy someone else's. What do you think would happen
to Ford's bottom line? Remember, Ford introduced the Model T, and
didn't modernize until the depression pushed the to the Model A.
|
|
