On Jun 12, 11:09 am, Clogwog <BWAHAHAH...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/microsoft/archives/116377.asp
> Next one? Roy Schestowitz?
It looks like Microsoft is really feeling the pain now. I think they
are finally beginning to realize that unless they learn to "Play Nice"
with Linux, Windows will be facing the same fate as VMS, RT-11, RSTS,
OS/400, OS/370, Tandem Non-Stop, and most of the other "Former
competitors to *Nix".
Microsoft may be publicly happy about Vista, but they have watched the
retail prices drop to pre-release levels in less than 3 months. They
know they have to offer some sort of "Shared Platform" solution - and
it has to be almost immediately.
Novell and Xandros have been leaders in developing shared platform
strategies. Novell was a big player in Xen, and Xandros was a big
player with Crossover. Both companies have shown that they are
willing to provide a platform which allows Microsoft Windows to
perform well, even though the core platform is still running Linux.
The alternatives would be VMWare or Bochs. Bochs would make Windows
run much slower, and might be more reluctant to give up control of
hardware.
VMWare is already a problem for Microsoft. The VMWare player has made
it possible for hundreds of millions of new Linux users to try Linux
without the headaches of set-up and configuration. One can install a
full-blown Linux system, with applications, with the same ease as
installing a shareware application. VMWare is also widely used in
Server farms, and Microsoft has found that most of their Windows 2003
systems are actually running as VMWare Clients to Linux hosts.
Microsoft has tried several Virtualization solutions, but it's
becoming pretty obvious that Windows cannot provide the same level of
security, stability, reliability, damage control, and performance that
Linux can. Microsoft's "Fast Facts" site has lots of examples where
Microsoft has been able to excel at one, by sacrificing all others,
but even the most rabid Microsoftee knows that Windows would need some
MAJOR rework to do what Linux has been doing for the last 10 years.
At this point, Microsoft is more concerned about maintaining it's cash
flow than maintaining an image of overwhelming superiority. Microsoft
tried to lock Linux out, and it failed. It looks like only about 1/2
the machines licensed to be sold with Vista were actually sold with
Vista. In most cases, customers ordered systems via the Web, and
requested Windows XP instead of Vista. One of the biggest barriers
might have been that Vista Home Basic and Vista Home Premium don't
permit running Vista as a VM Client to Linux, and the "Business" and
"Ultimate" consume far too many resources to be run as VM clients.
Microsoft still has a market for XP or "Vista Lite". This would be a
version of Windows which could be run as a VMWare, Xen, or Crossover
Client. If Microsoft can offer OEMs the choice of 2-3 versions of
Linux - WITH WINDOWS, at $40-$50 per copy, there is a good chance that
the OEMs will be very interested. This would at least keep Windows on
the desktop. This would allow Microsoft to keep MS-Office, MS-
Project, Visio, and Access/SQL Svr on the desktop.
If Microsoft pushes too hard at this point, they would first start to
lose recurring revenue, such as support programs, and maybe even
corporate MSDN subscriptions. They could also find that corporate
customers are not willing to purchase upgrades to Window, Office, and
Project. This would mean further drops in revenue and profit.
If Microsoft pushes too hard for an "All or Nothing" Microsoft
solution, they could find that as many as 700 of the Fortune 1000
would be prepared to say "nothing". IBM has already opted to convert
all of their Windows 2000 and XP licenses to streight floating
licenses. They've stopped paying support and upgrade costs. This has
freed up resources for other projects. They now even have a "Client
for E-Business" which has been offered to many employees. Many of
these Linux employees now use Windows XP under VMware player.
If 100 companies, each with over 1/4 million seats all decided to go
with a Linux Host solution, they could push for Open Office, and even
start requiring that users use Dia instead of Visio and Project
Planner instead of MS-Project. These may not be "as good" as
Microsoft's options, but this may be like saying that a Ford Taurus
isn't as nice as a Lincoln Continental. Most companies tell their
travelling employees to get a Mid-Size car. Even with premium
membership free upgrades, that means the best you will get is a Taurus
- not the Lincoln.
Microsoft has not been able to make the case that Vista will increase
profits. They haven't even been able to make the case that Office
2007 will increase profits. Worse, Novell/SUSE and other Linux
vendors have been able to show these very large companies that they
WILL increase profits by using Linux on servers. This is making the
case for Linux on the desktop much more credible. Linux applications
might not be overwhelmingly better than Microsoft's, but they are
"good enough" and the lower down-times, better performance and
efficiency, the ability to more effectively manage multiple tasks and
multiple desktops, and the ability to collaborate more efficiently and
safely with each other and with corporate servers - makes Linux a very
desirable choice.
If Microsoft gets knocked out of the market entirely, they would be
blind. Hacking into a Linux system without permission, even a
desktop, is a federal crime. With no Microsoft EULA to legally open
the back door, any attempt to collect the critical intelligence it
needs to stay competitive, would be a federal crime, punishable by up
to 15 years in federal prison PER OFFENSE. Keven Mitnick spent 14
years in federal detention for breaking into a UNIX system.
Bill Gates considered the dominance of Windows to be an issue of
personal pride. For him, it was essential that Windows, and ONLY
Windows, be installed on PCs. If he could have done so, he would have
insisted that ONLY Microsoft software be installed on ALL PCs. Even
the End Users would not have been permitted to install non-Microsoft
software.
Steve Ballmer is a businessman. He wants to keep the company
profitable. If making a few deals with a few Linux vendors keeps him
in the market and earning a profit, then that is what he will do. If
Bill and the programmers can't come up with something that's
unarguably better than the competition, and Ballmer and his legal team
can't keep that competitor out of the market, then it's better to keep
the revenue coming in - in the form the customers will accept.
Microsoft is willing to give the customer what they want. They have
just lost the ability to TELL the customer what they want.
|
|
