Microsoft Advised To Learn To Love Linux 418
mikael writes "ZDnet is reporting that the management guru Clayton Christensen (author of "The Innovator's Dilemma") has advised Microsoft to learn to love Linux. In particular he advises Microsoft to purchase "Research in Motion", otherwise they will see their applications sucked off from the desktop and onto handheld devices such as the Blackberry."
Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with him that the greatest threat that Microsoft faces is the unwillingness to destroy its existing business to create a new business.
Why won't Microsoft bring Office to Linux? Because that would undercut the Windows business.
Why hasn't Microsoft gone ahead with a truly revolutionary approach to a MediaPlayer or Handheld? Because that would undercut the Windows business.
It is about keeeping the Windows business going. Think about it, how many differnet flavors of "Windows" have we seen for totally different uses and platforms?
Yours,
Jordan
Re:Love already there (Score:1, Interesting)
>
> They bought SCO didn't they?
Erm no, they just invested in it through Baystar. Perfectly legal!
Interesting article, but (Score:5, Interesting)
But it seems wierd that the guest speaker at an event hosted by Research In Motion [rim.net] would advise Microsoft to purchase Research in Motion.
That seems a little, um, strange.
Two bits (Score:5, Interesting)
2) What's stopping MS from having a non-GPL applications layer which enables them to deply Office and whatever they'd want on THEIR linux. Assume they'd charge a little under the standard distro's, or even include it in the cost of Office for Linux.
The only hassle will be hiding the DRM for said Office where it can't be seen/modified - so it can't go in the kernel, etc. Could a binary loadable MS Driver do this for them?
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
Hafta take issue here....umm.. do you actually think that anybody in the Slashdot community would use Office if it were ported over to Linux? (I would, I don't mind Office as much as I dislike Windows, but I think I'm in a clear minority...)
Obvious, thanks a lot (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not like another poster said that they fear it would undercut their Windows business. Why would there be an Office for Mac?
So in conclusion, thanks for telling me the world isn't flat, Mr. Christensen
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:5, Interesting)
There may be more Linux users than Mac users now, but I believe and I'm sure their market research must show, that a much smaller percentage of Linux users would actually purchase and use Office.
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
The Blackberry is not a Linux device (Score:5, Interesting)
But Research In Motion's Blackberry is not any kind of free-software platform. It runs yet another proprietary operating system, requiring (at the moment) proprietary development tools. It has nothing to offer over Windows CE (except possibly quality of implementation).
Look at Novell? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Extremely interesting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:1st Article (Score:2, Interesting)
The desktop is going nowhere anytime soon. Internet won't be reliable enough to replace it in the foreseeable future, and I can't imagine using an Office package on a handheld anytime soon, either.
A lot of Micro$oft's core business is such that it won't translate easily or at all to the web nor a handheld, most notably desktop OS's (duh) and office software. And I think we'll see them going more towards handhelds in terms of games and OS's too, but I don't think that's what Christensen was after.
To me, this seems a bit like saying that Hollywood should start making more Spanish films, because films made in Spain are getting more and more popular.
no, they need to.., (Score:1, Interesting)
Uhhh, yeah right. As a RIM user for many years I find my BB indespensible but every time a new device becomes available I start to wonder at the limitations of the RIM devices. The Treo 650 will be the first non-RIM device that I will seriously consider and it is just the first of a new phase of devices that these days more and more devices are offering direct synchronization with outlook/exchange.
Also look at goodlink. http://www.good.com, a better RIM than RIM at much more affordable rates for small companies.
MS doesn't need to learn to love Linux or buy RIM. They need to embrace open source, fix their damn OS problems, and start acting more like a startup and less like a monolithic giant.
Re:What this love will consist of (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be Mono then.
to allow Linux to be a node in network managed by XP.
And that one would be Samba!
New 'Services for Linux', half-baked Linux layer for NT.
Or how about Services for UNIX? Already up to version 3.5. Apart from that a very reasoned out comment.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Microsoft Linux (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm not arguing about the TCO of a Mac, but when I've proposed the idea of "have you checked out a Mac", they always say that the price is too high. Although, many people I've met who own them consider that the extra cost outweighs all the Windows hassles.
REALITY CHECK (Score:4, Interesting)
- Microsoft had 36.8 BILLION dollars in revenue last year (up from 32 BILLION the year before)
- Microsoft had 8.6 BILLION dollars in NET PROFIT last year (I wish I could fail that much)
- Microsoft has 70 BILLION dollars of cash
- Microsoft has seen revenue and profit growth for every year of their existence
Thank You. Now wake up.
Re:What this love will consist of (Score:4, Interesting)
Such a thing is hardly insurmountable to do either, but I suspect if it ever did appear it would be buggered up beyond recognition (e.g. not supporting the LSB properly). I base my experiences on the SFU which is traumatic to install and lacklustre to run in equal measure. Cygwin beats the living crap out of it.
Of course if Microsoft had a clue about doing this properly, they'd try to make User Mode Linux working on top of XP. Done properly it would be less traumatic to install, would be self contained, would be as-near-as-dammit a true Linux environment and might earn them a few brownie points in the process.
How to kill Linux MS Style. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
MS is putting a lot of effort into getting their software on handheld devices. There's:
As you can see, Microsoft is already pretty serious about getting their software onto handheld devices. Their marketing department also seems to have done a fine job in taking what are basically two versions of their OS, and turning it into a line of unique products for all the new emerging markets.
Anti-trust? Too popular. (Score:3, Interesting)
But portible devices are just too popular, and someone else will step up. There may be some patents to get around, but MSFT might face an anti-trust suit if it tried to enforce them.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
So basically they'll never move beyond the Windows/Office market (which is saturated already).
Anyway, I don't want them to embrace Linux, I want them to fail. They've abused their dominance and deserve to decline.
Re:Maybe at a lower price? (Score:2, Interesting)
How may
As for the MS Office issue I would love to see an application like that for Linux, unfortunately OpenOffice is still go a way to go yet! Anyway I don't think Microsoft can separate it from the OS enough to do it
Re: Not Adapting? (Score:2, Interesting)
But aren't they adapting? Here are some of their major complaints: 1) Criticized of security problems -- Put a team of developers on making XP more secure. Release SP2 with focus on security. It isn't perfect, and there are still flaws, but they are listening to the critics and working on the public's number 1 concern. I believe we'll see Longhorn as a very secure. Does that mean it will be full-proof? No, that would be impossible, but I do think that it will be much, much better. After all, Linux has security problems. Mozilla has security problems. They just don't get as much attention and are fixed slightly quicker.
Yes but as far as I can tell home installs still default to administrator, so regardless of how many patches they apply to their software, they still have to user running in the MS equivalent of root. They probably won't fix this in the near future since all normal install processes are based on having Administrator access. And until they fix that they will never have a secure home distribution.
Look for this as the number 1 improvement in the coming months / years. 2) Product Quality -- In the past MS has sacrificed security and to some extent quality for ease of use. I think they will still but ease of use as a top priority, but look to see the quality level increase. They have already delayed Longhorn and cut feature in order to really nail down the important ones.
Apple seems to have balanced out ease of use with quality and security with out having to choose only one. Yet somehow MS can never do this, despite the fact that they have over 10 times the budget. They haven't got it right yet and probably won't for some time, I can't imagine Longhorn being some kind of silver bullet that puts it's security up there with BSD/OSX.
It is very hypocritical to read here how people blast MS for their quality problems and then blast them again for delaying a future product in order to enhance the quality. I just don't get that.
Not hypocritical at all. They spend billions of dollars more than other software companies on there products yet take years to make any improvements, and when those come out the quality is crap, even though it took them foo years to make it. To me the two go hand in hand. If they are going to take forever making there product then the quality ought to be pretty decent when it comes out.
So let's take a look at a few things they have done: - MSN - recognized the AOL threat and jumped in to compete - online music - recognized a growth opportunity so they are now competing with iTunes - XBox - jumping into the home gaming / entertainment center market Again, note the hypocrisy. Blast MS for being a monopoly. Blast them for not adapting to the business market...effectively losing market share. So what do you want? A monopoly or a competitor? To me MS screams adaptation. Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe I'm just a little dense. Or maybe people just love to hate MS...no matter what.
Actually they are a monopoly for OSes and Office software only. On all other fronts they suck. I don't see how those three things show them as adapting. How many people use MSN as there ISP? I don't think very many. iTunes is used MUCH more fequently then whatever MS has made...I've actually not heard of it yet. And the XBox is one of their biggest failures. They had lower sales than the PSOne in Japan last christmas which wouldn't be a big deal except that alot of the games people are interested come from Japan, so maybe they can keep it afloat with sports and shooting games in the U.S., but I'cant imagine them making much from it. Other notable endeavors include: portable devices, tablet devices, multimedia centers, and I'm sure there are many more.
MS tries to keep a monopoly on OSes and Office Suites because it's all they can do. They've repeatedly demonstrated that can't do anything else. But I do agree that software won't be siphoned away like it talks about in the article, since people will make there software MS compatible until MS isn't the leading OS.
Re:Look at Novell? (Score:3, Interesting)
I figure that the whole point of standardizing
In other words, I think Mr. Softy has had the baleful eye on the wall for some time now, and steps are well underway to protect the soft, white underbelly.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:2, Interesting)
Not even close to true. Microsoft cut perscription benefits to require employees to use generics if available. The savings was estimated at $20M.
Microsoft sells, what $25B of stuff per year, invests $6B in R&D, and you think this $20M was needed to ensure they weren't posting a loss? Check the annual report. Your statement isn't even close.
Actually, the advice isn't strange (Score:2, Interesting)
His advice won't be the deciding factor in Microsoft's strategy. So RIM has no reason to believe that his advice is going to sway MS. What he is really saying to RIM is that RIM's strategy is going to win out. If MS wants to ride that wave, they have to buy into it. It's too late for them to compete with it.
Not a guru (Score:2, Interesting)
Microsoft hasn't evolved? (Score:2, Interesting)
I think Microsoft has done something smarter than what Christensen suggests in his book. Why should Microsoft "abandon" its once-and-still-successful business to start a new one when it has enough resources to keep the old one and start 100 more?
Have you heard of:
- XBOX
- Tablet PC
- Windows Media Center
- Windows Mobile
- Smartphone
- Visual Studio
- SQL Server
- Microsoft Games Studios
- Business Management Software
- MSN, MSNBC, MSN Messenger
Not to mention all the stuff Microsoft Research is cooking up with 5 billion in cash.
Of course you can say: none of these businesses are successful, but that's exactly Christensen's point. None of them are at first, but if you don't get into new markets, your company will die.
Re:Microsoft hasn't evolved? (Score:3, Interesting)
You need to get into markets where nobody's solved the problems. Microsoft got a GUI on commodity hardware, and an integrated office suite with popular individual programs, which is why Windows and Office are their moneymakers. Other than that, they've mostly been late in their markets, and haven't done well.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:2, Interesting)
We, in Ontario, only recently received changes in our services markets. There used to be only Bell Canada for telephones, Ontario Hydro for electricity, and Union Gas for natural gas. That was it. Due to open markets, these companies are now mainly distributers for other sales/service companies. Of course they have their own sales/service sectors, but they have become wise(er) than their monopoly days.
They enjoyed the monopoly and made a LOT of cash (or incurred a massive debt in the case of Hydro One - formerly Ontario Hydro) and now have had to streamline themselves and compete. They have the "trust" of the masses however to help them compete. Familiarity does help. Be honest, how many people there actually know what is going on with a computer? They will go for what they know and that is Windows Desktops (servers are a different ball of wax, people who use them know a lot about computers - I hope).
MS is in the same boat. While the government is only making small dents into their dreams, they still should plan for a future with successive competitors. I am quite certain their shareholders, their Board of Governors, and their top personel (top paid that is) have well considered the impact of Linux and OOS companies. They are not stupid. They did not become the dominent player by fluke.
They may not play all that fair, but they do play hard and they are definitely considering the future. MS is playing a clever game of chess and I highly doubt a company like that is foolish enough to lose any time soon.
MS will evolve as many of the former monopolists have evolved. They will use everything they have to their advantage and they have more up their sleeve than anyone else knows.
And if they are smart, they will use their own employees to deceive the masses, this helps in the element of surprise. It is the old addage, if you don't want people knowing what you are up to, don't tell anyone!
Personally, I am sick of XP and SP2. Once I am totally comfortable with commandline linux (the GUI for MEPIS is quite easy to migrate from Windows over to Linux) I will not bother with Windows unless abosolutely necessary.
Re:Kodak (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
Since Microsoft has never TRULY dominated the server market (at least not in the sense that they dominated the desktop), this is the easiest win for Linux and seems to be the way it is heading currently. Once the server market has effectively been tied up and gift wrapped for Linux, it will be up to Microsoft to work with industry standards and if any of Microsofts protocols, tools or other toys like ActiveX start behaving wierdly or becoming a security risk, servers can effectively block them.
Once Linux has tied up the server market, Microsoft will HAVE to get along and be forced to embrace Linux to a certain extent. We are already seeing them soften their stance by no longer saying it is a cancer but their approach behind closed doors is still the same.
As a side effect, once they become second class citizens on the server market and are focused on the desktop, I believe they can justify removal of alot of apps from the desktop that currently make it insecure and problematic; right now, they can't justify it yet because they still feel they can win this one but they are just avoiding the inevitable.
The industry demands open standards and Microsoft demands that they be able to own those standards; the two concepts are incompatible thus forcing the industry to rise against Microsoft as a whole (the Sender-id fiasco is a prime example).
Microsofts best bet is to start focusing on the desktop and stop worrying about the server. But they won't do that yet as they have too much invested. Instead, Microsoft will started attacking the vendors and companies around Linux and Open Source soon claiming patent violation or something like that and attempt to either exhaust their cash flow and effectively choke them to death or try to buy out key developers and bring them into the MS fold. In other words, if you cannot knock the guy down, kick his legs out from under him.
Both of these attempts will fail but for reasons that Microsoft doesn't understand fully. Suing people for patent violation COULD work but the community as a whole will question those patents and as a result, Microsoft could end up LOSING intellectual property as a result. But more importantly, they are still seen as an arrogant bully and this will further damage their appearance to customers. True, it will also damage the people who they are suing but if you try to tell people that you cannot create something yourself and give it away for free, most people will agree that is wrong.
Also, patent law protects people who build things themselves for personal use as long as they do not try to prosper from it and it can be effectively argued that a Linux distro is sold as a compilation and that the person themselves could compile the info themselves as well.
In the long run, they are fighting an inevitable battle in which they will be brought down to a equal level with the other major players on the field.
Re:Article has a flair for the dramatic (Score:3, Interesting)
Microsoft's software isn't what perpetuates it's monopoly it's their utter disregard for interoperability something that companies like IBM, and other's are pushing really really hard right now.
The sad thing is that Microsoft never acheived total standardization, their products didn't have perfect backwards compatability and therefore customers always were concerned about whether things would work. This was partially due to not controlling their OS's hardware and application infrastructure. If Linux took over today it would be a nightmare for the average user (me included). If embracing Linux means allowing a greater level of interoperability then there will be no war, but linux may already have won.
Re: Not Adapting? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sendmail, Qmail, and Postfix are also pretty entrenched when it comes to Mail Transfer Agents (aka, software that actually routes your mail from you.com to them.com). When it comes to these bedrock network services, it's closed proprietary software that's the new kid on the block. OSS has been the standard for decades.
Samba is another good example of enterprise-ready OSS. File servers running Samba tend to out-perform Windows file servers on the same hardware.
Re:How to kill Linux MS Style. (Score:2, Interesting)
Nitpick: You are permitted to sell GPL code for as much money as people are willing to pay. You just can't stop them from doing the same.
Re:REALITY CHECK (Score:3, Interesting)