| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
UPDATE: Microsoft declares open source a threat to its business model | |
|
||
| Time: 00:00 EST/05:00 GMT | News Source: ITWorld | Posted By: Todd Richardson | ||
|
Microsoft Corp. has confirmed it sees the open-source software movement as a threat to its commercial business model, in a quarterly report filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The statement, which first appeared in Microsoft's annual report on its 2002 fiscal-year operations, amplifies comments by Microsoft Chief Financial Officer John Connors recently about the threat of Linux to Microsoft's server business. "The popularization of the open source movement continues to pose a significant challenge to the company's business model," Microsoft wrote in its recent filing. "(This is) including recent efforts by proponents of the Open Source model to convince governments worldwide to mandate the use of Open Source software in their purchase and deployment of software products." | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:07:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/6/2003 3:08:40 PM |
|
"I instead moan and complain that if Linux and the whole GNU Public License gets any more popular, I'll be out of a job." Because you cannot write better proprietary code than free "hobbiest" code? Awww, too freakin bad for you.
"that doesn't mean Open Source is a viable business plan." Open Source isn't a business plan--it's a development strategy. Learn what a business plan is. Would you say Red Hat's business plan is Open Source? Or that they are a service provider charging for tech support, upgrade, implementation services while pursuing subscription and other revenue? If you choose the former, you've got a lot to learn. "No. It's too early to tell really." Ten years is too early? Whatever... "Remember the Internet Boom and subsequent crash?" Yeah, so what? What does "irrational exuberance" in the form of venture capital, IPOs, market deregulation, excessive marketing, and individual investors daytrading have to do with a development strategy? A development strategy has nothing to do with business plan. "Open Source is more of a political movement than a viable method for long-term software development. " No, Free Software is more of a political movement (i.e. "ethical, moral" values have primacy over technological values). Open Source is a long-term development strategy (in fact, I can't think of a dev strategy more long term). Open Source development is not a business plan. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, February 06, 2003 at 18:07. |
| #2 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 2/6/2003 5:56:38 PM |
|
"Open Source development is not a business plan. "
Whew, nice of you to finally admit that. |
| #3 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/6/2003 6:04:29 PM |
|
I've always said this soda. I've said numerous profitable companies are employing OS software in numerous ways and they employ numerous strategies.
I'm sick and tired of fools like you saying,"Look a Linux company is going out of business, that means Open source isn't a viable business strategy." How is the way they develop their code their business strategy/plan? Whew, nice of you to stay in your own deluded world pretending that I agree with you, have changed my own mind, or have said anything against OS in any way, rather than posting something of intelligence... You might have actually provoked a discussion or something. Instead you pretend. Whatever. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, February 06, 2003 at 18:08. |
| #4 By 3339 (65.198.47.10) at 2/6/2003 7:27:27 PM |
|
kevin, your 100% completely avoiding the points made.
"That's not what I said. I actually said that it's possible that the Linux code (or "open source" code) could run circles around the proprietary code. It's the fact that the GNU license requires me to give my code away for free. Free means preventing me from making money. You know what money is. It's that stuff that puts food on the table and a roof over your head." Yes, I know what money is. If it concede succeed, I don't know why you fear it taking over the world. The GNU license doesn't require that YOU do anything. You don't need to use the license. "If the GNU license gets popular enough that everyone thinks they should be using it, or using software from vendors who are restricted by it's license, then I'm in a position where I don't make money, or working for a business who can't make money. Either way, my pocket book is empty and I go with out food or shelter. That's bad." So you think that someday all programmers will be coding GPL code, but they are all going to do it for free. And even if they are, why can't you compete with them. You say it's a bad model, that it can't be profitable, that it can't be proprietary code--if so, why wouldn't you always have the option to compete with it--especially since your own values are superior to its inferior views. "A service model, as any one who has run a small company knows, is cost-prohibitive. You don't make enough to support the staff that it takes to do it." Funny--I thought the majority of small businesses were service companies--landscapers, contractors, cleaners, designers, consultants, etc... When you don't have capital expenses, inventories, etc..., you preserve more of your revenue. I made much more money as a freelance designer; I simply preferred to relax and not work so hard--it's easier to let someone else be the boss--but if I was concerned about the money--I'd happily go back to being a small biz service provider. "Nope. I would say that their business plan is hindered and crippled by using the GNU license. A software company will find it very hard to make money on a service-model." Well, you agree that you can't equate the way they produce their product/services with the business plan, but you fail to actually explain how OS hinders a business. "And don't forget, you all hate Microsoft for the subscription software model, so why is that a good choice for RedHat?" Who said I think it is a good business model or that I like Red Hat. It can be a good model (successful, that is) and there are many reasons why people hate MS not one--so no, you are saying irrelevent things that I wouldn't have even suggested. "The difference is they still have hardware and software that they can charge for as part of the service package." There are plenty of others and there are plenty that are closer to pure service companies. Saying something positive about one company when you don't want to concede that Red Hat could possibly be a success doesn't prove that all software service companies are failures, or that Red Hat is a failure, or that OS has anything to do with it. "The point being, Open Source and the GNU License is a hinderance to a good business model." How? Saying it doesn't make it so. "It forces a company to go to great lengths to make money." How so? MS goes to great lengths to make money too--Red Hat has far fewer expenses and overhead so why do they have to work harder to make money? |
| #5 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 2/8/2003 5:07:22 PM |
|
To add to kevinu's point...
One of the problems with relying upon a service unit to fund the development of software is that inherently built into that plan is no incentive to improve the quality of the software, or at least the complexity. By keeping the software complex, this helps drive the demand for the services unit. But the other problem is that others can offer services as well. Since they do not have to pay for the software development, they can bill out at a much lower rate than the Redhat services unit. And it's not like Redhat offers anything unique, as any other services unit would have the same access to source as Redhat does. Now I realize that in the GPL world everything is pink, and we all have fluffly little flowers called daisies trouncing through the woods. But the real question is... Is it a sustainable business? Is it better for the economy? Is it better for the consumer? I've yet to see anything which answered those questions in the affirmative, with regards to open source. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 149 Last | Next |
The time now is
6:07:44 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
