Is Microsoft trying to pull a SugarCRM?

I read this CNET interview with Microsoft CRM division general manager Brad Wilson, and it felt like I was reading an interview with SugarCRM CEO John Roberts.

No, Roberts doesn't talk about lock-in, monopoly power, and such, but then, neither does Wilson.

Instead, Wilson discusses values that are core to open source: adoption, choice, and lower cost (as well as open source!)

When asked how Microsoft CRM is going to win in the market, he said:

...[F]or us, user adoption is key. If they (the users) are not going to use the system, you are pretty much guaranteed a failed deployment.

We give you enough flexibility so that you can run the system how you want to. So I find we will beat a classic offering from your CRM vendors on end-user adoption and platform flexibility. Those factors will far outweigh the fact that other people have more prebuilt stuff [only 7 percent of which, at least in one case, actually fits without modification]....

I think the old model of 10 years ago, where you built a system that had a big slab of stuff that you had to adopt, has gone. At the same time, we will still bring out our accelerators with pre-packaged software, and more and more of them. But we release them as open source. The idea is that we just put this stuff out there and let people use it. And, if our partners use it, all the better.

Did you catch that? Instead of making its core open source, as SugarCRM does, Microsoft is going the other way, open sourcing the complements to its core. You pay for the core, but the complements are free. It's an interesting twist on the open-source model, and particularly so since it's being used by Microsoft.

We're definitely seeing convergence in the market: proprietary vendors embracing open-source complements, and open-source vendors embracing proprietary complements. This, however, is the first time I've seen Microsoft baldly identify open source as a key business strategy.

The times they are a-changin'.

I used to think that Microsoft would make a likely suitor for SugarCRM. Now it appears it decided to become SugarCRM, instead.

Disclosure: I am an adviser to SugarCRM.

[mgworek]

As log as Microsoft CRM only lets Windows and Internet Explorer to see the web front end for it, a lot of companies will go elsewhere.

[MrKleinpaste]

And rightly so. I'm all with the EU in forcing Microsoft to adopt FULL interoperability with other OSes, browsers and applications and I think the US should get behind the EU on that.

If they want to control the application, that's fine. They shouldn't be allowed to control the file standards.

Microsoft CRM is an excellent platform. It's much more than a CRM system, but can be integrated very tightly with it's other Dynamics line of products, if you desire to do so. It's ability to have a workflow engine, tie it into Sharepiont, Outlook, and other Business Intelligence systems, to me, makes it a huge winner over other so called "free" or open source products on the market.

[mgworek]

I wish I could agree with you. We are in the middle of installing Dynamics GP and in the need of a CRM as well. I was leaning towards MS, then I found out you need windows and internet explorer to use the web front end. Yes, it ties into outlook as well but when all of your execs are using macs and firefox, that is a problem. If they would just make the web front end more compatible with the rest of the world, I would use it in a heartbeat.

[Goodbye Helicopter]

crm is a joke

[Mr. Dee]

To be who don't know what it is or never used it, like you?

[enovikoff]

I fail to see the advantages of open source as Sugar CRM practices it. In fact, my experience with Sugar is all about lock-in and monopoly power. Ultimately, I don't think it's possible for a capitalistically attractive company to be a true open-source supporter, since they have to charge high margins for their product, which obviously would be impossible if the source was freely available. This is what happens with Sugar, where there is a free "teaser" version, but to do real business with it, you have to buy the software or service from Sugar at exorbitant rates. I say exorbitant because there are non-open-source solutions that are far more useful (like NetSuite or SalesForce) at comparable prices. I'm a huge fan of open source, but ultimately it doesn't come with a price since the moment you charge for it, it's not open source anymore. Yes, its a conundrum that professional software would come out of an open source effort with no monetization model, but this conundrum cannot be solved by sprinkling a little eau-de-Open-Source onto your commercial product.

[MSSlayer]

"the moment you charge for it, it's not open source anymore"

You don't understand open source very well. To charge or not to charge is independent of whether or not it is open source.

Just because you have to pay for it, doesn't mean it isn't open source.

Just because it is free, that doesn't mean it is.

[tenshon]

"This, however, is the first time I've seen Microsoft baldly identify open source as a key business strategy."

Baldly? If I recall correctly, Wilson still has a little way to go before he becomes a Ballmer. :)

[Seaspray0]

Toupe.... Ooops, I mean touche.

[Mam00th]

I think it is a far better strategy then it seems, because it let people build applications more easily on top of the platform, thereby adding a lot of value to the platform in general.

[MSSlayer]

Nothing new here, just more lock-in.

[lokanadam]

why isn't google search engine open source ?