Comments on: Microsoft spoiling for a Red Hat fight with Web apps on Linux
Software giant may now have the perfect way to put Red Hat on the defensive.
Most Popular
15 sites that went kaput in 2009
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Top 10 news stories of the decade
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
About The Open Road
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to the Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is general manager of the Americas division and vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Add this feed to your online news reader
The Open Road topics
You have it back-asswards. Microsoft has how many customers locked into Office on Windows--hundreds of millions? Red Hat has how many Linux desktops today?
Now, I'm not suggesting for a monopolistic minute that Microsoft's offer is good for anybody, but as I testified in Federal Court in 2001, the fact that Microsoft could use their Office monopoly to protect their OS monopoly did foreclose the possibility of free market competition to Red Hat. I testified on behalf of the litigating states that if Microsoft would separate their monopolies, by porting Windows applications to Linux, and then begin to level the playing field by publishing APIs and their proprietary file formats, we, and the free market, might get somewhere. The judge chose to side with Microsoft's argument, which is that they should be released with a promise that they will go forth and sin no more. Would that they kept that promise!
Microsoft did once withdraw support for Office on Mac, which created all sorts of troubles for Apple, and Microsoft reinstated Office for Mac, which has no doubt been one reason why Mac machines have been able to go beyond the cubicles of the audio and video creatives in corporate America. Office on Mac is not the only reason that Apple is enjoying a renaissance, but it's something that makes the difference between Mac being useful to regular folk and being a non-starter to a great many people.
What Microsoft and Novell are doing is totally different than what Office-on-Linux might mean. Microsoft is using Novell to undermine confidence in open source by using a once-trusted brand as a mouthpiece for their legal FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt).
It could well be that when we see the final details of Microsoft's offer, it will be every bit as problematic as you predict. They could have a EULA that forces Red Hat users to swear allegiance to Satan, for example. Or they could stipulate that Office can only run on versions of Linux that have conceded to Microsoft's vague patent claims--which would be no help to Red Hat at all, and would create a "there you go again" moment as users continue to evaluate what authentic open source means to their business and their freedom.
But in the mean time, more applications for Red Hat equals more opportunities for Red Hat, plain and simple.
There is no undermining by Microsoft, what they have realized is, their image is getting dented by these lawsuits and constant consumer complaints. So the best thing to do is to put the aggressiveness in Safe Mode and start working with your competitors and Co-competitors to deliver value to the customer and let that win on its own merit.
Full Office on Linux would mean opening up a proprietary product, not just because its Microsoft, but all the API's that let third party developers develop add-on's and extensions for Office. Microsoft can't vouch that everyone wants their code open up on Linux. Office will forever remain a proprietary product. Microsoft Office web has limited editing capabilities which is enough for a lot of persons, but when you want to do complex editing, that button that says 'Open in Full Excel' means you will have to go back to Windows. Its a smart logical move for a Software Company that has a business to run needs to make money.
It seems that, unlike yourself, MS can base decisions on what the market may be like in the future, not how it is now. Red Hat and other Linux companies enjoy continued growth, Linux itself is growing in usage. None of the attacks MS has made against 'Linux' or their strategies for competing have ever been about now. If they think Linux has the _potential_ to take a good deal of their sales and may reduce their market share in 10 years they'll do something about it _now_.
You also seem to be missing the importance of video editing, music software and so-on to the home user. People do their home movies on computers now and Apple didn't release the iLife suite for nothing. A Good number of people just don't care if their home computer has Office, and probably don't want it on there, because they want to keep work and home separate. It's not needed to make Mac relevant to a lot of 'regular folk'.
If your testimony and that of others was anything like what you've put here, it's no wonder MS won.
Of course MSFT never withdrew Office for the Mac (Excel was originally Mac-only.) What they did do however was to keep the Mac Office versions crippled somewhat and always a version behind ever since 98 or so.
1) MS sells office on Mac for _profit_. They're a corporation, not a charity, not an independently rich benefactor, a corporation, with shareholders, who would sue them if they ever did any such thing.
I don't suppose you have any idea how much it costs to produce such software? How much it would harm share prices? How much they'd be prosecuted?
They're not a charity and they can't afford to spend that much time and money on largesse. It's a profit-making concern. They're not the all-loving benefactors of the Office world.
2) Powerpoint and _only_ Powerpoint started on Mac, Word and Excel started on MS-DOS.
3) Someone needs to tell Oracle that releasing their database system on Linux required it to be opened up because I DON'T THINK THEY KNOW. While were at it, go tell Autodesk, SideFX and Avid. Novell? They need to be told that all those proprietary bits they have in SLED aren't allowed because their entire legal team doesn't seem to know.
It seem even Richard Stallman doesn't know given that he has stated _REPEATEDLY_ that RELEASING YOUR SOFTWARE ON LINUX _DOES_NOT_INVOKE_THE_GPL_.
Can we please bury that retarded myth in unconsecrated ground and salt the earth? Please? While we're at it, some get the Kool-Aid out of that guys hand, he's had waaaay too much.
I didn't mention the history of the individual modules in Microsoft Office. I said Microsoft 'Office' the suite debuted back in 1989 as a Mac only product. Windows didn't get the bundle until around 1.2 I think. Yes, I realize its not a charity and the success of version 2008 proves that. The bulk of Office sales still comes from Windows although about 20
Releasing Office on Linux won't force it to open up. Where do you get that idea?
According to this guy MS are only releasing Office on OSX as a 'thankyou' and because Office on OSX makes less profit than on Windows then profit cannot be the primary motivator for selling it on OSX.
Don't ask me to point out all the holes in that logic, I don't have /that/ much free time, but if I have two products and one makes less profit and I stop selling the one that makes less profit than I _still_make_less_profit_than_when_I_sold_both_products_ Mr. Dee. The relative profit compared to the Windows version is inconsequential so long as it makes a profit.
The good news is our Techs are starting to see why we should default to Linux/BSD solutions and how few the limitations are.New MS adds "No Walls" who is that targeting? Data recovery, network monitoring, penetration testing, help desk, firewall,and spam filter are all OSS solutions. We install Firefox by default and have some MAC OSX users using Open Office.
We have cut checks to a few OSS projects. The real obstacles I face are users addicted to excel, Client Access for AS/400 and until I can join a OSS box to an Active directory domain (With out making changes to the DC) they won't let me deploy desk tops. Vista is not an option. When they mentioned MS 7 I reminded them of how often MS delivered on time and with what was promised. It may be 5 or more years but any thing other than OSS is slowly on it's way out.
We are willing to pay for software/support but we want to use our systems not be used by them. IF MS figures that out they will have it made. Not because of a better product but because of mind share.
-R
Microsoft is offering nothing more than a lure in enabling users of Macs and Linux to access their on-line Office applications. How successful can this strategy be now? Until their on-line applications can compete with a locally installed software suite on competing platforms I don't see how they can succeed. They have to overcome the awareness many people are gaining of the importance of file formats to their software decisions. And they have to offer more features than these same users enjoy already in free and open alternatives. Most Linux users are well-aware of the importance of file formats and will not be duped by something that glitters while locking up their data.
Microsoft may implement OpenDocument, as their own press releases have said they will, but will they do an honest, straight implementation that is compatible with competing office suites, or will they introduce incompatible extensions that render data useless unless opened in their software?
If all they offer is their own Office 2007 and earlier formats, users on alternative platforms will be ceding control of their data to a corporation most of them already do not trust.
If their behaviour in the past with Internet Explorer and with their own Office products is any indication, I believe we will see an incompatible implementation of OpenDocument or reliance on their own internal formats. Windows Office users will not see any issue with this. I think most users of alternative platforms will.
Word did come out for XENIX and DOS a year before the first Mac version in 1984.
MS bought PowerPoint in 1987 and came out with a Windows 3 version three years later.
In early years, Gates said that they made more off Mac software than off PCs. Later, he said it was still true on a per machine basis, if I recall correctly.
- by MichaelTiemann November 15, 2008 4:36 AM PST
- I stand corrected about Microsoft's tactics with respect to Office for the Mac. I was living in Silicon Valley at the time that Microsoft *threatened* to withdraw support for Office for the Mac, and those threats sent shockwaves through the valley. So much so that Microsoft might well have removed such support, for all the damage they did. The truth of my comment holds, however, which is that Office for Mac is *vital* to Mac's success, as Avi Tevanian testified (see http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,2074786,00.htm).
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(21 Comments)I'll leave it at that.