Read more on Cloud Computing
October 15, 2004 10:49 AM PDT
Advice to Microsoft: Learn to love Linux
- Related Stories
-
Microsoft: Linux may mean price cuts, fewer sales
September 3, 2004 -
Pandora's box for open source
February 12, 2004 -
Why great companies fail
November 25, 2001
Christensen, an associate professor at Harvard Business School, is the author of the 1997 "Innovator's Dilemma," a book that describes how good companies often fail because business managers don't embrace "disruptive" technologies.
Open source is a clear disruption to Microsoft and the software industry in general, Christensen told attendees at the Future Forward technology conference here Thursday.
Clayton Christensen
The software company can respond to this market disruption by setting up a separate business that will "kill Microsoft," Christensen said. If it doesn't react to the rise of Linux desktops on handheld computers, it will miss a coming wave of new applications and market opportunities, he said.
Microsoft has already conceded that open-source software poses a significant challenge to its business. The company could not be immediately reached for comment on Christensen's remarks.
Christensen has observed that companies regularly stumble when they follow the well-established management practices of planning and listening to customers. To succeed, companies should not only cater to customers and continue improving their existing products, he argues. They should also set up separate business units to capitalize on new technologies, even though these may be poor-quality, low-margin products.
Digital Equipment, for example, grew rapidly in the late 1980s by selling mini computers, which were a simpler, lower-cost option to mainframes, he said. But when other PCs began to take hold, the company didn't pursue that market for economic reasons: PCs offered substantially lower profit margins and didn't meet the technical needs of existing mini-computer customers.
In Microsoft's case, Linux applications on handheld devices are a threat to its lucrative business of selling desktop PC applications for its Windows operating system.
"As computing becomes Internet-centric, rather than LAN (local-area network)-centric, their stuff runs on Linux, because it's all new," he said. He noted that people increasingly leave their laptop PCs at home when they travel and instead rely on handheld devices, such as Research In Motion's BlackBerry.
Linux also provides a cheap, commoditylike alternative to Windows--the basis of Microsoft's business. Although Linux didn't use to be as functional as Windows or Unix, adoption of the operating system grew rapidly because it met the needs of simple applications and is relatively cheap. A similar dynamic is now occurring in the database market with open-source products such as MySQL, Christensen said.
Christensen said that Microsoft should move progressively into Linux applications over the next six or seven years, because that sector will offer better opportunities for growth than operating systems or databases. He suggested that Microsoft acquire Research In Motion to accelerate the move, rather than continue to invest in making Windows run better on handheld devices.
"As the BlackBerry becomes more capable, applications will get sucked onto it. Those are kind of places where growth is," he said. "If Microsoft catches it, they'll be all right."
20 comments
Join the conversation! Add your comment (Log in or register)
What's more important is the degree of innovation demonstrated by a company. Regardless of what many antagonists think Microsoft has a tremendous advantage in this aspect because it controls or otherwise influences such a vast portion of the software ecosystem. That is it can make its innovations profoundly available.
Microsoft doesnt need to support Linux apps though perhaps this could be part of its strategy (afterall its not really a religious entity-- msft will do what it has to to thrive and its proven that many times already). It simply has to outlast its many open source antagonists while accelerating the pace of its innovation.
What's more important is the degree of innovation demonstrated by a company. Regardless of what many antagonists think Microsoft has a tremendous advantage in this aspect because it controls or otherwise influences such a vast portion of the software ecosystem. That is it can make its innovations profoundly available.
Microsoft doesnt need to support Linux apps though perhaps this could be part of its strategy (afterall its not really a religious entity-- msft will do what it has to to thrive and its proven that many times already). It simply has to outlast its many open source antagonists while accelerating the pace of its innovation.
Even though OS X on a Mac is based on an open- source UNIX base, it's proprietary. You have to purchase the hardware with the software, & that can get expensive. Now with the advent of RED HAT, SUSE, & MANDRAKE Linux distributions, the competitive field is widening, & so are our choices. I am eagerly anticipating the release of SUSE Pro 9.2 myself. Longhorn is two long years away, & Apple's Tiger(OS X.4)is due out by 6/05.
I feel that the newest downloads of SP2 & JPEG fixes have stabilized my Windows XP computer somewhat. Most of my problems are still exclusively internet related. I think that one of these Linux distros are going to be one of the top 3 operating systems very soon.
What do you think?
and a solid base of operational standards. Open source tends to
foster innumerable variants of an OS design, each perhaps
useful for the modifying user, but useless to the next user.
Someone has to control the version structure, or core code, that
we will all depend on. And that control can't be accomplished
withut a fee. It's an absolutely necessary cost of business.
Even though OS X on a Mac is based on an open- source UNIX base, it's proprietary. You have to purchase the hardware with the software, & that can get expensive. Now with the advent of RED HAT, SUSE, & MANDRAKE Linux distributions, the competitive field is widening, & so are our choices. I am eagerly anticipating the release of SUSE Pro 9.2 myself. Longhorn is two long years away, & Apple's Tiger(OS X.4)is due out by 6/05.
I feel that the newest downloads of SP2 & JPEG fixes have stabilized my Windows XP computer somewhat. Most of my problems are still exclusively internet related. I think that one of these Linux distros are going to be one of the top 3 operating systems very soon.
What do you think?
and a solid base of operational standards. Open source tends to
foster innumerable variants of an OS design, each perhaps
useful for the modifying user, but useless to the next user.
Someone has to control the version structure, or core code, that
we will all depend on. And that control can't be accomplished
withut a fee. It's an absolutely necessary cost of business.
series, market leaders have historically been
dethroned by disruption since Western Union was
disrupted after the President of WU called the
telephone a "toy" in the 1870s. If you are a
Microsoft shareholder with any access to senior
management, you probably want to first read
Christensen's books, and then ask Microsoft
senior management how Microsoft intends to
address the Linux threat. So far, their reply
basically seems to be "Linux is free, it's a
toy, we're not worried enough to change our
basic business model." Microsoft management
has, of course, responded with giving away some
code; opening code to governments; the Shared
Soure Initiative; patent threats; and embedding
Office deeper into the OS. However, IMHO, none
of the above begins to address the fundamental
challenge to its business model which open
source represents.
Christian Einfeldt
einfeldt@earthlink.net
415-351-1300
series, market leaders have historically been
dethroned by disruption since Western Union was
disrupted after the President of WU called the
telephone a "toy" in the 1870s. If you are a
Microsoft shareholder with any access to senior
management, you probably want to first read
Christensen's books, and then ask Microsoft
senior management how Microsoft intends to
address the Linux threat. So far, their reply
basically seems to be "Linux is free, it's a
toy, we're not worried enough to change our
basic business model." Microsoft management
has, of course, responded with giving away some
code; opening code to governments; the Shared
Soure Initiative; patent threats; and embedding
Office deeper into the OS. However, IMHO, none
of the above begins to address the fundamental
challenge to its business model which open
source represents.
Christian Einfeldt
einfeldt@earthlink.net
415-351-1300
The most important thing for normal users is having the ability to do what they want to do, without having to muck around with code and trying to make things work. With Windows, it just works, however with Linux, you just work.
The most important thing for normal users is having the ability to do what they want to do, without having to muck around with code and trying to make things work. With Windows, it just works, however with Linux, you just work.