Microsoft Vs. Open Source
Dean
Andrew has a good overview of three free products that compete head-to-head with Microsoft. Having used all these programs myself, I'd have to say I agree with all his assessments.
I really find myself wondering what Microsoft will be doing over the next couple of years, as I believe their dominance of the desktop market will begin to erode noticeably, and people will start to think it's weird to pay for some of the products they charge for now.
Heck, I'm the poster boy for computer geek, but I don't run Linux on my main workstation because I can't get any *work* done. Dreamweaver? Photoshop? Many of the games I enjoy?
As Andrew notes, Firefox isn't just a good browser: it's very arguably a much *better* browser than Internet Explorer. And Thunderbird has reached the point that it's at least as good as Outlook Express. And in both cases, that includes the user interface: they're smooth, pretty, and easy to use.
And, while OpenOffice still can't match MS Office, it keeps getting better and better with every iteration. Ditto the desktop environments under Linux. Another couple of years of development and... well, those billions invested in Microsoft software will pull some weight, but tell corporate America "here's something that meets all your needs and will cost you *no upgrade fees*" and things will start to change.
Look, I still use Windows myself, I'm not saying Linux is ready for prime time on the desktop. What I'm saying is, it's probably just a matter of time.
And did you check out that new desktop environment Sun is working on, that I linked below? Man it looks sweet. I mean it's not done yet, but dayum....
Product quality isn't the whole story. If it were, Microsoft would long since have been slipping badly.
Microsoft has several commanding advantages. It already overwhelmingly dominates the market, in many categories holding 90% or 95% of the market. Microsoft Windows comes preinstalled on virtually any PC you buy, and Microsoft will continue to exert powerful leverage to keep it that way. Microsoft has proven very adept at leaving the user with no easy alternative to Microsoft.
Plus, many users out there have little or no awareness that any alternative to Windows, Internet Explorer, or Outlook Express even exists. Even if they've heard of alternatives, they likely have no hands-on experience with anything but Windows, Internet Explorer, Outlook Express. And having already struggled once to learn how to use their computer, they're not about to suffer through the learning curve all over again.
I repeat, I think Linux will continue to make significant gains, primarily in the enterprise. I would be pleased if Linux makes it up into the double digits in the desktop market. A Microsoft that controls, say, only 80% of the market is a Microsoft that would find it just that much harder to throw its weight around.
And I say all this, running my IBM ThinkPad T20 under Mandrake Linux 9.1; browser, Opera 7.52; e-mail client, Sylpheed Claws; word processing, Open Office.
Sure different people have different views of what is "better". Linux is better in some ways than Windows, but it is far worse for the average user. This is true of most products.
Don't get me wrong, I want Linux to push forward and grow. I want to see more software that successfully competes with Microsoft. I believe however that what those efforts will do more than anything else is make MS products better.
Microsoft is on top because they do everything to make the best products. Yes, they throw their weight around and try to eliminate competition at times, because sometimes it is easier to be the best by not allowing someone to compete. They also constantly innovate, improve, and look for what people want in software. They can't stay on top without doing that, and they will continue to do so.
I don't know what the market share numbers are now, but here's my prediction:
* Apple will dwindle to its lowest marketshare in a while, as many Open Source products outpace it
* Open Source products will reach about what Apple had in the early 90's - a noticeable marketshare, but not enough to make MS nervous
* MS will have its setbacks, but inertia will keep it at a dominant position for a while
Microsft can be better than anyone else if they're directed to do so. Unfortunately for Microsoft users, the power-that-be (marketing) have dictate effort to make the software harder to use, and more problematic than it needs to be.
It is not, as I said, the best for everyone, but the best for most people. With added features comes added complexity and reduced complexity comes with fewer features. Microsoft works to find the best balance to make the most people happy. That means that people on both ends of the curve will not be as happy. It's not simple enough for the most basic users and it's not featured enough for the most advanced.
That is where the alternatives to Microsoft have mostly been able to operate. Apple has taken the simplicity side, working on a more elegant and easier to use interface. They have also found some specific areas of increased functionality (which is complicated because you get into hardware differences as much as software). Linux started from a advanced functionality standpoint, trying to grab that end of the curve. Over the years, Linux has been working closer to the middle, and they have gained some ground doing so. In the switch to OS/X, Apple is also moving to expand their market.
There will always be room for these products and I hope that there will always be the Apple and Linux communities to support them. It is the copetition and drive of all of them along with Microsoft that makes software better.
All I'm saying is that Microsoft is not going to give ground easily. They have the vision the talent and the resources to innovate enough to continue making the best for most people. If that changes they will lose, and that's what makes the system we have great.
Firefox is a good product, it is in many ways better than IE and might even be better for most people than IE. Rather than Firefox taking over as the browser of choice, however, I suspect that we will see and IE7 or even a SP2 for IE6 that beats it.
As computerization penetrates into almost all aspects of our society and economy, we just can't afford the current level of lockups, reboots, and clumsy interfaces.
People have been predicting Apple's "inevitable demise" for over 20 years. Yet they remain one of the most profitable companies on Planet Earth. You'd think that at some point people who continue to predict their irrelevance and demise would have noticed this by now.
That said, I think the new default skin for Firefox is gorgeous; very OS X-like. But then, Apple has been very strong on esthetics and design for a long time now.
What most folks don't seem to grasp is that MS has something like 93% of the market in hand. There's no room for growth. If you recall, back in the Win 3.x days, MS wasn't so fussed about "extra" copies of Windows. I would suspect that they were rather happy about that, since it furthered their goal of market domination.
The problem is: now what do they do? Investors want to see year by year growth. With virtually 100% market share, the only way for MS to show increased earnings is by increasing prices, and/or more frequent updates. This is the main rationale behind the "product key" approach. Basically, MS is a victim of their own success.
This is the vital point the most folks miss: even if they had the best products around, they'd still be screwed right now due to market dominance. Investors do not like companies with flat earnings. Insane, yes, but all too true.
Open Office is good, but not good enough. Any suite (or single application such as word processing or spreadsheet) has to be 100% Office compatible, due to the massive penetration of Office. OO isn't there yet, alas.
Maybe I should qualify the above: OO isn't 100% compatible with advanced features. I'm sure it can handle most basic word processing, etc., functions. I happen to have several Word documents where I made no effort to be "weird" or "off the wall," but will choke OO. One uses frames, and the other made extensive use of version tracking.
What I especially like about Windows is that installation (and un-installation)of nearly any application is just this side of painless. While I'm supposed to be the computer guy around here, with my degree and all, I am so sick of being expected to know the gory details of what is probably the dozenth OS I've had to become familiar with over the years, just to install a new utility or game. Urk.
Wow. There's been some great comments in this thread, but I'm in chat with Dean right now, and there's a couple other things I'm working on right now. (ain't XP Pro wonderful? heh) I'll try to get some more thoughts on this soon.
How do you consider Apple to be one of the most profitable companies on the planet? They are doing fairly well this year with a big boost from the iPod, but nothing tremendous. Still I do agree that Apple is not going anywhere for a long time. They are financialy strong and likely to remain so. Although they have had a few close calls over the years.
You are missing the primary method of growth for Microsoft: Expansion into new markets. This is something that MS has always continued to do. They took over the OS market and then looked to the Word Processing(and other document creation) market, then they moved to web browsing, then to server markets (database, email, etc). MS primarilly grows by going into new markets.
They also grow a bit by expanding the markets that they dominate. Increasing price doesn't grow the market, however. You grow the market by lowering price and/or increasing value. MS has opted for the latter in most cases. The inclusion of IE with Windows was a prime example. IE made Windows more valuable, without raising the price. That increased the market by making it a purchase decision for more buyers.
The activation codes in MS products is for the same purpose. Piracy decreases the value of Windows, by allowing a number of users to obtian it for little cost. While it is certainly true that a number of the people who do pirate copies of windows would never buy it and in the absense of piracy will choose to go with an open source alternative, there is also a percentage that will use pirated copies if they are available but will purchase a legitimate copy if not. Activation reduces piracy making it harder to get free unlicenced copies of MS products which increases the value of the product.
Software is a very interesting market. I think that Bill Gates actually summed it up best with this...
"Every product on the market today will be obsolete within a few years. The only question for my company is whether we’ll be the ones to replace our products, or whether some other company will do a better job. Everybody here knows it, and so do our competitors. If we don’t keep up with technology and the market, we’ll quickly become irrelevant."
That's actually a pretty good place for things to be for us consumers.
Of course we all lose our tempers now and then. Dean freely admits to being imperfect in this regard, which is why regulars to this establishment will generally be cut more slack than people who we don't know very well.
Still: behave like an adult, or go find somewhere else to play. Thanks.