Microsoft Finds Upgrade Plan A Tough Sell (TechWeb)

Posted Jun 3, 2002 17:47 UTC (Mon) by DeletedUser870 ((unknown), #870) [Link]

I think its also like Hardware. Eventually what you have is powerful enough and stable enough to wait a while longer to upgrade. 1Ghz+ CPU and Win2k seems like an excellent platform for Windows based operations. Why upgrade when what you have works, especially since its going to cost you alot more than your last upgrade?

Posted Jun 3, 2002 18:57 UTC (Mon) by DeletedUser1109 ((unknown), #1109) [Link]

Those involved in the negotiations and developments of the new licensing policies know that most of the Microsoft salesmen [aka, "Microsoft Moonies"] are as confused as the clients are. The policies change from weekly to daily. The licensing document(s) are a tall stack of legalise, with tons of caveats. The primary reason many are waiting is to see what really pans out in the licensing and the antitrust lawsuite. -Sean Walton

Posted Jun 4, 2002 18:10 UTC (Tue) by AnswerGuy (guest, #1256) [Link]

Does Microsoft know that their customers are feeling an IT budget crimp? Of course they do!

Do they know that some of their customers are considering a Linux-on-the-Desktop response to their "subscription ultimatum?" Of course they do!

In any other business this would be a sign to back off, offer discounts, and try to sugar their offer with low-cost conciliatory frills in an effort to build customer loyalty. However, Microsoft can't afford to do that, in their minds.

Eventually there are no features to add to the software, and they've peaked their marketshare. Most companies would try to diversify and make the transition from a high-flying growth stock towards a staid old blue chip holding. Microsoft can't do that so long as their key offering to their employees is in options. Microsoft's attempts to diversify through MSN, MSNBC, and (Teddy Ruxpin toys?) among many others, seem to have met with limited success.

That is combined with the anti-trust case, similar anti-trust issues internationally, and the increasing risks from Linux and alternative architectures (CPUs that power PDAs are getting more powerful, so PDA class architectures may eventually overwhelm x86 PCs due to lower cost, lower power consumption and heat dissipation, and resultant relaxation of chassis design constraints).

So, Microsoft approaches their current licensing effort with an air of desperation. They take no heed of casualties, and must squeeze as many customers as they can for as much as they can in the brief time that they have left. Of course this very attitude will be self-fulfilling.

In the last couple of months we've seen the "first production" releases of OpenOffice, the Mozilla release candidates, and Abiword. In the last year we've seen the releases of Gnumeric, Evolution, Nautilus and other desktop applications. It is clear that Linux is becoming a viable alternative desktop.

Meanwhile WINE, Codeweavers' Crossover, Transgaming's WineX, VMWare, Win4Lin and other tools are delivering support for "Legacy" (MS Windows) applications, and MacOS X is bringing UNIX (BSD personality over a microkernel) to millions of desktops. MacOS X will hurt Microsoft far more than it detracts from Linux use. Integrations between Linux and MacOS X will probably not be nearly as difficult as the WINE project as been (and the GNUStep effort, http://www.gnustep.org has laid much of the groundwork for that.

I think it will take a little less than five more years for Linux to cross the critical 50-60% threshold. (If it's at ~2% now, it only has to double five times to reach that goal --- and a one year doubling time is not unusual for an emerging technology; Linux is "emerging" on the desktop from a new entrenched; and still growing, dominance in the PC server market; so these numbers aren't completely absurd). [However, they are from gut intuition rather than rigorous analysis].

I suspect that Microsoft knows all of this. They may quibble with the conclusion but risk analysts at their disposal must have run the numbers and foreseen that this was a possibility. One suspects that they've weighed their options, plugged numbers into spreadsheets, run projections and then fudged it all to meet their short term needs. While their current licensing tack seems foolhardy to us --- it may actually be the best strategy they've got: take all the short term gains they can, lock people into two or three year subscriptions and hope that many of the IT managers that make these decisions will feel bound to defend it for a couple of years after the majority (over 50%) of their peers have switched. (That shows savvy of corporate psycho-politics, anyway). I suspect that four or five years is beyond the MS market planning horizon (though I'm sure they have product engineering plans that extend beyond that point).

But, what do I know?