Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)
(Log in to post comments)
Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)
Posted Jul 17, 2003 18:04 UTC (Thu) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
With embedded systems, the designer has to worry about two sets of costs: the nonrecurring engineering cost, and the per-unit cost. A WinCE license for every unit, versus no cost for a Linux kernel, means that the per-unit cost will always be less. Even if it were true that the NRE cost is higher, per-unit cost matters more in any high-volume product.
It often pays to spend more upfront, trying out a variety of architectures to find the cheapest-to-manufacture implementation, to get the unit cost down. Given Linux's greater flexibility, I expect that many developers will do just that.
Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)
Posted Jul 17, 2003 19:02 UTC (Thu) by taruntius (guest, #1140) [Link]
You're right that an additional per-unit license fee does mean that the Linux solution becomes cheaper at high volumes. But that's the kicker: the volumes required are often in the _millions_. The reality in the embedded market is that very few devices actually sell millions of units. Far more designs only sell, if they're lucky, in the 100s of thousands of units, which isn't enough to make Linux pay off.The reality is that it's very hard to drive a consumer electronic device to wild success. Market windows of opportunity are short, consumers are fickle, and the failure rate (in terms of commercial success) for new gizmos is very high. Under those conditions, manufacturers are strongly motivated to pick the platform that will let them try out more different designs at lower development cost and faster time to market, in order to increase their odds of having one of those designs turn out to be a hit.
But let's say that company X tries out 20 different products, and one of them becomes a hit. Yes, _if_ they had picked Linux for that product, their margin would have been higher and they'd have made more money. But there's no way for them to know ahead of time which one of the 20 was going to be the winner. So they opted for the option with the lower up-front investment for all 20 designs, and who can blame them?
Linux is undeniably cool, but from a business perspective, in the real world's market conditions where 99+ percent of consumers don't care one bit what OS their cool gizmo is running, Microsoft's offerings start to look pretty good.
Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)
Posted Jul 17, 2003 19:36 UTC (Thu) by conz (subscriber, #4784) [Link]
If you read the analysis in this story, you will note that they take exception to thestatistical raw data and results as perpertrated by this Microsoft-funded research. I
think there is cause for concern that the researcher may have had, in much the
same way that the flawed Microsoft-funded IDC report writers had, his research
hands tied by Microsoft. Please read the following in relation to this:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_09/b3822610_tc102.htm
"One of the study's authors accuses Microsoft of stacking the deck. IDC analyst Dan
Kusnetzky says the company selected scenarios that would inevitably be more
costly using Linux. Also, he believes Windows should be cheaper to operate, since
it has been around longer, giving Microsoft more time to develop software to
manage the operating system. "Microsoft has had a lot more time to work on this. I
wonder why the win wasn't bigger," Kusnetzky says. Microsoft insists that it didn't rig
the contest and chose the most popular uses for the software.
But its assertions about Linux' hidden costs don't always pan out in the real world.
"Our experience is different," says Jeffrey R. Davis, the global technical lead at
Amerada Hess Exploration & Production (AHC ), who manages 400 Linux servers
by himself."
A "reasonable look"?
Posted Jul 17, 2003 18:52 UTC (Thu) by taruntius (guest, #1140) [Link]
I think embedded Linux is as cool as the next fellow, but I really must comment on this. Despite what we may think about Microsoft, equating use of Windows CE with "signing on with satan" is simply unprofessional journalism, and shows fairly naked bias. For LWN editors to then call this quote a "reasonable look" just compounds the problem.Isn't the goal to conduct an dis-passionate, unbiased comparision of the two platforms, and then decide based on that? Frankly, if I were a consmer electronics company trying to evaluate the two platforms, the tone of what I read would make a difference. You don't hear pro-Microsoft people equating use of Linux with "turning communist" or anything, and yet apparently the pro-Linux mainstream press sees nothing wrong with calling Microsoft a bunch of devil worshippers.
Do you see the disconnect there? Do you see how it hurts the Linux cause? If not, let me spell it out for you: as someone trying to decide between Linux and CE, seeing commentary like that only makes me think "Ah. These Linux people aren't serious after all. They must not have any hard data to support their platform if they have to resort to ad-hominem ABM attacks. Microsoft, on the other hand, offers me nothing but dry, boring--but hard--data on their realtime performance, their memory footprints, and their lower cost of development. They seem pretty serious. Gee, I wonder which one will I pick..."
Cripes. Stuff like this really hacks me off. It's like we want to play with the big boys, in the professional spaces, but somehow we expect the very people who we're trying to impress to give us a pass on having to act in accord with standards of professional conduct.
A "reasonable look"?
Posted Jul 17, 2003 19:30 UTC (Thu) by conz (subscriber, #4784) [Link]
If you excise that one contentious comment (which constitutes perhaps less than1% of the article in question) you must agree that the remainder of The Register
piece is sound analysis, an rightly called so by LWN.
A "reasonable look"?
Posted Jul 17, 2003 19:31 UTC (Thu) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link]
Because any embedded devlopment company worth it's salt knows this report is rubbish.
A "reasonable look"?
Posted Jul 17, 2003 20:22 UTC (Thu) by kfox (guest, #4767) [Link]
You must have been out of the countrywhen Microsoft was doing it's anti-GPL
smear campaign. That really filled
me with respect and admiration for
their leaders. How about everybody else?
BTW, when someone metaphorically refers
to deals with Microsoft as "signing
on with satan" that doesn't mean Microsoft
is a devil worshipper -- it means that
Microsoft *is* satan, um, metaphorically
speaking. The thing is, this almost isn't
a metaphor. Where's your lever if the
deal goes sour? How much do you know
about the long term effects? How much
does Microsoft know? Microsoft is
willing to take a huge short-term loss.
What's their motive?
The Register is trying to make lemonade.
Give them a break. I'm sure someone
interested in the cost-benefit equation
of embedded Linux can find a better
source of information than a Microsoft
funded report.
A "reasonable look"?
Posted Jul 18, 2003 0:45 UTC (Fri) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]
Despite what we may think about Microsoft, equating use of Windows CE with "signing on with satan" is simply unprofessional journalism, and shows fairly naked bias.If you read The Register more often, you will begin to realize this is just another example of their tongue-in-cheek attitude. Part of thier shtick is poking fun at big players in the IT industry, hence the slogan "Biting the hand that feeds IT" on their front page. This ariticle is consistent with their usual writing style, so don't take the MSFT dig too seriously.
A "reasonable look"?
Posted Jul 18, 2003 9:41 UTC (Fri) by Cato (subscriber, #7643) [Link]
The Register is a UK based news site - 'Signing on with Satan' is just a piece of typical English sarcasm, which should be read with tongue in cheek. The Reg people are highly cynical about virtually every company in the IT industry (e.g. they call the Itanium 'Itanic' and are quite rude about Sun), so this is not just anti-Microsoft although it may look like it on this one article. Not so much unprofessional journalism as using colourful language to make an impact and entertain the reader. Given how dry IT news is, this is no bad thing IMO.As someone else said, the Reg article seems to take the study in good faith - I'm rather more suspicious of whether the cases used were biased to Windows CE.
Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)
Posted Jul 17, 2003 19:27 UTC (Thu) by davidl (guest, #12156) [Link]
Most of these points have been covered, and even the register says it's a Microsoft sponsored study. Thanks for the direct link by the way.Windows development tools are going to be good for small scale development projects, particularly with small companies simply using small embedded devices like handhelds, owing to the need to just code and get things done rather than spending time on other issues and research. This isn't really embedded systems development, it's just programming monkey-style in the same way as using Visual Basic on a PC. This approach is going to be somewhat cheaper for these types of projects (and probably make more sense), although for those companies producing full embedded products (particularly consumer devices) this won't make any difference. The study also continously talks about "is open source really free?" when this debate is now over. No one believes open source software is totally free money-wise anymore, and it is also possible with embedded systems to buy commercial development tools that run on top of Linux. Microsoft certainly isn't free either, particularly when it gains a monopoly - it's primary business goal. In embedded systems it isn't really possible to do development with totally free software - yet - and this is something the report also gets wrong initially, but then goes on to describe the high costs of Linux-based development tools. We get the usual free software FUD of "sifting through mountains of code" and "no free lunches". These debates are now well and truly over.
There is also the line of "..whether embedded developers really need (or want) to see the operating system source code." which is an attempt to justify closed-source systems. No mention is made of Shared Source, which we can all assume is total hot air. Free software has demonstrable advantages in the area of available source code, and these are now very well documented. From then on we get even more rubbish about the "supposed advantages of seeing the code and fixing it for yourself", and we also get various warnings about the perils of code forking, something Microsoft continuously and vigorously uses against open source development. It also talks about the 'hype' of Embedded Linux and asks on what basis this assumption can be made. This doesn't sound like an impartial report to me, and I thought this was about embedded systems development anyway? The actual valid points of the report are lost under the general tone - "Oh isn't Linux-based embedded development a chore?" and "Linux isn't really free".
The section on purchasing third party add-ons is most revealing, as it seems be trying very, very hard to make a case for saying "Don't pay royalties for MPEG2/MPEG4 codecs etc. Windows Media et al is all built in with Microsoft's tools!" along with, you guessed it, Digital Rights Management. This really is the most interesting part of the report, as it seems to be making a direct and vigorous case for developers to stop using add-ons for playing MP3s and other media formats in favour of Windows Media tools. In view of the unabated popularity of MP3s, DVDs, and MPEG formats (along with various free ones), this is extremely important for Microsoft if it wants to (and it really does) get into the entertainment/consumer oriented 'multimedia' embedded systems market. This is where we really see what the motivaton behind this report is and who it is targetted at.
However, the funniest part of the report says "...unlike embedded Linux distributors, Microsoft charges for tools only once, and there are no annual supprt or maintenance costs". We should all remember that the next time we sign up to a licensing scheme, or see a bill for upgrading from software that is no longer supported as well as the countless days of stress we all have as a result of putting back together Windows machines that have been trashed as a result of insecurities and botched service packs and patches. Is this what we want to see within embedded systems and consumer devices? If Microsoft gets a monopoly lock on this market (unlikely) then this is what we'll have, and they will have a license to raise licensing fees as they see fit. Again.
The rest of the report simply reads as a sales pitch for embedded Visual Studio development tools. Hardly impartial in any way shape or form.
For those in the embedded systems field who need to invest in innovation, large companies such as Nokia, Sony-Eriksson, Motorola etc., especially those producing consumer devices, using Linux and other platforms and tools just make total fundamental business sense. Firstly they need to innovate for themselves, and secondly it would be total suicide to put Windows and MS development tools on all of their devices, as the fate of their products then rests with Microsoft. The 'cost advantages' of Microsoft development tools simply aren't going to matter to these companies. Ironic that they talk about that, isn't it? I certainly don't want all mobile phones and other devices looking the same, as computers do. As I've said before, this market is simply not going to be a clone of the monopolised PC market for Microsoft's 'taxing' purposes.
Now, can we stop it with these stupid Microsoft studies please? The raw desperation is really getting on my nerves.
Windows device development faster, cheaper than Linux? (Register)
Posted Jul 20, 2003 20:44 UTC (Sun) by dacodecz (guest, #13072) [Link]
*FROM HALLOWEEN*http://www.opensource.org/halloween/halloween1.php
OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*FROM THE REGISTER*
Windows, in all its many and varied forms, is about commoditisation. Microsoft offers tightly defined and controlled platforms together with a wealth of standard tools, Ts & Cs and support packages for developers to work with, so it's fairly cheap and easy to produce products that are pretty similar to other people's products. Microsoft also, from way back in the 80s, has pushed the industrialisation of the development process. The result as far as hardware is concerned has been that differentiation and price have been eroded, and if you want to compete - with, say, Dell and HP - in the commodity handheld computer market you need to keep your team size down and your ambitions modest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
*FROM ME*
If you want to sell then create desire, if u fail in that then create
FUD for the ignorant, and in last pretend to masquerade with the ignorant
to be their savior, to become there only dictator.
*NICE TRICK FOR THE IGNORANT FROM THE IGNORANT*