Microsoft's "Death Toll 6.0"?

http://www.sunbelt-software.com/survey_02mar.cfm

Death toll 6.0? We're all aware (or, should be) that Microsoft is currently in the process of vehemently beating itself with its Licensing 6.0 "strategy". However, could they be beating themselves to death? There are two VERY important developments (IMHO at any rate) within the last year or so that seem to signal a nasty market backlash against the software devil. First, upgrade and migration times for Microsoft products are stretching them out. Few businesses seem to be migrating to new Microsoft systems as rapidly as Microsoft expects them to. This is especially evident in the poorly recieved .NET platform. Adoption of the .NET technologies has been slow at best. The poor response even prompted Microsoft to throw a hissy fit about vendors' unwillingness to move to the new technology. On top of that, migration from WinNT to 2000 began a trend that is carrying into XP - slow migration. Firms simply don't seem interested in moving from the technologies they just forked over good money for, or, they are still in the process of migrating to 2000.

Now comes "6.0 licensing". If this doesn't nail the coffin shut I don't know what will. In the sunbelt survey above, 80% of respondents held a negative view of the licensing scheme vs. a 2% positive view. 38% of respondents were apparently so angered by it that they claimed they would consider switching to rival products because of it.

Apparently, Microsoft took a look at a market that was beginning to show signs of disapproval toward them and said "Ok - Solution: shoot off our toes with the biggest gun we can find so we can win this race".

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is starting to look like a market that's waking up to Microsoft's "Me Me Me" attitude. Perhaps IT managers and other field professionals and managers are beginning to look for products they need that come with fair terms instead of swallowing ridiculous licensing contracts for products they only bought because they're familiar with them?

If Linux had a better desktop, I think Microsoft's current licensing scheme would be a bad move. This is not a criticism of the Linux desktop which I consider to be good and getting better. What I'm saying is that in my current environment, it would difficult for me to convince the higher-ups to migrate from Windows to Linux for our workstations even though we are already doing it for our servers. Its funny that Microsoft calls open-source a virus when they have our desktops so infected with their proprietary software that its hard to move the users off of it (not impossible, just hard. We're working at it).

I think Microsoft realizes that this is the case in a lot of places so they're trying to lock in as many users for as many years as possible while they still have a monopoly on the desktop. If they can get the current user base to agree to exorbitant subscriptions by threatening extra-exorbitant prices later if they don't, then they can buy themselves some breathing room. This will give them some time to figure out what to do about that pesky open-source problem that just won't go away. Like fighting fog with a sword, Microsoft has trouble when it doesn't have a hard target to swing at.

Last week I got a chance to complete a survey commissioned by Microsoft to find out why I hadn't upgraded to .NET (I'm a registered Visual Studio 6.0 Enterprise user). They asked if they were to lower the price of .NET Professional to $199 would I be willing to purchase it. It was a nice opportunity to tell them that I wouldn't give them $0 for it because I don't have time to learn a new technology that I'm not going to use. Their obnoxious salesperson with his antagonistic and threatening approach had sent us running back to IBM. Now we have Linux boxes popping up like daisies all over the place. My manager took our software budget and bought Borland's JBuilder, C++ Builder and Kylix 3 instead of the .NET suites. I can't speak for anyone else, but Microsoft's current attitude had a profound effect on the direction our office decided to take with future development. There's been a bit of a learning curve, but the more our developers and network people use Linux, the more they like it.

One strength that Microsoft has is they focus their energy on a finite product line (Office, SQL Server, Exchange, etc.) while the open-source community has 1000's of projects (many duplicated) and no hierarchy to make developers work on any particular project. Of course many people don't want to work in a Microsoft type environment and for that reason are drawn to open-source projects. But it would probably help if developers would focus more on improving some of the core packages or developing some of the missing pieces instead of creating vBulletin clone #50 or another IM client, text editor, etc. From experience I can tell you that a lot of users would miss not having an Access clone in Linux. Many non-programmer types have gotten used to the drag-and-drop, no-code, single-file, .mdb database. I'm not saying this is good or bad, I'm just saying that this is an example of something that would be nice for Linux to have.

Personally, Microsoft hasn't added a feature since Office '97 that I needed. I think their software is currently so bloated that users don't feel a need to upgrade. This works against Microsoft's profit model and has left them struggling to develop a plan that will guarantee the $$$ they are used to seeing. Hopefully this will give Linux an opportunity to grow in some new areas.

LOL... that's exactly my complaint also, except that I will go back even further. Word and Excel in Office 4.3 were just fine. Maybe Excel has progressed some since then, but Word has just turned into a massive, recalcitrant beast. Instead of letting you do your job, it insists on reformatting everything you do, and popping up windows to disturb your concentration, etc... I don't know how anyone gets any serious work done in Word.

On another note, you have been discussing Linux, in relation to Microsoft's chances in the future, but missing two other important areas: FreeBSD and MacOS. FreeBSD is a perfect server replacement, and will be even a better replacement for a windows fileserver with version 5.0, with full ACLs. Mac OS is now a very capable replacement for Windows on the desktop, and has an arguably better UI, better hardware integration, etc..

I use Windows 2000 part of the time as a desktop (KDE the rest of the time). The biggest complaint I and any other Windows users have is the constant tweaking required, with patches needed every couple of weeks, any of which can disable some other piece of your system,constant rebooting to install this or that. This is especially a pain with multimedia. DVDs, Firewire, audio, webcam, etc... You never know from one day to the next when one of this will not work right with its respective software. The pure amount of time eaten up with these matters is criminal. With Mac, DVD just works, Firewire just works. Everyone I know who has gotten the new Mac OS says their time spent on problems is almost nil compared to what it was with Windows.

I have heard rumors that Apple is experimenting with a version of OS10 that will run on x86 hardware. If/when that happens, I predict there will be a massive consumer shift. One of the main things preventing many PC people from using Mac is the investment they have already made in PC hardware. If that were no longer a problem, I believe Microsoft would lose another 30% of its customer base within months.

But then again, maybe Microsoft is pursuing this licensing policy for a reason, or maybe two reasons:

1. They eventually want out of the OS market, and out of the packaged-software market. They have bet everything on .NET, so they are using all their strategies to get people frustrated with the traditional software market. How they will present .NET as the answer to all this is still a mystery to me, though.

2. Along with this, they want to consolidate the market - they know that many consumers are bolting for other solutions. So, the introduce even nastier licensing policies to "shake down" their client base, and find out who really is a loyal customer. Anyone who sticks with Microsoft during these changes will only emerge to be more fiercely dependant on Microsoft as their solution to everything, and they hope these people will advocate Microsoft as strongly as the Linux people argue Linux.

Well, Microsoft has terribly mishandled their licensing scheme, and it is hurting them. Oracle is doing the same thing, they are trying to squeeze as much as they can, even going so far, in certain instances, to count processes, and not people, as a seat. . Across the board, every traditional IT vendor is just getting killed, so I don't think that this is a Microsoft only problem. They do realize that their licensing strategy is a thorn in the side, but don't really have a clear way to address it yet. Alot of companies are struggling with this same issue, Sun has lost its low end servers to Linux, and nobody wants to shell out 1 million (or more) for their high end servers. So all of these companies are standing around saying, "where is our money supposed to come from now?"

But the other part of this equation that is vitally important to this whole analysis is that IT spending is on life support right now. The New Economy has been dead for 2 years now and we've been in the Budget Economy during that time. Larry Ellison said this was the worst IT fallout he has ever seen. Maintenance, not innovation, takes priority. Cover the cracks cause we don't have the cash to build a new room.

.NET does seem to remain a mystery. You hear about .NET, and someone out there is using it, you know what it's supposed to do, but in the end, nobody knows just exactly what the hell it is.

That's an interesting point you make about the 386 platform with the Mac system rycamor. The .doc format works on Macintosh, correct, along with Excel? In my opinion, this one single file format is sort of the Hadrian's Wall of the empire, lose Office and the desktop just might go with it.

I don't think Microsoft will ever die. The grumblings alot of people have today about them are similar to the ones many years ago about IBM. But now IBM isn't even close to the same company they were those years ago, and in my opinion they have some of the best strategic leaders in the history of the business. People look at IBM now as "good guys."

The funny thing is that Intel wins no matter what happens!

The reason I didn't mention them was simply because I don't use them. I'm stretched a little thin so I try to keep things as simple as possible. If a product doesn't have a feature I have to have, I generally resist the temptation to have a huge mix of OS's and development tools. I've heard a lot of good things about BSD, but currently Linux is working fine for me.

Apple falls into a slightly different category. They sell closed source software with propietary hardware. I want to like them because they are not Microsoft but if Apple had a huge percentage of the desktop, I'm not sure they would be any better to work with in the area of licensing, upgrades and software cost. Besides, those stupid "Switch" ads just annoy me too much. Apple has a great opportunity to capitalize on the anit-Microsoft sentiment out there and the best they can do is parade a bunch of idiots across the screen who seem to take inordinate amount of pride in the fact that they are too stupid to operate a PC.

I wrote a letter to Apple earlier this year complaining about the fact that while they had embraced a Unix operating system, they didn't seem to be in any hurry to embrace Unix workloads. I'm not saying that users can't run business applications on a Mac. I'm saying that Apple the company doesn't seem to show much interest in expanding their machines into the business world. They have iPod, iTune, iMovie, iPhoto, ad nauseum. Where's iDatabase, iJ2EE, iCorba, iAccounting, iSendMail? I told them they had great hardware and software but as long as they marketed Apples as Gucci tinkertoys for effeminate technophobes, they were never going to gain marketshare. For some reason I never got a reply back. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh, but if you go to Apple's website and click on the Software link, I just don't see much there to entice me to buy their product.

The best thing I can say about Apple is that their new desktop should give *nix developers lots of enthusiasm for what could be accomplished on the open-source platforms.

Earlier this year a lot of pundits were arguing whether users should upgrade to Office XP or make the switch to Star Office to avoid Microsoft's higher licensing fees. I chose option 3 and just didn't upgrade my office suite at all.

My point about Mac OS is not really as much for the technical users (although a few of them are getting into OS X), but the typical "end user". In that sense, I think they are being very effective.

For example, I have a friend who is a very accomplished jazz musician, who has his own studio. He makes his living this way, and he has been using Windows for his audio setup for the past 4 years (from 95 to XP). It just seems to get progressively more frustrating for him, struggling with audio hardware/software compatibility, to the point where he called me for a long talk about it all. I mentioned the new Mac, and he was very interested, but he was unsure of spending the 50% more that you will spend to get a decent Mac system. I asked him 1) to think about how much every hour of his time was worth, and 2) with that in mind to describe his history with Windows. After a pause, he said "...it's not good." So he is probably going for a Mac.

So what I am talking about is the multimedia/audio/video/graphics experience. That is what drives the consumer computer market.

Every geek already knows where to get the 'non-i' version of those, and most of them compile just fine on the new Mac OS. Even PostgreSQL, I believe.

Also, the reason Apple ignored your letter was probably because you never noticed the difference between here and there, there, or there. In other words, they are already playing up heavily to the geek audience, if you know where to look. In fact, that last link shows that Mac is not all about closed source anymore, and they are actually sharing some back. I'd say these days they rate much higher on the geek approval meter than Microsoft.

Striker Official Geek Approval Meter:

Microsoft Windows
Microsoft DOS
Mac
Sellout Mainstream Linux Distro
"Hard core" Mainstream Linux Distro
Obscure Linux Distro
Do It Yourself Linux Distro
BSD
UNIX
VAX
All the obscure OSes nobody ever uses (like BeOS)
Mainframe, AS/400
You built your own OS


rycamor I think your advice to your friend was spot on, Macs have a solid reputation in the multimedia/arts communities, they have done their job well for many years with a minimum of hassle.

Hey rycamor: I agree with everything you said. But like the Switch ads, you use a Jazz musician with a studio as an example of someone you recommended an Apple to. My complaint was that with its current operating system, why aren't Macs being recommended to bankers, office workers, guys who wear suits and use the left side of their brain. My annoyance with Apple isn't with their hardware or their software. Its with their marketing. You said that every geek knows where to get the software I mentioned. I said the same thing when I mentioned that users could run business applications on Macs. I complained that corporate Apple was still too focused on the artsy, non-technical crowd. I don't want to be like Janie Porche and use my Apple to "save Christmas". I want it to get some real work done (which in my case involves data and money).

This is very unscientific, but just to illustrate a point, I typed the words I posted into IBM's and Apple's website search engine.


I looked at the links you provided and I had gone to those web pages. Back when I wrote my letter, the links to Sybase (09/02) and Oracle (08/02) had not appeared yet. It was pretty devoid of commercial business applications then. It is still too sparse for my taste today. The link you provided to OS/X had this to say:


I don't find this list very compelling. Now I know OS/X has a lot more than that, but it seems like Apple is trying to downplay the capabilities of the machine. Unless you already know what the machine is capable of, they're not going to tell you. Also the reason Apple didn't respond to my letter was because I was being facetious and taking jabs at them. They knew I was aware of the answers to my questions and was asking them just to be argumentative.

Confession time: I spent an hour in CompUSA store playing with a Powerbook G4. Very nice machine. The orthodontist has all my spare cash (why did I have to have kids?). I need to figure out a way to get my boss to buy me one. JBuilder runs on it. I wish Kylix did too. Maybe soon...

The next thing I'm about to write might annoy some Apple fans, but I'll say it anyway. IBM has lots of experience with Unix from AIX and Linux. They have a lot of experience with the PowerPC architecture from their RS/6000 boxes. I wish they would buy Apple and market their machines and operating system to both consumers and the business world. I don't think Microsoft is afraid of Apple. I think IBM backing Macs as an alternative desktop to Windows would give Microsoft a heart attack. I really don't care if it ever happens. I just think it would be fun to watch.

Ted Striker: I liked your geek approval meter. We just had a z800 mainframe installed last week. We're going to fence it in half, run our mainframe stuff on one side and virtual Linux partitions on the other. I'm anxious to run some programs on it and see how well HiperSockets will move my DB2 data around internally. Could be fun...

Hey dcaillouet,

I think you missed my point. The first link I gave, to OS X was meant to be an example of the consumer side, which I was contrasting to the next three links, which are full of benchmarks, geek-tech talk, etc...

So what we are talking about is marketing, really. Apple has in the past made some horrible marketing and tactical blunders, so let's not expect too much just yet...

I agree that Apple has not really marketed the full potential of OS X yet, but I think they are showing signs of life. Remember, Apple has never really been in this end of the business before, so they are moving cautiously. Microsoft, of course, has never been known to market anything cautiously. Yes, I find the Mac "Switch" ads quite annoying and condescending also, but apparently this has been a boon to their consumer sales. I think Microsoft proved the point that you sell to the consumer first, and the businesspeople will follow later. (Let's distinguish between businesspeople and geeks, because geeks don't choose things for the same reasons; we are the most unpredictable crowd ever to market toward.)

It is ironic, though: Microsoft markets a personal-computing, single-user hack of an operating system as the be-all and end-all of the server room, while Mac markets a Unix OS as a single-user personal system .

All of my threads in this forum veer wildly off topic... I don't think I've ever posted one where people didn't run off on some other tangent Oh well.. we'll run with it!

I don't know what to say about Mac except, take a look at most of the people in those ads... they expect me to buy a computer from people who go on national TV and parade their utter lack of brain functionality like it's some sort of badge of honor... (insert big sigh here). Send in the clowns. Some day the only computer that will sell to the average consumer is the one from Dilbert:

Geek computers don't sell. Dumb computers do. Like it or not, the average user needs to have their hand held almost every step of the way and they would rather ignore a broken application than have the capability to fix it. On top of that, people want familiarity. They don't like being surprised, and, until recently, KDE and GNOME were surprises. Yea.. generally they function in the same way as Windows (if you're only doing the basic desktop stuff), but they don't LOOK like Windows so, suddenly, people don't know what to do. Yea, OS X is capable of more than Apple markets it, but I think they're doing the smart thing by parading idiots across the screen. If the geeks don't like it, the home users might. If the geeks like it, the home users will shun it as "too hard to use" even before they look at it.

I'm pretty much the only person in this facility that's employed as a geek. Everyone else here uses computers as desktops. Even the IT people don't really fit the bill as "geeks". The second you stick a text-based settings file under their noses they're lost. If they aren't clicking through screens or doing basic command prompt work they're truly clueless. It's sad.. but these days, easy sells even if easy means "worthless". That's how Microsoft makes most of its money, and it seems to be how Apple is marketing OS X.

Cool,I have my written my own OS once (in assembly). I also have an obscure OS named Cosmoe installed.Now I am a geek