“Linux, long the laggard to the Windows desktop, is pushing into emerging markets, onto mobile devices and other client form factors, and is poised to give Microsoft something to really compete against, according to attendees at the annual Linux Foundation Summit. While the Linux desktop has yet to hit its stride, the operating system is showing up and lowering prices in everything from mobile phones, tablets, global positioning systems and even gas pumps.”
…and it ain’t on the desktop.
Frankly, as it can be paired down and tailored any which way you please, Linux is perfect for appliances and embedded systems and as it’s FLOSS, it can be packaged at very little cost so it really doesn’t surprise me that it’s taking off in those markets.
Obviously, due to the rigid nature of Windows as well as it’s cost, it’s happening at the expense of MS but I don’t for one minute think that Redmond are going to give up, and neither would I want them too. Sure Gartner thinks that Windows is doomed, but I doubt MS would let one of it’s cash cows die because of an unwillingness on their own part to change with the market.
IMO, OS’s and to an extent office software are becoming appliances in the minds of Jane and Joe sixpack. This can only be a good thing in relation to what Linux can offer them.
Unwillingness? No. Inability? Maybe. There are actually two questions implied by that “maybe”:
Technically, can they come up with a compelling product?
And is their $266 billion business compatible with such low margin markets?
There are 6.5 billion people in the world. Most of them can’t afford a UMPC. But MS’s market cap represents $41 for every man woman and child on this planet. How many dollars per unit in revenue does MS have to have to maintain their current value? Let alone grow?
Never under-estimate the power of companies to re-invent themselves.
Look at IBM. At one time they were a typewriter business. Then they were a “big iron” mainframe business. Next, they became a Personal Computer vendor. Currently, they are primarily a service-oriented business. I see no reason Microsoft couldn’t do the same. I believe Microsoft is primarily a marketing corporation. They have practically owned the software industry due to marketing practices – some of which are even legal! Remember, they were very late to the internet party. Nevertheless, in just a few short years their browser dominated the market and IIS was carving out a significant market share in the server world.
Even now, we see Microsoft gently inserting its toes in the OSS waters. Sure, it sends a few cold shivers up its spine. But, if the need arises, I believe they will re-invent themselves as needed. Funny to me, but I bet in 10 years Microsoft will be taking about how they practically invented the whole Open Source thing.
Wanna bet?
I’m glad you brought this up. Another thing that IBM used to be is a monopolist. Yes, they adapted. And although they are a very influential company today, they wield only a fraction of the power they used to. And, within certain limits, they are good team players, too.
That is exactly the kind of future that I would like to see for Microsoft.
Edited 2008-04-11 16:10 UTC
IBM is also a semiconductor company with state-of-the art level.
It may be not its main income but it is IMHO a very important asset, more technologically relevant than any piece of software Microsoft had produced.
Microsoft may decide to invest money in relatively unrelated businesses.
Would you buy Microsoft soap, would you fear a Microsoft air-to-ground missile ?
I’ve seen an ICU (intensive care unit) running on “Windows”, that must be enough horror for a man’s life.
Insert “Blue Screen of Death” joke here.
Edited 2008-04-13 00:49 UTC
I agree. The big companies that have been around for a long, long time are all companies that started by doing a completely different activity and successfully reinvented themselves as necessary.
Look up the history of companies like Nintendo, Sega, Motorola or Nokia. It’s pretty fun to see how radically different their activities where when they were founded.
Edited 2008-04-11 16:28 UTC
Very good points, nice one.
I was talking to one of our mainframe dudes here at the office and he’s basically telling me that the biggest talking point on the mainframe scene at the mo is being able to run Linux. Now, the mainframe is about as locked in as can be gotten. Almost everything, including forum help, is routed via IBM so for these guys to finally be able to start working with a truly open system is a god send.
For me, this is just another symptom of the current move away from proprietary systems and if IBM can see it, you can bet MS has as well. The thing is, knowing the way the wind is blowing does not automatically save Windows from disappearing into oblivion.
Obviously, if MS can create a modular enough product to be able to stave off Linux then maybe they can save Windows, for a while, but they will never be able to compete with the speed of development, not to mention the sheer amount of free software available.
So yeah, windows in it’s current form is doomed, no question but maybe that will enable MS to finally move into the Software as a Service model.
but linux is just a kernel. With windows mobile, you know that it has to do with Windows and API’s. Same with macosx and the iphone. It’s a standard platform that developers and users can rely on.
Balmer is not going to retire for 9 more years, so there’s no way Microsoft is going to reinvent itself as an OSS company in 10.
There’s also no way that Linux is going to be any more competitive in the mobile market than it is on the desktop. There are too many attempts at a Linux phone, and no business model, other than possibly Google’s for Android, that makes any sense.
Microsoft is “reinventing” itself. That’s what XBox, Zune, and the recent purchase of Danger is all about.
But just as IBM has never left the hardware business, Microsoft is never going to leave the desktop OS business or the enterprise application business.
There’s currently no reason for MS to “reinvent itself as an OSS company”. Certainly, there are some things that lend themselves more than others to being OSS (ie. tools), but MS is already moving in that direction (ie. .NET, etc). My bet is that Microsoft will move toward a more collaborative development model with its customers on certain projects — but not across the board.
Well, let’s put it this way: Linux can certainly be a catalyst in getting Microsoft and other vendors to get off their asses and move forward. Linux can make them more competitive which, in the end, is probably more important in the long run than having Linux take over an entire market segment. I’d rather have multiple choices than just one.
Agreed. And why should they? The desktop and enterprise app business is still their bread and butter. Years of StarOffice and Linux have done little to change that equation; although, they certainly have encouraged MS to evolve and compete.
Edited 2008-04-11 18:59 UTC
Just as MS has used IE as a loss leader to maintain its browser plaform dominance, MS has been creating products with practically no financial return for emerging markets. See the following article:
Microsoft Introduces $3 Windows-Office Bundle for Emerging Markets
http://www.news.com/2100-1003_3-6177431.html
This isn’t about making money. It’s about getting broad, strategic platform adoption, which will set the stage (theoretically) for increased sales down the road. So, really, cost isn’t really a factor here. If its competitors are trying to seriously leverage this segment, MS will get into it. It’s just a question of time.
Edited 2008-04-11 19:06 UTC
It’s similar to what Apple did for schools: sell Apple computers really cheap to schools, perhaps even making little to know money per unit, in order to get the kids hooked on Macs instead of Windows.
Those kids grow to be adults who buy Macs. There’s a lot of school districts in my area buying MacBooks in large quantities (or the students themselves buying them) because they’re getting them for hundreds less than even the general education discount.
Maybe for the US. Here in Sweden you have to pay four times as much for a Mac compared to an ordinary computer.
No the iMac toy doesn’t count.
As an individual or as an educational institution? Note that the poster was talking about the cheap pricing you get it for as a school, not being some random person walking into the Apple store.
The Apple iMac a “toy” you say?
Well, let’s see: it comes with Leopard, a fully certified Unix, a self-consistent GUI that’s quite refined (perfect? No: there’s no such thing) and doesn’t need tweaking all the time: it just works, at least for the majority of the computing public. It’s not merely hardware, but a combination of hardware and software that overall, works very well, and presents a good TUE. If you get Linux and install it on some random PC (or a Mac) you have to then worry about hardware drivers and software dependencies: the Mac OS has a consistent target to aim at, doesn’t need umpteen different non-compatible package managers, and makes it easy as drag-n-drop for most application installation and removal. Oh, if you really want to get down and dirty with the shell, there’s nothing missing there, either: you can do all you want there, and what’s more, you can use things that are fully POSIX-compliant: Linux still isn’t there yet, I can assure you.
Perhaps you’re referring to the aesthetics of the iMac as being toy-like? Well, who says a computer must look like any particular pattern, such as the monitor separated from the rest of the motherboard, and keyboard? Who says a computer needs a typical keyboard? Computers can and should come in many different forms, and the iMac actually is (at least for most people, I’m sure there are exceptions) designed with good ergonomic factors in a standard setting. Or, are you referring to the real and/or perceived lack of expandability for hardware? Again, the majority of the computing public really doesn’t need more than it provides: ok, granted, it doesn’t come with the most whizz-bang 3D graphics hardware, but once again, for the majority of the computing public, they don’t need that, because they’re not eating away their hours using performance hog 3D FPS games: if you’re doing 3D CAD, what’s there is quite sufficient, especially if you expand the RAM to 4 GB, which is easy to do and doesn’t require anyone really technical to do it: there’s a single screw to unscrew, a few latches, remove the 2 sticks RAM that may be in it, and replace it with the new ones. For most people, 4 GB will be plenty, at least for awhile, though admittedly, it’s not financially prudent to buy Apple’s RAM, but then again, Compaq charges more for theirs if you buy expansion RAM
If you want more hard drive space, no big deal: just attach Firewire or USB 2.0 drives to your heart’s content. The only potential flaw that may be expensive long-term is if the screen itself dies: even then, worst-case scenario, you can still use an external monitor hooked up to it to boot and run. Oh, and once again, if you really feel like you need to run Linux, it won’t stop you, and I’m sure it’ll run just fine 
I strongly feel that the best bet Linux has for making traction into the common computer user’s mindspace is if there’s a consistent user experience that’s minimally complicated and works out of the box 100% of the time, and is sufficiently attractive to their aesthetics and working styles: this means that, due to driver issues and the associated complexities, what is needed to achieve general desktop use amongst non-tech geeks is a Linux version of an iMac solution, that comes with all desired software as-is. Since most software available for the platform is GPL, that should be a non-issue, right? Maybe, just maybe then, you’ll get much wider general desktop use of Linux amongst those that aren’t tech geeks, assuming they don’t have file format interchange problems with the rest of the world, such as office documents and the like.
FYI, I’m not any single OS fan that’s an extremist: I run several OS’s on several different computers of my own choice, and my current employment has me working on a massively parallel processing database using Linux as the OS at work.
Or, are you referring to the real and/or perceived lack of expandability for hardware? Again, the majority of the computing public really doesn’t need more than it provides
–
but that is why we would think the imac is a toy.
Now the powermac on the other hand is the real deal. it is very expensive…the typical pc may not be as powerful but much cheaper and you can still expand it.
So all laptops are toys by definition since they cannot be upgraded?
Laptops must be limited in order to be mobile. They would not be a good replacement for a pc that you would use at home or at work. If something happens to it, it is much harder to fix. When it gets out of date, you have to throw it out and buy a new one. That’s the price to pay for portability. but it may be worth it because you can compute wherever you go.
The imac on the other hand, is almost as limited as a laptop but not portable. You’re not getting more functionality but I admit it is very stylish!