Tweet
IMHO it's about cross platform compatibility:
- For instance 3D apps and dtp markets are divided among several software makers.
I can import DXF created in Archicad on a Mac to AutoCAD running on a PC.
Or I can create Postscript or .pdf out of Corel draw and submit it to Macintosh based service bureau or to image setter rip running on Linux seamlessly provided I call or visit the webpage of service bureau to download their postscript driver. (I could probably create .pdf without that.)
Now if you take Office, operating systems or web browsers, where one company's market share dominates the market to an extent that others’ are negligible:
Market share is important and Microsoft knows that even if there are better products, compatibility will hinder usability. Of course Microsoft is a company and companies are out to make money.
So in markets where they are dominant they don’t need a better product (however they need better marketing) until competition forces them to make one. Take a look at Microsoft mice: They are good because if they sucked people would simply buy Logitech or other’s pointing devices.
Take a look at Windows 2000, which was an OS to establish Microsoft on a server side. Not only is it better than previous versions, it’s also more compatible with TCP/IP networking which came from Unix world. (Other platforms DNS, file, web and even WINE servers as well as clients can now better integrate with Windows network.)
Also take a look at windows media: At some point MS found out no one is using windows media because it doesn’t support mp3 and doesn’t provide skinability. Now that Windows media is used extensively (because of mp3, skinability and streaming formats support on the server side) and their market share is big they can start enforcing proprietary standards.
Now take a look at Office and Web browsers: If you were to run any serious business you’d make sure your documents can be opened in Word and your web site would work in IE, regardless if open Office is better and Mozilla is more compatible with W3C standards.
Competition is good; it’s a nature of capitalism. Now IMO open source is the only way to compete with Microsoft in OS, office and browser field. Any company (as a business model) which would start selling operating system for x86, office or browser would either fail or gain insignificant markets hare in niche markets.
My opinion on open source:
There are applications, which require power users. Administering any serious corporate network requires people who know. Although Windows desktop is intuitive and easy for users, server side certainly isn’t a piece of cake. IMO administering either Linux or Windows requires people who have spent more then an afternoon learning. Now any intelligent person will not have as hard time switching from one platform to another if he/she realizes the benefits.
The problem is with desktop users who barely know where Start button is.
For one corporation to switch it would require training or hiring (job fluctuation is expensive) administrators, as well as training or hiring new users. This would result in costs of training and in cost of loss of productivity. Cost of labour is still the biggest part of equation. Also validating OEM servers and OEMs hiring Linux support force would lower their margins.
I’ve seen quite a few small companies switch to Linux on the server side and lots of web sites are running on Apache. But for large companies as of now costs of server licences are not as high as cost of training and labour.
My stance on Mozilla: it clearly has advantages (popup blocking, tabbed browsing, W3C compatibility) and disadvantages (GUI incompatible with Windows standards, some websites don’t support it) as well as IE. I’m using it as my main browser, and use IE for some sites, which have poor compatibility.
I think we should get down from our high horse: open source suX/r0x0rz, Microsoft r0x0rz/suX (in no particular order). Not all users, companies and applications of platforms are the same. Clearly both have advantages and disadvantages and it boils down to your particular case and whether you are open minded enough to consider both platforms and decide for one, other or mixture of based on costs and benefits.
One more thing; Software companies to an extent tolerate piracy:
- If user use pirated version of your software they don’t use competition = market share.
- If home users/students use pirated versions of serious software and invest time in learning curve they’ll use that product once they get employed/start business.
- Only recently has Microsoft started enforcing WPA on Windows and Office. They are preventing “causal copying” but not “serious copying”.
- BSA is only seriously pursuing companies (who are making profit using software and can be fined and forced to settle/buy licences) and serious pirates (who are making profit and can be made examples).
- For instance 3D apps and dtp markets are divided among several software makers.
I can import DXF created in Archicad on a Mac to AutoCAD running on a PC.
Or I can create Postscript or .pdf out of Corel draw and submit it to Macintosh based service bureau or to image setter rip running on Linux seamlessly provided I call or visit the webpage of service bureau to download their postscript driver. (I could probably create .pdf without that.)
Now if you take Office, operating systems or web browsers, where one company's market share dominates the market to an extent that others’ are negligible:
Market share is important and Microsoft knows that even if there are better products, compatibility will hinder usability. Of course Microsoft is a company and companies are out to make money.
So in markets where they are dominant they don’t need a better product (however they need better marketing) until competition forces them to make one. Take a look at Microsoft mice: They are good because if they sucked people would simply buy Logitech or other’s pointing devices.
Take a look at Windows 2000, which was an OS to establish Microsoft on a server side. Not only is it better than previous versions, it’s also more compatible with TCP/IP networking which came from Unix world. (Other platforms DNS, file, web and even WINE servers as well as clients can now better integrate with Windows network.)
Also take a look at windows media: At some point MS found out no one is using windows media because it doesn’t support mp3 and doesn’t provide skinability. Now that Windows media is used extensively (because of mp3, skinability and streaming formats support on the server side) and their market share is big they can start enforcing proprietary standards.
Now take a look at Office and Web browsers: If you were to run any serious business you’d make sure your documents can be opened in Word and your web site would work in IE, regardless if open Office is better and Mozilla is more compatible with W3C standards.
Competition is good; it’s a nature of capitalism. Now IMO open source is the only way to compete with Microsoft in OS, office and browser field. Any company (as a business model) which would start selling operating system for x86, office or browser would either fail or gain insignificant markets hare in niche markets.
My opinion on open source:
There are applications, which require power users. Administering any serious corporate network requires people who know. Although Windows desktop is intuitive and easy for users, server side certainly isn’t a piece of cake. IMO administering either Linux or Windows requires people who have spent more then an afternoon learning. Now any intelligent person will not have as hard time switching from one platform to another if he/she realizes the benefits.
The problem is with desktop users who barely know where Start button is.
For one corporation to switch it would require training or hiring (job fluctuation is expensive) administrators, as well as training or hiring new users. This would result in costs of training and in cost of loss of productivity. Cost of labour is still the biggest part of equation. Also validating OEM servers and OEMs hiring Linux support force would lower their margins.
I’ve seen quite a few small companies switch to Linux on the server side and lots of web sites are running on Apache. But for large companies as of now costs of server licences are not as high as cost of training and labour.
My stance on Mozilla: it clearly has advantages (popup blocking, tabbed browsing, W3C compatibility) and disadvantages (GUI incompatible with Windows standards, some websites don’t support it) as well as IE. I’m using it as my main browser, and use IE for some sites, which have poor compatibility.
I think we should get down from our high horse: open source suX/r0x0rz, Microsoft r0x0rz/suX (in no particular order). Not all users, companies and applications of platforms are the same. Clearly both have advantages and disadvantages and it boils down to your particular case and whether you are open minded enough to consider both platforms and decide for one, other or mixture of based on costs and benefits.
One more thing; Software companies to an extent tolerate piracy:
- If user use pirated version of your software they don’t use competition = market share.
- If home users/students use pirated versions of serious software and invest time in learning curve they’ll use that product once they get employed/start business.
- Only recently has Microsoft started enforcing WPA on Windows and Office. They are preventing “causal copying” but not “serious copying”.
- BSA is only seriously pursuing companies (who are making profit using software and can be fined and forced to settle/buy licences) and serious pirates (who are making profit and can be made examples).
I've never tested my pages in it, but I'll trust they work
Comment