Microsoft's Five Stages of Linux Grief
|
Microsoft's open-source patent deals have generated lots of debate among eWEEK editors. But the question remains: "Why?" |
The ongoing discussion comes in part from there being no single reason for Microsoft's patent deals. Some of the possible reasons eWEEK editors have discussed are the following:
- Divisive Strategy: Microsoft seeks to divide the Linux community through the deals.
- Business Model: Linux encroaches on how Microsoft conducts business, particularly with the channel.
- Intellectual Property Protection: Microsoft seeks to lessen its patent liability and gain valuable licensing agreements in the process.
- GPLv3: The deals are designed to put a wrench in the new version of the General Public License approval process.
- Customers: More of them use open-source software alongside Microsoft products.
- Linux Acceptance: Microsoft has accepted that Linux is here to stay and fears its spread from the server to the desktop.
All these reasons are legitimate. They all point to a "business as usual" attitude on the part of Microsoft, one in which the company attempts to keep things the way they are for as long as possible. Change is bad for a company that so strongly dominates two major enterprise software categories—PC operating systems and desktop productivity suites— that account for the bulk of Microsoft's revenue.
What company with hugely established infrastructure doesn't seek to maintain the status quo when faced with a disruptive change? Microsoft's response to Linux and open source is like a textbook case of the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Here's how these stages have manifested for Microsoft:
Denial. For years after Linux started to appear on corporate servers, Microsoft denied there was any problem. The sanitized version of former Microsoft employee David Stuz's February 2003 resignation letter gives some sense of the true depth of Microsoft's denial.
He wrote: "There is false hope in Redmond that these outmoded approaches to software integration will attract and keep international markets, governments, academics, and most importantly, innovators, safely within the Microsoft sphere of influence."
Microsoft's Shared Source program, which I believe started in 2002, fits into the denial phase with respect to open source.
Anger. Licensing 6, which did away with off-the-shelf upgrades and committed customers to a pay upfront for software upgrades under multiyear agreements, was the equivalent to an irrational outburst. Microsoft announced the plan in May 2001 and the criticism from both analysts and customers was fierce and quick.
Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer later admitted that the plan, or at least how Microsoft brought it to market, was a mistake. Despite that admission, Microsoft made no amends, and the plan stayed in place. Customers paying up front for Microsoft software sure as heck wouldn't be looking at alternatives, such as Linux.
Bargaining. After Microsoft started calling Linux a threat, it responded with campaigns like "Get the Facts," which attempted to position Windows and Windows Server as better alternatives to Linux. Microsoft bargained with its customers, and, through its efforts at damage control, legitimized Linux, in a way. Customers thought, "Gee, if Microsoft thinks Linux is so important, maybe I should have a look."
Depression. Steve Ballmer's failed attempt at convincing the city of Munich to stick with Windows, marked the beginning of a series of depressing setbacks for Microsoft. While Munich's Linux migration later ran into snags, it became symbolic as other governments, particularly in Europe, made similar Linux/open source switch announcements.
While Linux switchers captured headlines (and a lot fewer Windows seats), Microsoft encountered repeated delays releasing a successor to Windows XP. Depressing.
Acceptance. The launch of Port 25 in April 2006 was one of several signs indicating that Microsoft was coming to accept that Windows would have to coexist with Linux (and Unix, for that matter). About six months later, Microsoft cut its patent deal with Novell, signaling, again, that the company had accepted that Linux wasn't going anywhere. Behind the deals there was fear, too, that Linux might eventually breach the desktop.
Among all the reasons for Microsoft's patent deals, acceptance stands out. No doubt, some Microsoft Watch commenters will debate whether Microsoft has gone through all five stages to acceptance.
But Microsoft's behavior strongly indicates that the company has accepted that Linux is here to stay and that it's time for action. The patent deals allow Microsoft to retain some control, which relates to other issues, like protecting its intellectual property rights or its business model. The key word here is "protect." Microsoft has accepted, but only on its terms and in a way that will preserve its status quo.
Related Posts:
- Why Microsoft and Linux Companies Are Tying the Knot, Linux-Watch, June 17, 2007
- Microsoft's Linspiration, Microsoft Watch, June 14, 2007
- Linspire, Microsoft in Linux-related Deal, Linux-Watch, June 13, 2007
- What's Behind All These Patent Agreements?, Microsoft Watch, June 7, 2007
- Linux Server Market Share Keeps Growing, Linux-Watch, May 29, 2007
- Microsoft's Open Letter to Open Source, Microsoft Watch, May 14, 2007
- Microsoft Reignites Its War on Linux, Linux-Watch, May 14, 2007
- Open Source: Microsoft's Patent FUD Campaign, Microsoft Watch, May 13, 2007
- Show Us the Code: Right Pew, Wrong Church, Linux-Watch, Feb. 25, 2007
- Patent Fallout Continues over Microsoft-Novell Deal, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 21, 2006
- Ballmer: Pay You, Pay Me, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 17, 2006
- Hell Freezes Over: Microsoft, Novell Partner on Linux, Linux Watch, Nov. 2, 2006
Comments (11)
This writeup is very similar to many, including a recent one from Paul Thurrott. However, "acceptance" is followed by brutal attacks in disguise that's a 'helping hand'. Port 25 continues to poison Linux conferences by confusing the attendants and trying to tie them to Microsoft's rules.
Microsoft Windows is a lost case (Singularity is too little too late), but Microsoft will fight to get money out of the next save of software and services.
Posted by Roy Schestowitz | June 28, 2007 7:26 PM
Linux spread from desktop to server?
What kind of moron are you?
Linux is ahead of Windows on the server side, no matter how much pr MS is doing that it's not.
Did you ever hear of Apache? The LAMP combination??
I`m writing to your editor to fire your lame ass.
You should not write articles if you know nothing from your experience and your stories are based on what you've heard from others.
You are lame. Get another job, stop disinforming people.
Posted by EpsDel | June 29, 2007 8:09 AM
EpsDel,
"Linux Acceptance: Microsoft has accepted that Linux is here to stay and fears its spread from the server to the desktop."
It looks like you may have misread something. I think there might be other motives to the whole thing. I think the biggest motive might be getting a piece of the server Market that Linux does hold. I don't think it is about the desktop. The desktop is to standardized in business with Windows and Office. Microsoft is safe there, but they have room to grow in servers. Teaming with Linux providers to give joint solutions will build their server business.
Posted by EpsDel | June 29, 2007 11:13 AM
My appologies on above post as I accidently copied EpsDel's name into my name. Sorry for any confusion or misunderstanding.
Posted by Jake | June 29, 2007 11:16 AM
It is too good a description of MS's feelings…but I prefer Gandhi’s words: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”, because if Ms was (a long time ago) a necessary answer to companies like IBM or Apple, it ceased to be so a long time ago as well. MS is not longer an answer, but a problem, same as old IBM forgot that, although its principal objective is get profit for its shareholders, when it gets a privileged position (not unlike a monopoly) it is required that its behaviour is fair and if they had some type of unscrupulous behaviour (excused or ignored due to the harshness of the business world) now they have to change their behaviour and perform in accord to their new status (and duties.)
Stupidly, these companies do not understand-which annoys users, who unwittingly support their own exploitation and the arrogance to which they are subjected; looking for some other company replaces the current disagreeable one. The case of MS was harder than usual, since they were born amongst lawyers and not only flourished at an economic level, but took advantage of new, unexplored, legal ground, to get their way whilst exterminating the competition in a manner nothing less than merciless (then again the matter is not created nor is destroyed, only transforms …) hence the consequence was that all those former competitors are now with Linux, putting themselves under the banner of “collective welfare and free-product” which makes them virtually immune to MS’s preferred way of destruction (obviously I was generalising.)
MS thus tries to attack in a different manner to get its objective (extermination of rivals and/or getting it own sweet way) (Gandhi’s third stage, it seems- or acceptance, according to Joe’s five points) interestingly its “acceptance” is going to be an attack, such as Roy says. But then, I think that years later, they will enter a stage of simple survival and that is why MS knows that a client lost to Linux won’t come back- on average- due to the simple equation of money, alienation, quality and necessities, just as a sand watch (maybe it’ll take long but it’ll eventually finish) And what will MS do? Well, look at Apple or IBM- the sooner this whole “high and mighty” attitude is changed, the better. It will be both less traumatising and painful- nevertheless, I can’t help but wonder if with Ballmer at its helm MS will react adequately.
Posted by Marco | June 29, 2007 1:53 PM
Clearly MS is at the "fighting" stage in its relationship with Linux. For all the talk of interoperability, that is just a smoke screen for "pay us money for royalities" on our patents, but we won't tell you which patents.
Right now it would seem that Mac is more of a problem for MS, as it is actually cutting into the MS OS market share a little. Since Mac OS X uses a BSD-unix/Darwin modified kernel, it is perhaps not that much differnet than Linux, as far as the patent threats. However, since MS owns about 25% of the Mac non-voting stock, we don't see this fight.
Clearly this fight or rather FUD by MS, has been going on since 2004, a time that Linux started making very small gains on the desktop. Vista is perhaps the incentive for more Mac and Linux users now.
Posted by chips b malroy | June 29, 2007 4:26 PM
Joe, as a person who's been trained in grief therapy and has had to go through the stages myself, I would agree with chips b malroy that Microsoft is far from the stage of acceptance. Their continued dirty tricks, bolting down the OS with regular validation checks, proprietary file formats and protocols (OOXML is far from open and is in no wise suitable to be an ISO standard, though they may be able to ram it through anyway), continued FUD about Linux (now with bogus patent threats--I call them BOGUS because they refuse to name even ONE that might legitimately be infringed by Linux--it's SCOFUD v2), efforts thru partners to undermine the OLPC project and many more things show that they're very much in the "anger" or "fighting" phase.
If the recent deals with Novell, Xandros and Linspire are anything beyond anger, it's bargaining. They're trying to preserve what they have (and build on their patent FUD) by making deals with Linux companies (of which Novell is the only one of consequence) in the (false) name of "interoperability" when it is THEY who created the interoperability problem to begin with, as the creators of proprietary file formats (OOXML among others), proprietary protocols and extensions of protocols (like Kerberos). To interoperate, all Microsoft has to do is "play well with others" and go by the rules that the rest of the industry plays by. But that means acceptance--acceptance that their days as a monopoly who can force things to go their way are ending.
A true sign of acceptance would be for Microsoft to drop their OOXML push and REALLY WORK with the standards committees who have already created a standard (that MS voluntarily declined to actively participate in creating) called the Open Document Format. If they think that ODF needs certain features to properly work with Microsoft Office, work with the committees to generate the improvements. THAT would demonstrate that they're in acceptance.
There is another stage of grief that you did not mention; re-investment. This comes after acceptance; it is channeling the energies they once used on what they lost into something new. Microsoft could be a great power for good in the computing world once they get to acceptance that they'll have to compete on the merits of their product rather than by using monopoly power to capture markets. That is, presuming Microsoft could survive in open competition. I am skeptical that Microsoft will make that change with its current leadership team. Unless there is a radical change in management, I fear that they will expend all their energies in a vain attempt to remain the predatory monopoly that they are. But it's change or die for Microsoft. And if it's to be "die", it can't come a moment too soon.
Lead, follow or get out of the way, Microsoft.
Posted by Weeble | June 30, 2007 1:55 PM
Marco wrote:
same as old IBM forgot that, although its principal objective is get profit for its shareholders...
I once saw a taped interview with an elderly Thomas J. Watson, Jr. in which he described how a business needs to take care of three profits:
The first and most important profit you should take care of is your customers' profit. For if your customers don't make a profit, they will not be able to afford to purchase your products.
The second-most important profit you should take care of is your employees' profit. For if they can't afford to work for you, they will not be able to produce the products that you need. And lastly,
The least important profit for you to worry about is the stockholders' profit. For if you take care of the first two profits, the stockholders' profit will take care of itself.
Note that he did not say that the stockholders' profit is not important. He just described the best and most reliable path by which that profit would be realized.
IBM started its long downhill slide when it forgot Mr. Watson's words of wisdom and tried to short-circuit the process and put the stockholders' profits first. And many companies are just as foolish. Including one whose CEO loves his company and throws chairs around his office, while at the same time treating the users of his latest operating system as if they were convicted thieves.
Posted by Brian | June 30, 2007 9:52 PM
Brian it is a very interesting point of view and one that could be taking in consideration by many companies, but I was talking about a simple standpoint; I mean, which is the principal objective of a business? profit (it includes taking care of shareholders). And how to get such a profit? By taking care of your customers (and that signifies: customer service and pay attention to customer's needs.)
Without forgetting employees (the business world is an ecosystem) sadly, it is also necessary in the business world to get some profit, otherwise it will be a natural outcome that a profit-less business will shut down. (Unless it gets help from some other source.)
But of course, second opinions are ever welcome
(salvo mejor opinion).
Posted by Marco | July 1, 2007 2:14 PM
Linux is Best Evidence of Just How Overvalued the Windows Asset Is
This is actually a pretty classic category of business scenario. On the one hand we have MS Windows. It is marketed as the product of rocket scientists with MIT, Stanford and other such credentials (just as an example, there are other esteemed schools that could have been cited instead).
Linux throws a wrench in this whole marketing campaign: A loosely organized grooup of software developers created an Operating System that adequately serves the needs of a very large number of business and individuals on both the client and server.
The true value of any asset is what it would cost to replace it. Linux has shown the IT world that the real value of the MS Windows asset is far less than what corporations pay for it. Captive purchasing managers and others with budgetary authority at key customers are the best explanation for Windows' market share in American business. The Europeans tend to be a more educated audience of investors and so many of their business managers (both in corporations and in government) have decided to be better fiduciaries of shareholder dollars than their American counterparts.
--Doug Hettinger
Posted by Doug Hettinger | July 2, 2007 11:06 AM
Alright, so MS, a software company with absolutely no hardware, should give their software away for free?
Their toys (xbox, zune, et al) are usually losses.
Their R&D team? again, huge losses.
How many companies still invent things? hmm, cannot think of any.
I guess we should support the rich people PAYING to get linux to the top... oh yes, my NDA says I cant talk about the linux code I wrote and used in the latest build... sigh. I love open source, but enough of this crap.
Posted by SP | July 9, 2007 12:32 AM