Comments on: Attack of the Proxies

By: Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:50:58 +0000

Microsoft (like many others) also uses selection bias in so-called ‘studies’ it commissions others to perform. Right now the Gates Foundation uses similar tactics in lobbying.

By: Needs Sunlight

Needs Sunlight — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:45:50 +0000

Yeah, broadening or narrowing the scope of a cost-benefit analysis is a known trick. However, in this case the costs of escaping the lock-in are quite real. And they only manifest if one goes down the road of vendor lock-in. So it is an unavoidable cost that is part and parcel of certain choices. M$ has been able to hid it because it hits at the end of the product lifecycle. It’s even there a bit when going from M$ to M$ because it’s own products are never fully compatible across versions. In part it is just those incompatibilities that it often used to drive sales. I’m thinking especially of M$ Office file formats, but there are others.

By: Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Dr. Roy Schestowitz — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 11:04:37 +0000

One can arrive at any desired conclusion by adjusting the timespan. For realistic estimates, it needs to be extended to the whole.

By: Needs Sunlight

Needs Sunlight — Wed, 30 Jan 2013 10:33:40 +0000

One of the largest expenses is the cost of escaping the vendor lock-in. While it is often misapplied to the cost of adopting a new system, either another vendor or an open system, that is not where that cost belongs. The cost of escaping vendor lock-in belongs squarely in the calculations for total cost of ownership of the proprietary system containing the lock-in. Why? Because that cost follows the proprietary system no matter what. If the Munich case wants to level the playing field in the cost analysis, they'd redo both the Munich report and the M$ "report" to include the exit cost as part of the cost of the M$ system.