07.27.09
Steve Ballmer, 2 Years Ago: Open Source “Not a Business Model We Can Embrace”
Microsoft claims that it’s changing, but to what extent is it willing based on its own words?
Almost precisely two years ago (July 26th, 2007) Steve Ballmer said:
“Open source: open source has been the issue that surrounds us. Could a commercial model like Microsoft compete with open source? And we’ve worked very hard on making the value of a commercial company surpass what the open source community can deliver, because frankly, it’s not a business model we can embrace. It’s inconsistent with shareholder value.”
It is worth stressing that Moodle's plug-in from Microsoft was only intended to increase lock-in on ‘the cloud’ and what Microsoft gave to Linux was a tool for marketing Windows [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. These two ‘contributions’ had to be made Free software in order to enter circulation, so they don’t represent change. █
Content is available under CC-BY-SA
zatoichi said,
July 27, 2009 at 10:43 am
Steve Ballmer says a lot of silly things. So do people here, like Mr. Wakizashi and Mr. Hill.
However, as the recent submission of the Hyper-V drivers under the GPLv2 demonstrates, Microsoft has no choice but to do thing our way. At least not if they want to keep selling those Windows Server 2008 licenses.
Talk about “sore winners“!
Jose_X Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
>> Steve Ballmer says a lot of silly things. So do people here, like Mr. Wakizashi and Mr. Hill.
Do you think Ballmer’s line about not being able to embrace the open source business model (probably means something like what Red Hat has done) was one of his silly lines?
Whatever they do, their money today comes from monopoly profits. Their sustained control and interlocking monopolies are grounded in their closed source approach.
Jose_X said,
July 27, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Microsoft has frequently done things “others’ way”. They call it embracing.
It’s good when they can’t have their preferred way, eg, having to adapt for now to ODF and Linux and GPL, but those are but a small number of battles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tortoise_and_the_Hare , and we aren’t exactly the hare nor they the tortoise.
>> Talk about “sore winners“!
Are you suggesting their war against us is over?
Jose_X Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
>> Microsoft has frequently done things “others’ way”. They call it embracing.
Microsoft person: But we already paid for some google ads. Why is Google building more webservices, browsers, and an OS?
zatoichi Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Microsoft person: But we already paid for some google ads. Why is Google building more webservices, browsers, and an OS?
I fail to see the relevance, or even the meaning, of this comment.
Jose_X Reply:
July 28th, 2009 at 5:49 am
Well, they played on Google’s terms didn’t they?
So now would Google be a “sore winner” because, despite Microsoft coming to them to take ads on Google’s property on Google’s terms, Google probably still doesn’t much trust Microsoft and is still competing fiercely?
That sore winner, Google! They won that battle. What more do they want? Some sore winners can never get enough!
Or we should all be so happy and appreciative because Microsoft is taking many ads out on Linux Today and other similar sites? Hey, they recognize us. Wow-wee!
To be serious, I think we have a few hundred thousand “sore winners” to send Microsoft’s way.
zatoichi Reply:
July 27th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
They call it embracing.
Feel free to explain how this applies to completely open sourced drivers, submitted in conformance with the terms of the GPLv2.
For extra credit, explain why “liberty or death” doesn’t apply here. Roy’s already shown that he has either not read the GPLv2, or, having read it, didn’t understand it.
Can you do better, Jose?
Jose_X Reply:
July 28th, 2009 at 6:11 am
“And we’ve worked very hard on making the value of a commercial company surpass what the open source community can deliver, because frankly, it’s not a business model we can embrace. It’s inconsistent with shareholder value.”
Note, they are not embracing Red Hat’s business model, at least not as their exclusive answer to FOSS. Their added value is through unique extensions. Their desired business model rests on closed source monopolies.
Embrace is when you go play by the rules of the competition.
Embrace: They embrace Linux with these GPLv2 drivers in order to provide what customers want but under terms Microsoft likes. [Linux running on top of Microsoft software.]
Extend: By embracing, they absorb marketshare that might not have gone to them (vs Linux or VMWare); thus, in more deployment instances, they maintain control over all software on the stack and are in a position to execute their extend as necessary.
Extinguish: Microsoft plays with a proven track record and still from a position of monopoly levers. Shareholder value is preserved by them maintaining monopolies. They embrace, to extend and extinguish, as monopoly control/profits implies limited competition.