

Is it Time to Open Source Windows? - mjhea0
http://starter.io/is-it-time-to-open-source-windows/

======
starter_john
I'm the author of the article thanks to all of you for getting into the
debate!

To radmuzom who says I have no clue about MSFT in the enterprise is mistaken.
Actually I worked in enterprise IT as a Systems admin for many years, so i do
have some clue that MSFT makes a lot of cash in the Enterprise. Obviously,
Office, Sharepoint, Excel Services, SQL Server, former Azure etc.

I'm no Windows hater -- I clung to windows 7 as my team all went MacOSX and I
always have been totally agnostic about this stuff, really just using the best
tool for the job is my motto.

I'll tell you, the Windows File Explorer still kicks ass on the damned Finder.
Don't get me started on Google. Anyway.

In fact if you check my resume, I was CEO of a startup that built one of the
first Java Spreadsheet SDK for Excel by reverse engineering the Excel file
format in Java and selling to the big enterprises that depend upon Excel. I
did this over 12 years, and sold the company (Extentech) in 2012.

We also competed with Microsoft as an Open Source company by providing a great
open source product called OpenXLS (sf.net/projects/openxls)

I am pretty much an Enterprise Java/Excel expert at the byte level, and know
the business models around Enterprise software and open source as a weapon of
choice in this area is something I've studied for years.

So aaanyway, not like my feelings are hurt, but I do know a thing or two about
both Open Source, Microsoft, and Microsoft products for the enterprise and
Consumer.

Maybe read author bios before assuming you can judge what the author knows.

Your point that your bank will never switch from windows in a million years or
whatever is kind of ignorant because just the fact that Windows goes open
source will not magically rip the OS from your phone or uninstall itself from
your bank PCs.

That would be done exactly how?

And to those that say Microsoft cannot afford it... Of course it will come at
a huge price -- but what else are they going to do with their cash to re-
establish relevance as the PC fades away and their Mobile initiatives have
sputtered mightily (to date...)

Sure there would be pain, like any major pivot. But the pain of being _forced_
to commoditize and give away Windows by Google Chrome and iOS and maybe
someday Firefox Phone or Ubuntu will be greater -- it is pretty much happening
as anyone with eyes can see.

To all those that say Windows revenue is untouchable: why did Windows 8
upgrade cost 1/5 of WIndows 7 upgrade? Was it because Microsoft _wanted_ to
make less money??? No, it was price pressure from Apple and Google (and some
lesser degree Linux.)

The thing folks here are missing is that in the innovation cycle and product
lifecycle, Windows is at deaths door. Selling operating systems is an EOL
business model. Operating Systems are totally commoditized at this point.

Anyway my basic ideas are that if you consider the _big picture_ of clinging
to a shrinking userbase and sales models of the past -- MSFT would be smart to
at least take the reigns of this shift and make a major _pivot_ away from
current business model.

In other words, to all that say "Windows is XX% of total revenue Yadda we can
_never_ change that math" \-- I say this is probably what Steve Ballmer has
been saying all along as the ship has been slowly sinking.

It will be 20% of revenue, then 10%, then 0% -- because that will be the
trajectory of Windows _market share_.

With open source, you become the ultimate competitor on Price -- and you go
for Market Share -- the very thing that Windows is going to inevitably lose
here in time.

As for "is it even possible"?

To answer your thoughtful questions: First off, MSFT R&D and programmers would
keep their jobs and would still develop windows, in other words, the same
level of "quality" (debatable) you get in Retail windows would be there PLUS
you'd get code review, patches, and feature enhancements from the community.

Community managers are well able to corral these types of changes into a
commercial product just ask Jono Bacon over at Ubuntu (yo Jono) ... anyway...
the open source OS is well traveled path by now, and MSFT has well more than
enough resources (engineering/marketing) to do it. THat said, maybe there is a
lot of bad code in there they don't want public?? Who knows. Too many nasty
inline comments about Steve Jobs perhaps?

To sukuriant, these objections to open source software from non-open source
developers are pretty long in the tooth -- in fact many companies make money
by "giving away razors and selling the blades" \-- open source business models
are no different. But a company that is used to a huge monopolistic revenue
stream and major margins on licensing revenue is simply not psychologically
ready to grok this point.

An old non-tech saying that serves us well in this industry where copying and
redistribution come at zero cost: "Give it away in order to Keep it."

-john

~~~
nemothekid
I'm not sure I follow your argument. Do I have this right, you are arguing MS
should open source Windows, because Windows is losing market share? If so
there is a huge leap in logic I'm not getting here, the first being that
making windows open source isn't a clear path to becoming a market leader
again.

If you want to argue that MS should open source windows, then you should also
describe possible business models for the new open source MS, otherwise its
just wishful thinking.

At the end of the day, open source Windows is just a pipe dream unless you can
provide some hard numbers that 1.) Giving up revenue for marketshare is a
sound business decision (after all Apple could just give away OS X for free on
_any_ machine and get more marketshare, but its not). and 2.) Enterprise
companies actually care about having an open source Windows.

~~~
starter_john
Pipe dream, perhaps. I don't think it's likely move from Redmond, that is for
sure. Totally practical or a guaranteed success? I would not suggest that.

That said, a big move is in order. Not a product, not a new CEO, but a new
mindset being delivered to the public.

Open sourcing a core product is a solid post-Ballmer, industry-mind-blowing
sort of move that they totally need to rekindle the developer base for the
mobile/cloud/wearable/etsy/kickstarter era. Acknowledge and embrace
commoditization -- it is a modern "aikido" style strategy move. Use momentum
to gain momentum and throw the opponent.

Fighting the inevitable is just ugly and once you lose face (confidence of
developers aka R.I.M.) the downhill slide is just that much uglier. Keep in
mind they have made some grievous PR moves by missing Tablets and mobile phone
market (so far!) For example, Ballmer said iPhone was not going to gain
marketshare: [http://allthingsd.com/20130824/beyond-monkey-boy-its-a-
steve...](http://allthingsd.com/20130824/beyond-monkey-boy-its-a-steve-
ballmer-quote-tacular/)

So it's maybe(?) time for some humility and "going back to the base" which in
Microsoft's case probably means their developers.

Think about it... Microsoft spent unbelievable sums developing their army of
Microsoft developers -- VARs, consultants, and IT developers who were all sold
on the Microsoft stack because all of these software products are marketed and
sold to be used as a developer platform and as a gateway to riches selling 3rd
party apps to Windows users.

I think we all know where this story is heading. Many dedicated Windows devs
are now eyeing Apple's appstore with envy or retooling their skills to use
Google AppEngine or Linux on AWS or whatnot -- just because that is where the
money is and it seems as if mobile is the end-user platform of the near
future, and MSFT is not getting there with Mobile Windows yet.

They're not even exciting us by putting out a WinWatch or a WinGoggles to walk
around with in some future utopian vision. Only now 5 years after iPhone do we
see a great tablet and phone operating system from them.

So they don't own the high ground with developers they once held as the "one
and only platform king" and they don't own our vision of the future as well.

In this way, specifically, I think this is how Windows is _different_ \-- if
it went FOSS, this army of developers would instantly become twice as
empowered. It's a real once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take control of a
situation that is heading somewhat downhill, before it becomes a desperation
move, thus actually attracting said intelligent, self-interested open source
developers.

Platforms _do_ benefit from Market Share growth due to the network effect, and
vendor lockin of building apps on a platform (cost of switching is really
high...) and the fact is that once market share is achieved that MSFT and the
3rd party devs (see above) can sell even _more_ of the proprietary stuff that
only runs on Windows (a shrinking number at this point...)

When it matters, to replace Windows license revenue, simply "give away razors,
sell blades" by replacing Windows license (contract) revenue with support
(contract) revenue.

The support is provided anyway, of course you don't tell Fortune 500 CTO to
pound sand if there's a bug.

So just change the game a bit. Make the same (or more) money. Go from being
hated (UGH another windows upgrade) to loved (WHOO MSFT Open Sourced Windows!
frees up budget for new Windows application development let's buy some SQL
Server!)

And in practical terms, here's what the invoice lineitem looks like:

SKU-100 | $99/year | Enterprise-wide Guaranteed Bug Response 1 hour Turnaround
/ per user / annual subscription - Open Windows 2015

The open sourcing process will be somewhat expensive but can be done in tandem
with Windows 9 release and really stir up some action on the Operating System
front.

They cannot rest on laurels, Google will sooner or later get that magic Chrome
OS up to snuff and it's open source people and if it gets market share they
will clean up on services.

Google: Giving away (ChromeOS) selling (Google Online Services). It's not that
revolutionary of an idea.

In the end, revenue and profits of Windows is maintained through support
subscription and Enterprise add-ons.

There could be a lot of new revenue models that seriously benefit from a FOSS
Windows like developer training fees and AppStore royalties, but the entire
Windows developer world including Mobile becomes open and fresh, new and
promising, and with less risk, more security, and a brighter mobile future.

It's just an idea... worth considering.

------
Aqueous
I hate to throw cold water on an otherwise appealing idea, but this would make
absolutely no business sense for Microsoft. Windows is Microsoft's core
business. In fact, if anything, Ballmer's tenure was successful if only
because of the fact that he grew Windows and Office profits by such a huge
amount. If they start giving Windows away for free(which they would have to do
in order to open source it, or give it away for free with support contracts)
they would lose tens of billions of dollars in revenue immediately. Which
would be tantamount to just saying 'Fuck it' and going home.

I love open source, and there are times when it does make financial sense for
a business to open source something, but this is not one of those times.

The reason Google gets away with giving away Android for free is because it
gives them a channel to promote their search business. The search bar on
Android and Chrome, which always has and will always use Google by default,
cultivates their core business, Google search. What third product beyond
Windows and Office does giving away Windows for free serve? There is none.

~~~
nsmartt
FOSS doesn't have to be free. It's entirely possible to sell software and
provide the source.

The real problem is that it's not clear _how_ to charge for FOSS.

~~~
lambda
Well, Red Hat somehow manages to make over $1B per year selling FOSS.

So, I'm not sure it's right to say that it's not clear how to charge for FOSS.
You sell a branded, licensed, and supported bundle of it to businesses, while
simultaneously collaborating with the community on a free, unsupported,
differently branded version that moves more quickly and is more experimental.

Now, the question is, can you make as much as Microsoft makes on this kind of
model? There are tons of people who are perfectly content to use unsupported,
unlicensed versions of their software, in the form of CentOS, Scientific
Linux, Fedora, or other distros which incorporate a lot of software that Red
Hat primarily funds development on. Likewise, there would probably be a lot of
people who figured it would be cheaper to stop licensing Windows, if possible,
and deal with support issues themselves (or via other "distros" of Windows
which were supported but cheaper or free).

~~~
teh_klev
Couple of things you have wrong here:

1\. RedHat make pretty much most of their money from support, training/cert
and consultancy services, not _selling_ F/OSS.

2\. Your comment:

"There are tons of people who are perfectly content to use unsupported,
unlicensed versions of their software, in the form of CentOS, Scientific
Linux, Fedora"

RHEL is licensed under the GPL, they can't really change that and they can't
not release the source, so CentOS, SL, Fedora (and Oracle Linux) are not
actually unlicensed, they're GPL licensed distros from the RH upstream. Yes
they may be unsupported, but they're certainly not "unlicensed" (or
illegal/rip-offs if that's what you meant by unlicensed).

RedHat have no choice but to make the RHEL source available. You also forget
that the Fedora folks feed back into RHEL a lot of cutting edge stuff that's
stable.

~~~
lambda
1\. That's actually not true; I even checked before posting. Check out their
annual report, page 43:
[http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RHAT/2659386793x0x581...](http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/RHAT/2659386793x0x581760/6FEDF811-091A-49BB-8EB2-83C31DC561AB/Annual_Report_062512_Final_Bookmarked.pdf)

(numbers are in thousands)

> Subscriptions ... $ 965,575 > Training and services ... 167,528

They do, in fact, make most of their money from subscriptions (yes, _selling_
FOSS), not training and services.

2\. I apologize, I was unclear. I was referring to licenses that bore revenue,
not all licenses. You need to buy a license to run RHEL, even if you can run
all of the same actual software (just without the branding) in the form of
CentOS or other distros. I didn't really mean "unlicensed", since obviously
all of the software is under the GPL or other free software licenses, I meant
"without buying a license from Red Hat". I was not trying to imply people were
ripping off Red Hat, just that they aren't paying for it.

And no, I don't forget that Fedora feeds back into Red Hat. I explicitly
listed Fedora as part of the strategy for how to make money selling free
software; you sell a supported, branded, stable version to corporations, and
release a free, frequently updated, bleeding edge for the community. That
second part is important because it helps drive innovation, and allows you to
take advantage of collaboration from outside contributors, while still
deriving revenue from your enterprise distro.

I'm just not sure if Microsoft could continue to make the kind of money that
they do, if they chose to go a Red Hat route, as there would be a large number
of people who would choose to run free-as-in-beer distros (the Windows
equivalent of CentOS or Fedora) rather than a paid version of Windows. Red Hat
shows that it is possible to get people to buy paid licenses for free
software; but I don't know if there are enough people for that to be a
strategically viable move for Microsoft.

------
smacktoward
It will never happen.

Windows is so dominant in the OS marketplace that the toughest competition
Microsoft faces when trying to sell a new version of Windows isn't a competing
product; it's _old versions of Windows._ Windows 95 had to compete with Win
3.x. Windows XP had to compete with Win95/98\. Windows 7 had to compete with
XP. And so on.

The biggest lever they have to make customers do the upgrade is that Windows
is closed source. That means the only place you can get support for it is from
Microsoft. So if Microsoft says "there will be no support for Windows XP after
2014," that means exactly what it says -- either upgrade by then, or learn to
live on your own in the wilderness, like some kind of IT mountain man.

If Microsoft open-sourced Windows it would allow other companies to pick up
and support old versions of the software, independent of MS' product
lifecycle. And that would make it possible for customers to sit on old
versions effectively forever. Which would make selling _new_ versions
extremely difficult.

~~~
xahrepap
Ugh... could you imagine if someone was able to maintain Windows XP security
updates on their own? The corporate world would never move on! Developers
would be supporting XP and IE8 for an eternity.

------
radmuzom
It's written by a author who has very little clue that Microsoft's primary
customers are large enterprises, and not the "average consumer".

"Users have embraced the productivity of simple and mobile… And there’s no
going back!" \- Does this even make sense? I work for a large bank with around
50,000 employees - and it is absolutely essential that we are provided with an
operating system which is familiar, supported, stable and able to run the
thousands of applications already being used internally. The company will
never ever - at least in the next 50 to 100 years - switch from Windows simply
because it does not make any business sense to do so and will come at an
immense cost to shareholders.

And let me add that I use a Windows 8 mobile, and it is one of the finest
mobile operating system I have ever used. Apps run in 512MB RAM as smoothly as
my wife's Android Sony Xperia which is almost four times as costly (and four
times or more as powerful). I have never been satisfied more with an OS.

~~~
smacktoward
In my experience enterprise customers tend (after a time lag of several years)
to get dragged kicking and screaming into using whatever their employees use
at home.

Enterprise IT said time-shared mainframes were just fine. Employees bought
their own PCs and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying PCs.

Enterprise IT said text-mode interfaces were just fine. Employees bought their
own GUI systems and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying GUI
systems.

Enterprise IT said desk phones were just fine for everyone (except top execs,
of course). Employees bought their own cell phones and liked them. Eventually
enterprise IT was buying cell phones.

Enterprise IT said BlackBerries were just fine for everyone. Employees bought
their own iPhones and liked them. Eventually enterprise IT was buying iPhones.

Etc., etc., etc.

Of course, the larger the enterprise the longer the time lag. But it's rare to
see a business that planted its flag on "X is just fine" not eventually
hauling that flag down.

~~~
radmuzom
Yes, but unlike most __programmers __, people (restricted to bank employees in
my original example)

1\. Love windows, even though they may use an Iphone.

2\. Find it very productive to get work done. That is because it IS a
brilliant operating system for all categories of users (including
programmers).

3\. Have jobs (a lot of them) because of Microsoft Office. As of today, there
is simply no alternative - anyone who claims otherwise is lying or has an
ulterior motive. And no one cares that you can write Python macros in
OpenOffice/LibreOffice.

~~~
smacktoward
And 25 years ago they had those jobs because of Lotus 1-2-3. Until they
started demanding Office.

And 35 years ago they had those jobs because of VisiCalc. Until they started
demanding 1-2-3.

Etc.

50-100 years is a _long_ time, is my point.

------
kaolinite
If Windows was open-sourced, it would end up even more of a mess for the
average person. OEM's would customise and skin every last bit of it. It would
become a monster.

~~~
reidrac
Well, from the point of view of the user it is happening now. Just check all
the crapware that comes "by default" with any Windows machine (Dell, I'm
looking at you).

------
starter_john
Article author here again:

Quick point: I never said it was _likely_ \-- my feeling is MSFT will take the
typical "innovators dilemma" track to irrelevance and disruption because of
the lack of agility and ability to make this type of big move.

But as for practicality another quick point: just becuase it is open source
doesn't mean MSFT can't use a custom license that avoids 90% of these
objections. It could be strict GPL and really nobody would want to fork that
damned thing so it would likely not splinter much and with the awesome
developer community of Windows devs that could be immediately brought "in the
inner circle" of code, I think the Open Windows FOSS community could be second
to none.

And so you could see huge amount of security patches and other bugfixes being
corralled into the codebase which would improve quality and big banks etc.
could fix their own bugs or build custom features at will.

A standards body could even give a huge degree of assurance to Enterprise IT
that MSFT wont consumerize or unilaterally change license terms from year to
next, thus reducing risk.

Those that doubt open source business models should realize that Google and
Amazon AWS are massively open source (and without that "give it away" attitude
of their core offering would be nowhere) and derive huge benefit from the
contributions of the FOSS community.

This is real bottom line value folks.

------
tdees40
Um, the Windows division of MSFT brought in $19.2B of their $78B in total
revenue. I'm no expert, but giving up 25% of your revenue is no way to run a
company.

~~~
topbanana
You could have said the same about Amazon before they launched Kindle

~~~
radmuzom
Amazon's core business is retail, not technology. I am excluding AWS,
Mechanical Turk, etc. in this discussion. So selling the Kindle at a loss
makes sense to them given that it will used by consumers to purchase retail
goods (books, movies, music, etc. in the case of Kindle). Microsoft's core
business is Windows - what would they sell if they give it away for free?
Tetris?

------
bencollier49
I _suspect_ that Windows is full of cross-licensed patents, or licensed code,
which would make open-sourcing it fairly challenging.

It would be super cool if it ever happened though.

------
candybar
I'm with everyone else that as written the proposal makes no sense, but there
may be big portions of Windows, including probably almost all of the kernel,
as well as much of pre-XP versions of Windows, that can be released as open
source without much revenue impact. Same probably goes for portions of .NET,
Office, etc. In fact .NET and Visual Studio probably make the most sense. They
should strive to move .NET closer to where Oracle is with Java/JVM.

The problem with Microsoft's platform strategy at this point is that they
control too much of everything, which means third parties cannot meaningfully
compete and contribute to the ecosystem, which of course leads to a vicious
cycle. There's a middle path somewhere that allows Microsoft to open-source
enough that their open-source stack is competitive, but not such that it
cannibalizes their existing businesses.

~~~
yuhong
In fact, people has proposed releasing XP as open source so that security
updates can continue to be produced.

------
jamesaguilar
Doesn't really matter whether it is time or not since it is never going to
happen.

------
javanix
As a practical matter this would most likely be a total non-starter - losing
all that licensing revenue in one fell swoop would probably not be palatable
to shareholders.

As a thought experiment, however, it is plenty enticing.

Vulnerabilities would be easier to find (at least at the outset), but with
such a huge and slow-moving install base would probably be more serious.

I would imagine "translation" projects such as WINE and Mono would either
massively accelerate development, or drastically drop off depending on how
many *nix users would move to the new platform.

~~~
dragonwriter
> As a practical matter this would most likely be a total non-starter - losing
> all that licensing revenue in one fell swoop would probably not be palatable
> to shareholders.

Recasting licensing charges to large OEMs as "brand certification" charges
that are required to use the Windows trademark, and incorporating support
pricing schemes that encourage those who want to purchase support to also
purchase certified Windows from Microsoft or with hardware from brand-
certified OEMs is probably pretty straightforward, and probably preserves a
big chunk of the licensing revenue.

------
starter_john
chadwickthebold -- just because it's open source does not mean they wouldn't
charge businesses and enterprises equivalent support fees which is basically
what the Enterprises are paying for. Oh wait you think they want Windows for
the Tile-UI? No it's the supported, mission critical apps.

Also they make more money if they retain and grow market share through open
sourcing this commoditized platform code by selling more Office, Sharepoint,
etc. to the even more enthusiastic users and developers that the FOSS move
would likely provide.

Opening the code does nothing to revenue if they choose to sell the same basic
Enterprise packages but remove the per-seat Windows license revenue (only) and
replace it with "per seat" tech support and priority bug fixing.

How is it that something so abstract as a software license sale can become
like the rock of gibralter in people's minds?

OMG this completely invented human abstraction can _never_ be changed???

Ballmeresque thinking, in my opinion.

I've spent more time over the years explaining basic "give away razor sell the
blade" Open Source business models to really smart people. Still baffles me
that software licensing is the only thing people seem to grok.

Oh one thing never mentioned: this would finally bring an end to Windows
piracy...

------
andmarios
Developers and engineers are attracted to open source because it is well
documented, because most open source projects share a common logic (derived
from UNIX), because they know it.

An open source version of Windows wouldn't be attractive for open source —
free software developers.

It would be nice though if it happened.

EDIT: The author of the article seems to treat open source as a buzz keyword.
His writing is quite offending.

~~~
starter_john
Sorry i offended! What was offensive to you? Actually I built and sold an open
source Java Spreadsheet SDK so I'm 'in the zone' with MSFT product and FOSS
business models. I do not see FOSS as a buzzwordm in fact, in this context as
a business model strategy to revive a faltering product/brand.

I agree the code might not be attractive, but what about all of the Windows
developers that would suddenly have the same benefits that Linux devs have had
over the years. I think the current free software devs may not be into it. But
a whole new crop of FOSS advocates might take up the Open Windows cause.

~~~
starter_john
also, sadly, FOSS as a 'buzz keyword' is pretty out of fashion so i wasn't
being controversial for its own sake.

------
bluepnume
Forgive me if I'm missing something -- but how does open sourcing windows mean
giving it away for free? They can still sell an open source OS, right?

If the argument is that it would be too easy to steal; well, it's already
beyond trivial to pirate windows.

~~~
cbr
If it were open source it would be legal to copy it. Large corporations and
OEMs that wouldn't consider pirating Windows would be happy to switch to using
it for free.

~~~
bluepnume
Surely that depends on the license though? It would be possible to license
open-source windows in such a way that corporations and OEMs couldn't
distribute it without paying a license fee.

~~~
plorkyeran
Such a license would not be an open-source license.

~~~
bluepnume
What? Surely this falls under the free-as-in-beer vs free-as-in-speech
distinction? What about RHEL? -- that operates on a paid open-source model.

~~~
plorkyeran
And there's multiple free version of RH that are basically identical other
than the branding and support.

------
topbanana
Maybe.

They should definitely open source .net now though. They aren't showing it the
love it deserves

~~~
pionar
Really? Are you kidding? .NET as it stands, is way ahead of other virtual-
machine environments. What are you basing this on?

------
robotcookies
Nokia's Symbian was open source when it had more smartphone market share than
ios and android combined. Open sourcing alone isn't going to help Microsoft
gain traction in the mobile world any more than it did for Symbian.

~~~
starter_john
good point. but I think windows and symbian are qualitatively different.

windows is such a massive install base and such 'critical infrastructure' that
unlikely it would vanish like Symbian -- the cost of switching as many on this
thread have pointed out is high and nobody is suggesting Windows be dumped for
XYZ so...

it's the dominance of windows that means they still have a _good strong
position_ to do this and control the process.

because of its still dominant position it would only likely increase market
share thus relevance, thus developer interest in a virtuous cycle.

cannibalize your products before someone else does... a good rule to follow in
this biz.

------
astrowilliam
Though I'd love to see this happen, it never will. The reason is that MSFT is
driven and run not by engineers and programmers but by business people that
would see this as a losing situation because every copy of Windows that they
don't sell isn't $ in the MSFTs bank account.

In other words, why would they give away something that they could sell. They
can sell the OS as well as apps for the OS, it's a winning business model for
them.

Prime example, [http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/22/windows-7-microsoft-
profits...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/04/22/windows-7-microsoft-
profits-34-5/)

~~~
sukuriant
Just a question, though I do work for MSFT as a disclosure:

What does being an engineer/programmer have to do with selling something that
I could give away?

Do only business majors have garage sales instead of giving everything of
theirs to Goodwill? Do only business majors create pies that they sell, rather
than give away? What about authors and their works? Do only the business
majors of that profession sell their things, rather than give them away for
free on internet forums?

~~~
starter_john
Hi Sukuriant,

As a developer, I share the concern that one's work has value and should not
be 'given away'. But the reality is our work is a commodity, and a business
can use and sell commodities in the most profitable competitive way.

So this just means moving pieces around on the table a bit. You can still make
money, and in fact save money and make more money by focusing on the true
alignment with your customer that Microsoft is veering away from.

From what I know of the Enterprise, new versions of Windows are a huge risk
and expense, hardly the big picture alignment with the customer that a company
should have.

Does the Enterprise customer want to deal with a desktop Windows 8 rollout?

Instead, borrow from the SaaS playbook by focusing on support and continuous
releases instead of gigantic monolithic product releases that upend the
universe and cause CTOs migraines around the globe.

To replace Windows license revenue, simply "give away razors, sell blades" by
replacing Windows license (contract) revenue with support (contract) revenue.
The support is provided anyway, of course you don't tell Fortune 500 CTO to
pound sand if there's a bug.

So just change the game a bit. Make the same (or more) money. Go from being
hated (UGH another windows upgrade) to loved (WHOO MSFT Open Sourced Windows!
frees up budget for new Windows application development let's buy some SQL
Server!)

And in practical terms, here's what the invoice lineitem looks like (share
with your boss??!?!)

SKU-100 | $99/year | Enterprise-wide Guaranteed Bug Response 1 hour Turnaround
/ per user / annual subscription - Open Windows 2015

~~~
sukuriant
Microsoft's corporate strategy is well outside of my control or understanding.
I only mentioned being a Microsoft employee because in conversations about my
company, I have to tell people that I work for them. That said, I was speaking
in the general sense, not in the specific sense of Microsoft

------
chadwickthebold
Yeah, serious misunderstanding of the Windows market here. They absolutely
kill enterprise. And they do it selling the platform and the software that
runs on it, too.

------
vadivlkumar
I think most likely MS openly supported, APL based .NET system would do far
more magic for now. Next should be Windows Mobile.

------
fsqcds
What is superior in windows explorer? Is that sarcasm?

~~~
starter_john
Sarcasm, actually no, I am sure Windows File Explorer few advocates in the
wild.

Personally, I really prefer the Windows File Explorer over Finder or Gnome/KDE
with its file system integration with apps (right-click open with), easier
more powerful search capability, very easy cut/paste from right+click as well
which in OSX is only "copy" \-- so to "move" a file requires a copy, go find
the new location, paste, then go delete old location.

Not really debate-worthy just personal opinion. Do you know a better way to
cut/paste files in Finder? I'm eager as I'm on a mac (and otherwise love it)

