Three Reasons Microsoft Shareholders Need Open Source
No matter how you spin it, Linux is here to stay, and the open source community has evolved.
So right after I post about what life would be like without open source, Microsoft announces plans to take on the free world. Am I a prophet or what? Just kidding. I’ve already told you why open source software isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. I know folks within Microsoft’s walls who get it—obviously none of them work in the legal department.
Redmond is spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt through the media. It’s SCO all over again, except this time they have a willing partner in Novell. Clearly Microsoft’s leadership doesn’t realize the value of open source alternatives. The only group they’re going to hurt is their shareholders. This week I’m going to educate them on three reasons they need open source.
Competition.
I don’t care what Microsoft believes, competition is a good thing. If their products were strong enough to stand on their own, this patent strategy wouldn’t exist. There’s a gulf between an open source user and an enterprise customer. Take a page from the Linux book and build better products. Ballmer claims that Microsoft invests $7,000,000,000 in research and development each year. Really? Seven with nine zeros? Then building a better operating system that commands a fair price in the market should be cake. Outpacing those Linux distributions should be a walk in the park with a fraction of that budget. Competition builds better products—end of story.
Software Piracy.
Microsoft should be thanking the Linux community. Having free alternatives to Microsoft products reduces software piracy. Let’s assume that Microsoft can successfully collect hundreds of millions of dollars in new royalties from open source. Happy shareholders, right? Wrong. That’s small potatoes next to the additional billions in software piracy they would incite. Part of being a publicly traded company is protecting shareholder value. Team Ballmer’s top priorities should include choosing their battles wisely and not exposing shareholders to unnecessary risk. Strong arming thousands of customers around the world will light a piracy wildfire guaranteed.
Choice.
The executives in Redmond need to give the fine folks at the RIAA a call. Maybe then they’d realize that what they’re up against is good ol’ American freedom of choice. Consumers love choice. Give them competitive options and the dollars fly into the marketplace. Take away choice, they revolt. No amount of legal positioning and strong arm tactics from the record industry were going to make global consumers bend to the will of “rights management” and an outdated market strategy. In the end, customers have forced the majority of labels to transition to new business models.
I promise, when forced into the same position, CIO’s, IT managers, and system administrators everywhere will take similar action. In a battle royale between a vendor and its customers, the customers will always win, especially in today’s world where the way you spend your dollar is ten times as powerful as the way you vote in national elections.
No matter how you spin it, Linux is here to stay, and the open source community has evolved. All those cult leaders and mystic profits? Replaced by smarter, faster, business-savvy projects that retain their agility as they grow and understand the difference between influencing customers and controlling them. Microsoft needs to decide if they want to change their market, or if they want their market changed for them.
