Ballmer: IT does matter

TalkBack 10 of 39:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

Competing with open source.

Just another competitor, with one difference: the cost of acquisition is lower. So Microsoft has to show that open source products cost more to maintain, and thus higher TCO.

Open source is specific products from specific companies. Companies are not only competitors in this business; they also are co-operators when standards are needed. (Odd typo in the story on that subject.)

Sounds to me like Microsoft has found its footing on open source; they've made it into something they can comprehend and then set strategies within their usual framework. They can be confident, not disconcerted.

This is about products sold for money. A project like FireFox is not competing with Microsoft for revenue, as long as its running on Windows. On the other hand, Google is a competitor. Search makes money.

Me, I think open source will never be a competitor wherever the unsophisticated end user sees what the product produces. Too much Unix inheritance. But where professionals want control more than assistance -- inside the Unix realm -- open source has a good chance to displace expensive products before Microsoft products can.




Some relevant quotes:

We come to work every day and we compete with products, we don't compete with movements. Some of the products we compete with are open-source products. Every day, we're pushing ourselves to innovate in ways that deliver better capabilities. We try to compete on total cost of ownership, despite the fact that they, quote, don't have any price of acquisition. Every day we are competing, competing, competing, competing, competing.

Competing with open source is different but more similar to competing with established commercial competitors than we thought three years ago.

This is the first competitor we've ever had where our cost of acquisition is higher than their cost of acquisition. Usually, we're able to come in and say we're cheaper and better. Oracle? Cheaper and better. WebSphere? Cheaper and better. Here we have to say "lower total cost of ownership--and better."

Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 06/07/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now