Sport & Auto
- About Future
- Digital Future
- Cookies Policy
- Terms & Conditions
- Investor Relations
- Contact Future
Microsoft's Windows platforms need to be more like Linux if the software giant ever hopes to compete against open-source software, including operating systems. That's the claim being made by InformationWeek's Charles Babcock, who's taken a look at Microsoft's declining revenues for Windows clients and concluded that it's time to toss the operating system--which allegedly nets Microsoft $34 per Windows XP installation--to the open-source wolves.
According to Babcock, sales and licenses for applications like Microsoft Office are the real cash cow for Microsoft. But how might a free Microsoft Windows operating system ease the bloodletting--defections of customers to open-source solutions for all their computer interactions?
If anything, he suggests that the move to an open-source operating system would be a gesture of courtesy at best. As it stands, Microsoft no longer holds a proprietary grip on the market with its applications. Customers are free to choose from a plethora of other, more inexpensive options that offer the same functionality as, say, Microsoft Office: Google Docs, OpenOffice, Zoho, to name a few. Continuing the example, Microsoft no longer dominates with its file formats either--you can thank Open XML for that.
So what makes customers continue to adopt Microsoft's pricy solutions over open-source alternatives? Babcock doesn't have an answer for that one. But he does suggest that businesses are already considering hybrid open-source/Microsoft solutions to replace existing Microsoft-only platforms in an effort to curb costs during strenuous economic times. That's why Microsoft Windows needs to be free -- as a gesture of goodwill, but also as a means for making as much of a marketing and integrated push toward Microsoft applications as the company can muster. According to Babcock, applications are Microsoft makes its money: four to 12 times as much as its revenue from its operating systems.
The article goes on to discuss Microsoft's losses in the mobile and netbook spaces--familiar topics to anyone who's read these weekly open-source updates on Maximum PC. Babcock is predicting that Windows Mobile will be the first Microsoft OS to jump ship to an open-source model, given the rampant growth and expectations for its competitors: Apple's iPhone, as well as Google's open-source Android mobile operating system and an open-source variant of Nokia's Symbian.
Microsoft has been dabbling in open-source as of late, but more contributing to projects than revolutionizing its own core software. It's too early to tell whether these experiments are just that, or a precursor to a larger open push from Redmond. And it's not as if open-source hasn't hit its share of stumbling blocks as well. But the fact remains that open-source software is starting to fight for every inch of playing field--analogous to how Mozilla Firefox has steadily chipped away at Internet Explorer on the software front. Microsoft might not be ready to talk open-source come Windows 7, but Babcock's theory of a slow trickle of additional open-source functionality into future iterations of the Windows operating system is a possibility.