Is it Time to Open Source Windows?
starter.io
starter.io
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
Microsoft would probably consider doing this at some point because piracy would shrink to zero by definition, and it'd be even more impossible to eradicate Windows from legacy systems because it would be possible to support it perpetually.
Granted there are different forces at play, but you can't really recommend a company like Microsoft move to RedHat's model unless you were 100% sure that Microsoft's licensing revenue was either 1.) a tiny fraction compared to their tech support revenue or 2.) by open sourcing they could make the money they lost on licensing through even more tech support.
Doesn't seem likely given that there are companies paying for both the license and tech support.
I'm not saying Microsoft could make more money through open-source, but it might be a way of making less money over a much longer period of time.
Companies will eventually ditch the Microsoft stack when there's more affordable alternatives to pick from. Google, SalesForce, Oracle, IBM and others are working relentlessly to make these things happen.
Making Windows "free" would certainly mess up their plans. After all, this very strategy worked amazingly well when they decided to give away Internet Explorer.
Just imagine how entrenched IE would be now if Internet Explorer 6 had been open-source and had been continuously upgraded like WebKit. It's arguable that rendering engine would be at 90+% market share to this day.
The real problem is that it's not clear how to charge for 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).
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.
(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.
I said this because many people have a fundamental misunderstanding of open-source, and insist that open-source software cannot be sold.
Your response makes a lot of sense, but it's not really applicable to smaller scale products, and it's certainly not applicable to web-services, which are significantly easier to rip-off.
I legitimately have no idea how I would prevent legal forks, ensure proper credit, etc.
Businesses pay for Windows, but ordinary consumers by and large don't, they get it for "free" when they purchase a computer. But hardware is now getting so cheap, that Window's license cost is really starting to show. This will only get worse.
To stay competitive Microsoft will have to do two things. 1) Compete in the consumer marker with attractive devices (phones, tablets, Xbox, netbooks), and 2) Remain the "obvious" choice for business.
In order to do #1 they either need to copy Apple and build premium devices by themselves or compete with Andriod/Chrome. Either way, their current OS revenue model of selling to OEMs is going to die.
To do #2 they need to stay as ubiquitous as possible. You may not think that having a few MacBooks and iPads around the office matters to Microsoft but once they're there all of a sudden things like SharePoint and Lync and maybe even Exchange start to look less attractive because a big part of their appeal is built on how it all works together with Outlook and Windows. A few years ago quite a few Microsoft products had web interfaces that only rendered right in IE, they've had to stop that kind of thing more recently because non Windows devices are becoming more common - that trend is only getting worse.
Open sourcing a Windows core and then selling server management tools and premium editions enables them to keep charging business while ensuring Windows stays relevant and as widely used as possible.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
50 to 100 years
That's an extremely long time frame. If you said "10" I might be on board, but will Windows really exist in 50 years?
The cases where we've seen really long-lived software is custom enterprise back-end systems. Windows might live to 2063 supporting something custom that's never worth the effort to port to a new platform, but this is very different from an operating system used by thousands of people.
Are new internal tools at your company written for Windows or are they browser based?
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.
Even more important, Windows brings in almost half of their operating profit. I'm going off the 2010 10-K, Windows was ~$12B of operating profit, MSFT Business Division (i.e. Office) was about $14B of operating profit ... out of $27B of total operating profit.
As you would expect, the monopolies bring in the huge margins. The other stuff just earns a normal return on capital.
It would be super cool if it ever happened though.
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
If the argument is that it would be too easy to steal; well, it's already beyond trivial to pirate windows.
They should definitely open source .net now though. They aren't showing it the love it deserves
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.
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...
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?
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
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)