[wplug] The Abadonware/Hostageware Profit Model -- Book published using Open Source software

[Bryan J. Smith]

Greg Simkins <gregsim at telerama.com> wrote:
> I don't know this first hand, but my Swiss friend told me the
> Government of Switzerland had to pay Microsoft multiple
> $millions for licensing (Microsoft didn't do the actual work)
> for them to convert old versions of Microsoft Word documents.

Yes, Microsoft Partners, most likely a Microsoft "Gold" Partner in
his case.

> He is very active in the open source movement in Switzerland
> to move into truly open formats.  Getting stung like this is
> a very powerful motivator. 

First off, I maintain an active MCSE (with several specialties) for a
reason.  I also force myself to constantly read MS TechNet and to
play with MSDN products, even though I never deploy them.  Why?

Two reasons:  
1.  Credibility with those that want those "credentials"
2.  To know what Microsoft "is up to" with regards to its model

One is because people quickly stop disregarding my points as Anything
But Microsoft (ABM) rhetoric.  They stop.  They listen.  They realize
that I can relate to them, I can explain to them the issues, and why
various, other solutions don't have them.  Especially ...

Two, Microsoft's Abandonware/Hostageware model is about
_partnerships_.

Microsoft has successfully "educated" 90% of home consumers that they
need to replace all 4 -- their PC, their OS, their peripherals and
their software -- when they replace just 1, and that _must_ happen
every 2-3 years.  That is the "superstore" profit model*1* that
allows vendors to release limited-time hardware and software for
Windows.

In the corporate space, Microsoft has had less success proving to
companies that they need to upgrade their servers, workstations and
software every 2-3 years.  Even the PC OEMs and Microsoft Silver/Gold
Partners have been unable to convince not merely their clients, but
back at Microsoft, that it's unacceptable.  Unfortunately, Microsoft
keeps pushing such software -- e.g., "Windows Server 2003 only has no
problems with Windows XP clients."

It's amazing how much you can "point out" as a "Microsoft
professional."  I.e., I always start, "as a Microsoft Solutions
Provider, I can make a lot of money by telling you to go Windows
Server 2003, because I then get to tell you that you must upgrade to
Windows XP Pro, and that requires X, Y and Z for software,
peripherals, etc..., etc..., etc..."

Because, secondly, as a system integrator and solutions provider*2*,
I don't have the luxury -- or should I say -- the risk mitigation I
provide my clients don't have the luxury of advocacy, assumption or
doubt.  I have to know _exactly_ what issues and risks my clients
have with any solution, _including_ open source (yes, there _are_
risks with open source, including data abandonware ones).

That's why it's crucial to point out the "risks" and, even worse,
"recurring costs" that are still included.  Now many companies are
willing to put up with "recurring costs."  What they are *NOT*
willing to put up with is "recurring costs" but _no_ "proprietary
value."  I.e., if the company is going to merely abandon their data,
even if they upgrade, why-oh-why would they go with such a solution? 
The term "proprietary" is *NOT* necessarily "evil," it actually means
"value" -- value to the provider, who wishes to maintain it.

As such, Microsoft software is *NOT* even "proprietary."  Microsoft
considers *NO* value on it after a period of 2-3 years.  This is
_unlike_ Adobe, Corel, Novell, etc...  I don't know how many times I
can merely sell a company on the fact that, "In 3 years, you will
have to upgrade this software solution or it will not work with the
hardware or clients OSes on newer hardware.  But if you go this
route, not only will you be working in 5+ years, possibly as long as
7+, but you will be able to consider other solutions at that time."

You make it about _risk_, _not_ "proprietary" or some other
"revolution" argument.  Business managers could care less about
"revolution" or "saving money" long-term.  But when you point out
_risk_, as in _risk_ within 3 years (professionals, like doctors,
engineers, lawyers, etc... actually care about 5-7+ years), then they
listen.  And to that end, Microsoft's performance is rather dismal.

-- Bryan

*1* "6 Things to Know about Linux"  
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2005/10/6-things-to-know-about-linux.html

*2* "The Open Source Solution Providers' Mission Statement"
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/2007/02/open-source-solution-providers-mission.html


-- 
Bryan J. Smith   Professional, Technical Annoyance
b.j.smith at ieee.org    http://thebs413.blogspot.com
--------------------------------------------------
     Fission Power:  An Inconvenient Solution