Microsoft's new FUD
- Posted:
- 16:30 25 May 2001
It is always entertaining to see Microsoft grappling with that most shadowy of opponents, free software. Since it cannot attack directly, Microsoft has been forced to take an oblique approach. A few years ago it tried denying that anyone in business was using free software - until it emerged that Apache ran more than 50% of the entire public Web, and GNU/Linux was the number two server operating system.
Today, Microsoft has adopted the more subtle approach of spreading FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) hoping thereby to scare off users that might otherwise be tempted to flirt with these alternatives.
The latest salvo in this stealth attack can be found in a speech called The Commercial Software Model, given by Craig Mundie (www.microsoft.com/presspass/ exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp). A response (www.gnu.org/ philosophy/gpl-american-way. html) to some of its technical inaccuracies has been put together by Richard Stallman, who created the GNU General Public Licence that is singled out for particular criticism, but here I want to examine Mundie's arguments from an Internet perspective.
ADVERTISEMENT
The opening sections play on concerns over the precarious state of the new economy, and are based on a cunning, if manifestly false, syllogism. Speaking of the dotcom disasters, Mundie claims that "a common trait of many of the companies that failed is that they gave away for free or at a loss the very thing they produced that was of greatest value in the hope that somehow they would make money selling something else." He then goes on to point out the similarities of this with free software, which is also given away for free, and draws the conclusion that open source is similarly flawed and doomed.
Leaving aside the fact that Microsoft is the biggest proponent of giving things away and then making money elsewhere - think of all the bundled "extras" that come free with Windows - what really unites the dotcom failures is the simple lack of any sensible business plan.
The open source world as a whole does not need a business plan, and so can happily give away the fruits of its labours without falling foul of the iron laws of economics. Companies that wish to build businesses on open source can do so drawing on alternative revenue models - subscriptions, support, consultancy, etc - just as Microsoft hopes to do with its .net initiative.
Mundie then contrasts the profligate dotcoms with virtuous companies, such as Microsoft, that spend heavily on research and development. Again, there is an implicit syllogism at the heart of his arguments: Microsoft spends large sums on confidential R&D; Microsoft is hugely successful; therefore, spending large amounts on such R&D guarantees success.
But the truth is Microsoft's research seems to have produced very little, save perhaps the talking paper-clip. Most of its new ideas came from companies it has bought, and which usually build on the insights of one or two gifted people, not teams of researchers.
Secret R&D is instead a kind of tax that Microsoft would like to see every software company impose on itself. By contrast, the open source model allows anyone to benefit from the creativity of everyone, and so reduces the barrier to entry - another reason why Microsoft fears this alternative approach. One of the central insights of the free software world is that if everyone contributes a little to the common good, the resulting pooled benefits far outweigh the nominal "loss" of placing that contribution at the service of the public. The Internet is proof that this approach works, and even Microsoft must admit that the Internet is effecting one of the most profound transformations ever seen in business - its entire .net strategy hinges on the fact.
The Internet also refutes Microsoft's tired allegation that the open source model "leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy 'forking' of a code base". Not only has the Internet never forked, but it stands in stark contrast to Microsoft's own perennial and intentional forking: the deeply-incompatible Windows NT/2000, Windows 95/98/ME, and Windows CE code-bases.
