Re: [Fsfe-uk] Fwd: Microsoft Research External Lecture: Dr Stefan Kooths, University of Muenster

[ian]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 19:46, James Heald wrote:
> From: Chris Lightfoot <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Subject: [Free-sklyarov-uk] Microsoft Research External Lecture: Dr Stefan 
> Kooths, University of Muenster
> Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 15:36:06 +0000
> 
> May be of interest to those in or near Cambridge.
> 
> ----- Forwarded message -----
> 
> Subject: Microsoft Research External Lecture: Dr Stefan Kooths, University of 
> Muenster


Bit like the Doctors used as expert witnesses in US courts, I guess. 


> MICROSOFT RESEARCH LECTURE
> This is a PUBLIC lecture 

Quite Microsoft researching the best way to keep everyone from jumping
ship :-)

> Open Source Software does not represent a suitable alternative to the
> commercial software market from an economic point of view,

Yawn, tell that to our financial director. Our business involving OSS is
our highest growth and most profitable area. We are a small commercial
company dealing with both MS products and FLOSS. The MS legacy means we
have to support MS products but we end up having to subsidise these from
other business because the margins to the reseller are so small while
the margin for MS is high and we as the reseller are expected to provide
support. There is fierce competition at the reseller end and
over-capacity in that market. There is no such competition for MS. You
don't need a PhD to work out that this is because the holder of the
software IPR has undue hold over the customers which reduces competition
to virtually zero keeping prices artificially high. In mature horizontal
software markets FLOSS promotes competition and there is no great need
for innovation. What is there in MS Office 2003 that is a really must
have for most people compared to MS Office 97? Answer very little so the
most important way to add value is by having accessible file formats and
to get rid of licensing costs and associated administration.
OpenOffice.org does this rather nicely. 


So let's cut the theoretical bulls**t and talk about a concrete
examples. A large organisation such as the NHS or UK education could
more than fund the OO.o project from savings in license costs. Therefore
its simply economically more efficient to do that. Why hasn't it
happened? Mainly because the decision makers take time to get their
heads round new economic concepts and misinformation like this lecture
dressed up as "academic research" delay the inevitable.


> So-called
> complementary OSS-business models work in the smaller customized
> software sector only.

Bo**ocks. Its exactly the opposite. The best candidates, economically
for FLOSS are large and mature horizontal mature applications. Evidence?
Just look at the most successful projects. Apache, GNU/Linux,
OpenOffice.org, GIMP. All large generic software applications.

>  They
> demonstrate quite clearly that the promotion of open-source software
> cannot be an economically justifiable role for the state. 

Desperation if ever I have heard it. Tell that to China and India :-)

-- 
ian <address@hidden>