Could Microsoft kill open source with its $3 software offering?
By Ruben Francia
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates has announced that Microsoft will offer a “Student Innovation Suite” software package for just US$3 to government-funded computer education programs around the world, particularly in developing nations.
The Student Innovation Suite includes Windows XP Starter Edition, Microsoft Office Home and Student 2007, Microsoft Math 3.0 (collection of math tools, tutorials, and instructions), Learning Essentials 2.0 for Microsoft Office, and Windows Live Mail desktop.
Microsoft’s says its goal is to help bring social and economic opportunity through new products and programs to people who do not yet use Microsoft products. The company aims to double the number of PC users worldwide to 2 billion by 2015.
While Microsoft’s program may seem to be well meaning, a number of commentators believe that the move is anything but altruistic.
Microsoft’s $3 Windows offer is an attempt to “kill open source off at its roots,” according to columnist Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols in a blog post at Linux-Watch.com. Microsoft “wants to make sure that young people in developing countries get brainwashed into the Microsoft way of computing,” he writes.
“Unlike North America and, to some extent, Western Europe, the rest of the world isn’t addicted to Microsoft’s offerings,” he adds. “They can see with far clearer eyes than most Americans that Windows is not the be-all and end-all of operating systems.”
The potential untapped market is bigger than the entire present computing user base. And Microsoft can’t afford to have open source software dominate emerging markets – or its growth is toast.
For a software suite to stand any chance of winning, it would have to be head and shoulders above a much cheaper competitor. Offering $3 software suite to governments to give away takes away many of the benefits of open source software.
As one can see, there is a great opportunity for Linux and OpenOffice.org to compete in emerging markets where people little attachment to the Windows platform, and where the open source solution is 100% free.
I doubt this initiative will kill off open source. First, $3 does not mean 100% free. Second, Microsoft software distribution for this project relies on government channels alone. Lastly, the software being offered is not exactly the latest and greatest.
Related:
Entry was posted
on Saturday, April 21st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
under
Read more entries by Ruben Francia.
Stumble It!
April 22nd, 2007
So, for $3 a crapload, Microsoft is going to try to hook poor people in various parts of the world on extra-crippled versions of its already buggy bloatware.
My guess is that if Microsoft manages to popularize its huge, sluggish, software (repleat with security holes) in developing nations, it will only cause instances of piracy of the un-crippled versions (the stuff that retails for hundreds of bucks in the States) to increase. I mean, has anyone been paying attention to where the major warez sites tend to be located?
Poor people may not have much money, but they ofen have plenty of time to crack things like XP, Vista, Office, etc. Why wou;ld they pay $3 for extra-crippled versions when they can snag full versions for free? I don’t think that even an asshat like Ballmer thinks he can produce good revenues prosuecuting 3rd World peasents for software piracy.
April 22nd, 2007
For Christ sake they are charging next to nothing for legal (in schools gov buildings) software bundle..This will help them in many ways. So whats your problem with helping the poor? I dont see Steve Jobs and Apple selling OS 10 for 3dollars to the poor and as far as open source and the poor are concerned..The poor are a tool used by the open source community to attack that which they hate (Microsoft). The poor dont belong to you and the thing about hate is it gets under your skin and takes you over..and you dont even know it.
April 22nd, 2007
“Offering $3 software suite to governments to give away takes away many of the benefits of open source software.”
‘Fraid I have to disagree with that to some extent. The central benefit of Freely licenced software is that it doesn’t damage people’s freedom to share and co-operate. The fact that Free/Open software need not cost anything is still an advantage too. OpenOffice ships at $0 per copy now, as do most GNU based operating systems. Free/Open software will still be available at the same low price in 15 years time. Will Microsoft’s proprietary offerings still ship at $3 a pop then?
Let’s get that GNU well and truly rammed back into all the software disussions. Its peoples freedom that really matters, not price.
April 23rd, 2007
Why doesn’t MS offer this for poor schools in the US and Europe as well?
April 23rd, 2007
Uhhh, Speirs, FYI, Apple doesn’t have 90% of the market, therefore it doesn’t have the massively deep pockets M$ has to BUY markets. Apple puts a good deal of it’s margins into INNOVATION. Why not stop and think for just a little while and maybe, just maybe you’ll get an idea of what M$ could do if they would shift from “marketshare at any price” to “innovation at a reasonable price”.
Frankly, for any OS to have more than 40% marketshare cheats us from having the best possible solution at the lowest possible price.
September 29th, 2007
What’s the saying, “Beware of Greeks bearing gifts”? Today’s warning should be BEWARE OF GATES BEARING GIFTS.
Honestly, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Bill Gates is little more than a con artist. He and his attorney father rank among the greatest gangsters in history.
Fortunately, people are beginning to see through the myth of Bill Gates’ “philanthropy.” The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an INVESTMENT FIRM. End of story.
David Blomstrom
http://www.seattle-mafia.org