IBM tried losing a monopoly before, and they know the medicine. It's not about defending yourself, but about being proactive.
What would Microsoft have done if they were split into two companies?
OS company: Make cygwin part of it or create some kind of Linux/Unix compatibility that really works. Maybe use the Linux kernel and build Windows on top of it, giving people Linux abilities and Windows user interface, which would still be copyrighted etc. Include more good programs into Windows, so that the value of Windows as a product increases.
Office company: Make a version for Linux asap, in order to maintain market share.
If Microsoft wants Windows and Office to survive as long as possible, they need to do exactly the above things. What they do now is like keeping a broken shipyard alive with state money. Not a good idea in the long run, and MSFT knows that. But as long as stock holder relations forbids them to be more proactive, they can't do it.
Therefore, Microsoft has to tell stockholders and the market in a slow, controlled fashion, how the future market looks like, so that Microsoft gets into the position where they can do things like the above.
There are two possibilities:
1) Once the first Microsoft offering for Linux or on Linux comes, they will probably say "We are forced to do this because of the way the market works". A year later or so, they will say "We are committed to the Linux platform".
2) They will say "We are committed to provide XXX on the Linux platform" and then see how it goes, with a crappy offering for Linux. Which could be a .net platform, for instance. This is the bad choice.
If Microsoft has to grow, they have to focus a lot more on customer's ROI. Much more than they do today.
Lars Dybdahl. |
