gapingvoid and Microsoft's Open Source Software Message

[Disclaimer: Microsoft is a client of mine.]

[Updated (25-April-2007, 12:17):  Interesting commentaries from Matt Asay, and Sam Ramji (Microsoft Open Source Lab), as well as more from Hugh (with good pointers to other comments/posts).]

I am a long time fan of Hugh MacLeod and gapingvoid, but when he began a discussion on open source software as part of some work he's doing for Microsoft, I must admit feeling more than a little uncomfortable. 

We've seen the "science experiment" meme before now.  (It was originated by one of Microsoft's best marketing directors almost three years ago.)  Look for the Somasegar quote well down the page.  Soma is one of the finest execs Microsoft has -- he kept me sane the first two years I worked at Microsoft -- but here he's merely saying the words he was given.  Seeing the meme resurface in Hugh's post along with other stale Microsoft messaging is not good.

You see Microsoft still thinks they compete with open source.  They still think there's a spectrum with commercial software at one end, and open source software at the other.  It's a lie they tell themselves, and by extension their customers, despite the evidence to the contrary.  It unfortunately hobbles their own ability to execute in this space.

Just as Hugh is the first to admit in his post that he knows little about the software business, I have to be the next to admit I know nothing about the "advertising" business.  But from his "science experiment" cartoon jab, to the ambiguous question in the title, to the naive question in his opening sentence about the original cartoon, it all feels WAY too contrived.  I deeply respect the blog related work he did for English Cut and Stormhoek, but in each of those cases he was creating affirmative stories forward.  Here he's regurgitating old Microsoft messaging under the guise of "starting a conversation" which perpetuates a theme they're too happy for their customers to believe. 

Sorry Hugh, but it's disquieting. 

Comments

[hugh macleod]

Point taken. Hey, I'm new at this and trying to find my feet. Just like I was with both English Cut and Stormhoek. People forget the early flak I took on those two in the early days...

[Michael Tiemann]

I think the issue is more fundamental. Customers want choice, and choice is the enemy of monopoly. Power is a terribly corrupting influence, and I believe that monopoly power explains why none of Microsoft's messaging/marketing is fooling anybody any more. Microsoft is unwilling to relinquish monopoly power, and monopoly is the enemy of choice. The question that the courts seem willing to let the markets decide is whether markets can free themselves of monopoly power without court intervention. It is noble to believe they can, but it may also be naive when considering first the tremendous and unprecedented power that monopoly represents today, and second the fact that increased market and trade liberalization has only widened, not narrowed, the gap between rich and poor.

[Sam Ramji]

@Michael - point well taken, although you didn't state the the DOJ and EC have already made significant interventions.

However there are other issues here as well, including perpetuation of historical attitudes of Microsoft and of the industry's reaction. There is an article written by a cartoonist not employed by us, and not reflecting the official Microsoft strategy on Open Source - which comes from Bill Hilf - yet the blogosphere's reaction is as if it came from the horse's mouth. Not a surprise, but it is part of the issue.

Attitudes are slow to change - not just at Microsoft, but everywhere, and that includes how occurrences like this are reflected.