Posted on 08/07/2002 11:26:45 AM PDT by GeneD
Frustration with Microsoft is prompting more companies to consider "un-Windows" alternatives, according to a study released Tuesday.
"Corporate user resentment and dissatisfaction with Microsoft and some of its practices is at an all-time high," says Laura DiDio, senior analyst with the Yankee Group and the report's author. That frustration is pushing more companies to consider Linux-based operating systems as well as Apple's OS X, she says.
Licensing Hostility
The survey, conducted last April and May by the Yankee Group and Sunbelt Software, asked 1500 corporations about their satisfaction with Microsoft. Bottom line: Many customers aren't happy.
At the heart of people's dissatisfaction is Microsoft's new Licensing 6.0 program. The new policy launched on August 1 after confusion and delays dating back to last October. Nearly 40 percent of respondents said they are "outraged" by Microsoft's new licensing scheme, and are actively seeking alternate products, DiDio says.
The new volume-licensing program--called Software Assurance--asks corporate buyers to pay higher prices for new products as well as for maintenance and upgrade services, she says. And those who don't stay current with updates will pay more down the line. At a time when corporate budgets are tight, such tactics are not going over very well, she says.
Corporate customers understand that Microsoft is facing declining revenues as companies slow down their PC upgrade cycles. But many feel the company has drastically overstepped its bounds, she says.
Writes one Yankee Group respondent: "For frickin' sake they have $36 billion in the bank and they are trying to squeeze us."
Another writes: "I can't stand being bullied by Microsoft like this."
What's notable about the customer frustration is that it hasn't cooled over time, DiDio says. A similar study conducted in October 2001 showed people were already fuming, and that frustration clearly hasn't waned, she says.
Not only businesses are feeling the pinch of Microsoft's updated licensing plan, either. School districts in Oregon and Washington made headlines earlier this summer when they complained loudly over Microsoft's new licensing requirements.
Other Annoyances
Microsoft's new licensing scheme draws the most ire, but the customer respondents cite several other reasons for considering Windows alternatives, DiDio says. Many point to the company's numerous delays of business-class products designed to work with Windows XP. Others profess confusion over the company's .Net strategy of Web services and applications. Still others note their ongoing frustration with Microsoft's perceived monopolistic practices and ongoing legal issues with the Department of Justice.
Finally, Microsoft's ongoing security issues are a factor for many users. Despite Microsoft's assurances that it is working to improve security in its products, few customers feel reassured. "It seems not a day goes by that you don't hear about some security flaw," DiDio says.
Despite these issues, the analyst doesn't expect an immediate, major shift in the OS market. Windows owns about 90 percent of the desktop market, with the various Linux distributions and Apple splitting the final 10 percent.
"Windows is the dominant OS--and that's not going to change any time soon," DiDio says. "There is no mass defection, no march on Redmond." But she says Linux and Apple fans--small but enthusiastic groups--should feel optimistic. "Basically it was clear--there are changes in the wind."
Gee, I came here for political commentary and it seems the anti-Microsoft crowd has hijacked the website for their own purposes.
What fascinates me is to hear a number of ostensibly conservative people salivate over the prospect of bringing the evil, rich, Bill Gates down so that the triumph of the "people" can be complete. Apparently, we are to replace the MS monopoly (dictatorship?) with the Linux (pure democracy?) government.
In my 20 years of computing, I've used everything from Tandy and Amiga, to Apples, Windows, and now, Linux. To my knowledge, NO ONE ever forced me at gunpoint or otherwise, to purchase MS software. It was a free and voluntary choice of my own.
I'm amazed to watch the same phenomenon, that, as a black male conservative, I've seen happen in the political realm. Many liberal blacks have an instinctual and deep distrust and latent hostility toward the Republican party. They chafed under the congressional "stranglehold" of the party and envisioned wanton raping, pillaging and widespread madness just on the horizon. I saw the same paranoia during the 2000 election even to today.
It seems identical to what I see here. As a Christian, I feel compelled to at least TRY and be real with my assessments of people and things. My assessment thus far seems so far wide of the consensus here that I wonder if I'm even running the same OS!! I mean, for crying out loud, you'd think Windows just blue screens 24/7, all your data is immediately corrupted and your teenager is induced into crack smoking; while, on Linux (or Mac OS X) Ed McMahon is on his way over, Arafat just got offed by Sharon...PERSONALLY, and your PC runs at 1000% faster than the nearest Cray.
I'm not trying to mount some kind of stupid protest because I work at the company; common sense and conservative thinking leads me to think that people will vote with their wallets and choose the OS that they deem appropriate for them. As a good American, I give a hearty salute to their right to do so and, as a military reserve officer, I work to guarantee that right.
But let me add, companies are in business to make money, and that's not yet been outlawed by the Supreme Court as unConstitutional yet, has it? When I see people complaining, hoping, chomping at the BIT to see the company toppled, it smacks of more than just a desire for the good of all. It sounds more like many are encouraged in, and foster, and image of Microsoft as a totally morally bankrupt, rapacious, VICIOUS giant rip-off artist interested in nothing more than how they can put the screws to you best today; after two years at the company, I just don't buy it.
Lame software? Maybe. Many of you could sure make a great case for it.
Insecure? That's a foregone conclusion with most.
Evil? That, I totally disagree with.
I like Linux a great deal. It's running on one of 3 machines I have on my home LAN, but I still love my XP box and don't plan on going to the confessional over it.
Corporate customers understand that Microsoft is facing declining revenues as companies slow down their PC upgrade cycles. But many feel the company has drastically overstepped its bounds, she says. Writes one Yankee Group respondent: "For frickin' sake they have $36 billion in the bank and they are trying to squeeze us." Another writes: "I can't stand being bullied by Microsoft like this."
Reality Check: You folks have only your own selves to blame for being in this position. YOU are the ones who decided to single-source your desktops and servers. YOU have created this hungry monster.
Time to quit yer bitchin' and do something about it.
I wish I hadn't read this. I guess I've been lucky my Windows 2000 box has been running almost 6 months without being shut down.
Now I'm not going to sleep at night.
Bingo. (BTW, I don't speak much Japanese either. Good thing we won WWII).
Ever hear of getting away from your keyboard? Geez. If you want to play games, get a Nintendo. However, when I am not working on computers, I tend to distance myself from them. There is more in life than your processor.
Then how come all the Windows Anti-Virus companies are rolling in the green? There is no need for new material just your need to realize majority of Windows users are not as "sophisticated" as you are on the operation of a Windows based PC.
That's an $800 paperweight, if you ask me - I'd like to get my work done sometime this decade, you know?
Then how did you get work done with a Pentium I/166Mhz if you think a 800Mhz (not 700Mhz) iMac is too slow?
Of course, if you're really interested in low-end comparisons
I am not interested in comparing a Macintosh to a PC-Compatible built with slave labor in China. The quality difference is too extreme between the two, I would rather have the computer built in a non-communist country.
Do you ever think that other people would read what you post online? I was making a point that I feel that a $500 PC being more valuable than a $1k eMac is ludicrous. You could have had something intelligent to add to conversation, yet you decided to be a miserable jerk.
No worries, I understand the frustration of using Windows and how it can make some lash out at others that don't suffer the same. Take a deep breath and say, "I will not pull my hair out over DLLs. Blue is a calming color. It's not a screen of death but an opportunity to reboot."
BUMP
There is more to it than that. Microsoft IS A MONOPOLY. They do everything necessary, legal and illegal, to ensure the competition doesn't survive. Sometimes they buy people out (legal). Sometimes they create better products to crush the competition with market penetration (legal). Sometimes they rig their software to not work with competitor's products (illegal). Sometimes they bundle competitive software into their OS for free to force a competitor into bankruptcy (questionably illegal).
The truth is, Microsoft doesn't play fair. There aren't any choices because Microsoft has stiffled most of the good competition. I'm all for Microsoft investing its capital to create awesome and needed products. But, when they crush the competition by altering their code to "crash" their competitor's software (they did this with Netscape, Opera, and a host of other applications), I have real problems with their business practices.
The fact is, there was a much more diverse pool of interesting and useful products being developed before Microsoft became the behometh they are, today. Much of the creativity and capitalist incentives have been squashed. Potential competitors, which are commingly one person and a few friends with a small backing of investors, if any, don't know if Microsoft will play fair and buy them out, or just squash them with code manipulation. That stiffles creativity and competition, and that is what being a monopoly is all about.
The new "licensing" gimmicks are a direct result of the monopoly Microsoft has. If competitive producs were able to survive and thrive, they'd never get away with the profit margins they control.
Is Microsoft a great company. YES! Do they have some great products. YES! But that doesn't mean they aren't a monopoly and are playing fair. If Boeing was guilty, Microsoft is certainly guilty.
I should also add that Microsoft is constantly involved in illegal marketing ventures. They have a close relationship with Intel and it JUST SO HAPPENS that certain DirectX commands have problems in XP with AMD chips.
Once again, they are "rigging" their software to push the market into one direction or the other.
I know. I thought the same thing about Mac users when I was reading about Melissa.W or AutoStart or SevenDust ;)
Then how did you get work done with a Pentium I/166Mhz if you think a 800Mhz (not 700Mhz) iMac is too slow?
600 Mhz. I got it done slowly, but still faster than the folks on 40 MHz '030 Macs ;)
I am not interested in comparing a Macintosh to a PC-Compatible built with slave labor in China. The quality difference is too extreme between the two, I would rather have the computer built in a non-communist country.
You've got to be kidding. Solectron does subassemblies of computers in China for a slew of companies, including Apple. Guess who makes virtually all mobos for the IMac? Solectron. Hope you're not running that Mac on a Moto chip - Moto's in China in a big way.
If you think you can abstract yourself away from that sort of thing by buying a Mac, you're fooling yourself.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.