Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer brought up some interesting points last week when he displayed data showing that Linux, according to Microsoft’s research, enjoys higher desktop market share than Apple. This observation not only contradicts claims that Linux use remains stagnant, but has the potential to redefine the tired “Mac vs. PC” discourse that has obscured Microsoft’s real challenge–open source–for a decade.
To be fair, I should make clear that the greatest threat to Microsoft right now, according to Ballmer, is piracy. Many more computers around the world are running unlicensed versions of Windows than Linux and OS X combined. I don’t doubt the accuracy of this claim, which is hardly news.
It seems to me, however, that combating piracy will only promote Linux, since most people only steal Windows because they can’t afford it and don’t want to compromise with a crippled version, especially in emerging markets. If it becomes harder to pirate Windows, Linux will emerge as a more attractive alternative. Short of inventing a new business model that involves making Windows free, there’s no good answer for Microsoft on the piracy front.
Defeating the Grand Illusion
Ballmer’s assertion that Linux enjoys greater market share than Apple is very interesting, if a bit vague. I wish more information were available about the claim. Most of all, I’d like to know how the situation breaks down in different markets, because I suspect that Apple remains far ahead of Linux in North America and most of Europe, where consumers have fewer economic motivations to explore free software.
In any case, Ballmer’s expressed lack of concern with Apple should be an indicator that it’s time for pundits and consumers to wake up and realize that Windows and OS X are not very different. For too long, Apple and Microsoft have managed to present their products as polar opposites, leaving no room for serious third-party contenders (incidentally, American democracy has achieved the same feat, but I won’t go there). This dichotomy is an arbitrary construct designed to disguise real choice from consumers, and its toppling is long overdue.
Sure, Windows and OS X have different interfaces and (used to) run on different hardware. But the two operating systems are nothing but variations on a single theme: each is built on the same business model and more or less offers the same set of proprietary applications. Whichever operating system they use, consumers who subscribe to the Mac vs. PC myth are still going to buy Office, Photoshop and the like, because they don’t realize that there’s an alternative.
After all, the linguistic framing of the Mac vs. PC debate explicitly excludes Linux, because it implies that any “personal computer” not sold by Apple must necessarily be running Windows. This has never been the case, even when the “PC” term was invented decades ago, but it’s a clever marketing strategy to force consumers to discuss computers in such a way that alternative operating systems can’t be easily entered into the conversation.
Desktop Linux makes alternatives to proprietary software abundantly clear, which is what really worries Microsoft. Ubuntu and other user-friendly distributions undermine the proprietary business model in a way to which neither Microsoft nor Apple can effectively respond in the long term. When consumers discover that there is a third choice in the desktop-computer market, the Mac vs. PC construct falls apart.
The notion that Apple was ever a real competitor to Microsoft has been an illusion all along. Real competition stems from innovation and the redefinition of business models, not similar products sold by nominally competing companies. The sooner we dispose of the old lie that Macs and PCs are the only options in personal computing, the better.
WorksWithU is updated multiple times per week. Don’t miss a single post. Sign up for our RSS and Twitter feeds (available now) and newsletter (coming in 2009).
Read More About This Topic
Share This Post
Tags: Windows
Interact: Add a Comment | Trackback Link | Permalink
Subscribe: RSS Feed
Don't miss Charlene O'Hanlon's weekly columns...
Interesting article, Microsoft is in a cleft stick here.
Not sure about your claim for Apple Macs in Europe though. With the French Government and the Spanish Government moving over to Ubuntu entirely, and Germany being the largest Ubuntu users in the EU – haven’t got figures for other distros – except Citroen have moved over 250 servers and 20,000 desktops to SuSE – if Apple hare big in Europe now, I would guess they will start to lose Market share soon.
Free is not the main advantage of Linux, it is freedom!
The point Ballmer was making is that Linux goes after the same multiple segments of the market as Windows. It runs on the same hardware as Windows, it is competing with Windows not only on the desktop but also servers and embedded devices as well. It is a real threat to Microsoft’s business across the board.
Apple on the other hand, although making huge strides in terms of market share and brand awareness is not really a server or enterprise product, it is not going to compete on embedded devices. Apple is not a direct competitor to Windows in the same way that Linux is.
The Ballmer should be making is that after a long time of absolute dominance on the desktop Microsoft is falling (slowly but consistently) into ill-relevancy. And their franchises are threatened on all fronts.
The Mac does offer a significantly different user experience than Windows and their attempts at copying the look and feel of Mac OS X are becoming more apparent both in how blatant they are and in how lame (they get the eye candy but not the underling consistency or simplicity).
Not only does Linux offer a different model (this is good and bad IMHO but it is different and having different options are always better). Linux is better than Windoz if you Want to get under the hood and do stuff or want to optimize in any way, Mac OS X is better is you want functionality and simplicity, Windows is just good because everyone uses it and that is finally changing making options more viable.
The peculiarity of Linux and Linux-based software is it’s appeal to the segments of the market that would typify Windows and Windows-based software use. There are two salient features of the software market today that I’d like to highlight. Unlicensed/older software is not always bad because like F/OSS it increases exposure to a market that otherwise would not use the software and reduces barriers to use. Piracy on the other hand is a mixed bag because it has the benefits of F/OSS with respect to availability but by virtue of loss of value of IP it is detrimental in the long-run. This opinion is the result of private studies, some of which are still in progress.
The general assumption that pirated/unlicensed software is bad is wrong; the reality is that the benefits or losses are difficult to quantify. Software companies may well benefit from ubiquity of their software just like Adobe benefits from availability of flash and adobe reader. Instead of a marginal market in China looking for its home brewed solutions they use established software until they can eventually pay. If you think this is far fetched, then name any three of China’s provinces if you can, then think of a distribution policy.
Piracy in general reduces the ability of a country to develop its own IP without someone taking away your ability to profit from your own ideas. That’s where F/OSS steps in to save the day. It’s almost impossible to profit from stealing “free stuff”. I use profit here to mean monopolizing the use of fundamental ideas. The end-user benefit is reduced cost through competition, and integrity of systems through transparency and collaboration.
Microsoft realized years ago that piracy and unlicensed use of software encroached on their potential profitability, but they could not really turn this to their benefit by conventional means like they do for slow-to-upgrade users by dripping support (litigation=bad advertising). This is an interesting point to note because Microsoft has channeled research into finding out the characteristics of these markets and to figure out how these markets can become profitable.
Ballmer is not dumb, I bet he realizes that Linux is not really the enemy, just another fish in the ecosystem. The ecosystem will die if the sharks kill all the dolphins, and will be vulnerable if there are too many dolphins. There is a place for all kinds of systems. What if we all drove a clanky old black ford model T, wouldn’t it be downright boring.
Windows isn’t good because everybody uses it. Windows is a target because everybody uses it and it’s security is still lame.
Windows rose to a dominant position because Microsoft built on their successful partnership with IBM and then used that market dominance to destroy all challengers in any and every market they got into … or buy them off.
Independent software developers, develop for Windows because it’s the dominant desktop environment and it’s easy to write software for. No pesky security concerns getting in the way. Well at least until Vista came along. Then all the ISVs started complaining.
It’s not just Microsoft or Windows that’s starting to fall apart. It’s the whole business model surrounding Windows and other Microsoft products.
Free web services paid for by advertising or other methods other than directly charging the consumer have created a demand for “free” stuff and raised consumers expectations of what is value for money.
Having tried a proper installation of 64-bit Windows 7 I admit it’s Microsofts best desktop OS yet. But I don’t think it’s going to turn things around for Microsoft the way they and companies like Dell are hoping for. I just don’t see a compelling reason to run out and buy it. And PC sales are expected to get worse, not better.
Ballmer might not be dumb. But I don’t think he’s quite on the ball yet either. What did he say about the iPhone? How well is the iPhone doing now?