"If You're Going To Steal Software, Steal From Us!" - Microsoft Exec

[Pirotech]

"... if you're going to be a software counterfeiter, then please copy and illegally use Microsoft products."

And it isn't from a hacker forum.
Rather, Microsoft business group president Jeff Raikes . . said this: "If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else"

Genius!

http://www.informationweek.com/story/sh...rticleID=198000211&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_All

 

[Schadenfroh]

"Although about 3 million computers get sold every year in China, but people don't pay for the software," he said. "Someday they will, though. As long as they are going to steal it, we want them to steal ours. They'll get sort of addicted, and then we'll somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade."

- Bill Gates (1990s)

 

[Nothinman]

I'm sure that's been the thought inside MS for a long time, like being a loss leader in the console market they're willing to take the hit on certain licenses because if you don't use Windows there's virtually no chance that you'll use any of their other software.

 

[bersl2]

This quest for "IP" rights is the central hypocrisy of big-time commercial software, and this statement is a perfect representation. If all infringers were prosecuted, they might make more money, but they would lose market share and mind share, which is bad for the business in the long run (though you can argue that this loss is not significant enough to be a long-term disadvantage).

Of course, they counteract this by engaging in price discrimination. But they have also only done this with cut-down versions of the software. If they were to sell the full versions at a discount, I'm sure somebody would resell for still cheaper than the price they set for wealthy nations. But there are probably ways of stopping this, and most sales will continue to be volume-licensed OEM copies.

[sigh]

Some days I am content with the concept of the market. Today is not one of them. Usually it's because of some nasty effect of asymmetry of information.

 

[BD2003]

Every software company thinks the same way, they usually just dont say it out loud. Theyre better off that you steal from them than you buy a competitors product. Either way they dont get your money, but its better than letting the compeition gain ground.

 

[WT]

<Sawyer> Well alright then !!</Sawyer>

 

[f1sh3r]

have they posted bittorrent links on their site yet?

 

[Pirotech]

-) yep, it's the last they will do to distribute their products when Unix rule the world

 

[Cogman]

Well, if microsoft will include something in the EULA to effect of "If I you successfully pirate this software, the fee will be waved", then Ill be downloading microsoft products like crazy After all, I like to do things morally (crazy I know). So if microsoft can make it Legal to download their software then Ill be all for it.

 

[oldman420]

So it's not about the money after all it is a big brother thing.

 

[bersl2]

Originally posted by: oldman420
So it's not about the money after all it is a big brother thing.

No, it's about the money, but not directly; read up on the network effect.

 

[Alone]

I sense a plot to destroy the Jedi.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Cogman
Well, if microsoft will include something in the EULA to effect of "If I you successfully pirate this software, the fee will be waved", then Ill be downloading microsoft products like crazy After all, I like to do things morally (crazy I know). So if microsoft can make it Legal to download their software then Ill be all for it.

They don't want everybody to have free stuff; they just want market penetration. MS makes its money from companies because companies essentially never pirate software. The company you work for actually paid for every single license of XP Pro, unlike you and all your friends who bought 1 copy and installed it on 10 computers. Your company actually paid a few hundred dollars per computer to install MS Office, unlike you who simply stole it. Your company paid several thousand dollars for Windows Server 2003 and all its licenses. As long as 90% of the world knows how to use Windows and MS Office, Windows and MS Office will be the industry standard.

The same thing applies to photoshop. I would go as far as saying 99% of people who have Photoshop didn't pay for it. It's what like $700? Random forum people did not pay that much.

 

[Alone]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1

Originally posted by: Cogman
Well, if microsoft will include something in the EULA to effect of "If I you successfully pirate this software, the fee will be waved", then Ill be downloading microsoft products like crazy After all, I like to do things morally (crazy I know). So if microsoft can make it Legal to download their software then Ill be all for it.

They don't want everybody to have free stuff; they just want market penetration. MS makes its money from companies because companies essentially never pirate software. The company you work for actually paid for every single license of XP Pro, unlike you and all your friends who bought 1 copy and installed it on 10 computers. Your company actually paid a few hundred dollars per computer to install MS Office, unlike you who simply stole it. Your company paid several thousand dollars for Windows Server 2003 and all its licenses. As long as 90% of the world knows how to use Windows and MS Office, Windows and MS Office will be the industry standard.

The same thing applies to photoshop. I would go as far as saying 99% of people who have Photoshop didn't pay for it. It's what like $700? Random forum people did not pay that much.

Lots of places are switching over to Linux. I'm not sure if the average business workstation still runs Windows or not, but Linux has some great alternatives. OpenOffice comes to mind.

The savings for a large, or even small business by making the switch is enormous, enough to convince many to make the switch. The problem, as far as I know, is the time it takes to make the switch, and all that's involved.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: AloneLots of places are switching over to Linux. I'm not sure if the average business workstation still runs Windows or not, but Linux has some great alternatives. OpenOffice comes to mind.

The savings for a large, or even small business by making the switch is enormous, enough to convince many to make the switch. The problem, as far as I know, is the time it takes to make the switch, and all that's involved.

Switching to Linux is unbelievably expensive because you need to retrain everybody in the company. Your employees just spent 4 years in university using Windows and MS Office, and suddenly you're asking them to use Linux commands and use Open Office which has dozens of slight differences that make it difficult to use (such as right clicking and selecting "edit" before you can change anything on a spreadsheet graph, no such function is used in Excel). If it takes a total of 1 week to train all of this stuff (probably done with group presentations and training sessions), even your cheapest employee at $15 per hour cost you $600 to train. $15 x 8 x 5 = $600. It's cheaper to just pay for the Windows/Office licensing fees.

 

[Lemon law]

The fact is that microsoft makes huge bucks by getting large system vendors to pre install windows on their systems. When and if an OS like linux achieves critical mass, microsoft will be toast. And every box running windows is just more microsoft dominance. They more than rip off enough money from the honest to be forced to pay any attention to the dishonest.

Right now it largely a windows world---but that can well change in future.

 

[Nothinman]

Switching to Linux is unbelievably expensive because you need to retrain everybody in the company.

The same goes for switching to Vista and Office 2K7.

 

[ShawnD1]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Switching to Linux is unbelievably expensive because you need to retrain everybody in the company.

The same goes for switching to Vista and Office 2K7.

Windows and Office fundamentally do not change.
Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, ME, XP, and Vista all have the same basic file system, typically install program links to the Start Menu, have the same basic options on the top left of the window (things like File, Edit, View), have the same commands (alt tab, windows D, windows M, alt F4, ctrl alt del), and have the same install procedures (double click then hit next until it leaves you alone).
MS Office basically has not changed since Office 95. Excel has the same formula setup (=sum(A510)), Powerpoint is the exact same except for some new effects and improved clip art, Outlook is basically the same, Word is the same.

At my work we have some computers that use Windows 2000 Pro with Office 2000, and some use Windows XP Pro with Office 2003. All of the computers have the exact same setup. You can log into Citrix using either system. You can fetch your mail using either version of Outlook, and both versions share the same contact lists and folder setup (because both log into the same MS Exchange server). Either setup can run any of the lab instruments and printers. The Word and Excel documents we have can be created and edited with either version of Office and they're 100% interchangable; we've never had a compatibility issue between Office 2000 and Office 2003.

Linux is a bit different. KDE and Gnome are similar to Windows but not quite the same, so things like File and View are a tad different. Install procedures are totally different. The file system is completely different (where my Program Files at?). Networking is very different, but it's probably easy enough to poke your way around once the network is configured properly (I'm not sure because I could never get it to work). The way of logging in is extremely different; no more 3-finger salute, here you login then type "startx". Companies can't use a friendly login screen where you select your name because there could be literally thousands of names to sort through, and it's a security issue to make all the user names publicly known.
Open Office is similar to MS Office but it has enough differences that it would take a while to get used to, either by organized training or by poking around for a while, depending on which one is more economical. If everything is on a strict time budget, there isn't time to "poke around", so this training must be done through training sessions.

 

[hasu]

Originally posted by: ShawnD1
Switching to Linux is unbelievably expensive because you need to retrain everybody in the company. Your employees just spent 4 years in university

Often the difference in operating system may not hinder the work of business users. It affects only IT department -- and that too only core developers and administrators. Linux expertise for IT department is still not very popular owing to the past Microsoft influence (including piracy of windows). I wouldn't wonder if it takes another 5 years for Linux (or other flavors of unix) before starting to pop up in small to medium scale business more frequently. By then Microsoft will have a free version of "Express Windows" to retain its user base. So that they don't have to plea publicly to pirate Windows!

From my very little experience with Linux (latest is Kubuntu 6.10), I must admit that I am totally impressed, even though the whole installation process was PITA! It took me a while to tweak it to my tastes (mainly wireless networking, eye-candy stuff and hiding of all the 'K' prefixes), it is already better than even Windows XP Professional (both look and feel and application support). Moving to linux may not be only to save money.

 

[Nothinman]

Windows and Office fundamentally do not change.

But the UI does and that's the part that matters to the users. A transition from Office 2K3->Office 2K7 is going to need just as much retraining as Office->O.

Win 95, 98, NT, 2000, ME, XP, and Vista all have the same basic file system, typically install program links to the Start Menu, have the same basic options on the top left of the window (things like File, Edit, View), have the same commands (alt tab, windows D, windows M, alt F4, ctrl alt del), and have the same install procedures (double click then hit next until it leaves you alone).

At a corporation install procedures and the default location of icons is irrelevant because the IT department will take care of that. And the menu entries will be in roughly the same place, but I can't speak to the keyboard shortcuts.

MS Office basically has not changed since Office 95. Excel has the same formula setup (=sum(A510)), Powerpoint is the exact same except for some new effects and improved clip art, Outlook is basically the same, Word is the same.

I take it that you either haven't seen the new ribbon in O2K7? And the difference between Outlook 2K3 and previous versions is pretty big.

we've never had a compatibility issue between Office 2000 and Office 2003.

Well that's great and all but I mentioned 2K7 which is a pretty big change.

so things like File and View are a tad different.

Not enough to cause any real issues for users, clicking Edit->Copy works exactly the same.

Install procedures are totally different.

Irrelevant, that's what your IT departement is for and IMO it would be a plus that people can't download and install crap like Banzai Buddy on their own.

The file system is completely different (where my Program Files at?). Networking is very different, but it's probably easy enough to poke your way around once the network is configured properly (I'm not sure because I could never get it to work).

Again, neither of those are relevant because that's stuff the IT department would take care of for the user.

The way of logging in is extremely different; no more 3-finger salute, here you login then type "startx".

No, you type your username and password into GDM just like you would the NT GINA or whatever the new login thing in Vista's called.

Companies can't use a friendly login screen where you select your name because there could be literally thousands of names to sort through, and it's a security issue to make all the user names publicly known.

Good thing that's off by default in GDM and KDM then. But really, if having usernames publicly known is a security problem then every company in the world is f'd because 99% of the time it's your email address@company.com.

Open Office is similar to MS Office but it has enough differences that it would take a while to get used to, either by organized training or by poking around for a while, depending on which one is more economical. If everything is on a strict time budget, there isn't time to "poke around", so this training must be done through training sessions.

And the same is true of Vista and Office 2K7 which was my original point.

 

[Markbnj]

And the same is true of Vista and Office 2K7 which was my original point.

I think it's a valid one. I have been using Office for many years, and 2007 was the biggest learning curve that I have experienced with an upgrade. I think it was worth it, but that's another topic.

But in the end the only thing that matters, at all, is document compatibility. People are creating more and more complex documents and presentations, with styles, graphics, themes, etc. I work in a company that has made serious efforts with Open Office, and the document compatibility is not there. When you share complex documents between Office and Open Office users, things get borked up.

With the move toward more open document formats, this problem might perhaps go away. It's tempting to think that Microsoft would never really collaborate on true compatibility because it would lower their proprietary advantage, or erase it.

But I think you guys need to remember how resilient MS is financially. If in the future, the market dictated that they give Office away free to every person on the planet in order to keep Windows (80%+ of their revenue) in the top spot on desktops, they would be realistically capable of making that decision. In fact they will do something very like that by delivering Office entirely online.

 

[Nothinman]

But I think you guys need to remember how resilient MS is financially. If in the future, the market dictated that they give Office away free to every person on the planet in order to keep Windows (80%+ of their revenue) in the top spot on desktops, they would be realistically capable of making that decision. In fact they will do something very like that by delivering Office entirely online.

See, I've heard the exact opposite in that Office is the cash cow and Windows is just the facilitator that doesn't really matter in the big picture. And that would seem to make sense since most of MS' Windows sales are via OEMs which pay a lot less per license. I have no doubts that MS could afford to give Office or Windows away for a release and still be in the black but I highly doubt they'd go that far, especially since Office via the Internet would be virtually impossible to pirate so it would be that much easier to collect the licensing fees that they want.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

But I think you guys need to remember how resilient MS is financially. If in the future, the market dictated that they give Office away free to every person on the planet in order to keep Windows (80%+ of their revenue) in the top spot on desktops, they would be realistically capable of making that decision. In fact they will do something very like that by delivering Office entirely online.

See, I've heard the exact opposite in that Office is the cash cow and Windows is just the facilitator that doesn't really matter in the big picture. And that would seem to make sense since most of MS' Windows sales are via OEMs which pay a lot less per license. I have no doubts that MS could afford to give Office or Windows away for a release and still be in the black but I highly doubt they'd go that far, especially since Office via the Internet would be virtually impossible to pirate so it would be that much easier to collect the licensing fees that they want.

Last time I checked, and it has been a little while, their revenue breakdown was approx. 80% operating systems of all kinds, and 20% "applications" which largely includes Office.

Oh, and search brings in the equivalent of a roastbeef sandwich every quarter.

 

[Sunner]

Some info about the revenue percentages here:
http://www.microsoftmonitor.com/archives/2006/10/microsoft_fisca_6.html.
Seems like a fairly even split between Windows&Co and Office&Co.

And this line of thinking is hardly new, it makes perfect sense.
Keeping a long term near-monopoly is vastly more important than some short term license revenue.

 

[hanoverphist]

this is not a new concept. autodesk had autocad "leaked" out a long time ago, way before version 10. engineers got so used to it, they started buying it. it wasnt until autocad2006 that the licensing/ lock changed to only being able to be used on one workstation without an authorization.

this is nothing new, they just had the cojones to say it out loud.