Microsoft versus Open Source: Who Will Win?
Who will win the operating system (OS) war between Linux and Microsoft? Probably the closest we can get to an intelligent forecast is the work of two harvard professors, Ramon Casadesus-Masanell and Pankaj Ghemawat.
These gurus created an economic model that simulates critical factors in the war -- installed user base (number of users who use the OS in their computers), demand-side learning (how easily can users tweak or change the code) and even piracy.
Harvard Business School published an interview of the two gurus, which is a good summary of the work.
The results are a combination of ...
a. those that we always knew based on gut feel:
- Linux will be "very difficult" to oust.
- Piracy helps Windows because it creates a strong installed user base.
- Real stats show that Windows is actually popular in countries where piracy is rampant.
b. and surprising ones:
- A monopoly is better for users in general. That is, the world will be much better if only one operating system (whether Linux of Windows) dominates. This is because a duopoly (ie, Linux and Windows have equal share) will result to inefficiencies: "...With a duopoly, more individuals and organizations use PCs because prices are lower, and this raises welfare. However, with a duopoly, no operating system ends up exploiting fully its potential because developers' efforts wind up divided between the two systems. However, with a monopoly, the efforts to develop new software and improve the platform are directed towards one system only and this may turn out to be better from a social welfare perspective."
- "Open sourced-ness" is not enough for Linux to win the war. I knew this intuitively but it still surprised me. What this means is that Linux may not win by just being opening its source code. It still needs to have a strong installed user base. I've always felt that Windows's advantage over Linux is its user-friendliness. Windows tends to spoil its users, and combined with piracy this has made Windows the choice of OS in developing countries which tips the balance in Microsoft's favor. This explains why it is difficult to switch from Windows to Linux, because Linux is very unfamiliar and relatively difficult to use. Ironically, if Microsoft strengthens its anti-piracy campaign on developing countries, it risks losing to Linux!
I have not read the full paper -- it's very technical, by the way. But the professors may have to factor in ease of use as a contributor to installed user base.
The paper titled "Dynamic Mixed Duopoly: A Model Motivated by Linux vs. Windows" is available online.
- benc's blog
- Login or register to post comments
I'm a proponent of Linux and
I'm a proponent of Linux and I support the opensource community. But ask me to recommend it for the desktops in the office and I'd hesitate without blinking an eye! The age-old saying that "nobody ever got fired for recommending IBM" still holds true to some extent. And as long as there are a lot like me who try to sit on the fence, the desktops in most offices will remain to be NOT Linux.
Maybe I should try the Mac, if only OSX came out with a Live-CD...
Ubuntu = hope
Hi James,
Salamat for posting. Ubuntu Linux so far looks promising. We've been using it in our office (including laptops). One glitch with Ubuntu is compatibility with the wireless network adapter (but it works well with the ethernet card). Hopefully, this will be remedied soon!
You should definitely try a Mac. Highly recommended :)
another thread?
in the field of strategic analysis one of the questions that need to be addressed is the question of susbstitution: are there barriers to it? how easy or diffciult is it too shift? what might be costs and benefits? this is a paper I hope can be written. Of course there are hidden costs.
also, there is the question of system inter operability, which is some kind of finding a common space to work in or on, or if one of the systems can serve as shell and the other on is embedded.
barriers
James (ang dami ninyong James, hehe):
A major barrier, as Boyong said, is the lack of applications. Another major barrier is the usability -- ease of using, ease of installing and configuring Linux.
I am seeing (perhaps too hopefully) that these barriers are slowly being surmounted. As I mentioned to the other James, Ubuntu looks promising. Re: major applications that could be substituted for MS Office, OpenOffice is slowly making strides (lousy presentation software though, but the word processor and spreadsheet apps are okay).
I also am being hopeful in the latest foray of Google: Docs and Spreadsheets, albeit these need fast internet connections.
Picture this scenario: what if Google eventually creates light versions of Google Docs & Spreadsheets that can be installed on your desktop so that you don't really need an internet connection? The only reason you'll need the net connection in that case is to take advantage of the sharing/collaboration features of Google Docs & Spreadsheets.
Being open source does not mean people will use you
or to put it another way, "It's the apps, stupid."
Linux has become extremely popular in the server space because of applications like Samba or Apache. It is nowhere near as popular for gaming, because almost all PC games are written for Microsoft Windows.
Go back to the early history of personal computers. It was the creation of the electronic spreadsheet - Visicalc - that moved the Apple II from the hobbyist space into the business world. And with that came legitimacy as an industry, since companies were willing to fork out the $$$, and would pay to get an Apple II so they could run Visicalc.