Microsoft executives pondered whether to remove the company's name from a 2002 report done by research firm IDC that touted Windows total cost of ownership over Linux, according to e-mail messages entered into evidence in an Iowa antitrust case. The report, which IDC released in December 2002 and was plugged by Microsoft in its then-new "Get the Facts" publicity campaign against Linux, compared total cost of ownership of Windows 2000 and Linux server software. The IDC study, which was identified as Microsoft sponsored when it debuted, claimed that Windows 2000 offered a lower TCO in four of five enterprise scenarios. Before its release, however, company executives worried that adding Microsoft's moniker would only fuel the fire from Linux partisans.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-18
Member since:
2005-11-13
Member since:
2006-05-12
Because I am sure if they didn't put their name on it, nobody would have suspected a national campaign with the purpose's of touting lower TCO of windows was sponsored by MS.
Although, I do believe that bloggers and other outlets expecting all the same rights and freedoms as reporters should be required to disclose these types of business relationships.
You can't have it both ways.
Edited 2007-02-03 18:17
Member since:
2006-12-19
Member since:
2006-04-21
Member since:2006-03-12
Member since:
2005-06-30
The most incriminating email I've found so far in the bunch is one where Jim Allchin describes to Bill Gates in pretty good detail how to monopolize the industry.
http://www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/7000/PX07142.pdf
I just found it. I don't know if it's been picked up in the news yet. Though I'm sure it has.
Here are all the documents: http://iowaconsumercase.org/lc-5.html
Member since:2005-07-06
But in regards to leaked emails, smoking guns and people hiding in shaddows, who is stupid enough to take these studies seriously anyway? how can someone take them seriously given the inaccuracy and wild, fancy free optimism when they make the predictions.
Whether its a study about Windows, Linux or Solaris, it should be the organisation who is considering deploying it, doing the study themselves according to their local conditions rather than leaving it up to third parties to dictate what is installed in the organisation.
If I were a manager, I sure as heck wouldn't leave it up to third party assessments by people outside my organisation to dictate what was the best fit for what my organisation needed - and I suggest that other organisations to stop being so bloody lazy and conduct their own assessment of their needs rather than relying on corrupt consultancy firms.
Member since:2006-03-12
Whether TCO is *useful* is simply off-topic. Whether Linux, Unix, Solaris etc etc is *cheaper* is simply not an issue.
This is evidence in an Anti-trust trial!
Microsoft put *pressure* on a *sponsored*(sic) company to show *their* product in a better light.
The Title should read "Microsoft caught fiddling results in TCO studies"
Member since:2005-07-06
The *ISSUE* is that there are people who *FUEL* demand for these lies - people demanding 'reports' rather than doing some leg work for themselves.
Microsoft *KNOW* this and take advantge of it; influence a few 'reputable' (word used in the most liberal of terms) consultancy companies, have some lazy organisations who can't be buggered going and doing a little work, and voila, hook, line and sinker.
Maybe you should show me why it isn't the fault of organisations who demand these reports; you know the basics of economics, where there is demand, there will be supply, and Microsoft know how the whole thing moves - if they didn't demand it, Microsoft would lose their channel of influence, Microsoft would have to actually offer deals, deep discount, and shock horror, compete on grounds of merit.
Red Hat have already demonstrate these studies don't make a lick of difference, they're grabbing customers left, right and centre, their subscriber base is growing, high profile customers are coming on board.
Microsoft know that once ISV's start moving their applications to Linux, their monopoly to the desktop would end in and instant - and right now, they're going hell for leather to bash Linux in terms of 'its not ready' and 'there are no standards' but it'll simply take time for the ISV's and realise, "thats a load of crap" and port their application, finding that the so-called doomsday 'lack of standards' is nothing more than that.
Edited 2007-02-05 03:56
Member since:
2005-11-06
Best part by far:
"You are right that there are pros/cons.
I like being able to show that a windows solution is lower tco than linux and be able to quantify it. I don’t like the fact that the report show us losing on TCO on webservers. I don’t like the fact that the report show us losing on availability (windows was down more than linux)). And I don’t like the fact that the reports says nothing new is coming with windows .net server. I would not release this report with the "sponsored by msft" on the cover.
With that, we will have ibm and many customers pulling out quotes about windows 200 being unreliable compared to linux and being more expensive for web servers. The analysis that linux is great in certain areas and getting stronger with isvs will fuel the fire."
Here are some other interesting communications:
http://iowaconsumercase.org/lc-9.html
The one titled "Bill Gates - Security as a lock-in" is particularly revealing.
And the ones from Jim Allchin are old news, but still some of my favorites.
