Discussion on:

The facts on VMware vs. Microsoft

I think Microsoft is entitled to charge for it. VMWare should not complaint about not being able to make money on it. They are the responsible for the market state as well.

With all due respect I don't think VMWare was "brave" to talk to you about this issue or that Microsoft was not. I think VMWare is just trying to get people on their side. This is an issue for them to work out together and I don't see how or why they would be obliged to answer your phone calls or requests for meetings. In fact, from a business standpoint, I wouldn't talk to you about it either


That being said, I liked the article and I will continue to follow up on future posts.

.
First of all, let me say that I have absolutely no inside knowledge of what Microsoft is doing and why. That said, I have followed Microsoft for over 15 years and understand how they think.


Microsoft's Interest

Microsoft's primary interest is in controlling virtualization of Windows operating system instances. They want to be able to prevent customers from running Windows in a VM outside of licensing restrictions through WGA. In a conventional VM, that is impossible. In order for Windows running in a VM to be able to ensure it is within the license restrictions, and be controlled by WGA, it must be able to peek into the real hardware in a way that cannot be hacked. Microsoft is developing a way to control this through software.

Microsoft charging for use of its IP is legitimate from Microsoft's point of view. This is understandably offensive from VMWare's point of view, the pioneer in the field, and a "partner" contributor to the Microsoft ecosystem.

Server hardware is going to get much bigger and much faster as we move forward. Running Windows server instances in virtual machines in production is going to be more and more important and more prevalent. Linux can run in virtual machines very well and competes with Windows Server. So, it is important for Windows Servers to be able to do it well also. And, it is important for Microsoft to be able to enforce licensing restrictions. They could do it by having close face-to-face relationships with customers (e.g. the way IBM's mainframe business is run). But, Microsoft's approach is to control their customers around the world remotely from Redmond automatically through WGA.


What's wrong with this picture?

This is just another excellent example of Microsoft exercising its rights to improve Windows and compete (with Linux in this case) while systematically destroying a "partner" that is in the way. In this case, it is VMWare, the pioneer in the field of PC virtualization.

Without antitrust help, VMWare is toast, just like so many other dead "partners" that have suffered the same fate for the same reason. In the future, Windows will not be able to be successfully activated on any other VM technology except Microsoft's, or licensed "partners" carefully controlled and manipulated by Microsoft. Bank on it.

ISV "partners" in the Microsoft ecosystem often suffer a premature death.


How SHOULD this play out?

There should and could be a balanced solution to this. Microsoft's needs for Windows Server competition should be met. Also, VMWare's contribution to the Microsoft ecosystem should be respected. My version of a balanced solution looks something like this:

- Microsoft should not have been permitted to buy Virtual PC nor give it away for free.

- Microsoft should define requirements for Windows running in a VM.

- Virtual PC and VMWare should be permitted to use the spec without charge.

- Should Virtual PC and VMWare fail to build great VM solutions that enable Windows Server to compete very well with Linux, Microsoft should develop its own VM technology that competes with Virtual PC and VMWare. But, that technology should not be given away for free. It should COMPETE in the marketplace. If Virtual PC and VMWare are really inferior, the Microsoft solution will win on merit.


How WILL it play out?

This is only my prediction. But, I think I'm right.

Microsoft simply does not work like I describe with "partners". ISV "partners" in the Microsoft ecosystem are merely pawns to be sacrificed whenever the time comes, and come it always does.

Microsoft will take care of its own interest to the exclusion of VMWare's. VMWare is toast, sooner or later. EMC might sue Microsoft over antitrust. If it does, the Microsoft fanboys will cry "whiner whiner whiner" about EMC and VMWare just like they always do when Microsoft systematically destroys a former ISV "partner" through abuse of its monopoly power.

Also toast: Running Windows in a VM on Macintosh.


The End (for VMWare and Parallels)



-----------------------------------

Postscript: What SHOULD be done about it?

I am no fan of government regulation or socialist governments. I favor capitalism. But, sometimes there needs to be some limitations when there is a powerful monopoly like Microsoft rolling over everybody else with its absolute monopoly power.

The U.S. federal government should step in and force Microsoft to protect its interests without destroying the ISV "partners" in a way like I described.

"Microsoft solution will win on merit"

But when has Microsoft ever won on the merits of the product?

That was a hypothetical!

.
What Microsoft Does

Microsoft routinely buys or builds products that compete directly with Microsoft "partners", gives them away for free, destroying lives and companies. A few quick examples:

- Microsoft Internet Explorer (killed Netscape Navigator)
- Microsoft Virtual PC (hurting VMWare)
- Windows FAX (killed WinFax)
- Widnows XPS (hurting Adobe PDF)
- Windows Media Player (hurting Real Player and QuickTime)
- Windows Backup (hurting and killing many backup programs)
- Windows HyperTerminal (killed ProComm and QMODEM)
- Windows DriveSpace (killed Stacker)
- Windows Defender (hurting Symantec, McAfee, and CA)
- Windows P2P Networking (killed LANtastic)

Microsoft thinks this carnage is just fine. They should be allowed to invite third party ISVs to develop products for Windows while still "making improvements" to Windows that directly compete with the ISVs. It is Microsoft's "right" to do so.


What Microsoft Says

Microsoft's intellectual property must be respected.

When the tables are turned, and somebody offers a very nice free operating system like Linux, Microsoft cries foul and threatens to sue its own customers and competing companies using the patent laws.

Of course, there is a "legal" basis for the lawsuits: Patent law. But, this doesn't change anything from an ethical standpoint.


Microsoft Hypocrisy of the Highest Order

This is hypocrisy of the highest order. It destroys lives and companies and pension funds that invested in those companies. And it is wrong. This is precisely why monopolies like Microsoft must be regulated. And, I hate government regulation.

"Windows Defender (hurting Symantec, McAfee, and CA)"

No, defender is not an AV program. That's why Vista warns you to get AV and links you to a list of third party AV vendors.

Defender provides, for free, security functionality that Symantec, McAfee, and CA offer in their products. Example: Anti-spyware. This is hurting these ISVs.

Having these security features included in the OS benefits the users so that they don't have to spend more money on them. Features like this are always getting commoditized.

Take SSLVPN for example which use to cost $50K or more for a solution. Now it's only $300 which obviously hurts the incumbent SSLVPN vendors. That?s natural evolution in the hardware/software business. We use to have to buy add-in IO cards for serial ports and parallel ports but those vendors were mostly put out of business by integrated serial/parallel ports on the motherboard. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just called progress.

.
"...Having these security features included in the OS benefits the users so that they don't have to spend more money on them. Features like this are always getting commoditized..."

Absolutely correct. Including these features in the operating system can reduce the cost and complexity for the customer. Those are important benefits. But, if you understand anything about monopolies and antitrust law (1), and by your post you clearly do not, a monopoly business is not supposed to be allowed to take over new business (like security software) by using its monopoly position in another business (like operating system software).

What Microsoft is doing with Virtual PC is the same thing that they did with developing Internet Explorer at great expense, then giving it away for free while Netscape was selling theirs. They were convicted of violating antitrust law in that case, but the government chose to let them continue doing it. I view this as a political decision.

You like monopolies. I don't.

Using your rules, Microsoft can absorb anything it wants. That is exactly what it has been doing for the last 15 years, and there are dead bodies of countless dead software companies all over the landscape. I think that is wrong, but only because Microsoft has monopoly power. If Internet Explorer won in the marketplace as an extra-cost product, that would be fine. If Windows Defender wins in the marketplace as an extra-cost product, that would be fine. But, by combining these additional products into Windows, the competition doesn't stand a chance.

This is precisely why I would never start a new software company that builds software products for Microsoft Windows. It is 100% certain that you will lose. If your product fails, you lose. If your product succeeds, Microsoft will create a copy of your product, add it to Windows or give it away for free, and you still lose.

Antitrust law is designed to protect competition in the marketplace for the benefit of the consumer. What Microsoft has been doing, and continues to do, is completely wrong.

There are a lot of problems with the EU, but the EU people get that. I get that. You don't. And you are completely wrong.



------------------------------------------

(1)

Antitrust
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitrust

Sherman Antitrust Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act

Clayton Antitrust Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clayton_Antitrust_Act

Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hart-Scott-Rodino_Antitrust_Improvements_Act

Celler-Kefauver Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celler-Kefauver_Act

Robinson-Patman Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robinson-Patman_Act

United States v. Continental Can Co.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Continental_Can_Co.

Are you nuts? And what about fire fox thats free to if not for internet explorer fire fox would have surely destroyed netscape. And I'll take anything (well almost) that is FREE thank you. (Edit) Ok well right or wrong thank you anyways microsoft, to me paying for a browser is like paying for oxygen.

.
You must be pretty young. Here's a history lesson:

1. In the early 1990s, the first browser was Netscape Navigator and it was a commercial product, about $30. You had to buy it. It was a for-profit boxed software product.

2. Microsoft developed Internet Explorer well after Netscape Navigator was off, running, wildly successful, and growing exponentially. Microsoft bundled IE with the Windows and offered it as a free download for users that were not running the latest version of Windows.

3. Netscape Navigator sales fell through the floor. Netscape then offered its product for free because there was no point in trying to sell it.

4. Because Windows users got IE for free already installed in the operating system, most of them did not bother to find and install Netscape Navigator. I don't blame them.

5. Before long, Netscape Communications (the company) had whithered away sufficiently and was purchased outright by AOL.

6. Since browsers were no longer a profit making software product, AOL/Netscape decided to start the open source Mozilla company using the code base of Navigator as a starting place. The Mozilla browser and the Firefox browser are two of the children from that.

---

So, the Firefox browser that you use is a descendent of the original Netscape Navigator, just like the current Netscape Navigator is (they both use the same code base even today). And, the only reason you get it for free is because Microsoft forced the issue by giving away Internet Explorer.

---

Furthermore, what Microsoft did to destroy Netscape Communications and the Navigator browser franchise was found to be ILLEGAL. Microsoft was sued by the U.S. Government for violations of the antitrust laws and they were convicted. Microsoft was found to have a monopoly in computer operating systems (Windows) and to have abused that monopoly power to destroy a competitor in a different business (browsers), interfere with competition, and hurt consumers.

---

And, yes, some people do think I'm nuts (and you should be more polite).

Having these security features included in the OS benefits the users so that they don't have to spend more money on them. Features like this are always getting commoditized.

Take SSLVPN for example which use to cost $50K or more for a solution. Now it's only $300 which obviously hurts the incumbent SSLVPN vendors. That?s natural evolution in the hardware/software business. We use to have to buy add-in IO cards for serial ports and parallel ports but those vendors were mostly put out of business by integrated serial/parallel ports on the motherboard. There's nothing wrong with that, it's just called progress.

Mosaic Communications != NCSA Mosaic.

The rest is bang on and that short list of yours expanse quicly to pages. Heck, DOS was baugt off the developer for something like 10,000$ and flipped for Microsoft's first million.

"Of course, there is a "legal" basis for the lawsuits: Patent law."

I'd argue that Patent law (completely broken at the moment) is the tool with which they compete rather than product development. While they have a legal basis in some patent suits, any claims of patent infringement by Linux is complete BS. They have no legal basis to attack Linux so it continues to be FUD in the public media.

Unless Microsoft's Cheif Executive Idiot would like to stop doing his monkey dance long enough to provide real facts on where they feel infringed (rather than threatened).

Microsoft makes good products that do miraculous things. Unfortunately, they have a very high degree of paranoia. I just don't think they really get the fact that they need informed consumers, you know, the ones who are highly respected in their field and know why they are buying these products. It seems like they do not like informed consumers and that is where the failure in their marketing concept and why they do not realize their full potential. With this attitude, they never will, at least while Bill Gates continues to interfere. He is a technician, he is not a big picture guy and I am sure that they promote such people. Too bad.

Microsoft Virtual PC or VMWare both run operating systems in an explorer page while a host system is running.The slave system runs much slower than the host.I think that they are talking about the Microsoft virtual PC operating system file itself running in VMWare.In other words I could call up the Microsoft operating system file that I made for Win XP in Virtual PC and run it in VMWare.It's really difficult to do and maybe out of reach for most.

I've read this part three times, and I'm trying to understand it:

"Next, I asked about were the mobility restrictions on virtualization with Microsoft software. According to VMware, Microsoft puts a 90-day restriction on Virtual PC migration for Microsoft software, so if you move a machine once, you can't move it again for the next 90 days. Since one of VMware's differentiating features in its enterprise server software is the ability to migrate Virtual Machines on the fly within a fraction of a second for hardware independence, these mobility restrictions in Microsoft software neutralize that VMware advantage."

It seems that VMware's mobility IS an advantage. I don't see how Microsoft would neutralize that by using a proprietary format. I'm missing something, but this paragraph is hard to read/understand.

This is the scenario of collision between technologies, which are not to some extent complementary. The world community naturally selects the better solution, which makes its life better. Win-Win solution needs to be determined in collaboration to move forward.
sman
www.browsetoknow.blogspot.com