Re: Microsoft's revenue structure

[Lars Noodén]

On 5/16/24 03:27, Akira Urushibata wrote:
> For many years the Microsoft's core product were operating systems:
> MS/DOS and Windows.  It is remarkable that revenue from operation
> systems has dropped to a mere 10%

That OS income was back in the 1990s.  Even then it was built on
monopoly rents and not the actual sales themselves which was tiny income
compared to the rents.  Prior to the 1990s the OS income was built on
the illegal, per-processor OEM fees.

Anyway, the very idea of selling software is a relic of the 1980s and
needs to be put down for good.  The late Steve Jobs had it right with
his identification of the software as a tool to amplify human ability.
See his "Bicycle for the mind" pitch.  Sadly there is a cult or
cult-like movement to distort software into chains to burden and control
individuals and groups, primarily by the software becoming an end in
itself rather than a tool to get work done.  See the late David
Graeber's 2018 book, "Bullshit Jobs: A Theory" for part of that and
Jacob Ward's, "The Loop" for the rest.  For a specific example, see the
"Reportronic" or "Peoplesoft" scandals which abound.

( Both points, software as a tool and software as a commodity, have to
do with societal freedom through software freedom.  Societal freedom has
been under severe pressure in recent decades, and thus promoting freedom
in any form has become even more of an uphill fight than before. )

What might work is to revisit the 'security' situation yet again.  But
that is also a difficult fight since what's left of the trade press
cannot be used.  It only ever casts aspersions at FOSS in order to
protect Microsoft even in light of the off-the-charts ransomware
epidemic which is growing by the day.

A detail regarding 'security' which has gone mostly unnoticed would be
the gag clauses likely embedded in Microsoft support contracts.
Specifically they might be preventing businesses, agencies, and
institutions from any public statements regarding breaches and limit
their action to buying a full round of 'upgrades'.

Microsoft treats its contracts as trade secrets and public institutions
around the world seem to illegally waiving their obligations of
transparency in that regard.  So one approach might be to work with
public institutions or public interest organizations in select countries
to get daylight on those contract details.  Getting at the contents of
those (probable) gag clauses in Microsoft contracts would solve several
problems at once and enhance FOSS uptake.  The first step would be to
confirm the existence of such gag clauses and, ideally, their scope.

/Lars