What you see everyday... - Port 25: The Open Source Community at Microsoft
< Back to Blogs
What you see everyday... by admin on June 19, 2006 02:28PM

I’ve been traveling in Brazil recently, one of my favorite countries, and meeting with various customers, developers, IT professionals, government officials and topping it off with a talk at Linux World Brazil in Sao Paulo.  On my flight over I was reading a translated version of TEMA magazine which discusses the Brazilian federal government’s IT spending.  An interesting statistic from a 2003 study by the Department of Logistics and Information Technology is that Microsoft is just barely on the ‘top spend’ list of commercial software providers to the Brazilian Federal Government.  In terms of money spent by the government on software, Microsoft comes in at number eight.  Many would believe or would guess that Microsoft is the ‘big gorilla’ in the Brazilian market, which is why the Linux/OSS versus Microsoft debate in Brazil always seems so dramatic in the press.  But, alas, we are number eight, in terms of money spent by the state.  

According to this study, the biggest software suppliers to the Brazilian federal government (in Brazilian Reals):

  1. Net Control (R$15.4 million)
  2. IBM (R$10.6 million)
  3. Oracle (R$5.7 million)
  4. Borland (R$4.2 million)
  5. Funcate (R$3.8 million)
  6. Serpro (R$3.7 million)
  7. Autotrac (R$3.3 million)

Of course, this is just software costs you can imagine what that IBM number looks like if you add in services and hardware.

The reason, I believe, for the misperception that Microsoft is the single ‘foreign’ vendor is because most people ‘see’ Microsoft everyday on their desktops.  So Microsoft becomes a singular metaphor (or poster child) for commercial software.  The misperception even carries to the academic world, such as Benkler’s Wealth of Networks from Yale Univ. Press, where he discusses the role of free software, giving governments, “freedom from reliance on a single foreign source (read, Microsoft)” – page 333.  But if this is true, shouldn’t free software also reduce reliance from the other sources of commercial software in Brazil (players 1-7 above)?  Of course it should, but that’s not the general perception because some of these others, such as IBM, have put on the cloak of ‘open systems’ to market themselves as free software loving champions.  But if that were really true, I wonder where all that money is coming from and then going to?  So the bigger question is:  how much do these commercial companies generate for the Brazilian software economy relative to what they are profiting? 

This is very important for Brazil, particularly as it relates to exporting to developing nations; for example, from 2002-2005 Brazil has increased total value of exports to Africa, Middle East, and Asian from US$13.4 billion to $28.8 billion (Ricardo Neiva Tavares, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Economist, 27/5/2006).  Generating revenue to Brazilian companies through software exports will be an important part of future growth in this area. 

From a Microsoft perspective, we are seeing real value for Brazil using our software to build their software ecosystem, a few statistics about Brazil and Microsoft:

  • Professionals that develop software provide services and offer training on the Microsoft platform: 313,500 (source: IDC)
  • Software developers on the Microsoft Platform: 80,000
  • Companies that employ these professionals: 15,000
  • Taxes corresponding to the MS ecosystem: R$ 1 billion
  • Freely-trained public employees: 10,200
  • Security: since October 2003, 110,000 trained professionals in Brazil

In my time here in Brazil I will have an ear out for how people are using OSS and how they are interoperating with commercial software – the best lessons are always found ‘in the field’ – and it will be interesting to test how much ‘what you see everyday’ effects the perceptions and how this holds up to reality in the cold light of day (or maybe a little warmer light of day here in Brazil). 

-Bill

P.S. – adding to this on my return home, after I wrote the above.  Indeed the veneer of ‘free’ has faded in Brazil like it has in most countries as businesses enter into their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th ‘wave’ of Linux/OSS usage and realize that there are certainly still costs with ‘free’ software, such as in management, integration, security, people, etc. 

 

Comments RSS
  1. einhverfr said:

    I think that Brazil, Peru, and other countries are adopting OSS not because it costs less, but because the less money leaves the economy via software imports.  Yes, services and support are required, but these can be local industries.  The same level of service (such as bugfixes written by local developers) is fundamentally impossible with software imported from the US.

    In the end, it is about the economics of the software, what the labor costs are, and where that money goes.  People often lose this last part of it.

    Just as off-shoring technical support, etc. to countries like India has many Americans fearing economic repercussions, so too do many Brazilians fear economic damage from importing software.

    posted at 12:22AM 06/20/2006
  2. ramzes said:

    Microsoft Professionals? - Two words combined that don't make sense.

    Usually *nix people are 100 times better "professionals" than Microsoft likes. So most companies and such often rely on *nix personal for solving issues with Windows and Microsoft software in general. Why is it like that? Does Microsoft teaches engineers that everything is point & clicking through wizards to do every system task?

    And why every article must be in the form of Microsoft this, Microsoft that, revenue, sales, figures... When you will get out the facts instead of hiding behind your corporate monopoly?

    I thought you had a Lab going on there... what kind of lab, I'm doubting that is connected with IT, engineering etc.

    --
    Marko

    posted at 02:43AM 06/20/2006
  3. achitnis said:

    "Indeed the veneer of ‘free’ has faded in Brazil like it has in most countries as businesses enter into their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th ‘wave’ of Linux/OSS usage and realize that there are certainly still costs with ‘free’ software, such as in management, integration, security, people, etc."

    I am sure that is quite true - except that of course "free" in Free and Open Source Software has *nothing* to do with cost. It stands for "unencumbered".

    And *that* is the primary reason why Brazil adopted FOSS, not just cost.

    posted at 07:19AM 06/20/2006
  4. billhilf said:

    einhverfr - I agree completely on your points about the software economics, cost of labor and where that money goes.  However, a software economy is made up of many parts, not just support/bugfix services.  Probably the biggest component of a software economy is independent software vendors who build applications for businesses or consumers.  My point is there should be questions, like you and the others here are asking, about the reality and facts of what makes a successful local software economy.

    posted at 12:03PM 06/20/2006
  5. Customization is definitely a money maker, but support/bugfixes is definitely a plus for IBM.  Being a services company is only a good idea if your products require servicing. As soon as problems are solved and the product doesn't require care, having a service industry built up isn't too useful, unless it's changed to suit the next round of needs.

    Obviously, IBM's done a great job of walking the line here. They don't directly stir the software pot, but as it changes and requires assistance, they're ready and waiting to help.

    Bill's point on the 3rd and 4th waves of OSS integration has some serious repercussions: Users have made the switch, and are now in the 3rd or 4th round.  For some, this has been smooth or at least passable. But for those who are having difficulty, the in-house help or local support might not be enough. When it looks too costly to go back and you don't have a local option, and you're ready to throw money at the problem, there's IBM.  

    I'd wager their share of the spending is set to go up from where it is today.

    posted at 04:59PM 06/20/2006
  6. einhverfr said:

    First in reply to Bill:

    I wasn't saying that this perception was accurate.  Indeed, overall circulation is probably more important than a simple import/export analysis and wealth is generated when time is spent to create something of value.  Personally I think that open source and services do a better of job in this regard but the case is more complex than it appears on the surface.

    To Desert_dev:

    Services and support are a far wider field than just breakfixes.  Indeed, I would argue that customization and engineering are a major part of that.  Indeed the idea of support is to support or work with the IT operations of a business to solve whatever problems they can't effectively tackle.

    There are a wide range of such services.  And you have a point that there is a lot of shoddy FOSS engineering out there.  But there is also a lot of high quality FOSS engineering and a lot of shoddy COTS engineering.

    Best Wishes,
    Chris Travers
    Metatron Technology Consulting

    posted at 10:48PM 06/20/2006
  7. Chris:

    > Services and support are a far wider field than just breakfixes.  
    > Indeed, I would argue that customization and engineering are a major
    > part of that.  Indeed the idea of support is to support or work with
    > the IT operations of a business to solve whatever problems they can't
    > effectively tackle.

    Definitely agreed - particularly in embedded. Consider this article -
    it states that embedded is purely a service industry, and shouldn't
    be product based at all:

    http://linuxdevices.com/articles/AT6989225710.html

    At the IT level, I see customization as a very different thing -
    more customization of existing applications (like interfaces for
    a site on top of a content management app) than specific development
    for a client. That's probably because embedded is a much less mature
    industry in a lot of ways, but it definitely is a large piece of
    the pie.  Obviously IBM has some leverage here.

    > There are a wide range of such services.  And you have a point that
    > there is a lot of shoddy FOSS engineering out there.  But there is
    > also a lot of high quality FOSS engineering and a lot of shoddy COTS
    > engineering.

    Couldn't agree more. :) As long as the industry has engineers, there
    will always be good, and always be bad. Some write COTS, some write
    FOSS. I seem to be a dowsing rod for bad FOSS software that has to be
    made to work.  

    The trouble with FOSS is that when it's bad, you get to see the shaky footing. Consider a closed in COTS bridge - at least you can have the
    (potentially false) sense that it's well built. With a FOSS bridge, you may look down and see the whole thing holding together by a string.  

    Which is better? It depends if you can fix the bridge yourself, or if
    you just want someone to go after when it all comes crashing down.

    I favor the open bridge myself, and I try not to look down except
    when I have to.

    posted at 11:49PM 06/20/2006
  8. einhverfr said:

    Hi Desert_dev;

    I can sympathize.  I was doing a security review of an application we provide a fair bit of suppot and I discovered that the approach to authentication was fundamentally flawed and trivially circumvented.  After a series of arguments with the maintainer of the software, I have concluded that I will need to fix it before I make a security announcement because if I don't it won't ever get fixed.  Fortunately I can fix it.

    Shows that open source by itself is no guarantee for security, but in the end, maybe it helps.

    Best Wishes,
    Chris Travers
    Metatron Technology Consulting

    posted at 01:06AM 06/21/2006
  9. mleite said:

    First, I see "Microsoft is just barely on the top spend list". Then, as a P.S. "they enter into their 2nd, 3rd, or 4th ‘wave’.. and realize there are still costs with free software".

    So, I think I got the message: "Microsoft is not on the top list but we desperately need to be". Linux-killer case studies are not working, let's put a OSS lab in place and do some massive brainwashing.

    posted at 03:04AM 06/21/2006
  10. dreamer said:

    "Linux-killer case studies are not working, let's put a OSS lab in place and do some massive brainwashing."

    I think so.

    If Microsoft really wanted to get into open source, they'd release source...erm, wouldn't they? It's quite simple.

    Bill, the reason that Microsoft stock has fallen rapidly (like from $28 to $22 in a matter of weeks) is the continued disregard for Open Standards, lack of sourcecode provision, EU antitrust cases and dangerous EEE (Extend Embrace and Extinguish) tactics.

    It's not about money - it's about freedom. You are running into some serious issues with software licensing and your EULA. 'Freedom of information' is key now. Proprietary file formats only lock up the data and this is the biggest fear at acquisition. What if? People are scared.

    My clients would pay several times the cost of Microsoft licensing for alternative solutions: 1) Because the solution is 'free' from vendor lock-in and 2) Because all of their money can go towards support, not licensing.

    The public / business software market has changed - it's solutions as services. That's just not Microsoft's model. So, it's either change time or quit time.

    The problem for you is that time is running out. Shareholders want the next big profit - and that's not going to come from Microsoft.

    There was a unique opportunity in the past few years to embrace Linux and OSS. OSS was a movement, not a company to try to wipeout. When you tried to shut it down: A) You couldn't - it wasn't a company and B) All you did was offend developers - and developers are the channel to desktop users.

    The unfortunate fact is that OSS is actually more cost-effective, by 20-50%, with a greater level of suppport and security (enforced user not admin etc..). And it's free (as in beer) to learn - so everyone who wants to can get experience (the next big economies). So, really you're in trouble.

    The options - either you become a console entertainment vendor (didn't work) or you ship games for your platform (PC market sideways in favour of consoles) or, erm. - give developers what they want...Linux.

    Mr Gates was quite right when he said "No-one owns the factory for ideas.." I'm just confused then, why you continue to try to close the factory down?

    Microsoft needs software patents in Europe - to make more profit from the $16bn a year that goes through Ireland and avoids EU taxes - for example in the UK and at the same time avoids US taxes. Unfortunately, that vote was lost by MEP's in a 648-14 vote against.

    So, no more savings, no more profits. You see, when the innovators create - they don't say 'How much can I get for this?' they say 'How much can I give with this?'. The money comes - very quickly - offers from all sides from companies that want to make a profit - but it's on the terms of the developer. The innovators aren't inside Microsoft and unfortunately the MSFT shareholders have just found out.

    I don't wish Microsoft financial difficulty, but it's looming. Maybe you could pull back something with a Linux distro, or with inclusion of Open Office or something - but you know that you're doomed once you try to make the bridge there. People will say 'Hey, why not just use Linux with these applications?'.

    You know what I see everyday? People - people with growing IT skills. People who are more and more abstract from the Operating System. People with mobile devices. People using Web Services. And these people want all the file formats in the world. The next generation only want the 'freedom' ones.

    That's the only option. Still, it might be too late for the stock value. I'm just interested - what's the tipping point for Microsoft? 40% off the share value... 60%? Or less? 20%? Perhaps we're already close...even on the wrong side of it?

    MOST IMPORTANTLY: Can you tell the shareholder why he/she shouldn't sell MSFT _right_ now?

    posted at 07:30AM 06/21/2006
Post a Comment
*
*