Giant Killing: Microsoft and the Money Men

CORPORATE GREED AND penny pinching fever seems to have hit an all time high. The press is full of stories of companies trying to maximise profit to the tune of braying shareholders. It seems to be the only thing that counts on the various stock exchanges. Quietly running a healthy company has gone out of fashion. Keeping some money aside for a rainy day has become a ridiculous thing to do when that money can be shown as profit and used to drive the stock price up.

Microsoft has been a prominent player of this game and, in trying to emulate its success, many companies have taken on an aggressive management style focussed on the stock market instead of their customers. The irony of the situation is that it could well be part of Microsoft's undoing.

Tightening the Belt
In emulating other companies that use the stock market to gauge their performance, companies world-wide have started keeping a careful eye on every part of their budgets. It's come as no surprise that Microsoft has started to lose ground to open source software; when it comes down to it, you have to seriously question spending money on something you can get for free. And that's where the real problems for Microsoft start. The moment you begin asking certain questions it becomes obvious that buying Microsoft software is financially unwise.

The first place to demonstrate this is servers. Let's assume that you spend a few grand on a decent machine to run a small department, say 25 people who want Net access and email. You can then expect to pay another couple of grand on the appropriate Microsoft software to do that. Needless to say, there are free alternatives. The CTO (or IT Manager or whoever is in charge of these things) might well raise some objections that it's not that easy. It is.

Objection Overruled, Part I
The first argument you'll hear for running Windows on a server is how well it integrates with everything else. That would be true if companies actually used the integration to any worthwhile extent. In most cases they don't. The reason is simple: it takes hundreds of man-hours to make that integration work. Most companies barely scratch the surface. They use file and printer sharing. They use Exchange to run their email and diaries. And that's it. It will come as no surprise that you can do those things with free software.

Try suggesting that Linux or FreeBSD would be a credible alternative. "Ah," the CTO will object, "but they take lots of time to set up." Which is true. What they are missing out is that the Microsoft alternatives also take a lot of time to set up. What they are missing out is that if new people join the department you'll need to buy more licenses. Your company doesn't have to pay for Linux or FreeBSD, no matter how many people join that department. It's as simple as that. What the CTO is really saying is that it would mean leaving their comfort zone.

Objection Overruled, Part II
The operating system, email and Net access aren't the only pieces of software that companies are paying through the nose for. The next big expense will be if you're using a database. If those 25 users need to access a database you can expect pay double what you shelled out for the server. Again, there are perfectly good free alternatives that will quite happily do the job. Once again the CTO will raise objections, "there's more to it than that." Which is sometimes true. But not as often as you'd think considering how much it costs your company.

Try suggesting that MySQL or PostgreSQL be used for free instead of Microsoft SQL Server. "Ah," the CIO will object, "but they aren't as powerful and don't have as many features." Which is true. What they are missing is that the power isn't used unless thousands of people are connecting to that database. What they are missing out is that the many extra features are rarely used, if ever. The free alternatives will do the job quite happily in almost every case. What the CTO is saying is it would mean learning something new.

Objection Overruled, Part III
The next argument you'll hear is that the IT staff would need to be retrained. "Ah," says the CTO, "our staff have no experience with Linux and it would take a long time to retrain them." In some cases that might be true. What they are missing out is that they have almost certainly never asked the staff if they have any Linux experience. Most system administrators worth their money have been using it for years, ever since it started to become popular. They have enough sense to realise that using Linux for their machines at home means they no longer have to pay license fees.

Retraining is another big red herring. IT staff get to grips with new systems on a regular basis. It's part of their job. It's part of why they enjoy the job. Your IT staff manage to learn about new versions of Windows and Exchange, if they can't manage to learn something that's not made by Microsoft you have to question whether they're any good or not.

Cutting the Bill
Thousands of companies around the world, including many IT companies, get by with hardly any Microsoft products at all. Companies like Sun, IBM, HP, Compaq and many others produce systems that won't even run Microsoft products. It's not just possible, often it makes more sense.

If you're not a CEO or a CFO and you believe what's written here is a fair analysis of the situation, try sending a link to this article to your board of directors. Let them read it. Let them know that the business case for using Microsoft products is becoming poorer by the day. You owe it to your company.

If you are a CEO or CFO or a board member, go look at how much money your company is paying Microsoft. It will be a lot. If you want to turn some of that budget into profit, try asking your CTO if it would be possible to use free alternatives. Demand a no buts, yes or no answer. If they say the IT staff don't have the experience, ask them to request that all IT staff with Linux experience make themselves known. If they say it will take time, ask them how much time a new Microsoft system takes up. The truth is, you are being hoodwinked. Your company will be using Microsoft products because it's the devil you know. µ

Arron Rouse is a freelance technical author and business analyst. He retains copyright on this article

See Also
Giant Killing: Microsoft's Achilles Heel