6 ms·

Not sure about Linux (and I have no inside info, just public sources), but around 2013-2014, the tech press was full of reports that Microsoft was making billio

Not sure about Linux (and I have no inside info, just public sources), but around 2013-2014, the tech press was full of reports that Microsoft was making billions[1] from Android, by charging OEMs $5-15 per unit for patents Android allegedly violated. This report[2] from October 2018 seems to indicate that Microsoft no longer does this: > Ten to 15 years ago we were very focused on the competition between Linux and Windows,” says Microsoft’s chief IP counsel, Erich Andersen, in an interview with Yahoo Finance. “But today Microsoft is a very different company. With the rise of our Azure [cloud services] business, Microsoft has become one of the largest contributors to open source in the world. . . . We’re in a position where, as [CEO] Satya [Nadella] says, we love Linux. We love open source. That’s a big part of the future of our business.” [1] https://google.com/search?q=microsoft+android+patent+fees https://google.com/search?q=microsoft+android+patent+fees [2] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-billions-android-patent-royalties-141047213.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/microsoft-may-relinquishing-b... Anyone with first-hand knowledge care to comment?

jacquesm 6y ago
> But today Microsoft is a very different company Said the fox to the chickens. Come real close and let me tell you a story.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  Pretty much the entire leadership from that era has cycled out. Ship of Theseus. Is Microsoft still a 800lbs gorilla that does 800lbs gorilla things? Yes. But let's not pretend they employ the same strategies today that made them the bad guys at the turn of the millennium.
  - hinkley 6y ago
    They were monsters for at least 20 years. It has been 6 since Ballmer left, and it takes a few years for an organization to start rebound from the personality of the previous boss. 6 years and a single CEO does not constitute a rebirth. When the next CEO is still doing the same thing, you can talk about what Microsoft is.
    - BoorishBears 6y ago
      While you're stuck with your notions for the next 6 years or however long until you feel they need to behave, other people, including your competitors, get to enjoy the fruits of evaluating Microsoft for what it is now, not what it was. Reminds me of when Visual Studio Code came out and some people denied themselves of what would end up being one of the best editors to come out in a while just because they refused to use something with such a Microsoft-ey name...
      - hinkley 6y ago
        We are in a world where there are so many options there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with them all. Do you know why we're in this world? We are in this world because Microsoft stumbled. They aren't just a large company that people have an old grudge against. They're very specifically the people who kept us from having the option to not consider a particular company and still have any reasonable options at all.
        BoorishBears 6y ago
        I'm not even going to bother pointing out the dramatization here... Because this is all tangential to the fact that in a world that now moves one financial quarter at a time, six years is a lifetime. MS's direction has been consistent and it's been good. If you're waiting for another six years to let MS prove themselves, it's on you, but again, plenty of other people will reap the benefits of not doing so
    - tomnipotent 6y ago
      > They were monsters for at least 20 years Microsoft is a company run by people, and those people have changed (the "they" you mentioned). Gates & Balmer are now nothing more than shareholders (Gates stepped down from the board in March this year). Believe it or not, it's people that determine how a company is run and the people running Microsoft today are not the people that were running it in the 80s & 90s. Large business units with billions in revenue take years to change direction, and we've seen that clearly happen under Nadella.
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    The people that are the leaders there today chose to work for exactly that company. That says a lot about their ethics.
    - tomnipotent 6y ago
      > That says a lot about their ethics This is rhetoric. Microsoft wasn't committing genocide, it just abused capitalism.
      - jacquesm 6y ago
        I think you need to brush up on what ethics means. It goes a lot further than whether or not you're committing genocide, though, obviously if and when you do you are ethically and morally utterly bankrupt. But this is not a binary affair.
        tomnipotent 6y ago
        Taking jabs at people that took jobs at Microsoft because you have a grudge says more about you than them. Microsoft never did anything so horrible that someone should have their ethics called into question for working there. Such poor taste.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        With all your comments in this thread I think you're protesting a bit much.
  - mr_toad 6y ago
    > But let's not pretend they employ the same strategies today that made them the bad guys at the turn of the millennium. Yeah, but did they decide to stop shooting, or did they just run out of ammunition?
    - signal11 6y ago
      They chose a different gun, I think. If you told me in 2000 that, 20 years on, Microsoft would be the world #2 in cloud (or utility computing, a concept Sun really tried to popularize in the 90s) computing and IBM would be an also-ran, I’d have laughed at you. (I guess the news that a bookseller was the world #1 in cloud computing would be even more of a shock.)
- cwhiz 6y ago
  It's fair to wonder what is truly motivating Microsoft executives, but you can follow the money fairly easily. In their quarterly earnings reports you can see that about 1/3 of their revenue is from "more personal computing."[0] We know that this category includes Windows licensing, devices (Surface, etc), gaming, and search. About $11 billion per quarter, on average. They don't neatly break this down in their report, as far as I can see, but some other internet sleuths have made educated guesses based on things that are directly reported. As far as anyone can guess, Windows is no more than 10-15% of Microsoft revenue. It seems fairly obvious to me that Windows is no longer the backbone of Microsoft. 10-15% still represents billions of dollars, but I think Microsoft would be perfectly content to replace all of that Windows revenue with O365 licenses or Azure billings. [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2020-Q1/segment-revenues https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2020-Q1...
  - dcolkitt 6y ago
    I agree, that despite it not being the future of the company, Windows and controlling the desktop is still a pretty bit contributor to the company's valuation. It would be pretty bad for MSFT if Windows was vaporized tomorrow. But I think Microsoft is much less paranoid, simply because desktop is a much less attractive target. It's good owning it today, but why would any potential competitor go to war to establish a beachhead in a slowly dying market? Certainly the other big tech companies are much more potentially threatening to MS today. Nobody in 1999 could hit as hard as Google, Amazon, Apple or even Facebook could today. But why would they even bother? Defending Windows is like Britain worrying about defending Gibraltar. It's still somewhat strategically important, but much less so than in the past. Because of that legacy, it's already defended way past the point of its value to any rational adversary.
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > Windows is no more than 10-15% of Microsoft revenue. Microsoft has more or less abolished Windows as a separate business unit. https://www.ft.com/content/5bf8b952-3396-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498 https://www.ft.com/content/5bf8b952-3396-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1...
- Cullinet 6y ago
  How would you calibrate the following imaginary statement issued by Microsoft ca. 2010: "Prior to the present fiscal year, all internal analysis of the competitive reality of Linux, in terms of financial effect on Microsoft results in measurable terms for shareholders, were nett negative in any circumstances in which Microsoft hypothetically might act either in a neutral or positive way holding any stance not against the adoption of Linux or compatibility with Linux. ".. Following company wide strategic review evaluated during the period from H208 to Q309, during a annual executive retreat in the fall of 2010, if emerged as unified consensus among the senior Microsoft executive staff and operating board members, that the advantages of all stakeholders in and the company alike will be best served in future if Microsoft strongly and warmly adopts a positive non hostile position immediately in respect to the Linux computing ecosystem. "Microsoft like all corporations is required on law and I'm every ethical way to serve the ultimate financial interests of our shareholders and technically the same object can be considered to be any corporation's over-riding priority ceteris paribus. "Because historical animosity is very widely recognised to exist, established by some of the most important individual figures in the Linux computing ecosystem and supporting evidence for even irrational animosity against Microsoft in every way, can be readily found ubiquitously ininux community presentations, writing and even company strategy positions of publicly quoted businesses that rely on the continuing success of Linux, and frequently if not the majority of analysis of publicly held stances Pro Linux and Anti Microsoft are mutually exclusive positions, Microsoft does not believe that at any time we can anticipate that any goodwill or positive sentiment will ever assist us commercially in connection with any initiative we may take towards working with th. Linux computing ecosystem. "Nevertheless Microsoft believes that regardless of prevailing and highly vocal sentiments professed and maintained by the computing community at large, Microsoft has identified the existence of sufficient strategic importance for the integrating of formerly directly competing technology "camps" that will by logic and results create in the key markets Microsoft serves, new and enthusiastic consensus that the positive direction towards Linux that we are now taking, is altogether the best decision for all our customers and therefore Microsoft our partners and every collective and individual stakeholder. "Strategic commitments of this nature are not strictly irrevocable. However the extent of dedication and application of resources required, not least highlight of which is the personal individual committed energy and enthusiasm that every contribution towards our goals relies upon completely, means that directions such as we are announcing today are generational in nature and by that virtue real and absolute decisions. We have chosen to highlight this point which is nominally self apparent especially because in the light of the decades long history of unsatisfactory relations between the Linux community and Microsoft, we have decided not to communicate about this dynamic in any way whatsoever in the future, since real and universally valued gains will be served best by concomitant action. Microsofts stance and views and commitments will become self evident in due course from interaction with every aspect and element of our company. We wish to encourage in every way possible for members of the Linux community and open source movement to engage with us directly and judge on direct experience. Naturally it is the hope that the world class capabilities and resources available to Microsoft that will serve to aide and improve the Linux and open source computing ecosystems, will be welcomed for the intended universally beneficial advances we intend them to be."
will4274 6y ago
The patent on FAT is well known and no secret. I believe the main thing that changed was the patents expired.
- fnord123 6y ago
  aiui it was VFAT.
munchbunny 6y ago
I can't speak to strategy or whether Microsoft is "nicer" now, but speaking to the day to day as a grunt in the organization: Linux is getting openly embraced. Depending on the context, open source and Linux based solutions are often considered viable choices.

jacquesm 6y ago

> But today Microsoft is a very different company Said the fox to the chickens. Come real close and let me tell you a story.

tomnipotent 6y ago
Pretty much the entire leadership from that era has cycled out. Ship of Theseus. Is Microsoft still a 800lbs gorilla that does 800lbs gorilla things? Yes. But let's not pretend they employ the same strategies today that made them the bad guys at the turn of the millennium.
- hinkley 6y ago
  They were monsters for at least 20 years. It has been 6 since Ballmer left, and it takes a few years for an organization to start rebound from the personality of the previous boss. 6 years and a single CEO does not constitute a rebirth. When the next CEO is still doing the same thing, you can talk about what Microsoft is.
  - BoorishBears 6y ago
    While you're stuck with your notions for the next 6 years or however long until you feel they need to behave, other people, including your competitors, get to enjoy the fruits of evaluating Microsoft for what it is now, not what it was. Reminds me of when Visual Studio Code came out and some people denied themselves of what would end up being one of the best editors to come out in a while just because they refused to use something with such a Microsoft-ey name...
    - hinkley 6y ago
      We are in a world where there are so many options there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with them all. Do you know why we're in this world? We are in this world because Microsoft stumbled. They aren't just a large company that people have an old grudge against. They're very specifically the people who kept us from having the option to not consider a particular company and still have any reasonable options at all.
      - BoorishBears 6y ago
        I'm not even going to bother pointing out the dramatization here... Because this is all tangential to the fact that in a world that now moves one financial quarter at a time, six years is a lifetime. MS's direction has been consistent and it's been good. If you're waiting for another six years to let MS prove themselves, it's on you, but again, plenty of other people will reap the benefits of not doing so
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > They were monsters for at least 20 years Microsoft is a company run by people, and those people have changed (the "they" you mentioned). Gates & Balmer are now nothing more than shareholders (Gates stepped down from the board in March this year). Believe it or not, it's people that determine how a company is run and the people running Microsoft today are not the people that were running it in the 80s & 90s. Large business units with billions in revenue take years to change direction, and we've seen that clearly happen under Nadella.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  The people that are the leaders there today chose to work for exactly that company. That says a lot about their ethics.
  - tomnipotent 6y ago
    > That says a lot about their ethics This is rhetoric. Microsoft wasn't committing genocide, it just abused capitalism.
    - jacquesm 6y ago
      I think you need to brush up on what ethics means. It goes a lot further than whether or not you're committing genocide, though, obviously if and when you do you are ethically and morally utterly bankrupt. But this is not a binary affair.
      - tomnipotent 6y ago
        Taking jabs at people that took jobs at Microsoft because you have a grudge says more about you than them. Microsoft never did anything so horrible that someone should have their ethics called into question for working there. Such poor taste.
        jacquesm 6y ago
        With all your comments in this thread I think you're protesting a bit much.
- mr_toad 6y ago
  > But let's not pretend they employ the same strategies today that made them the bad guys at the turn of the millennium. Yeah, but did they decide to stop shooting, or did they just run out of ammunition?
  - signal11 6y ago
    They chose a different gun, I think. If you told me in 2000 that, 20 years on, Microsoft would be the world #2 in cloud (or utility computing, a concept Sun really tried to popularize in the 90s) computing and IBM would be an also-ran, I’d have laughed at you. (I guess the news that a bookseller was the world #1 in cloud computing would be even more of a shock.)
cwhiz 6y ago
It's fair to wonder what is truly motivating Microsoft executives, but you can follow the money fairly easily. In their quarterly earnings reports you can see that about 1/3 of their revenue is from "more personal computing."[0] We know that this category includes Windows licensing, devices (Surface, etc), gaming, and search. About $11 billion per quarter, on average. They don't neatly break this down in their report, as far as I can see, but some other internet sleuths have made educated guesses based on things that are directly reported. As far as anyone can guess, Windows is no more than 10-15% of Microsoft revenue. It seems fairly obvious to me that Windows is no longer the backbone of Microsoft. 10-15% still represents billions of dollars, but I think Microsoft would be perfectly content to replace all of that Windows revenue with O365 licenses or Azure billings. [0]: https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2020-Q1/segment-revenues https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/Investor/earnings/FY-2020-Q1...
- dcolkitt 6y ago
  I agree, that despite it not being the future of the company, Windows and controlling the desktop is still a pretty bit contributor to the company's valuation. It would be pretty bad for MSFT if Windows was vaporized tomorrow. But I think Microsoft is much less paranoid, simply because desktop is a much less attractive target. It's good owning it today, but why would any potential competitor go to war to establish a beachhead in a slowly dying market? Certainly the other big tech companies are much more potentially threatening to MS today. Nobody in 1999 could hit as hard as Google, Amazon, Apple or even Facebook could today. But why would they even bother? Defending Windows is like Britain worrying about defending Gibraltar. It's still somewhat strategically important, but much less so than in the past. Because of that legacy, it's already defended way past the point of its value to any rational adversary.
- tomnipotent 6y ago
  > Windows is no more than 10-15% of Microsoft revenue. Microsoft has more or less abolished Windows as a separate business unit. https://www.ft.com/content/5bf8b952-3396-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1498 https://www.ft.com/content/5bf8b952-3396-11e8-b5bf-23cb17fd1...
Cullinet 6y ago
How would you calibrate the following imaginary statement issued by Microsoft ca. 2010: "Prior to the present fiscal year, all internal analysis of the competitive reality of Linux, in terms of financial effect on Microsoft results in measurable terms for shareholders, were nett negative in any circumstances in which Microsoft hypothetically might act either in a neutral or positive way holding any stance not against the adoption of Linux or compatibility with Linux. ".. Following company wide strategic review evaluated during the period from H208 to Q309, during a annual executive retreat in the fall of 2010, if emerged as unified consensus among the senior Microsoft executive staff and operating board members, that the advantages of all stakeholders in and the company alike will be best served in future if Microsoft strongly and warmly adopts a positive non hostile position immediately in respect to the Linux computing ecosystem. "Microsoft like all corporations is required on law and I'm every ethical way to serve the ultimate financial interests of our shareholders and technically the same object can be considered to be any corporation's over-riding priority ceteris paribus. "Because historical animosity is very widely recognised to exist, established by some of the most important individual figures in the Linux computing ecosystem and supporting evidence for even irrational animosity against Microsoft in every way, can be readily found ubiquitously ininux community presentations, writing and even company strategy positions of publicly quoted businesses that rely on the continuing success of Linux, and frequently if not the majority of analysis of publicly held stances Pro Linux and Anti Microsoft are mutually exclusive positions, Microsoft does not believe that at any time we can anticipate that any goodwill or positive sentiment will ever assist us commercially in connection with any initiative we may take towards working with th. Linux computing ecosystem. "Nevertheless Microsoft believes that regardless of prevailing and highly vocal sentiments professed and maintained by the computing community at large, Microsoft has identified the existence of sufficient strategic importance for the integrating of formerly directly competing technology "camps" that will by logic and results create in the key markets Microsoft serves, new and enthusiastic consensus that the positive direction towards Linux that we are now taking, is altogether the best decision for all our customers and therefore Microsoft our partners and every collective and individual stakeholder. "Strategic commitments of this nature are not strictly irrevocable. However the extent of dedication and application of resources required, not least highlight of which is the personal individual committed energy and enthusiasm that every contribution towards our goals relies upon completely, means that directions such as we are announcing today are generational in nature and by that virtue real and absolute decisions. We have chosen to highlight this point which is nominally self apparent especially because in the light of the decades long history of unsatisfactory relations between the Linux community and Microsoft, we have decided not to communicate about this dynamic in any way whatsoever in the future, since real and universally valued gains will be served best by concomitant action. Microsofts stance and views and commitments will become self evident in due course from interaction with every aspect and element of our company. We wish to encourage in every way possible for members of the Linux community and open source movement to engage with us directly and judge on direct experience. Naturally it is the hope that the world class capabilities and resources available to Microsoft that will serve to aide and improve the Linux and open source computing ecosystems, will be welcomed for the intended universally beneficial advances we intend them to be."

will4274 6y ago

The patent on FAT is well known and no secret. I believe the main thing that changed was the patents expired.

fnord123 6y ago
aiui it was VFAT.

munchbunny 6y ago

I can't speak to strategy or whether Microsoft is "nicer" now, but speaking to the day to day as a grunt in the organization: Linux is getting openly embraced. Depending on the context, open source and Linux based solutions are often considered viable choices.