2 ms·
RedHat is tiny compared to Microsoft, and I don't think RedHat is the model for MS to follow. RedHat does only a billion in revenue compared to MS' 77 billion.
by nemothekid 13y ago
RedHat is tiny compared to Microsoft, and I don't think RedHat is the model for MS to follow. RedHat does only a billion in revenue compared to MS' 77 billion.
Granted there are different forces at play, but you can't really recommend a company like Microsoft move to RedHat's model unless you were 100% sure that Microsoft's licensing revenue was either 1.) a tiny fraction compared to their tech support revenue or 2.) by open sourcing they could make the money they lost on licensing through even more tech support.
Doesn't seem likely given that there are companies paying for both the license and tech support.
- astrodust 13y agoI'd be more concerned with revenue per installed copy of RedHat vs. Windows rather than comparing RedHat on the basis of revenue period. Microsoft has a significantly larger customer base. I'm not saying Microsoft could make more money through open-source, but it might be a way of making less money over a much longer period of time. Companies will eventually ditch the Microsoft stack when there's more affordable alternatives to pick from. Google, SalesForce, Oracle, IBM and others are working relentlessly to make these things happen. Making Windows "free" would certainly mess up their plans. After all, this very strategy worked amazingly well when they decided to give away Internet Explorer. Just imagine how entrenched IE would be now if Internet Explorer 6 had been open-source and had been continuously upgraded like WebKit. It's arguable that rendering engine would be at 90+% market share to this day.