Measuring Lock-in

Anyone who thinks there is a free market in software needs to wake up!

In the EU a census was taken of tendering documents.
“all the 972 tender notices published on TED from April 1st to June 30th 2014 were scanned for trademarks. In 228 tender notices of those, obvious reference to trademarks was included. In other words, more than 23% of the total screened notices include technical specifications which make reference to trademarks”

M$, alone, got 89 of those 228 tenders. If your IT-system can’t function without M$, what are you doing wrong?

  • paying too much for software
  • building in future costs to migrate to M$’s next offering
  • building in future costs to exit from M$’s enslavement
  • reducing efficiency by being forced to do things in excessively complicated ways so that M$ can lock you in further reducing your efficiency by being forced…
  • oh, yeah, re-re-rebooting your IT-system, fighting malware, slowing down, …

There’s a reason for that lock-in. For decades, M$ was allowed to use strong anti-competitive practices all over the world. It takes a lot of time money and effort to undo that. e.g. Munich took 10 years to throw open the doors to the jail in which it found itself after decades of using M$’s products while folks like Largo, FL, who never took the bait are laughing all the way to the bank, year after year. Smaller organizations like the ones for which I worked could free themselves in weeks but it requires good knowledge of GNU/Linux which is often lacking. That too can be overcome. When the dust settles, folks who switch are better off and have lower costs of IT forever. It pays to switch.

.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Measuring Lock-in

  1. DrLoser says:

    And the “measure of lock-in?”

    I don’t suppose any of you are interested in a proper discussion about that.

    After all, wetting your pants about trade-marks is so much more satisfying, isn’t it?

    Particularly when the “numbers” in question are brought to you courtesy of a minor apparatchnik of one of the Big Four (Accountancy) Consultancies. I mean, it’s not as if these people have anything to gain other than Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, is it?

  2. ram says:

    Government procurements in most countries is purely driven by bribes and kickbacks. Microsoft is hardly worse than international arms dealers such as Thales and Lockheed-Martin. Come to think of it Boeing and EADS are not exactly angels either. And how about the big players in mineral extraction? They are another “charming” bunch. The list goes on and on. Personally I’m surprised that not every “tender” did not “prespecify” the winner.

  3. dougman says:

    Gone are the days of buying boxed copies of software. Like Adobe and Salesforce, Microsoft has embraced the subscription model, betting we’ll pay smaller installments for longer periods of time.

    Why purchase when one can pay through the nose ad-infinitum??

    M$ final direction is the cloud, complete with a 100% cloud OS, which is the ultimate lock-in.

    https://mspartner.microsoft.com/en/us/Pages/Solutions/downloads/us-cloud-os-vision.aspx

  4. DrLoser says:

    You see, Robert: if you’re not prepared to Go To The Mat, and to count these things yourself …

    … then you’re just repeating unsubstantiated conclusions made by somebody you’ve never even met, aren’t you?

  5. DrLoser says:

    Well now, Robert. You have a degree in Physics. You have extensive experience in Nuclear Physics, indeed.

    Tell us all how “counting the number of TMs on a TF/IDF basis” is in any way a useful “measure of lock-in?”

    Could you, perhaps, supply us with a list of FLOSS TMs that would make for comparison?

    Could you, perhaps, go further than the young lady from KPMG with her PowerPoint presentation, and count the number of times that phrases such as:

    Under no circumstances will we ever accept Microsoft(TM) on this project. FILTH! Hawk! Spit

    … ok, that one is unlikely, but …

    We propose a solution to migrate from Microsoft(TM)

    … or …

    Our solution is demonstrably better than that from Microsoft(TM)

    … or even …

    Our solution matches the relevant Microsoft(TM) functionality

    … would seem to apply. If you’re a junior bean-counter working on behalf of a massive diseased accountancy Borg that just sucks money out of any government it can find.

    Incidentally, didn’t you post this one before?

Leave a Reply