Neowin.net - Microsoft Ads Called Bogus

Microsoft Ads Called Bogus

Posted by DJ Prem on 09 January 2004 - 13:51 · 31 comments & 5055 views

Open-source advocates are crying foul over a new ad campaign from Microsoft that claims that Windows-based systems cost less in the long run than Linux-based systems.

Ads for the campaign, which were unveiled Monday and will appear in online and print publications, refer potential customers to a section of the Microsoft website where they can "get the facts" on Windows and Linux. There, visitors can view what Microsoft calls "independent analyses" of the two operating systems.

Critics, however, say that the facts provided on the site are misleading. And they claim that the analyses are anything but independent, given that Microsoft paid analysts to produce most of them.

News source: Wired News

"The point they're trying to make is really quite specious," said open-source activist Bruce Perens. "If anything, this lowers Microsoft's credibility and shows that they're losing ground to Linux."

Of the eight research reports featured on the campaign website, five are clearly marked as having been commissioned by Microsoft; one was written by Microsoft itself, but contains an attached audit from an independent firm. It's unclear whether the last two were sponsored.

Perens and other Linux advocates question whether such paid research can be truly objective and point to discrepancies in similar reports commissioned by competing companies.

For instance, a 2002 IDC report (PDF) being used in the Microsoft campaign notes that staffing costs are nearly 30 percent higher for Linux than for Windows when the operating systems are used in a Web environment. An alternate study (PDF) prepared in the same year by the Robert Frances Group for IBM, a Microsoft competitor, found that the staffing costs required to run one Linux Web server came to just $1,623, in comparison to $6,850 for a Windows-based server.

Representatives from IDC and the Robert Frances Group were not immediately available for comment.

A spokeswoman for Microsoft dismissed the potential for bias in the reports, noting that it is a common industry practice for companies to commission research from third parties.

"The analyst reports commissioned by Microsoft have been transparent in the scope of their methodology and assertions," wrote the spokeswoman in an e-mail to Wired News. "Where Microsoft has funded studies or research, we will make it clear."

But simply noting which reports were paid for is not enough, said Peter Sealey, co-director of UC Berkeley's Center for Marketing and Technology.

"If the sponsorship is disclosed, it's a little more legitimate," said Sealey. "But that's not good enough.

"The issue becomes one of which questions were asked and which were omitted," he added. "If Microsoft's claims are absolutely true, it seems like they should be able to find some objective research. I would ask myself, 'Why can't they find that info?'"

The current ad campaign does not mark the first time that a Microsoft-sponsored look at the differences between Windows and Linux has stirred controversy. In October 2003, after a misunderstanding over the scope of one of its reports, Forrester Research announced that it no longer would allow its product comparisons to be published publicly if they were commissioned.

In a subsequent interview with the IDG News Service, the author of the report, John Rymer, said the company was concerned about the way Microsoft represented the report's findings to the press.

The report (PDF) is still available on Microsoft's website and is being used in conjunction with the new ad campaign.

Despite the backlash, Microsoft remains confident that its reports will help customers see the benefits of Windows.

"We encourage customers to read the full research report, study the methodology and gauge for themselves the merits of the information," said the Microsoft spokeswoman.

Surprisingly, that's exactly what Linux advocates want customers to do, too.

"This could be a good thing for Linux," said Perens. "I think this may wake up some people in the business world who are going to see that Microsoft is scared of Linux, and that's going to get them to look at Linux as a serious possibility."

Hide additional information

About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: DJ Prem
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline

Total votes: 0

Bookmark on del.icio.us

Advertisement

#1 Posted by theh0g on 09 Jan 2004 - 14:08: And some people wonder why more and more people don't trust Microsoft. They said they'll convince customers with facts, but BS like this was expected. Microsoft is a sinking ship (slowly for now) and they'll follow the Titanic if they don't start to play fair and respect other players in the market. Money can't buy everything.

(13 replies) #2 Posted by STV on 09 Jan 2004 - 14:44: Why is it that the linux/open-source community always end up crying over something that Microsoft does? I remember the same kind "foul-cry" when Microsoft's .NET Pet Shop beat out Java's Pet Shop twice.

STV

#3 Posted by bluebsh on 09 Jan 2004 - 15:01: < comment went to wrong place... 4th time today, something up with the commenting system? >

#4 Posted by bluebsh on 09 Jan 2004 - 15:06

QUOTE

For instance, a 2002 IDC report (PDF) being used in the Microsoft campaign notes that staffing costs are nearly 30 percent higher for Linux than for Windows when the operating systems are used in a Web environment. An alternate study (PDF) prepared in the same year by the Robert Frances Group for IBM, a Microsoft competitor, found that the staffing costs required to run one Linux Web server came to just $1,623, in comparison to $6,850 for a Windows-based server.

that cant be right, because we found here that when we switched from novel and linux to Win2k clusters our total cost went down... figrue that one out... we also needed 4 less admins to run the cluster then the 14 admins we had previously.. now, at $56,000 an admin, you can see that windows is a lot less expensive to maintain...

(1 reply) #5 Posted by Magallanes on 09 Jan 2004 - 15:33: A wise administrator use both.. windows and linux. In fact, linux for email server is fairly better and cheap that a ms-exchanger-i-hav-a-lot-of-bugs server.

(1 reply) #6 Posted by shao on 09 Jan 2004 - 16:29

show me a linux groupware server that can do all the things exchange2003 can, that's cheaper, including all the tco, implementation, and long term support from both back and front end.

when linux is something that can truely compete with microsoft across the board, and i mean truely across the board, they will maybe have an arugument. Until then.

QUOTE

One more thing: Linux does work on your computers, but a product isn't bad just because you can't use it, is it?

who's problem is that then? maybe the linux distros should try and make something that's appealing to the everyday joe instead of sitting on their collective asses and just complaining about people not using their software.

#6.1 Posted by STV on 09 Jan 2004 - 16:36: Although i totally agree with your position, i do think that linux distro companies (and the open-source movement in general) are trying very hard to crack into the mainstream as a legitimate Windows OS competitor on the desktop. BUT, they may be doing something wrong in the process that it may seem as though they are not trying. Maybe some programmers are just wannabes and dont have what it takes to code effectively (not a flame or a put down, I am just stating that it MAY be a reason).

#7 Posted by matric on 10 Jan 2004 - 00:39: Does the product do what the customer wants? It does? Then good. What is all it should be about. It shouldn't matter who creates the product. It should matter that the task is being completed effectively for the user.

Not only that, that the manufacturer listens to what the customer wants.
Don't you dare say the Open Source community does this. I am so sick of them acting in the way of "Don't tell us what you want, we'll tell you what you want". Furthermore, when their competitor tries to beat them out of the market further, they start crying to everyone saying "don't listen to that mean old company, they're lying, we're better". Where is the proof. How about rather than crying about a competitor advertising to sell the product, we improve their product to make it more compelling.
I am getting sick of "The Boy who Cried Wolf" from every single software manufacturer. A better product will get the customers, regardless of the cost and the manufacturers. Look at it this way - if Microsoft Office is so terrible and competitors products are much better, why do people still continue to pirate it, apart from the obvious reasons.

#8 Posted by EnderDX on 10 Jan 2004 - 00:55: Microsoft always lies to get more money. Who are you gonna trust? Big business or people who want their software to work?

(2 replies) #9 Posted by matric on 10 Jan 2004 - 03:36: Always lies to get more money? Hmmm, well I can't say I have been lied to recently. They said their product does what I wanted it to do. It does. To me, that is telling the truth.

(2 replies) #10 Posted by THX|PK| on 10 Jan 2004 - 14:03: The biggest liability linux has is its users. Just as the extremists give the religion of Islam a bad name so do the zealot supporters of linux.

(1 reply) #11 Posted by Shining Arcanine on 10 Jan 2004 - 17:27: I have a website that I run as a hobby. When ever something goes wrong, I spend alot of time and money to fix it. Unless the Linux avocates are going to give me the money and innumerable hours of my life that I wasted on it back, Microsoft is right.

[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.

Scroll to the Top