Author: T. Y. Fam
Research Assignment

Microsoft’s monopoly is damaging the software market. Nowadays, there are many kinds of open source software available in the market. The amount of open source software is increasing day by day. The Microsoft domination of the software market is actually causing a lot of problems to people because it is damaging the software competition with other software companies. Monopoly means control over a product is held by only one group of people. Monopolizing the whole software market actually does not bring any benefits for Microsoft, because they do not have any competition for them to improve themselves.

Open source software is developing as a rival to Microsoft. Bear in mind that open source does not mean just access to the source code. In order to classify whether the software is up to the open source standard, it must fulfill a certain number of criteria. There are a few criteria that need to be fulfilled such as free redistribution, which means that a developer cannot make a profit from the modified version of the software. It must be free and open to others as well. All the programs must come with the source code, so that everyone will be able to access the code. The license of open source must not discriminate against any person or groups; therefore, people should be able to use the program in any area they want (Open Source Initiative, 2005, p.1).
Open source could be better than the Microsoft monopoly in many aspects such as reliability, security, functionality and other ways as well. Every individual or organization and programmers able to make use of the source code because the source code is free and available on the Internet, they are able to download and improve it according to their needs. It is also more reliable compared to Microsoft’s dominant products. With Microsoft, users are not allowed to view or modifying the source code. In fact, there is no source code available anyway. Source code is the programming code of a program, open source software will include a complete and compiled coding while Microsoft only selling their software but without any source code. This is a huge contrast compared with open source software that can be accessed anytime with no cost.

Generally, in terms of security and functionality, software from Microsoft has a higher risk of being hacked compared to open source software. For example, a worm called Bofra� had infected a lot of Internet Explorer users in 2004. It is not a file or attachment but just a link to a web page; once a user clicked on the link their PC will be infected (The Australian�, 2004, p.C07). There are many reasons why this phenomenon could happen in the modern technology world. If Microsoft does not monopolize the software market, giving chances to open source, these problems could be reduced. More people are working on open source programs compared to Microsoft products; therefore, the functionality of open source software could be competitive with Microsoft software. Open source could become dominant development system in the world if some of the areas had been improved. Sometimes, the features within open source software are more useful, because the software is modified to suite personal need (Ferguson, 2005, p.64).

Microsoft’s monopoly has been in place since the release of the first version of the Windows operating system. An operating system is a program that helps to run the computer hardware and software systems. It is the core of a computer system. Microsoft has never admitted that they are actually monopolizing the software market, but some of the facts and measurement have been proved that Microsoft has indeed monopolized the software market in the world (Khan, Islam and Ahmed, 2005, p.130). Statistics shows that more than 90% of computers use Microsoft Windows Operating Systems in the world. Microsoft products such as Windows, Office, and Servers have become the industry standard, and control the current market (Khan, Islam and Ahmed, 2005, p.130).

The problems of Microsoft’s monopolization can be potentially huge, because it may not only affect other software companies competitive ability, but also limit the choices of consumers. Glover (2005, p.1) stated that Microsoft does not reveal how Windows actually works; this can obviously limit the ability of software developers to create competitive software to compete with Microsoft’s products such as the Office series. In the author’s experience this would allows Microsoft to dominate software markets without competition. Recently, the European Union wanted to fine Microsoft 500 million because they want Microsoft to make two major changes: first, they want Microsoft to remove Windows Media Player (WMP) as bundled software for the Windows OS. WMP is a program that allows users to play most kinds of media such as CD, VCD and DVD. The bundling of this program damages competition between others who produce similar software, companies such as Real Networks, who produce Real Player; the second reason is Microsoft does not share enough information about how Windows work with other software manufacturers (Microsoft hit by record EU fine�, 2004, p.1).

The main concerns about Microsoft’s monopoly are security, reliability and functionality. Logically, if there is no competition then there will be no improvement. Thayer (2005, pp.76-77) indicates that Microsoft’s products have created several security issues which have been critical for industry or home users. For example, Internet Explorer (IE) is a program that is used to browse the Internet website. The author also stated that IE has been vulnerable to hackers or viruses for such a long time before it gets fixed until the CERT (Computer Emergency Response Team) warned people to stop using IE. This vulnerability means it is possible to be attacked by something else, or it is not safe in certain kinds of situations. The competitor of IE is the open source program, Mozilla Firefox that works in a similar way to IE, but it has less security and stability problems compared to IE. Because the source is open, problems may be fixed very quickly by anybody. It has been developed under the open source community; thus it is completely free and seems to have better functionality. In term of overall performance, many people say that Firefox is better than IE; for example, Thayer (2005, pp.76-77) argued that users should be using Firefox for Internet surfing and use the IE for intranets. An intranet is a network within an organization which has no connection from outside. Since IE is recommended for use only on intranets, it has serious security problems for use on the normal Internet. There are many cases in which hackers were able to steal credit card or banking information from IE but not from the Firefox browser (Thayer, 2005, pp.76-77).

Again, this shows the effectiveness of open source programs compared to Microsoft’s products. At least the problems on Firefox get fixed quickly rather than being ignored as in IE. Firefox works so well because of the huge support from the open source community. The source is open to public, and anyone can change and modify the program and make improvements. When problems have been identified, millions of programmers will work for a solution and problems get fixed in few days or even few hours. For IE, the programming code is not accessible to the public, so only the employee in Microsoft will be able to look for a solution. Therefore, it takes longer to fix the error and will mean the problems will exist for a longer period. From the example given above, it is obvious that open source software could be better than Microsoft’s products. Generally speaking, for security purposes, we should use Firefox because of its lower vulnerability compared to Microsoft Internet Explorer.

The future of open source will be bright, because more people are switching from Microsoft Windows Server to Linux. Linux is not an acronym, but the first version of Linux’s core which was originally written by Ken Thompson called UNIX. It is an operating system that developed under the GNU General Public License, therefore the source code is available for everybody. It is free to use and modify, provided your modified version is also open to the public (About the Linux operating system�, 2005, p.1). Linux is widely used to serve as a server for many purposes, such as web hosting and database serving. Ferguson (2005, p.64) says that companies such as IBM have contributed lots of money to support open source software. Ferguson continues to report that in company revenue trends, statistics shows that Linux has grown significantly from year 2002 to 2004. There is no extra cost to run a Linux server for a business; however, the Microsoft’s Windows Server comes at an expensive cost.

The benefits of using open source software over Microsoft are immense; nonetheless, open source is not perfect. There are still many problems which exist in certain areas, such as money, coding and maintenance. Money is important for the open source community to pay for the daily development expenses. Development will have to be stopped if the community runs out of money or materials. For the open source coding structure, people often just copy and paste the source code into a particular system. When modifying the program, it will be difficult to understand the code because part of the structure might be different. One of the main problems of open source software is the lack of maintenance or updates, because all the programmers are working as volunteer. They only work part-time or in their spare time; therefore, user support on open source programs is often limited.

In conclusion, Microsoft’s monopolization does not bring any benefits to software markets. In other words, it would only restrict markets in terms of business value. Since it brings more problems to software markets compared to open source software, this would result in higher demand for open source software. Users will know the differences clearly between open source and Microsoft’s products, thus giving open source the opportunity for it to grow faster. Open source software would have better expansion in the future, depending on the users and mostly programmers or software engineers. Since open source software can provide more services to software developers, developers can use the entire source code to enhance the features of the particular software. Open source software is free but users will need to pay in order to get Microsoft’s software license. In term of consumer value, therefore, most people should pay more attention to open source software. Furthermore, open source can provide better security and functionality compared to Microsoft’s products.

List of References

About the Linux operating system� (2005) (URL: http://www.linux.org/info/index. html) [Accessed: 22 June 2005]

Alper, J. (1998), From Army of hackers, an upstart operating system�, Science, Vol.282, pp.1976-1979

Boulanger, A. (2005), Open-source versus proprietary software: Is one more reliable and secure than the other?�, IBM Systems Journal, Vol.44, pp.239-249

Ferguson, C. (2005), How Linux could overthrow Microsoft, Technology Review, Vol. 108, p.64

Galli, P. (2005), Why Unix can’t win�, eWeek, Vol.22, pp.18

Glover, T. (2005), Gates caves in to EU on monopoly�, Knight Ridder Tribune Business News, Jan 30, 2005, p.1

Khan, S., Islam, F. & Ahmed, S. M. (2004), Is Microsoft a monopoly�, American Business Review, Vol.22, pp.130-135

Meza, P. (2005), Putting Open Source to work�, Optimize, Vol.4, pp.77-79

Microsoft hit by record EU fine� (2004) (URL: http://www.cnn.com/2004/BUSINE SS/06/08/eu.microsoft.app eal/index.html) [Accessed: 19 June 2005]

Open Source Initiative (OSI)� (2005) (URL: http://www.opensource.org/docs/defin ition_plain.php) [Accessed: 12 June 2005]

Salvator, D. (2005), Giving Microsoft the boot�, ExtreamTech.com, Part 1, p.1

Serious flaw in internet Explorer (2004), The Australian, 30 November 2004, p.C07

Thayer, R. (2005), Should IE stay or should IE go?, Network World, Vol.22, pp.76-77

Subscribe to the post comments feeds or Leave a trackback