Steve Ballmer Declares 'Free Is Not A Business Model' -- Apparently Unfamiliar With Microsoft's Free Products
from the check-'em-out,-steve dept
Josh W points us to an article about Microsoft new mobile phone software that contains an odd quote from Steve Ballmer, responding to a question concerning Microsoft's plans to compete with Google's free Android mobile operating system:"Free is not a business model," he said. "We are a commercial company, we will look to gain revenue and profit from our activities. You'll have to ask our competitors if they'll make money on free things."Internet explorer. Bing. Microsoft's new security software. All free. All offered by Microsoft. Is Steve Ballmer admitting that he doesn't know about any of these things... or is he just expecting that the reporter and the readers of the article are flat-out stupid? Clearly, Microsoft seems to recognize that free is a part of lots of smart business models, so why is its CEO apparently acting clueless on this front? As clearly anyone who thought this through knows, free by itself is not a business model, but free, in combination with a larger business model often makes a lot of sense. That's what Google is doing, and it's what Microsoft is doing as well. So why is Steve Ballmer pretending otherwise?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: android, business models, free, steve ballmer
Companies: google, microsoft
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is it really free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stevo is being cluess?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it really free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it really free?
Well it is free for users, but revenue is being made through ads. Therefore its not free. It creates revenue, but doesn't ask users for money.
It is useless as a company to offer stuff for free, there is always some earnigns expected from it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really free?
Regardless, I don't think the AP article is sufficient to determine what he means by this. He could just be agreeing with Mike's assessment of the "Give it away and pray" option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really free?
The key here is that Ballmer basically says that they can't give software away for free because they expect to make money off of their work, which totally ignores the fact that his own company gives software away all the time (IE) if they think it will bring in money on other fronts (Windows).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really free?
And to counter, Google also has many paid products (google appliance, app engine beyond quotas, licensed maps, adsense), while their free products are used as part of their larger strategy.
To be fair, I don't think Ballmer is that clueless. I'd give him credit and say he's intentionally spreading FUD to try to justify in consumer's minds the places where they do charge licensing fees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is it really free?
Without buying windows, the free product is useless. So this isn't a free business model, sorry Mike.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it really free?
I'll argue that needing a decent anti-virus program is one of the issues that's plagued Microsoft for a long time. Properly-designed and engineered operating systems are nearly impervious to viruses, which is why those of us who use them have no need of anti-virus software. So as a technical strategy, this is really the wrong approach; but as a business strategy, it's brilliant, as it encourages learned dependence for the fix on the same entity that's creating the problem.
Note: viruses. Not trojans. Trojans are a problem on all operating systems because they attack users, not code.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it really free?
Actually, you make the point for me. Microsoft needed an update to their OS, this is part of it, so it isn't free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it really free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Is it really free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is it really free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is it really free?
Um, no, not quite...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh
It's no secret that MS has been trying to win over Hollywood, ultimately by selling out their own customers - they'll happily incorporate any DRM scheme that comes along from the entertainment industry if it means they can lock more people into their platform.
So it comes as no surprise that Ballmer would blithely mouth the popular mantra concerning "free" - he's just winking at Dan Glickman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free vendor lock-in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free vendor lock-in
http://onecare.live.com/standard/en-us/3/default.htm
-2.5 years
What do I win?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Free vendor lock-in
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Free is Priceless
Free generally gains goodwill
&
Goodwill is Priceless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction Everything Free is not a business model
You can give away products for free as a way of promoting your expertise, support, or consulting services. Many companies build open source software and say 'hey if you want high end support hire us and no one will be better at it as we built the thing'.
You can also give functional products away and sell more enterprise level features, or enhanced abilities.
'Free' is all about ancillary benefits and even Ballmer knows that. Now maybe he is talking in a purely economic theory perspective...yes everything costs something (time, expertise, energy, thought, etc) but you can have good business model based on products with zero monetary cost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Bing really free?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's free, but makes money through complimentary products.
-Bing sells ad space, but free for people who search.
-Silverlight is used to leverage more sales of Visual Studio, and possibly windows server.
This list could go on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's free, but makes money through complimentary products.
Really? You can use an Android phone to get directions to a local restaurant. What will I see next to those directions? Add's. Seems to me like Google's Android is doing exactly that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the outlandish prices they charge (and firms gladly pay) for true software dogs like Sharepoint, Team Foundation Server and Visual Studio when there are completely free open source alternatives available, I think Mr Balmer rightly epects that in general the managers of IT departments are complete idiots.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He is right!
I agree with a lot of what you say Michael about "free" in general but this is a pretty dumb view on an isolated quote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Duh
(to be fair, I'm assuming he's referring to "money")
Business *models* are a bit more sophisticated than "make something and charge for it". Have been for a long time.
"Give the music away for free, charge for performance" is as old as music. Had to be; copyright didn't exist for most of human history. And even now is largely unenforceable. Publishers are a gap play enabled by a brief trick of technology (cheap mass production coming a few decades before cheap mass distribution).
"Make free software and charge for service" has been around as long as electronic computers. Software without a computer is pretty useless. And a computer without software is pretty useless.
Isn't MS's entire business model based on giving people the mistaken idea the OS *is* free, since it comes with the computer?
If people had to buy a computer and OS separately (ie: they had to separate out the purchases, instead of thinking of it as "included in the cost"), my bet is that MS would have much less of the market.
Consider BeOS, *nix, OSX, MSWin, etc., all able to run on any standards compliant PC HW that a user could buy.
Who would have the most market share? I'd bet serious money it would not be MS.
Steve's an ignorant ass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
MS / Free Stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: MS / Free Stuff
It is always a possibility. But, if you're going to suggest it, why not back it up with some evidence?
Nothing is ever "FREE".
Ok. So, then why even mention it. If nothing is ever free, then Ballmer made just as big a mistake in claiming that Android is free. As you said, nothing is free, and then Ballmer is still clueless about his competitor's offering (based on what you said).
I think Steve is talking in general.
That doesn't change the fact that it's wrong.
If you want to know if he knows about the so called free stuff, why don't you just ask him ?
Hmm? So, are you saying I'm not allowed to comment on something that someone says to a reporter and is published in an article unless I first talk to them directly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just ignore him
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
?
Um...Because he's a monumental douchebag?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also free...
WTF!.....(no I did not mean WPF!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Correction
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nop, not free from M$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He’s Got A Point
Why the difference? Because Microsoft has no business model for Internet Explorer—it’s just a freebie they give away with their OS, and one which is very expensive for them to continue to develop and support.
Whereas Mozilla has a business model for Firefox, and is doing very well out of it. Not to mention the whole ecosystem of add-ons like GreaseMonkey, Firebug and so on, that add so much value for users.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Developers
Developers
Developers
Oh - yeah, and we're going to F'in kill Google
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mr. Ballmer made a general statement. If every time he spoke he was forced to do so in a manner that satifies the "parsers", such statements would have to contains so many qualifiers that they would approach the length of a legal brief.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: “General Comment”
It does seem a bit unfair to parse a general comment to make an individual look as if they are uninformed.
What does “general comment” mean? Did he mean what he said, or was he just spouting hot air?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
xbox live...not free
talk about completely out of whack pricing. They get paid on 3 ends with the xbox, 1) hardware/software sales, 2) xbox live memberships, and 3) advertisers who advertise to the customers paying for xbox live both in game and in the dashboard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He didn't say free can't be part of a business model, did he? Isn't that what you say all the time - that free by itself is not a model, but it can be part of many models?
"We are a commercial company, we will look to gain revenue and profit from our activities. You'll have to ask our competitors if they'll make money on free things."
"Clearly, Microsoft seems to recognize that free is a part of lots of smart business models..."
Sure they do, but when did they ever say free alone was a good model?
"..so why is its CEO apparently acting clueless on this front?"
How is he acting clueless when he states free is not a model?
"So why is Steve Ballmer pretending otherwise?"
He's not. You're the one who's twisting his words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
He didn't say free can't be part of a business model, did he? Isn't that what you say all the time - that free by itself is not a model, but it can be part of many models?
He responded to a question about how Android is being marketed -- which is "free as a part of a business model" -- and he mocked it as being free with no business model.
And yet, his company does the exact same thing on my products.
I did not misinterpret him. I quoted him accurately and within context. Your attempt to debunk what I said is taking him out of context.
Try again, please.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Complete Idiots
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Microsoft is not free
Last time I checked, Microsoft is using a number of business models across their vast range of products and services. The primary one -- that has been fattening the portfolios of MSFT shareholders for many years -- is to set standards for OS and core applications (Windows, Outlook, Office for example) and then charge the user and developer community rents for using them, primarily through hardware bundling and upgrade licenses.
Does Microsoft give out some stuff for free? Of course they do. Several examples have been cited by earlier posters. Is that Microsoft's business model? Not really. I get free samples at Costco and that's part of the reason I like to shop there, but Costco isn't an example of a "free" business model. To be honest, Google isn't either. Google rakes in oodles of dough by attracting eyeballs to "free" products like gmail, search, etc., and then selling them to advertisers. When someone buys the advertisers' products as a result of that exposure, they are indirectly compensating Google for the service that attracted them in the first place.
The point that I have not seen emphasized here is that Google is a media company while Microsoft is a software company. At this point they cannot compete with Google in the mobile space or anywhere else on the same terms (free to the consumer) so they are going about it the way they know best, through hardware bundling.
Ballmer is correct to critique the "free" model from the standpoint of Microsoft, since its non-free products are still making lots of money; and its "free" (i.e. advertising-supported) products are business flops since they have not gotten anywhere near the critical mass of users (eyeballs) as Google. Maybe the IT industry can actually support more than one business model.
EG
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Market Penetration
The fact that millions installed DOS on their systems "for free" created the market domination that MS exploits to this day.
Its understandable Ballmer would not to see an upstart somehow repeat that coup.
Today, "free to use" can directly translate to profit, not just market saturation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070312/165448.shtml
Microsoft could, for example, create a WGA/OGA-style system that actually works well and is very difficult to get around. But they won't because having people switch to Linux or OpenOffice hurts them a lot harder than having people pirate windows or MS Office.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And yeah, on the subject 'free' is not a business model but it can serve different purposes. From my own experience; In our free project management tool (Remindo.com) - 'free' has helped us get an initial set of users who helped us build the product and now when we launch our paid services, we intend to keep them free for this lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Punching Steve Ballmer in the face
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Indeed
To the commentor who wrote the following however..
"The key here is that Ballmer basically says that they can't give software away for free because they expect to make money off of their work, which totally ignores the fact that his own company gives software away all the time (IE) if they think it will bring in money on other fronts (Windows)."
How does IE bring in money via windows? windows makes money because it is a convenient operating system for most people, it is compatable, stable (Nowadays), and adaptable.
IE brings in money via the microsoft homepage, and its inbuilt search functionality.
The new Google Chrome browser is free, and while it does put its own search engine first, it presses nowhere near as hard is MS on selling on Googles profit making businesses.
The Google ethos is on customer satisfaction, ease of use and simplicity, the money grew out of that. The Microsoft ethos has always been on the money, which has worked equally well in other aspects, ie. buying windows on every PC that leaves the shop. The downside for Microsoft is that it means it is hard to compete against superior free products in other sectors, and of course it gives it a much more impersonal reputation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Indeed
All of the free products that Google have, are in a business model to eventually get it's users in some way or another to purchase and/or view advertisements from Google.
Hence in all ways, Google is eventually getting paid. By either having customers put advertisements on their products (i.e search) or directly purchasing a product from Google.
Google and Microsoft's business models are very similar, and it's humorous some people cannot see the similarity. Open your eyes... and find out... they both care about their bottom line. If that was not the case, Google would NEVER show advertisements, ALL products would be free, and THEY WOULD not be in "business" (i.e operational).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Indeed
What's humorous is people like you who think that this distinction actually matters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually... your clueless
The only reason why some Google products and some Microsoft products are free, are to entice the user to eventually "purchase" a product.
Just as why you are able to watch "free" television while being forced to watch commercials. In actuality... none of this is free. Someone down the line, is in fact paying for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow
RT
www.true-privacy.net.tc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Um ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More techdirt horseshit
Nobody on this site has the faintest idea how the real world operates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More techdirt horseshit
And apparently is a bankrupt company, considering the offered the free service before they even had paid software. Of course, they give away their software too...so they must be billions in deficit!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: More techdirt horseshit
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]