So some software companies that have been slow to adopt OSS have lost money to smaller, more agile companies leveraging freely available tools and infrastructure? The revolution proceeds apace.

Wow, and Ford being in business is costing Chevy money too. Sure some people are losing money because of FLOSS, but others are making money because of it. I just had no idea that traditionally licensed software was THAT overpriced.

There's a lot more to open source than Linux. There's Apache, not just the web server, or AXIS or XALAN, but all the Commons stuff as well. You used to see lots of libraries available for sale (anybody remember Greenleaf?). You don't see many of them anymore, and what you do see is much less expensive.

I have no idea if the $60B figure is accurate, but the accurate figure is damn sight more than whatever Red Hat, Novell, et.al. make off of Linux.

What is really interesting is that the Standish Group is looking for a Sys. Admin. with FreeBSD and Linux experience. Also, they are looking ofr a PHP web developer. And, Netcraft says they run on Linux and FreeBSD OSes running Apache.

So, they say that FOSS is costing vendors big $$$, but they themselves are utilizing FOSS.

I wonder if their study should be titled:
"Free Open Source Software Is Costing Microsoft & it's partners $60 Billion"

The reason they are using it is BECAUSE it is costing those vendors money. It has made software into a commodity. Remember when a cell phone was a big bag you carried around, and it was a status symbol because it was so expensive? Now everyone has one. Remember when digital watches were the same? Now they are the toy in a cereal box.

When things become a commodity, freedom follows, because more people can get them, and although some lose money (those producing the niche product) many more gain. Has anyone looked at the potential economic advantage of more people being able to afford whatever software they need?

Wow, I never imagined that proprietary vendors have lost so much because of free open source software. Just imagine how much the consumers would be losing if it weren't for the GPL and other free license models.

I wonder how much the bottled-water companies are losing because I can get water from the tap, or from a fresh spring well? I wonder how much the taxi services are losing because I can drive my own car? How about how much the lawn care service providers lose because people are cutting their own grass? The list goes on and on of course.

How much would you be paying for Microsoft products if Linux were not available? How much would it cost you for the opportunity to compute in a proprietary-only world?

Do you think Microsoft products would be any better than they are if there were no competition, such as Linux? Of course I am not trying to say that Microsoft products have high quality presently--but would they be any better without competition. Think about it. It would cost you a fortune just to access the Internet or do simple computing tasks, such as to edit a document.

Thank goodness for the GPL and other free software license models. They drive down costs and spur great innovation and efficiencies. Just ask Google--consider how much they save because they have Linux in their data centers.

Wow a study showing that corporations who spend money on software have saved $60 Billion in unnecessary expenses by choosing Open Source software instead of costly software from commercial vendors! That's great.

Wall street investors should take note and move their investments from old style commercial software vendors into these innovative companies who don't want to keep throwing their hard earned profits into some other companies coffers.

Think about it. every light bulb, toilet paper, and paper clip manufacturer uses software. Maybe they use something like the products from Microsoft. Microsoft usually posts about 80% profit year after year. Most companies are lucky to get between 5% and 10% profit, but you get to charge what the market will tolerate, and so Microsoft gets to charge enough extra for their products that they have 80% profit after all their expenses are figured in. All those light bulb, toilet paper and paper clip makers are giving some of their gross profits to Microsoft. That makes MS richer, and they get poorer.

This study seems to indicate that some of those companies are starting to think that they should keep more of their profits to themselves! Not only are they thinking it this study seems to indicate they are doing it! What a great way to show that capitalism and free markets work! Investors should be thrilled.

Thinking about Microsoft and their 80% reminded me that 6 out of 8 divisions of Microsoft are unprofitable! That means that the OS division that writes and sells Windows and the Office division that writes and sells, well, Office are making enough profit to prop up the 6 failing divisions that make things like X-Boxes and Great Plains software! Wow they must be charging a 300%-400% mark up on Office and Windows to pay for all those losing ventures and still have 80% left over at the end of the year.With mark up's like that its no wonder the market is so ripe for competition.

Don't worry about MS though, if you own stock. After all if sales start slumping they can jettison the unprofitable divisions and cut waste to stay in that 80% range. Microsoft knows how to compete (at least they used to back in the 80's before they had all the market share) they will do just fine.

erm.. that value "loss" actually ends up somewhere else - cost savings! good for the economy..

the end is nigh microtoss!!

Welcome to our world baby...

Sounds like someone is finally getting a clue.

The desktop for Mom and Dad is Next.

Count those losses.

h

The $60 billion may be the loss of revenues to Microsoft over the past five years.

Does this mean that people who adopt Open Source software have avoided being ripped off by $60 billion over the past fie years?

Or does it mean that rapacious vendors have had their gravy train curtailed by this amount.

Either way, it's a great day for end-uses (consumers and businesses alike) if the claim is true. But it sounds to me like another FUD-job by another credential-less "research firm" (Standish Who???), possibly in the pocket of that hapless Vista flogger/vendor, again.

There's nothing wrong in people saving money by refusing to pay the Windows (and other proprietary systems) "taxes".

Move on, nothing to see here. Just some more stupid press releases and garbage.

If the annual Linux market is worth $21 billion, and consumers would pay an extra $60 billion annually if they had to purchase proprietary software, the result is clear. Consumers are getting $4 of value for every $1 they spend on Linux.

Second to Dennis Byron's April 16 post on this. The Standish Group is best-known for its reports, beginning in 1994, on the parlous state of software development project management.

It can make no difference to the firm's research results that it employs, as CJ on April 16 pointed out, people who have Linux skills. The implication that such employment indicates hypocrisy by the firm is one that no disciplined researcher would suggest.

Quote: "Open Source software [...] is the ultimate in disruptive technology". Obviously this bozo has never heard of Microsoft.

Wow... that sounds like something that professional Microsoft troll Rob Enderle (Of the Enderle "Group." The guy who actually decided to claim Linux was communist smply because Cuba adopted it. I seem to recall an equally illogical and moronic claim attached to terrorism, too.) would say.

That's actually 60 billion dollars best spent elsewhere anyway. Software SHOULD be free (Gratis and libre.) anyway.