Microsoft Tries A 'First One's Free' Strategy To Lure Startups
from the you-know-you-want-to-try... dept
Microsoft certainly recognizes the fact that most startups these days are automatically gravitating to a LAMP infrastructure (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP). So, now it seems to be trying out a new program to lure startups by offering them free software for a few years and combining it with additional services that they hope will appeal to startups. It’s an interesting approach, though, in the long run, it still seems like they may have the equation backwards. While they are giving some stuff away free initially, the ultimate goal is to lock companies into paying for infinite goods like software, rather than scarcities like services.
Filed Under: free, services, software, startups
Companies: microsoft
Comments on “Microsoft Tries A 'First One's Free' Strategy To Lure Startups”
It's been said before...
No such thing as a free lunch!!!
Re: It's been said before...
huh?
LAMP is free….
Re: Re: It's been said before...
Yeah, Free…Unless you want support, then you pay.
Its been talked about here before. The free business model works only if you have a way to charge people later. Free software is the hook to get paid for services later.
So yes, LAMP = Free now, Pay later!
Re: Re: Re: It's been said before...
Nobody’s “hooked” and has to pay for support at all. You’ve completely deluded yourself.
Re: Re: Re: It's been said before...
Unless of course you have any google-fu and then you can get 99% of your support for free.
So actually LAMP = Free now, Free later unless you’re just dumb…so I’m guessing I know why you think someone has to pay for it. Idiot.
Re: Re: Re:2 It's been said before...
“unless you’re just dumb”
I see.
So the entrepreneur who knows how to start and build a successful business, but doesn’t understand the nuances of linux, is just dumb.
The executive who has his hands full running a business and doesn’t have time to deal with such details is just dumb.
Got it.
Re: Re: Re:3 It's been said before...
> The executive who has his hands full running a business
> and doesn’t have time to deal with such details is just
> dumb.
Yes.
That said, you don’t have an “executive” running startups.
If the man at the top doesn’t have a clue, then he’s good
at surrounding himself with people that do. That’s the only
way you can survive in that kind of environment.
A “startup” environment much less forgiving than the sort of environment that allows an “executive” to play stupid power games and build petty fiefdoms.
You certainly can’t trust someone that’s trying to sell
you something. That’s much like putting your trust into
a used car salesman.
Re: Re: It's been said before...
some old guy wrote:
Sallo wrote:
No such thing as a free lunch!!!
LAMP is free….
…nicely conflating two different meanings of “free”.
Luke !
It’s a trap !
Re: Re:
Our businesses can’t repel lock-ins of that magnitude!
NOT FREE!
Enrollment is free, just pay a USD $100 program offering fee at program exit.
The key word is "lock"
Key to the proprietary-software business model is the fact that, once you’ve become accustomed to using the vendor’s product, switching away from it becomes a lot more expensive than simply continuing to pay the licence fees. It’s hard to see how this might work with a LAMP-alternative, given that all the data has to be in open-standard formats (HTML, CSS etc) anyway.
Unless this is Microsoft practising “give-it-away-and-pray”, or at least “give-it-away-for-now-and-hope-we-come-up-with-some-way-to-monetize-this-before-it-bleeds-us-into-the-ground”…
Why this makes sense
A startup has to control capital expenditures much more than a company that’s actually got some cash flow going. This eliminates the biggest risk for a startup to using MS products: not being able to afford the licenses at a time when cash is most limited. Later on, if the business becomes more successful, then it will be able to afford the licensing fees.
I know it might be hard to believe for all of you who are convinced that selling software is evil, but it is a workable business model, and you could do much worse than Microsoft for a platform stack.