Microsoft embraces open source because they found out that there are other methods to monetize and lock in customers. As a bonus people seem to like you when you give them stuff for free, even with the catch of privacy invasion.
In other words, they stopped copying Apple and switched their sights on Google.
The stuff that matters stays closed source. Infrastructure, tooling are published because they bring massive amounts of goodwill and developer mindshare while hindering potential competitors that now have to battle with a free offering.
Frankly I preferred the old Microsoft which wanted your money, not the new one that (also!) wants your data.
They're not copying Google. They're taking the worst of both worlds.
Windows isn't free. It just happens to come with the cost of your PC, but the PC manufacturer pays for it (and passes the cost to you).
They just noticed that no one upgrades Windows (and why should they? When was the last time you were excited about a windows release? XP? 95? 3.1? Maybe 7 if you're coming from Vista?)
I personally was VERY excited for Windows 7 and it proved to be a very solid edition. VERY VERY excited for Ubuntu bash in Windows 10 in the preview edition.
> They're not copying Google. They're taking the worst of both worlds.
Google's model is advertising
Apple's is Hardware
Microsoft is selling services more.
I find it really awesome that Microsoft has really turned into a company I have a positive view of and glad that Steve Balmer is gone.
Apple costs, is closed-source but (somewhat) cares about privacy.
Google is free, (somewhat) open-source but actively doesn't care about privacy.
Windows costs, closed source and actively doesn't care about privacy.
In other words, with Google you're not the customer, you're the product.
With Microsoft you're the product and you have to pay for the privilege to be a product.
I have a strong negative bias vs Apple and everything they make.
One thing is Apple is not a closed source company. Though it is a mixed bag they have made some good contributions to the Open Sources world. Though their Walled Garden is YUGE
Microsoft doesn't care about privacy? They stood with Apple against FBI so you know. They are more reliably data protective than Amazon or Google in their agreements. They don't know what your data is on the cloud for example. Amazon stole Target's data and used it against them.
> I personally was VERY excited for Windows 7 and it proved to be a very solid edition. VERY VERY excited for Ubuntu bash in Windows 10 in the preview edition.
You can't compare the need for Windows 7 vs XP and the need for 95 after 3.1 . There was a huge amount of software which simply required 95.
Are there any good examples of this strategy? I can't think of anyone successfully moving a leading open source product back to closed source...I think normally it's the fork of the open source version that lives on...
The open source nature of it seemed to disappear overnight after Oracle bought Sun, but looks like Oracle's not doing too badly with it. I know there's the Open Source illumos (IIRC) but haven't heard of anyone using it in production.
In case of Microsoft, you don't even have to be very imaginative: how much of the stack currently in use by .Net developers on Windows is completely open? How important and hard to replace are the parts that aren't?
And how much of a difference would it make in the end to have had Core open source in the past, when the new and closed version is the only one that works with those billions of Windows10 tablets and those popular Azure services that everyone needs for their startup?
In other words, they stopped copying Apple and switched their sights on Google.
The stuff that matters stays closed source. Infrastructure, tooling are published because they bring massive amounts of goodwill and developer mindshare while hindering potential competitors that now have to battle with a free offering.
Frankly I preferred the old Microsoft which wanted your money, not the new one that (also!) wants your data.