Microsoft has insisted it did not slash its software prices to encourage Birmingham City Council to abort its Linux project.
Birmingham pulled the plug on its open-source desktop project after it found that an upgrade to Windows XP was cheaper. Birmingham City Council had planned to roll out 1,500 Linux PCs across its libraries, but in the end converted just 200 PCs.
Industry experts have suggested that Microsoft offered Birmingham special discounts to sway the balance in favour of XP. But Microsoft firmly denied these allegations. Asked whether Microsoft had offered special discounts to Birmingham, Nick McGrath, head of platform strategy told ZDNet UK, "No, not all. We are in discussions with every single local authority. There is a common buying framework."
McGrath added, "The decision was very much taken by Birmingham."
Birmingham City Council itself is slightly less clear on this point. When asked whether the council managed to get a better deal from Microsoft as a result of its trial, IT chief Glyn Evans told ZDNet UK that: "We did not seek a better deal from Microsoft nor was that an objective [stated or unstated] of the project". However, Evans didn't state whether any discount had been received
Many observers have claimed that Microsoft offers inducements to local authorities to stay with Windows if they show a willingness to switch to open source.
Laurent Lachal, senior analyst at Ovum, said, "Microsoft is going out of its way to lower prices to get deals. If it lowers it to the point where it makes no sense to deploy open source, then it is a good deal for the organisation."
Bob Griffiths, international secretary at SOCITM, the association for public sector IT professionals which supported the Birmingham project through the Open Source Academy, acknowledged that Microsoft had been "involved in negotiations" with the council. He said that he was unsure whether Birmingham had gained an advantage through its Linux pilot in bargaining with Microsoft, but added that other councils had successfully used that tactic.
"I'm not sure that's the case with them. But other authorities have claimed advantages," said Griffiths.
The London Borough of Newham has been at the centre of such suggestions after it reverted to Windows in 2004 after trialling Linux, although it denies the allegations.
Talkback
Laurent Lachal: "Microsoft is going out of its way to lower prices to get deals. If it lowers it to the point where it makes no sense to deploy open source, then it is a good deal for the organisation."
1) This comment proves that, in the absence of market distortion, Open Source costs less than Windows. Did you intend to say this Mr. Lachal?
2) It's also an attempt at justify the uncompetitive business practices on a monoploy. Should Ovum be encouraging this sort of thing?
Why is UK Public Sector IT policy is being determined by furtive, under-the-counter deals?
* Private Sector Open Source success stories are commonplace.
* The Government's own studies confirm Open Source benefits.
* EC funded research show massive economic benefits.
* Public Authorities throughout the rest of the world are switching.
And yet the UK gets one or both of:
* A twice-convicted monopolist clandestinely de-railing Open Source projects.
* Cynical Public Sector executives slyly selling long-term cost reduction and freedom from lock-in for short-term... well, it would be good to *know* what they are selling it for, wouldn't it?
The Public Sector is funded by *our* money! Surely we deserve an ICT Strategy determined by better 'principles' than conspiracy with a convicted monopolist?
It's good business sense, I know the NHS got a masssive discount from Microsoft 1 million licences + (7 year lockin) when they threatened to even consider open source. That's the market in action.
Large public bodies should not be taking risks mucking around with open source software, if private sector companies want to take the gamble thats up to them
Jon
Don't quite understand the rant. Whatever discount Microsoft is giving they're not giving it away for free. So if it still makes better business sense to pay Microsoft than do the "Open Source" thing then so be it. The business case for Open Source solutions need to stand on its own financial merits.