Closed vs Open Source

From Zanecorpwiki

Currently just some notes pulled out of another article that was in danger of going wildly tangent.

Many argue that Microsoft itself must now become or at least embrace open source in order to stay competitive and relevant.[1][2][3] It's not hard to see where Microsoft is hurting. Microsoft has over-promised and under delivered on every Windows upgrade... well, ever. What has really hurt Microsoft with their most recent iteration--Vista--wasn't the delays or failure to deliver on key features, but the simply fact that the market rejected it. People prefer XP, despite millions in development and billions in marketing. And that's all on the desktop where Microsoft dominates.

In the server and embedded markets, Microsoft can't rely on dumb inertia, is forced to compete, and hasn't done a great job. I haven't been able to find a study, but I would have to imagine that Microsoft outspends Linux marketing (whatever that is) by 1000 to 1, and yet Linux is highly competitive if not winning the server and mobile markets.

Part of the problem is the culture of closed source means that Microsoft gets little feedback about what's wrong except through slowing sales.