Microsoft vs. Open Source

John Lam writes

The key point about this figure is that the rate of innovation in Linux is greater than the rate of increase of the lower limit of user expectations. Therefore it is inevitable that the Linux curve and the lower limit of user expectations curve intersect. This is what Christensen calls a "disruptive technology".

In the case of server applications, Linux has clearly exceeded the lower limit of user expectations, which explains why Linux is commoditizing the market for low-end server applications. In the case of desktop applications, the OpenOffice / Linux combination hasn't quite reached the lower limit of user expectations, which explains the relatively shallow penetration of Linux into those markets.

However, if you accept that the rate of OpenOffice / Linux innovation will outstrip the rate of increase in the lower limit of user expectations, it becomes inevitable that Linux will begin to hit Microsoft close to home: in the desktop and the office productivity markets.

I have to say that this argument appeals to me somewhat. The idea that there's a threshhold that software needs to cross before it can "break out" seems intuitive. Not having read "The Innovator's Dilemma", I don't know whether the theory includes price and quality as factors, not to mention simple inertia - OpenOffice will have to actually be quite a bit better than the lower limit of expectations to make people switch. Also, there's a fairly explicit assumption in the "if you accept that the rate of OpenOffice / Linux innovation will outstrip the rate of increase in the lower limit of user expectations" statement.

But like I said before, I still think there's something to Open Source - it sounds like "The Innovator's Dilemma" takes a stab at quantifying. I'll have to try to read it in my copious free time.