>> This is just as ridiculous as saying that computers lock your documents into binary digits and make things difficult for people to switch to file cabinats. Honestly, if people decide that an alternative is more suitable for their goals than their current solutions, they WILL switch no manner what you say about it or what price tag you have put on it. Consumers' reluctance to switch to your alternative means one thing and one thing only - that they have generally decided that this alternative is by no means more VIABLE to what they are using
Of course switching is difficult and costly if the alternative to preserving your complex document is to rewrite it again in another application because copy/paste doesn't preserve everything because the file formats have not been deciphered totally (bugs, extended features, and all).
When a person considers making a new purchase, they have to consider the total costs. If they like some solution but interacting easily with their existing documents would involve rewriting many documents, then the path of least resistance might be paying $1000 for the various upgrades (and further hidden lock-in).
[Understandably, some of the lock-in is at the mental effort level of being accustomed to a particular way of doing something. This is one reason monopolists want to patent and use copyrights on GUIs, workflows, etc, to eliminate substitutive competition.]
Sometimes people even upgrade out of ignorance, a lack of awareness of the migration tools available or of the competing products and their more open life cycle.
If everything was based on quality, would vendors put so many resources into advertising, for example? Do you think Microsoft misrepresents open source for fun (or for profits)? Consumers don't magically acquire knowledge.
Why don't you ask Microsoft to open source all their code and see what they say? Oh, wait, Ballmer already stated that his business model (you know, the monopolies) are incompatible with free and with open sourcing.
Listen to Ballmer if you won't listen to listen to what I and many others are saying about lock-in and about business 101 (supply/demand). [After you finish with supply/demand, look at implications/applications, such as tie-in/bundling. This is how you create demand for your products where none might exist. You piggy-back off the product that does have demand, and this helps you drive less diversified competitors out of the market so that you can raise prices afterward and even buy their superior products out on the cheap.]
Since we all can't be monopolists and since monopolies are a strong threat in the world of closed source software, the market learns that standards and various other pro-consumer rules ultimately helps them out even if the immediate impact is less leverage in negotiating against consumers.
>> and you can bet with your head that no amount of pseudo-religious rhetorics will convince them otherwise.
Learn business before you try to give me lessons about "my religion" as a consumer and as an engineer of avoiding lock-in from vendors and about the benefits of a more efficient development model.
There are plenty of ways of making money on open source. You just can't be that greedy, and it will help much once Microsoft and other monopolists get cut down in size. Most service providers will simply gain options with Linux from the things they can do currently to create Windows related products.
There are plenty of ways of saving money on open source. Duh!