When is losing market share a good thing? When it's only 0.1 percent. Comparatively, the last time share had been measured it had fallen over 22 percent. Thus is the fate of Windows Phone 7.
At 1.5 percent, Windows Phone 7 has a market share that only a masochist would like. Hey, at one point it was up to a still-anemic 2.7 percent, according to Gartner tracking.
In the latest numbers, Microsoft came in sixth in the overall smartphone OS market. Here's how the rest rank: Android is tops with over half the market, Symbian may be dying but it still has over 16 percent -- half of what it had the year before. Apple is third (I always find this surprising given its image, but iPhones are expensive). Microsoft actually got beat by an operating system I had never heard of: Bada. Apparently it's an OS used by Samsung,
While the numbers aren't there, the future may be brighter, as my next item indicates.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/18/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
With all the talk from Redmondites about the cloud, you'd reckon Microsoft is pulling in a bundle. After all, isn't Microsoft 'all in' the cloud?
The cloud may be Microsoft's financial future, but it sure isn't the present. In fact it will take quite a while before the cloud can rival Microsoft's on-premise server software business, or so says Charles Di Bona, a Redmond general manager.
Right now, the Server and Tools business runs around $17 billion a year, and Windows Azure is part of that division. Unfortunately Di Bona didn't break out specific cloud numbers. In fact, that may be impossible to do. Standard on-premise tools like System Center and Windows Server can be deployed in a data center as part of private clouds.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/16/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Steve Jobs had a huge impact, and Adobe is one concern that is feeling it now. Jobs famously rejected Flash for the iPad, a critical blow to Adobe's reputation. Meanwhile Microsoft is sending out serious signals that Flash is a flash in the pan and the future is HTML 5 -- supported now in IE and set to be the core of Windows 8's Metro apps.
Taken together, these two tech titans are laying the smackdown on Adobe, which announced it is laying off 750 people, killing off the mobile version of Adobe Flash Player and making its own move towards HTML 5.
Flash lives, but Adobe is now aiming it at graphics-intensive Web apps -- not as a broad-based, long-term Web graphics infrastructure.
Are you a Flash fan or foe? Weigh in at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/16/2011 at 1:18 PM6 comments
Readers share whether they think Google and Microsoft are true monopolies:
I would say that neither company is a monopoly, although Microsoft skates a bit closer to the term than Google. I base this on the strict dictionary definition of the term. In the very competitive environment of Internet companies we now have, neither Google nor Microsoft has exclusive control over any resource that people access. Nor does either one have sufficient influence that they can effectively control prices paid for most internet-based resources. Microsoft has some degree of control over they charge for their end-user software. Google, because many of their products and services are provided free due to advertising revenue -- really has no price to control.
Is Google the only search engine around? No. Is Microsoft the only business application or operating system company around? Apple and Linux vendors would surely say no. Do both companies compete very actively in their markets? Of course. Those that don't play the game to win will be consigned to the ranks of losers. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Neither of these companies wants to be there, that's for sure.
If anyone bandies around the 'monopoly' term when it comes to today's Internet market, they're probably doing it more for marketing or FUD reasons than for any real legal purpose. At least that's the way I see it.
-Dennis
I would argue that Google is not a monopoly even though it shares many of the characteristics that Microsoft did during the time of Bill Gates.
For starters, there are other search options available to everyone and many people routinely use these options. I cannot begin to tell you the number of people that I routinely come across who say they are going to 'Google' something and yet use the default search engine associated with their home page (often Yahoo or Bing).
In addition, Microsoft often restricted the use of other operating systems on computers that ran Windows (or at least discouraged it by making it difficult enough that only a savvy user could dual-boot). Google does not restrict the use of search engine choice. Even on my son's Android phone, he is not restricted to using Google searches.
Finally, if I recall correctly, one of the criteria for determining if a firm has a monopoly is the ability and/or tendency to use their market position to control the market. I don't see Google doing such, mostly because of the aforementioned reasons but also because search engines are a free resource to the user community. Yes, there is money to be had (or Google would not be in business), but it would be nearly impossible to control the market from a fiscal perspective. Granted, Google can (and I believe often do) control the advertising dollars through exclusivity but, as I see it, that is a horse of a different color.
-Glenn
I have a REAL problem with anyone referring to Google as a monopoly. Last time I checked, there were literally dozens of search engines out there -- Bing, Yahoo, Lycos, AltaVista, Excite, etc.
This once great nation has become entrapped by the idiot Obama-Pelosi-Reid liberal mentality of 'how DARE you become successful.' Google has endless competitors out there, but because it is the best at what it does, it is demonized by the communist left of this country and labeled as a 'monopoly.' The left should really try looking up the word sometime...
-Todd
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/16/2011 at 1:18 PM3 comments
We've all heard the horror stories about online privacy. Google servers read your Gmail, Facebook once sold your data and Google Buzz shared your personal activities with your mail contacts. And that's just the major vendors.
Then there are the legions of Web sites that track what you do so they can sell targeted ads.
There are solutions for those that hate all this as much as I do. Plenty of software titles exist to block these snoops. Problem is these tools can be harder to use than an F-14.
A recent study looked at the usability of nine anti-tracking tools and didn't find much to like.
The problem is each tool has to be set up to match the user's goals. There are various types of tracking, and it is not at all intuitive as to which does what, how to choose what to block and what not to block. Beyond that, once you set these tools up, they are a bit invisible -- some don't tell you exactly what is going on, making it difficult to fine tune your settings.
Do you use anti-tracking software? If so, what tool and how does it work? Share your experience at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/16/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
I am not the biggest proponent of big government, but I've long felt that law enforcement should do more to stop cyber crime. If not the cops, then who?
Progress has been made, often with the help of vendors such as Microsoft. The latest bust is by the FBI against a massive malware ring based in Russia and Estonia.
The ring infected and took over some four million machines. Once infected, the ring redirected users away from legit sites to bogus sites from the group Rove Digital, which replaced the legitimate ads and sold bogus products.
How do we crack the case on crooks like this? Advice welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/14/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
Bill Gates often argued that Microsoft wasn't a monopoly, or at least an illegal monopoly. He said all this with a straight face as he sat on top with an 80 percent market share for Windows, Office and IE.
Eric Schmidt took a few cues from Gates and recently argued that Google doesn't dominate search, claiming that "Google has none of the characteristics that I associate with market power." He made this claim in a letter, ostensibly under oath, to U.S. Senators investing anti-trust allegations.
Schmidt's argument, in essence, is that nearly all major Internet companies, such as Facebook, somehow compete with Google's search business. Does this mean a merry-go-round competes with a Ford Escort just because they can both cruise around in circles?
Is Google a monopoly? Is Microsoft still a monopoly? Who else is a monopoly? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/14/2011 at 1:18 PM15 comments
Readers share their likes and dislikes for Google Apps:
I use Google Apps for a non-profit organization that I run. Why? It is completely free for me to use the base applications. I would much rather use Office 365, but we like to see the funds collected by our organization be spent on our organizations goals.
-Ken
As the Technical Coordinator of a small, non-profit school, I use Google Apps for education because it's free and it's an excellent product. However, I don't think I would have recommended it for this organization if we had to pay for it. We certainly would not be using Exchange or Office 365.
Since setting it up just over a year ago for our internal, administrative use, we have expanded it to the entire student population. The document and calendaring features have transformed how we operate for the better and communication with our student population has improved dramatically. Every issue I've had with it (so far) has been fixed in a few months with seamless upgrades.
On the flip side, I also do freelance consulting work and use the free version of Google Apps for my business.
I recently tried to set up Office 365 for a client only to have its system fail repeatedly. It refused to recognize DNS settings and therefore refused to accept e-mail for the domain. I had to migrate the client to Google Apps and the entire process cost us both money, headaches and lost e-mails. Sorry Microsoft, I tried.
-Corey
Yes we use Google apps. We were forced to change by administration. No one likes it. Matter of fact, everyone hates it. It's like going from that Cadillac you were talking about to a Kia. Everyone wants Outlook back.
-Randall
As we speak I am migrating (automatically with the nifty email migration interface) about 33 GB of current and archived mail from Gmail to Office 365 Exchange Plan 2 (the one with a 25 GB mailbox and gratuitous archiving). I have been archiving personal and business mail to Gmail via IMAP for over a year and I have been really pleased with the concept and Android integration. But I think Gmail e-mail formatting stinks and, quite frankly, think Google is slimy about privacy. Plus, I prefer the Outlook-Exchange user experience and performance.
I think Google and Microsoft are going to stay pretty close in features and price for the foreseeable future, so it comes down to who I want to do business with...and my preference is Microsoft.
-Douglas
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/14/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
Data center efficiency, or green computing, is a must for large power-sucking shops. That is driving virtualization, the cloud, better cable, cooling and even some shops setting up centers in cold climates (and caves).
ARM also has an answer: It is pushing for its processors to be used to drive more and more servers.
The company is now working on a 64-bit edition of its 32-bit processor, with test chips expected in about three years. This is about the same gestation period as a frilled shark.
Despite the wait, the results could be dramatic.
ARM partners are already bragging about efficiency. Calxeda claims it is building a system-on-a-chip that uses 1.5 watts. Intel's Atom, used on a lot of netbooks, uses way more power at 22 watts.
A four-core Calxeda will use 3.8 watts, while it takes almost 35 watts to drive an Intel dual-core Xeon.
One problem? Microsoft has not committed to porting Windows Server 8 to ARM. This leaves ARM servers chugging along with Linux and Unix.
Are you open to a new server architecture? Yes or no's equally accepted at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/14/2011 at 1:18 PM2 comments
Microsoft Research has developed hundreds (er, thousands) of projects. Some have turned into actual projects, but when I recently said that Kinect was one of them, I was mistaken. An observant and well-informed Redmond Report reader pointed out my error.
Research is now developing a chunk of operating system software aimed at virtualizing apps through the old concept of sandboxing, code-named "Drawbridge."
Microsoft already has work in the direction. Windows 8, for instance, will include Hyper-V. This isn't application sandboxing or virtualization. But since you can run virtual machines each with their own OS, you can run apps in these VMs, albeit with all the overhead.
I think I get why it is called Drawbridge. Through a so-called Library OS, each apps gets access to a chunk of the OS, both of which access the same memory space. Drawbridge is not an OS -- it's an add-on and a test version that is already running on top of Win 7 in the labs.
Thanks to Mary Jo Foley for making this news public.
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/09/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
Here's another batch of reader mail concerning the current state of Microsoft Word:
Computer operating systems and applications are a committee.
- The more members of the committee, the worse it works.
- The less control you have over who are committee members, the worse it works.
- If you have Republocrats and Demicans on the committee (pick any parties here), the worse it works.
- If you have members who aren’t affiliated with any 'party,' the worse it works (they need to be 'Microsoft' devotees and not 'anything other than Microsoft' evangelists).
- The more things you have the committee work on, the worse it works.
- The more 'Lobbyists' you have, the worse it works (aka add-ons, tool bars, accelerators, etc.).
- The fewer 'Good ol' Boys' on the committee, the more efficient the committee (I have a customer who still uses 'CardFile' rather than Outlook Contacts).
- The more crowded the committee room, the worse it works (I had a Server 2003 running on a 386 platform with 256MB of memory).
- The fewer locks on the committee room door, the worse it works.
- The longer a committee has been since it was 'formed' (formatted), the worse it works.
If I were you, I'd back up my data, format and re-install. I concur with most of the readers -- Windows 7 and Office 2007/10 are noticeably more reliable.
-Anonymous
I have spent many hours over the years trying to recover Word files for students. I also have spent a few hours converting files because we do not have the latest version of Word, Excel or PowerPoint.
Personally I like to use Softmaker Office. It is much lighter on resources, loads faster and will open most word files successfully.
-Anonymous
I am a heavy user of MS products (particularly Word and Excel) and have no significant failures that were in any way related to MS. I do, however, have significant issues with the Ribbon. I and many of my colleagues feel the Ribbon is the biggest backwards step for MS -- equaled only by the constant rearrangement of the programming environments.
-John
Share your thoughts with the editors of this newsletter! Write to [email protected]. Letters printed in this newsletter may be edited for length and clarity, and will be credited by first name only (we do NOT print last names or e-mail addresses).
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/09/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
For over two months, bots ran amuck in Facebook gathering private information about thousands of Facebookers. The good news? The bots were released by researchers who did not exploit the private information -- not hackers who surely would.
The bad news? It is probably just a matter of time before bad guys do the exact same thing the researchers from the University of British Columbia did with such apparent ease.
Even worse? The researchers believe that Facebook is more secure than rival social media sites. Good thing we all let our Myspace accounts go!
Posted by Doug Barney on 11/09/2011 at 1:18 PM1 comments