Ten percent share might not sound like much, but in a market dominated by IE and Firefox, Chrome's latest showing ain't too shabby. The lean and quick Google browser now owns a full tenth of the market according to NetApplications, which regularly researches this area. IE has its worst showing ever with just over 57 percent of the market.
I'm sure Google is relatively pleased, but is perhaps more flattered that IE 9 mimics much of the lean and mean user interface introduced by Chrome.
Posted by Doug Barney on 01/05/2011 at 1:18 PM4 comments
Here are some reader thoughts whether or not Microsoft is losing some of its influence:
I have been a Redmond subscriber for some time and although I have seen multiple invitations to contribute from you, Barney, only now do I feel the need to speak up.
Yes, I worked for Microsoft from 1995 to 2002. Yes, I left to do other things. Still...although not a 'fan' nor an 'enemy' of the company I must say this:
MICROSOFT has unified computing and the U.I. (forget Xerox for this discourse) into something the world embraces as 'the operating system of choice.'
I wish card readers at checkout lines had the uniformity the Windows OS exhibits. I'm constantly checking to see what the card reader needs for a response (type of card? Cash over? How much? Is the amount OK? Continue? The number of questions, the order they are in, etc. always changes).
Microsoft has brought a commonality to the PC user experience, constantly done their best to improve that experience and -- although the UI has evolved since 3.x days -- they have made it EASY to use a computer.
My Mom and Dad are in their 70s and are not intimidated by the UI. They would not want to recompile the kernel to add applications. I am a 20-cert professional who started with card punchers/readers, and my first PC was a 286 running IBM DOS 3.3 and Windows 3.0.
The evolution Microsoft as a company and the OS itself continues in spite of the departure of Gates. (Bravo on the philanthropic pursuits and influence on other billionaires to help others less fortunate. Thanks Bill!)
If it were not for MS unifying the industry with a platform used the world over that developers can continue to tie into via APIs that are common, the world would be a sadder place.
-Jim
If partner dissatisfaction with Microsoft, the eating away at the role the partner plays with the "What have you sold for me lately mentality" and the self-serving changes in the partner program is an indicator as to where the market is going then yes, despite its ability to improve the bottom line, it is going to lose market share. Too many products, too fast and too many changes are taking their toll. Do I think Facebook is the solution? NO. I agree Microsoft is not the end all, cure all it once was, and time will tell if Microsoft can weather the next decade against the constant challenge of the bright young technical minds and challengers waiting on the horizon.
-Larry
Let me see... Microsoft is a worldwide software business and Facebook is a Web site, right?
Is there any comparison at all? This is like a company that makes the headlights for a car is going to take over the automobile business. Huh? Without Microsoft there probably would be no Facebook.
And yes, the bottom line tells the success of the business!
-Steve
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 01/05/2011 at 1:18 PM0 comments
I've been writing this newsletter two to three times a week for the past six years and barely ever is it a chore.
That's because I have an incredible active readership. In fact, most of my content comes from you. I usually write three hopefully readable items, and ask what you think. That's where the magic comes in. You, the IT pros, offer expert analysis, opinion, humor and sometimes slay me with words. And we publish all of it. I don't need to interview a bunch of analyst lunkheads and ponderous self-proclaimed pundits.
You have also made my writing life easier. If I want to dig into Windows 7, IE or the latest version of Exchange, you tell me in detail exactly what you think. We call these reader reviews, and it gives a deeper, more balanced view of key products than a typical lab review.
This is the last Redmond Report till the new year, so thanks to all, and enjoy a nice break with your friends and family.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/22/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
One reader gives his thoughts on the big tech monopolies (and his hatred for the N.Y. Jets):
Apparently you are cursed with a brain that doesn't know how to think very well. Or more to the point, you probably praise the creativity of the N.Y. Jets coach who came up with that genius plan to try to cripple opposing players by tripping them. Somewhere in the NFL rules it says you cannot have 20 active players on one side but the NY Jets, lousy stinking cheaters that they are, thought up a way to ignore that rule. I think the entire team should be suspended for a year at least.
Microsoft had to grow up and act like an adult when it was declared a monopoly. Never-mind the fact that there is more competition in the OS space than there ever was. And how about the competition in the Internet browser space that seems to give birth to a new browser every other month?
Microsoft became a "monopoly" because it did a better job of understanding what software folks wanted to put on their computers than did IBM -- another firm who previously was declared by the U.S. government to be a monopoly. Microsoft beat out IBM because it did a better job of understanding the paradigm shift underway at the time than did IBM which, with its PS/2 actually tried to monopolize the PC market via proprietary hardware and software. IBM had a "natural" monopoly (MVS) in the terms of economists, and Microsoft developed another "natural" monopoly (Windows).
Now Google is doing to Microsoft what Microsoft did to IBM.
If you are a poor sport cheating SOB like the N.Y. Jets are then perhaps your brain logic can come up with the notion that Google should not be told to play fair but if you understand anything about the law... and history... you would understand that Google is playing in the same sandbox as IBM and Microsoft... and Oracle. Power corrupts and infinite power corrupts infinitely. Google is the new Evil and they need to grow up as well.
Microsoft executives have a fiduciary obligation to their stock owners to insist that everyone play fair. Whether it is the NFL or the U.S. government, those who set the rules have an obligation to enforce the rules. There is absolutely nothing "odd" about insisting that your opponents play fair. What is "odd" is the way you think.
-Eric
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 12/22/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments
HTML5 is a key part of IE 9, driving video and audio -- all the things Flash and Silverlight now support. I've recently interviewed many of you about IE 9, and the latest HTML got high marks (that article will be coming out soon).
Developers can try out pre-tested, generally stable, but not 100 percent solid version through a new Microsoft Web site -- HTML5 Labs.
The new spec isn't yet finished, but given what you've told me about IE 9, it should be done soon.
For those of you that can't wait for my article, here's a quick rundown: IE 9 is faster, and has a sleeker, Chrome-style interface that most of you like and some don't. I'd say a majority of you find the IE 9 beta stable, but a number had issues, including some serious ones that trashed systems (that's why many beta test on spare computers).
What is your approach to beta testing? Are you a beta test junkie, avoid it like SARs or set up a controlled environment to test safely? Share your experience at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/22/2010 at 1:18 PM3 comments
Everyone is looking at Microsoft's role in the mobile space, and if they don't hit it out of the park, they are a bunch of losers.
Microsoft, while a patient company, is clearly feeling some pressure and last week released some early Win 7 numbers. Redmond claims to have sold a million and a half units in the first month and a half of availability. That sounds all well and good, but is similar to how Microsoft things like Windows Vista sales, where it counts licenses, not actual purchases or installations. In the case of Win 7, 1.5 million units went to carriers, not consumers.
If you watch any TV (and with 4 kids, I sure do), you know Microsoft is burning up the airwaves with ad after ad. And it seems that Windows 7 is a far cry better than earlier Windows phones.
Only time will tell, but I still am looking for any excuse to trade in my Blackberry. It's keyboard is too small, I don't find it intuitive at all and, as my last one showed, it doesn't stand up well to salt water!
So why is it that Microsoft has to dominate every market, otherwise they are toast? Do we judge IBM, Oracle, HP, Facebook or Salesforce.com that way? Of course not. But Microsoft has to win everything or else they are dunces.
What's your take? Is Redmond held to a different standard? Opine away at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/22/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
When Microsoft entered the security software market it was a bit of a joke. To many (including me) it seems silly to make software to protect software that should be secure in the first place.
Furthermore, I didn't think it was exactly fair to all the third parties whose security software made Windows usable in the first place.
I still pretty much feel this same way, but do have to commend Microsoft for continuing to improve its Forefront line and for giving away Microsoft Security Essentials. Unfortunately, in the case of the free MSE, it failed to protect my Latitude E6500 from a crippling virus, which lead to me going back to Symantec.
Microsoft wants what Symantec's got and just released Forefront Endpoint Protection 2010 to manufacturing. Microsoft hopes that customers use the malware protector in conjunction with System Center Configuration Manager 2007. This way, the tools will be easier to manage because they'll be installed alongside one another and run by the same admin.
Do you use any Microsoft security tools? If so, what do you think? Send your answers to [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/20/2010 at 1:18 PM4 comments
Here are some of your MultiPoint and Terminal Service thoughts:
It sounds like IT is coming full (or almost full) circle in the area communication. Way back in the 1960s and 1970s we were working with 'large' terminal networks using 'MultiPoint Bi-Synchronous' communication lines connecting 'dumb' terminals to a central computer (main frame). Now the same theory of communication goes by the fancy names currently in vogue (i.e. LAN, WAN, VPN, etc.) and the 'dumb' terminals are now called 'thin clients'...
Back in those days we were operating a rather substantial network of banking terminals on the east coast consisting of up to 900 'dumb' terminals. Since we were operating in an environment that required almost instantaneous response time, we were very proud to be able to honestly state that our average response time at the terminal end was approximately seven seconds -- all this over Bisynchronous Communication lines running at a maximum of 9600Baud. Does any one remember what 9600Baud meant? Compare that to today's Internet and private T channel speeds of 15mbps with response times averaging in the area of minutes.
We have certainly come a long way, baby. I am just not sure that after all the expenses and trials and tribulations that we have come in the right direction...
-Anonymous
TS is now known as 'Remote Desktop Licenses' both in User and Device CALS.
MultiPoint is as you said, a server that pushes to thin clients -- HP is probably the only one making a real effort at selling it and to the Academic space.
Happy Holidays mate!
-Rob
Readers chime in on whether Paul Allen is going too far with his patent lawsuits push:
I don't know about the validity of the patents, but the wealth of the patent holder doesn't seem relevant in making that determination. I agree that there have been many patent cases lately where the patent claims seemed overly broad. But I suppose if I were the patent holder, I'd have a different view of it.
-Mike
Some of these techniques may have been 'innovative' at the time they were conceived and implemented. But many years have now passed -- and many of the so-called patents, like "browsing audio/visual data" have become common-place and obvious.
A technique which is 'obvious' is specifically not covered under patent law. These techniques deserve the same fate as the 'trade name' aspirin. That was originally a brand name, but over a number of years, it lost its trade-name status; it became a generic word -- just as these techniques deserve to become generic techniques, and no longer patentable.
What was innovative twenty years ago is no longer.
-Gary
Paul Allen is way down on the list of patent trolls. You should look at someone like Ronald A. Katz. His patent suits over Integrated Voice Response (IVR) technology are legendary. Back in the 1960s he was one of the first people to use caller identification (ANI) to look up account information though automated voice systems. It wasn't until business processes could be patented in the mid 1980s that he filed a patent for the technology. He later amended the patent to expand the scope. He started hitting small companies with the threat of law suits and in some cases he won and others he settled for licensing. Bottom line is it was cheaper to license the technology than face the potential law suit. His current list of licensees include the likes of AT&T, Bank of America, Citibank, Delta, HP, HSN, IBM, Microsoft, Sears, Wachovia, Wells Fargo and TD Ameritrade. He is now worth billions. The amazing part is I've never seen any information that says Katz actually developed the technology. Just nobody has been able to prove that he didn't.
So if Paul Allen wants to play the same game, why not? The law is skewed in his favor. He may have gone about it the wrong way and may lose if his lawyers don't have their ducks in a row. It might actually be a good thing and may get some of the absurd patent laws overhauled.
-James
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 12/20/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Microsoft is giving its System Center Service Manager 2010 some tweaks with the recently released Service Pack 1.
Besides some 500 tweaks based on customer requests, the Service Pack works with nearly a dozen extra languages.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/20/2010 at 1:18 PM2 comments
It seems everyone is taking potshots at Microsoft recently. Goldman Sachs last week downgraded the stock and now The Huffington Post is arguing that Microsoft is fading from power, replaced by the likes of Facebook.
The impetus for this analysis? The fact that Facebook, now a partner of Microsoft, calls the Redmond giant "an underdog."
Facebook's nerdy young CEO Mark Zuckerberg thinks this underdog status is just the kick in the pants Microsoft needs.
Dan Lyons, who famously posed at The Fake Steve Jobs, wrote in Newsweek that Microsoft lost a lot of ground when Bill Gates left.
You know, all if this may be true. But I tend to look at financial reports, and each quarter it seems Microsoft is setting a new record for revenue and profit. I wouldn't mind being an underdog if I had that balance sheet!
What is your take? Is Microsoft losing its influence? Yeas and nays welcome at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/20/2010 at 1:18 PM6 comments
There's a saying amongst hard core bikers that "chrome won't get you home." The idea is that all that shiny metal doesn't make a motorcycle any better.
In the case of Google, Chrome might not get you home, but it will get you to your home page (wow, that was one lame gag).
And now Google is trying to make the Chrome browser more of a corporate standard by adding new admin tools. The trick, though, is these new controls are only for companies that shell out dollars for Google Apps for Business or Education.
The new controls, at 50 clams per year per user, include improved administration such as group policies and easier installation, and provides support over the phone or through e-mail.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/17/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments
Back in 1986 if my feeble aging mind is right, Goldman Sachs took Microsoft public with an opening price of $21 a share (it was supposed to be $19, but all the excitement led to a higher opening).
Afterwards, no one knew Microsoft better than Sachs and its lead analyst Rick Sherlund, an amazingly smart, honest and accessible guy.
Twenty-four years later Goldman Sachs is turning its back on the stock it launched, warning not to expect shares to rise, mainly because of problems in the mobile space and pressure on PCs from tablets such as the iPad.
Posted by Doug Barney on 12/17/2010 at 1:18 PM1 comments