I've been flummoxed over the years by how Microsoft changes its product names. First there is the code name, which is usually pretty cool -- Longhorn, Chicago, Avalon, etc. Then comes a boring name like Windows NT, then an equally boring name like Windows Server.
Maybe it is a coincidence, but in a recent newsletter I made fun of the last three letters in the BPOS acronym, which happens to stand for Business Productivity Online Suite. Yesterday Microsoft announced a new version with a new name -- Office 365. The new suite still includes SharePoint, Office Communication Server (to be called Lync) and Exchange (which, after replacing Microsoft Mail, has kept its name changes low these many years). What turns BPOS into Office 365 is the inclusion of Web revs of Word, Excel and PowerPoint.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/20/20101 comments
I've been thinking about the cloud a lot lately, and, in fact, am getting set to launch a cloud newsletter and a couple of blogs.
Larger shops have at least some cloud initiatives and are eyeing more. Most have to -- their data centers are running out of room and juice.
Not all are so sold. As editor Keith Ward points out, nearly 60 percent of those surveyed by a company called Hubspan have a cloud commitment. But one in five have zero interest. Hubspan argues that the undecided and those dead set against the cloud see no benefit. And if you're systems are working well, affordable and not under strain, that is probably the right attitude.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/20103 comments
One reader discusses why Microsoft's success relies on them going "all in" with cloud technology:
Of course Microsoft is "all in" when it comes to the cloud. The company doesn't have the strength to bend steel with its bare hands anymore. The cloud is the IT services delivery model for the 21st century. Microsoft has to be there or risk becoming irrelevant. Mr. Ballmer understands this and he made it very clear to Microsoft's partners during their confab in Washington, D.C. this summer.
Azure's success depends on how quickly and how many of Microsoft's independent software vendors move to Azure and .NET in the cloud. So let's hold off any hyperbole about "killer" platform for the time being. Mr. Ballmer thinks it will be several years before Microsoft will see any profit from Azure. Microsoft's cloud data centers cost over $1 billion each and they are building six of them. But then again, the company does have $35 billion in cash sitting around.
And along the way to the cloud Microsoft needs to keep those Windows and Office license fees coming in for as long as they possibly can. Mr. Ballmer hopes there is a future for "fat" clients for a few more years. Personally, I think they will be fading away and Windows 7 could be the last of Microsoft's "fat" clients we will ever see.
-Tim
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/20101 comments
Facebook may be on a roll due to the popular new movie, The Social Network, about its beginning. But that hasn't kept the company from some recent rotten tomatoes. The biggest blast comes from the Wall Street Journal which reports that even when users opted for the highest level of security, private Facebook data was sold to marketers, advertisers and list brokers.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/20104 comments
For the Three Stooges, there seemed to be no end to how many patches they could put on any one tire. For IT, there has to a limit to how many patches one can handle (or at least stand). Last week Microsoft released a record 16 patches. As if that wasn't enough, shops that also ran Oracle contented with a possible 81 patches. Here's one Ellison/Microsoft war Larry has clearly won!
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/20103 comments
If you are tired and crabby, chances are you're responsible for keeping your Microsoft software patched. This week set a record, with a (not so) sweet 16 patches. While some see this as indication that Microsoft's stuff is fundamentally flawed, I see it differently.
Years ago I would agree that Microsoft first built the huge operating systems and apps and thought of security later. These days I see a huge effort to build safer software and fix what's already out. Is it perfect? Far from it. Is Microsoft doing its level best? I tend to think so.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/15/20102 comments
I've run into John Sculley, former Apple CEO, twice -- both times in Boston. The first was the launch of the Newton in July 1993, an ill-fated handheld that could have morphed into the iPhone, years or perhaps decades earlier.
I cornered Sculley and asked about his then current lawsuit against Microsoft, charging that they stole the look and feel of Windows from the Mac (which Apple stole from Xerox PARC). Sculley wouldn't bite on any of my questions, no matter how much I pressed. (Sidenote: after leaving the press conference I was nearly run down in my tiny blue Honda by Reggie Lewis, the Celtic who died of a heart attack, in his hearse.) Maybe Scully was bummed about Reggie, or the fact that he was to get fired later that year.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/15/20100 comments
Here's a response to Doug's question about splitting up Microsoft:
Had the Department of Justice forced the issue following the election of George W. Bush, I do believe that Bill Gates would be even richer today than he is now. I also think that the few "Microsoft for Macintosh" products out there would be more robust and more compatible with their Windows counterparts, and with Windows servers. And there WOULD BE "Microsoft for Linux" products out there.
In the end, I don't think such a move now would make much difference in the overall scheme of things.
Linux poses no real threat on the desktop -- and probably never will -- because the consumer support model for Linux is so lame and because no first-tier Linux OEM is willing to deliver a pre-loaded consumer-friendly Linux platform at competitive prices.
Apple continues to serve the high-end consumer space but this is no threat to Microsoft OEMs when it comes to the commodity PC market. Apple simply cannot compete on price/performance.
Linux will continue to compete head-to-head with Microsoft in the enterprise server market where project-based purchases have predictable lifecycles and future sales opportunities.
In this environment, a Microsoft Applications division could find itself competing head-to-head with a Microsoft OS division by providing compatibility tools for Linux servers, but I don't see Microsoft entertaining such a move -- even though it might give them a leg-up on Linux competition by giving them the opportunity to bid multiple times on platform-independent projects.
In the end, it would take an aggressive Apple initiative to break into the enterprise space with alternatives to ADS and Exchange for Apple to be able to slow the Microsoft juggernaut. And, with Linux already in the space, Apple's would be a two-front war for dominance.
Fortunately for Microsoft, Apple knows even less about marketing to the enterprise than Microsoft does about marketing to the consumer.
I just don't see such a move in the cards.
-Marc
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/15/20100 comments
With Microsoft focusing its attention to the cloud and smartphone markets, is Windows Server adoption suffering? Might seem so, according to a Linux Foundation survey, which sees a rise in Linux server installs and a decrease of Windows adoption at the enterprise level. But the results should be taken with heaping tablespoons of salt, what with the survey backed by someone who has a vested interest in such positive results. GigaOM's Matt Asay cites that "41 percent of respondents plan to add more Windows servers in the next year." As if that's a small number. In the midst of a recession, 41 percent is a lot of Windows servers.
More
Posted by Michael Domingo on 10/13/20103 comments
So, Microsoft did not buy Adobe. A rumor that such a deal was in the works popped up last week, but all has since gone dark. A report by the New York Times claimed that Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer had met with Adobe's CEO Shantanu Narayen and talked about a possible acquisition bid, along with Apple competition.
The Times cited unnamed consultants and employees as the source, a now common practice that tends to degrade journalism. It can have the effect of helping to start wars. On Wall Street, news can still move stocks, even news that's mostly rumor. Adobe's stock went up 17 percent after the Times published its report. Someone made money.
More
Posted by Kurt Mackie on 10/13/20104 comments
I'm not sure if you really know this, but the group I help run (actually, most of my folks are so talented they need minimal supervision. If fact, some should be supervising me!) has many, many products. One of my favorites is Redmond Channel Partner, a reseller book for those that specialize in Microsoft gear (you may well be one of their customers).
In any event, I recently covered a recent Microsoft reorg, but somehow missed the big picture: The clearly more insightful EIC of the aforementioned Redmond Channel Partner nailed it, pointing out that Microsoft has nearly as many presidents as the entire European Union.
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/08/20102 comments
Readers delve deep into the issue of software patents:
We need a new legal object, a "software work." Software does not fit in the shoes of a legal object designed for machinery, tools and appliances. It also does not fit the shoes of a legal object designed for recordings, music and books. As computer hardware becomes more robust, software is going to become even more difficult to fit into either the category of a patent or a copyright.
Patent law is already flawed within its own domain. Entities file patents without any intention of bringing anything to market. Instead, they sit on them until someone infringes, and then sue them. That is all they do. Patent law needs to change to put the "patent trolls" where they belong... patentless.
Copyright law also has need of reform because the Internet has made "fair use" a joke and computer technology has made enforcement difficult. Computers can use adaptive software applications to "invent" songs. Who is the author? The computer. Who owns the copyright according to current law and international treaties? The author...for life plus 50 years. What is the expected life of a computer? See what I mean?
Patents also have similar problems. Computers can use adaptive technology similar to the way a human brain works to derive optimum structural designs. Through artificial intelligence, computers can program themselves to do things like drive vehicles, prospect for oil, forecast weather, discern probable pathways for hurricanes and discover sub-atomic particles. OK, so who designed the software? The computer. Who is the author of the software? The computer. Then who owns the patent according to current law? The computer. Can a computer assign a patent to a human being or corporation? No, because it has an IQ of zero. That is why we call this phenomenon "artificial intelligence." It isn't real. It just Darwinian.
So why hasn't the legal profession addressed this issue? No one knows how to define a software work that covers all of the possibilities. Also there is too much money to be made in litigating the status quo, aided and abetted by creative legal mischief.
-Roger
The answer to your patent question depends on the victim. Microsoft could build a product that is so good, people want to buy it. They choose instead to squeeze anyone in the particular field to make more room for their semi-developed product. What they should do, from a technology stand point, is make the products they already have better. I think they should not be allowed to bring a patent suit until they have paid the i4i judgment.
-Anonymous
More
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/08/20100 comments