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.
The suite, now in beta, is set to ship next year.
Is this offering compelling, or should Redmond stick its cloud where the sun don't shine? You tell me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/20/2010 at 1:18 PM1 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.
Now it's up to the cloud vendors to prove, not just argue, that their tools are cheaper, more reliable, easier to manage and safe.
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/2010 at 1:18 PM3 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
With 16 patches for October, a reader gives his thoughts on the security of MS products:
I am somewhat amazed that anyone believes that Microsoft is at all diligent in securing their products, even now that the number of issues that need patching is a bit mind boggling. Back in the '80s when they were working on an early version of Windows they actually had it evaluated for security by Orange Book standards. The result was a C4, a middle of the road rating, and they were a bit taken aback when told that C4 would only apply to a standalone system. If they connected it to a network in any way it would have to be reevaluated to determine its new rating, but they were assured that it would be lower.
I remember reading an interview with Gates not long before Office 2000 was going to be released where he was asked if they were going to drop ActiveX and the tight integration between the various Office products given that these had led to so many viruses at the time. His response was something to the effect of "No, that would make our products too hard to use."
Here you have a company that, through their own neglect, has spawned an entire industry to do little more than address security issues with their products. I find this ludicrous.
-Bill
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 10/18/2010 at 1:18 PM1 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.
It's bad enough to invade the privacy of someone who never asked for it in the first place. It is far worse, and I dare say criminal, when you invade the privacy of someone who CLEARLY asked for it in the first place.
Facebook argues that the disclosures were not intentional and were the result of a glitch -- a glitch it aims to fix.
Fixing it is fine, but how do you remedy the harm that has already been done? Can we trust all these marketers not to abuse your private info? You tell me at [email protected]. Have you seen The Social Network? Feel free to share your thoughts on that as well at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/2010 at 1:18 PM4 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!
I'm not in the IT trenches, but to me, the fact that there are a lot of patches for existing products is a good thing. One may argue that these tools are flawed from the get go, but many in IT are stuck with them so keeping 'em fixed is critical.
How many patches are too many? If you are in the mood for lighter fare, what is your take on the great Curly vs. Shemp controversy? To stir the pot, I am in the Shemp camp and see him as the most sophisticated stooge. Either way, shoot your thoughts to me at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/18/2010 at 1:18 PM3 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.
But I'm not the expert. My esteemed IT readers are. School me on Microsoft security at [email protected]. And if you haven't patched yet, you best get on it.
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/15/2010 at 1:18 PM2 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.
The second time I encountered him was about 6 a.m. at Logan Airport after a brutal red eye. Sculley was in the downstairs restroom, having been deposed by Jobs and the board some years earlier. I gave him his privacy and didn't ask any nagging questions.
After getting booted by Apple, Sculley kept it quiet -- until now. He has given a rash of provocative interviews with Apple blogs, including one with The Cult of Mac blog (is it a coincidence that Sculley just came out with a book?). Most of the interview is praise for Jobs' vision, acumen and relentless pursuit of perfection. In fact, Sculley grants that Bill Gates is smart, but says Gates rushed products out because his main interest was market share (no argument here).
Sculley and Jobs have a past as messy as Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor: Jobs hired Sculley to run the company, Sculley fired Jobs, then the board fired Sculley and brought Steve back. According to Sculley, Jobs is still angry and the two don't talk. So while I was expecting some harsh words from John, the interview was more worship than war.
Do you remember the Sculley days of old? Share your recollections at [email protected].
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/15/2010 at 1:18 PM0 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
One reader gives her perspective on Microsoft's latest patent situations:
You asked, "Are software patents given too easily and enforced too rigorously, or do inventors deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors?"
I believe the answer is Yes, Yes and Yes. But, I keep hearing stories that support both sides of the issue. What burned Microsoft in the i4i case is that they had collaborated with them for some time before implementing the XML solution. I saw some samples of both on a site and, in my opinion, there was no question that Microsoft had copied the look and feel of the i4i application. On the other hand, I saw that Apple actually tried to patent multitouch. Patent (or would it be copyright?) the code required to parse those gestures into commands but, c'mon, actually trying to patent a finger movement? Gimme a break! Apple is now attempting to patent a method of determining if an OS in one of their devices is genuine. Isn't that what Windows Genuine Advantage does already? Oops! It sounds like I'm anti-Apple. I'm not. My family has two iPads and three iPods and we love all of them. Well, maybe love is too strong a word.
Inventors DO deserve to enjoy the fruits of their labors. But, do you believe that the guy that actually did the inventing sees any of the fruits of their labors? They usually are required to sign over the rights to their employer for anything they invent. They might get some sort of "bonus" as the corporation that they work for sees all the profits. Just ask the inventor of Velcro how that turned out. Or the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper. He finally got some money from Ford after several years (and some very expensive lawsuits) but not before he had exhausted all his assets.
- Dana
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 10/15/2010 at 1:18 PM0 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.
Is your company planning to replace any Windows servers with Linux in the next year or so? Let Doug know at [email protected]
--By Michael Domingo
Posted by Michael Domingo on 10/13/2010 at 1:18 PM3 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.
Even if the report that Microsoft was considering buying Adobe turns out to be bogus, it excited imaginations. Adobe has seemingly cornered the market on graphics production tools. The two companies have been chatting about coordinating software security efforts. But that's really the point -- why wouldn't the heads of Microsoft and Adobe talk?
Adobe products run on Windows operating systems, both desktop and mobile. Adobe Flash and Microsoft Silverlight compete, but both may gradually fade if HTML 5 and hardware-accelerated graphics take off. It's also true that Adobe and Microsoft have shared Apple problems. Microsoft is trying to compete against the Apple iPhone and iPad, while Adobe's Flash is banned from the Apple OS platform altogether.
Adobe's market capitalization is estimated at $14.2 billion, and Microsoft's acquisitions have tended to be more modest than such a sum. For instance, last week, Microsoft bought AVIcode Inc., which might have cost Redmond something less than $50 million. However, Microsoft's buying behavior this year is said to have gone underground. Microsoft bought 15 companies without announcing them, according to reports. That "secrecy" may have added fuel to the speculative fire.
Barring any potential antitrust issues, would Microsoft's acquisition of Adobe be a good thing for software users? Would the Adobe Creative Suite suffer on the Mac platform as a result? Would Adobe products become more secure with Microsoft at the helm? Tell Doug what's the score at [email protected].
--By Kurt Mackie
Posted by Kurt Mackie on 10/13/2010 at 1:18 PM4 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.
Bekker discloses the fact that Microsoft is suffering from president overload. Recently, three new presidents were inaugurated -- a fact I found semi-interesting. The real news is there are now no less than seven presidents (official count per Microsoft), and it actually may be up to 10 if you count everyone who has a president title.
I like lean leadership, so you know who is setting the pace. Then again, a company Microsoft's size is really an array of many semi-large concerns, each of which needs dedicated leadership.
I'm just waiting to be made president of the Redmond Report newsletter. If you think I deserve this promotion, mail me at [email protected] and I'll pass it along to the boss man.
Posted by Doug Barney on 10/08/2010 at 1:18 PM2 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
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 10/08/2010 at 1:18 PM0 comments