Microsoft Partner Program, we hardly knew ye. Well, that's not true; we actually knew ye quite well. But ye are not long for this world (how far can we carry this?) and will soon -- well, within 16 months -- be replaced by the Microsoft Partner Network. RCP the magazine Editor in Chief Scott Bekker goes into great detail about the MPN here.
Posted by Lee Pender on 09/01/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
We're taking a break from running reader e-mails this week, although we've got plenty more to run and will get back to them (probably) next week. This week, though, we just couldn't resist the return of the Red Menace, the Free Software Foundation.
Yes, the industry's favorite communists are back, this time with a very nasty Web site that (guess what?) attacks Microsoft and Windows 7. The "Windows 7 Sins" site details the FSF's objections to Windows 7, Microsoft, proprietary software and presumably the American capitalist system. It also encouraged people to meet on Wednesday at noon on the Boston Common to dump proprietary software into a huge garbage can, or something like that -- a sort of Boston Software Party, if you will.
But we won't, and your editor didn't. Most of the arguments on the FSF's new Web site are nothing new. The Cambridge, Mass. (where else?)-based organization wants us to know that Microsoft is a monopolist, that it forces users to upgrade, that it doesn't always respect industry standards, that its software isn't as secure as it could be, etc., etc., etc. We've heard it all before.
And, to be honest, most of those criticisms are fair, at least on the surface. The forced-upgrade thing is not necessarily bad for partners, but Microsoft really could work on much of the other stuff, particularly respecting standards and tightening security -- although Redmond has made strides in both areas recently.
What gets us, though, is the whole premise of the FSF's argument, which is basically that proprietary software, no matter who makes it, is bad. Dig the first paragraph of the Windows 7 Sins text on the site:
"The new version of Microsoft's Windows operating system, Windows 7, has the same problem that Vista, XP, and all previous versions have had -- it's proprietary software."
Um, yeah. Windows 7 is software based on intellectual property developed by Microsoft (well, mostly...but let's not get into that right now), and by protecting its intellectual property, Microsoft maintains the value of its product. It's a concept that works pretty well in pretty much any industry in a capitalist society. Of course, the folks at the FSF have never come off as being too much in favor of capitalism.
Hey, we at RCPU see a lot of value in the open source movement and in open source software. We've come around on that issue to a great extent in the last year or so; we can even see open source being a threat to Microsoft in some markets, and it should be. But as any partner who has created a unique consulting methodology or developed its own software will happily admit, "proprietary" products are what grease the wheels of industry. Without any proprietary applications, software and the services that go with it would have little value -- and we don't even want to think about the consequences of that scenario.
Even open source companies like Red Hat that rail against software patents still hold them -- however reluctantly. They might think that patents impede innovation (and maybe they do, sometimes), but they understand the value of protecting their ideas and products. Google likes to position itself as open source-friendly, but just try to get some search algorithms from the Internet titan and see how far you get.
The basic message here is that ideas are worth something -- money, to be specific -- and that ideas put into action are worth even more. The FSF, as far as we can tell, envisions a world (or, at least, a software industry) in which everybody shares everything and (presumably) nobody pays for anything, a lovely thought that has no practical application whatsoever. We hope that the FSF doesn't represent the open source community as a whole. And we don't think it does, given that companies like Red Hat do seem to enjoy being profitable.
Microsoft has committed a lot of sins throughout its history, but simply being a proprietary software company isn't one of them. Maybe, as it develops, the open source movement can start competing with Microsoft not just on cost but on functionality and availability of service (especially in the enterprise), as it already does in some markets. Until then, partners will keep selling Microsoft software and customers will keep buying it because, despite their faults, Microsoft's apps are still worth paying for.
What are your thoughts on open source? Is proprietary software evil? Why or why not? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/27/2009 at 1:22 PM4 comments
So, who saw this coming? Bankrupt and defeated vendor SCO, which lost a lawsuit it filed against IBM in 2007 and at the same time lost claim to ownership of the UNIX copyright (which went to Novell), has won a stunning reversal in a federal Appeals Court. Now, not only can SCO get back to suing IBM (if it can raise the money), but Novell seems to have lost its unique copyright on UNIX. Goodness. Do stay tuned on this one.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/27/2009 at 1:22 PM5 comments
Amazon's new offering promises to bridge the gap between the cloud and the corporate on-premises network. It's pretty intriguing, actually, given that, in Amazon's model, companies pay only for what they use (like paying for electricity, as this story notes), and they can create chunks of the cloud for themselves that are totally independent from those of other customers. It's a new turn, from what we can tell, on the multi-tenant hosting idea, and many companies skeptical of moving into the cloud might just be tempted to take a look at it.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/27/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Legendary Editor in Chief Scott Bekker explains in Redmond Channel Partner (the magazine) about how Microsoft is taking the unusual step of laying out plans for its Services Ready consulting packages for partners.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/27/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
One of the things we love most about cloud computing is the name; it simply lends itself to a massive library of plays on words, metaphors and jokes. In this edition of RCPU, we're devoting the entire newsletter to cloud computing. And the timing is good for that, too, because there's a storm brewing in the cloud computing space (see?).
Just this week, F5 Networks (yes, we know, a vendor) released results of a study it commissioned somebody called Applied Research West to undertake. Applied Research West surveyed 250 IT managers, each at a company of 2,500 people or more, and found that clouds are indeed rolling in on the corporate horizon. Check out a few key numbers from the linked story:
- 66 percent [of IT managers] said they have money in the budget for cloud computing.
- 71 percent expect cloud computing budgets to grow in the next two years.
- 82 percent said they are in some stage of trial, implementation or use of public clouds.
- 83 percent said they are in some phase of trial or implementation of private clouds.
All of that cloud investment could lead to sunny days for partners who know how to take advantage of it. If partners aren't actively hosting applications in datacenters, they need to be figuring out how to reach for the sky (see, it just never stops) and grab some of the money that's about to come pouring out of the cloud.
Sure, cloud computing is simple and inexpensive -- ideally, anyway -- but there's still room for all kinds of partners to consult on and customize cloud applications. Here's the tough thing about working in the cloud, though: Because cloud computing is meant to be cheap, partners might not be able to charge the same rates as they would for an on-premises deployment. Of course, they likely won't be doing the same type of work, either.
Plus, some big cloud computing providers want to take add-on revenues for themselves and pawn off partners with (sometimes fairly measly) referral fees. That's where being a trusted adviser for clients is so important. Companies know Microsoft or Google, for instance, as vendors, but they know their partners as just that -- the people who help them get things up and running and come around when there's a problem.
Although part of the notion of cloud computing is to cut the partner out of that scenario and let the vendor handle everything, companies will still need help setting up and customizing their cloud applications -- and getting them to work with incumbent in-house apps, as well. Microsoft and other big vendors have recognized the role the channel can play in cloud computing and have re-tooled their cloud strategies in recent months to be more inclusive of partners.
At its Worldwide Partner Conference in July, Microsoft further spelled out how partners can float comfortably in the cloud, rolling out Microsoft Communications Services on a global basis and getting specific on how partners can blend into the Azure cloud development platform. The company is also working to make its Business Productivity Online Suite -- a kind of, sort of preliminary competitor to Google Apps -- more channel-friendly.
Microsoft has perhaps the best channel program in the industry and has consistently put partners at the forefront of its sales and service strategies. Nobody knows quite yet -- not even folks in Redmond, probably -- exactly how cloud computing will affect the relationship between Microsoft and its partners, and with Microsoft doing its own hosting, there will certainly be some Microsoft vs. partner competition.
But Microsoft is highly unlikely to leave the channel grounded as it soars into the clouds. Over the last year, the company has made great strides in talking about its cloud plans in specifics and including partners in the conversation. It's worth listening to what Microsoft has to say. And it's worth developing a cloud strategy, because as the survey results above indicate the storm that's brewing now in the cloud could rain revenue all over partners. And wouldn't that be a cool drink of water during a long, dry recession?
How are you working with Microsoft in the cloud? What's your take on the future -- or the present -- of cloud computing? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/26/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
You know that huge deficit prediction we all read about this week? Don't blame the national IT department (or whatever it's called) for it; the CIO of the U.S. is, apparently, all about saving money with cloud computing. (By the way, we try to keep RCPU as apolitical as possible, so please spare us the e-mails attacking or defending one party or the other over the deficit. We just thought it made a semi-clever lead-in to this entry. That's all.)
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/26/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
In case you missed it, some hack who writes for Redmond magazine (ahem) wrote an article on hosted ERP a couple of months back. The take-away? Hosted ERP, once feared by many organizations as unsecure or insufficient, can work very well and save a lot of money in the right scenarios and when properly implemented. Allay your fears here.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/26/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Remember Application Service Providers? Even if you do, you might not want to mention them in the office or on a job interview, this semi-snarky article advises. The correct phrase now is Software as a Service or, of course, cloud computing. (By the way, the folks who commented on this article received it fairly poorly; we thought it was kind of clever. You never know what you're going to get on the Infobahn.)
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/26/2009 at 1:22 PM1 comments
"The snow leopard is a powerful hunter, able to kill prey three times its weight."
-- From the Snow Leopard Trust Web site
OK, so it's not a real snow leopard, but it is on the hunt for game much bigger than itself. Apple is releasing the latest version of its Mac operating system -- called Snow Leopard, of course -- on Friday. In fact, folks who pre-order now can actually take delivery of the new OS by the end of this week.
A $29 upgrade (or $69 for a "family pack") for users of Apple's incumbent Mac Leopard OS, Snow Leopard doesn't represent a giant leap forward from its non-snowy cousin. But it does represent a price point that's cheaper, at least in terms of upgrades, than Windows 7. And some analysts are saying that it'll be a hit, with predictions floating around of 5 million unit sales in the calendar fourth quarter of 2009.
For a Mac OS, especially one that doesn't offer anything super-fancy -- although it will include Microsoft Exchange -- 5 million units in a quarter would be a very impressive number. Apple is essentially counting on its fans to go out and get Snow Leopard because it's faster than its predecessor and, really, just because it's there. Lots of Apple folk, unlike many Windows users, like to move to the latest version of the Mac OS when it comes out.
To an extent, that's the message Apple is sending to its users and to Windows users alike: While Microsoft arguably went backwards with Vista, which was mostly a sales dud, Apple will likely rack up big numbers with what amounts to a glorified service pack. Why? Because, Apple folks might say, the Mac OS is just that much better than Windows, and because while upgrading to new versions of Windows is an expensive hassle, moving to the next version of the Mac OS is inexpensive and worthwhile.
But big numbers for Apple still wouldn't dent Windows' market share. Snow Leopard would have to bring down prey a lot heavier than three times its weight in order to take a bite out of Windows 7, which seems to be what Apple is trying to do with the timing of its OS release. Windows 7, by most accounts, is no Vista. It's poised to be a blockbuster, and Snow Leopard might end up being nothing but its warm-up act. (Incidentally, a word to the wise here: Users will be able to try Windows 7 free for up to 120 days.)
Still, Windows 7 will need to live up to its hype (and its price, once that free trial runs out) if it intends to avoid a wound from the Snow Leopard. Sure, it's unlikely that Microsoft enterprise partners will have to tangle with Snow Leopard too much (XP will be a much bigger competitor), but Windows 7 sales will be absolutely critical to Microsoft's financial situation and to repositioning the company as the undisputed king of the desktop. Meanwhile, the Snow Leopard is lurking...and it's hungry.
What's your interest in Apple's new OS? How do you think it will affect Windows 7 adoption? Send your answers to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/25/2009 at 1:22 PM4 comments
Microsoft will appeal on Sept. 23 the ban on Word sales recently handed down by an East Texas judge. Redmond is still claiming that victorious i4i's patent for processing custom XML in the famed word-processing program is invalid, and it hopes that getting out of Texas will help its chances.
But Redmond columnist Mary Jo Foley suspects that Microsoft will either just settle with i4i or will actually take the XML-processing technology out of Word altogether, something Microsoft is apparently prepared to do with a patch that already exists. Of course, Microsoft could also just buy i4i -- something the Canadian company might have been seeking (that's just our speculation, not anything i4i has actually said) when it sued Microsoft in the first place. In all likelihood, Microsoft will find some way to keep Word on the market.
The least-likely scenario seems to be the one in which Microsoft actually appeals and wins by successfully convincing a patent-appeals court that i4i's patent is invalid. In any case, Microsoft had better hurry up and figure something out; the ban on Word sales is scheduled to start on Oct. 10, just a couple of weeks before the Windows 7 release.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/25/2009 at 1:22 PM2 comments
That Microsoft and Yahoo search deal that's meant to somehow take on Google, even though neither one can come close to touching Google's market share in search? Well, it might not be on after all if the two companies can't get by antitrust watchdogs. You think anybody in the U.S. Department of Justice would like a shot at Microsoft on this one? Yeah, so do we.
Posted by Lee Pender on 08/25/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments