For a company with the mantra "don't be evil," Google sure does terrify a lot of folks in the technology industry.
Late last week, the search titan talked up Google Wave, a phenomenon probably best (and most often) described as a "real-time communication platform" but apparently packed with the destructive power of an asteroid slamming into the earth. Or at least into a bunch of big technology companies.
We're not going to go into great detail about what Wave is or how it will work because somebody else has already done it for us. For more than you ever thought you could know about Google Wave, check out this article.
What we can't help but notice -- and you've probably noticed it, too, if you've opened a browser this week -- is the panic that Google Wave is causing. This "wave" seems more like a monster than a wall of water. (Besides, we're still not comfortable making "wave" jokes for lots of reasons.) In fact, Google Wave makes us think of Godzilla terrorizing townspeople somewhere in Japan.
Look at them run! Wave is coming for everybody: e-mail, Facebook, Twitter (good riddance), SharePoint...wait, hang on. What was that last one? SharePoint?
Yes, there are pundits out there speculating that this Google monster will gobble up (or reduce to rubble, we suppose) Microsoft's collaboration cash cow. That would be bad news for Microsoft partners, who have been sharing the wealth that SharePoint has created for both the channel and the mothership. And it could happen, we suppose. After all, Wave does sound pretty impressive, and SharePoint kind of has the feel of stodgy old enterprise software, whereas Wave feels very Web 2.0 (or higher).
But let's not forget a few things. First of all, Google Docs hasn't unseated Microsoft Office (yet), despite being much simpler and cheaper than its more established competitor. Plus, the open source, Web-based nature of Wave might make some IT administrators nervous about using (and supporting) the platform for serious business purposes. Some might not even want their users running it at all. In how many offices is Facebook blocked? Twitter? Maybe even LinkedIn? They're not blocked at RCPU headquarters, but we know of places where they are.
SharePoint, on the other hand, has that old advantage that put Redmond on the map: It works well with all the Microsoft stuff companies already have, and it's relatively easy to administrate, support and control in a Microsoft environment. Wave is kind of a wild card -- seemingly pretty cheap and simple but nevertheless something of a mystery for the enterprise. We're at least going to wait until it's available even think about declaring it a SharePoint-killer. In other words, we're not ready to run from the monster quite yet.
How much of a threat will Google Wave be to SharePoint? Or Microsoft? Or anything else? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 06/03/2009 at 1:22 PM2 comments
Let's set the mood for this one with a Pink Floyd tune we hadn't heard in years until it broke the normally crushing banality of classic-rock radio on the commute home the other day. It's "Free Four" by Pink Floyd, and while it's actually incredibly depressing, it is catchy...and relevant to this entry.
Apparently -- and, as has been the theme lately, this seems to be still-unconfirmed stuff -- Microsoft is going to allow Windows 7 Starter Edition to run more than three applications at once. (See, that's why we cranked up "Free Four." Four apps, not just three. Get it? Free to run four.) Anyway, Starter Edition is the Windows 7 version most likely to ship with netbooks, those nifty little devices your editor loves so much these days.
The idea had been that Windows 7 Starter Edition would only run three apps at once, but apparently (and allegedly) somebody in Redmond decided that even netbook users might like to crank up, say, Outlook, Word, Excel and a browser at the same time It's a dizzying concept, we know. Well, you can live dangerously now, netbook users, or you'll be able to when Starter Edition hits the streets later this year.
Microsoft has an uncomfortable relationship with netbooks and doesn't seem to have totally figured out what to do with them. But shipping a version of Windows 7 on them that isn't next to useless seems like a step in the right direction. Of course, Starter Edition will still have its limitations, but at least it won't be a total slap in the face to netbook buyers. And any time Microsoft decides to not slap users (and, by extension, partners) in the face, that's probably a good thing.
Have any leftover comments on Windows 7 or netbooks? Shovel them on over to [email protected]. Next week, we'll run some reader feedback. And this time, we mean it.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/28/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Redmond magazine Editor Doug Barney mentioned this in his newsletter, and it caught our eye. Apparently, Microsoft has patented a technology that will let manufacturers control operating system upgrades and which software applications can be installed on an OS.
No, seriously! Check it out. Here's our favorite paragraph from the story:
"'Virtually anyone can write an application that can be executed on the system,' the patent complains. Consequently, apps or devices may not operate due to compatibility issues and many end users will associate those malfunctions with the manufacturer."
In other words, we got so sick of hearing about stuff not working with Vista, we just decided that we'd control what you could and couldn't install in Windows. Take that, you whiny users!
OK, that's probably not fair. Microsoft hasn't said what it plans to do -- if anything -- with this technology, so we don't know what form it will take or when or whether it'll appear. And, as Doug points out, it could be useful in an enterprise setting to have an OS that doesn't allow users to just install whatever strikes their fancy.
But, partners, who would you rather have controlling your customers' OS: you, your customers themselves or Microsoft? Actually, we'd love to have an answer to that question at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/28/2009 at 1:22 PM1 comments
Actually, we're just including this story because we love the phrase "boatloads of money," and apparently the Yahoo CEO does, too.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/28/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Since Ford (admirably) declined federal bailout money, and since your editor's parents have a Ford wagon they love, we're going to skip the "Fix or Repair Daily" joke that would have gone so well with this entry.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/28/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Apparently Microsoft is considering naming its new search engine Bing. No, seriously. Of course, the first thing that came to mind when we read this was the Bada Bing club on "The Sopranos," but since there aren't many images related to the Bada Bing that are appropriate for a family newsletter (and, in case our HR folks were wondering, yes, that was research for work), we'll just give you a picture of Tony.
But if you think that's all you're getting, you haven't been reading RCPU for long. No way could we let this opportunity go by without posting a Bing Crosby clip. In this case, it's an absolute drop-dead classic from the old "Tonight Show" in 1975 (thank you, YouTube), when Bob Hope, Der Bingel himself and John freaking Wayne(!) showed up to rib guest host Don Rickles just a little bit. (Seriously, John Wayne. Is there any current star that can come close to living up to his stature as an icon? We're going to say no.) Ol' Bing gets off a pretty good one-liner, too. This was TV that was actually worth watching.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/27/2009 at 1:22 PM1 comments
Yes, Vista SP2 is out, and in the interest of not kicking an OS when it's down, we're not going to make any snide remarks, such as, "As if anybody cares about this" or "If you're actually using Vista..." Nope, nothing like that. Not at all.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/27/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
For today, we are -- actually, I am -- dropping the RCPU tradition of using the first-person plural and switching to good ol' first-person singular because I'm going to share a few personal experiences with you. And, yes, we're going to talk about netbooks. Again. But hang on -- there's a reason why.
It's true that I'm somewhat enamored with my netbook (which, for the record, runs XP). It's great for everyday use -- my old laptop serves mostly as a storage device now -- and was fantastic on a recent trip home to Dallas. Instead of lugging a laptop bag with a seven-pound monster inside it, I zipped my three-pound machine (a touch on the heavy side for a netbook, actually) in the neoprene case that came with it and tossed it in my carry-on, a trusty LL Bean backpack that has seen action from Rotterdam to Rhode Island.
I breezed through airport security, surfed with ease at airport pubs (and almost missed my flight) and generally felt light as a feather, which is not a feeling that comes easily to me. Netbooks are great -- to me, anyway -- because they fill a gap between relatively expensive portable devices that don't have keyboards and aren't great for typing (and I type a lot, as you know by now), and full-fledged laptops that are heavy, cumbersome and, well, also relatively expensive.
I'm not a gamer, and I don't run massive publishing or design programs, so a browser, e-mail client and productivity suite are just about all I ever need -- and all three run just fine simultaneously on my little machine. Of course, a lot of you know this stuff already, as netbooks are becoming one of the hotter commodities of the PC market.
That last bit, of course, has mostly been bad news for Microsoft, which charges relatively little for the copies of XP it sells to netbook makers and therefore doesn't make much of a profit margin on those copies. So when news leaked this week -- and, as I write this, it's all still unconfirmed by Microsoft -- that Microsoft is trying to define exactly what a netbook is for Windows 7 purposes, nobody was particularly surprised. Redmond magazine columnist Mary Jo Foley explains it all, as usual.
Without getting too bogged down in details, a "leaked" Microsoft document -- again, this is unconfirmed stuff, but it comes from Tech ARP, usually a reliable source -- suggests that Microsoft will not classify anything with a screen larger than 10.2 inches as a netbook. There are some other not insignificant metrics included (in particular, the part about 1MB of RAM) in the clandestine document, but the point is that some of the new 11.6- and 12.1-inch-screen machines that are coming out will be notebooks in Microsoft's view (and Intel's, if you believe a fair number of reports) and not netbooks.
That means that Microsoft allegedly won't let those larger machines go out with cheap copies of Windows 7 on them. OEMs will have to pay the full Windows 7 price, apparently, in order to load the OS on those machines, and they won't get access to some of the lower-level Windows 7 editions that'll be targeted at netbooks. Of course, OEMs having to pony up more for Windows 7 will potentially wipe out one of the most significant advantages netbooks have over standard laptops: they're cheap.
In many cases, this won't be a big deal. Most netbooks that fit solidly into the category -- including mine -- have 10.2-inch screens (or even smaller), anyway. But the line between netbook and notebook is blurring, and some manufacturers are releasing somewhat larger machines and calling them netbooks -- and pricing them that way. Mostly, that means sticking a price tag of $400 or less on them. That's actually a lot cheaper than the standard entry-level notebook, which I personally found in my comparison shopping to run at least $500 and usually closer to $650 or so.
Now, those notebooks have more memory, faster processors and more capabilities than netbooks, but the whole point of a netbook is to be simple and cheap, and to serve the needs of folks who browse, e-mail and type a document now and then, and don't do a whole lot else. Netbooks are what technology is supposed to be -- a cheaper, simpler, lighter version of a familiar device.
So, by (allegedly) making OEMs pay a notebook price for Windows 7 on a netbook, Microsoft and Intel would actually be taking a technology that's getting simpler and cheaper and make it artificially more expensive so that they can try to get some of their margins back. That sub-$400 price tag that makes netbooks so attractive might be awfully hard to maintain if an OEM has to pay exponentially more for Windows 7 on a 12.1-inch netbook than for the OS on a 10.2-inch model. All of that seems to run counter to some extent to Moore's Law, and to a great extent to the broader notion that technology should progressively become simpler, cheaper and more accessible (which, I'm pretty sure, is a by-product of Moore's Law).
Now, for enterprise partners -- especially those that are trying to make a living selling hardware -- the potential Microsoft pricing gambit might not be the worst thing in the world if it keeps prices high and margins relatively fat. Or it might. I've asked the question before about whether netbooks (and Linux) might eventually invade the enterprise, and thus far, nobody has called me crazy. In fact, one reader actually thought I was on to something.
At some point, if Windows doesn't bring enough value for the money it costs, consumers and companies are going to stop paying for it just because they always have and don't know what else to do. There is competition for Windows on netbooks -- from Linux, potentially from portable devices and, apparently, from (get this) Intel! If you haven't heard of Moblin, read all about it here and then do some head-scratching as to why Intel might be so keen to see Microsoft bully OEMs on Windows 7 pricing for netbooks. Hmm...
RCPU has long defended many of Microsoft's business practices, and nothing Redmond might allegedly be doing here seems to be at all illegal. The question is whether it's good for the industry long term, and the answer to that question seems to be no. Surely there's a better way to figure out how to make money on netbooks than by simply making them cost more and taking away much of their appeal.
It's all enough to make me want to run Linux, and I never really thought I'd say that.
What's your take on netbooks? Do you think Microsoft is out of line with its potential pricing strategy for Windows 7? Do you have a positive or negative netbook experience you want to share? Share it at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/27/2009 at 1:22 PM4 comments
We told you yesterday that Microsoft is issuing its first bond offering, but what we didn't speculate on was how Redmond might spend the money it raises. Well, no surprise, somebody else did. The scuttlebutt was that Microsoft might look to buy SAP, the German software vendor and king of the enterprise resource planning mountain. Steve Ballmer moved quickly to...well, to not say much, really, except that the SAP thing is just a rumor.
At this point, of course, it is. And so was the rumor, dismissed many times in many places (including here), that Microsoft would at some point try to buy Yahoo. Well, we all know how that turned out (or didn't turn out, as the case may be). The rumor was true, but the acquisition attempt was unsuccessful.
A Microsoft-SAP hookup, though, is a tasty proposition in some ways and a scary one in others. Aside from the regulatory troubles it could bring (which is why we suspect it'll never happen), the merging of two fairly large companies with dissimilar cultures across an ocean sounds like a beast of a chore for Microsoft, which is currently trying to make users forget Vista by wowing them with Windows 7 and is also endeavoring to stave off the netbook craze that's eating away at Windows profit margins.
Then there's Dynamics, Microsoft's own ERP and CRM offering. What on earth would happen to the four Dynamics ERP suites plus Dynamics CRM if Microsoft snapped up SAP? Would they disappear? That's our guess, actually, given that Dynamics' momentum is slowing a bit and that we're hearing second-hand reports of gloom and doom from Dynamics partners. Then again, gloom and doom aren't exactly in short supply right now.
Or, would Dynamics get folded into SAP's offerings, thereby destroying Microsoft's whole proposition of selling ERP software that's cheaper and easier to implement than what Redmond's bigger competitors offer? And, given SAP's hybrid channel-direct selling model, who would be in line for the lucrative business of selling into the SAP installed base (which is how SAP makes a lot of its revenue), SAP direct-sales folks or Microsoft partners? Or, heaven forbid, both? And what about the notion that Microsoft could buy SAP, continue with Dynamics and compete against itself?
Those are enormous questions not easily answered, and the resolution to them offers the potential for conflict, to say the least. Then again, SAP isn't the ERP leader for nothing. Although we've heard here and there that the company's hosted ERP offering is struggling big time (and we mean big time), SAP still has the lion's share of big corporate ERP accounts. And, the occasional horror story notwithstanding, it does have some great technology that could be a boon for Microsoft's Dynamics channel.
Of course, it's all the stuff of rumors at this point, but with attendance and news at this week's Tech-Ed show both underwhelming, we figure it's OK to speculate a little bit, no matter what Steve Ballmer says.
Send your take on a Microsoft-SAP marriage to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/13/2009 at 1:22 PM4 comments
RCP Editor in Chief and all-around legend Scott Bekker tipped us off to the latest brand ranking from Millward Brown Optimor, which annually ranks the world's strongest brands. We wrote about the Microsoft brand in RCP the magazine well back in the mists of time (almost three years ago!), in the era when Microsoft was sitting atop Millward Brown's list.
Well, Redmond has slipped a bit since then, and although the experts and Millward Brown think it's strong enough to rank No. 2 this year, one rival still tops it: Google. Ouch. (You can download PDFs of the survey results here.)
Now, the relative "strength" of a brand is a funny thing and, in our view, pretty ephemeral and subjective, but RCP readers say that the strength of the Microsoft brand actually helps them. Just check out the numbers Bekker delivered to RCPU. When asked in December 2008 what impact the Microsoft brand had on their businesses, readers responded thusly:
- The brand is a huge help: 22 percent
- The brand helps: 38 percent
- No effect: 38 percent
- The brand is a hindrance: More than 1 percent
- The brand is a major hindrance: Less than 1 percent
Maybe there's something to this branding stuff, then. We fully expect to see RCPU on next year's list, if you're listening, Millward Brown Optimor.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/13/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
What's that? Tech-Ed is going on this week? It would be easy enough to forget, given the decreased attendance (as far as we can tell; there are about 7,000 folks there now, and we seem to remember the show hitting five figures in Boston back in 2006, as well as in 2007) and overall low-key tone of the event.
Anyway, yes, Tech-Ed is in session in sunny Southern California, and Microsoft folks are talking Windows development timelines. More details here.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/13/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments
Well, here's a big surprise. The operating system that's going to make us forget about Vista should be out for the holiday shopping season. Of course, that doesn't mean much to enterprise partners, but it could be a boon for Microsoft. And a healthy Microsoft means a healthy Microsoft channel. And we like that.
Posted by Lee Pender on 05/12/2009 at 1:22 PM0 comments