We and They: Microsoft and Apple

Two comments on the "We" and "They" discussion. First, Fred, over at the VC blog, says: "Microsoft is the poster child for a "they" company." Of course, MS designated hitter Scobelizer comments that Microsoft is already a "we" company.

The Scobe says, as per usual MS spin, that Microsoft wants to empower their customers to win and win massively. "If we take an "us only" approach then more and more companies and people will take their business elsewhere to companies that have a more inclusive set of offerings.... There's a big hint there for Microsoft: start getting along with others or others will route around you and build their own systems.

Lots of work ahead. Luckily we have something going for us: more than 1,500 bloggers. Now you can at least talk to us efficiently. Now it's time to turn what we're hearing into new kinds of products and services: ones that everyone can participate in."

Unfortunately, Scobe kind of misses the point in the "original Microsoft 'they' posting." As VC writes: "It's an incredible temptation when you are managing a company that's hitting on all cylinders to overreach, to push for more, more, more. But its the wrong temptation."

Microsoft has never managed to push back against that temptation. In fact, the MS back-lash is a direct consequence of MS always overreaching.

Silicon Valley - The New Rust Belt?

Fascinating article in NY Times on Monday re. how the software industry is no longer a "high growth" industry and may soon even become a low-margin industry.

Silicon Valley is destined to see its competitive stature erode, as new global rivals undercut American technology companies on price and increasingly wrest the lead from the United States in innovation.

More near-term support for the "graying industry" view of technology came two weeks ago from Goldman Sachs. The economy may be doing nicely and corporate capital spending picking up, but it will not help the technology industry much, according to the investment bank's survey of corporate spending plans. In 2005, corporate spending on information technology will rise less than 4 percent, the Goldman analysts predicted. "Technology looks to be firmly in the cyclical category for now," the report stated.

I wonder what this bodes for Microsoft? Are they the new Chevrolet? I doubt they're the up and coming Honda -- that crown has already been handed to open source and its ilk.

Microsoft Rethinks Passport

As I've previously noted Passport rapidly lost support in the market. Now ZDNet has an interview with MS chief identity architect and strategist Kim Cameron, on this very topic.

It seems that after Passport, Microsoft is rethinking identity. So dastardly was its Passport technology, some felt, that Microsoft's identity strategy had to be about a continuation of its domineering practices. The strategy even gave rise to an alliance -- the Sun-led Liberty Alliance -- to pull the rug out from underneath it and force Microsoft to come take a seat at the identity standards table.

To date, Microsoft still is sitting the Liberty Alliance out, but Cameron seems to want us to think that Microsoft has finally decided to mend its ways. For more, read the complete ZDNet article.

Part V: Google Open Source

So far, Google has proved that it understands the history of software and how to create success in the ever-changing ecosystem of the software world.

There are only three keys to success in software, and Google knows them. To succeed, you have to ship product, love your customer, and innovate constantly.

Google has effectively met the first two items: shipping and customer satisfaction. However, the third one is a bugaboo. It kills every company that reaches a moderate level of success: once you start adding bean-counters, you stop innovating. You start clinging to your past successes, and getting tied down by your shipped products. Your success becomes a crutch.

Google, however, knows about this looming problem. Instead of being scared of it, they're attempting to meet this challenge head-on by not clinging to their code. Instead, I think they've hit on one of the best solutions to a coming lack of innovation inside the company -- they've recently open sourced some core code assets.

This is a smart move, because it will allow any developer to innovate on the Google "platform" -- creating a wave of innovation that moves beyond the company's past shipped products. Microsoft has, of course, tried to do this too, but with limited success. Too much legacy crap at MS hampers true innovation -- even innovation in strategy.

For more info. on Google, check out this eWeek overview of Google's activities.)

Part IV: Tech History, Google, and Picasa

(See yesterday's post for the beginning of this story...)

Now Google is making a serious play to become the next Microsoft. They take the good ideas, take the good jargon, take the good marketing, and goddammit, they ship it!. And consequently, they're building a real hardware/OS-independent platform that rocks!

First, it was the Search Engine -- recently upgraded to be more human-like. Then it was Online E-mail that actually worked -- and thus was in immense demand. They led the way in the blogging world and in news aggregation. Then they stretched out with a variety of other services, culminating in the recent acquisition of Picasa, which really brings the platform play full circle.

Why does Picasa matter? Because finally, Google is making a serious investment in a technological field that has until now been dominated by desktop players.

Of course, as I previously observed, Google is actually using good ideas that have been created in a scattershot fashion elsewhere on the Net. For example, rather than requiring users to import individual photos from their drives, the Picasa software automatically detects them as they are added — whether sent via e-mail or transferred from a digital camera. This part rocks.

And furthermore, just like in GMail, Picasa gets rid of the antiquated MS file names and folder conventions. This is really where the rubber hits the road: when you change the paradigm, you control the user expected experience. If Google's attempt to modify user behavior works, then MS and other desktop companies will be forced to change their approach to this kind of software.

And if they do so -- if they modify local search or folder conventions -- then Google has basically won. They're driving the innovation. Now that doesn't mean that Microsoft or Adobe couldn't still sneak up and steal the market, but they would have to knock off the market leader.

And we all saw how MS almost didn't do it with Netscape, and what it cost MS to do it. Furthermore, the scary part (to MS at least) is that Picasa only runs on Windows -- it's directly targeted at the MS platform.

The next Net battle has been underway for awhile; we're only realizing just now how far ahead some of the recent innovators (like Google) really are.

Part III: Tech History, Google, and Picasa

There was a vision, once upon a time (actually about 1994), that a completely hardware independent universal software could exist. The software would run on any machine, at any time, and in any configuration suitable to your needs.

People like James Clark and Larry Ellison were loudly proclaiming the arrival of the "platform" on which all sorts of other software would run. Things like operating systems (made by Microsoft) and specific hardware chips (made by Intel) would become mere "commodities", which is a pretty low curse-word in software circles. After all, margins on software run up over 90% -- while "commodity" margins (ie. things like groceries and socks) run at 1-5%. Being a commodity sucks.

Alternatively, being a premium platform rocks. Of course, Clark had in mind his own little "platform play" -- Netscape. And Ellison and his buddies at Sun had in mind a pervasive Java platform that would run on Oracle "network PCs" (whatever the hell those were). All of these ideas went to hell under the morphing magic of Microsoft, who simply adopted all the good ideas and jargon, and shipped it. Clark and Ellison could have won, but they failed the crucial test. They didn't ship it! And Microsoft did.

Thus, history is written.

Where does Google play in all this? I'll tell you tomorrow....

Part II: Google Rides Again

Okay, more on Google Desktop Search. (see my first post on desktop search for random open source ponderings.)

I've been playing with the stuff, and it seems that Google -- as per usual -- has a well defined privacy policy and a fair number of supported filetypes. As of this fall, support for indexing Firefox history and PDF files was lacking, but I think they're in the process of adding this (I know they've been working closely with Adobe on this front).

But the key thing is that with the Google Drive, and with Google desktop search, we're getting closer and closer to Larry Ellison's once-and-future vision of the Network Computer.

The key thing is that this time it's coming via software -- and Ellison and McNealy always tried to sell it as a hardware-first implementation, with software as the add-on to the vision. Instead, it seems that Google and companies like them have really nailed how the vision will be realized -- through software FIRST, and then with any type of hardware you can cobble together.

Part I: All About Google

Part I of a 5 day series -- First, I did a little analysis on Firefox as a competitive threat to MS Internet Explorer. The next target is Google's reach at Web Services. After all, this is an area in which Microsoft has stumbled absurdly.

Microsoft's competitors are thus beginning to scent blood in the water. In fact, some key MS employees are now defecting to Google. Marc Lucovsky is the most recent hire -- before that they hired Adam Bosworth. Dave Winer mentioned on his blog that Lucovsky had defected to Google, with no further details.

But a few things can be known, simply by reading the tea leaves in Lucovsky's history.

First, he's a serious engineer, who designed the market leading operating system for the market leading company. He's a 16 year MS vet, and is one of only a few designated "Distinguished Engineers" at Microsoft. He is credited as one of the core dozen engineers from DEC and he (by and large) BUILT Windows NT.

Secondly, as CNet points out, Lucovsky was chief software architect for Microsoft's .Net Hailstorm service, which was killed by over-marketing and the MS reputation re. privacy and consumer advocacy (they don't have a clue in this area, remember).

So what will he do now? Build a market-dominating operating system/Web Services system. (at least that's my bet!)

What's MS saying? Lucovsky "voluntarily left the company on 11/18/04," confirmed a Microsoft spokesperson. "Obviously Microsoft can't comment on whether or not he now works for Google."

Weekend Update: New Fines for MS

A weekend update for those of you longing for an MS news fix -- a further development in the notorious case of the Software idiots versus the World government.

The EU apparently is in the final throes of deciding whether or not to add additional fines to Microsoft's already lengthy rap sheet.

Keep in mind, boys and girls, that the EU/EC has real power.

"The EC has the power to impose a pretty big fine, and I do think that Microsoft would not like to pay that fine,'' market analyst Matt Rosoff says. "Certainly shareholders would not like to see Microsoft paying that fine."

How big a fine? Some analysts are saying it could be in the billions of dollars.

Ultimately, even if MS doesn't have to break up its nest egg, shareholders may pay for Microsoft's hubris. After all, Microsoft shares fell 23 cents, to close at $24.31 Friday on the Nasdaq Stock Market, near the low end of their 52-week range of $24.01 to $30.20.

The year-old EU ruling also forces the company to offer an alternative Windows version for sale without its Windows Media Player software, not that it really matters anymore esp. to Microsoft.

CSS Support Lacking in IE 7

What's the deal with the Internet Explorer team? Adam Bosworth and other folks back on the OLD IE team actually helped create standards like XML and CSS -- so why isn't this reflected in the current IE 7 development effort?

I refer, of course, to the refusal of MS to provide full support for CSS2 -- after all, this is now a W3C standard. Sure, standards help the underdog, but if you refuse to support them, I think you just erode your base of browser penetration. Of course, they're already doing that, so what's new?

Microsoft Watch claims that the IE 7 team will add some additional CSS2 support to its new standalone browser, but that's a little weak, and a little late.

Why isn't MS going to make IE 7.0 fully CSS2 compliant? Anyone, anyone???

Microsoft and Open Source: Plone

I've been playing with open source content management system Plone lately, and I was interested to see eWeek mention Plone in a recent article on Microsoft and open source. One of the characteristics of Plone that I've noticed is that it behaves exactly like a Windows application is supposed to behave. It installs correctly, configures correctly, has all those nice little tabbed interface dialogue boxes, and also is actually usable on the Windows platform. (eWeek's little "open source" piece is available in the print version only, it seems)

Unfortunately, it is all too common -- in my albeit limited experience -- for applications (esp. Enterprise applications) that originate in the open source world to be hamfisted and club-footed in the Windows world. They just don't know how to function, or what the design specs are supposed to be.

However, as eWeek notes, Plone actually installs and seems to function better on Windows than on Red Hat Linux (the only Linux installation I've used it on), and the Windows distribution of Plone also comes with a handy service startup and configuration console. Now that's good product!

(It's just a pity Microsoft didn't make it first!)

Working on Microsoft Time

The good folks at Redmond Mag (formerly MCP) have thought long and hard about MS ship dates. They've helpfully produced the following Microsoft Math Chart, and most interestingly, thought about the impact of missed ship dates on enterprise customers.

Users seem all too aware that Longhorn is a moving target and, in general, aren't exactly holding their breath for it.

As Redmond Mag points out, if the Longhorn client ship schedule is consistent with Windows NT 4.0, then it may be delayed until 2007. And, if it's more consistent with Windows NT 5.0 (Cairo), which was abandoned and effectively replaced by Windows 2000, then Longhorn may be delayed until 2009!

Could this happen? According to some, it's inevitable...

Developers Wax Rhapsodic about MS Plans

the headline is a joke, folks -- VB developers are hardly happy with the recent .NET migration plan.... here's the full story from CNet:

More than 100 influential developers using Microsoft products have signed a petition demanding the software company reconsider plans to end support for Visual Basic in its "classic" form.

The developers, members of Microsoft's Most Valuable Professional program which recognizes influential members of the developer community, claim the move could kill development on millions of Visual Basic 6 (VB6) applications and "strand" programmers that have not been trained in newer languages.

Microsoft said it will end standard support for Visual Basic 6 at the end of this month, ending free incident support and critical updates. Both services will be available for a fee for another three years.

But MVPs hope Microsoft will reconsider not just VB6's support options, but will continue to develop the language alongside its newer Visual Basic.Net.

"By providing a new version of a COM-based Visual Basic within the Visual Studio IDE, Microsoft will help maintain the value of its clients' existing code, demonstrate its ongoing commitment to the core Visual Basic language, and greatly simplify the adoption of VB.NET by those that wish to do so," the petition says. "The decisions of if, how, and when to migrate code to .NET should lie with the customer."

Microsoft Acting Juvenile

Microsoft is characterized by the Europeans as 'prevaricating' in fulfilling their end of the EU bargain.

Let's call a spade a spade. MS is fuckin' with them. It's a playground term, but it fits the bill.

Instead of playing straight, MS is pretending to agree and then is acting as if they really didn't agree. Too many of these damn marketing folks at MS seem to have never learned the basic fact that when it comes to enforcing the law, it's the spirit of the law that counts, folks, not the letter.

They'll find out soon enough that the EU doesn't play games with this stuff, because the penalty can include taking up to 5% of MS's global revenue. Now that's gonna make the shareholders scream.

Microsoft Acquires Groove

Thought my readers would be interested in Scott Rosenberg's great summary of the Groove acquisition. Here's Scott's Commentary, verbatim. Scott's right!

Microsoft to Acquire Groove Networks: And it's making Ray Ozzie, Groove's founder, chief technical officer. [Link via Dave Winer.] This strikes me as a pretty big deal -- here's why.

"Ozzie, the creator of Lotus Notes, started Groove as an effort, once and for all, to solve the still incredibly thorny set of problems surrounding collaborative software. This is an area that's been legendarily difficult for technology companies to crack (Netscape, for example, foundered after it took a turn in this direction by acquiring a company called Collabra). Ozzie and Groove haven't figured everything out, but they've come a lot closer than many of their predecessors. Most recently, Groove has found a big client in the U.S. government, which has adopted its technology for extensive military use (causing a certain amount of controversy).

By scooping up Ozzie and Groove, Microsoft is doing what it has always done: extending its reach by embracing (or consuming) smaller companies that have made technical breakthroughs Microsoft's big research labs and development teams haven't been able to match. It's a smart move for Bill Gates and company -- an indication that they remain absolutely determined not to fall behind the competition, and a sign that Microsoft intends to push the boundaries of collaborative software's capabilities. It will be interesting to see where they take Groove: Let's face it, Windows and Office are both pretty creaky for users who want to share and coordinate work nimbly and quickly. Gee, maybe information technology does still matter, sometimes."

No Payee, No Gettee

More fun and games from the Outwitting Those Hapless Users department: No Windows license, no updates

As an incentive for users who validate, MS is offering users a six-month trial of OneNote and a 30% reduction on the recently introduced Microsoft Outlook Live service.

So what you get for validating your product is: 1) free "trial" of a product few people even want to use, and 2) a reduction on the new fees for the currently free "Outlook Online" version.

Oh yeah, folks -- that'll really bring 'em in!

MS Activation: Don't These People Know About Open Source?

Isn't Microsoft's new thrust on activation kind of self-defeating in light of the predicted open source surge in 2005?

ZD Net analyst Ted Smith has some interesting coverage of where open source will go this year.

Meanwhile, MS -- in its great vision -- is striving mightly to retain those last few dollars (25-35%) that escape from people who want MS product. Today, they announced that activation of Windows XP will no longer be supported over the Internet.

Starting February 28, the company said, customers who want to re-install Windows XP would need to call a customer service representative to activate the operating system.

Don't these MS folks know about the real threat of open source to their revenue stream? As Kevin Bedell points out, "Non-technical executives will realize that their companies aren't using nearly as much Open Source as they should."

Part VI: Firefox as a Virus ?

About a week ago, Microsoft launched the re-branded AntiSpyware product, recently acquired from Giant.

Mere Internet moments later, a screen shot began circulating on Slashdot and elsewhere. The screenshot depicted Microsoft's AntiSpyware program identifying Mozilla FireFox as spyware. Firefox was labeled "vulnerable to a lack of security updates" and "...is a very high risk thread and should be removed immediately."

It's a fake, but the picture is a damn good hoax.

The reason it's interesting is that in order for a hoax to be effective, it has to be close enough to what people already believe, or think they believe. (And for that reason, the hoax is continuing to be perpetrated, across various gullible news sites.)

That's the dangerous thing for MS in the current environment. Anything they do is immediately seen as suspicious. That's a very bad thing for a company that depends on the general public buying their wares.

If, for example, the company sold only to corporations, the general public's perception wouldn't matter. But MS sells to Joe Schmoe, and his grandma too. And if these average consumers stop believing, the game is over.

(For further proof of the damage a general animus can do to Microsoft, take a look at the UK MS licensing spoof this week.)

Part V: Commentators on Firefox/IE

Scott Rosenberg, as usual, is skewering the critics who just don't get why open source software has been a success.

Scott's writing about an anti-Firefox screed by C|Net columnist Molly Wood. She had the nack for the turn of a phrase -- I mean, this one sure rings:

"If IE 7 has tabs, Firefox will be destroyed as surely as the Hungarian uprising of 1956 was crushed by the Soviets... now that the sleeping giant has awakened, I think the buzzing gnat of the browser wars is about to be squashed flat."

But cheap phrases and cute metaphors won't take you far in the real world of revenue reports, expenditures and software margins of 90%. If Steve Ballmer really does put the effort into making IE 7 a kick-ass product, he won't be able to show results. If Free Firefox is still ahead at the end of the day, shareholders will start asking questions.

Firefox is no Netscape or even an AOL. Competing with this phoenix-like product is not like competing with any other company MS has ever fought.

Firefox has resurrected itself without the need for any sort of corporate power structure, marketing budget or even paid development resources. As BillG has pointed out, how do you compete with free?

Part IV: Fox Fire Slows?

An update on yesterday's coverage.

According to mozillazine, February 2005 United States browser usage figures show Mozilla Firefox's growth is slowing.

WebSideStory CEO Lunsford says that: "Firefox's market share grew just 15 percent in the five weeks leading up to Feb. 18, 2005, the latest benchmark available. In the previous six weeks before that, the browser grew at 22 percent clip. These figures compare with a 34 percent increase between Nov. 5 and Dec. 3, which coincides with the release of Firefox Version 1.0 on Nov. 9."

As Mozillazine posters have observed, this slowdown is not really problematic yet -- unless it leads to a stall.

Bottom line on Firefox's ultimate success: The jury is still out.

Part III: Fox on Fire?

Is Firefox really gaining ground on IE?

Let's look at the cold, hard facts.

From the penetration rates charted in December to this week's updates, it's clear that Firefox has surged to a remarkable 5% market penetration in only 99 days.

This is a product with momentum. As Blake Ross noted on the Firefox blog, "You all are spreading Firefox to a quarter of a million people a day!" Over 25 million people have downloaded the browser, and have knocked IE back to under 90% for the first time in 5 years.

In contrast to BillG's assertion that browser downloads don't matter, WebSideStory also concluded that people are actually using Firefox after download. Users continue to abandon IE due to continued bugs, security issues, spyware and viruses.

Firefox could certainly still stumble, but for now it seems clear that yes, this fox is on fire.

Part II: IE7 Leaving W2K Users Out in the Cold?

Microsoft isn't standing still in light of Firefox's momentum, of course.

BillG's recent announcement that IE 7 will only ship on Windows XP SP2 and Longhorn is a direct reaction to Firefox's success.

Craig Roth, an analyst at Meta Group Inc., said Microsoft wants to show that it's "not standing still" as the open-source Firefox browser continues to gain users. According to ComputerWorld, the new IE7 plan "has a bit of a freezing effect on companies that might have been thinking about changing browsers."

Roger Wilding, a senior technical engineer at a global shipping and supply chain services company, said Microsoft is up to "its old tricks" with IE7. "They weren't going to do a new IE until Longhorn came out," he said. "Now there is a threat out there, Firefox, so they are reacting -- but only a little bit."

But IT managers don't like the No Win2K announcement very much.

Case in point: "Windows 2000 was built for the Internet and bought with good-faith expectations on security," said Charlie Ward, manager of IT architecture at Duke Power Co. in Charlotte, N.C. "If IE7 works only on Windows XP SP2 and above, Microsoft is forcing customers with no other compelling reason to upgrade to spend additional money to protect themselves from flaws in Microsoft's products."

Firefox, of course, claims that it will continue to ship on Win 2K, Win XP, the Mac, Wine, and whatever else they want to support. As usual, MS is declining any further comment about IE7.