Cloud Cover

It Was a Matter of Time: The Windows 7 FUD Machine Cranks Up

2008-12-18T13:02:07Z

If you didn't catch the Windows 7 kernel debate between OSNews' Thom Holwerda and InfoWorld's Randall Kennedy, I highly recommend it. Basically, via a series of back-and-forth emails, the two agreed to debate Kennedy's claim that because the Windows 7 kernel has a similar thread count to Windows Vista, it is a minor point-type release and probably will have Vista-like performance.

Personally, I think Holwerda had the more logical argument. Simply looking at the number of running threads won't tell you whether those threads differ from threads in previous versions and if performance is directly proportional to thread count. Granted, history might reveal a common trend with thread count and performance, but that's still a big assumption.

Kennedy acknowledges that he's drawing conclusions, but feels it's warranted based on his knowledge of kernel changes over the years. I side with Holwerda on the issue, but I don't have a problem with Kennedy looking at the thread count metric and drawing some conclusions--even if they are a little hasty. What I do have a problem with is his motive behind looking at metrics like the thread count.

The first thing I noticed in the debate was Kennedy's skepticism around Windows 7. I don't know if the "Mojave campaign" raised his suspicions or what, but Kennedy immediately came across as doubtful about Windows 7's alleged improvements from the start. I couldn't help thinking that he was chomping at the bit to get his hands on beta code to prove himself right. Furthermore, I'm trying to figure out what Kennedy was expecting. Take the following example from his benchmarking, which prompted the whole debate:

In fact, as I worked my way through the process lists of the two operating systems, I was struck by the extent of the similarities.

Really? Was he thinking that Microsoft spent tons of time and money re-architecting the code base for Longhorn so engineers could go back to the drawing and start all over from scratch using the XP code base? Yes, Vista had some problems early on and wasn't well-received, but that's due to a combination of factors--not necessarily problems with the kernel. In fact, consider the following comment from eWeek regarding Windows Server 2008:

And, yet, Microsoft's Windows Server 2008, which recently hit the RTM (release to manufacturing) milestone, demonstrates that Microsoft is capable of producing a lean, mean server machine—and doing it, no less, atop the same code base that backs the company's oft-maligned Windows Vista client operating system.

Well, what do you know: the same code base used in Vista was used in the "lean, mean" Windows Server 2008. To me, that would suggest that Vista's alleged "problems" likely are rooted in the user-land or other aspects of the OS--not the code base. In fact, Windows Server 2008 seems largely well-received. Sure, uptake may be relatively lukewarm and methodical as most server upgrades are, but customers are pleased with the security, usability, performance and functionality enhancements. Several IT shops I've talked to already are testing the server OS and planning an upgrade plan for 2009. So, the code base is good enough for them, but apparently not good enough for Kennedy.

Oddly, though Kennedy recalls Microsoft's public suggestions that Windows 7 would be based on the same Longhorn platform as Vista/Server 2008, he doesn't set his expectations accordingly, as evident in the following example (I've included the section heading as well):

Lipstick on the pig

So where does this leave us? For starters, we can now say with some certainty that Windows 7 is in fact just a repackaging of Windows Vista -- an "R2" release, to use Microsoft's nomenclature on the Windows Server side of the house.

So Kennedy doesn't mind making assumptions about kernel thread count and performance, but when Microsoft announced that the server-side name for Windows 7 would be Windows Server 2008 R2, he didn't want to assume that both upcoming OSes would be based on the same existing platform. Nope, he was expecting MS to reinvent the wheel even though the "pig's" Longhorn platform was looking pretty darn good on the server side.

Like I said earlier, I don't mind a speculative review or benchmarking of pre-release code as long as it's honest and objective. I'm not sure where along his 16-year history with the Windows kernel he got so jaded, but Kennedy obviously has an agenda here. I could highlight even more examples like those mentioned above, but I think you get the idea: this is FUD designed to scare you into thinking that Windows 7 will largely be more of the same (wait, that sounds familiar... ;-). In fact, Kennedy triumphantly announces: "Welcome to Windows Vista R2!"

<sarcasm> Uh oh, watch out, Microsoft: the cat's out of the bag! </sarcasm> I'm sorry, Randall, that you already are so disappointed in Windows 7 based on pre-release code. But really, I think you wanted to be disappointed and would've looked for some justification for it in any code you tested.

Advice to Cloud Vendors

2008-12-15T14:07:43Z

When cloud computing started emerging as a viable IT strategy, the press was overwhelmingly positive, if not even a little threatening in the predictions that the model would transform IT. Then, like most things that follow a hype cycle, naysayers like Larry Ellison and Richard Stallman started popping up, taking jabs at it. This blogger even says that cloud computing "is, perhaps, the least needed, least thought out and, potentially, most dangerous 'improvement' in modern computing history." Yikes! And of course, there's the fears around security.

Obviously, cloud vendors can't take on every opponent or every criticism. Many criticisms are just speculation anyway, just as a lot of the hype is. But the issue of security is real. It's a top concern of IT shops everywhere, especially those in heavily regulated industries. So, why are cloud vendors having such a hard time putting this security issue to rest? Well, for starters, it's an easy target. Because nothing is 100% secure, anyone can come around and say something's unsecure without having concrete evidence. The burden of proof lies with those in charge of security to prove those claims wrong. Second, cloud computing is not widespread enough for us to see what security issues will arise once it becomes more mainstream. So, we're left with a lot of unknowns, and we fear the unknown. It's also about trust and losing control--being afraid to let go. And can you blame IT? The cloud computing model is basically asking IT shops to hand over control of their companies' sensitive data--data that IT shops have tirelessly and painstakingly have been tasked with securing for years and years.

Before I continue, let me get this out of the way: do I think cloud computing is or will be secure? Yes. Why? Because security will be a core competency of vendors. If it's not, those vendors will fail. And a significant breach could even jeopardize the long-term viability of the cloud computing model, making it just a tactical solution. Unlike a traditional IT shop that typically is only worried about securing its own company's data, a cloud vendor has to worry about isolating and securing all clients' data. Combine that with the possibility that end users will be connecting from unknown devices at unknown locations over unknown networks and you can see why the stakes are so high. So, vendors have no choice but to make security a top competency.

So, if something like security is a core competency, you think it would be an easy sell for vendors, right? Well, the problem is that the cloud vendors lack tact. Take this argument from cloud vendors at the Enterprise 2.0 Conference who addressed a panel of CXOs:

Data stored within the cloud, the vendors argue, is inherently safer than data that inevitably ends up on scattered laptops, smartphones, and home PCs. Google relates how one of its execs, Dave Girouard, had his laptop stolen at a San Francisco Giants game. Girouard evidently called the CIO with one concern: Do I replace it with a PC or a Mac?

This laptop example is getting really old and doesn't do anything to allay cloud security concerns. Sure, data store within the cloud might be safer than data on endpoint devices that could be lost, stolen, etc. But so is data that's centralized within the company data center. Have these guys not heard of SBC with Citrix and Terminal Services? Where have they been for the last 15 years? Heck, even a savvy Active Directory admin could use GPOs and profiles to try and keep data off endpoint devices. And what about emerging VDI technologies that allow you to centralize the whole desktop OS within the data center? You don't need the cloud for that.

There's also the argument about how much more money and resources the big cloud vendors have to throw at security. Take this example from the InformationWeek article referenced above:

The vendor argument usually comes down to scale and centralized control. Few enterprises can allocate the money and resources that companies such as Amazon, Google, IBM, and Salesforce do to secure their data centers

The problem with these arguments is not that they're wrong. In many ways, the cloud model does provide intrinsic security benefit compared to traditional IT. And we all know that the Microsofts, Googles and Amazons of the industry certainly have more money and resources to invest in security. Plus, we all can agree that they've gotten pretty good at data warehousing as well.

The problem is that vendor arguments can come across as being dismissive, even arrogant. I mean, we all bring our laptops to pro baseball games and just call up the CIO if they are stolen, right? ;-) But anyway, sure, there are weaknesses with the traditional IT model, but let's give credit where credit is due. Many IT shops have gotten relatively good at securing data for some of the largest enterprises in the world. If I'm a security engineer, I don't want some vendor coming in and telling me they can do my job better than I can or that they care more about my company's data more than I do...my livelihood depends on protecting my company's data. So, please bear with me if I'm a little hesitant in handing over the reigns. It's called being responsible.

With that in mind, here's some advice for how cloud vendors should approach the security discussion.

Pour out the Kool-Aid. Like Ellison said, cloud computing has been around in different flavors for a long time. The difference now is that virtualization and other technologies are making it more viable for greater penetration within organizations. It's moving from the universities and niche clientele to mainstream businesses. But the continued hype and giddiness from the press and proponents is making cloud computing seem trendy. No one wants to pour money into what ends up being just a fad--especially when it comes to security. Plus, Microsoft, Google and others are are rapidly and methodically ramping up their offerings. To them, the cloud is not hype; it's serious business. Cloud conversations need to reflect this seriousness.
Stop dismissing traditional IT. It's not going away anytime soon. Showing how multiple computing models can work together will be better received than an either-or scenario.
Be proactive and positive about concerns. When speaking at conferences or to potential customers, show that you understand where the concerns are coming from. Move the discussion away from high-level questions about the model, such as "Is it secure?" Instead, ask customers about specific painpoints and needs within their organizations. If security is a concern, invite them to speak with security engineers or even a take site tour if policy allows it. Work with regulatory organizations to ensure that cloud computing and compliance are compatible.

Now, I'm not saying that some vendors aren't taking these approaches already. But so many of the arguments I hear just aren't very convincing and end up selling cloud computing short. Not to mention that some just rub me the wrong way. Is it time for the seventh-inning stretch? ;-)

Microsoft Poised to Win in the Cloud

2008-12-01T12:56:28Z

Apparently a 30,000-seat deal with Coca-Cola and 20 new data centers worth around $1 billion apiece aren't enough to convince Bill Snyder that Microsoft will win the cloud. In his article Why Microsoft won't dominate the cloud, Snyder argues that "Microsoft is the wrong company at the wrong time to dominate the architecture of the future." He gives four reasons that he claims "will keep Microsoft out of the winner's circle."

Is Snyder on Google's payroll or something? Now, it may be too early to tell whether Microsoft will emerge as the clear-cut winner in the cloud. However, even if Microsoft isn't #1, it certainly still can dominate. But let's hear Snyder out.

The first reason he gives is that MS lacks a motivated sales force. OK, I can agree that there probably will be some growing pains among the channel, and it will take some time before the cloud sales motion is in full swing. But I don't think this is unique to Microsoft. Take Google: cloud services are a more natural fit for the company, but the enterprise software market isn't. But Google is showing that it's up for the challenge, and already can name GE and Proctor & Gamble among its Google Apps customers. For MS, it's the opposite: it has a leg up in the enterprise sector, but is playing catch-up in the Internet services realm. Many companies are experiencing this type of adjustment, but as the cloud matures, so will the competition.

Snyder's next argument is that Microsoft's brand equity is about Windows and Office--not the cloud or SaaS. I guess Snyder hasn't seen Xbox 360 sales figures lately. These days, MS is more than just Windows and Office. But either way, so what? Google's brand equity is first and foremost about search. Amazon's brand equity is about retail, but it was one of the first big entrants in the cloud. Besides, doesn't Office give Microsoft a great way to turn enterprise software customers into enterprise cloud customers?

Next, Snyder suggests that MS's cloud sales will cannibalize its traditional, more lucrative product sales. He says MS cannot afford to have users switch from Office to a cheaper Web-based alternative. Maybe. But Microsoft can't afford not to develop and market its Web-based Office suite--even if it is cheaper--because Google and others already are offering competing products. Heck, Google Apps already has over 10 million users. It's better for MS to cannibalize its own sales rather than lose customers to competitors. Plus, it can always up-sell those customers on other cloud services.

Snyder's final point is that Microsoft is too steeped in the desktop culture to be as successful in the cloud. He claims:

The company has certainly evolved, but the Vista debacle tells us that the old "build it big" mindset is still firmly in control. Microsoft knows how to build a battleship, but it has yet to understand that speedboats are the craft of the future.

Interesting point. This would be seen as a greater risk if Microsoft wasn't already adapting. New offerings such as Windows Azure and Live Mesh combined with a greater emphasis on Windows Mobile, Zune, and Xbox show that Microsoft understands that computing is changing. And then there's Midori: Microsoft's next-gen OS that Matt wrote about a while back. It's being designed from the ground-up to be Internet-centric and concurrent.

Snyder didn't seem to consider Microsoft's vision when coming up with his prediction. Microsoft understands that the cloud is about more than porting existing franchises to the Web. It's about the next generation of in-house and third-party apps that are designed for the cloud from the ground up. And with Windows Azure, Microsoft is arming developers with a platform that might be more up to the challenge than Google's App Engine. If MS can win over developers, then it has a good shot of winning in the cloud.

Happy Thanksgiving!

2008-11-27T17:46:39Z

I hope everyone has safe travels and a wonderful time with family and friends this Thanksgiving! Between Black Friday shopping (which I avoid at all costs) and great football action, there's plenty of ways to enjoy the long weekend. But if football's not your thing and you're looking for some other entertainment, check out The Guild, a popular Web show parodying MMORPGS like World of Warcraft. Microsoft nabbed the distribution rights to Season 2, which is available through the XBox Independent Video channel, MSN and Zune. Episodes also will be available on the show's Web site four weeks after each one airs. Watch Episode 1 of Season 2, which aired on Tuesday, or check out Season 1.

Windows 7: Easy vs. Simple

2008-11-25T18:34:47Z

Paul Thurrott wrote a great article basically comparing the user experience--and development mentality behind it--between Microsoft, Google and Apple software. It's a long read, but I strongly recommend checking it out. Good stuff.

Apple vs. Virtualization

2008-11-24T17:38:42Z

The other day I came across an article by Brad Sams (who, for clarity's sake, I will refer to as Brad S.) at Neowin listing the six reasons that Apple's OS X will not go mainstream. No, it's not an Apple-bashing article from an MS fanboy. In fact, the article opens by saying Apple has a great consumer OS and even suggests that Apple's market share could approach 33% (Brad S. defines 'mainstream' as being greater than 33%).

Several of the reasons are standard arguments that people have been saying for years, such as the lack of corporate adoption, limited software selection, proprietary hardware, and cost. I found reasons #4 and #1 particularly interesting though. Reason #4 is about the 'cool' image Apple has crafted through it's "I'm a Mac" ads. Some observers argue that Microsoft needs to become 'cool' in order to ward off Apple, but Brad S. points out that many people actually may identify more with "PC" in the ads--not the dorkiness aspect, but the traditional businessperson aspect. I also argued that MS doesn't need to worry about being cool.

Reason #1 is even more interesting as it basically claims that Apple's success is tied to Steve Jobs and his sales and marketing genius. Brad S. questions whether people will people continue to flock to Apple after he passes the torch to someone else.

But as well-founded as all the reasons listed are, I'd like to add a seventh. It's somewhat of an extension of Reason #3 about OS X being a close platform. Here it goes:

Reason #7: Virtualization.

Yes, you can virtualize Windows on Mac hardware using Parallels, which has been a boon to Apple since users can buy Macs and run Windows software if they need to. However, you cannot virtualize OS X on non-Apple hardware; if you want to run OS X, you must buy a Mac.

For now, this isn't a big deal for the home market as home users probably don't have too many reasons to run OS X virtual machines (VMs). Their primary concern is being able to run Windows VMs if they need to. However, this is a big deal to IT shops who are using or exploring VDI (virtual desktop infrastructure) as a way to provide end users with a client desktop. There's no way companies are going to replace their entire PC infrastructure with Apple hardware. Many IT shops struggle to support heterogeneous hardware environments as it is; they certainly don't want to make their lives any more painful by adding a new platform.

But what if IT shops could run OS X VMs and provision them to users with solutions from Citrix, Microsoft and VMware? You want to run OS X? Boom, there's your OS X VM. You want Vista? Boom, there you go. But aside from giving users the platform they want, IT shops can use virtualization as a migration tool. They can start providing OS X VMs to their installed Windows user base to get them used to a new OS. The client devices would still run Windows, but users would start doing more and more of their work in the OS X VM. Then, during the next hardware refresh, IT shops could deploy client devices that run OS X natively and use VDI to deploy Windows VMs for users who must run Windows-only apps. Virtualization can be leveraged this way for Vista migrations as well. Companies rolling out Vista to client devices can use virtualization software to deploy Windows XP VMs for the users or apps that require it.

So why doesn't Apple fully embrace virtualization? Because Apple is a hardware company (as well as a media distribution company). While they'd love to sell more copies of OS X, they'd rather sell more Macs. But it's unlikely that companies would deploy Apple hardware, so Apple would be forfeiting hardware sales for OS X license sales. But the potential loss in hardware sales is too much for Apple to swallow. The irony is that in any scenario, companies likely wouldn't deploy Apple client devices anyway, so wouldn't Apple at least want to sell more software?

The problem is that virtualization is inherently against the spirit of Apple. Apple has always been about the tight, seamless integration of hardware and software and on that front, the company has excelled. But virtualization is about the abstraction of hardware and software, which inherently opposes a proprietary model like Apple's. With virtualization, the hardware platform becomes less relevant.

Now, at first, this may appear to benefit Apple. If the platform doesn't matter, then there's less risk in using Macs or OS X. This is why being able to run Windows on a Mac likely has boosted Apple's hardware sales. The same goes with cloud computing, which is another type of abstraction. If my apps are running in the cloud and all I need is a Web browser, it doesn't matter which platform I'm using.

But the minute Apple allows OS X to run on non-Apple hardware is the minute that Apple loses its main hardware value proposition. Apple hardware will become a commodity just like PC hardware where price becomes the primary differentiator. And OS X will become just another operating system. Sure, if you can do your work or play using any OS, why not use OS X? But if the platform doesn't matter, then why use OS X? If the primary value of OS X is in the tight integration between hardware and software, what real benefit will OS X provide in a virtual environment? Sure, it's easy to use and pretty, but the same can be argued for Vista/Windows 7. And if my applications are running in the cloud, then all those alleged Vista app compatibility issues go away.

So, you can see the predicament that Apple is in. Now, Apple is a clever company and an innovator in the user experience realm. I'm sure it will continue expanding its cloud offerings like MobileMe and provide Apple customers with an enhanced cloud-based experience. This model will allow Apple to continue seeing increased sales. But ultimately, Apple (and OS X) will remain a niche player.

Proprietary is out; open is in. Maybe Apple doesn't care whether or not it is a niche player as long as it keeps raking in the dough. But if it wants to seriously expand its OS market share, it will have to come up with a more open model. Perhaps the Mac as we know it is just too near and dear to Steve Jobs' heart for him let go, to let users have more control. Perhaps virtualization will reveal the limits of his vision and signal the time for him to pass the torch. Or maybe Steve has a few more tricks up his sleeve. If there's one thing I've learned about Steve Jobs, it is to never underestimate him. We might not know Steve's vision for the future, but the cards are in: virtualization is here to stay. Now whether Apple embraces it or not...the cards are still out on that.

A Weekend with Chrome

2008-09-09T12:43:31Z

So, I got to play with Chrome this weekend. I was going to post my experience as a comment to Josh's article, but I thought I would do a separate post so others could post their experiences in the comments.

Before I had even installed Chrome, my initial reaction was similar to Josh's. Did we really need another browser? My last foray into another browser was Safari, and that lasted about 15 seconds--enough time for me to launch the browser; wait...and wait for it to load; navigate to a page; wait for that to load; and then close it before I went and uninstalled it. It just screamed "Apple app," but in all the bad ways: iTunes-like slow performance, ridiculously small buttons, and the tired Apple pewter color.

So, it wouldn't take much for Chrome to top that experience. Like Josh said, Google's reasons for having their own browser are pretty transparent, but I don't fault them for jumping into the fray. They're a company and need to do what they gotta do to compete and maintain their market share and profitability. Could they drop the good-Samaritan angle? Sure.

Though this is a minor point, what I do question is why they named it Chrome...you have the Google name, which is fun and colorful, and then you have Chrome, which is sleek and serious-sounding. Even the icon doesn't seem right...it looks nothing like Chrome; instead, it looks like a Windows logo that snuck into a Metroid video game and came out looking like Samus in morph ball form.

Branding confusion notwithstanding, I proceeded to download and install Chrome, which took a minute or two. As soon as I launched Chrome, I knew this was going to be a good experience. First, it opens very quickly. It prompted me to import my IE bookmarks, which went pretty darn well. It even put the shortcut buttons I created for the IE toolbar onto the Chrome toolbar--nice touch! Second, the interface definitely is more aligned with Google branding, but despite the soft blue color, it still looks sophisticated. The toolbar takes the minimalist approach like IE does, but it seems less forced than IE's toolbar. With IE, it seems like MS just took all the toolbar functionality and crammed it into a couple of button menus. With Chrome, though, it really feels like two button menus and their contents are all you need.

But here I have to give MS credit. I didn't like the "new" IE interface at first, but slowly got used to it. That's what happens when you enter something with expectations from previous versions. But with Chrome, there are no previous versions. And, having gotten used to the minimalist toolbar because of IE, I was more open to Chrome's minimalism. I think that leads to a big take-away from my experience with Chrome: it's not really radically different from other browsers and borrows a lot from their design and functionality. But it feels more refined.

How did it perform? Some sites tended to load a little more slowly, but for the most part, pages loaded quickly and the browser was a pleasure to use for general surfing. It sounds funny saying that a piece of software "feels light" when I have no idea what its code looks like compared to other browsers, but Chrome does feel light and nimble. I had no problems firing open several tabs, separate windows, etc. Incognito windows open completely separately and can have their own tabs. The nickname for these private window modes is "porn mode," but I think we'll see more uses for it than that. Incognito mode could be great for kiosks, Internet cafes and companies using web apps with sensitive data. Plus, it's great to use when, say, you need to check your email or pay a bill while at someone else's house. You cover your tracks without deleting the computer owner's history and cache.

I thought a great test would be to see how Chrome performed as I managed and monitored my 4 fantasy football teams on gameday Sunday. I'm in leagues hosted by different sites, which all have their own interfaces chock full of Java applets, rich ads and other dynamic elements. And this didn't preclude me from browsing other sites within Chrome as well as IE and Firefox. Chrome came through like a champ. Later, even though tabs run as separate processes, I did unintentionally crash the whole browser--apparently it had an issue with Shockwave. Also, it wasn't compatible with a Citrix Web Interface site, but other than that, I didn't encounter any significant problems. Next time, I'll try using it with a "real" web app.

So, my final thoughts have to do with other nice touches Google included with Chrome. One is the all-in-one search and address bar. This idea isn't really new, but the bar auto-completes as you type, remembering where you've been, and is easy to get use to. But perhaps my favorite nice touch is the "most visited" page that is displayed when you open a new window or tab. The page will list your most-visited sites, but even better, it shows a small thumbnail of the site for quick, visual identification.

While these nice-to-haves aren't groundbreaking, they show that Google really does "get" the Internet--as well as its users. It's like Google really tried to understand how people browse the web and, therefore, added little conveniences that don't seem like a big deal, but make the experience that much more enjoyable.

So, a week's gone by, which means many of you probably have had time to mess around with Chrome. So, what do you think? How was your experience with it?

As the Cloud Rolls In

2008-08-28T13:07:01Z

Based on the Hype Cycle chart they recently published (thank you virtualization.info for pointing this out), the oracles at Gartner are predicting that cloud computing will be mainstream in 2-to-5 years. Did anyone else sort of have an "uhh, thanks for telling us something we don't know" reaction to this? With all the cloud computing Kool-Aid Gartner serves us, I think pretty much anyone could've come up with that prediction. Side note: I'd be curious to know how much much of the hype around a given technology results from the steady stream of research and analysis coming out of Gartner...I bet Gartner doesn't factor that into their hype cycle. ;-)

So, sometime in the next few years, cloud computing is going to hit the "peak of inflated expectations" before stumbling down the "trough of disillusionment," a.k.a. the point where reality sets in and you realize that the technology is not the panacea to all your problems. I think the hype cycle is based on pretty good logic, but I wonder if the progression is ever as linear as the chart suggests. For example, I think many people might've considered that serious VMware bug from a couple of weeks ago as that first big dip down to disillusionment. What if Amazon's EC2 was running on ESX? That could've resulted in some extended downtime for the service. Companies in heavily regulated industries or with lengthy uptake cycles are going to uncover more "cons" to cloud computing before they even get close to adopting it.

Nonetheless, the cloud is coming and will provide many benefits, such as greater capacity, flexibility and lower TCO. But along with the hype over cloud computing, Web 2.0, and other Internet-based technologies, we've seen some bold predictions regarding the future of operating systems. Of course, one of the boldest was from Gartner who warns us that Windows will "collapse" if Microsoft doesn't make major changes to it. Not that I don't understand Gartner's reasoning, but isn't that like saying, "Microsoft, if you don't adapt your product to compete in the future marketplace, it will become obsolete." No kidding! Doesn't that go for any company and any product? There are some pretty sharp folks at Gartner (if you ever have a chance to listen to a Gartner session at a conference, do so), but do they think Microsoft isn't aware of these issues? I swear, Google couldn't ask for better publicity... But anyway, that's a discussion for another time.

I agree that the cloud and Internet-related developments are making operating systems seem less relevant. One day, the majority of what you do on a computer might require just a browser and Internet connection. But, while there have been a lot of predictions about the future of operating systems, what does this imply about the future of the "PC"? Currently, we need PCs to run operating systems, which run applications. The beefier the PC, the better the performance. But as more apps are running in the cloud, the computing power for those apps is running in the cloud as well.

So what does that mean for the PC? If there are going to be drastic changes to operating systems, shouldn't there be drastic changes to PCs? Of course, everyone's initial response is that we'll only need something like a thin client. And, to some extent that might be true. But thin clients aren't new. Larry Ellison and Scott McNealy were pushing the idea of network computers back in the 90s. Their problem was that they were pushing a bandwidth-heavy idea in the days of dial-up.

But thin clients aren't really innovative. If the cloud means that PCs no longer will need to run operating systems and applications as we know them now, that should open the door to for major changes to PC hardware. The shift to smaller, multi-purposes devices like smart phones and PDAs is a good start, but those still involve the same computing paradigm just in a smaller, lighter form-factor.

I spotted solid-state drives and tablet PCs on the hype cycle--does anyone else feel that it's taken far too long for these technologies to reach the "slope of enlightenment" or mainstream use? In some respects, maybe these technologies need the cloud before they can really take off. For example, solid-state drives have to compete with the lower prices and massive sizes of mechanical drives. But if storage moves to the cloud, maybe we won't need massive drives anymore. Still, prices for solid-state drives remain high even though many drives are based on DRAM technology. Same goes for tablet PCs and touch screen technology in general. Memory might be failing me here, but the iPhone is one of the first devices I can think of that really has brought advanced touch screen technology to the masses. This technology has been around since the 80s with plenty of uses for it: what's taken so long to make it affordable and more widely used?

Replacing my clunker PC with a thin client is nice, but the user experience is similar. Abstracting the software from the hardware should give the industry more freedom to innovate on PC hardware. One of the first areas for innovation is input devices. Technologies like Microsoft Surface or even the Nintendo Wii represent dramatic changes in how users interact with computers. If you want to see some really cool uses for the Wii, check out Johnny Lee's Wii Projects.

You'll see surface computers on Gartner's hype cycle, but given the amount of time it's taken tablet PCs to become somewhat mainstream, I'm guessing it will be a while before these reach mainstream. So, that's where I'm at: if we're going to talk about the cloud and radical changes in operating systems, there are corresponding implications to PC hardware. We've seen smaller and lighter. What's next? Anyone want to place your bets now?

It's Not About Being Cool

2008-08-26T05:12:15Z

I was going to call this post "Microsoft Should've Hired Steve Carell", but according to the Crave blog on CNET, a clever someone named "Dirk VanNerden" (nice handle) got the idea down on pixels before I could. Heck, he even suggested including others from The Office cast, which is what I was thinking too...maybe a nice little self-satire of MS's nerdy image or even a parody of the "Get a Mac" ads... But hey, great minds think alike, right? Kudos to you, Dirk VanNerden.

Anyway, when I first heard that Microsoft hired Jerry Seinfeld for $10 million to star in its "Windows Not Walls" ad campaign for Vista, my gut reaction was: "Way to go with someone who's still relevant, Microsoft." I mean, really? You're trying to make Vista seem cool by hiring an actor who was cool in the '90s? What's next, product placement on Dawson's Creek? Maybe a guest appearance on The Arsenio Hall Show? I debated writing a post about it, but realized many people had the same reaction I did. But, after thinking about it a little more, I became a tad more open-minded: "Well, who knows, the ads might be good...Seinfeld is a funny guy."

Still, I wasn't going to write about it until I saw this article--specifically, this comment from Matt Scherer, president of Scherer Communications, who says the Mac ads have effectively stigmatized MS as a company that employs "dweebs":

Despite some of the best marketing support in the industry, you can't undo that image with Jerry Seinfeld. Frankly, he appeals to me, but I'm 53 years old and I am not switching to Macs. However, the next generation of computer buyers want Macs, and their ad campaign has re-enforced it with the 18-to-24 and the 24-to-30 demographic groups.

And that's when it hit me: it's not about being cool. Microsoft doesn't need to target the 18-to-30 year-old demographic. More precisely, Microsoft doesn't need to target Mac users, many of whom fall within that demographic. In fact, Microsoft shouldn't target Mac users. Why not? Because no matter who is endorsing Vista, the fact remains that 90% of all desktops run Windows. Windows is status quo and Mac users--especially those in the 18-to-30 demographic--are about going against the status quo. They want their technology to express something about them: that something, unanimously, is that they're different. Apple's played upon this since day one with its Big Brother and "Think Different" ad campaigns.

If the reasons for using Macs were just about self-expression, reliability, security or any other criticism that is lobbed at Windows, the reality is that any above-average user could easily customize a Vista PC to his heart's content, keep it free of viruses and malware, and use it daily without ever experiencing any of the alleged Vista horror stories. The point is, many Mac users' reasons for using Macs are largely non-technical--it's an image thing. So why should Microsoft try so hard to convince a group of people who don't really want to give Vista a fair chance to begin with? It would be like trying to convince Linux users. Besides, chances are that it won't work. Sure, MS might convince those who are on the fence to begin with, but by and large, Apple fans will stick to their Macs because they're invested in the Apple brand, not the Mac OS.

The irony of Scherer's comment is that by his own, bluntly honest portrayal of himself, he's unintentionally proved that hiring Seinfeld was a good move on Microsoft's part--at the least, he's proved it wasn't a bad move. There's always going to be that niche group of users for whom using something different is a top priority. And last I checked, I don't think part of MS's campaign is going to involve ceding market share to Apple. So no matter what, Windows users--Vista included--are going to be the majority.

If I were to sum up my point in one piece of advice to Microsoft, it would be this: unless you're talking about hard-core gamers, forget about the niche. Target your core, which includes users just like Matt Scherer who are too old, too stubborn, too indifferent, or too whatever to switch to Macs, but are holding off on upgrading to Vista because of all the negative press they've heard. And if Jerry Seinfeld appeals to a 53-year-old marketing exec like Matt Scherer, chances are that he's going to appeal to a lot of others as well.

But just for the heck of it, let's pretend you asked me who I would pick for Microsoft's ad campaign. Would I still go with Seinfeld? Ehh, probably not. Like others have said, he's just not as relevant as he once was and, ironically, seems more likely to be a Mac user (he had one as a prop on the show). I would go with someone who is more "today," but is not at a level of celebritydom to be over-exposed...someone like--well, whaddya know--Larry David! Why? Because he's popular enough to be considered a celebrity, but he's still a comical figure even if you don't know who he is. If you were a Curb Your Enthusiasm fan and saw Larry David on a Vista ad, you'd be like, "No way, it's L.D. in a commercial...a Microsoft commercial!" And if you were younger or just didn't know who he was, you would end up referring to him as that "funny old guy in the Microsoft commercials." And who doesn't like a funny old guy?

Microsoft Licensing Changes: Greedy and Monopolistic?

2008-08-23T18:33:45Z

Much already has been written about the changes Microsoft announced to its licensing and support policies for virtualized application workloads. In case you missed it, Gartner has a pretty brief synopsis to get you up to speed. If you'd like a more comprehensive explanation, check out the Windows Virtualization Team Blog.

I don't want to rehash all the analyses or simply mimic what's already been written, so here's a rundown of the general consensus:

Hooray! The changes are long overdue and a step in the right direction--but more changes are needed (i.e., more flexible licensing for virtualized Windows Server workloads).
The changes may equate to big saving for some larger organizations while bringing others, who have simply ignored the restrictions, into compliance. SMBs without volume licensing agreements are somewhat left out of the mix. Chris Wolf explains this nicely.
The changes conveniently were announced after the launch of Hyper-V--with System Center Virtual Machine Manger 2008 around the corner--and give Microsoft a competitive advantage over other virtualization vendors.

I largely agree with the consensus. Companies are realizing great benefits from virtualization; however, licensing has remained an obstacle for a truly legit dynamic data center. MS is pushing Windows Server Data Center edition for server virtualization, but more flexibility is still needed.

As to the last point, I agree that the timing of the changes definitely is deliberate and gives MS a competitive advantage. Is that wrong on Microsoft's part? Surely, it would've been nice if, a while ago, MS had conceded some future competitive advantages by adjusting in its licensing to benefit customers who already have adopted virtualization. However, is it fair to expect MS to open the floodgates on virtualization before releasing its own competitive product? Why should every other virtualization vendor but MS stand to gain from its own licensing model?

Yes, a company should do what's right for the customer, but it also should do what's right for itself as a for-profit entity. Crippling its own virtualization product before its release wouldn't have been a wise business move and probably would've pissed off investors--not to mention all the MS employees who have been hard at work on Hyper-V and SCVMM 08. That said, now that Hyper-V is out, I'm sure there will be broader changes in its licensing policies. Will MS maintain a competitive advantage? Probably. But I'm guessing the advantage primarily will be around cost savings due to Hyper-V essentially being included with Windows Server 2008.

Furthermore, it's easy to sit back and criticize MS for not doing enough. But as an employee of a Microsoft ISV that makes the bulk of its revenue on licensing, I can tell you that licensing is a complicated beast. First off, it's a legal contract, which in itself makes it complicated and difficult to quickly change. Changes have to be fully vetted out and reviewed by the legal team. Second, as a source of revenue, a company has to find the right balance of maintaining healthy licensing profits while providing value to customers--that's not always easy to do. Thirdly, changes in licensing can have huge implications. A small licensing change can have a negative impact on one of the company's other products. We can see this in MS's case where its licensing changes are making its VAR and OEM licenses less attractive for SMBs who are close to qualifying for volume licensing agreements. Lastly, customers are creative; they'll implement your products in ways you could never imagine. In the days of 1:1 software-to-server ratios, things were simpler. But with virtualization, server and application workloads can potentially span multiple servers across multiple data centers and DR sites. Think of the impact that has on technical support.

I think the licensing changes show that MS is adapting with the industry. Furthermore, it's putting all the right pieces in place. It's revised its support policy to officially support 41 products running on virtualized servers. It also started a Server Virtualization Validation Program (SVVP) to certify and support its products running on other virtualization platforms, such as Citrix XenServer, Novel SUSE Linux, Sun xVM and Virtual Iron. VMware was late to the dance, but finally signed up as well.

So, are the changes the be-all-end-all licensing model we all want? No, but they show that MS is hearing our concerns. Let's give credit where it's due and exercise some patience--just a little--as we continue to push for further changes.

Apple Fans Get a Taste of Corporate Realities

2008-08-09T13:22:00Z

You’ve probably noticed, but in case you haven’t: there’s been a string of negative press regarding Apple these days. Of course, reporting anything negative about Apple is always risky as you’re bound to incite the Apple faithful and face a bombardment of backlash. However, even Apple fans can’t rally to the company’s defense as easily this time.

First, there was Mozilla CEO John Lilly saying that the inclusion—and by default, automatic installation—of Apple’s Safari browser in its Software Update for Windows violates consumer trust relationships. After igniting the ire of Apple fans, he defended his position and even said that Apple “undermines the Internet." Then we have the Consumer Reports study showing that Mac users are just as likely as PC users to fall prey to online fraud. And because Mac users’ browser of choice, Safari, does not include phishing protection, Consumer Reports warns against using it. (Earlier this year, PayPal’s Chief Information Security Officer, Michael Barrett, also advised its customers to avoid using the browser due to its lack of phishing protection.)

And now we have Steve Jobs taking one for the team and publicly apologizing for its troubled MobileMe service. But before we get to MobileMe, I want to jump back to the issues with Safari. Even Apple fans can’t argue that Apple wasn’t shamelessly trying to push its browser to users through its software update. We already established that Safari poses phishing risks, so Apple fans can’t put any sort of philanthropic spin on the situation by saying that Apple was helping users by giving them a better browser or anything like that. Besides, have you used Safari on Windows? By no means is it a better browser than Internet Explorer or Firefox. The bottom line is, Apple’s product management saw an opportunity to leverage update software as a distribution vehicle and they ran with it. Welcome to corporate reality #1. Was it ethical? Enough has been written about that, so I'll let you be the judge.

More than the ethics question, what bothers me is that at times like this, we see the good ‘ol Apple fan double-standard rear its ugly little head. Had it been Microsoft pulling a stunt like that, the outcry would have been deafening. The tech press—especially the Apple press—would’ve been all over Microsoft for using one of its monopolies to force a different product down users’ throats. There would be references back to the IE vs. Netscape anti-trust days as well as public denouncements from consumer advocacy groups. But in the case of Apple and Safari, it takes a public statement from a CEO to get people’s attention? Come on, Apple fans. It’s great that you’re so loyal to the brand, but if you want to be taken seriously, you’ve got to show some objectivity.

Now let’s talk about MobileMe. I don’t have an iPhone and haven’t used the service, but by most accounts, it seems to be pretty crappy—great idea, but just not ready for primetime. So where were all the chants of “Apple sucks” from disgruntled MobileMe users? Sure, there were reports of downtime and transition problems, but it’s as if the Apple fans agreed to remain collectively silent on the issue until their fearless leader came out and apologized. Now that Steve Jobs said something, it’s OK to criticize MobileMe and agree that it shouldn’t have been released at the same time as the iPhone 3G, iPhone 2.0 software and App Store. But you need to read between the lines here: don’t misinterpret Jobs’ statement to mean that Apple just totally forgot to consider the impact of releasing all those products at the same time. No, it was not just a big oversight on Apple’s part: the simultaneous release was intentional.

Nobody wants to be responsible for releasing a bad product, so I guarantee the MobileMe team was under tons of pressure to have the service ready by the iPhone3G and App Store launches. The team most likely knew the service wasn’t ready, but feared the backlash from Jobs’—MobileMe had to be ready, period. So, they crossed their fingers and launched it, hoping they would be able to continue working on it and fixing it in the background before anybody really noticed the problems. Businesses have to set priorities and make decisions, and sometimes in retrospect, they make the wrong ones. That’s corporate reality #2. I just hope that, after eating a little humble pie, Apple fans can show Microsoft some of the same mercy when it releases a product that is short of perfect.

Now, I’ve saved my favorite part for last. Not more than 3 days after reporting that Jobs declared the MobileMe launch a mistake, MacNN publishes another story about how Eddy Cue, the new guy managing MobileMe, is perfecting for resolving the service’s troubles. You’ve gotta love Apple fans’ unthwarted optimism! “Yeah, we know the service has problems now, but just wait—the new guy in charge of it will fix everything!” Apple should cut Guy Kawasaki another check for cultivating so many Apple evangelists: they’re the best form of damage control money can buy Apple could ever want!