Dennis Byron

Microsoft Spending on Vista Confirms Linux Foundation Theory

Thanks for the comment Kirk but sorry I don't understand your first question. If this helps explain, the overall point of the above post is to confirm using Microsoft data that the LF theoretical data talked about in the earlier post (vis a vis the R&D expense behind a major software project) is reasonable.

As for the difference with Intel, the difference is that the Linux ecosystem is "open sourced." Google, HP, IBM, Sun, etc. could use all of the LF and related software at no cost but in fact we know that the big companies are realizing some expense because they fund LF, Apache and also devote their own resources to open source. Sun funds most of openoffice.org, Google funds most of Firefox, etc.

The goal is to find out if what they spend as a group and individually is substantially less than what they would be spending if they were all still developing their own ecosystem. (And secondarily, are such savings dropping to the bottom line?)


On Nov 06 09:49 AM Kirk Lindstrom wrote:

> What is the difference between that analysis
>
> "It might have spent the whole $28 billion on XBox but we don't have
> the data to know that."
>
> and throwing paint on the wall and calling it art?
>
> It is an interesting analysis but isn't the question similar to asking
> "how much does Intel developing microprocessors save HP, Apple and
> IBM?"
>
>
>

Clearance Sale on Windows Servers in Q1?

Marcel, thanks for the comment.

In rereading my post 6 weeks later, I think I left something out between my mind and the keyboard. While it is certainly true that some Unix shops are switching to Windows, my research says the Unix guys are going to Linux. In fact, I look at Unix/Linux as one entity from a market dynamics point of view. I believe most Windows growth is coming from legacy systems.

Folks who used NetWare or VAX VMS for years are more comfortable with the more traditional ISV. Plus many of the VMS guys my age (see photo) believe Unix is "snake oil" for some reason or other :)

Dennis

Microsoft and Competitors Continue to Waste Resources on OOXML

Just to be clear (see my previous posts on this subject), I believe Microsoft is wasting resources on this issue as well. The headline implies I was only criticizing IBM, Sun and so forth.

-- Dennis Byron

Back to the Future with IBM’s Cloud Computing

David -

Your point about generational differences is a good one. The inter-world-war generation guys that wrote the 1965 paper about a Big Brother tax package actually didn't object to it (although they pointed out privacy and other related issues elsewhere in the paper). It is my generation, the baby boomers, that rebelled against even the thought of that kind of government access and embraced the PC mentality of independence (as well as embracing Reagan, and so forth, for the same reason). Perhaps the pendulum will swing back and the next generation will not mind the big computer in the cloud knowing all about them or their company (because they already assume they are totally being watched anyways).

Whichever, I think IT history says you will have "moderate paced (IT) adoption" in any case because that's just human nature no matter which generation.

Thanks for the comment

Dennis Byron

Microsoft Continues to Waste Shareholder Value on Standards

Mr. Probst-

I am not sure if you are referring to OpenOffice.org or StarOffice in your statistics but according to a survey OpenOffice.org completed for me shortly before I prepared this post, they had had 116,000,000 copies downloaded from their site over the history of their project-that is over seven years, not in 2 years!

The best ratio I've seen of downloads to production systems is 100:1 (based on MySQL and JBoss reports) so maybe there are 1,160,000 OpenOffice sites. Vs. as you say 70,000,000 instances of Microsoft (MSFT) Office a year.

Both numbers seem high to me but the proportion is probably about right. I don't think Microsoft is too worried about OpenOffice.org.

But of course that is not what I posted about. My complaint is that Microsoft is wasting its shareholder's value spending one nickel on this Sun/IBM ploy.

-- Dennis

-- Dennis

Sun, IBM Continue Open Standards Double-Speak

Dear Charles K:

Thanks for the comment.

No the answer is not in backing up the files but in having access to the application you created the document/file in. Typically, you have a perpetual right to use it. Backing up to .txt or .rtf (which maintains most 1990s-era formating) or an image (in the case of .ppt) is just a prudent way to protect assets. Obviously, you should do this with all software you have licensed. (By the way, there is no need to keep it on your hard drive as one commenter suggests.)

But the bigger issue is that the term Open Standards (always upper case) is double speak, a term created to mean almost the opposite of what is intended. What is a closed standard? All so-called International Open Standards are simply retroactive acknowledgement of the market winner.

Your analysis of Sun (JAVA) and IBM (IBM) as paragons of virtue when it comes to standards and business model are hopefully just indicators that you are young. I envy you for that.

-- Dennis

Sun, IBM Hide Behind "Document Freedom Day" to Attack Microsoft

User 162757--
Sorry, no you are incorrect. "Double-think.. was (not) used to erase and rewrite history." You are thinking of revisionism, of which there is also plenty when it comes to the blogoblatherers' embrace of Sun and IBM.

As I say, "double think" is the manipulation of language as in the meaningless term "Open Standard"--always propagandistically capitalized. Shouldn't all standards be open?

-- Dennis

Sun, IBM Continue Open Standards Double-Speak

To the SeekingAlpha community:

The second and third comments above are typical ad-hominem blogoblather and given the anonymous user names, clearly not part of the SeekingAlpha community. But it is worthwhile to address the comments by the first and fourth anonymous commenters above from an IT investment research perspective--even though they are also probably not from investors.

Let me take the fourth comment first because it requires a very simple response. Yes, I can open up my 20-year-old Word and Excel files because I still have the applications on my PC. I can even open up my 20-year old AlphaWorks documents and spreadsheets for the same reason. I have also saved them in .txt and .rtf so common good backup practice provides plenty of protection. The blogblatherers that surf the web looking for blogposts to attack with any mention of Microsoft, even if as in this case I am criticzing Microsoft, do not understand that users have overtaken them. Maybe that accounts for their frustration.

Psychoanalyzing blogblathering aside, the whole Sun/IBM/front-group argument about legal requirements and Microsoft Office going away is the biggest canard in the current Sun/IBM/front-group campaign against OOXML. Ain't going to happen and even if it did, the applications don't go away.

The first comment above is a little more complex. You can exchange information without "buying Microsoft" in the same backup manner as described in my response to the fourth comment. Microsoft also gives away a PowerPoint reader the way Adobe gives away its .pdf reader. I don't know about a "Word reader" (never needed one) but if they don't, the solution to interoperability without "buying from Microsoft" is simply to save to .pdf (or .html or...)

And yes, IBM/Sun and Microsoft are equivalent when it comes to standards efforts. Unlike blogoblatherers, I don't care about moral equvalence but from an IT investment research perspective, all three of them are wasting shareholder money.

-- Dennis

Dell, Sun Could Suffer As Virtualization Business Picks Up

There are some arithmetic issues in this prediction that I don't get. A "modest contraction" of server growth rate in 2009 is a lot different than no increase in the "server installed base" after 2008. The latter would not be a modest contraction, it would be a catastrophic drop to near zero in absolute number of units shipped.

But it doesn't matter. It sounds like the quote Watson Sr. supposedly made in 1940s: "'I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.' Virtualization has been around since the 1960s and it hasn't caused this effect yet. It is unlikely to start having this effect in 2009. Server virtualization is a SaaS farm play (and a useful form of increased efficiency). But tech analysts should forget "agriculture" and conisder the home.

The Good News Out Of IBM & SAP

Dolph, I talked about that possibility here ("itinvestmentresearch.c..." on August 6, 2006) based on comments by Hasso Plattner and just the fun of saying "What if." I really don't think IBM wants back into the ERP applications game (having exited in 1991) because of channel conflict and its strategy of becoming almost totally a services provider. And it has no need for SAP's billion-euro NetWeaver middleware business.

But "you never say never." Market dynamics could force IBM to reenter the ERP market in one of two ways.
1. The applications business could stay somewhat as it is today, heavily driven by perpetual right to use licenses but trending toward paying for the right to use as a monthly subscription (SaaS). In this scenario, the market will most likely be dominated by Microsoft, Oracle and SAP (and Intuit if it changes strategy vis a vis mid-sized enterprises). IBM would need to take advantage of the opportunity, if it evolves in this manner, by programs like the SAP/mainframe investment last year and by other programs with Lawson and others in the heritage AS/400 application supplier stable. In this scenario, IBM might choose to acquire one of its partners if Microsoft, Oracle and SAP successfully block Lawson and the others, and SAP is as good a candidate as there is for such an acquisition (forgetting likely anti-trust objections).
2. A second possibility is that the application business slowly contracts to be replaced—in a back to the future move—by technology-based business services (think ADP) where the brand of the application is not a major market factor. In this scenario, IBM would need to think in terms of acquiring many of the AS/400 application supplier partners, including Lawson and the JDE business of Oracle, for their industry and domain expertise. SAP wouldn't be much help to IBM in this scenario.

I used to think that scenario two would emerge quickly when my generation (first-year baby boomer; trained as a COBOL programmer) retired from IT management but I now fear, from talking to a lot of the X-generation moving into IT management (and still as techy as can be) that it is going to take another 10-15 years before enterprises move in large numbers to getting their IT as business services. As long as executive management feels that IT can provide competitive advantage and is not just a "payroll service," everyone will keep reinventing the wheel. IBM of course is already well positioned for both eventualities