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?"
>
>
>

Can Google Reach Its Pie in the Sky?

Good overview of the issues. I have a couple of nits but I'm not sure if they affect your conclusion:

1. Google's legacy/core business is an advertiser/publisher application delivered as a service, not "search/directory." The facts that the service uses sophisticated patented search technology and is monetized by selling ads are secondary (although the former has helped it succeed in delivering a "packaged" advertiser/publisher application where others failed).

2. Although Google builds "key technology in house," it supposedly (I have never personally researched its claim) does it with commodity and/or open source components, basically providing the "off the shelf" advantage you're concerned about.

I don't think this changes Google's chances competing head-on with Microsoft's SaaS strategy (which it will insist on calling Software Plus Service until Ballmer retires) however. Microsoft is most likely adopting the same commodity and/or open source technologies in its data farms (and even if it is using its own proprietary stuff, it doesn't pay list price). And Microsoft should be able to maintain application functionality superiority for 10 years simply based on momentum (barring some execution mistake which I think it unlikely Ozzie would make).

Neither company should try to deliver the network infrastructure itself. Going back to the utility metaphor, they shouldn't try to be GE circa 1940, delivering both dynamos and light bulbs (but not sure it does either anymore).

Microsoft, Sun Do Well in Open Source Census

The above commenters may not completely understand how the census works. The group conducting the census welcomes information from Mac, BSD, Solaris, and other platforms.

As for Java, I believe it is a prerequisite of even beginning the census so by definition it is on every "machine" scannned.

More information see https://osscensus.org/discover... .

Or just rant away!!

-- Dennis

Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft

Dear Wild-eyed Zealot:

I would prefer to email you directly about this rather than bore other SA readers but I need to assure you that my definition is not "odd" or "bizarre," I am not confusing free and open source, and I fully understand all the implications of what I am writing about. You are missing something but I can't figure out what it is. Again, I assume it is your admitted zealotry.

In my research, I use the Open Source Initiative definition of open source. Please note that the word distribution and/or redistribuion appears in seven of its 10 characteristics, including the first (see www.opensource.org/doc...). In two of the three characteristics where the words are not mentioned (the discrimination characteristics, numbers 5 and 6), the subject is clearly about distribution. The concept of distribution appears ahead of the obvious characteristic of open source being source code related, which is only mentioned in two of the 10 characteristics.

That is why we say "The term Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution." Again I point out the word primarily. I did not say exclusively.

I still don't get your point about "free" but try me again and I urge you to email me direct.

Dennis

Open Source Bloggers Don't Let the Facts Confuse Them When Attacking Microsoft

Dear Wild-eyed FOSS Zealot.

At least you are honest about your biases. But I believe your zealotry makes you read things that are not in my article and ignore things that are.

If you do not understand why the sentence “Open source software refers to some specific terms and conditions in the software’s license primarily related to redistribution" is accurate then it is you who bases your opinion on ignorance. Note that I say "primarily related to redistribution." Most of the investment-research readers of this web site are sophisticated enough to know the obvious link between the word "source" and the phrase "source code" and we don't bog down each other by repeating things.

The rest of your comment is unclear since the original article clearly says there is confusion in the Stanford/Harvard abstract between the words free and open source. So are you re-iterating that or disagreeing with it?

Thanks

Dennis Byron

Google's Chrome Sounds Like 1970s Pressure Cooker

RickRusselTX and Captainccs -

Thanks for your comments and I'll take your word for it vis a vis the technical descriptions (skipping over the "disconnected" and "weakly connected" problem your descriptions don't address; for example, Gmail recently).

But this is an investment site, not slashdot. The idea is what will people buy/how will consumers use Chrome. Hence my comments about applications that would need to be ported to the net. Or how else will Google make money (that nice clean Chrome UI will look pretty messy with ads all over it) to make Google a better investment. Tim Armstrong, Google President, Advertising & Commerce, North America (recently picked up responsibility for Latin America as well), spoke Sept 2 at the Citi Technology Conference, and said basically
the idea behind Chrome is to get users to use more Google services but there is no particular business model tied to the browser (or anyone’s browser).
-- Dennis Byron

Google's Chrome Sounds Like 1970s Pressure Cooker

Bob F --
Honestly I tried to read the Google Chrome comic book but because even my cataract-covered, torn-retina eyes can handle more than 17 words at a time, I gave up. I at least expected a few laughs (hence the term, "comic book").
-- Dennis

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 Putting a Dent in the VMware Story

Whoa, catch your breath there Justice! The news that Microsoft had a hypervisor product coming out this year is about three years old! Better go back and ask your friend what his or her real reason was for shorting VMW.

Why Microsoft Will Never Win (Again)

There are a lot of business-decision, cultural and just-plain human nature reasons why Microsoft may some day lose its place at the top of the software market. This is true even though today it owns 20%-plus share of a quarter-trillion-dolla... market and is about 3x larger than the next nearest competitor.

But understanding the technology of "web-based" personal-productivity software will NOT be one of the reasons. The technology is coming up on 35 years old. One of Ray Ozzie's first jobs in the industry (if not his first) involved working in the one of the first software labs that "perfected" the idea in the late 1970s. (See www.ebizq.net/hot_topi...)

The idea is now so quaint: write/draw/spreadhshee... something at your desktop and store the result in a centralized location (your company's computer). That gave you and your fellow employees easy access to it whether you were at work or at one of your company's branch offices or at home with the ASCII terminal and Hayes modem you begged them to give you.

[Little did you realize that you had started the ball rolling on the idea that you were available to worry about their widgets 24x7 :)]

Microsoft Figured We'd All Be on Vista by Now

Melante-

Do you have your Google alerts set up for all instances of the word "Pinball?" This is an investment research site, not a "videogamer" site.

The point is that Microsoft's bottom line is being affected by poor coordination of an operating software release with the hardware needed to run that OS (the lawsuit over Vista-enabled PCs) and poor QA/support planning (the SP3/Windows Automatic Upgrade debacle).

In case there others who take my post literally, my grandson's issue with Pinball is simply a metaphor for these investment issues. Please do not email any suggestions on where to get free copies of Pinball. Or tell me there are better games than Pinball. Video games are designed for boys my grandsons' age aren't they?

Dennis

Google vs. Microsoft: Software as a Service Battle Heats Up

Good summary Jason of both the Microsoft services and the issue.

Live Meeting is not like Skype 2001, it's really is Placeware 1999. And I think you are leaving out Microsoft's live CRM services and all the services based around what it calls Office Live Small Business (competing with NetSuite, SAP BBD, etc.)

As for the issue, I think there may be a generational thing going on here. Guys my age (62), who remember when their applications and data were locked away in a "cloud" (we called it the computer room), want both our apps and our data in our control. (I'm old-fashioned. When I'm forced to sit in an airport lounge, I read Ludlum.) Although not as old as I am, Mundie and Ozzie are of my generation.

You young guys have more confidence in "the cloud" because you don't remember the panic PID messages telling you to close everything down quickly because "the mainframe" is crashing. Hours later when it came back up, there was a pleasant message from IT that said they were happy to inform us that all our work "as of 24 hours ago" was restored to the system.

I haven't researched this generational difference but I sense it might be the defining point in the upcoming battle between MSFT and GOOG.

-- Dennis Byron

Is Red Hat Opposing Document Standard to Prepare Ban on Windows?

Peter,

No--as noted elsewhere on SA multiple times--I don't think participation in the Open Standards movement is a good use of Microsoft shareholder value either.

My point is that I think Red Hat's participation is not the "for the common good" activity you think or hope that is. Red Hat seems to want governments to pass laws or issue edicts that favor one brand of software over another.

(I think you are adding patents to your objection for the first time, no? That's a separate discussion and it is ongoing here on SA on a different thread. But it has two forks: current patent portfolios and whether the U.S. will continue to grant them liberally in the future. The current SA discussion considers only the latter patent-issue fork)

- Dennis

Why the Yahoo Deal Must Happen

Thomas, you're a hard man to please if you consider 29% revenue growth "pretty flat." (You are probably talking about share price?)

As for the Google-Apps thing being a work in progress, that's the point. Microsoft is doing that same work (that's what Ozzie was hired for) and is starting at a much higher level of functionality than Google.

- Dennis

Why the Yahoo Deal Must Happen

I believe Microsoft needs Yahoo to get to its services-oriented future more quickly. There are other ways to get there but the $40 billion is money well spent, in that it will allow Microsoft to skip multiple R&D steps, and therefore save time.

But the discussion about Vista's problems and the "browser is the operating system" misdiagnoses the issues Microsoft faces between now and when it gets to its "services-based" future.

I do not have the advantage of having seen the Gartner presentation but I have seen it described three or four different ways on the blogsphere (which leads me to question how all the blogposters could have seen the same presentation).

For starters, "just 6%" sounds pretty good after a year. I am guessing that that means 6% of the XP installed base has upgraded (what else could it mean, since virtually all new PCs shipped since Vista's launch include Vista?). The number will be 18% by the end of 2008, 27% by the end of 2009, and so forth (of remaining active XP desktops, a number that will decline for PC performance reasons not strictly Vista related).
-- Did Gartner say how that rate compares to XP when it came on to the market?
-- It compares pretty well relative to the rate Linux replaced Unix on existing desktops and the rate that Windows itself replaced DOS on existing desktops.

Second, uptake on new desktop operating software is totally dependent on applications taking advantage of the OS. As native Vista apps kick in, Vista upgrades will follow (or, more likely, given performance issues, people will retire their XP-based PCs). This has been the pattern in the IT industry since the beginning. (And I mean the IT industry, not just the PC industry.)

Third, the whole Google-Apps-will-repla... thing doesn't compute on multiple functional levels but just sticking to the operating system discussion, the whole browser as operating system analogy is a server issue, not a desktop OS issue. And if Microsoft has had booming growth so far this year, imagine what's going to happen when Longhorn kicks in next year.

- Dennis