Newsmaker: Ozzie's quiet revolution at Microsoft

(continued from previous page)

There is this impression that Microsoft is protecting its turf when it comes to Web-based Office-style applications. You see Google doing it and start-ups like Zoho--and there are online ERP applications--and Microsoft hasn't done that yet. But Microsoft could do it, so why don't you?
Ozzie: People as far back as Desktop.com have done it. Well, I don't know how to say it other than to say that we're running a fairly significant business. Protecting implies setting up barriers--there are no barriers. These people are free to go take whatever solutions they want to put them in a browser. We believe--and I believe this deeply, I've been a desktop business for a while--that the deployment environment of using desktop tools on a PC is a really valuable one. Sometimes, just because you can doesn't mean that you necessarily should. To the extent that there are scenarios that involve the Web that are very useful, we are going to go after those scenarios because it helps our customers--we got to stay focused on those customers.

We're not going to be in a reactionary mode that just because somebody proves that something can be done, and it has some trade-offs, then we just immediately have to follow suit. I think that there are a lot of lessons they learned right now with those competitors of things that they've done that people just aren't using, and things that they've done where people are actually using it in ways that they aren't using desktop apps today. So I think that we are all learning from this and our product will end up in some hybrid form.

Looking forward, do you think that all your own premise software will have some sort of services component?
Ozzie: I believe that moving forward--and it's not going to be overnight--most applications that we would have conceived of as desktop applications...Actually, I shouldn't even say "most" because that would imply more than 50 percent. I would say the vast majority, the vast majority of applications that are today desktop apps or Web apps or rich Internet apps are all going to have some sort of component that is Web and client and mobile. Mobile, people don't talk a lot about today, (but) there is a lot of innovation, or turmoil--you can call it what you like--in terms of form factors.

I still think there is huge importance in every OS, in innovation in the OS itself. But there will be pure Internet apps that don't care what they're run on.

But I think the more Web developers want to extend their things outward, the more they realize that gosh, it's hard to try to figure out how to develop something for mobile and a desktop component. Desktop is on the increase not just because of local documents and off-line support. But because if you've got a Web site, people have to keep voluntarily coming back to you, and having something on the desktop that keeps reminding them and feeding them on a daily basis is actually a very, very useful thing for Web apps.

Where is it not going to happen and be true? There are very few environments that are not connected to the Internet. The Defense Department or places where they truly provide a firewall. Those guys continue to use applications that are server-based and client server or internal Web apps. But the vast majority of the commercial world and consumers--I personally believe will be these hybrid apps.

You say that this software and services design pattern is going to dominate and we're starting to see that now. How does that affect Windows on the desktop?
Ozzie: In my view, the primary role of a desktop environment or a device environment, a device's operating system--this is true of phone or a PC--is to make the best possible programmer-to-hardware experience or user-to-hardware experience.

The things that run on (my phone) like mail and my MLB apps--so I can do game day on my phone--those things are essentially going to take advantage of that client OS to give the richest possible experience while still being service-connected.

I still think there is huge importance in every OS, in innovation in the OS itself. But there will be pure Internet apps that don't care what they're run on. And there will be local client apps, but those clients ones are also going to be connected.

Do you think people are taking extreme views and discussing software and online services?
Ozzie: I think that it's easier to think about one extreme or the other, but everybody that is building software is actually thinking it in a hybrid mode at this point. Take the rhetoric aside--for all things that we do, I don't see us living at the extreme world, meaning apps that don't connect to the Web or service apps don't have some (offline) component.

More Newsmakers

[cyberbiker]

Emphasis on Web Based Apps . . .

It seems to me that there are too many times that internet
access is NOT available, making applications requiring Internet
access to operate properly "crippled" and less usefull. Where I
live, it is still quite difficult to find internet access away from
home. Since I do a lot of computing when the Web is not
available, these applications would significantly reduce my
productivity. This seems contrary to the purpose reason for
having a computer in the first place.

Web requiring productivity applications remain premature, give
the large geographical areas with inadequate broadband
support.

DHD

[rcrusoe]

Premature? I don't think so.

Web apps may not be for everyone - yet, but they are working very well for me.

I switched to Google Apps for my personal domain and have been using GMail and Docs & Spreadsheets for several months. When I'm away from my computer I run GMail and Google Reader on my phone.

And anywhere I can get internet access, whether using my computer or any other my mail, calendar, and documents are available. And while there is some risk anytime you use a foreign computer, the "bag of tricks" I carry on my USB drive minimizes the danger.

Don't be surprised when the big ISPs start offering thin clients and a full suite of web apps to their customers.

I think if you offer Joe Sixpack a"cable box computer", for say $10 a month, he'll snap it up. Especially when he learns that he doesn't have to worry about spyware and viruses.

[a85]

I agree

Web apps have their place and they are useful, but the recent web infrastructure collapsed in Asia should serve as a warning. It is easy to conceive that if we become even more reliant on the web for basic productivity, such a collapse in the future would be even more devastating.

[Crunchy Doodle]

My two cents . . . . .

For many years I have been writting software for systems that are not web based and will likely never be. These are embedded controllers for machines as well as specialized communications systems that for security reasons must not have general or web connectivity. There is a whole world out there that cannot, or should not be on the web. I include the Microsoft Office Suite that resides on the PC that I use for development that will never be on the web.

[StargateFan]

Web Platform is not the future...

Let me clearify this a little. Moving my desktop and my data to the web is not the future. And to be honest I am a little confused after reading this article of where Microsoft stands on the matter. That being said I do believe that my idea of the future of software and MS's idea is very similar.

Many people believe that web 2.0 is actually moving my data online. Meaning when i boot up my computer the POST will run and then fire up the NIC Card which will then connect to some companies server where my desktop is located. This server may or may not contain my data, but it will be a normal desktop with icons that launch software. But here is the trick these shortcuts launch yet another connection to a server belonging to another company where this app is located. This is definately not the future. It removes the meaning of Personal Computer, and it screams the return of the Mainframe, which this model is just on a larger scale and utilizing a global mesh network (Internet).

This is not the true nature of web 2.0 instead Web 2.0 is the ability of software to utilize the internet as resource tool. Meaning I still have my desktop and data on my own personal computer, along with my own personally bought software. But this software is coded with the internet used like a regular code module. Menaing that it can acces the internet for collaboration purposes or updates. Basically the software uses the internet as just a simple resource it is not on the internet.

This is what believe both myself and MS's Ray Ozzie is thinking of. Any thoughts?

[thecatch]

What is really happening here....

Microsoft is becoming just another application developer.
Microsoft's core software is surely not going to be the platform
that leads us forward.

All of this activity is a good thing. It gives Microsoft and escape
route, it takes away the need to wait another 10 years for Vista's
replacement, because the network will become the platform.
And the player to watch out for isn't Google, it's Cisco.

And Smart Screens, (not dummy terminals), will proliferate our
daily environments. Portable key-boards and portable memory
will give you that personal PC security and independence you are
discussing, but all master data will be stored centrally through
the network, and locally on your portable memory sticks or box
like device at home, or anywhere you desire.

The affordability of LCD's will make all of this real, in class-
rooms, at work, at home, at the airport, everywhere. The
affordability of stored memory will make it real. And better
network and foundational software will make all of this real.

While attending CES last Jan. every keynote spoke of this world,
Chambers, Gates, Motorola, etc. The LCD is a big part of this,
because it provides that affordable visual. The foundational
software is a major player here, because it provides the speed
and always connected reality.

And when you get down to it, it doesn't matter where you get
your apps. from, because their origin will be somewhere in the
network. What really is happening here is, that the network will
become the most important thing in your life, and Microsoft
most likely will not control the network. That's the major shift
we will see take place.

[StargateFan]

I have to disagree with you

Whether Smart Screens or dummy terminals they both do the same thing. It's like the difference between car and automobile they are the same thing. The scenario you described is nothing more then the return of the mainframe on a network. I will be darn if my data becomes available through a mainframe like model, this is the personal computer revolution, not the time for a mainframe rerun.

[trueview]

NO WAY

Man those Capi ent guys are simply not only going to crush them, but show what Services really means

[t8]

Wormed his way out of the question

<question>I don't see us living at the extreme world, meaning apps that don't connect to the Web or service apps don't have some (offline) component.</question>

But the question really is that many apps will be entirely online and therefore will not dependent on Windows. He wormed his way out of that one by quoting something that Google said they will do, i.e., web apps with offline mode.

In otherwords he didn't answer the question, so I will answer it.

Yes web apps will be big and Microsoft are instead going to be doing Windows apps that have an online component. This is so to only preserve Windows and is not really the future that Google and others will give us.

[ewelch]

Microsoft will lose to Adobe

There is zero chance that this is going to succeed. Why? He
claims it's cross-platform. Then uses weasel words to talk about
focusing on where the customer is. Oh wait, 95 percent of
computer users are Windows? Guess where the emphasis is.

On top of that, how can it be cross-paltform if all the
development tools are on Windows? Adobe's tools are Mac and
PC. That's not completely cross-platform, but Adobe has come
to realize that so many creative types and media developers are
on Macs that it would be stupid to make their tools Windows-
only. (Linux just doesn't make a compelling platform yet for
content creation.)

So they can say all they want, but Mac-using creative
professionals are not going to drop Macs and Flash and Apollo
to go with an unproven technology from a company that has
shown itself to never work for the interests of anyone but
Microsoft.