Newsmaker: Ozzie's quiet revolution at Microsoft

(continued from previous page)

The current state is that you provide APIs (application programming interfaces) and tools. So do, say, eBay, Google and Yahoo. But where do you want to go? People talk about a "cloud OS" and Windows Live Core project at Microsoft. What's different between this Windows Live platform today and where you seem to want to go?
Ozzie: I've nothing to announce in that realm at this time. Yet, it's pretty clear that we're working on some stuff.

Let's just separate it into layers. At the raw infrastructure layer, there is computation, storage, communications --those are kind of DNA elements of desktop PCs, servers, services, whatever. At the most boring, basic level, if there are ways that we can use our assets to extend them to developers in an interesting way, I think it's safe to assume (Microsoft will provide services) at the resource level--and Silverlight streaming is a good example of that.

The one thing that you can count on--absolutely, unquestionably--is that anything that we do from a services infrastructure platform perspective is aligned with the .Net story

At the next layer up are things that are referred to as foundation services. Things like identity, management and contact lists, photos, things that are one level of abstraction up. Windows Live APIs and the things that we are announcing here are good examples of things at that level. They're not really low-level, but they start to be really useful specifically to an app.

We have a broad palette of things at each layer that are coming down the pike. The one thing that you can count on--absolutely, unquestionably--is that anything that we do from a services infrastructure platform perspective is aligned with the .Net story--the same developer tools. There might be variants on the (.Net) framework because there might be different library services that are appropriate in a cloud world than an enterprise server world or a desktop world. But the same skill set--and we're supporting people in building, using, and in developing enterprise apps or desktop apps and now in the browser--will have the same thing in a cloud.

You first laid out the live strategy in November 2005. Where do you see yourselves in the progression internally?
Ozzie: I think we're doing actually very well, if you look at the number of offerings and how the groups are engaging customers and understanding how they want to deploy services and when.

I divide the world into two sides--I'll call one managed and the other unmanaged. The managed world is one where an IT person would be involved. We have offerings like Exchange and SharePoint, Active Directory--things like that. There's a lot of impact that's going to happen in that world related to services. You think of Salesforce.com in that world, but it goes way deeper than that. We have enterprise customers basically saying, "Look, you're talking about services infrastructure in the sky. Should I start beginning to think about doing my enterprise apps up there? Should I be thinking about enterprise infrastructure? Which pieces of infrastructure should go up there before other pieces? And are you going to help take us there?"

So those (Microsoft) business units are essentially engaging customers in trying to understand what kind of hybrid forms of say, on-premises e-mail versus on-the-cloud e-mail, on-premises content management versus out there. That stuff is happening and it's moving forward and there are groups working on hosted offerings that partners can use to host our enterprise servers in those environments.

On the unmanaged side where we use the Live moniker, I'll say we haven't done a particularly great job of articulating--I'll take a few arrows--why we choose to brand certain of the MSN services Windows Live and which ones not. To a technical audience, I can explain to them that the ones called Windows Live are the ones that we refactored so they can be syndicated and reused as reusable assets in a number of forms. They represent the platform layer of our services. The things you didn't see (rebranded) are shopping, the portal--those are MSN. Those stay there, we are not reusing those.

But we're making progress. Would we like to be as nimble as a start-up? Sure but we have a customer base, we want to bring the customer base through. When you look at the development work, I'm extremely pleased in terms of what they're building and why, what scenarios they are trying to address.  

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.