What's it gonna be: my cloud or yours?
If you have the stomach, revisit the heated debates over how Unix or Web services should develop. Strong companies and strong personalities dominated the arguments. Ultimately, Web services flourished while the Unix standard fragmented, ending up with proprietary versions that were too weak to compete against Linux years later.
Such are the birth pangs that attend every interesting new technology. But while they say experience is a teacher, any lessons seem destined to land on deaf ears when it comes to the computer industry. At the dawn of the cloud-computing era, we're about to witness key tech companies again pull in opposite directions.
A document (PDF) making its way onto the Web--the "Open Cloud Manifesto"--makes the case for the vision of what it terms "an open cloud."
"We as industry participants must work together to ensure that the cloud remains as open as all other IT technologies. Some might argue that it is too early to discuss topics such as standards, interoperability, integration, and portability. Although this is a time of great innovation for the cloud-computing community, that innovation should be guided by the principles of openness outlined in this document. We argue that it is exactly the right time to begin the work to build the open cloud."
Nice sentiment, but they'll have to do it without Microsoft and Amazon. Both companies have rejected the initiative. Microsoft, which says that its Azure platform is sufficiently open, slammed the way the manifesto came together and dunned its backers for their take-it-or-leave-it approach.
"It appears to us that one company, or just a few companies, would prefer to control the evolution of cloud computing, as opposed to reaching a consensus across key stakeholders (including cloud users) through an "open" process. An open Manifesto emerging from a closed process is at least mildly ironic."
Amazon, which is building a fabulously profitable business as a cloud services supplier, was even more blunt about why it opted not to sign on the dotted line:
"But, what we've heard from customers thus far, customers who are really committed to using the cloud, is that the best way to illustrate openness and customer flexibility is by what you actually provide and deliver for them."
I can't say which group is on the side of the angels. The document in question is actually a starting point in what its signatories hope will turn into a broader conversation about how to break down barriers to adoption and foster wider acceptance in the IT world. (The full roster of participating companies was not immediately available.)
On the surface, there's not much to find upsetting or controversial with the document. Frankly, it reads like one of those anodyne diplomatic communiques published after a meeting between heads of state. To wit:
"This document does not intend to define a final taxonomy of cloud computing or to charter a new standards effort. Nor does it try to be an exhaustive thesis on cloud architecture and design. Rather, this document speaks to CIOs, governments, IT users, and business leaders who intend to use cloud computing and to establish a set of core principles for cloud providers. Cloud computing is still in its early stages, with much to learn and more experimentation to come. However, the time is right for the members of the emerging cloud-computing community to come together around the notion of an open cloud."
Not exactly the equivalent of "Give me liberty or give me death." But the split represents the divide between a couple of (important) companies with a head start in cloud computing and a larger cohort of wannabes anxious to avoid vendor lock-in. Sound familiar? It should. We've been here before--many times.
Cloud computing, or more precisely, cloud computing in its latest incarnation, is still in a state of becoming. So there's still time and room to figure out how things should work to the betterment of individuals and businesses. What's needed now is the intervention of cooler heads who can rise above the fray to figure out how to heal the rift before it widens.
Henry Kissinger doing anything these days?
In the 18th century, the epistolary novel was all the rage in France and England. Now, it seems, the tit-for-tat style of opposing letters has become a preferred method of dialogue between Iowa Senator Charles Grassley and Microsoft.
Grassley: Not thrilled with Microsoft's H-1B policy
In late February, Grassley urged Microsoft to rethink the use of "H-1B or other work visa program employees over qualified American workers." Grassley issued his letter after Microsoft announced its first across-the-board layoffs.
"I encourage Microsoft to ensure that Americans are given priority in job retention. Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times," Grassley wrote.
Microsoft responded with an anodyne statement at the time but declined to engage the Senator.
Until now.
In a detailed response, the company's general counsel, Brad Smith, said there would not be a "significant change in the proportion" of employees working at Microsoft with H-1B visas.
Here are the key excerpts from Smith's letter to Grassley:
H-1B employees have always accounted for less than 15 percent of Microsoft's U.S. workforce, the level that is used in immigration law to determine whether a company is "H-1B dependent." Nonetheless, the ability to tap into the world's best minds has long been essential to our success. Although they are a small percentage of our workforce, H-1B workers have long made crucial contributions to Microsoft's innovation successes and to our ability to help create jobs in this country. We are confident this will continue to be true in the future.
We focus our recruiting for core technology jobs at U.S. universities, which continue to be among the best in the world for computer science and engineering graduates. However, as one recent study found, in 2005 temporary residents earned more than 40 percent of the engineering and computer science degrees at U.S. higher education institutions. For doctoral degrees, that number was even higher, as temporary residents accounted for 59 percent of the degrees awarded in these fields that year.
The substantial majority of H-1B petitions filed by Microsoft are for core technology positions, and technology and engineering positions account for about 90 percent of Microsoft's H-1B workforce. Many of these H-1B employees have been seeking permanent resident status for many years and would no longer be dependent on their H-1B visas but for multi-year delays in the green card process.
With these factors taken together, we do not expect to see a significant change in the proportion of H-1B employees in our workforce following the job reductions.
Microsoft declined to comment beyond the text of the letter.
Update:
After publication, Grassley's office sent me the following statement from the senator.
"I appreciate Microsoft's response and while I'm happy to learn of the company's efforts to boost science and technology initiatives in both American secondary and post-secondary schools, I'm still left without much information about how Microsoft is ensuring American workers are being protected or specifics of its H-1B hiring practices. I'm interested in learning more details."
Say this about Microsoft: the company may not hit the right note with a product on its first or second try, but it perseveres.
So it was with a panoply of Microsoft products--Windows, NT, Internet Explorer, Xbox--where later iterations were head and shoulders above the original. Will we be saying something similar about the advertising platform the company is still building?
Impossible to say, but the news Monday of a Microsoft Publisher Leadership Council is designed to help the brass get it right with the next incarnation of the company's online publishing platform.
The company announced plans for AdCenter in 2005, telling the world it would be the centerpiece of its bid to increase Internet advertising. It's been an uneven development path since then. AdCenter, though, was for keyword advertising, while this announcement is for publishers:
The first members include a roster of heavyweights: IAC, Dow Jones Online, The New York Times Co., Time Inc., and Viacom.PubCenter will be built on the existing AdCenter Publisher architecture that is currently in beta and will include the convergence of technologies and tools provided by the former Atlas and Rapt solutions, as well as a self-serve offering. The new platform will provide innovative forecasting and order management solutions, advanced analytics tools, and enhanced targeting functionality to enable all digital media publishers to have access to the tools and technology they need to provide valuable and relevant ad content to their advertising partners.
Probably a sensible idea. There's a lot riding on a successful debut and who better than experts in the field to offer advice about how to avoid advertising pitfalls. The last thing Steve Ballmer wants is to resurrect the ghost of Microsoft Bob.This group will provide firsthand perspectives and insights to inform PubCenter features and functionality, including enhanced targeting, measurement and reporting functionality. Partner company executives will form a steering committee, focused on framing the key challenges and opportunities facing the digital media industry--and the role of technology in solving them. To help Microsoft gain greater insights and perspectives, representatives will have the unique opportunity to inform platform design and feature prioritization.
TradeComet.com has sued Google, claiming that the search company abused its market dominance to "squash" competition.
Rick Rule, who works for the company's law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, claimed that SourceTool.com and its subsidiary, TradeComet.com, "had a thriving business before Google decided to eliminate them as a competitor...We believe this complaint has strong merit and represents a serious antitrust violation."
It also turns out that Rule helped represent Microsoft during that company's antitrust battle with the United States government. The Cadwalader law firm also was employed by Microsoft on its failed bid to acquire Yahoo.
In its statement, which was issued late Tuesday, TradeComet said it filed the lawsuit "when Google refused to stop engaging in predatory conduct to block search traffic by imposing massive, unjustified price increases. Google's anti-competitive conduct eliminated TradeComet as a competitor."
TradeComet.com said that its business-to-business search engine subsidiary was targeted by Google, which "then engaged in illegal conduct to diminish and ultimately extinguish SourceTool.com's platform."
A spokesman for Google said that the company's lawyers had not had a chance to review the lawsuit. But in a statement, Google said that "the advertising market in which Google operates is highly competitive and advertisers have a huge range of choices."
The Black Monday announcement of more than 71,000 jobs lost is a stunner. Today it was Texas Instruments and Sprint Nextel adding their names to the listof tech companies handing out pink slips. Tomorrow? Anybody's guess.
In uncertain times, the only sure bet is that Congress is going to come under renewed pressure to revisit its practice of granting temporary visas to foreign workers. Already, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) is pressing Microsoft to give Americans priority over foreigners working in this country with H-1Bs.
"My point is that during a layoff, companies should not be retaining H-1B or other work visa program employees over qualified American workers," Grassley wrote on Friday after Microsoft announced its first across-the-board layoffs. "Our immigration policy is not intended to harm the American work force. I encourage Microsoft to ensure that Americans are given priority in job retention. Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times."
Microsoft said Monday it had no plans to change its position on H-1Bs.
Last year, when Bill Gates appeared before Congress, BusinessWeek reported that Microsoft had received 959 visa petition approvals, roughly "one fifth as many as Infosys (Technologies, the top participant), while Intel got 369."
When it reported its quarterly earnings last week, Microsoft announced plans to fire about 5,000 employees. A spokesman said that some of the employees let go held H-1B visas but declined to get more specific.
Intel, which last week announced plans to close two plants in the U.S., similarly said that layoffs resulting from the economic slowdown would not factor into the company's H-1B plans.
The Intel layoffs will affect between 2,000 and 3,000 people, but "those aren't the kind of people who will be at risk of losing their jobs," a spokesman said.
The U.S H-1B program offers temporary work visas to foreign nationals who are considered by the U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services to be qualified for a "specialty occupation." Companies argue that they need access to foreign-born college graduates with coveted technical skills. However, granting visas to foreign workers often is a controversial step. The argument gets even louder when the ranks of American jobless start swelling.
Among the charges is the claim that technology companies are less keen on hiring hard-to-fill spots than on creating a cyber lumpenproletariat willing to work for cheaper wages. The critics have also seized on instances where U.S. firms fired Americans while continuing to employ foreigners who held H-1B visas.
With the new political constellation in Washington, it's unclear what, if anything, will happen to the program. But Les French, the director of the tech labor group WashTech, said he hoped Grassley's move was a harbinger.
"We can only hope the general public is outraged that companies continue to apply for visas while Americans get laid off," said French. "We're going to try and get a grassroots effort going on our part to target senators who haven't been friendly on this question to step up and correct the problem. It's not only Microsoft. It's a growing list. My guess is that it's going to be business as usual and that the visas will be gone in the first few months of the fiscal year."
Count on the chattering classes to get it wrong. If I had a nickel for each time some expert or another weighed in over the years with a prediction of doom for Microsoft or Intel, I'd be kicking it in the Bahamas right about now.
There has been no shortage of upstarts, touted at one time or another, as can't-miss candidates to upset the computing world's constellation of forces over the past 30 years. All got bloodied for their trouble.
But have you noticed? As 2009 gets under way, it just seems the new year's outlook for the Wintel duopoly looks more unsettled than I can recall.
And not just because of the lousy economy or the concomitant stock market crash. Every technology company is feeling the pain. At some point, though, it's reasonable to assume that the economy will regain its footing and businesses will return to hiring. What's different this time around is that a rebound is not guaranteed to spell boom times for Microsoft or for Intel.
Intel built its business model around the need for constantly increasing performance. But here's what's new: more people than ever do their computing on the Internet. Up until now, Intel has dismissed concerns that the Atom processor, which powers Netbook devices, will cannibalize full-power notebooks or desktops. But we're still too early into the Netbook phenomenon to know how this is going to play out. Intel may wind up selling tons of Atom chips but the part fetches much lower profit margins than do the company's more full-featured processors. How much processing performance do you really need anyway? What about this checklist? Word processor, instant message client, Web browser. For most of us, that's more than enough. Intel wants the Atom to become a success. I'm not sure it can afford Atom to turn into a smash success.
I'm not sure whether a world populated by ultra-small, low-cost notebook computers is all that great for Microsoft, either. The company won't be able to exact the same licensing fee for a $300 computer that it does for a $1,200 PC. And with more people engaging in Internet-centric computing all the time, there are more free software alternatives.
None of this is to suggest that either Microsoft or Intel are even close to calamity. But they've each got a lot to consider as the year gets under way. The proliferation of Netbooks and the emergence of Internet-based computing raise myriad questions for Microsoft and Intel-and there are no easy answers on the horizon. The great 20th century economist Joseph Schumpeter wrote clairvoyantly about a process he termed creative destruction. I wonder if we're about to see its manifestation.
Microsoft plans to open Office to other file formats, a move the company hopes will placate government and business concerns about document interoperability.
Describing this as a step to foster greater transparency, Microsoft intends to document how it incorporated Open Document Format support into Office 2007 Service Pack 2, which is still in beta. That product is expected to ship sometime in the first half of 2009.
(You can read the notes on how each element of the specification was implemented at the Document Interoperability Initiative Web site.)
Tuesday's announcement concludes a pledge Microsoft originally made last spring to boost support for rival formats in Office.
For years, IT has struggled with how best to maintain the flow of data across heterogeneous environments without incurring data loss. Monoculture or no, customers often want to save documents in a variety of formats. This has not always worked to Microsoft's advantage. In fact, last year, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency filed a complaint with the European Commission in which it alleged that Office 2007 would impede educational initiatives because it failed to natively support open standards, in particular, ODF.
Doug Mahugh, a project manager at Microsoft who deals with interoperability issues connected with the Office software suite, described the steps taken today within the broader context of disclosure, transparency, and format support.
"To get there, we found that it was not just sufficient to conform to a standard. We needed transparency about all the design decisions involved in getting to that standard...it was a way of pulling together lot of the things we were doing in interoperability."
Rightly or not, the perception was that Microsoft Office did not treat ODF as first class citizen.
"That kind of feedback is why we built ODF support into SP 2," Mahugh said.
He added that in coming months, Microsoft will publish implementation notes for Open XML with the same kind of information.
Some marketing genius decided it would be a splendid idea to plaster the subway station I arrive at in the morning with posters promoting Microsoft's "I'm a PC" campaign. So twice a day, five days a week, I'm face to face with one of the worst advertising spots in Madison Avenue's history.
Then when I get home and turn on the television, the same ads--this time in full motion color with sound--are all over the airwaves.
(Credit:
Microsoft)
Get me an ice pick so I can drive it between my eyeballs and get it over with already.
I'm obviously late wading in here, but I wasn't swept up in the first round of harrumphing when the ads first hit in September. Even though I never thought the spots were very interesting, I figured Microsoft would improve upon them. Eventually. After all, this was part of a $300 million ad campaign that Microsoft planned, in part, to counter Apple's successful Mac versus PC series.
Silly me. I think Rory Carlyle's tongue-in-cheek summary says it all: "I'm a PC and my commercials are terrible."
No doubt there's someone high up in the Redmond bureaucracy who believes it's possible to corporately manufacture cool. But it just won't wash. When I was a kid, an advertisement for Bic pens ripped off a popular counterculture phrase of the era with the corny television refrain, "Write on." (Get it? Write on, not "right on." Ugh.)
As contrived as that was, it paled compared with this stinker from IBM for its now-defunct line of PS/2 computers...(How you gonna do it?...You're gonna PS/2 it") Vanilla Ice couldn't have done worse. A friend who worked in Big Blue's marketing department at the time candidly allowed that the jingle would have had better success as a WASP rap ditty.
The production quality of Microsoft's "I'm a PC" spots is higher, but technical excellence alone can't compensate for the core problem: conceptually, the ads fall flat. Maybe it's me but parading a bunch of goofs all declaring that they're "a PC" and I'm thinking it's "Stepford Wives" time. If the idea was to counter the impression fostered by Apple's series of lacerating Mac ads, Microsoft should rethink its original assumption. Now that Steve Ballmer says he's no longer thinking about Yahoo, he should devote a few brain cells to cleaning up this mess.
The ads simply grate. As John Gruber put it in a post a while ago:
"And so what makes Microsoft's new "I'm a PC" commercials so jaw-droppingly bad is that they're not countering Apple's message, but instead they're reinforcing it. That the spots themselves jump between dozens of different people who "are" PCs, that the spots make a point of emphasizing that there are a billion Windows-running PCs worldwide, this only emphasizes that "PC" is not a brand name but a generic."
"Microsoft's new ads emphasize the same message as Apple's: that the Mac is the one and only brand-name computer in the world."
Write on. Err, right on.
Credit John Thompson for having impeccable timing. Of course, the timing of his resignation announcement as chief executive officer from Symantec was purely coincidental, falling just one day before Microsoft dropped an A-bomb on the antivirus security market. But better lucky than good.
Microsoft's move to kill its Windows Live OneCare PC care and security suite and replace it with free consumer anti-malware software is a big deal for the likes of Symantec, McAfee, and the other antivirus suppliers (though nobody's going to say that on the record). Competing against free is always a tough sell, and this is no exception.
The only real surprise is that it took Microsoft this long to reach this point. But it's in line with the company's practice of offering for free the features that other application makers charge for. Let's remember that back in the Stone Age, companies used to sell things like word processors and spell checkers. Know anybody in their right mind still paying for that functionality today? Those companies--if they still exist--have long moved on because those businesses dried up. You can get that stuff (and a lot more) as part of Windows.
Forget antitrust claims. There's a world of difference between today's announcement and Microsoft's takedown of Netscape in the late 1990s. Microsoft is not the dominant vendor in the antivirus market. It won't be bundling the product with the Windows operating system. Neither will it force anyone to use the application. There's just no case to be made.
If past is prologue, I'm sure some commercial antivirus makers will argue that their products remain qualitatively head and shoulders above anything Microsoft could make in the security realm. Even if that were true, it doesn't matter. The economy's on all fours and times are getting worse. Some bozos may still be ordering $200 bottles of wine for dinner, but most folks are into saving their dimes.
In that budget environment, "free" is going to ring a special bell.
Google, which reportedly has been talking with Verizon about making its search engine the default on most Verizon phones, better close the deal soon--and get it in writing. That's because The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Microsoft is attempting to pry the deal away.
"Microsoft has gotten the mobile carrier's attention by offering a sweeter deal to put its search service and related advertising on Verizon phones. Microsoft is also offering more generous revenue sharing and a guarantee of substantially higher payments to Verizon, say people familiar with the matter."
"Google has been in discussions for months with Verizon to make its search engine the default on most Verizon phones, according to these people."
If true, this comes straight out of the same playbook Microsoft used in the 1990s to gut Netscape. During the browser wars, Netscape struck a deal with America Online, at the time the leading online service provider. But Microsoft moved in quickly and negotiated a deal in which AOL made Microsoft's Internet Explorer its default browser in 1996. In return, Microsoft offered a promotional spot for AOL on the opening screen of all Windows-based computers. This was a huge deal at the time as it put IE in front of AOL's (then) approximately 5 million users.
