Microsoft's Dynamics Power Play

Great Plains brought with it solid functionality, a good reputation for service and one of the most loyal partner bases in the technology industry. It also brought with it customers who would walk through fire for founder Doug Burgum, an old-school technology guy who genuinely seemed to have a passion for his product and his people.

And along with all that came Tami Reller, the Microsoft Business Solutions executive most observers thought would take over as head of the Dynamics product line following Satya Nadella's move to the company's Search and Ad Platform group. The popular Reller has the support of lots of partners and certainly knows the Dynamics products and the ERP market as well as anyone in Redmond. But she didn't get the job.

In an RCPmag.com exclusive, Barbara Darrow revealed on Friday that Kirill Tatarinov, a corporate vice president and five-year Microsoft veteran, will take over as the head of Microsoft Business Solutions (and, therefore, of the Dynamics product line).

This appears, at least on the surface, to be a pure Microsoft power play. We don't know, of course, exactly why Reller didn't get the gig that many expected and wanted her to get, but RCPU suspects that her background has something to do with it. It's been hard enough for Microsoft to explain what it's doing with the four Dynamics product lines; its messaging on to what extent they'll come together as one product or remain separate still doesn't always make a lot of sense. But Microsoft has had another issue with Dynamics -- a cultural issue.

Despite its Redmond-enforced name change, many partners and customers still refer to Dynamics GP as Great Plains. And many still feel -- or want to feel -- a certain sense of independence from Microsoft. Great Plains, after all, had one of the most positive and participatory cultures in the technology industry when it was an independent company; its partners and customers were (and still are) fiercely loyal. Great Plains was even the originator of the Convergence trade show, which is now Microsoft's business-applications showcase.

But while Microsoft has surely benefited from having Great Plains' ultra-positive, super-happy culture infused into MBS and Dynamics, it's not the type of company to let its acquisitions have too much autonomy -- and hearing people walk around the convention center in San Diego talking about "Great Plains" instead of Dynamics GP had to furrow the brows of a few Microsoft higher-ups. In all likelihood, then, Reller's prairie roots probably hurt her chances of running Dynamics. And, while we don't want to dismiss Tatarinov, that's a shame. Reller was popular, dynamic and capable, all qualities that Microsoft -- or any company -- looks for in an executive.

But she was also from Great Plains, and with Burgum gone from Microsoft altogether (to do what, we're not sure -- although we suspect he and Reller might chat soon), maybe Redmond saw the opportunity to seize control of MBS and make it more of a dyed-in-the-wool Microsoft unit and less of a colony that's run in large part by ex-Great Plains execs.

What impact this will have on Dynamics as a whole and Dynamics GP in particular, we don't know. Old-school Great Plains partners and customers will likely not be fond of the move, but if they want to stick by their product, they're just going to have to live with it.

What's your take on Tami Reller not getting the big MBS job? If you're a GP partner, how do you feel about Great Plains losing its identity within Microsoft? Let me know at [email protected].

Posted by Lee Pender on July 02, 20072 comments

Redmond To Make It Easier To Ditch Vista

By the way, the story linked raises a good question: How much of the Vista sales Microsoft loves so much to tout is really just customers buying Vista and then downgrading to XP? Possibly a lot, we'd say.

Posted by Lee Pender on July 02, 20071 comments

Fake Security Bulletins Cause Real Problems

Posted by Lee Pender on June 29, 20071 comments

Red Hat: Microsoft's Next Shakedown Target?

Posted by Lee Pender on June 29, 20070 comments

Google Searching for Support in the Channel

Redmond surely can't like seeing this. Google is already killing Microsoft in the consumer search market -- a market Microsoft desperately wants to dominate. Now, here comes Google storming further into enterprise search, maybe the only area of search in which Microsoft might have had a built-in advantage for reasons we hope are obvious (as in, pretty much everybody has a Microsoft infrastructure with lots of data floating around in it).

And not only is Google storming in, it's storming in with a big channel play. Redmond will surely counter -- already has, really -- with SharePoint's (excellent, from what we can tell) search capabilities and the tried-and-true Microsoft integration pitch. But will it fly? Or will Google's name-brand search juggernaut also make an impact on the enterprise? The answers to those questions are largely up to partners now that Google and Microsoft are both reaching out to the channel in a big way.

How interested are you in working with Google's search appliances for the enterprise? Let me know at [email protected].

Posted by Lee Pender on June 29, 20070 comments

More Administrative Hassles Hit Microsoft Partner Program

And now this week, Barbara Darrow, legendary channel journalist who, as it happens, hired your editor to his first real job as journalist years ago, reports for RCPmag.com that due to a glitch in a Microsoft payment system, partners have been getting underpaid for sales of customer relationship management applications. Microsoft folks say they've fixed the problem, but it's another in a long string of glitches, gaffes and goof-ups that seem to plague the MSPP right now.

Now, we'll say it here again, as we always do, that Microsoft is generally very good to its partners, and many of the problems we've heard about, while obviously frustrating for those involved, haven't sounded like the end of the world. Still, partners rely on Microsoft for their livelihoods, and vice versa. It would behoove Microsoft, then, one would think, to keep the Partner Program running like a fairly well-oiled machine. We're sure that Microsoft has that goal, but clearly there are some glitches in the system right now -- and we're not sure why.

Maybe Microsoft's Partner Program has finally become too big (the latest total number of Microsoft partners, according to Redmond, is 400,000). Or maybe the many shakeups in partner program leadership -- there's another coming, as the first link in this entry explains -- have led to a bit of confusion. Maybe, too, most of the problems -- especially the administrative hang-ups -- lie with temporary workers who don't work for Microsoft at all, as we've heard suggested here and there.

Whatever the cause, though, we've heard so many complaints now that we're actually looking much deeper into this situation for a story in RCP magazine. So, if you have a gripe with the partner program, please share it -- and, if you're willing to talk about it in the magazine, please let me know. We're especially interested in hearing about administrative snafus and the like, but if you've got a rant, go for it. You know where to reach me: [email protected].

And with that, let's move into one more e-mail about the MSPP, this one less about administrative stuff and more about procurement of products -- but interesting nonetheless:

"For years now, I have run a one-man operation. For the most part, I have not experienced the level of frustrations that others have regarding being a Registered partner or an Action Pack subscriber. I do, however, have a concern over our ability to adequately compete with larger organizations. I realize that our niche is to provide value-added services atop our expertise. What I would really like to see is an ability to provide Microsoft products, purchased from national vendors, which can compete with what's available in the retail chains. I constantly find myself making purchases online, from retail, rather than from national vendors, because saving our customers money makes sense. Many times I have raised this issue with whatever Microsoft rep was calling me this week, or what rep was in town for a TS2 event. I would prefer to be able to take advantage of my role as a Microsoft Partner, or any reseller program I am involved in, as opposed to being forced to seek the lesser expensive alternatives available."

Daniel, that's a legitimate concern, and you're probably not the only partner who feels that way. Anybody else want to chime in? Drop me a line at [email protected]. And thanks to Daniel and everybody who has taken time to write.

FYI, there will be a special edition of RCPU on July 2 -- special because it'll be out on a Monday, and we don't usually do that. So don't be surprised to see it hit your inbox.

Posted by Lee Pender on June 29, 20070 comments

French Bigwigs Told To Ditch BlackBerrys

Oh, we're just kidding. France was your editor's home for almost five years and was a wonderful place to live. And the soufflés were tremendous.

In the words of mes amis français, "Bon week-end." We'll be back for more next week.

Posted by Lee Pender on June 22, 20070 comments

Redmond Defends Patchy Record on Security

Posted by Lee Pender on June 21, 20070 comments

Patches Coming Today, But Beware of Fakes

Posted by Lee Pender on June 12, 20070 comments

IIS Problems Might Not Be Microsoft's Fault

Posted by Lee Pender on June 08, 20070 comments

Cheers (and Mainly Jeers) for the Microsoft Partner Program

Now, we know that Microsoft has lots and lots of partners -- the company now says 400,000 -- and we're sure that many of them are happy to be working with Redmond. But the responses we got reflect a few points of frustration that maybe some of you who didn't write also share. Read and decide for yourself, and please keep your thoughts coming to us. (And, in case you were wondering, yes, we do sometimes share these sentiments with Redmond. So you're not just complaining into a vacuum.)

Don starts us off, noting that not all Registered Members of the MSPP are necessarily equal. Some, he says, are clearly more dedicated than others:

"I've already stated my opinion to Microsoft about the Registered partner program that they have in place. I feel it's a slap in the face to those of us who have worked really hard. Right now, Joe Blow who runs a welding shop can sign up as a Registered partner, purchase the Action Packs and not only have cheap software but get listed on the portal. Of course, I'm not sure who would try and use Joe's welding and computer services, but it does add to the chaos."

Don, we can relate to this. RCP is, after all, a Registered Member of the Microsoft Partner Program. And, while we hope we're providing value to our readers, we're certainly not selling and servicing Microsoft technology the way you are, nor are we directly driving revenue for Microsoft. No, not all Registered Members are on the same level in terms of importance to Microsoft, but they are on the same level in the Partner Program. Maybe Microsoft needs to look into that. Of course, the option to move up to Certified Member might be worth considering, as well, although that's a very tough move for lots of smaller shops.

Speaking of which, Gary, who runs a one-man shop, is sick and tired of Microsoft's constant changes to its various programs and the complexity of Microsoft licensing:

"I am an OEM System Builder, a one-man shop that tries to count on my vendors and suppliers for support. My biggest gripe with Microsoft is that they change programs faster than I can keep up! Every time I turn around, they have a new 'program' or 'initiative.' They have done this for years, and I am tired of it. Same goes for their Web sites. I never have locked down their licensing scheme, since about the time I understand it, they change it. I just trust my distributors to keep me straight and have to play 20 questions with them every time I do a licensing job. They have NO mercy on us. I think they forget that we have to deal with more than just them. Have they heard of the Intel Products Dealer Program, or the AMD System Builder program? Let's not forget the Samsung Power Sellers Program, or the Mitsubishi/NEC reseller program. And on and on. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!"

Gary, you deserve a break, and you're not alone in making this point. Microsoft licensing, in particular, is complex. Whether the company can really do anything about that, we don't know, but maybe some better guidance on the finer points of licensing would be in order -- or, maybe, some consistency would be nice.

Kevin rounds out our comments today with one that reflects the complaints in the first two e-mails:

"We have been dissatisfied with the Partner Program because Microsoft has become more concerned about Microsoft than its partners. First, there is the requirement for two MCSEs to be at the Certified level; we have only one, and we will not partner with other partners to fulfill the requirement. Our clients deserve the privacy of not having their problems outsourced to every Tom, Dick and Bill in the partner registry. Most of our 'Certified' competitors don't even have one real MCSE on staff. It gets worse when you are dealing with other areas of expertise such as SQL or system builders. We don't think much of the Certified or Gold programs.

"Then there is the problem with the solutions being all Microsoft, all the time. To demonstrate the point, Microsoft changed one of the security tools to require One Note [we're pretty sure that's an unfriendly reference to OneCare --LP] to be installed on the clients. Be realistic; it's hard enough to promote any real security solutions in a competitive situation. It's quite another to be laughed out of the security infrastructure by your competitors while trying to do so.

"Also, Microsoft has to put all their little rules and gotchas into the mix. We were upset when Microsoft changed the rules for the Action Pack software. Now, if you quit the Action Pack you will need to uninstall all the software. Therefore, if we stop getting the Action Pack, shouldn't we just eliminate the partnership altogether?

"Finally, we were upset when the Action Pack only included the Vista upgrade. All this did was prove that the high-performance computers we built last week would never meet customers' expectations. Therefore, we will not be upgrading any XP computers to Vista. Microsoft actually did us a favor. But we are still vehement about Registered partners being treated as second-class citizens. When we do get the OEM version, how many Vista computers will we have to build before we have one that meets our performance standards?

"In conclusion, Microsoft needs to understand that they have no real knowledge of what partners have to do to make the deals with the end customers. They should be more concerned about helping the smaller partners than helping Microsoft."

So, there you go, Redmond. Again, we at RCPU are sure that a lot of partners are happy with the Partner Program (few people ever write to say how happy they are with something, after all). But these three smaller partners have raised some legitimate concerns, and it's not the first time we've heard them. To everybody who took the time to write, thank you. To Microsoft and the folks at the Partner Program, we hope you're paying attention.

Have any other gripes about the Partner Program, or any compliments or kind words? Send them all to me at [email protected]. We'll revisit this topic periodically.

Posted by Lee Pender on June 08, 20070 comments

Linux and Microsoft: Let's Make One Thing Perfectly Clear

With all that RCPU has written about this topic (and there are too many links to drop them all in here), there's one thing we'd like to make perfectly clear: We're fans of interoperability, which has become a forgotten aspect of these Linux deals but was the central issue when the Novell story first broke. We're not fans of legal battles, patent bullying or operating system zealots of any stripe.

Yes, we've criticized the Free Software Foundation -- still a bit of a questionable organization, everything considered -- for not being more open to interoperability with Microsoft. And we do feel that interoperability with Windows will help Linux gain credibility and greatly expand its presence in the enterprise. In that sense, the FSF hurts itself with its fiercely anti-Microsoft rhetoric.

But we also feel as though Microsoft, while it has the right to enforce whatever patents it feels Linux infringes upon, should put up or shut up with the legal saber rattling and focus on making Windows work better with Linux in IT environments rather than simply shaking down Linux distributors and customers for their legal lunch money.

The initial promise of the Microsoft-Novell deal -- the notion that partners and customers might be more readily able to sell and deploy Linux and Windows together -- probably still exists, and it's that hope for greater interoperability that we like about the Microsoft-Linux deals. But what we don't like is Microsoft's mobster approach to patents, and the FSF's apparent rejection of the notion of intellectual property and obstinate anti-Microsoft stance (from a technology perspective, from what we can tell, and not just regarding patents).

Again, nobody wins with the situation we have now. The folks who will suffer more than anyone else likely will be the partners who want to satisfy their customers and IT administrators who want to maximize their technology investments in two great platforms. Microsoft, FSF -- please find some spirit of "coopetition" and spend your time improving your respective operating systems rather than lining up lawyers for a courtroom death march. Everybody will be better off in the long run.

Posted by Lee Pender on June 08, 20070 comments