Here we go again with this ridiculous tablet thing. Talk about a tempest in a teapot -- rumors and reports are swirling about a product that we predict nobody's going to want, anyway. But if you really want to know what's going on, there's some info here.
Oh, by the way, if we're wrong about our prediction and tablets take off like PCs in the '80s, we'll just do what the analysts do and hope that you forget that we ever said anything about tablets at all (which you probably will).
Posted by Lee Pender on October 01, 20091 comments
OK, so maybe we judged a book by its cover, or, more appropriately, by past works by the same author. Earlier this week, we ripped a bit on Microsoft Security Essentials, Redmond's new (and free) anti-virus effort, comparing it to sugary cereals that were always "part of this complete breakfast" in their old TV ads.
Evidently, though, early returns suggest that Security Essentials is actually pretty good and might have some impact on the anti-virus market after all. We note, of course, that these returns are very early, given that Microsoft just released the new product on Tuesday. But given that we expected a flood of articles this week about how woefully short the product falls in terms of providing protection, we're honestly a bit surprised...and humbled.
By the way, if the early reviews are accurate, we don't consider that to be particularly good news for partners. Sure, it's great that Microsoft might be able to finally provide security for its applications, but we're sure that the many Microsoft channel players who also partner with Symantec, McAfee or Trend Micro won't want to lose whatever revenue they're making from those vendors' products to a free offering from Microsoft. (Granted, AV is really mostly a consumer play, but some enterprise partners must be skimming something from it.)
After all, a patchy (sorry) record on security hasn't stopped Microsoft from dominating the software market, so it's not as though partners can really talk up Security Essentials as a deal-clincher for customers. On the other hand, the many users (and partners) who have long clamored for Microsoft to be responsible and secure its own products for free will surely be at least somewhat satisfied if Security Essentials lives up to its early reviews. And that could be positive for Microsoft and its partners in general, especially as rivals such as Linux, Apple and even Google continue to hit Microsoft on security issues.
Besides, Symantec, McAfee and friends are into much more than just anti-virus these days, so, while a successful Microsoft AV effort could give other AV vendors fits, it's not likely to put them out of business. And we figure it'll be a while before consumers or enterprise folks turn their security completely over to Microsoft. A long while.
For now, however, we'll give a preliminary tip of the cap to Microsoft and Security Essentials, which looks closer to being Total than to being Cocoa Puffs, cereally speaking.
We've had some good comments on Security Essentials on the blog site. Add to them there or send your thoughts to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on October 01, 20090 comments
There's no way we're not going to start this entry with Jack Webb, so cue the biting monotone of Sgt. Joe Friday and that iconic opening theme: "This is the city, Los Angeles, California. Every 60 seconds, a crime is committed in Los Angeles..."
And apparently, every couple of decades or so (we're not sure how often, actually), L.A. does an IT refresh. That time has come again. City Hall in the City of Angels is looking to boot an old e-mail system and upgrade to something more modern than what Joe Friday might have used very, very late in his career. (Or maybe not, given that Jack Webb left us in 1982. But we're trying to stick with the theme here.)
The decision has come down to a choice between two contenders: Microsoft Office and Google Apps (not present: Lotus Notes). From what we can tell, this isn't just a Microsoft-Google battle. This is an on-site vs. cloud computing showdown. This is old-school, reliable Office vs. cheaper, intriguing but still somewhat enigmatic Google Apps.
That, we say, is bad news for Microsoft. From what we can tell, Microsoft isn't really talking much about its own cloud offerings surrounding Office and productivity applications. Instead, it's taking a decidedly old-fogey tack and attacking the very notion of cloud computing (again, as far as we can tell) along with Google's ability to reliably store data and make it accessible.
No, no, no, no, no. Now is not the time, Microsoft, to look like the heavy. You might win the Battle of Los Angeles with this tack (although things don't seem to be headed Redmond's way at this point), but you'll do terrible damage to yourself and your partners in the War of Computing Models. Sure, attack Google. That's fair enough. But don't attack cloud computing -- it's here to stay, and you're going to want to be a player in it, as well. Remember the whole reason for hiring Ray Ozzie? Remember Azure?
Tout a hybrid system (Software + Services, anyone?), or talk about how you might be able to move some functions into the cloud at some point -- if not immediately, given that there are already lots of Exchange hosting partners -- but don't bash the idea of the cloud quite as much as you seem to be doing now. You're going to want to sell it one of these days -- soon, maybe even immediately.
Besides, unless the L.A. Times reporter who wrote the linked story is just showing massive Google bias (and we don't have a reason to believe that to be the case), Google's talking advantages and cost savings while you're talking negatives and potential pitfalls. Negative campaigning is no way to win these days.
Times are bad enough as it is without Microsoft executives reminding us that they could get worse and bashing a model that, at the very least, offers a (probably) cash-strapped city in a cash-strapped state drastically cheaper start-up cost than the on-premises platform offers. (Oh, and who was saying this week that IT budgets will be down for a while? That's right: Steve Ballmer.)
Microsoft, you're better than this. You know better than this. If you're not doing so already, integrate some cloud talk into your proposal. Talk up the benefits of old models and the promise of new ones. Get some partners involved. (Google got one mentioned in the Times.) Right now, Microsoft, you're looking about as up-to-date as Jack Webb's Joe Friday. And while we love Joe Friday, we wouldn't want to buy an e-mail platform from him.
How well do you think Microsoft is handling cloud computing? How much of a factor is cloud computing for your business? Tell all at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on September 30, 20090 comments
Steve Ballmer -- or, quite possibly, somebody who writes e-mails for Steve Ballmer -- sent a message this week that went on a bit about the new economy and so forth and how Microsoft's products will fit into it. Then, at the end, Ballmer got to the interesting stuff: companies that have adopted Windows 7.
The names are not insignificant, with Ford and Continental Airlines among the charter customers. In fact, here is exactly what Ballmer said in his "executive e-mail" to subscribers (which we at RCPU received because we're plugged into the scene in Redmond, of course):
"At Intel, for example, Windows 7 is providing improved performance, greater application responsiveness, and a better platform for mobile workers. Ford is taking advantage of Exchange 2010 and Windows 7 to streamline communications, improve decision making, and boost productivity. Continental Airlines expects to save more than $1.5 million annually in hardware, software, and operational costs through the server virtualization capabilities of Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V technology.
"At Convergent Computing, an information technology consulting firm based in California, Windows Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 will eliminate the $40,000 in annual spending that was needed to maintain a virtual private network for the company's 55 employees. In addition, employees can now access the company's corporate network instantly and download files 30 to 40 percent faster than before.
"Another example is Baker Tilly, a London financial services firm with more than 2,000 employees and a network of partners in 110 countries. One of the first businesses to deploy Windows 7 on a company-wide basis, Baker Tilly expects to save about $160 per PC by reducing deployment, management, and energy costs. And because Windows 7 improves productivity, it offers the potential to increase billable time for mobile workers at a rate of nearly $600 per PC. This could return the equivalent of one-half of one percent of the company's current gross annual revenue to the bottom line.
"Businesses aren't alone in their struggle to respond to the new normal. Governments must figure out how to deliver more services on budgets that are sharply constrained by falling revenue. As part of its response, the city of Miami deployed Windows 7 and expects that it will save nearly $400,000 a year in reduced security, management, and energy costs."
Miami officials noted that the money saved will keep the city's citizens stocked with thong bikinis and automatic weapons. Just kidding. We think.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 30, 20090 comments
For some reason, despite the fact that soccer teams around the world have been putting ads on their shirts for years, we here in the U.S. freak out when sports teams start talking about renting out space on their jerseys.
So it made news this week when Microsoft and the (thus far woeful) Seattle Seahawks agreed to slap a Bing ad on the Seahawks' practice jerseys (yes, the practice shirts, not whatever this was supposed to be), and then trotted out a bunch of hilarious "synergy" quotes about the deal.
Bing and the Seahawks -- they certainly make a...team. We guess.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 30, 20090 comments
Duty calls this week from the mother ship (Redmond magazine), so we're going to have to keep RCPU short and, hopefully, fairly sweet.
Anyway, after the fairly unmitigated disaster that was Windows Live OneCare, Microsoft is apparently back in the anti-virus game this week -- today, even, with the release of Security Essentials. We loved this quote from this Stuff.co.nz story:
"Windows business group manager Ben Green says the software alone will not protect against all web threats, but when used with a secure web browser such as Internet Explorer 8 and a fully updated Windows operating system will provide a total security solution."
That reminds us of the old TV ads for sugary cereals. The bowl of cereal was always "part of this complete breakfast," with the complete breakfast usually including bacon (we're going back a ways here), eggs, toast, orange juice and some sort of fruit. In other words, it was kind of incidental as to whether the growing kid ate the cereal or not.
Security, however, is not incidental, nor is it something users can afford to scrimp on or experiment with. Given Microsoft's record (or lack thereof) of releasing quality anti-virus wares, we're not quite ready to scarf down Microsoft's free bowl of sugary Security Essentials, and we figure that most partners and users won't be, either.
What's more disturbing here, of course, is that Microsoft seems once again to be trying to undercut some of its most important partners and dominate yet another market. In this case, though, Symantec, McAfee and friends aren't likely to be too worried about Redmond's play -- for now. Still, it's not the nicest gesture Microsoft ever made to its third-party partners, but then Microsoft didn't get where it is today by being nice.
What's your take on Security Essentials? Will you use it? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on September 29, 20094 comments
Few people can make news by stating the obvious, but Steve Ballmer is one of those people who can. Ballmer apparently said at a press-less Venture Capital Summit that Microsoft "screwed up" with Windows Mobile. Oh, really? Thanks for letting us know, Steve.
Ballmer has said a bunch of other stuff, as well, in recent interviews. One of the more extensive ones is here.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 29, 20090 comments
The firm once known as "the document company," with a brand as strong in the copier game as that of Kleenex or Google is in tissues or Web search, is trying to branch out of paper and into managing datacenters. Xerox this week bought Affiliated Computer Services for the not-small price tag of more than $6 billion. Will datacenters someday be known as Xerox centers? Stay tuned.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 29, 20090 comments
We keep hearing that the recession is over, and yet, for many companies and individuals, it sure doesn't feel as though it's over. Rising markets and positive comments from leaders aside, there are still a lot of firms struggling with declining revenues and a lot of folks looking for jobs.
There is some evidence, though, that things are looking up in the channel. If the big distributors are bellwethers for channel players of all sizes, then the financial picture for partners really is improving -- or should be soon.
Synnex, not exactly the biggest of distributors but still a player, clocked in this week with a very good fiscal third quarter that beat analysts' expectations. The company's year-over-year quarterly revenues dipped but only slightly (by about 2 percent), and that passes for good news these days. Profits actually rose year-over-year in Q3, and that's just plain good news.
Analyst are making positive noises about Tech Data, too, which suffered a revenue shortfall in its Q2 but obliterated analysts' expectations with its earnings report back in August. Tech Data folks themselves say that they see the market stabilizing somewhat in the Americas, and Wall Street types are looking for a better-than-expected Q3 from the distribution giant.
Of course, a couple of mostly positive -- or, at least, not negative -- quarterly earnings reports from a couple of channel companies doesn't mean that happy days are here again. (Happy days like the ones we all knew for the better part of the last 20 years or so seem unlikely to return.) But these upbeat reports could mean that, along with Wall Street (we hope), financials in the channel have hit bottom and are bouncing up again.
Or, we could be setting ourselves up for another bubble and more disappointment and pain. But this recovery -- if we're actually in one -- seems to have a slow-and-steady feel, not the rocket-fueled feel of a boom. Then again, we at RCPU remain largely pessimistic about the long-term prospects for the economy as a whole. But, hey, we don't claim to be experts (although we seem to remember some "experts" being the folks who got us into such trouble in the first place).
We digress. For the time being, good news for distributors seems like -- and really should be -- good news for the channel as a whole. Let's hope it is. To quote (directly, we think) Canadian soft-rock legend Anne Murray, we sure could use a little good news today.
How's your financial picture looking? What do you think the prospects are for your business and for the economy? Send your thoughts to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on September 24, 20090 comments
We've gone on and on in this space about how Microsoft should focus on core technologies and let some of the fringe stuff that's making the company bloated and inefficient go. Well, Microsoft said this week that both Windows Live and Windows Mobile are unprofitable.
Yes, that's right. Unprofitable, as in not taking away from the bottom line. Now, Windows Live, as confusing as it is as a brand, seems pretty essential to Microsoft in the coming cloud computing fight against Google and others. But really, what is the point of Windows Mobile? Does Microsoft absolutely have to be in this space? Microsoft can still sell apps for mobile devices even if they don't run on Windows Mobile, right? Live might be do or die, but Mobile? We're not so sure.
Well, none of this talk really matters because Microsoft is very much pushing ahead with its Windows Mobile plans. The company says that there will be 30 Windows Mobile 6.5 devices out this year. Whether they'll help turn a profit for Microsoft is anybody's guess.
Posted by Lee Pender on September 24, 20091 comments
Intel has had its eyes on the software market for a while, and it took another step toward becoming a real software vendor this week with the introduction of a new version of its Moblin operating system.
Linux-based Moblin could end up all over the place, from smartphones to netbooks. So, that's more competition (potentially) for Windows -- this time from the company that helped build the Microsoft empire (while also building its own).
Posted by Lee Pender on September 24, 20090 comments
Two things today: Usually, as the days lose daylight and the summer slips into fall, the news cycle starts turning again in a serious way. We haven't noticed that to be the case so much this year, perhaps because much of the technology world is anticipating the release of Windows 7 (even though there's probably nothing about it we don't know). The bigger vendors have been relatively quiet so far this fall.
That was the first thing. Here's the second: Here at RCPU, we're technology generalists, meaning that we fit the old expression, to some extent, about being jacks of all trades and masters of none. It's worth mentioning, however, that we've mastered some areas of technology over the years more than we've mastered others. Your editor has a penchant for ERP, cloud computing, security and a few other categories. But there are times when we'll admit to our lack of expertise, and this is one of them.
Citrix this week finally made generally available a product that's been in the hands of lots of users for months, Citrix NetScaler VPX. It is, according to the company, "the industry's only leading application delivery and load balancing solution that is available as a virtual appliance. So, there you go.
We're not above admitting at this point that our expertise in such a product category is pretty limited, so we're not going to spend a lot of time critiquing this offering or discussing the importance of it. But it does sound important (especially at a relatively slow time for news), and Sunil Potti, vice president at Citrix Systems, spent some time on the phone with RCPU yesterday going over some usage scenarios that the company does a better job of explaining than we could. So, courtesy of Citrix's PR folks, here they are, from the company's press release:
"Making Shared Services Work in Cloud and Enterprise Datacenters
NetScaler VPX enables next generation multi-tenancy architectures bringing application-specific and tenant-specific acceleration, security and traffic management close to the application in a flexible software tier, complementing NetScaler MPX hardware appliances at the data center edge that are handling large-scale services common to all tenants.
On-demand Load Balancing and Application Delivery
For the first time, industry-leading application delivery and load balancing can be provisioned as an on-demand service by cloud and hosting providers seeking to enhance the elasticity and profitability of their offerings. Datacenter architectures are freed from the inherent rigidity of appliance-only solutions.
Moving NetScaler Upstream in the Application Lifecycle
NetScaler VPX makes critical application optimization, security and management technology capabilities readily accessible to development teams so that application delivery can be baked into the application. Additionally, it addresses thorny configuration support and change management issues by allowing evaluation of application delivery policies in test and stage environments, before promoting into production environments."
What's really interesting to us is that this product comes with its own little partner program, dubbed the Citrix Ready Open Networking Program. The program is open to all sorts of partners, from solution providers and hosting partners to ISVs and platform partners. Oracle is the big apps partner for the moment, and conspicuously missing from the list of players in the Open Networking Programis Microsoft, generally a big buddy of Citrix.
But Potti said that Citrix should be able to snare Microsoft some time within the next few months, thereby forming an alliance that will allow the two virtualization chums to "promote Hyper-V against VMware with a value-added services stack," in Potti's words.
Now, that we get. And, for Microsoft partners -- especially those who have bought into the company's virtualization vision -- any development that helps combat VMware is a positive one. So, maybe we understand all we need to know about this product after all.
Have any comments on Citrix, NetScaler VPX (maybe you've used it and can shed some light on it for us), Microsoft, VMware, virtualization or anything else? Send them to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on September 23, 20090 comments