Amazon's new offering promises to bridge the gap between the cloud and the corporate on-premises network. It's pretty intriguing, actually, given that, in Amazon's model, companies pay only for what they use (like paying for electricity, as this story notes), and they can create chunks of the cloud for themselves that are totally independent from those of other customers. It's a new turn, from what we can tell, on the multi-tenant hosting idea, and many companies skeptical of moving into the cloud might just be tempted to take a look at it.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 27, 20090 comments
Legendary Editor in Chief Scott Bekker explains in Redmond Channel Partner (the magazine) about how Microsoft is taking the unusual step of laying out plans for its Services Ready consulting packages for partners.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 27, 20090 comments
One of the things we love most about cloud computing is the name; it simply lends itself to a massive library of plays on words, metaphors and jokes. In this edition of RCPU, we're devoting the entire newsletter to cloud computing. And the timing is good for that, too, because there's a storm brewing in the cloud computing space (see?).
Just this week, F5 Networks (yes, we know, a vendor) released results of a study it commissioned somebody called Applied Research West to undertake. Applied Research West surveyed 250 IT managers, each at a company of 2,500 people or more, and found that clouds are indeed rolling in on the corporate horizon. Check out a few key numbers from the linked story:
- 66 percent [of IT managers] said they have money in the budget for cloud computing.
- 71 percent expect cloud computing budgets to grow in the next two years.
- 82 percent said they are in some stage of trial, implementation or use of public clouds.
- 83 percent said they are in some phase of trial or implementation of private clouds.
All of that cloud investment could lead to sunny days for partners who know how to take advantage of it. If partners aren't actively hosting applications in datacenters, they need to be figuring out how to reach for the sky (see, it just never stops) and grab some of the money that's about to come pouring out of the cloud.
Sure, cloud computing is simple and inexpensive -- ideally, anyway -- but there's still room for all kinds of partners to consult on and customize cloud applications. Here's the tough thing about working in the cloud, though: Because cloud computing is meant to be cheap, partners might not be able to charge the same rates as they would for an on-premises deployment. Of course, they likely won't be doing the same type of work, either.
Plus, some big cloud computing providers want to take add-on revenues for themselves and pawn off partners with (sometimes fairly measly) referral fees. That's where being a trusted adviser for clients is so important. Companies know Microsoft or Google, for instance, as vendors, but they know their partners as just that -- the people who help them get things up and running and come around when there's a problem.
Although part of the notion of cloud computing is to cut the partner out of that scenario and let the vendor handle everything, companies will still need help setting up and customizing their cloud applications -- and getting them to work with incumbent in-house apps, as well. Microsoft and other big vendors have recognized the role the channel can play in cloud computing and have re-tooled their cloud strategies in recent months to be more inclusive of partners.
At its Worldwide Partner Conference in July, Microsoft further spelled out how partners can float comfortably in the cloud, rolling out Microsoft Communications Services on a global basis and getting specific on how partners can blend into the Azure cloud development platform. The company is also working to make its Business Productivity Online Suite -- a kind of, sort of preliminary competitor to Google Apps -- more channel-friendly.
Microsoft has perhaps the best channel program in the industry and has consistently put partners at the forefront of its sales and service strategies. Nobody knows quite yet -- not even folks in Redmond, probably -- exactly how cloud computing will affect the relationship between Microsoft and its partners, and with Microsoft doing its own hosting, there will certainly be some Microsoft vs. partner competition.
But Microsoft is highly unlikely to leave the channel grounded as it soars into the clouds. Over the last year, the company has made great strides in talking about its cloud plans in specifics and including partners in the conversation. It's worth listening to what Microsoft has to say. And it's worth developing a cloud strategy, because as the survey results above indicate the storm that's brewing now in the cloud could rain revenue all over partners. And wouldn't that be a cool drink of water during a long, dry recession?
How are you working with Microsoft in the cloud? What's your take on the future -- or the present -- of cloud computing? Sound off at [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on August 26, 20090 comments
You know that huge deficit prediction we all read about this week? Don't blame the national IT department (or whatever it's called) for it; the CIO of the U.S. is, apparently, all about saving money with cloud computing. (By the way, we try to keep RCPU as apolitical as possible, so please spare us the e-mails attacking or defending one party or the other over the deficit. We just thought it made a semi-clever lead-in to this entry. That's all.)
Posted by Lee Pender on August 26, 20090 comments
In case you missed it, some hack who writes for Redmond magazine (ahem) wrote an article on hosted ERP a couple of months back. The take-away? Hosted ERP, once feared by many organizations as unsecure or insufficient, can work very well and save a lot of money in the right scenarios and when properly implemented. Allay your fears here.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 26, 20090 comments
Remember Application Service Providers? Even if you do, you might not want to mention them in the office or on a job interview, this semi-snarky article advises. The correct phrase now is Software as a Service or, of course, cloud computing. (By the way, the folks who commented on this article received it fairly poorly; we thought it was kind of clever. You never know what you're going to get on the Infobahn.)
Posted by Lee Pender on August 26, 20091 comments
"The snow leopard is a powerful hunter, able to kill prey three times its weight."
-- From the Snow Leopard Trust Web site
OK, so it's not a real snow leopard, but it is on the hunt for game much bigger than itself. Apple is releasing the latest version of its Mac operating system -- called Snow Leopard, of course -- on Friday. In fact, folks who pre-order now can actually take delivery of the new OS by the end of this week.
A $29 upgrade (or $69 for a "family pack") for users of Apple's incumbent Mac Leopard OS, Snow Leopard doesn't represent a giant leap forward from its non-snowy cousin. But it does represent a price point that's cheaper, at least in terms of upgrades, than Windows 7. And some analysts are saying that it'll be a hit, with predictions floating around of 5 million unit sales in the calendar fourth quarter of 2009.
For a Mac OS, especially one that doesn't offer anything super-fancy -- although it will include Microsoft Exchange -- 5 million units in a quarter would be a very impressive number. Apple is essentially counting on its fans to go out and get Snow Leopard because it's faster than its predecessor and, really, just because it's there. Lots of Apple folk, unlike many Windows users, like to move to the latest version of the Mac OS when it comes out.
To an extent, that's the message Apple is sending to its users and to Windows users alike: While Microsoft arguably went backwards with Vista, which was mostly a sales dud, Apple will likely rack up big numbers with what amounts to a glorified service pack. Why? Because, Apple folks might say, the Mac OS is just that much better than Windows, and because while upgrading to new versions of Windows is an expensive hassle, moving to the next version of the Mac OS is inexpensive and worthwhile.
But big numbers for Apple still wouldn't dent Windows' market share. Snow Leopard would have to bring down prey a lot heavier than three times its weight in order to take a bite out of Windows 7, which seems to be what Apple is trying to do with the timing of its OS release. Windows 7, by most accounts, is no Vista. It's poised to be a blockbuster, and Snow Leopard might end up being nothing but its warm-up act. (Incidentally, a word to the wise here: Users will be able to try Windows 7 free for up to 120 days.)
Still, Windows 7 will need to live up to its hype (and its price, once that free trial runs out) if it intends to avoid a wound from the Snow Leopard. Sure, it's unlikely that Microsoft enterprise partners will have to tangle with Snow Leopard too much (XP will be a much bigger competitor), but Windows 7 sales will be absolutely critical to Microsoft's financial situation and to repositioning the company as the undisputed king of the desktop. Meanwhile, the Snow Leopard is lurking...and it's hungry.
What's your interest in Apple's new OS? How do you think it will affect Windows 7 adoption? Send your answers to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on August 25, 20094 comments
Microsoft will appeal on Sept. 23 the ban on Word sales recently handed down by an East Texas judge. Redmond is still claiming that victorious i4i's patent for processing custom XML in the famed word-processing program is invalid, and it hopes that getting out of Texas will help its chances.
But Redmond columnist Mary Jo Foley suspects that Microsoft will either just settle with i4i or will actually take the XML-processing technology out of Word altogether, something Microsoft is apparently prepared to do with a patch that already exists. Of course, Microsoft could also just buy i4i -- something the Canadian company might have been seeking (that's just our speculation, not anything i4i has actually said) when it sued Microsoft in the first place. In all likelihood, Microsoft will find some way to keep Word on the market.
The least-likely scenario seems to be the one in which Microsoft actually appeals and wins by successfully convincing a patent-appeals court that i4i's patent is invalid. In any case, Microsoft had better hurry up and figure something out; the ban on Word sales is scheduled to start on Oct. 10, just a couple of weeks before the Windows 7 release.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 25, 20092 comments
That Microsoft and Yahoo search deal that's meant to somehow take on Google, even though neither one can come close to touching Google's market share in search? Well, it might not be on after all if the two companies can't get by antitrust watchdogs. You think anybody in the U.S. Department of Justice would like a shot at Microsoft on this one? Yeah, so do we.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 25, 20090 comments
The dog days of summer have started to heat up at RCPU, with lots of great comments and e-mails on browsers, how they do or don't make money, why they're important and whether having IE embedded into Windows is really that big of an advantage for Microsoft.
We've had quite a lot of activity on the blog site itself (spurred on by a great e-mail from reader Andy, which you can see here), which is fantastic. And we've had some great, thoughtful e-mails that have followed Andy's contribution. Let's get to some, shall we?
David starts us off by saying that the real problem isn't whether Microsoft is trying to use Windows to build an IE monopoly; it's that browsers have simply gotten out of control:
"Despite what the far-out think tanks convey to us from their ivory towers in Redmond and Palo Alto, the world would be much better off if IT chose to manage change much better (i.e., if it ain't broke why change it?). This message comes to you from a machine that runs on IE 6, something that is no longer available from Microsoft as a standalone download or even on a CD that you pay to get, which is a shame because it works admirably with the OS and weighs in at less than 200 MB of memory.
"To run IE 8 on XP, you need at least 400 MB now just to open one tab, which makes you wonder: Where have we gone and at what price? Mozilla 3 with its memory leaks is even worse. You will need 512 MB for that. Better to stay with Firefox 2, if you can.
"So why do we find ourselves on a treadmill? It seems that we lost sight of the objective: 'Build it right the first time and make it last.' That is what my dad always said. At one time, my associates called me the Maytag man because I build it to last just like my dad, who engineered the Lockheed C-130 Hercules, which has been the mainstay flying to the South Pole and in and out of hurricanes now on a regular basis for the past 50 years. And that is what I do for my customers.
"By the way, I have been writing cross-browser Web applications for 15 years now. The world is not going to change just because IE 8 broke it."
David, we see where you're coming from. Maybe some consumers, at least, are starting to understand the appeal of simplicity; that could explain in part the netbook craze. But building something right the first time and making it last is, unfortunately, not a great business model for the software industry. (Well, maybe it could be, but nobody really seems to have tried it thus far.) Look at Microsoft with XP. XP is actually too good, and its longevity is hurting the company. (Of course, Vista being a dud didn't exactly help Redmond.) But we're with you philosophically and in spirit; we'd love to see cheaper, smaller apps and fewer updates.
Meanwhile, Peter, serial e-mailer and a shoo-in for the RCPU e-mail hall of fame (to be built, perhaps, in the now-empty former law office next to RCPU's headquarters), says we're a bit two-faced on the browser issue:
"I very much enjoyed your browser article, particularly the contribution from Andy [Here it is again. --L.P.], which I think you didn't quite get. Andy is quite correct in what he says. The amusing thing is that on the one hand, you're defending Microsoft against the 'evil, Microsoft-bashing EU,' and then immediately following Andy's contribution, which I'm impressed you printed, you follow with examples of the nasty competitive things Microsoft is doing to take out the opposition."
Peter, as always, you make a good point here. First off, we love running dissenting opinions here in RCPU. This is a place for rational debate and discussion, as is the online blog site (that is, of course, if you consider your editor to be rational to begin with -- but that's another story).
But to clarify what we've said about Microsoft and IE, our take has long been that Microsoft should be able to do whatever it wants with its operating system, including cramming a browser into it. Again, Firefox has managed to compete pretty effectively with IE without any OS or major Web presence -- hello, Google Chrome -- to support it.
On the other hand, for the sake of computing -- and here's where things get a bit unrealistic, we'll admit -- Microsoft should respect standards-based browser development more than it does now, not only in an effort to level the competitive playing field a bit (something Microsoft doesn't care about) but to make the lives of developers, partners and customers easier (something that should be very important to Microsoft). Of course, we understand that Microsoft keeping IE in Windows and embracing browser standards are probably mutually exclusive things, so, yes, we're rethinking our position on this whole thing a bit.
Let's see if Warren can help us out a bit with this issue:
"I think you and Andy both have the question backwards. You make my point yourself when you say:
'What we don't like, though, is the lack of respect for browser standards (or the lack of real standards themselves) that Andy alluded to. Browsers should be commodities -- it really shouldn't matter that much which one someone uses, and Web-based applications should work as well in one as they do in another.'
"If you believe that, how can you argue in favor of 'officially supporting' multiple browsers? In theory, a developer should be able to develop to the standard and not worry about different browsers. In fact, even with standards-compliant browsers, there can be (and are) different interpretations of a standard. The question then becomes which one is right and leads into de facto standards -- the 'right' interpretation is the one the most people use.
"I say the onus is on the niche browsers to conform. Sure, they may have a better idea (or not), but as we learned from the VHS/Betamax wars, if no one uses it, it doesn't matter. If Opera wants to matter, I should think that they would try real hard to make sure that they could run Microsoft applications, rather than expecting Microsoft to conform to them."
This is a great, market-based, capitalist position, and we're kind of leaning toward adopting it right now. Let the market decide who has the best browser, and let the challengers conform to the de facto standard and win with innovation and better ideas. This might not be fairness, but it's realism.
Of course, it really doesn't seem fair that Microsoft should be able to get such a head start with IE already in Windows. Then again, we don't like the idea of government telling Microsoft what it can and can't do with its products -- even though we realize this happens all the time in every industry all over the world. The bottom line seems to be that, whether IE comes bundled in Windows or not in the future, Warren has an excellent grasp of reality here. IE is here; it's popular, and it's not likely to go away. It might be a good idea for its competitors to conform to its standards, fair or not.
As for whether browsers really matter, though, we realize now that they do -- and we're a bit undecided on what Microsoft should do about bundling IE. That puts us, we figure, in a very large category of industry observers.
Let's keep this discussion going, at least until some news starts up again in the fall. E-mail your take to [email protected].
Posted by Lee Pender on August 20, 20093 comments
Good news for the channel, everything considered: Apparently Red Hat realizes the value of partners in the enterprise and is
making improvements to its partner program.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 20, 20090 comments
It didn't seem possible, but Microsoft's Windows Mobile strategy now seems less comprehensible than ever before. Apparently, Redmond is going to some sort of two-platform approach, through which it'll see a couple of different versions of WinMo -- one updated and one not so updated. Om Malik's take? Disaster. And we can't see why he'd be wrong.
Posted by Lee Pender on August 20, 20090 comments