Disruptive Tendencies

Microsoft: SteveB or Not SteveB

That is the question.

As I saw Apple reporting record numbers yesterday, I was reminded that nearly thirteen years ago, Microsoft invested $150m in Apple to help keep it afloat because it needed to maintain the semblance that it had “competitors”? Be careful what you wish for!

In July 1997, prior to the Microsoft investment, AAPL was trading at $4.375 (split-adjusted). Overnight, it was up to $258.00, a 58X gain in twelve and a half years. Had Microsoft held onto its shares, they would be worth $8.8b in the open market today, or 26% of the cash on its Balance Sheet as at Q3/2010.

When Microsoft made its investment, its shares were trading at $17.50, and today? They closed up overnight to $31.50, up almost 1.8X over the same period as Apple’s 58X gain. Apple’s market cap today is $234b to Microsoft’s $275b. How times have changed!

It’s interesting to look at other things that were going on around the same time as Microsoft was investing in Apple.

1997 was also the year that Microsoft entered the mobile device market, with the release of Windows CE. This gave them a ten-year head start on the iPhone and a twelve-year head-start on Android! It predated RIM’s IPO. And today? Windows Mobile market share is Palm-esque, and Microsoft is betting on Windows Phone Series 7 to rejuvenate its mobile business. But if branding and momentum are any indication, it seems like a real longshot.

I’ve sat through many Microsoft Executive Briefings, dating back to 1997. Over this period, I have heard it said that Microsoft spends “$1m/hour on research”. I have seen presentations from Microsoft Research staff describing and demonstrating technologies like ClearType (also announced in 1997), a sub-pixel rendering technology designed to improve readability of rendered type on screen.  The obvious application (and one described in the early presentations) was eReaders. In 2007, ten years later, Amazon released the Kindle, ostensibly revolutionizing the delivery of content and forever changing the economics of publishing. Where’s Microsoft at this inflection point? Nowhere to be found.

What other market disruptions has Microsoft missed? (In no particular order)

Search is an obvious one. While Microsoft (and others), was focused on search technology, Google was figuring out that “Search” was all about advertising and catalysed a massive disruption in the media space, billions of dollars in revenue for Google, and hundreds of billions of dollars in shareholder value.

Maps and location services is another one. While Microsoft was focused on producing and selling CDs of MapPoint (a model it still clings to today which it “offers” at $245 on-line), Google was out producing high-resolution street-level images and has catalysed another disruption in location-based services. Today, mobile location is front and center on the Droid platform (and on Droid devices), on iPhones, and incorporated into applications across both ecosystems.

Set-Top Boxes and “owning the living room” Also in 1997, Microsoft acquired WebTV for $503m, predating the launch of Tivo. But while Microsoft apparently struggled with the thought of an appliance that wasn’t Windows-based PC (and encumbered by its emphasis on 3^rd-party OEMs to build on its platform), WebTV evolved to MSN TV (anyone remember this?!?) and has completely disappeared today.

SaaS is one to which Microsoft paid lip service throughout the late ‘90’s with its .NET push. But while it was evangelizing .NET (and SOAP, XML, web services), it was acquiring companies like Navision and Axapta (in 2002 for $1.4b) to expand its CRM and ERP offerings. But was it web-based like Saleforce.com which was founded in 1999 and which didn’t go public until mid-2004? Once again, Microsoft didn’t want to jeopardise Windows Server licenses, so it failed to embrace a market disruption despite having ample warning that it was coming.

Media Players created a seismic event and a brand new market that Microsoft completely missed. While it was focused on defending the tight integration of Windows Media Player in anti-trust lawsuits (in a vain attempt to preserve its “Windows” franchise), Apple came out with iTunes on Windows. More importantly, however, was that Apple also created the iPod, the Trojan Horse that enabled the iPhone.

Developers and App Stores: Microsoft has known since the early battles for OS supremacy (against MAC and OS2), that the selection of a platform is driven by application support. Even with a 30-year history of supporting software developers with incredibly rich tools to build 3^rd-party apps, Microsoft never provided a route to market for developers as Apple has done with the App Store. Apple also figured out how to monetise content and through the creation of a distribution system (iTunes Store), got people comfortable with micro-payments. What’s the difference between .99 for a song or an app? Ultimately, not a thing.

Obviously, there are other examples too. Microsoft completely underestimated the impact of open-source software, missing Linux, Apache, MySQL, etc. It evangelised tablets, but from a Windows bias. It would seem that Apple (and soon others) will trump Microsoft here as well.

It is fair to say, that Microsoft is losing on all fronts.

While it was focused on fighting the DOJ battle, it may ultimately have lost the war. Some, including “the late Nobel economist Milton Friedman believed that the antitrust case against Microsoft set a dangerous precedent that foreshadowed increasing government regulation of what was formerly an industry that was relatively free of government intrusion and that future technological progress in the industry will be impeded as a result.”

I have to agree. The government’s action against Microsoft was ill-advised, in that it is irrelevant that Microsoft may have had a monopoly on the desktop OS. The market isn’t stagnant. Some, like Apple with iTunes and Google with a toolbar, found ways to work within the constraints of a “Windows monopoly”, and still thrive. Others, like Salesforce.com just changed the rules.

Microsoft once had mojo but, for the past decade, has behaved like a neutered puppy. Where it was once aggressive and nimble, today it is passive and slow.

When Bill Gates relinquished the CEO reins to Steve Ballmer in January 2000, Microsoft’s stock was at around $56. With Steve B at the helm, the company has delivered a -44% return, despite being a cash flow machine and having a Balance Sheet that is (was) second to none.

 

If a patient’s ECG flatlined like Microsoft’s stock price, someone would call for the crash cart, get out the defibrillator and try to shock the patient back to normal rhythm. Where’s the crash cart in Redmond?

With a record of having missed so many opportunities to create new markets, where does the buck stop?

SteveB or not SteveB? That is the question.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

Mobile Cellular Penetration

I came across a rich set of data visualisation tools earlier today on Google Labs that allow one to run queries against publicly available data sets. Some of these will look familiar to fans of Dr. Hans Rosling, whose TED appearances are the stuff of legend. One of the data sets available is Mobile cellular subscriptions.

Last year, at CTIA, Ivan Seidenberg, CEO of Verizon Communications, talked about 500% penetration as being possible. He meant this largely in the context of an emerging M2M market, but even absent that, it's interesting to look at some representative countries.

I've gone ahead and plotted several below, but you can click through and select your own. (Feel free to share any insights from mining the data in the Comments section below).

I

Average penetration worldwide was 60% in 2008. Interestingly, Iran was bang on the average. It will be interesting to track the slope of its curve recently, especially as the phone has been a device being widely used by reformers in the country.

Korea and Japan are an interesting lines. They were both faster out of the gate, but the US has caught up, at least in terms of penetration (my friend and Koreaphile, Allen Kupetz will remind me that their data rates and breadth of uses, including mobile payments/e-wallets far exceed the US).

Norwegians were early adopters too. I remember being blown away in 1992, when my cab driver in Oslo had a cell phone. Today, can you imagine a cabbie not talking on their cell phone constantly in any big city?

The last two that I plotted were the UAE and Saudi Arabia, both of which have achieved far greater than 100% penetration. I had an inkling of this in 2001 when I was living in Dubai. Several Emiratis in our office were already carrying two phones, but again, it wasn't something that I could imagine doing. Clearly it's become the norm.

It is interesting to think about the implications of the mobile Internet in regions of the world, like the Middle East and Africa, where landline penetration lagged developed countries and until recently, Internet cafes were the primary place to access the Internet. Clearly, the game is changing. And while the Internet can be used for evil, I prefer to think of it as having removed all impedance to knowledge acquisition. Is another period of Enlightenment too much to hope for?

That's my .02! What's yours?

Martin Suter
 (martin.suter at iplicensing.net)

Mobile Internet: Fundy-esque!

(Original published at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/06/mobile-internet-fundy-esque.aspx )

In 1963, JFK is credited with having observed that, “A rising tide raises all ships.” The evidence is overwhelming that the mobile Internet tide is unprecedented in scale and that it’s coming in fast. Anyone, or any company trying to resist, inevitably will be washed away.

The launch of the Palm Pre this past week has given the industry an opportunity to debate whether the Pre is an iPhone killer. David Pogue, of the New York Times, has described the Sprint-Nextel/Palm pairing as “a pair of sad sack losers team up to defeat the smug athletic golden boy,” going on the suggest that it’s the “Palm Pre vs. iPhone.”

To its credit, Time presents a much more balanced view, pointing out that “Palm doesn't need to steal any of its competitors' customers to thrive.” This seems to be the view being (wisely) espoused by Jon Rubinstein, executive chairman of Palm Inc. as well, who rightly notes, in the same article, that the smartphone market is “large and expanding.”

Rubinstein is right in suggesting that the smartphone market is not zero-sum. Yes, there is a heightened need for device manufacturers to deliver a compelling user experience. Apple has set the bar extremely high, but the fact remains that there are “4 billion mobile phones in the world today, after all, and Palm says only about 10% of them are smart phones. During the next few years, that number may reach 50%. Morgan Stanley Research even described the migration to Internet-connected mobile devices as ‘one of the biggest opportunities in the history of the technology industry.’"

I would argue that Apple will continue to maintain its market share on the platform and device sides even as this market grows for one simple reason: iTunes. None of the other vendors has delivered a seamless content and application management platform from the desktop to the device, coupled with an accepted micro-transaction platform. Microsoft had an opportunity to do so with Windows Media Player, but was so tied up in antitrust litigation, it missed the window of opportunity and was left in the dust.

Apple’s the poster child; the launch of iPhone 3G S makes it even more so. Palm’s the underdog. But what of the other 800 pound gorillas?

“Google: Expect 18 Android Phones by Year’s End,” “BlackBerry Storm 2 could hit as early as June,” “HTC: Touch Pro 2 coming to North America,” “Samsung Unveils World's First 12 Megapixel Camera Phone,” etc.

Throw in Netbooks, gaming devices, cameras and you’ve got a rising tide of mobile data that is unprecedented. Dare I say, it is even Fundy-esque*!

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(*Canada’s Bay of Fundy purportedly has the highest tides in the world.)

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, the global market share leader in service provider Wi-Fi, enabling 3G data offload for wireless carriers, quad-play for cable operators, and managed WLAN business services. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

White Spaces: Wi-Fi on Drugs?

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2009/02/white-space-wi-fi-on-drugs.aspx )

Firstly, I’d like to say that I applaud the FCC for opening up additional unlicensed spectrum for Internet use, but “white space” has set a new record for going from zero to the Peak of Inflated Expectations!

When Larry Page speaks of Google’s vision of “Wi-Fi on steroids,” it has a nice ring to it, but where have we heard that before? Hold on. Maybe it was three years ago, when Intel touted that WiMAX “was like Wi-Fi on steroids” and demonstrated a point-to-point link streaming video over 12 miles. In the same article, Clearwire had “introduced a precursor to WiMAX in four cities in Florida, Texas, and Minnesota, and hopes to use Intel's technology to add 16 more cities by year end.” Fast-forward three years, and Clearwire WiMAX service is available in Baltimore and Portland, and promises download speeds of “up to 6mbps,” hardly steroid like performance.

What does it mean to be “on steroids” anyways? Does it mean higher data rates? Increased range? Greater capacity?

In wireless, things are seldom cut and dry.

Many have commented on the increased range of a radio operating in the 50-700MHz bands as opposed to the 2.4GHz or 5GHz unlicensed bands. Technically, this is true, and these propagation characteristics are of value if there is a wide area to cover, and a relatively few devices. To achieve this, the base stations will look more like cell towers than wireless LAN APs, due to the very long (6m at 50MHz!) wavelength at these low frequencies. However, propagation is a double-edged sword. In environments where capacity is more of a consideration, frequency re-use is an imperative, and white space propagation will work against you.

Many have commented on the ability of 50-700MHz to penetrate walls. The answer here is, “Yes, the free space loss in these bands will be anything from 11 to 32dB better than Wi-Fi, so outdoor range in open areas will be much improved. And yes, the attenuation through materials such as concrete will be improved (maybe up to 10dB) but the long wavelength will make aperture effects -- like going through windows -- worse than at 2.4GHz.” Bottom line -- the jury is still out!

With respect to data rates, it is important to appreciate that the channel widths in white space are 6MHz as opposed to the 20MHz channels found with Wi-Fi in the unlicensed bands today. For this reason alone, it will be impossible for user performance to approach that which is currently available today. Then when macro-cell architectures are factored in, it won’t even be close. So much for Wi-Fi on amphetamines, Mr. Commissioner!

Stephen Rayment, BelAir’s CTO, recently drilled down into many of the specifics around white space in an online webinar. Sitting on IEEE committees, Stephen has first-hand visibility into many of the issues related to standards adoption, chipset availability and so on. It’s definitely worth a listen.

The industry does itself a disservice when it uses sound bites to articulate a position. Had Larry Page or Kevin Martin said, “Television white space will allow the Open Internet to bridge the Digital Divide, by bringing the web to rural areas across America,” it would have been equally compelling and more accurate.

As it stands, the Gartner Hype Cycle lives on with “white space,” but we’d all be better off if more of an effort was made to temper expectations with realistic dialogue. The eventual disillusionment would be less acute.

Drugs make for bad similes. We tell our kids that steroids are bad. They’re bad for athletes and they’re equally bad for technology.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, a provider of broadband mesh solutions for Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz Public Safety and 5.9 GHz ITS networks. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

Mobilizing Web 2.0

(Originally posted at http://www.von.com/blogs/guest/2008/11/mobilizing-web-2-0.aspx )

The launch of the iPhone by Apple and AT&T in June 2007 was a seminal event in the evolution of the mobile Internet. For the first time, a handheld device delivered much of the usability and functionality that is available to laptop and PC users, in a form factor and interface that people wanted to use. The iPhone allows users to stream YouTube, purchase from the iStore, upload pictures to Facebook, and of course, make plain old phone calls.

Entire ecosystems are being enabled, as we speak, by companies like Apple, Google and RIM Blackberry releasing software development kits (SDKs), and creating a revenue-sharing business model that gives these developers a route to market (Apple App Store). Marquee VCs, like Kleiner Perkins, are committing hundreds of millions of dollars to fund startups focused narrowly on Mobile Web 2.0 application development.

The Mobile Internet is happening. Now.

But all is not idyllic. Many iPhone users report being frustrated by the limitations of current cellular networks. In many respects, it’s analogous to driving your Ferrari over a dirt road. Much of the functionality described above is only available over a Wi-Fi network, when available.

A short-term answer for the Mobile Internet is more ubiquitous Wi-Fi. We’re not advocating blanket, citywide coverage, but rather strategic deployments in areas where it makes sense to do so. This may be as simple as re-thinking the hotspot coverage area — perhaps placing a high-powered, highly sensitive access point on the outside of a location, rather than placing a low-power, enterprise AP inside. Conceivably, this simple step would provide coverage inside the establishment and its patio, just as the indoor AP, but it also could create a “virtual patio” covering about 10 times the area of the indoor AP alone. If you think about it, the location’s SSID could be used as an advertising beacon, pulling in more customers from the surrounding area, not simply serving those customers already inside the establishment.

Other locations where it might make sense to deploy Wi-Fi access include convention centers, hotels and resorts, sporting venues, commuter rail stations and lines, shopping malls, urban cores, multi-tenant dwelling units, etc.

The long-term bet carriers are making is LTE, 4G. In April 2008, the FCC raised $19.6 billion from 4G spectrum auctions and the major LTE equipment providers have agreed on an intellectual property model to accelerate adoption. 4G trials are expected to begin in 2010, with wide-scale rollouts beginning in the 2012 timeframe.

Whether Wi-Fi, WiMAX or LTE, or most likely some combination of all three, the challenge of deploying a network with the capacity capable of delivering applications and content to many of these devices simultaneously, at rates approaching 100mbps, is not trivial. Wireless networks are constrained by the laws of physics, notwithstanding the unfortunate hype that inflates expectations with every new generation of technologies. The infamous WiMAX promise of “70mbps over 70 kilometers” sounded good to the marketing department, but the reality is that this is an either/or proposition. Distance and power dictate data rate. Handheld devices are, by definition, low-powered, range-limited devices. For 4G to deliver on anything approaching its promise, much smaller cells (micro and picocells) will need to be used outdoors, with even smaller femtocells expected to provide an answer indoors, in the home and office.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter is vice president of business development at BelAir Networks, a provider of broadband mesh solutions for Wi-Fi, WiMAX, 4.9 GHz Public Safety and 5.9 GHz ITS networks. Previously, Martin was the CEO at Cohda Wireless, where he raised the company’s profile and negotiated a licensing deal with a Fortune 100 vendor in its core franchise. Prior to Cohda, he was vice president of business development at MeshNetworks Inc., a classic tech transfer/disruptive technology success story that achieved a major liquidity event for its investors in Q4/2004 with its acquisition by Motorola. Martin also was responsible for building several high profile alliances with and for leading technology companies, including Fujitsu, Microsoft, Netscape, Sun Microsystems, and Teradata. Additionally, Martin has successfully negotiated technology transfer, distribution and/or licensing deals with companies like 3Com, BioChem Pharma, Dow Chemical, Exodus, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, Motorola, Netscape and Sun.

 

US Immigration Policy & Global Competitiveness

A line from a poem, “The New Colossus”, by the nineteenth-century American poet Emma Lazarus, appears on a plaque at the base of the Statue of Liberty. It ends with Liberty herself speaking:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

 

While this may have sufficed as American immigration policy pre-WWI, when a strong back and a desire to work was all that was necessary to build out the nation’s infrastructure, it doesn’t cut it today. And yet, in many ways, these sentiments continue to be reflected by US immigration policy in the 21^st century.

America is slipping by most meaningful, objective measures: Education, healthcare, productivity, GDP per capita, trade deficits, etc. I was at a private lecture, a couple of years ago, at which Gene Kranz (“Failure is Not An Option”) was the guest speaker. He decried the situation in fairly stark terms by saying that there will not be enough US aerospace engineering graduates to backfill the positions vacated by retiring NASA engineers. How are we going to beat the Chinese to the moon or continue to push the boundaries of exploration with a manned mission to Mars if we can’t fully staff NASA?

The US has many different visa classes. The H1B is an employer-sponsored visa specifically for those positions that require advanced degrees. However, the number of H1Bs available each year is a fraction of the demand, meaning that one’s chances of getting a visa are reduced to a lottery. Companies like Google and Microsoft have been vocal in their view that their ability to fully staff in the US is negatively impacted by the inadequate quota levels of available H1B visas and have gone so far as to open substantial R&D offices in Vancouver, as well as in places like India, China & Russia.

While getting an H1B is a milestone for many professionals, it is limited in terms of time (3 year term, 6 years max), and does not allow for spouses or children to work in the US. Nor is it a path to US citizenship – that path is through a Green Card.

There are essentially two ways to get a coveted Green Card – sponsorship by a family member already resident in the US, or sponsorship by an employer. The family sponsored applicants need not have any advanced skills or education – only a desire to reside in the US and a family member capable of sponsoring them. And while we cling to the belief that it is possible to live the American Dream, the reality is that many of these Green Card holders have neither the education nor the skills necessary to help America improve its competitiveness in a frictionless, flat world.

I speak from personal experience when I say that the path to Green Card for educated professionals is not trivial. Many potential Green Card applicants may also be H1B visa holders, at least the lucky few to have gotten one. The perception continues to be propagated that a Green Card applicant can’t be in the country to fill a position that an American is capable of doing. The first step is for the employer to demonstrate to the Department of Labor that no American meets the minimum qualifications laid out for that position. Not that they are more qualified than the prospective immigrant, simply that they meet the minimum qualifications. This is a very low bar to set and as a result, many highly qualified non-US citizens that want to live, raise their families and pay taxes in the US are not able to do so.

The sad fact is that these jobs are being created elsewhere, as the production of “bits” has very different location requirements than does the production of “atoms”. American leadership in technology and its competitive advantage are evaporating, and what’s unfortunate is that many of the people that could help stop this slide, have been lined up at the door, asking politely to get in.  However, too many are turned away and prevented from doing so.

Immigration needs to be managed, but the pool of potential immigrants is a tremendous resource to be tapped. An enlightened immigration policy would be aligned with a clearly defined set of national priorities. Want to improve competitiveness and GDP? Make it easier for educated professionals to live and work in the country. Let their spouses, many of which are also highly educated, work and contribute as well. And most importantly, so doing will allow their children to be educated, work and stay in the US as well. Professionals are net producers and help to grow the national economy and the tax base not takers.

So continue to let in the tired, poor and huddled masses, but make it easier for those of us that are neither tired, nor poor, but who desire to be productive members of the US economy to stay in the country for more than six years.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

(martin.suter@iplicensing.net

Not smart enough for my " Smart Phone " , I guess

Last summer, at contract renewal time, I migrated from a Blackberry to a Windows Mobile Smart Phone (AT&T 8525 made by HTC). It had gotten good reviews, and I liked the slide out QWERTY keypad, so I took the plunge.

Besides the dismal battery life, the move has been mostly a bust, and today I'm dusting off my "old" Blackberry and taking a step forward by taking a step backwards.

"Why?", you might ask...

To make a long story short, complexity.

Short on device memory, I have spent (literally) hours on-line trying to figure out how to free up memory. I want to move a single file (PIM.vol) from my local memory to the SD card, and to then have the sync engine sync with it in its new location...Did I say that I've spent hours trying to find out how to do this?

The "solution" is to download a 3rd-party Registry Editor, and to then find and change several registry entries, re-boot a couple of times and then cross your fingers. Now I consider myself to be fairly technical, but why is this my problem? Why should I be mucking around in low-level registry entries to hack a fix when I should be able to open up Windows Explorer and drag the PIM.vol file from one place to another and then have the applications figure it out.

I'm not the only guy with this issue. I came across hundreds of entries from people with the same problem. How many of them will still be Windows Mobile device customers or Google Mobile customers is anybody's guess, but I'm betting that people won't have to hack their registry with a Google device.

Smart is not designing something that only engineers can figure out, smart is designing something that everyone can figure out.

C'mon Microsoft, you can do better...No, you NEED to do better. What's the old maxim about it costing 10X to get a new customer than to keep existing ones? If you lose/alienate your early adopters, it will be very difficult, and maybe impossible, to gain back this market share.

That's my .02!

Martin Suter

martin.suter (at) iplicensing.net

 

 

Microsoft & Interop in Action

Earlier this morning, Microsoft brought out all the big guns to make a major announcement around, what it called, "Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability". Its 3 guiding interoperability principles are:

• Open connections
• Standards support
• Data portability

Now I've often felt that Microsoft has never been given (nor taken) enough credit for its interoperability efforts and its support for standards. With its entree into the enterprise in the late 90's, Microsoft acknowledged implicitly and explicitly that IT is, by its very nature, heterogeneous. Active Directory uses LDAP and Kerberos. Office 2007 has moved to XML as a standard file format. Even in consumer applications like Windows Media Player, where Microsoft supports its own proprietary media formats, it does an equally good job of playing .mp3 or .avi files as well.

Notwithstanding all that, today's announcement is an important one, if only to further assuage the EU and the Open Source community that Microsoft continues to increase its transparency.

As I spent time digesting this announcement on Microsoft.com, I came across a free download - Windows Live Writer, a very cool, free, blogging application that allows me to do WYSIWYG blog authouring and save it offline. No more creating Word docs on planes and then cutting and pasting to the web. What's even more impressive, is that it seamlessly integrates with WordPress, my Linux-based hosted blog. The set-up process scanned my site, uploaded all the relevant formatting and gives me a far richer, more flexible authouring platform. It has optional Plug-Ins, which are downloadable from the Windows Live site. To date, there are 80 3rd-party plug-ins, including plug-ins for Firefox, RealPlayer, Flickr, Picassa and even Google functionality.

So just to get this straight, I can create an XML blog article on my Windows laptop, insert Google capabilities (if I so chose), save it to NTFS locally and publish it to a Linux server. Who knew?!?

Interoperability in action. It rocks.

That's my .02!

Martin Suter 

martin.suter (at) iplicensing.net

 

 

The Open Source Red Herring

The biggest problem that I have with the open source ecosystem is that it obfuscates its commercial motives behind this banner of altruism.

The attempted distinction between commercial vs. open-source, with the implication that open source is somehow not commercial, is a red herring. Open-source is also commercial. Look at the companies behind Linux - IBM, Google, Oracle, Sun, Novell, Red Hat. Does anyone really believe their support of Linux is altruistic or that they’re motivated by the distribution of “free” software? If profit is not their motive, someone better tell their shareholders! 

In the mid-80’s, the Canadian government reduced the patent protection afforded to pharmaceutical companies from 20 years to 10. From this, tremendous wealth was created for the owners of two generic drug manufacturers, Apotex and Novopharm. Were these companies acting out of the interest of the general population or were they parasitic offspring from a flawed premise? Each of these companies chose to remain private, and therefore able to keep their financial records away from public scrutiny, while the “commercial” pharmaceutical companies opened their books to the market, and to criticism. The owners of the generics became billionaires, not because they were running charities, but because they were able to monetize others’ IP and risk capital. 

Sure, Big Pharma is profitable, but it is not at the expense of society. Rather, it is frequently to the benefit of society. Look at how the invention of H2 receptor antagonists changed the treatment of ulcers and reflux esophagitis. Twenty five years ago, ulcers often required surgical intervention, but Tagamet changed the rules of the game. Did the profit that SKF made come at the expense of society or did the invention of a disruptive technology (if you were a GI surgeon!) warrant these profits? 

Under what terms does Google license Linux? How much does it “give back”? I’m suggesting that it is highly selective as to what it “gives back” to the open source community, and makes these decisions based on its own self-interest, not out of some altruistic motive. Google search algorithms are deeply guarded secrets, and its vaunted server farm architecture is “proprietary”. Is there anything wrong with this? Of course not. Just don’t pretend that you’re somehow better than the “commercial” vendors because you promote open source development opportunistically.

"This is what [Summer of Code] is really about: infecting students with the free software spirit, giving them the opportunity to grow into a community like ours."

There's another more subtle benefit, as DiBona explains. Thanks to the Summer of Code, "Google now knows all the people working on all these software projects, on which it depends," he says. "That's incredibly useful to us. Every once in a while we'll come out with a new API and there'll be some projects in the open source world that might be useful in either using that API or being a customer. You can just call them up and say, 'hey guys, it's Google, we're your pal,' and let them just check it out."(http://redmondmag.com/features/article.asp?editorialsid=2395)

I have never heard, nor do I ever expect to hear, any allusions from Microsoft that it is anything but a profit-driven, commercial software vendor. As a shareholder, I expect nothing less.

That’s my .02!

Martin Suter

martin.suter (at) iplicensing.net