Microsoft Monitor: Microsoft Monitor

Microsoft Monitor Weblog A Jupiter Research Business Weblog
 
Microsoft Strategy Breakfast
Understanding where the post-trial Microsoft is headed in the 21st century

Free for Qualified Professionals!

June 23, 2004
San Jose Marriott
San Jose, CA

See the Program

Click Here to Qualify


Jupiter's Microsoft Monitor Research Service helps vendors prepare for market opportunities created by new Microsoft initiatives. In addition, Microsoft Monitor helps business and enterprise users discover which strategies are most successful in dealing with Microsoft and how to best exploit the customer relationship. The Microsoft Monitor Weblog is a companion to Jupiter's Microsoft Monitor Research Service and provides additional news, analysis and insight relevant to the areas most important for Microsoft's growth in both the business and consumer marketplaces. The content on this Weblog is often based on late-breaking events whose sources are deemed to be reliable. The insight and recommendations represent Jupiter's initial analysis. As a result, our positions are subject to refinements or major changes as Jupiter analysts gather more information and perform further analysis. Feedback is welcome at mm@jupitermedia.com.

Contact Us
More information about Jupiter's Microsoft Monitor Research service is available by contacting Kieran Kelly at researchsales@jupitermedia.com or by telephone at 1-800-481-1212

Blogroll
David Card
Michael Gartenberg
Alan Meckler
David Schatsky

June 2004
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      
Archives
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003

Recent Entries
EU Fine and the Economic Lesson
Tale of Two Students and Teachers
Where's the Popcorn?
Oddball Notion That Microsoft is IBM
Looking for XP SP2 Resources?

June 09, 2004
EU Fine and the Economic Lesson #

Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Todd Bishop has shown good use of a newspaper Weblog. In a post (here) today, he explains why Microsoft's European Union fine is reported as a different amount among news outlets.

Not rocket science: The fine, which is constant in Euros, fluctuates based on the exchange rate. But, Mr. Bishop offers a pretty good explanation--in fact, education--and a nifty chart that tracks the fine's U.S. Dollar value over time. About $610 million now, based on the chart. There's a fascinating economics lesson there somewhere. Probably not the value the EU planned to deliver with the antitrust remedy, but something, anyway.

Speaking of the EU case, Microsoft filed its appeal earlier this week and is expected to request a stay of the remedy. I am curious what contingencies Microsoft has put in place should there be no stay. I'm no lawyer, so I'm not sure from which date to count from--the day the EU announced the decision or its publication. From one of those dates, Microsoft had 90 days to release the Windows version without the media player. If the earlier date, then Microsoft has around two weeks to obtain a stay.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 04:35 PM

Tale of Two Students and Teachers #

What do kids have to do all summer but work at the computer? They must. Why else would Corel release a WordPerfect Office 12 Student and Teacher Edition the week before most grade schools let out for summer break?

The product clearly is Corel's response to Office 2003 Student and Teacher Edition. Microsoft launched the XP version in October 2001 for about $250 less than the same non-scholastic version. I view the Office version as a way of Microsoft reducing the product's cost to consumers without jeopardizing the higher businesses pricing.

Corel has undercut Microsoft by about 50 bucks, as its Student and Teacher version costs $99. Like Office 2003 Student and Teacher Edition, Corel's product comes with licenses for up to three computers.

The consumer productivity suite market is quite interesting. JupiterResearch recently conducted a survey of consumer productivity suite habits, including products and preferred features. The data will be available in an upcoming report.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 01:19 PM

Where's the Popcorn? #

Microsoft posts so much information on its Website, no reasonable person can keep track of the stuff. Stumbled onto this today: VB@the Movies. The company has put together a bunch of Visual Basic demos as short vignettes. I wish the tutorials were as exciting as the packaging, but they are for developers.

Still the packaging is a step in the right direction. I'm no developer and yet I stopped to check out what was showing. I couldn't resist the monster pic and marque: "Controls. They Control Your Minds!" I won't dare comment about control, monopolies, big brother and all the assumptions people make about Microsoft. Another, called "Deployment," features a soldier saluting before a sky filled with bombers.

Yesterday's blog raised questions about so-called, staid and out-of-touch Microsoft. But, VB@the Movies shows Microsoft has charm left. Hopefully, we will see some of that with Windows XP Reloaded.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 01:03 PM
June 08, 2004
Oddball Notion That Microsoft is IBM #

Longhorn evangelist Robert Scoble responded (here) to a CRN story (here) comparing Microsoft to IBM.

The comparison is about whether Microsoft has become like IBM was before Bill Gates & Co. set off the PC revolution.

Mr. Scoble astutely admits: "I don't know of a single product we've done lately that's been a breakout marketing success."

More: "Big ideas start small. I keep coming back to instant messaging. That started with 40 users back in November of 1996. How many now use IM? eBay started in 1995 and on its first day open didn't have a single visitor. Think about that one for a minute. If Microsoft has forgotten that big ideas start small (heck, how much smaller could you get than 'a computer for every person'), then we deserve to be called IBM."

I'm not sure the comparison matters. But as I've blogged too numerous times to even bother linking back to, Microsoft needs to polish up its marketing. And my recent report, "Software Assurance: Microsoft's Troubled Switch to Contractual Licensing" explains how the company is out of touch with how customers want to buy software.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 03:41 PM

Looking for XP SP2 Resources? #

I can't strongly enough encourage developers, IT decision makers or Website operators to test Windows XP Service Pack 2. Last week, I blogged about potential Website problems.

For people looking for SP2 info, here are some useful links:

Windows XP Service Pack 2 Technical Preview

Service Pack 2 info for IT professionals

Service Pack 2 information for Website operators

Functionality changes in Service Pack 2

Security changes and blocking's impact

OS News Review of Service Pack 2

O'Reilly WindowsDevCenter Review of Service Pack 2

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 01:39 PM

The Merger that Wasn't #

That Microsoft entertained the notion of buying SAP should surprise no one. Such a merger is wholly consistent with the company's broader enterprise software strategy. (Yesterday, Microsoft issued a press release acknowledging merger talks that ended with no plans for resumption).

As I blogged before, Microsoft clearly is looking to extend its Business Solutions division products from smaller businesses to larger ones. Last week, a Microsoft Business Solutions (MBS) reorganization bolstered the division's prominence and made changes that could better resolve ongoing consolidation of sales channels.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is attempting to turn Office into a development platform and front end to back-end systems, like those developed by SAP. I addressed this somewhat in my report, "Microsoft Positions Office 2003 for Enterprise Information." A forthcoming report looks at Microsoft's "Smart Client" concept with respect to Office 2003.

Additionally, SAP is a strong Microsoft partner and one with fine focus on the small- and medium-business market, which is where MBS products are today. Microsoft could have used SAP's products as leverage both up and down market. I see potential benefits for MBS and for Office.

Still, that Microsoft and SAP didn't merge should surprise no one either. One lesson learned from MBS: Acquisitions of complex business software come with baggage. Like SAP, Great Plains was a strong Microsoft partner. Even so, Microsoft has grappled with how best to merge disparate sales channels and how to better integrate software features and appearance with existing products like Office.

The point: There are plenty of logistical reasons why the merger would have created unwanted problems for Microsoft, particularly as the company works to deliver Windows XP Service Pack 2 and refocus development efforts on the Longhorn wave of products, which include new versions of Office and MBS applications.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:04 AM
June 07, 2004
Catching the AirPort Express #

Funny that just as Microsoft is getting out of the Wi-Fi networking gear, Apple is adding yet another base station. This afternoon, Apple unveiled AirPort Express, a combo portable 802.11g hub and music streaming device.

Last month, Microsoft exited the wireless hardware market, which is too bad considering its "G" networking and Xbox gear setup with ease and worked trouble free in my testing. By contrast, Apple is expanding its gear. In April, Apple added a full-size AirPort "G" hub, this one with ethernet power capabilities, and now the diminutive AirPort Express.

The new device makes sense for many reasons. It's a low-cost way of extending the range of an existing AirPort base station, adding a print server and or setting up a wireless network in a hotel room.

Then there is Apple following Microsoft into the living room. Colleague Avi Greengart's report, "PCs and Digital Entertainment" explains why media-oriented computers, like those running Windows XP Media Center Edition, are primed for wider acceptance. With AirPort Express, Apple will offer AirTunes, an iTunes add-on for streaming music from a computer to a home stereo system. JupiterResearch surveys show that playing music computer-stored music on a stereo system to be a top consumer priority; 70 percent of consumers say they listen to music on a PC, already. Then, there is the obvious extension of Apple's existing music strategy.

Colleague Michael Gartenberg has more to say about AirPort Express here. He explains why Apple's approach makes sense in the living room (or bedroom or den).

Perhaps most interesting about the AirPort Express announcement is Apple's platform support: Mac and PC. This would be the second hardware product from Apple in recent months--the other being iPod mini--supporting Windows and Mac OS. I would watch for more of this kind of support as Apple releases more entertainment devices.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 03:14 PM
June 04, 2004
Explaining the Big in SP2 #

Microsoft's Channel 9 has posted a video and transcript (useful for folks trying to access using non-Windows machines) of a session (here) with Windows XP product manager Rebecca Norlander. She explains why Windows XP Service Pack 2 is so large--264MB for the latest build available to external beta testers.

"We recompiled a bunch of the core system binaries," she explains. "If you recompile, though, then you’ve changed those bits, and those bits need to make it into the service pack. That’s one of the reasons that it grew beyond what most service packs were."

I put the size as more than double Service Pack 1. In a February blog, I suggested that that the changes introduced in SP2 are so significant, Microsoft should treat this as a new XP version. My concern remains one of communicating to developers, business customers and consumers the sweeping extent of changes SP2 will make to Windows XP. Ms. Norlander's comments about recompiling core binaries make the point. To achieve the security improvements planned for Windows XP, Microsoft had to make sweeping changes throughout the operating system's core structure.

I see the remodeled home as the right analogy for Windows XP SP2. My question: Is there a point where remodeling a house is so massive it should be called a new home? For those that say yes, then this is a new version. For those that say no, then it's not. Either way, the changes are the same.

In this case, people need to be aware of the remodeling they don't see or immediately notice. The changes behind the walls in the wiring and plumbing. The new locks on doors where there were none before. The alarm system that needs to be turned on when leaving and set to idle on return. How central heating and air conditioning works differently than steam heat and fans. SP2 users will have to modify their behavior, which may seem frustrating at first but will be better over time. It only takes one hot day to appreciate central air conditioning over a fan.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:46 AM

XP and Wi-Fi Connections #

Wired has an interesting story (here) about Windows XP users losing Wi-Fi connections. Internet access is lost, even though XP indicates a connection to the router.

I have certainly seen this problem, on every Windows XP computer I've ever used and connected to a variety of routers, including those made by Microsoft. In my testing, the connection to the router is lost even though the user has no indication of the fact. Oftentimes, Windows XP will eventually reconnect, but the interval varies. In other situations, I've had to disable and enable the Wi-Fi hardware to restore the connection.

But, that's the past.

On the one computer I am testing Windows XP Service Pack 2--a Dell Inspiron 8500 notebook--the Wi-Fi connection works much better. I have yet to see the connection drop. Reliability isn't the only improvement. Microsoft has bolstered security, provided more no-geek information and improved the mechanism for setting up the connection between a XP computer and wireless access point.

Fixed problems shouldn't be a reason for installing a major operating system update. Still, I commend Microsoft for the improvements.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:00 AM

MBS Organizational Changes #

The Microsoft Business Solutions' reorganization signifies the company's attempts to aright one of its sagging divisions and also firm up a massive, attempted expansion into the small- and medium-business market.

The reorg, announced yesterday, means that MBS Senior Veep Doug Burgum will report directly to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer. While operating as a separate business unit, Mr. Burgum and MBS previously operated under the tutelage of Jeff Raikes, who heads Microsoft's Information Worker division (a.k.a., the Office group). At the same time, Orlando Ayala, who heads Microsoft's Small and Mid-Market Solutions and Partners (SMSP) group, becomes MBS chief operating officer (COO).

From one viewpoint, the changes indicate MBS is coming into its own, as Mr. Burgum now reports to Mr. Ballmer. But that reporting also could be seen as stricter scrutiny. MBS was one of Microsoft's four money-losing divisions in the third quarter. MBS reported a $65 million loss.

At the same time, the division is struggling to unshackle from its past. Microsoft acquired most of the products now sold by MBS. Many are not well integrated with other Microsoft business productivity offerings (e.g. Office System) and were sold through different sales channels. Microsoft has been working to consolidate the sales channels and better align them with Microsoft's existing channel of 750,000 or so partners. But, that work has been slow going. I view Mr. Ayala's added MBS COO responsibility as part of the channel clean-up process.

As explained in my report, "Spending $2 Billion on 45 million: Microsoft's Sales Assault Targets SMBs," Microsoft's SMB strategy extends horizontally and vertically. MBS products are geared specifically for smaller businesses. Mr. Ayala's SMSP organization seeks to sell all Microsoft products, not just those from MBS, to SMBs.

With respect to the SMB market, I don't see that Microsoft is selling software the way customers say they prefer to buy it. The aforementioned report and another, "Software Assurance: Microsoft's Troubled Switch to Contractual Licensing" explain why.

Other MBS blogs:

Business Portal 2.0

Microsoft CRM 1.2

Project Green

The Deal About This Year's Partner Event

Business Solutions Platform

Office Goes to Greenwich

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:35 AM
June 03, 2004
WMP 10 First Impression #

Yesterday, Microsoft released a technical preview of Windows Media Player 10 for broad testing. The product adds new digital rights management technology, incorporates access to multiple music stores (no more than before in this first test version) and improved user interface. The interface changes are worth noting, as they show Microsoft making important baby steps to improving WMP's usability.

I regard complexity as the hallmark of Microsoft product design. Since Windows' earliest days, Microsoft has offered users multiple ways of doing the same tasks. (I can't say how intentional the approach or whether it was a byproduct of increasing integration features into the operating system.) The flexibility allows for tremendous personalization, but also introduces complexity. That's a problem when users can't figure out how to do things or they simply don't know what features are there. As I blogged before (here and here), lack of feature discovery is an unfortunate Windows XP problem.

WMP 10 changes remind me of Windows XP Media Center Edition, even though the interfaces don't really look anything alike. But, there is an important similarity of approach.

Microsoft developed Media Center's second interface for what the company calls a 10-foot experience, meaning the UI is bold, viewable and accessible from anywhere in the room. The reasoning is to make Media Center living room friendly the way a television might be. I never fully bought into that reasoning, seeing a more, fundamental appeal to the Media Center UI. Features are exposed simply, easily.

In the standard Windows XP interface, digital media features are buried deep. But Media Center delivers them boldly, clearly: Photos. Movies. Music. DVD. TV. Click on Photos and you got, what? Photos.

WMP 10 takes a similar straightforward approach. The new player replaces the clunky, vertical tabs with clearer ones that run across the top of the application: Now Playing. Library. Rip. Burn. Sync. Guide. To the far right: Music. Radio. The labels are clearer and like, Media Center, lead straight to the things people would want to do with the software. I find the approach a refreshing departure from Microsoft's staid use of menus. That's not to say the traditional file menus are gone, nor the complexity. Both are removed a step back where they belong, for enthusiasts.

I wouldn't consider the interface to be breakthrough by any measure, but a remarkable improvement coming from Microsoft. WMP 10 isn't due for release until later this year, and Microsoft will need to make many other changes to match iTunes simplicity or ease of finding music, whether stored locally or online music stores.

Note: This is the 500th post.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 05:31 PM
June 02, 2004
SP2 and Websites #

While generally satisfied with Windows XP Service Pack 2, I do have a big--and I do mean BIG--gripe: The update's impact on Websites. As I blogged previously, SP2 is guaranteed to break some existing applications and wreak havoc accessing some Websites.

The problems are exacerbated by Microsoft's long-ago decision to integrate Internet Explorer into the operating system. I never bought into Microsoft's technological justification for basically making the operating system shell into a browser. Problems caused by SP2 illustrate the kinds of processes that can go awry from browser-OS integration.

Generally, I encounter script errors that prevent HTML code or features from loading. Interestingly, I see this as much with software applications as Websites. As part of the browser-OS integration, Microsoft published programming interfaces that let developers hook into the HTML capabilities. So, near as I can tell from casual testing, SP2 changes to Internet Explorer also impact software applications that call on browser functions.

I would encourage every developer calling on Windows-IE HTML code or anyone operating a Website to carefully review the security changes SP2 will introduce. Microsoft offers a primer for Websites here.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:38 AM

Blog Disclaimers Silly or Necessary? #

Visual Studio evangelist Josh Legard offers some interesting perspective (here) on Microsoft blogging disclaimers. As I've blogged before, Microsoft employees are some of the most prolific bloggers on the Web, and Chairman Bill Gates recently told big-company CEOs to take blogging more seriously (Where's your blog, Mr. Gates?).

Microsoft has some fuzzy lines between corporate and personal blogging, something that the company's legal department apparently is looking to address. Several evangelists use blogs to market for Microsoft. Good examples are the Channel 9 and Robert Scoble blogsites. Other employees blog on their own.

Mr. Legard said that today he will meet with the company's legal staff to discuss blog disclaimers, which some Microsoft bloggers already are adding to posts. "A long internal thread went around where 'best practice' guidance was given from a member of the legal team that included inserting the disclaimer into every entry as well as in any comment we leave on other blogs," he wrote. "Some people feel pretty strongly that this will kill blogging, be impossible to enforce, and that it is just plain silly to add the disclaimer text to a blog comment when all you might be saying is 'Great post, I agree.'"

All three objections are reasonable, although I find "silly" to be most reasonable. More so considering there's talk of disclaimers on every post, not just on the blogsite, Mr. Legard said.

I'm no lawyer and won't address the topic of legal liability. But, I can discuss policy. Microsoft's challenge--and frankly that for every company with blogging employees--may be to set policy for corporate and non-corporate blogging. E-Mail would be a good model to start with. Corporate e-mail is typically defined as that using the company's servers to send and receive, although where the line falls varies among companies. Some companies do require disclaimers for some types of corporate e-mail, but I've encountered few companies that require any disclaimers. I must say that I don't see disclaimers on many e-mails received from Microsoft. So, why Weblogs?

Still, because of potential liabilities, companies have reason to delineate between corporate and personal blogging. If disclaimers are deemed necessary, they should stay on corporate blogs. I wouldn't force employees to post disclaimers on personal blogsites and, in either case, certainly not for every blogpost.

Frankly, the problem is much, much bigger than blogsites. More companies need to take seriously the problem of commingled data. Too often work computers contain personal e-mail and other documents or home computers contain company documents or e-mail. Again, I'm no lawyer, but I wonder about the legal problems that have yet to surface because companies don't have in place firm, enforceable policies about commingled data.

If anything, the blogsite disclaimer question is really an extension of this larger problem. Resolution won't be easy, because of the increasingly blurred lines between work and home life. The home office I work out of is a poignant example. Often the work day stretches long into the evening (Oh and does my wife gripe about that).

Days gone by, people filled their lives with religion, country or community. Now, it's the job.

Update: Mr. Scoble's sane response to disclaimers.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:56 AM
June 01, 2004
Evangelizing Windows Server 2003 #

Today, Microsoft kicked off "Windows Server 2003 Webcast Week" (details here). Sixteen Webcasts are planned--and that's for a short week; four days.

As stated in a posting this morning, Microsoft is struggling to get existing customers to upgrade from eight-year-old Windows NT 4 Server. How is more than half of the biggest businesses running the OS? That's the big percentage coming from JupiterResearch surveys.

So, Microsoft has every good reason to evangelize the hell out of Windows Server 2003. Security may not be a selling point. As revealed in my recent report, "Security: How IT Managers' Ranking of Microsoft Affects Software Purchasing Decisions," businesses running Windows NT Server 4 or Windows Server 2003 rank Microsoft about the same with respect to security. My take: Either IT managers don't see any real difference or they have yet to understand the differences.

For what it's worth, there is no explicit security topic among the 16 Webcasts.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 03:10 PM

Upgrades in the Slow Lane #

Today's CNET News.com has a story (here) about Microsoft's recent changes to lifecycle support (my blogs here and here) and ongoing problems convincing businesses to upgrade to newer software versions.

My two recent reports, "Windows Fragmentation: The Problem with Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix It" and "Software Assurance: Microsoft's Troubled Switch to Contractual Licensing" lay out Microsoft's upgrade problems and why they persist. The reports also address the Windows NT 4 problem, meaning the huge number of businesses still running the software on the desktop or server.

CNET's story quotes Microsoft executive Bob Muglia as saying, "It's a pretty small percentage of customers on NT 4.0, less than 20 percent. But the vast majority of customers will move by the end of this year." If he's talking about Windows NT 4 Workstation, I would agree. But there is nothing in the data I've seen or customers I have spoken to that would suggests this is the case with Windows NT 4 Server. The percentage of businesses using the server software is much higher, and there is no indication I can discern indicating the majority will switch this year.

If anything, Microsoft's fragmentation problem is persistent across multiple product lines--and there are clear indications it is expanding. As I will explain in an upcoming report, the fragmentation presents a unique opportunity for companies hawking Linux and open-source alternatives to Microsoft software.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:11 AM

Sasser's Sass #

I got a frantic call from my sister on Saturday, after she received an antivirus warning that Sasser had infected her laptop and couldn't be removed.

Her story is probably like many folks caught off guard by Sasser and other virus outbreaks. But, it's revealing, too, because she is a fairly sophisticated user that shouldn't have been caught by Sasser.

My sister--she's one of three--works for a company that provides training services for Microsoft software. So, she is pretty familiar with Microsoft products and takes precautions against security problems. For example, she runs the latest version of Norton System Works and has the software set to fetch new antivirus definitions automatically. So, how'd she get caught? No firewall.

At the office she works behind a corporate firewall and at home connects via DSL line that also uses a firewall. But, on Saturday she used the dial-up connection at her summer camp and got Sasser. Dial-up users are particularly susceptible to Internet worms, as ISPs don't always offer firewall protection for this type of connection. Considering that JupiterResearch projects that about one third of U.S. households will have broadband access this year, the majority of folks are on dial-up and potentially more susceptible to Sasser-like viruses.

Confusion followed as my sister desperately struggled to remove the virus. She wasn't certain which version she had and found that there were different fixes depending on the Sasser variant. What she needed and couldn't find was a way to remove every Sasser variant.

So first thing I did after she called was to look for Microsoft's Sasser removal tool, which I learned is included with Windows XP updates. Had she set Windows XP to download updates automatically? She thought so, but couldn't say for certain. I asked about a firewall. "SystemWorks doesn't have a firewall," she snapped. But what about the one in Windows XP? "Huh?"

Huh is right.

According to JupiterResearch surveys, most consumers running Windows XP say they don't have firewall software installed. That, despite Microsoft bundling a firewall with the operating system. My sister's awareness, or lack thereof, is a common problem.

I walked her through the process of enabling the firewall for her Internet connections, which didn't do much good to wipe out the infection. Windows XP Service Pack 2 would have enabled the firewall, and Security Center would have informed the feature's status. Service Pack 2 also would have helped her turn on automatic updates.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 07:48 AM
May 28, 2004
MSN Search and Music, Part Two #

I'm a bit stunned by the press feeding frenzy set off by comments (here) Yusuf Mehdi, MSN corporate VP, made during a Wednesday speech. News report after news report claimed that Microsoft would unleash an iPod-killing music player for 50 bucks.

The problem: That's not at all what Mr. Mehdi said.

As a former reporter, I've witnessed the feeding frenzy at work. News outlet A publishes a story that B, C, D or E follows. But, rather than demonstrating independent reporting, the subsequent stories build off the original. If that one turns out to have mistakes, so do the rest. Reporters are supposed to do reporting, but sometimes folks are lazy or busy and so they cut corners they shouldn't. The "iPod killer" is good example, not that I can imagine some folks at Microsoft mind that kind of buzz.

What did he really say? "I've spent time with a bunch of hardware manufacturers who will launch hardware products when we ship our service that will look and feel as good as the iPod product…We won't produce it but it will be available to the consumer. We gave a lot of input." He then described Portable Media Center attributes, then added: "And then a bunch of devices in between, little ones that cost 50 bucks and you can go running with."

Yes, Mr. Mehdi spoke about $50 dollar devices, but not anything made by Microsoft or with capabilities comparable to iPod. Based on where the market is today, I would expect those low-cost devices to be flash-based and not in the same league as iPod.

He also spoke about plans to open the MSN Music store. As I blogged earlier this morning, Mr. Mehdi is taking a refreshing approach, at least for Microsoft, delivering new products or services. While the popular news media consensus is that Microsoft will launch the MSN Music store this year, no one knows. I expect Mr. Mehdi will resist pressure to rush and instead will attempt to deliver a good experience in version one.

He has good reason to be patient. As stated in my recent report, "Protected Audio Content: Consumers, Vendors Line Up Behind Apple or Microsoft," the digital download market is nascent and will remain so for many years. Also, Microsoft has in Apple's iTunes Music Store a minimum threshold to meet.

There, Mr. Mehdi boasted about capabilities I'm not convinced can easily go further than iTunes Music Store. "We'll have the best discovery," he claimed. "It will work with your Windows PCs and that alone I think will give us a big enough market share that we certainly should be able to go out there and be in a nice horse race if not take the lead at some point in the future."

The focus is right. JupiterResearch surveys show that search is one of consumers' top priorities for online music stores.

Mr. Mehdi's boast may sound good, but where is Microsoft starting? Way behind Apple. I don't see how Microsoft can easily do online music searches any better than what Apple is doing today. Apple has created so many different ways to find music--links from the artist, song, or album in the music library to the online store; Billboard charts; radio charts; iMixes; music videos; or artist playlists.

You can be sure the MSN folks are watching how existing Windows Media Audio stores are expanding and what new entrants like Sony Connect are doing. Microsoft can learn from their mistakes and build on their successes.

With respect to iTunes Music Store, MSN Music is not the competitor some folks in the news media seem to think it is. Nothing makes for better copy than a good scrap. Apple and Microsoft are considered by many as long-time rivals. But, Mr. Mehdi rightly recognizes that iTunes and MSN business models are different.

"There's a lot of financial benefit to Apple that is made on the sale of the iPod that we don't have because we don't sell that device ourselves," he said. "I do think there's a lot of opportunity financially for us on online advertising and on search efforts that music will help that we are going to invest in that will allow us to fund and drive."

More: "We'll take a long-term view and so we will fund and we will invest to be competitive. The lack of economics from a device will have no real impact in terms of how we compete in the marketplace."

How Microsoft competes will be interesting. Because for Microsoft, the real economics is about selling Windows. That's why Microsoft can spend $500 million developing Windows Media 9 Series technologies to be licensed cheaply or given away for free. Windows Media is a means to an end, a loss leader for selling the operating system--the way Apple's music store is in a way a loss leader for selling iPods. So, in that sense the strategies are similar. Microsoft hopes that the more devices and stores that support Windows Media, the more consumers that buy WMA DRM content, the better for selling Windows.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 10:32 AM

MSN Search and Music, Part One #

Last couple of days I've taken many press calls asking about comments (here) Yusuf Mehdi, MSN corporate VP, made during public speech on Wednesday. So, I figured that blogging on his comments is long overdue.

First off, I consider MSN to be one of Microsoft's renegade divisions, that is bucking the company's traditional tactics and trying to do some things different. I credit Mr. Mehdi for what I call the "wait and see" approach, as he advances technologies and business strategies that won't mature for years in a way that prepares the soil, so to speak, for partners to take root and grow up around Microsoft.

In some ways, his approach bucks Microsoft's "version one" mentality, that I see as bringing some products to market really before they're "mass market" ready and so potentially hurting customer attitudes about the company. The way I see it, the mythology about Microsoft getting products right on version three is closer to fact. But, there's no reason why version one shouldn't be good enough, and subsequent releases even better.

Mr. Mehdi seems to understand this principle and is slowly, methodically building up MSN into a profitable organization that delivers "good enough" the first time "and even better" the next time round. Recent MSN product releases also appear to be well-featured for consumers, whether that's MSN Premium, MSN Messenger, MSN Video, MSN Autos or the 2004-version MSN home page. I think other Microsoft divisions should learn from MSN's success tuning into what the customer wants.

Mr. Mehdi's approach is essential for MSN making the right moves into search and music, both areas where other companies--Apple and Google--have gained an early lead in adoption and brand awareness. I will cover search here and music in a follow-up blog.

With respect to search, MSN has many good reasons to go there. Right now, paid search contributes the largest chunk of MSN's advertising revenue. But MSN is dependent on rival Yahoo! for those and basic algorithmic services. Dependence on a major competitor at the bottom is not a place MSN should want to be. At the same time, Google is expanding beyond search into blogging and e-mail. GMail competes directly with Hotmail, which offers tiered, for-fee versions with extra storage and the ability to send different size attachments.

Google also has shown interest in offering desktop search. According to Mr. Mehdi, MSN also plans to deliver desktop search capabilities. My thinking is this: If Windows search capabilities were good enough, there would be no opportunity for Google or MSN to fill in the gap. But, until Google's rise to search Web dominance, Microsoft showed little interest in search. I see Windows search capabilities as really never having advanced much beyond version one, and that was introduced many Windows versions ago. I think it's unfortunate that it took a competitor's success and not legitimate customer need for Microsoft to make search a strategic technology.

I've heard some Microsoft folks argue that search is in its infancy, which is another way of saying Google's head start doesn't mean much. I scratch my head and wonder, "Where have these people been for the last 25 years?" It's not like search suddenly developed with Google. OS and Internet search are decades old. Sophisticated Web search a decade old. On Windows, maybe search is in its infancy, but I consider that a version one problem.

So, I look at Microsoft's search capabilities as advancing along two fronts. There is the work that MSN will deliver based on more traditional algorithmic advances. Mr. Mehdi is right to work for MSN's search independence and fill the search void on Windows.

In the larger scheme, as explained in my July 2003 report, "MSN Search: Microsoft Guns for Google, the Desktop and the Enterprise," Microsoft is looking to extend search beyond the Web to the desktop and the corporate network. Much of that work will take years, as Microsoft's broader plans are tied to WinFS--that's the new file system coming in Windows Longhorn--and would rely on the proper tagging of Extensible Markup Language (XML). Blogs here, here and here explain the strategy.

As I blogged last week about blogging and the Web, search is an informational technology that doesn't require Windows. Google's Web search success and plans to move into other areas should concern Microsoft, given its core business is Windows. Any expansive, desired technology that is "no Windows required" by definition is an area where Microsoft would eventually make overtures.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:00 AM
May 27, 2004
Rethinking Windows Updates #

Last night, I spoke with someone at Microsoft about the coming changes to Microsoft lifecycle support. She confirmed the reasons stated in my earlier blog and also explained how the new policy affects service packs.

Starting June 1, Microsoft will support an existing service pack for at least 12 months following the release of the newer one, so as to allow companies time for testing the update. In the case of major updates, like the upcoming Windows XP Service Pack 2, support will stretch out for 24 months.

I could see the reasoning, but had to ask why wait so long between service packs. Her response: That customers don't want frequent updates and for some one a year is the limit. OK, I'm thinking: What customers?

As explained in my report, "Windows Fragmentation: The Problem with Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix It," customers are holding onto software longer--one good reason for Microsoft to extend lifecycle support, incidentally. My report, "Software Assurance: Microsoft's Troubled Switch to Contractual Licensing," reveals how many business customers buy new computers and replace the preinstalled software with older versions. If business customers aren't going to use the newest stuff anyway, why not make updates available more frequently?

Consider this: Service Pack 2 is looking to release about two years after its predecessor. That kind of long release cycle puts a tremendous burden on Microsoft's PC partners selling computers to the consumer market and those people buying the computers. After last night's Spring concert at my daughter's school, a buddy complained about setting up a new PC for a friend and then having to download more than 50 updates.

Considering the potential security risk unpatched consumer PCs pose to everyone else connected to the Internet, I would think Microsoft would have every good reason to provide PC manufacturers with "point releases" every few months that consolidate patches. Apple does that today with Mac OS X. The newest point release--right now 10.3.4--goes on new computers, minimizing the amount of downloads customers must make out of the box.

JupiterResearch projects that by the end of this year, about one-third of U.S. households will have broadband. The larger number with dial-up connections are in a sticky spot--downloading massive updates for their new PCs over slow connections. If consumers choose not to download, or simply don't see the need, their unpatched computers are potentially more vulnerable to viruses, worms or Trojan horses.

Microsoft executives might counter and say that Service Pack 2 will fix that problem. But what about three months later, when the company has issued new updates? I believe that if Microsoft needs to continue issuing updates to make Windows safe or compatible, the company has an obligation to bear the burden of delivering those updates to customers. If AOL can blanket the planet in promotional CDs for its online service, why can't Microsoft, with more than $50 billion in the bank, do the same with update discs for new computers? (Some answers here and here.)

Microsoft could provide direct PC manufacturers like Dell point releases that could go immediately onto new PCs. Microsoft could provide update CDs to retailers selling PCs for indirect manufacturers like HP or Sony. As for the business market, companies downgrading to an older Windows version won't care much what update is on the PC. For those that do, Microsoft and its PC partners could offer the choice of Windows with the most recent service pack or post-service pack point release.

Some Microsoft folks might argue that releasing point upgrades would create versioning confusion or increase technical support calls. But, I don't see it that way. Right now, customers have no easy way of determining what version of Windows they have because Microsoft gives no obvious cue and different customers may have installed different levels of updates.

I'd like to see Microsoft do away with service packs altogether. At the least, in addition to Windows Update, Microsoft should provide its business customers and OEM and retail partners update CDs every quarter. I believe new Windows versions should replace service packs. There is precedent when looking at the rapid release cycle for Windows XP Tablet PC and Windows Media editions.

That might seem like a mechanism for increasing the amount of Windows fragmentation--meaning even more versions in use. But true innovation, meaning truly compelling products, would help offset increased fragmentation. If Apple can release four versions of Mac OS X in three years, why can't Microsoft, with the resources of 55,000-plus employees, do better? And in doing better deliver compelling must-have products.

Ultimately, this may be the challenge: Creating products so compelling customers rush out to get the latest versions, and in the process move to the most-secure software sold by Microsoft. I don't know a Mac user iPod owner that has either purchased an iPod mini or plans to get one. If Microsoft can meet that standard of compelling, whether because of must-have innovation, marketing or both, people will pay to move to the latest, most-secure software.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:38 AM
May 26, 2004
Microsoft and The Wired 40 #

For anyone keeping count, Microsoft is No. 27 on The Wired 40, the magazine's annual ranking of "companies driving the global economy." Microsoft dropped from last year's more prestigious eight spot. While Microsoft may be down, Apple is up, debuting on the list at No. 3, behind Google and Amazon.com.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 03:07 PM

Microsoft Employees React to Benefits Changes #

Last week, I resisted blogging about Microsoft plans to cut employee benefits. What is there to say when a company with $50 billion cash in the bank and its first $10 billion quarter cuts employee benefits to save money?

According to today's Seattle Times, Microsoft employees have something to say about the cuts. The story (here) by reporter Kim Peterson looks at the results of an informal poll posted on an employee's internal Website.

Microsoft uses Office SharePoint Portal Server 2003 behind its firewall. Among the product's many features: Employee Website creation capabilities. So, I'm not surprised that an employee could quickly put up a poll and make it widely available to coworkers.

As for the poll results, I prefer to let Ms. Peterson's story deal with them.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 11:47 AM
May 25, 2004
Microsoft Reality Checks Lifecycle Support #

This afternoon, Microsoft announced a major overhaul of its product lifecycle support. The new policy, which only applies to business products, goes into effect next Tuesday. Microsoft's lifecycle support page is here and the updated information here.

The policy changes address harsh realities about how Microsoft business customers use products and how the company delivers software:

* JupiterResearch surveys show increasing fragmentation of the Office and Windows markets, as companies hold on to software longer--in some cases beyond support. For example, one in five businesses with $50 million greater revenue run Windows 95. Previously, increased fragmentation compelled Microsoft to extend support for Windows NT and Windows 98.

* The policy change also gives Microsoft more maneuverability developing new products. For example, before the announced changes, Microsoft had been scheduled to stop selling some Windows XP versions before successor Longhorn is scheduled to ship. The revised policy gives Microsoft and its customers more flexibility dealing with product delivery delays.

* The policy change means customers can count on product support for at least 10 years. Under the old policy, mainstream support ended after five years, with extended support going for another two years. I consider the policy change to be another sign Microsoft is trying to address customers' realistic needs. The policy change also is consistent with Microsoft's emphasis on security, as updates would be available for three years longer than before.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 12:57 PM

TechEd Keynote Crib Sheet #

Steve Ballmer's TechEd keynote (here) is an invaluable crib sheet on Microsoft's go-to-market strategy. I would encourage every Microsoft customer, partner or competitor to read and re-read the transcript of the CEO's comments.

Some important highlights, with commentary:

Security. "You can trust from me, from the top of our company, security is job one," Mr. Ballmer assured attendees. "The issues that you've having keeping these systems up in production through the attacks by these malicious hackers is really unacceptable."

He also stated the obvious: "There is no immediate solution. We have an installed base of 600 million users. There is no way to snap our fingers--even if we had a perfect release, we couldn't snap our fingers together and get them all migrated to the newest releases."

Mr. Ballmer rightly assessed the problem. JupiterResearch surveys show that Microsoft's core businesses--Office and Windows--are fragmenting, as customers hold on to older product versions longer and longer. But Mr. Ballmer's approach, migrating customers "to the newest releases," may not be realistic.

That's something he may understand: "We're working on a bunch of different tactics. We're working on the core quality and security. We're working on the tools to help you update and apply patches. We're working on resiliency and isolation, building layers that help you protect systems, taking the basic concepts of firewalling and antivirus to the next level, and you'll hear about that."

Other tactics include work with ISPs and third-party security software vendors.

Spam. Mr. Ballmer's comments on spam explain the breadth of the problem: "We had 130 Chief Executive Officers from large companies in Seattle last week. The number one question they asked, and actually the number one questions their spouses asked, 'When are you going to get rid of spam? What's it going to take? I feel icky sometimes about even turning on my computer based upon the kind of information that gets sent to me.'"

Speaking from personal experience, last week I gave up a domain used for nine years, in part because of the torrent of spam received there. Mr. Ballmer's point is a serious one: At what point does spam become a parasite that kills the host, meaning it becomes a deterrent to people using e-mail or computers outside the office. That possibility should concern Microsoft, its partners and competitors.

The problem: One person's spam is another's legitimate e-mail marketing. JupiterResearch has done extensive research and analysis about spam. Two recent reports: "ISP Spam Solutions: Evaluating Strategies for Controlling Costs and Preventing Spam-Related Churn" by Joe Laszlo and "Overcoming the Spam Effect: Maximizing E-Mail Marketing Message Delivery" by David Daniels.

Integrated Innovation. Mr. Ballmer spoke about Microsoft's broad integration strategy, something I covered in the report: "Microsoft's Integrated Innovation: Weighing Up Customer Benefits, Risk." In the report, I contend that Microsoft's integration strategy raises software acquisition costs, because customers would want to buy multiple products to use new features.

Mr. Ballmer had a different take: "Each and every one of the products that we build isn't just an application, it also is an extensible piece of software that, if we give you the right capability, you can extend. And it may be simpler and easier and cheaper for you to extend Microsoft Office than write your own piece of code or to extend Axapta or Navision or Great Plains, to use Exchange as the backbone for your collaboration and workflow systems as opposed from starting from scratch."

In Mr. Ballmer's vision of the enterprise, increased integration improves the way Microsoft software works together and creates building blocks on top of which customers can erect new solutions. There are many flaws in the strategy, some of which are covered in my integration report and others. I also would encourage JupiterResearch clients with inquiry access and interest in discussing Microsoft's strategy to contact their account representative to schedule time with an analyst.

Interoperability. With respect to Integrated Innovation, Mr. Ballmer quipped, "Now, people say, 'That's interesting. Are you really committed to those things as open standards?' And the answer is absolutely yes." He then touted Extensible Markup Language (XML)-based Web services as a way of achieving interoperability among different systems. "The old way of doing interoperability was to try to build a piece of code that went from every system to every other system. That's not what we get with XML Web services. And as I'll describe in a few customer case studies later on, this really is proving to be the kind of lingua franca that lets you start a system that was built on Unix, extend it with components that are written in Windows and vice versa."

He later emphasized, "So integrated innovation with open standards based interoperability--very, very important."

But I'm convinced Microsoft's definition of interoperability or its execution is the same as customers'. It's one thing to say you'll play nice with the other kids. It's another to become their friends. With Microsoft, I see interoperability as a means to an end: Selling more software, not necessarily providing tools that solve customer problems.

The nuance is subtle but significant. JupiterResearch surveys show that about half of big businesses run only Windows. It's a fair bet Microsoft has worked hard to make sure its software is all interoperable. But what about the rest of businesses--the ones that rank interoperability as a top priority and run disparate? How will Microsoft deal with them?

Playing nice is basically an agreement to be polite, to share the same playground. Being friends means developing a meaningful relationship, and that carries obligation to always share the playground. I'm not yet convinced Microsoft's interoperability strategy is anything more than détente, with a goal of dominating the enterprise. Not all Microsoft customers may share that goal. I do believe Microsoft is sincerely trying to focus more on customers. The company's eventual execution around interoperability could define future business and product strategies. Will Microsoft succeed by excellence or, as it has done in the past, through integration? Microsoft customers, I'd love to hear what you think. You can e-mail me here.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:41 AM

Longhorn: No Noise is a Good Sound #

Microsoft kicked off the first full day of its TechEd conference yesterday, with the focus where it should be: Current products.

After almost a year of constant noise, there is much-needed silence about next-generation Windows Longhorn. As I blogged previously (here and here), Microsoft's near-incessant obsession with Longhorn distracted the company, its customers and its partners from existing products--some of which are only selling at a modest pace. Yesterday's TechEd announcements were all about products either in the release cycle or about to enter it.

Well, there was a whisper about Longhorn in Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer's keynote address (here), but in appropriate context.

One of my longstanding criticisms about Microsoft product development is the introduction of unwieldily processes, the attempt to create cumbersome, unfamiliar ways of doing things rather than extend what is familiar. With Longhorn, Mr. Ballmer touted the focus on "Innovation, but innovate in a way that doesn't create thousands of new concepts, but rather integrate new concepts together in a powerful way. And we're working on that kind of an innovation with our Longhorn release of Windows. It's a long slog."

Then Mr. Ballmer put Longhorn in its place. Finally. "We've put it a little bit lower priority in order to get out Windows XP Service Pack 2 to really respond on some security issues."

I don't think Microsoft can do enough to promote Service Pack 2, which increases the value of Windows XP, or provide new tools important for recent releases, such as Office 2003 or Windows Server 2003.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 07:32 AM
May 24, 2004
TechEd Bloggers #

Microsoft's TechEd conference is underway in San Diego. True to Chairman Bill Gates call to blog--delivered last week during Microsoft's CEO summit--Microsoft has set up a site for TechEd bloggers (here).

I chuckled this morning to see the featured "Hot Post" is for Java developers. Yeah, Java developers--and opportunity to attend a session on how best to port to .Net or improve interoperability between the technologies.

I see the TechEd blog the way I do Channel 9: Marketing site that also attempts to foster community around Microsoft technologies. I can see why Microsoft would exploit the opportunity. What better way to promote the company's technologies than by giving people who use and like the products a meeting place to discuss them? The customer/user bloggers are more credible, more honestly enthusiastic and cheaper than hiring dedicated marketers.

Purists may cringe, particularly those that remember what happened to the original Web. I remember well the days when the Web was a place of self expression, where people put up sites as a way of self-publishing or self expression. Others saw commercial opportunities that have shaped the Web into what it is today. Similarly, blogging has been about self expression, where people post diaries, rave about what interests them or rant about what they dislike. Apparently, businesses see blogging as a marketing tool, too. With Microsoft at the front of the line, recognizing and taking advantage of the opportunity.

Companies may research and tinker, searching for that next "must-have" technology. Along the way, they sometimes forget high-tech development is really about people, which are social beings that prefer community. If nothing else, blogs are about community, something Microsoft employees were quick to understand. That makes sense given Microsoft's corporate culture, which is very much about working together, whether within or externally with partners.

I'm not surprised then that Microsoft employees are prolific bloggers or that the company sees blogs as a marketing/community-building opportunity.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 07:31 AM

The New Toy in the Living Room #

On Saturday, I called Comcast to complain about my bill going up and instead tacked on another service, increasing my monthly payment.

I had this sweet digital cable service and broadband deal for $99 a month. In fact, that deal brought my household back to digital cable. We weren't that impressed by the quality or the choices on the bundled 70-plus pay channels, well not for about $107 a month. But I could see the value of paying less, yet getting more with the broadband included in the 99-buck fee. Unfortunately, the promotion ended, jacking my monthly bill up to over $120 a month.

So I called to downgrade or get another sweat deal, only to be told that my local Comcast provider gives deals for upgrades not for removing services. "Yeah, but I have your premium package," I whined. "What could I upgrade to?"

Digital video recording.

For someone like me who doesn't have the time or inclination to watch lots of TV, DVR is a good way of "shifting" programs to a more appropriate time.

Comcast wasted no time either. A technician showed up last night around 5 p.m., swapping out the old Motorola digital cable box for a newer, DVR model. This one has either a 60GB or 80GB hard drive--I can't tell if it's a six or eight--for recording TV shows.

For sometime, I had considered TiVo. But we're a mobile phone family, and TiVo needs a land line to "phone home" for program guides. I certainly have used Windows XP Media Center PC Edition PCs and was just about ready to permanently plop one in the living room for the DVR capabilities. Comcast provided a new toy and opportunity to see how the cable company's DVR will compare to Microsoft's.

Soon, they could be one in the same. Last Thursday, Comcast agreed to license Microsoft's TV Foundation and provide the software to as many as 5 million subscribers. TV Foundation basically is middleware that runs on top of the cable box's pre-installed software and that connects back to a server running other Microsoft software. Comcast could use TV Foundation to deliver more customizable program guides, among other capabilities. Improved DVR could be one of those. Part of Microsoft's "Better Together" strategy is offering Windows Media Center PCs or Xbox game console customers "extras" from their cable box.

I wouldn't know whether my area is one of those homes due for TV Foundation upgrade or even if my cable box qualifies. The older one supported the Microsoft technology. Either way, I am anxious to see how Comcast's current offering compares to Media Center.

Incidentally, JupiterResearch offers reports and data about digital cable and DVRs. More reports are coming.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 06:59 AM
May 22, 2004
Again, I Just Don't Get It #

Once again, Microsoft has done the baffling: Release a valuable for-customers document in an unnecessarily complicated way that also makes getting the information much more difficult than necessary. I'm referring to the "Antivirus Defense-in-Depth Guide" (here) that posted on Thursday.

Before I scold, I want to praise: The guide is excellent, which is all the more reason to be baffled by Microsoft's delivery method. The document does a great job of explaining different types of threats (including social engineering), recommending ways customers can protect their IT infrastructure and offering suggestions on how to quickly recover from unexpected infection.

So, what's to complain about? This April blog is a foreshadower. The security document, which is formatted as PDF, is delivered as an application, this time with extension .msi, instead of .exe. That means only customers running Windows can fetch the security guide. The system requirements for downloading the document indicate users must be running Windows Windows 2000, Windows XP or Windows Server 2003.

I honestly can't make sense of this situation. I'm assuming Microsoft would want everyone possible to read this important security guide, seeing as how security is supposed to be the company's No. 1 priority. Adobe Reader runs on about a dozen different operating systems. Why unnecessarily restrict access to one Windows server and two desktop versions? I can't imagine any good reason why the company wouldn't want customers using other Windows versions to easily get the document. Plenty of companies post PDF documents on the Web. I don't see why Microsoft shouldn't.

Additionally, the installer creates an unnecessarily complicated process that reminds me of some fundamental problems with Microsoft product design. I've blogged about this before (here and here), but to quickly recap: Rather than taking a simple approach, Microsoft often uses a multiple step Wizard process for walking users through basic tasks. I see the Wizard approach as creating unnecessary steps. If I want to make toast, let me put the bread in the toaster and pull down the handle. Do I really need go through a five- or six-step Wizard process just so I can pull down the handle?

The straightforward approach would be to post a PDF the user could download to his or her computer. Microsoft's installer process means the user must also activate the installer and click through four dialog boxes to, what, install a PDF.

I had trouble finding the document, too. Because Microsoft used an installer, I just naturally expected to access the security guide from the Start menu's "All Programs." I could have searched for the document, if I knew what to look for. So I had to use the installer to remove the PDF and reinstall so I could see where the document had been placed on the hard drive. By the way, going back to the product design topic, clicking "delete" is easier than using an uninstaller to remove a PDF.

As stated earlier, I assume Microsoft wants customers to read this 89-page security guide. So why make it unnecessarily difficult for the user to locate on first access?

I just don't get it.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 07:17 AM
May 21, 2004
Blogging: Maybe Mr. Gates Gets It #

Several reporters contacted me late yesterday about comments on blogging that Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates made to guest CEOs. The company holds an annual CEO event each year in Redmond, Washington.

It's fair to say that when Mr. Gates talks about a fairly new technology, other Microsoft folks listen. So, I have to wonder if Microsoft isn't finally going to take blogging more seriously, with respect to developing tools anyway. Already, Microsoft employees are some of the most prolific bloggers on the Web.

Microsoft has plenty of good reasons to be looking more closely at blogging. Like the original Web, blogging is a "no-Microsoft software-required" zone. Microsoft employees may be prolific bloggers, but that doesn't mean they're using the company's software to create them. More importantly, blogs are consumable on any platform, and there is an emerging trend of moblogging from cellular phones.

If Microsoft learned anything from the emergence of the World Wide Web, an extended informational infrastructure that can bypass Windows is a potential threat to the company's core franchise. The U.S. government may have prosecuted Microsoft for going after Netscape, but I see the Web itself as the greater threat than the one company. Microsoft eliminated that threat by making Internet Explorer part of Windows and making sure its technology became weaved with consumption of Web content.

Blogging may not seem like a major threat, but its potential is yet to be fully tapped. Google saw enough there to buy Blogger last year and release a new version last week. Like blogging, search is another extended information mechanism that doesn't require Windows. If I'm Microsoft looking at Google as a major competitive threat, I might consider the competitor's interests beyond search; blogging is among them.

Other considerations: What new business models might emerge around RSS (really simple syndication), which in some ways fulfills the "push" vision advocated by PointCast in the latter 1990s? People subscribe to RSS feeds. The content comes to them, and they choose what to read. I monitor several hundred RSS feeds, which gets me more information in less time. I mean, who has time to surf Websites anymore?

Mr. Gates gets it. In his speech to the CEOs, he said, "The ultimate idea is that you should get the information you want when you want it, and we're progressively getting better and better at that by watching your behavior, ranking things in different ways."

I read much into that single statement, particularly in context of his entire speech (here). The Internet is increasingly about information, of which there is too much. Microsoft is right to consider how best to help people find information and filter it out. From that perspective, Microsoft's interest in improving search and thwarting spam make sense. Potential synergy between search and RSS (or competing Atom) feeds make blogging a logical area for Microsoft to look at.

How much synergy is there? Consider that Google is now expanding beyond search to blogging and e-mail. What's next, instant messaging? I see lots of potential synergy between IM and blogging. Why shouldn't a blog reader be integrated with an IM client, or better: Why shouldn't an IM client be capable of taking my sudden, unexpected but brilliant side of a chat and publish that to my blog?

Mr. Gates, I'm anxiously awaiting for when you start blogging. I'll subscribe to your feed, whether RSS or Atom. Maybe not, though, if your company establishes its own proprietary feed.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:25 AM

How Compatible Is Enough? #

Yesterday, I attended a Corel event for its government customers in downtown Washington. Corel executives impressed because the emphasized WordPerfect priorities were right on target: Compatibility and price.

As I've noted before in this Weblog and the two recent reports, "Windows Fragmentation: The Problem with Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix" and "Software Assurance: Microsoft's Troubled Switch to Contractual Licensing," interoperability and cost rank as two of IT decision makers' top priorities.

With respect to a product like WordPerfect, compatibility is more important, because documents may need to be opened and saved in Microsoft Office file formats. Corel has gone to great lengths to make sure WordPerfect fits in, right down to a special mode that mimics Word's look, feel and menu commands.

While it might seem obvious to competitors that they need to be compatible with Office to compete with the product, there is a question of how compatible. I hadn't realized that WordPerfect will open Word documents as far back as version one. Near as I can tell--and I will need to double check with Microsoft--Word 2003 can open documents as far back as version 6.0/95. That should be far enough to cover the majority of Word versions in use today, but what about institutional documents?

The question is no small one. Over time, companies amass documents saved in various file formats that may have changed, potentially make the information unaccessible in a meaningful way. While formating issues will occur, Word 97 and 2003 can open the other's documents. But Word 95 and earlier versions use a different file format. I would encourage Microsoft to more seriously address this problem of documents saved in various Word formats going back about 15 years or so--and I'm not just talking Microsoft products but those from competitors. As for those competitors, Corel is on the right track by offering access to documents saved in older formats.

Printed paper is a pretty universal format. The Declaration of Independence is as readable today as it was in 1776. Will the same hold true for documents created in 1986, fifty years later?

One way of ensuring document longevity is supporting open standards and sticking with them. Corel and Microsoft both support Extensible Markup Language (XML), which creates a nice clean mechanism for extracting information as text, yet rendering it in a sophisticated manner. I would like to see Microsoft take more seriously the OASIS effort to create a standard XML format for productivity suites. Right now, the company licenses on royalty-free basis its proprietary XML schemas. XML is one mechanism that would allow companies to extract meaningfully their information locked in aging file formats.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:19 AM
May 19, 2004
Using Office 2004 #

For about the last two months, I've been using Mac Office 2004 on a Power Mac G5. I swapped out my fourth grader's Windows Media Center PC for an iMac so she could use the software, too.

I am generally impressed with the power and performance of Mac Office 2004, which, like its predecessor, I would say offers many advantages over Office for Windows.

For businesses users, I would consider the new "Compatibility Reports" feature to be one of the most important enhancements. The tool checks documents for compatibility with older Mac and Windows versions of Office. Considering that interoperability rates as one of IT decision makers top priorities, the feature could help salve concerns about Mac Office compatibility with its Windows cousin. Even without the feature, I find the new Office to produce documents that are more compatible with older Windows versions.

The Compatibility Reports feature is access through a toolbar icon called "Toolbox," which also leads to "Scrapbook," "Reference Tools" and "Project Center," which are new or enhanced features.

Scrapbook shares some similarities to Office OneNote 2003, a Windows product. Microsoft chose to integrate some of the note capabilities into Office 2004 rather than release a separate product. But I don't regard Scrapbook--a place to bring together disparate bits of data, such as clippings or photos--as a replacement for OneNote or AquaMinds Notetaker.

I continue to regard Entourage to be a better execution of the combination e-mail client, calendar and address book motif than Outlook. I find Entourage to be faster and more flexible, not that I’m trying to do a comparative review here. Both products have their merits.

Perhaps best commentary on Mac Office comes from my fourth grader. During Spring vacation, she got this idea to make a newsletter about her bunny for some friends. So she whipped out her digital camera, snapped some pictures, transferred them to the iMac and set to work.

Using Office 2004, she created the newsletter based on a preformatted template. She wrote the text, inserted and arranged the photos and printed out the finished work. No parental involvement. I hadn’t realized what she was doing, in fact, until I saw the finished work.

I sent a PDF of the "Daisy" newsletter over to the MacBU folks, not to boast of my daughter's capabilities but of their product. If a nine-year old can produce a pretty professional looking newsletter for fun, what could the broader, target user base do?

Consistently, I find my daughter to be a remarkable resource when it comes to product usability. I would encourage Microsoft and every other software developer to take seriously the generation growing up with technology in the Internet era. There are good reasons why JupiterResearch tracks teen habits. On Monday, JupiterResearch published colleague Michael Gartenberg's report, "Teen Audience Benchmark 2004: Improving Odds of Getting a Good Game More Important than Getting a Good Deal."

I consistently see kids more like fish in water when it comes to using computers and the Internet. Learning how they work with technology also can lead to new ways of extending software's use. Or so I believe.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 10:59 AM

Mac Office 2004 Debuts #

Today, Microsoft announced the release of Office 2004, the second version of the productivity suite for Mac OS X. Microsoft is the largest Macintosh developer, and its roots are deep within the Apple orchard. Microsoft’s desktop applications appeared first on the Mac and later on Windows.

I’ve often wondered why Microsoft shouldn’t extend this approach to other operating systems--other than they compete with Windows, of course--as the company generally has shined developing applications, even during days past when some folks knocked Windows’ stability and performance. I say this because on the Mac--unfettered by other considerations, such as integration with Windows or Exchange Server features--Microsoft produces excellent software that seems well suited to Apple customers.

Microsoft’s loyalty to Mac OS, despite its competition with Windows, is good for Apple. Mac OS X launched in March 2001, about seven months before Windows XP shipped, with very few native applications. Yet, by year’s end, Microsoft had delivered Office v. X for the competing platform. Of course, Microsoft isn’t doing charity work here. The company’s Macintosh Business Unit--that’s MacBU--supports the Mac because Microsoft makes money there.

The importance of Mac Office to Apple, Microsoft and their customers is clear. According to a recent JupiterResearch survey, about 11 percent of companies with revenue of $50 million or greater run Office v. X and another eight percent plan to upgrade to Office 2004 during the next 12 months. Consider that 15 percent of the same businesses run Mac OS X, and the importance of Office to them is pretty clear.

Apple’s silent strategy of expanding into the enterprise hinges in part on Office. Considering that the majority of big businesses run Windows on the desktop and that nine out of 10 business users say they run some version of Office, Apple needs a Mac version of the productivity suite to ensure compatibility. Apple’s core enterprise message rightly is interoperability, and that is particularly important for a major productivity product. What could be more compatible, more interoperable with Office than Office?

This second OS X version of Office comes as Apple is looking to woo more Unix users to the Mac. Apple rightly recognizes one Mac OS X computer could fill in where two were before--a Unix workstation and either a Mac or Windows PC. Companies sometimes run Unix workstations for high-end design, computations or content creation but keep a Windows machine around for Office. Apple can offer to these businesses computers with the power of Unix, the user-friendliness of the Mac and Microsoft Office.

Microsoft benefits when a Unix-based Mac replaces a Unix workstation. The Mac could run Office, but not the Unix workstation, at least not without special emulation software.

Where Apple needs more from Microsoft is Virtual PC, software that will run Windows on Mac OS in emulation mode. Microsoft acquired the technology from Connectix last year. Current version, Virtual PC 6, does not run on PowerPC G5 Macs. Virtual PC 7 would, but Microsoft unexpectedly delayed shipping the product, which may not be available until late summer, if not later. Microsoft claims a number of reasons for the delay, such as this is the first Virtual PC product developed by the company and that Windows XP Service Pack 2 will ship later than expected. I wonder why Microsoft couldn’t ship Virtual PC 7 for Windows 2000, seeing as how JupiterResearch surveys reveal that more big businesses use that Windows version than any other.

MacBU had announced three Office 2004 releases, with the high-end version including Virtual PC 7 at a bargain price. The sooner Microsoft can ship the high-end version the better for Apple. In some of those replacement scenarios, businesses might need access to some Windows applications. Virtual PC would fill the gap. Mac OS X would replace the Unix and Windows computer and Virtual PC would provide Windows compatibility for any special applications only available on Microsoft's OS.

I would give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here, even though the company has good reasons not to encourage businesses to swap out Windows machines for Macs.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:26 AM
May 18, 2004
Longhorn Server Wishlist #

Another sign that Microsoft treats customer input more seriously: A Website where people can request features for Longhorn Server. It's a secure Website, too, for anyone questioning Microsoft's commitment to improving security.

The approach is good use of Web resources and it's desperately needed, considering the large number of businesses running Microsoft's oldest supported Windows Server version. But the feedback mechanism also shows a Microsoft increasingly trying to get in synch with what its customers really want. CEO Steve Ballmer effectively made customers a greater priority by tying employee compensation directly to customer satisfaction.

Most important about the Web survey is the customer reach. As I blogged previously (here and here), Microsoft's first customer really is the company's network of partners. But, the survey also would directly reach businesses buying Windows "Longhorn" Server.

Blogging (here, here and here) is another way Microsoft is trying to use the Web to reach customers, and, in the case of Channel 9, interact with them directly.

What I'd like to see next: A Website where consumers tell Microsoft what they want from Windows XP. That's right, I wrote "Windows XP," not "Longhorn desktop." My longstanding conviction is that Windows XP offers many of the digital media and entertainment capabilities consumers are interesting in, but the users don't know how to find the features. So why not encourage consumers to tell Microsoft what they want, so the company can show them they already have it--and that they could do more with third-party applications that extend Windows XP's core capabilities. My other ideas for better evangelizing Windows XP are here, here and here.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 11:54 AM
May 17, 2004
Windows Server Roadmap, Part 3 #

Next year, Microsoft plans to release "R2," codename for an interim Windows Server 2003 update. On Friday, Microsoft revealed more details about R2 as part of a larger announcement on the Windows Server roadmap (See blogs here and here).

R2 is more than just a casual Windows Server 2003 update. Why:

Software licensing. R2 and the revamped Windows Server roadmap is Microsoft's way off offering some customers assurance that Software Assurance is a good value. Right now, businesses buy software from Microsoft under two- or three-year volume-licensing contracts. The new roadmap makes new server software available every two years, either as interim or major releases. R2 would be the first new deliverable under the revised roadmap.

Customers could obtain R2 on new servers or buy the software outright. Those participating in Software Assurance or subscribing to Enterprise Agreement would get R2 as part of their contract. Besides offering customers assurance they would get value for paying Microsoft upfront, the R2 availability plan is a way of showing businesses the value of the contracts. After all, subscribers don't pay extra for the update.

Smarter security. Microsoft's longstanding "eat its own dogfood" approach means the company deploys the very software it sells. But, Microsoft hasn't always done the best job communicating to customers the lessons the company learned using its software. For example while Microsoft software gets rapped for security problems, there are few reports that hackers have breached the company's corporate network. Microsoft's December Security Webcast Week revealed some of the tactics Microsoft uses to keep viruses, Trojan horses and hackers out.

R2 will bring Microsoft's security know-how to customers. As Microsoft employees know well, their computers are scanned for up-to-date security patches and virus signatures. Out-of-date computers cannot connect to Microsoft's corporate network. R2 will make standard equipment these VPN-scanning capabilities, giving Windows Server 2003 mechanisms for better keeping potentially compromised computers from connecting to a corporate network.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:29 AM

Windows Server Roadmap, Part 2 #

As I blogged earlier, Microsoft has officially announced its Windows Server roadmap going out for the next four years.

What I like most about the strategy:

* Microsoft has given businesses a clear roadmap going out until 2008. Assuming Microsoft can keep to that roadmap, the large number of businesses moving off of Windows NT 4 Server are in a stronger position to plan migrations. I see having the clarity of the roadmap as incentive to migrate.

* Microsoft is continuing its modular approach of delivering server software. Many Windows Server 2003 features, such as document rights management, shipped later. Modules make the base server software more flexible. The interim release, codename R2, essentially is another module. Microsoft can advance the software's functionality in-between major releases, conceptually with less IT administration problems. I believe that synchs fairly well with the business tendency of putting server software in place for many years.

* The modular approach let Microsoft get Windows Server 2003 out faster, but not without customer consequence, particularly from an IT administration perspective. Businesses typically test and validate new server software for sometime before installing it. Because problems with a server can have wide-ranging impact, many companies put in server software and make as few changes as possible. Windows Server 2003 R2 will provide a single update mechanism that consolidates post-release modules and patches. R2 would allow businesses to test and apply a single, major update, which conceptually would decrease potential disruption while allow them to extend functionality in-between major server releases.

* Businesses can now plan for Longhorn Server. Microsoft had planned the software, then nixed it. Now Longhorn Server is clearly on the roadmap, with some planned features revealed. Much of the message there is around improved system management, better Web services support and greater extensibility. I would consider these all the right priorities for Microsoft to be pushing out to customers.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:25 AM

Windows Server Roadmap, Part 1 #

On Friday, Microsoft officially announced its server roadmap, two days after news reports offered some glimpse of what was coming.

The new roadmap puts Microsoft on four-year release cycles for Windows Server, anchored by major updates every two years. According to JupiterResearch surveys, about 42 percent of companies with revenues greater than $50 million run Windows NT 4 Server. Given that businesses run server software for so long, I'm not convinced the approach is the best. On the other hand, I don't see much terribly wrong with the roadmap strategy either.

The revised roadmap:

* 2004: Windows Server 2003 for 64-Bit Extended Systems; Service Pack 1; new feature packs, or modules.

* 2005: Longhorn Server Beta 1; Windows Server 2003 update codename R2.

* 2006: Longhorn Server Beta 2; Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 2.

* 2007: Windows Server Longhorn.

* 2008 and beyond: Windows Server Longhorn updates and service packs.

The revised roadmap makes clear that, contrary to news stories, desktop and server versions of next-generation-Windows Longhorn will not ship simultaneously, unless Microsoft pushes back delivery of the desktop product. While I commend Microsoft's approach to attempting to develop Longhorn desktop and server on simultaneous tracks, that doesn't mean they should ship simultaneously. From a marketing and distribution perspective, separate releases is a good approach.

I'm not convinced Microsoft can stick to the roadmap, given its history with Windows Server 2003, for which the name and release date changed three times. But, I reserve judgment. Microsoft clearly is trying to communicate to customers the internal changes the company is trying to make with respect to software development. Two weeks ago, I blogged (here and here) about product roadmaps.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:02 AM
May 14, 2004
Two New Microsoft Monitor Reports: Security, Licensing #

Yesterday, JupiterResearch published my two most-recent reports: "Security: How IT Managers' Ranking of Microsoft Affects Software Purchasing Decisions" and "Software Assurance: Microsoft's Troubled Switch to Contractual Licensing."

The first report questions whether Microsoft has ignored priorities that matter more to IT decision makers than security, such as cost and interoperability. Interestingly, IT decision maker's view of Microsoft security changes based on whether using Windows or other operating systems, but not among different versions of Windows. Bottom line: The report concludes that customers don't see much improvement in security, either because the differences aren't significant or IT decision makers have yet to realize what the improvements are.

The second report explains where Microsoft appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how customers want to buy software. For example, more than half of larger businesses subscribing to Software Assurance say they spend more for software than they did previously. One reason for this increase is the change in the way businesses pay for software compared to their real buying preferences and Microsoft's elimination of "Version" upgrades under volume licensing.

The reports are available to JupiterResearch clients subscribing to the Microsoft Monitor service. Also, I am available to further discuss the reports.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 10:40 AM

Tablet PC, RIP? Nope, that story is all wrong! #

I've been games focused this week but let me take a quick break here to comment. Let me be clear. Tablet PC is not going away. Feel free to argue and debate it but it's not going away. Period. Tablet for the foreseeable future will be a superset of computing. Something that is a Notebook Plus. Overtime, that will probably change but not every notebook will have Tablet functions. Just like today, not every notebook has an optical drive. Now having said that, the Tablet team has not done the best job marketing (this is becoming a familiar theme). Where are the ROI numbers to justify the marginal cost that Tablet increases? Where are the evangelizing efforts to show the world what they are missing? Where's the buzz about Lonestar? Tablet is here to stay but it could be a lot more successful if Microsoft and partners put together a coherent and cogent marketing effort behind it. (oh, and someone builds a device like the X40 that can get me through a full day without a recharge and still weigh less than four pounds).

eWeek: TabletPC could quietly vanish.

This, and other press, has gotten all my Tablet PC friends up in a frenzy. My IM has been busy all day long. One thing I've noticed is that everyone has a different idea of what Tablet PC really is. Here's a look at the different "TabletPC's" I've identified:

1) The concept. You know, a portable computer that you could write on with a pen. Alan Kay is responsible for this meme. But some people believe that a tablet concept includes everything from an Apple Newton to a Palm Pilot to Alan Kay's Dynabook. Christopher Coulter has a tablet history here, for more details.

2) The product. You know, a full Tablet PC that you can buy. Like the Toshiba Tablet PC that I'm typing on right now.

3) The hardware, slate style. Like my old NEC. No keyboard. Just an LCD with a digitizer. Note that the hardware alone does NOT equal a "Microsoft Tablet PC." I ran Linux on my NEC, just to see if it'd run. It did. But the Tablet experience wasn't close to the same as when I ran Microsoft's technology on it.

4) The hardware, convertible style. Like the Toshiba I'm typing on now. Looks like a regular laptop in one mode, but then the screen flips around so I can hold it like a pad of paper and write on the surface.

5) The digitizer. Because the digitizer on most Tablet PCs is different from most other digitiziers, some people believe that's what makes a Tablet PC. The digitizer in my Tablet PC is an active style (it requires a stylus). Why is that better? Because you can put your hand on it and it doesn't confuse the cursor. It also gives a far higher sampling rate, and much more accurate positioning. This makes the quality of your inking much better than the digitizers that are included on most palm-style devices.

6) The inking technology. A few of my IM'ers thought this is what really makes a Tablet PC. The inking technology is quite interesting. When you write on your Tablet, the Tablet records the stylus' direction, pressure, speed, and location. The ink datatype is actually a vector graphic, not pixels. So you can enlarge it and keep its shape. It also converts -- underneath -- to text so that you can search through all of your notes using ASCII text commands. This is so cool and is why a Tablet is far more useful than a pad of paper or a book.

7) The user interface (oh, sorry, since I work at Microsoft we're supposed to call this "user experience" now). The user experience is about to get a huge update on the Tablet PC. I can't say "huge" enough. The difference between the old version and the new version is like the difference between TV and Radio.

8) The SDK. Developers use the Software Development Kit to build applications that use the Tablet PC hardware and software.

9) The Team. I noticed that when some people talk about Tablet PC, they are actually talking about the people who work over in building 32. And, some even mean specific parts of the team like management or PR or developers.

10) The future. Some people put all their frustrations and hopes onto a future version of the Tablet PC.

Anyway, now that we've identified all the different "Tablet PC's" we can have a good conversation about the TabletPC.

[Scobleizer: Microsoft Geek Blogger]

Posted by Michael Gartenberg at 08:16 AM
May 12, 2004
Jim Allchin Asked and Answered #

Yesterday, eWeek posted a Q&A; with Jim Allchin, who is the senior veep over Microsoft platforms, mainly Windows.

Senior Editor Peter Galli asks Mr. Allchin some pretty tough questions during the Q&A; (here), regarding Microsoft's plans for future Windows versions for the desktop and server.

I found most interesting Microsoft's attempt to realign Windows desktop and server releases. As compelling are Mr. Allchin's comments and lack of them about 64-bit next-generation-Windows Longhorn plans. I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft using 64-bit as a Longhorn differentiator, lever for compelling upgrades or way of keeping pace with Apple, which offers 64-bit hardware and reasonably could offer a 64-bit Mac OS version before Longhorn ships in two years or more.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 11:27 AM
May 11, 2004
Microsoft Backs Away From Home Networking #

My colleague Joe Laszlo has posted a blog (here) on Microsoft's unexpected exit from the broadband networking market. Text that follows is from his blog:

Microsoft's announcement that it will discontinue its broadband networking line of wired and wireless home network equipment is an interesting move, maybe a little ahead of schedule, but ultimately it makes sense.

By all accounts their products have been fairly successful: selling well, priced attractively, nicely designed and generally pretty easy to use (I've got a Wi-Fi AP/router from them at home). Home networking gear is not likely a high margin business, but it seems a safe bet that they were doing okay (at least, not losing buckets of money).

Of course, the market is very crowded, and with one high profile player backing out of it, I'm sure Linksys/Cisco, Netgear, and the other remaining vendors are breathing a bit easier. Also, all signs point to continued, and even accelerating, channel shift for equipment. Led by Centrino, more and more laptops will have Wi-Fi built in, reducing the need for cards. At the same time, Qwest and TW are pointing the way toward integrated broadband modem+AP devices.

I've thought a fair amount about Wi-Fi becoming "invisible" (i.e., just built into other devices). It seems more and more clear that's the direction we're heading in. And even a necessary step to ensure strong adoption in homes.

I would've kept the broadband networking gear going for a while longer; there's still lots of older laptops and broadband modems out there that won't be replaced for a while yet. But it's indeed a good time to be rethinking opportunities for standalone networking equipment in the home/SoHo/SMB space over the next several years.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 11:24 AM

No SP2 for Pirates #

Yesterday, I got some Microsoft clarification on Service Pack 2 and pirated copies of Windows XP. Contrary to news stories, Windows XP Service Pack 2 will not install on pirated software using known leaked product keys. As I blogged previously (here and here), the position is consistent with policy enacted with the release of Service Pack 1, more than 18 months ago.

Rather than loosen piracy detection with SP2, as suggested in news stories and Weblogs, Microsoft has increased it. The company is aware of more leaked codes than with SP1 and will block them. So, conceivably, the new update will install on fewer pirated Windows XP copies than its predecessor. SP2 could apply to pirated Windows XP copies that use leaked codes Microsoft isn't aware about.

Because Microsoft's position with SP2 is no different than SP1, no one should really be surprised that the update might not install on pirated Windows XP copies. Enabling the update for known leaked activation keys could foster more piracy, something Microsoft would want to prevent.

On the other hand, Microsoft claims that security is the company's No. 1 priority. So, looked at another way, the SP2 policy is inconsistent with that priority. Worse, it is not clear how many of the PCs infected with worms or Trojan horses--software used to spread spam, hide spammers or launch denial of service attacks--run on pirated Windows XP copies. Withholding the update, even for good reason, could contribute to ongoing security problems affecting legitimate Microsoft customers.

In a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation, do you do or do you don't? My tendency: You should do, meaning take positive action. Plugging as many security holes as possible would help Microsoft credibility, show the company means business about security and protect more customers. That's something Microsoft appears unwilling to do, and I can sympathize with the position.

So another solution may be necessary, as Microsoft really shouldn't let the situation remain unchecked. My recommendation: Treat pirates for what they are, as criminals. Microsoft's policy has been one of preventing updates, but, in the interest of security, the company might want to go further. For example, Microsoft could use its various update mechanisms to remotely scan pirated software for viruses, worms, Trojan horses and spyware. The information could be used to assess how much a threat infected, pirated software poses to legitimate customers. Microsoft may then want to consider mechanisms that could disable Windows XP copies using leaked, or stolen, product keys.

What I'm suggesting is a hardline position. I'm convinced that if Microsoft truly wants to improve Windows security, the company should either embrace or eliminate pirated XP copies. Embrace would be to make SP2 available to everyone. If Microsoft is unwilling to do that, as is conisistent with longstanding policy on piracy, then the company may want to consider a hardline position of eliminating pirated software--and so the associated security risk.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 07:43 AM
May 10, 2004
Who Gets SP2? #

So much for the Internet age and news traveling quickly. On Friday, I blogged about Microsoft security updates and their availability to software pirates. On Saturday, numerous newsites and blogs linked to a ComputerTimes story (here) quoting a Microsoft manger as saying the company hasn't done anything that would prevent Service Pack 2 from running on pirated versions of Windows XP (News is slow because that story is dated May 5). Previously, Microsoft had prevented SP1 from applying to some pirated Windows XP copies and said this would be the policy going forward.

On Friday, I asked Microsoft for clarification on the company's Sasser removal tool and whether that could be used with pirated Windows XP versions. I haven't had a response yet, which isn't surprising considering last week's WinHEC conference.

As I wrote last week, I consider Microsoft's position to be difficult, with respect to Service Pack 2 and pirated Windows XP versions. The company has every right to protect its software from theft. On the other hand, unpatched, pirated copies of Windows XP could pose an ongoing security problem, which could hurt legitimate Microsoft customers and the company's public image. I'll reserve final comment until Microsoft confirms its intentions with SP2, meaning who gets to install the update.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 07:49 AM

Media Center Expands #

Today, Microsoft expanded availability of Windows XP Media Center PCs to new geographies: Austria, Australia, Italy and the Netherlands. Media Center also is available in Canada, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea and the United States, among other countries.

While news stories have focused on Microsoft delays delivering next-generation Windows Longhorn, the company has methodically developed new versions of XP-hybrd, Windows Media Center Edition. As I blogged last week (here and here), longer release cycles make a platform more stable for software development, a situation Microsoft is maximizing with Windows XP Media Center Edition and Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. Microsoft is testing new versions, codename "Symphony" and "Lonestar," respectively; that would be the second Windows Media Center upgrade since its autumn 2002 launch and the first new Tablet PC release. From that perspective, Microsoft is advancing Windows development ahead of Longhorn's expected 2006 release.

In his report, "PCs and Digital Entertainment," colleague Avi Greengart explains why Jupiter Research believes Windows XP Media Center Edition will become the standard Microsoft OS for midrange PCs and some desktop replacement notebooks over the next 12 to 18 months.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 07:20 AM
May 07, 2004
Sasser for Pirates? #

Interesting buzz on message boards the last couple days is that Microsoft's tool for removing Sasser won't work on pirated Windows XP copies.

I don't have a bootleg copy for testing and haven't discussed the situation with Microsoft, so I can't verify the legitimacy of the claim. But, I wouldn't be surprised to find this to be true.

Ahead of Windows XP's release, two license keys, presumably from volume-license partners or OEMs, leaked out onto the Internet. The keys would allow people to install Windows XP without product activation, a technology introduced specifically to thwart piracy.

With the release of Windows XP Service Pack 1, Microsoft clamped down on the leaked keys. SP1 wouldn't install on Windows XP versions using either of the two keys, and Microsoft said that future updates also couldn't be applied to the pirated software.

That the Sasser removal tool wouldn't work on pirated Windows XP copies should surprise no one. My question for Microsoft will be if any of the security patches released in the past year or so work on pirated Windows XP copies using the stolen keys. If the answer is most or all, then Microsoft has been giving pirates a free ride for the sake of improving security; that's commendable. If the answer is few or none, then Microsoft has merely done what it had previously announced: Crack down on thieves.

Assuming the former, then Microsoft would be enforcing with the Sasser removal tool an 18-month-old policy. Assuming the latter, Microsoft should try to get a sense what percentage of computers infected with worms or remote access Trojans run pirated versions of Windows XP. If that looks like a significant amount, I would encourage the company to develop some policy for some type of one-time patch mechanism or program for getting people legal at low cost.

Microsoft has every right to protect it's products from theft and to use whatever legitimate means necessary to discourage piracy. On the other hand, unpatched pirated Windows copies could pose problems for Microsoft and its legal customers. I don't envy the company's difficult position of trying to improve security without leaving security problems around by way of pirated Windows copies.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:39 AM

Why Windows Today, Not the One Far Away #

Yesterday, several news stories touted laptop-specific features Microsoft is considering for next-generation Windows Longhorn.

Longhorn wouldn't be the first OS where Microsoft paid special attention to portables. Windows 2000 and XP both offered new features available specifically for laptops, such as improved power management and docked and undocked profiles, among many other extras. Windows XP Service Pack 2 adds its own portable enhancements, such as better detection and maintenance of wireless networks and improved security features that could make safer remote access to corporate networks.

From one viewpoint, Microsoft discussing future plans makes sense, simply so the company can put hardware manufacturers on notice and also so vendors and customers can chime in on what new features might make sense. But, as I've blogged before (here and here, for starters), Microsoft must do more to draw attention to Windows XP and less to Longhorn, which likely won't ship for another two years or more.

Most of those cool things discussed this week are available today, so why wait for Longhorn? For that matter, Microsoft and its partners could see benefit to Windows XP sales, here and now, by touting what laptop benefits are already available.

ExtremeTech and CNET News.com stories (here and here) explain some of the laptop-specific features Microsoft is considering for Longhorn.

The CNET News.com story discusses a separate user interface for playing back digital media content, such as music and movies. Notebook buyers can get that today. HP and Toshiba are among the computer manufacturers shipping notebooks with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004; the software comes with a second user interface for accessing photos, movies, music and TV shows.

Microsoft also plans to improve multiple monitor support, according to the news stories. Again, that is a feature long made available, in this case by the hardware manufacturers. Another: Small displays on the outside of the notebook for providing useful information. Some computer manufacturers already offer LED displays that provide information or let consumers play music without booting up, another feature the stories say Microsoft is considering for Longhorn. Microsoft also wants to improve power management, which already is pretty good in Windows XP and enhanced by software some computer makers provide with their products.

Synchronization is another area of focus, and, granted, an area where improvement is necessary. On the other hand, companies like Intellisync offer software today that synchronizes data between Windows and multiple devices.

I know that Microsoft can't control what the news media will write about (although I don't doubt Microsoft and many other companies wished they could exact such control). But, the company could do more to steer attention to what already is available in Windows XP, framing Longhorn enhancements around features they are extending.

When it comes to partnering, Microsoft has no equal. I'd like to see Microsoft promot the value of the Windows XP, by spending more time touting how partners have enhanced the value of the platform (See blogs here and here). That's good for Microsoft, relationships with partners and customers making buying decisions today--not two years or more away.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:58 AM
May 06, 2004
Stop Forced Restarts? #

While I am mostly impressed with Windows XP Service Pack 2, I do have a major gripe--and this is with what I consider to be one of the most important features: Automatic Updates.

Strangely, I'm sympathetic with what I assume to be Microsoft's reasoning for the way the feature works, even though I see potential problems for users. One reason Microsoft tests software for so long is to get feedback and resolve potential problems or usability issues, like the one I'm going to gripe about.

I have set Windows Update to work automatically, which is for consumer PCs probably should be the default setting. Under this mechanism, Windows retrieves updates automatically, but what if the update requires a reboot? Right now, the updated Windows XP forces the reboot, or at least in my testing.

After an update is installed, a dialog pops up offering restart. If the user does nothing, the computer restarts automatically within five minutes. If the user choses to delay the restart, the dialog box returns soon after.

I don't have a problem with the dialog box but the automatic, forced restart. During the past couple weeks, Windows XP restarted three times automatically, each time interrupting work in process. In each case, I left the computer for some reason, usually to answer the phone. During that time, that pesky dialog popped up and left alone counted down to a Windows restart. This morning, the restart occurred while the computer was downloading the most recent Longhorn alpha release from the Microsoft Developer Network.

I would caution Microsoft to find a finer balance between security updates and Windows usability. And I sympathize with Microsoft's dilemma deciding where to draw that line. The Blaster virus and ongoing spam from computers infected with remote access Trojans, or RATs, demonstrate the threat unpatched consumer PCs pose to anyone connected to the Internet. Microsoft has plenty of good reasons for automating updates and making sure users reboot when necessary to ensure patches take.

On the other hand, users will howl--at their IT manager, Microsoft, their mother-in-law, whoever they can think of--if they lose work because of forced restarts.

Couple of suggestions: Allow the user to delay restart one or two times for a flexible but limited number of hours and then force reboot. Restart if the computer is left idle for x number of hours, and even let the consumer set the time. Restart when the computer is preparing to go into Sleep mode.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:28 AM
May 05, 2004
Thinking About Product Roadmaps, Part 2 #

As stated in the previous blog, I don’t see a problem with Microsoft stretching out Windows release cycles (That’s an obsession reserved for the news media). Windows as a stable platform offers customers and other vendors something reliable to build onto. The same applies to Microsoft. Windows XP Tablet PC Edition and Windows XP Media Center Edition are both hybrids of the core operating system, yet subsequent product releases.

Microsoft’s long-standing problem lies elsewhere, and it is two-fold: Ongoing problems meeting internal (or external) Windows release schedules and putting too much into a single new release.

With respect to release schedules, I am disappointed Microsoft appears to have ongoing difficulty meeting its own milestones (I call them, deadlines). Microsoft makes excuses about software development taking longer than expected because of testing to make sure the product is done right. But, I don’t fully buy that argument, because I see a more fundamental problem where new products start out as a big wish list of features that is whittled down over time--all the while marketing hype touts those very same features.

A new movie release might be a good model for how Microsoft and other vendors should develop software. Movie studios typically give broad targets when promoting a new film, such as "coming in summer 2004" for barebones trailers running a year earlier. When the release date is set, newer trailers will say when and what the movie will contain. (This resonates with the earlier blog's recommendations about product roadmaps.)

A major studio would never miss a release date, even though the movie might be in production right up to the last minute. You could easily argue that kind of creative work is never finished. You can always tweak and make it better. But, when the release date comes, the creative works must be complete, because no more time is available for additional refinement. I would contend that the same approach should apply to software. Ship date is x, and the software must be ready.

The wish list problem is related. Rather than start with a huge feature set, Microsoft should build up from a smaller one. That would give the company better control over release cycles. And, as with Windows Server 2003, Microsoft could ship additional components that build on core features at a later date.

I wonder if too much software design is done by committee, and that wouldn’t just be Microsoft’s problem. Maybe software should be like the movies in another way, where a producer and director are responsible for the vision and execution. I believe the committee style of developing software really has to go. In a sense, that's what Linux has now. While the open-source community is large, Linus Torvalds has final say over development of the Linux core. He is the single point of responsibility.

Overall, I question whether Microsoft attempts to accomplish too much with each new Windows release, in an effort to recreate the hit-movie-like sensation that surrounded the launch of Windows 95. Windows 2000 and XP both were major releases that introduced changes businesses, consumers, developers or other partners had to adapt to. Big changes aren’t in the best interest of creating a stable platform for customers and partners.

By comparison, Apple’s core architecture remained the same for about 15 years (Mac folks, please, let’s not get into tit-for-tat arguments about whether adapting to PowerPC constituted an architectural change). Apple refined the OS and added features until major overhaul Mac OS X in March 2001.

Since, Apple has released one new Mac OS version a year--two in 2001--more rapidly refining its core product than Microsoft. I like to think of Apple’s approach as an artist at work, refining and improving a sculpture over time. The refinement approach is easier on developers and businesses, too.

In a way, Microsoft is doing something similar by creating hybrids based on its core platform. Since shipping Windows XP, Microsoft released the aforementioned Media Center and Tablet PC hybrids of the core operating system. And, like Apple’s Mac OS X development, Microsoft has refined the hybrids rather than release disruptive, major upgrades.

Microsoft released a second Windows XP Media Center Edition within a year of the original product’s availability. A new Windows XP Tablet PC Edition should be available this summer, less than two years after the original product shipped. I might add that both upgrades are free to existing customers, while Apple has charged $129 for each of the three Mac OS X upgrades. I would recommend that Microsoft spend more time hyping the free upgrades than products like Longhorn that are years from release.

The more Microsoft can do to extend its platform, rather than talk about disruptive way-down-the-road upgrades like Longhorn, the better for the company, customers and partners. The forthcoming Windows Media Extender products are moving in the right direction. As Microsoft extends its core platform, it also sets an example for partners to follow.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 11:17 AM

Thinking About Product Roadmaps, Part 1 #

Yesterday, Microsoft clarified its Windows roadmap, while Apple revealed that it would debut Mac OS X 10.4, a.k.a. "Tiger," during its June developer conference. These developments and ongoing criticism about Microsoft product delays are good reasons to discuss operating system development the way it should be.

Operating systems are platforms that other vendors or customers build things onto. So, ideally, that platform should be as stable as possible, meaning a minimal amount of change. Some platforms, such as game consoles, don’t change at all between releases--and the vendors tend to keep the major product on the market for many years. A stable, unchanging platform, can be good for consumer adoption and a steady stream of new products that are assured to be marketable for many years.

Frankly, the same approach should apply to operating systems--and, in some sense, it does. As revealed in my recent report, "Windows Fragmentation: The Problem with Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix It," consumers and businesses tend to hold onto older operating systems for many years beyond the release of subsequent versions. For example, according to Jupiter Research surveys, 39 percent of businesses with revenue of $50 million or greater run Windows NT 4 Workstation, which was released about eight years ago.

From one perspective, the extent of fragmentation is a problem for Microsoft. From another, vendors or businesses have good reasons for sticking with an operating system as long as possible; after all, the stability of the platform means they can build business applications they can use for many years.

Looked at this way, I don’t see a problem with Microsoft stretching out the Windows release cycle about five years, as discussed in my August report, "Longhorn: Implications of the Next Windows Ship Date." Windows stability allows customers and other vendors to build on top of XP, with assurance the platform will not substantially change.

Where Microsoft erred was generating so much hype about Longhorn, which will introduce dramatic changes and distracted customers from current offering Windows XP (See blogs here and here).

In the days when operating system and productivity suite markets were more competitive, Microsoft used hype about upcoming products as an effective means of creating customer hesitation about adopting existing competitive products. The hype about "What If" created fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) about adopting the competitor product when Microsoft might release something better in the not so distant future.

For example, yesterday, Microsoft issued a press release announcing the opening of beta nominations for Live Communications Server 2005. Issuing a press release for beta nominations is unusual, so I suspect something else going on. Enterprise messaging is a fast-moving market, one where Microsoft wants to leverage its presence on the desktop and with year-old Windows Server 2003. Businesses might delay purchase of one product to see what Microsoft will release. In this instance, Microsoft also is communicating to customers considering Live Communications Server that an important update is soon coming, meaning the company is advancing its product quickly, which could benefit LCS sales today.

I contend that generating hype is a longstanding Microsoft tactic that no longer makes sense. I would argue the hype works against the company, particularly with respect to product releases. Longhorn hype as a distraction to Windows XP is a good example. But there are others. The news media is kind of obsessed with so-called Microsoft product delays. I have to fault Microsoft’s hype machine for feeding this obsession. Using Mac OS X as an example, Apple doesn’t discuss operating system roadmaps publicly. Generally the company only gives out information when a release is imminent.

There’s no good reason why Microsoft shouldn’t take a similar approach, simply clamp down and stay mum. Of course, Microsoft needs to communicate information to customers, developers and partners about upcoming new product releases. Much of the early information could be bound by non-disclosure agreements and more made public as betas launch. The press will still obsess, but everyone gets tired of banging his or her head against the wall at some point. If Microsoft stayed quiet like Apple, the majority of news outlets would focus on more imminent news.

The problem: I’m not convinced many Microsoft executives see all that obsessive reporting about Windows roadmaps as a bad thing. If high-tech news outlets are writing about Microsoft, they’re not writing about competitors’ products. Even a story slamming product delays still might discuss the product and its features. Buzz, whether good or bad, could be viewed as good, because the news stories help make more people aware of the company’s products.

I don’t agree with this view, particularly as Microsoft struggles to recover from an image marred by antitrust cases and security breaches and customers hold onto older Windows versions longer and longer. Microsoft’s priority really should be rebuilding credibility, and I don’t see how taking black eyes for product delays helps the process. Some customers may wonder about Microsoft’s reliability, too, if the company can’t even meet its own release goals for developing software.

It’s time for Microsoft to seriously rethink software development, something I will address further in the second part of this blog.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:34 AM
May 04, 2004
New Windows Roadmap #

As expected, Microsoft clarified the Windows roadmap at its WinHEC event for hardware developers. Microsoft had already released much of the information, but there are some interesting undisclosed changes--and I uncovered other interesting tidbits while researching this blog.

In a nutshell:

May-June 2004: Windows XP Service Pack 2 Release Candidate 2 (and maybe 3)

Summer 2004: Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows XP Tablet PC Edition 2005

Autumn 2004: Windows Media Extender, Portable Media Center

Second Half 2004: Windows 64-Bit Extended Editions

First Half 2005: Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1

Sometime in 2005: Windows Longhorn Desktop Beta, Longhorn Server Beta

Sometime in 2006: Windows Longhorn Desktop and (maybe) Server

The new roadmap varies significantly from the one (here) released in October. As I blogged last month, Microsoft had plenty of reasons to make changes. Among the most significant changes: Delays delivering Windows XP Service Pack 2, Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1, Windows Longhorn Beta 1 and Windows Longhorn.

Particularly significant is the inclusion of Longhorn Server on the roadmap. This product surely has been off again, on again. In November 2002, Microsoft scrapped Longhorn Server, saying that there would be no new version--other than the upcoming Windows Server 2003--until the Windows release known as "Blackcomb." At the time, Microsoft expected to deliver Longhorn by the end of 2004. The decision made lots of sense, particular considering Longhorn Server would have shipped about a year after Windows Server 2003. Of course, the roadmap changed.

But, the move also was a concession. For some time, Microsoft has been trying to synchronize desktop and server releases, so that the products could work from a common code base. Apparently, Microsoft developers are working on the products in tandem, although I wouldn't be shocked to see the server product ship six to 12 months or so after Longhorn desktop.

I decided to take a quick look at Microsoft's product lifecycle guide in preparing for this blog. Based on the review, I would like to encourage Microsoft to adjust its lifecycle support plan to accommodate product delays. For example, Microsoft is supposed to stop selling Windows XP Home and Professional licensees at retail and to direct OEMs (that's parlance for PC manufacturers) on December 31, 2005--presumably six months or more before Longhorn ships. System builders get another year.

Also interesting: Mainstream product support ends on Dec. 31, 2006 for Windows XP Professional, followed by two years of extended support. All Windows XP Home support ends that date, as Microsoft doesn't offer extended support on consumer products. I found interesting that Windows XP Media Center Edition 2002 and 2004 both see all support end on Dec. 31, 2006. While the products are built on Windows XP Professional and PC makers pay the higher licensing fee (because of Pro), Microsoft treats them as consumer products.

Microsoft faces multiple challenges ahead with Windows. The first is evangelizing Windows XP and using Service Pack 2 as an opportunity to essentially relaunch the product.. My report, "Windows Fragmentation: The Problem with Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix It," explains some of things Microsoft might do to get businesses and consumers off older operating systems and onto the current version. The second is seriously fixing in Longhorn usability problems found in Windows XP. I would strongly encourage Microsoft to invest more in usability than how well Windows connects with consumer entertainment devices.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 04:14 PM

Microsoft's WinHec Auto Show #

Today, Microsoft executives will discuss the future of Windows at the company's WinHEC event for hardware vendors. Among the goodies: A concept PC developed by Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard.

The Windows Home Concept PC is more along the lines of concept cars Detroit automakers like to produce; it is not necessarily a product that will ever be sold. Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates is expected to unveil the concept, which I find a bit humorous, seeing as how CEO Steve Ballmer grew up near Detroit and his dad was a manager for Ford.

While the Windows Home Concept PC isn't destined for sale, the product is designed to sell hardware manufacturers on the vision of Windows, which ultimately means XP successor Longhorn. In fact, Microsoft plans to give attendees an updated Longhorn alpha build (the real beta isn't expected until next year); in October, Microsoft handed out an earlier alpha during the similar event for software developers.

Microsoft's vision is one where the PC is the center of the home--or at least that's my impression since the Windows Home Concept PC does telephony, e-mail and digital entertainment, including high-definition TV. Certainly the PC has a room in the living room, as explained in the report, "Consumer PCs and Digital Entertainment," by colleague Avi Greengart. In another report, "Next-Generation Handsets: How to Succeed without Really Converging," Avi aptly explains why a device should do the one thing it's designed to do really well before anything else.

Microsoft's future vision of the PC reminds me of a Swiss Army knife, which includes lots of handy tools, but none of them really exceptional. Being a country boy from the Maine woods, I know a few things about hunting knives used for gutting fish and such. I'd rather have the one knife that cuts well than the one that isn't as effective but also comes with scissors, tweezers and other extras. Similarly, my concern about Microsoft's future PC vision is the creation of a home epicenter device that does plenty of things, but none of them really well.

Consumers don't have problems with multiple devices. In her report, "PDAs: Optimizing Integration," colleague Melissa Stock reveals that consumers are more than willing to carry multiple devices with them. A similar trend is seen in the home where consumers buy many different single-function products that do one thing really well. Where there is convergence, the underlying first function--meaning a TV should be a good TV before anything else--is the priority that matters most.

My other concern about Microsoft's PC vision: Do consumers really share it? Mr. Gates likes to talk about seamless computing, something he will demonstrate with the way information or entertainment content is quickly moved or managed using the Windows Home Concept PC. But, how many consumers really care to get a pop-up notice on their PDA when they could hear the chime of the PC in the next room? Is it that much harder to physically move a DVD from the living room to the bedroom than lying in bed and using the remote to stream the content?

These are the kinds of questions hardware manufacturers should be asking Microsoft to answer. And Microsoft might want to do its own research or consult analysts (yes, I'm plugging for JupiterResearch here) about consumer attitudes to convergence and what their priorities are for the products they buy. For hardware manufacturers, the time to get answers is now, before they make any commitment to Microsoft's future PC vision, whether with Longhorn in 2006 or its successor some years later.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:08 AM
May 03, 2004
Pining for More Product Deactivation #

Microsoft kick-started vendor interest in product activation with the release of XP versions of Office and Windows back in 2001. The anti-piracy technology required users to "activate" a product, which essentially sent information to Microsoft that identified the activation code with the PC hardware configuration. From the start, product activation stirred up controversy, much which ignored Microsoft's right to protect its products from theft.

Since, other companies have adopted or tried to adopt product activation, including Adobe, Intuit or Symantec.

I have a long-standing gripe with Microsoft product activation: Deactivation. Let's say I buy a copy of Office 2003 and activate that on an older Windows 2000 PC. Later on, when I want to wipe the software from the old computer and put it on that shiny, new Windows XP PC, I have to call Microsoft to obtain a 44-digit replacement code for reactivation on the new machine. Microsoft trusts that I won't run the software on both computers.

Why shouldn't there be a deactivation feature? Taking Apple's iTunes Music Store as an example of rights protection, users can de-authorize PCs from playing music. That's a handy feature when computers are sold or scrapped or when consumers want to change which computers can play purchased music.

Over the weekend, I installed screenwriting software Final Draft 7 on a Power Mac G5 (the software works on Windows or Mac OS). First, I was surprised to find product activation, something I had not much seen on Macs before. Second, there was the shock of finding a deactivation option available for when reformatting a hard drive or moving the software to another computer. Final Draft generously provides activation on two hard drives (which means computers) owned by the single user. (Final Draft 6 used a different activation mechanism that could require the CD be placed in the optical drive to use the software.) The deactivation of one computer enables reactivation of the same system or new activation of another.

The deactivation mechanism makes sense, for a couple of reasons. For one, the user has more flexibility using the software, which isn't forever locked to one or two computers. For another, the software vendor knows the product has been paid for. Under Microsoft's make-the-phone-call-for-new-code technique, the company must trust that customers will in fact stop using the software on the other computer. Deactivation diminishes the likelihood of incidental piracy.

My advice to Microsoft: Consider adding deactivation mechanisms to upcoming software releases.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 10:10 AM

Windows Media DRM #

Today, Microsoft unveiled Windows Media Digital Rights Management software, codename "Janus," that will be available later this year. Among other things, the software will enable "secure clock" subscriptions, meaning rented content can be moved to devices other than PCs, such as PDAs or portable music players. Janus also offers fairly granular control of rights, right down to enabling or disabling certain ports on devices used to output the content.

Five JupiterResearch reports released in the last two months offer valuable perspective on rights-protected content downloads or subscriptions and whether consumers would want them: "Digital Music Services: Secure Clocks won't Jump-Start Adoption" and "99-Cent Singles: Market Opportunity and Value Chain" by David Card; "Consumer Attitudes Towards Video Ownership: Impact on Digital Rights Management" and "Consumer Digital Media: Creating Successful DRM Packages Based on Consumer Demand" by Todd Chanko; "Portable Media Devices: Beyond Music," by Michael Gartenberg; and my report, "Protected Audio Content: Consumers, Vendors Line Up Behind Either Apple or Microsoft."

These reports add valuable perspective on the position I will state here today. Bottom line: I'm not convinced Microsoft's philosophical approach to rights-protected content is one consumers will embrace. I will explain some of my reasons here, but would encourage JupiterResearch clients with further questions to contact me or the authors of the aforementioned reports.

First, I'd like to commend Microsoft for developing in Janus a highly flexible DRM infrastructure that enables a broad range of content delivery scenarios. For example, Windows Media DRM enables different rights on different devices for the same piece content; restricts output by port, such as analog or digital, a mechanism that could thwart piracy of, say, high-definition video content; offers metering, which would allow anonymous playback reporting that could be used for charging consumers based on number of plays.

But, I have two concerns about Microsoft's approach: First, JupiterResearch surveys consistently show that consumers want transparent rights, something I question would be lost with the extent of flexibility Microsoft is offering its content partners. Second, I question whether consumers would accept at all the broad number of rights-restrictions Microsoft's technology would place on content consumers are used to having free and clear.

Regarding the first: By making the rights so granular, Microsoft has created technology that would encourage its partners to implement a variety of rights mechanisms that could create consumer confusion. For example, purchased or rented music could come with rights for unlimited PC playback, 30-day portable device usage but metered (meaning pay as you play) usage when accessed elsewhere in the home from a digital media receiver. Another: say I rent music from an online store that I can play on a couple PCs and portable device as long as I pay 10 bucks a month, but another store charges by number of playbacks. One store might offer both mechanisms, for which there is precedent in stores offering content for sale or subscription. What happens if consumers want to buy music from more than one store, but the rights change or even they are different based on the publisher within one store?

Already, different music stores implement rights protection differently. Under the example scenarios, rights would not necessarily be transparent to consumers. According to JupiterResearch surveys, consumers highly favor the ability to listen to music they own whenever they want, a priority which could be restricted by the variable rights protection. (My colleague Michael Gartenberg's Saturday blog, here, is a good commentary on this attitude with respect to rights-protected eBooks.)

Regarding the second: Today, much of the content consumers bring into their homes is largely unrestricted. Books can be read in any room in the house or passed around to family and friends. CDs can play on a variety of devices and remixed or then reburned on a PC. Television shows can be recorded for later playback on a digital video recorder or VHS player. Content moves freely, with little restriction.

Microsoft's objective is to free up digital content and make it more portable throughout the home. Consumers could rent or buy music or movies online and gain unfettered access because of rights-protection mechanisms. The thinking being that content owners would want to prevent theft of their valuable intellectual property.

But I'm not convinced that consumers would agree when purchasing content they must accept restrictions they didn't have before. That rented DVD or purchased CD could be played on any all kinds of devices, DVD players, portable DVD players, game consoles or PCs. The rented or purchased protected online version would come with restrictions.

Consumers have accepted some copy restrictions, such as DVD movies. I believe that there, the value they received outweighed the restrictions. DVD restrictions, which only really affect people trying to steal, follow on earlier protection placed on VHS recorders. I contend that to most folks the rights protection wouldn't have affected their behavior.

But I contend that the rights restrictions enabled by Windows Media DRM could affect previous behavior and so consumer resistance. One reason JupiterResearch recently launched a dedicated DRM service is to help vendors understand consumer and business acceptance of different rights mechanisms.

One area of consumer attitudes I would like to do additional research is content. Consider that to many businesses content is a valuable commodity to be sold. Given the popularity of P2P networks or Weblogs, I wonder if the average consumer shares the same attitude about content as major print, music or movie publishers. For example, consider how many people blog, basically giving away their ideas and writing for free. I find some of the commentary to be much better than what the "professionals" are paid to produce. I believe that Weblogs offer a keen insight--one which I can't back up with data today--about how most consumers view content. The very concept of human communication is one of sharing ideas, not rights protecting them, right?

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:21 AM
April 30, 2004
Tablet PC Could Miss School Buyers, Again #

On Wednesday, I blogged that any short slip in the release of Windows XP Service Pack 2 is insignificant. That position is sound with respect to standard desktop or portable PCs, but I wouldn't say the same for Tablet PC.

The longer Microsoft takes delivering SP2 the more likely that the software vendor and its Tablet PC manufacturer makers will miss, yet again, the back-to-school buying season. As I blogged here and here, I saw this year's back-to-school season as a big opportunity for Tablet PC.

Consider that Apple released back-to-school models in mid April, with the revamped eMac, or that HP typically does its big refresh around June. Assuming, SP 2, which includes Tablet PC 2005, ships no earlier than July, PC makers would need at least four to six weeks to get new models out with the software. That would put Tablet PC 2005 models on store shelves near the end of back-to-school buying season, at best.

Microsoft released the software in November 2002, missing back-to-school buyers. Microsoft's Windows roadmap released in October put the new software, codename "Lonestar," out in first half 2004, which would have just made the school buying season.

The situation is unfortunate, as Microsoft clearly has been ramping up marketing for Tablet PC to college students. Last autumn, for example, the company set up campus kiosks touting the benefits of Tablet PC and Office OneNote 2003. Earlier this month, Microsoft issued a preview release of OneNote 2003 Service Pack 1, presumably to get the software out for the Tablet PC update.

I would recommend that Microsoft's computer manufacturer partners start considering how best to include a Tablet PC 2005 update in their marketing, even if the software isn't ready. One idea: Distribute free update disks at campus bookstores that include extras, like OneNote 2003 SP1, MSN Messenger 6.2 and other software that works well on a tablet.

I would recommend that Microsoft tout that, like with Windows XP Media Center Edition 2004, the new Tablet PC software is a free upgrade.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 02:34 PM

More on Anitvirus Bundling #

Seattle Post-Intelligencer reporter Todd Bishop has expanded his Tuesday blog (here) on whether Microsoft would ever bundle antivirus software into Windows.

Mr. Bishop has added a poll conducted by the newspaper and chunks of transcribed comments made by Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith.

I must commend Mr. Bishop's effective use of blogging as a way of enhancing articles that appear in the newspaper.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:09 AM

How `Bout a Spring Fun Pack #

For the second year, Microsoft released its "Winter Fun Packs for Windows XP" in late 2003. The freebee is an excellent showcase of Windows XP's digital media features that also synch with consumer interest (My recent report, "Windows Fragmentation: The Problem with Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix It" goes into detail about consumer interest in digital photography, music or movies).

What I'd like to see: "Spring Fun Packs for Windows XP." Leaves adorn the trees, momma squirrels are moving babies to new nests and birds are singing. But my Windows XP desktop continues to rotate through scenes of winter fun. It's time for a more Spring-like fun pack.

The better reason is evangelizing Windows XP. As I blogged plenty of times before (here, here, here and here), Microsoft hasn't done the best job evangelizing Windows XP. The Winter fun packs were a good start, because in using them consumers had to summon up deeply-hidden digital media features they may not have realized were included in Windows XP.

As Microsoft plans its Windows XP Reloaded program, the company should really consider what freebee goodies it could offer consumers. The recent Scooby-Doo giveaway is a good example of the right approach.

Some Microsoft have started a discussion on Windows XP evangelism here.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:51 AM
April 29, 2004
CEO on DSI #

Yesterday afternoon, Microsoft released executive e-mail (here) from CEO Steve Ballmer about the company's systems management strategy.

Mr. Ballmer rightly observes that managing systems is increasingly difficult. Consider the number of office computers also used at home or the amount of personal and work information people commingle together.

Mr. Ballmer touts Microsoft's solution for managing complex systems, part of the Dynamic Systems Initiative, or DSI. With Windows Server 2003, Microsoft delivered the first rudimentary DSI features, he emphasizes. His e-mail, which I see more as marketing for Windows Server 2003, comes one year and four days after Microsoft launched the software.

For the record, DSI is a work in progress that Microsoft will take years to deliver. Certainly Microsoft has improved systems management with new Windows Server 2003 features and other products, such as Systems Management Server 2003. But the fulfillment of Microsoft's systems management strategy requires developers building support for the technology into their products (See blogs here and here).

Microsoft isn't the only company working on easier systems management tools. For example, IBM and Sun have their own strategies--and an advantage behind them: Both companies are experienced working with heterogeneous environments, while, right now, Microsoft's management tools are really best suited for the half of large businesses running Windows only.

I wouldn't expect Microsoft to build management tools for other operating systems, but the company may work with third parties.

"We are building our management solutions so they can integrate more easily with the diverse platforms, applications and tools that IT managers use today," Mr. Ballmer writes. "We are working with partners to make it possible for Microsoft customers to manage Unix, Linux and Mac computers."

I wouldn't consider improved management features enough of a reason to invest in Windows Server 2003, although there are plenty of other good ones--some of which might be reason enough with DSI.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:32 AM
April 28, 2004
XP2 Delay? So What? #

Starting late yesterday, news stories appeared about a delay in delivery of Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Too much is being made about the service pack's delivery date. Considering the number of changes introduced in the update, Microsoft is right to take however long is necessary to deliver the software. Right now, it looks like the news stories are quibbling over a few weeks.

Microsoft really can't give businesses enough time to test and validate the update. I wouldn't see a problem with Microsoft taking even more time and issuing a third release candidate--the second is expected in May--before shipping Service Pack 2.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 02:49 PM

Apple Puts More Pressure on Microsoft, Partners #

Today, Apple celebrated the year anniversary of its iTunes Music Store with the release of version 4.5 of its media playback software.

The new iTunes software is chock full of new features, some of which level the playing field with Windows Media Player 9 Series and RealPlayer 10, particularly the addition of lossless ripping. Other new features extend beyond competing song stores and software.

My recent report, "Protected Audio Content: Consumers, Vendors Line Up Behind Either Apple or Microsoft," takes a look at the two dominate protected music formats: Fairplay-AAC and WMA DRM. The report explains how Apple and Microsoft are promoting their different digital rights management formats, how their larger strategies differ and what impact a possible format war could have on consumers and vendors.

The release of iTunes 4.5 increases the pressure on Microsoft, which is expected to release the new Janus DRM, new Windows Media Player version and MSN Music Store, over the next 9-12 months. This morning, I played around with iTunes 4.5 and found the player’s new features to be compelling. For example, Jupiter Research surveys show that among consumers’ priorities for music they own is the ability to share songs with others. Apple addresses this priority with the new iMix feature, which lets iTunes users share their playlists via e-mail, post them on the music store or rate songs in posted playlists.

With respect to buying music online, Jupiter Research surveys show that a top consumer priority is searching for music. With iTunes 4.5, Apple has introduced new music finding capabilities, such as access to 1,000 radio stations, the ability to search for like songs from within the user's music library or download a free weekly song. Today, Apple offered Foo Fighters’ "Hero" for free download.

I see the freebees as an extension of the Pepsi-iTunes promotion, meaning a mechanism for drawing people to the store where they might buy something else with their free music.

The new player reduces the number of unaltered playlist burns to seven, but increases to five the number of computers songs can be played on. Apple also added other new features, such as the aforementioned lossless ripping which should be able to rip an exact CD quality version of a song for computer or iPod playback.

The new version also offers the capability to convert non-rights protected WMA files to AAC. I see the feature as further confirmation Apple isn't interested in licensing WMA DRM for iTunes or iPod.

Party Shuffle is a new feature that offers DJ features that remind me of Microsoft’s Plus! Digital Media Edition, except that consumers don’t have to pay an extra $20 for the functionality.

Apparently Apple now offers the iTunes on Campus program, but I can’t say for certain this is new. Apple wouldn't be the first music store vendor offering colleges and universities opportunity to license a legal music service.

While compelling, iTunes 4.5 doesn’t change the recommendations my "Protected Audio Content" report makes for Microsoft, its WMA DRM partners or Apple. Apple is content consumption leader in a fairly small segment of the larger U.S. music market. There is plenty of room for fierce competition ahead.

Previous blogs on digital music:

Who Would Want Winnowed Windows

WMA Music Players, Part 1

WMA Music Stores, Part 2

WMA Music Stores, Part 1

Loudeye Plays Windows Media

MSN Music

Music Matters

Apple: Hell Froze Over

MusicMatch Store Boosts Windows Media Audio

Music Distributors: It's Your Right

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:24 AM
April 27, 2004
seewhogotfired.com #

Today, Corel released WordPerfect Office 12, one of several productivity suites competing with Microsoft Office.

Apparently, marketing a productivity suite is tough. Microsoft attempted to promote Office 2003 through the silly "Great Moments at Work" TV ads (here). Basically people cheered for some great accomplishment that no one I know could figure out, which makes the ads no great accomplishment.

Not to be outdone, Corel has put together its own promotionals, something the company apparently plans to serialize over at seewhogotfired.com. I'm assuming the meaning is that no one got fired for buying, or using, Microsoft products. Well, they do here. Like the Office 2003 ads, the seewhogotfired.com videos say very little about the promoted product.

Being from Maine, I know what impact long winters can have on the psyche. I wonder if the winter wasn't a bit too long up there in Ottawa. The promotional videos are quite funny but maybe a bit crass, too. Those offended by potty humor may want to skip some videos.

That said, the site concept and roughness of the videos (which I believe is intentional) remind me of earlier guerilla Web marketing campaigns. The videos are fun and got me to thinking about WordPerfect enough to write this blog.

My advice to Corel, Microsoft or any other vendor selling productivity suites: Focus on the small- and medium-business market.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 11:21 AM
April 26, 2004
The Difference Between "OK" and "Cancel" Is What? #

Longhorn evangelist Jeremy Mazner's blog post (here) about evangelizing Windows XP Service Pack 2 is an astute commentary on the problems software developers encounter creating meaningful user interfaces.

He writes: "The research I've seen is quite interesting--it suggests that, in general, most users actually can't discriminate between the effects of the OK and Cancel buttons in a dialog box...The inability of users to decipher the average message box is a failure on the part of software designers, of course, not users, but it has significant implications for security."

I have to wonder what to expect from Longhorn dialog boxes. Hopefully better.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 01:32 PM

The "Unofficial" W98SE Service Pack #

My noggin is a bit flummoxed this morning with news that on Friday, somebody released a service pack for Windows 98 Second Edition. That somebody wasn't Microsoft. At first I boggled trying to figure out why someone would release an "unofficial" update to Windows 98 SE. Now, I'm wondering why Microsoft hasn't issued an "official" update to Windows 98. See OS News story here on the update, which I wouldn't officially sanction simply because Microsoft didn't release the software.

As addressed in two reports--"Windows Fragmentation: The Problem With Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix it" and "Service Pack 2: Microsoft Fortifies Windows XP"--consumers and businesses are holding onto older operating systems even as they upgrade to new ones. Microsoft issues ongoing service packs for Windows NT lineage operating systems, including 2000 and XP, but not for Windows 98, 98 SE or Me.

Microsoft wants customers to buy its newest Windows version, which is sensible from a number of perspectives. But, there is the reality of customers continuing to use older operating systems. I see Microsoft's all-the-eggs-in-the-Windows XP approach to major updates as an opportunity for third parties to step in and fill the vacuum, whether that be patching mechanisms or security software.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 11:11 AM

Bundling Antivirus a Good Idea? #

On Saturday, Seattle Post-Intelligencer published a story (here) about whether Microsoft would ever add antivirus protection to Windows.

The story, by reporter Todd Bishop, quotes Microsoft general counsel Brad Smith as saying Microsoft "to date" has made no decision about whether to include antivirus in future Windows versions. Apparently, Mr. Smith also expressed cautious approach, because of Microsoft's ongoing antitrust problems stemming from bundling Internet Explorer and Windows Media Player with the operating system.

"I have to say, it is a real cause for concern for us that 70 percent of consumer PCs do not have current antivirus protection," Mr. Bishop quoted Mr. Smith as saying.

I'm surprised by the 70-percent assertion. According to Jupiter Research surveys, about 73 percent of U.S. consumers say they have antivirus software on their primary PC. As explained in my report, "Windows Fragmentation: The Problem with Windows XP Evangelism and How to Fix It," the problem isn't so much newer PCs but older ones, something Microsoft hasn't addressed with its security push around Windows XP Service Pack 2.

I would contend that most consumers already have antivirus software. The question is more one of learning how best to keep protection up to date. That's something Microsoft already addresses with the new Security Center.

By the way, Jupiter Research has considerable data in this area, including antivirus or firewall software breakdown by operating system or number of PCs.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 09:12 AM

I Just Don't Get It #

Sometimes, Microsoft does things so baffling, I act like a deer in the road staring at oncoming headlights. I just don't know how to react.

On Friday, Microsoft released a useful document (here) explaining the issues IT administrators might encounter moving employees to Office 2003 from Office XP. But, rather than release a single document, Microsoft posted an .exe file, meaning an application.

This isn't the first time I've seen Microsoft post technical information compressed as an .exe file. But, I am stunned to see Microsoft continuing the practice given the big push around security. After all, Microsoft managers are touring the country as part of a security roadshow and top execs are making big security promises about the release of Windows XP Service Pack 2.

Much of Microsoft's security push is around changing behavior, such as encouraging IT managers to apply patches quickly or discouraging consumers from downloading potentially dangerous files.

One of those potentially dangerous file types is .exe. Microsoft started blocking .exe as file attachments with the release of Office 2000 Service Pack 2. Windows XP Service Pack 2 offers new prompts warning about downloading application files like .exe and later when users try to install them. I know the prompts are there because I had to go through them to get the Office XP to Office 2003 migration application file.

I'd like to suggest Microsoft set a better example, by changing its own behavior. I can understand releasing an application file to update software. But to deliver a Word document?

Near as I can figure, this is all about licensing. When launching the application, the user must agree to a End-User License Agreement (EULA) before the Word document is unzipped. The uncompressed file contains the Word document and a text file with the aforementioned EULA. I'm not a copyright lawyer, so I would have as much trouble understanding the implications of the EULA as the average IT manager. Bottom line:

"GRANT OF LICENSE. Microsoft grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA:
   You may:
(a) install a copy of the Documentation on personal computers or other devices for internal, non-commercial reference purposes only; and
(b) print a copy of the Documentation for internal, non-commercial reference purposes only."

Microsoft could just as easily ask downloaders to agree to the EULA on the Web, before fetching the document. The practice wouldn't be unprecedented. I've seen plenty of companies do just that--and to get software updates, not just a Word document.

A secondary problem is usability. I'm assuming Microsoft would like these IT managers to move their employees to Office 2003. Rather than download a single Word file wherever they want, IT managers must go through a more laborious process of downloading a compressed application file (that includes going through the new Service Pack 2 security prompts), accessing the file, agreeing to the EULA and finding it on the hard drive (/program files/microsoft content/white papers) if they think to save the documents somewhere else. Why not make obtaining the document as easy as possible?

As for the 72-page document, Microsoft as put together a handy migration kit that provides IT administrators plenty of useful information. I skimmed through it this morning and commend Microsoft's effort.

Posted by Joe Wilcox at 08:37 AM
Copyright 2004 Jupitermedia Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Legal Notices, Licensing, Reprints, & Permissions, Privacy Policy.