TechFold - Bold tech & web commentary

What Facebook Means for Microsoft: shark jumping

Note: I wrote this post weeks or months ago (whenever MS invested in Facebook) and never had the chance to proof read it. So - its not exactly topical anymore, but what the heck - here it is. It is all the funnier now that “Microsoft leading the pack” has become “Microsoft being more or less the sole investor at a ridiculous valuation.”

Microsoft leading the pack in “getting in” on Facebook is a sad day for Redmond.

In a nutshell: MS has gone from leading to frantically following. They are playing Google’s game, they are letting Google define success for them. From a position of unassailable strength, they now look like a floundering giant desperate to buy a lifeline from anyone. Vista set the stage; Aquantive kicked it off; Ballmer’s posturing about purchasing 20 companies in five years (or whatever it was) confirmed it; Facebook closes the case. Microsoft has jumped the shark.

The Boxed OS is Done

To paraphrase: MS has lost its core competency in marketing OS’s and is now trying to change course, lurching like some business-model frankenstein into Web 2.0. Blame it on Apple, Web 2.0, the DOJ, or internal politics - the delays, non-compelling feature-set, and poor quality of Vista make clear that the time of the boxed OS is over. Same general story for productivity apps. MS is looking 5 - 10 years ahead - and sees a pretty bleak landscape for their current product family.

Which is a fantastic opportunity for MS: they have 5 - 10 years of cash cow milking to invest in their future and shape the next generation web - but instead they’ve chosen the reactive path of acquisition and desperate competition with Google.

facebook microsoft

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

The Phone Rings for Thee: Google to announce Monday?

The WSJ is reporting that Google is set to announce its GPhone plans Monday (Nov. 5), announcing partnerships with T-Mob and Sprint initially. God willing, that will push bloody Facebook and OpenSocial off of TechMeme for a few days.

So - what does a GPhone mean to me?

Familiar Business Model: I’m assuming that the GPhone will be a mobile OS built by Google, deployed on hardware built by others, serviced by multiple carriers, supported by localized advertising of some kind. That layout seems like a natural fit for Google: its got a familiar business plan, a familiar ethic (open platform!), and forwards the mission of organizing all of the world’s data, an increasing amount of which, in the form of call records, contact data, videos, and photos is tied up in mobile devices. Hell, if you think about it, its an near mirror of the desktop world: Google writes apps and services, deployed on hardware by multiple vendors (every desktop and laptop ever made), supported by ISP’s.

Optimized for the Cloud: IMHO this is where Google will really differentiate. If the OS provides a well-conceived conduit into Google’s cloud, it will be golden. I want to…

1. Access my mobile voicemail through GMail online.
2. See my call history online.
3. Be able to make voice calls online and see that history on my mobile.
4. Have a single online/mobile contact infoset.
5. Save & load pictures and video too and from a GDrive storage cloud automatically.
6. Enjoy true calendar integration - i.e.: if a GCal event is set with an alarm 15 minutes before, I want my phone to ring with a reminder, wherever I am.
7. A full suite of API’s and mobile developer tools to spur development and innovation on the platofrm.
8. Etc. Etc. Etc.

Apple is inching its way there with the iPhone/iTunes marriage - but its synchronization is limited to your desktop, whereas Google’s is global. Of course, Apple’s strategy is tuned to the mass market - its a model that people are familiar with, as reflected in sales. I’m guessing that Google’s geek-centric value propositions are going to see slower initial adoption, buy greater long-term penetration, even if white labeled.

Fundamentally, a single repository for your communications info, accessed through multiple channels (phone, internet) just makes sense. Google, as others have noted, is a natural fit to quarterback this combination of software, hardware, and infrastructure. I’m keeping my fingers crossed that Google can pull it off.

apple, google, gphone, iphone, microsoft, sprint, tmobile wsj

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Eric Schmidt (& Google) Miss the Point on Web 3.0

I just saw this perplexing video of Google CEO Eric Schmidt trying to explain what Web 3.0 is.

Ultimately, it seems that Schmidt just tries to shoehorn Web 3.0 into Google’s product strategy, talking about cloud apps that run on a variety of devices and that can be distributed virally. Is Schmidt trying to wag the dog here? Because on the Internet, the wag dogs you, dude. In all seriousness, trying to see emerging themes on the Internet is a fuzzy business in and of itself; trying to control those emerging themes by redefining them in your own terms is double bad as it (a) adds nothing back to the community driving the web’s evolution, and (b) traps you in your own mindset and positions you to miss the boat (see: Microsoft & the Internet).

I won’t even get into Schmidt’s definition of Web 2.0 (”the computer architecture we call AJAX”), or the fact that he dismisses the entire 2.0 movement as a marketing term. Talk about missing the point (AJAX??!) and disrespecting a lot of people, hard thinking, and hard work.

Google seems to be acting Microsoft-like. They’ve defined “what’s coming next” for themselves internally, and insulated by a layer of cash and a veritable-monopoly on several core products (search & advertising), show little care for what the rest of the ‘net thinks on the same topics. Google also seems to be Microsoft-fixated: the central thrust of their 3.0 vision directly combats Microsoft’s desktop model. I think these blinders are going to be a liability for Google in a 3 - 5 year timeframe.

Finally - what is Web 3.0, and how did Eric miss the point? I’m not sure yet.

cloud, eric schmidt, google, microsoft, web 2.0 web 3.0

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Ballmer & Microsoft: “Does everything move to the cloud? I think that is wrong-minded.”

From the NYT:

He rejected the notion that in the future all software would be based in what computer industry executives refer to as “the cloud” — computer hardware and software reachable over the Internet. “People tend to get weird and extreme about this,” Mr. Ballmer said. “Does everything move to the cloud? I think that is wrong-minded.” [Steve Ballmer in the NYT]

Microsoft seems firmly married to the software model, committing only to “the addition of a Web-services component within 3 to 10 years” to core software products.

Now, compare and contrast to Jeremy Zawodny’s experiences last week:

It was at that point that a shift took place in my thinking. I’m simply not going to bother with the hassle, trouble, expense, and complexity of desktop applications when an online substitute will do the job anymore. Life’s too short already. [Jeremy Zawodny]

Zawodny’s laptop died. Getting his apps back up and running in his preferred state and documents restored from back-up was a complicated, time consuming, and bug ridden PITA. In frustration, he turned to the cloud - and was rewarded with always consistent settings, no need to back-up, no multiple-pc configuration inconsistencies, etc. etc.

In the age of near-ubiquitous broadband, the cloud is making more sense all the time. 10 years from now, I firmly believe cloud applications will be taken for granted as desktop apps are today. Microsoft appears to have lost its risk taking edge in its addiction to gluttonous desktop application profits; Ballmer & Ozzie are consigning Microsoft to a slow death.

ballmer, cloud, google, microsoft, webos zawodny

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Microsoft’s Head in the Clouds: Positioning for Success

CNET reports on Microsoft’s buzz-worthy but vague “cloud computing” plans this morning.

The concept of the “cloud OS” or “internet OS” has been generating more and more discussion over time. IMHO, the cloud is the true Web 3.0 - the distributed, ubiquitous web. Its being driven by the fact that people’s data, documents, applications, preferences, and tools are now scattered across many devices, platforms, websites, PC’s, set top boxes, gaming systems, and phones - our connected environment begs for the portability, synchronization, and interoperability that are enabled by a true Web OS.

Microsoft’s concept of cloud services coupled with edge computing positions them to deliver. For example: I want my Garmin eTrex to automatically upload paths of trips I’ve made in universally parseable geoRSS, and I want to be able to later share those trips as maps around the dinner table on my iPhone using Google Maps. Microsoft aims to provide the service and storage cloud infrastructure to make that possible, as well as the edge bits (the software on the eTrex) to knit it all together.

Essentially, Microsoft wants to replicate the success factors of their desktop dominance by making their web services platform the easiest and most common to work on, just as they did with their desktop platform. Creating a strategy to deliver on that objective comprehensively speaks well for Microsoft’s continued success vs. Yahoo’s atrocious API mishmash, or Google’s compulsive, inconsistent delivery schedule.

For a long time, I’ve been critical of Microsoft’s big bet on Ray Ozzie - after all, his Groove application was an absolute horror. But if this is his vision, and if he can get Microsoft to execute on it, then I’ll take back my criticisms.

Ah yes: we all know how much MS loves Developers. Hat tip, Parislemon.

cloud, google, internetos, microsoft, web3.0 yahoo

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Google vs. Microsoft on Desktop Search

Ok - the fact to Google was able to strong-arm MS into changing its Vista desktop search feature is ridiculous. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the equivalent to GM demanding that any Toyota model sold should be available with a GM motor instead of a Toyota one?

The line between monopolistic behaviour and a good, competitive feature set is getting politicized to the point of stupidity.

EDIT: As plenty of people in the TC comments pointed out, Apple doesn’t follow any of these restrictions in Leopard. Will Google move on Apple next? No. MS is an easy target. Also pointed out: the changes MS will make consist of making desktop search as a “Set Program Access and Defaults” preference.

google, microsoft monopoly

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Apple, Sun, Vista, and ZFS

A few days back, Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz made an announcement about Sun’s next-gen file system (ZFS) being one of the key features of Apple OSX Leopard. Today, Apple rejected that sound bite, claiming HFS+ (from 1998) is still the order of the day.

First point: this reminds me a lot of Windows Vista and the whole WinFS debacle. Its amazing how much trouble filesystems seem to give OS manufacturers.

Second point: How does one have so severe a disconnect between major companies that embarrassing PR situations like this take place?

I’m not much of a geek, but one thing that does get me excited is file systems. Speed, searchability, security, reliability - all of these are tied to your FS, and ZFS seems to offer great advantages for each. So - I wish Apple or MS would get to it already.

apple, filesystem, hfs, microsoft, os, sun, techmeme, winfs zfs

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

From the Press Release Bin: Another WebOS

The WebOS space has one more member: Synthasite, which joins Teqlo (my first post!), YouOS, Xcerion, Facebook, and others I’m sure. The “WebOS space” is loosely defined, but all members share the common goal of trying to create the development platform on which mashups and applications are built and distributed - a lucrative market — if it really exists.

I’ve argued elsewhere that trying to create development environments like this has relatively little marginal benefit: anyone with the skill and motivation to create a web application will do so in the tool of their choice. Windows thrived as a platform because it provided a set of API’s and a hardware abstraction layer that made developing apps easier; the web generally doesn’t suffer the same level of complexity until you’re into the realm enterprise-strength applications - which these WebOS players aren’t targeting anyway.

So - where they fit into the web ecosystem I have no idea. I admire all players for the technical challenge that they’ve taken on, but I’m not holding my breath for any to become a breakaway success - with the exception of Facebook who - interestingly enough - created the market for their platform before creating the platform itself.

development, facebook, google, ide, microsoft, synthasite, teqlo, web os, webos, xcerion youos

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Facebook Acquisition - Round X; I bet Google

I call Google FTW. The internets are all atwitter that facebook is on the block again - the Guardian says Yahoo is at it again; Battelle speculates that GOOG might snipe it like they did with DoubleClick.

Personally, I’ve thought Google is the more likely candidate for a while. Despite their occaisonal dropped balls on acquisitions (dodgeball), Google is about two things: platform and volume, which feed off each other and together are monetizeable. Advertising? Google built the platform. Search? Same. Video? Yup. Any area of online tech that you look into, Google has a major foundational play under way - if not a platform in a traditional sense, then a product option that has so much market power that it is the defacto platform or standard in its space.

Except social networking. Orkut, however you slice it, is an abject failure. Facebook would fill that gap, and the Facebook platform philosophy works nicely with Google. Google and Facebook could exchange hooks, interfaces, and API’s very quickly and create integrated products that deliver real value FAST.

Final note - I remember comments from GOOG’s CEO from a few weeks ago to the effect that Google wants to be able to tell you what you should be doing for the weekend. THAT’S A SOCIAL FEATURE.

So - when all is said and done, I call Google for the buy, Yahoo for the runner up. The only thing to derail this would be the SEC.

billions, dodgeball, facebook, GOOG, google, microsoft, orkut, sec, social, socialnetworking, weekend, yahoo YHOO

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Facebook Gets It, Becoming the Web OS: Microsoft 2.0

Facebook “gets it” in a way that MySpace, record labels, and countless other technical/social troglodytes don’t: if you own the platform, you own the industry. And if you own the industry, you get a cut of it all.

For background, see: TechCrunch,
CenterNetworks (recap), Fortune, and a million others captured on TechMeme.

Here’s my conjecture:

Facebook wants to be the next Microsoft.

Think about it: Microsoft owned the software platform on which the last 2.5 decades of computing has been done, and has profited ridiculously. Facebook is building the next generation platform - the apocryphal Web OS - by recreating the Microsoft environment from the eighties:

1. Create the platform. (its even called Facebook Platform)
2. Reach out to developers, make it easier or more profitable to build on your platform. (facebook is hitting both of these)
3. Let the users get hooked on apps developed on the platform.
4. Watch the platform spawn a user-driven ecosystem.
5. Keep users isolated; let them see the benefits, not the plumbing. (windows vs. linux?)
6. Profit!

Consider what would have happened in the OS market if Microsoft had restricted MS-DOS to only Microsoft applications, or selectively told large, popular vendors they couldn’t run apps on DOS (hello MYSPACE). The first open alternative would have put MS-DOS in the ground. Note too that this is not a discussion of technical superiority: lord only knows, Microsoft’s code has its issues, and the do-what-you-will approach to developers has caused millions of problems - but the open-ness, and ability for anyone to code anything made it the most approachable for every stakeholder in the PC value chain.

IMHO, Facebook is heading towards the same success and was prescient in turning down Yahoo!.

facebook, microsoft, myspace, platform yahoo

Share This

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!