Microsoft’s Secret Licensing Police: Worse than the IRS?

It’s that time of year again: tax time.  As we all pay buku to our local CPAs to fill out forms we’re either too incompetent or too uninterested to fill out ourselves, we cringe at the idea of a federal tax audit and dread dealing with IRS agents on the phone: people who won’t give you their first names and only want to be called Mister This or Mizz That.

At the same time, at least in 2009, Microsoft is introducingperpetrating the most ambitious domestic licensing compliance audit in its history, calling any company it suspects may be out of compliance and requiring them to demonstrate that they “own” all the Microsoft software they’re using.  Microsoft’s SAM group is using tersely-worded phone conversations and heavy-handed verbal and written threats about escalation, audits, and legal action in order to ensure compliance. Call it revenue preservation if you want.

I call it lawsuit bait and a huge waste of my clients’ time.  Yet, Microsoft isn’t going to wait until economic conditions have improved to do this. They’re hurting too, and the easiest way to shore up revenue is the horse technique: go back to the same trough and drink some more.  Call existing customers and make sure they’re loaded with all the licenses they could conceivably need.

This technique is a bit of a gamble, as those being audited are mostly volume licensing customers–precisely the type of customers who have been laying employees off the last year or so.  Indeed, these customers’ licensing requirements have in fact gone DOWN, meaning that, for many companies, the amount of Microsoft software that’s actually needed might be less than what the customer has paid for.  Of course, when I asked my SAM agent if Microsoft would compensate me for my time if we were found to be over-licensed, he promptly responded with a proverbial ‘hell naw.’

I then informed him that if he is going to make arbitrary decisions about how my clients’ consulting time is spend (it does take me time to fill out MS’s compliance paperwork properly), he needs to give me or the client more notice.  I can picture lean I.T. staffs whose projects have to be put on hold all because pouty Microsoft is throwing a licensing tantrum. So much for the server upgrade because Ballmer and the gang decided to foist this lofty audit on our I.T. guys. It’s more than a little absurd.

Microsoft, you’re going to piss off a LOT of customers with this behavior.  (Something tells me your biggest customers like NASA and General Motors aren’t getting harassed on the phone by a war-dialing twenty-something with an autographed copy of Introduction to Microsoft Licensing on his book shelf.)

Bottom line, is if you’re going to show up out of the clear blue, and require something of my time, ie. boss me around, you better be either the IRS or my Mom.  Those are the two people for whom I jump through hoops.

Why Apple doesn’t need Live Search

It has become obvious in the last several years that Apple is, first and foremost, a device manufacturer, and their flirtation with software (OS X, iLife, Logic, etc.) is borne as an extension of their inventive nature. In other words, Apple doesn’t necessarily want to be a software company, but they need to be.  It just so happens that they’re probably the best software company in the world (in recent years anyway).

So how is it that you come to be the best at something that isn’t your core business, just so you core business can flourish?   Well, you avoid the pattern exhibited by Microsoft–cut into as many markets as possible while clutching onto second-rate products (Live Search) and outmoded business models (XBox Live).  Ultimately this will mean that Apple’s failures over the years–their poor product offerings like .Mac–were things that they wisely dumped instead of clinging stubbornly onto like Redmond always seems to do.

Apple recognizes that–when THEY put out a crap service like .Mac–they have to cut their losses. Hence no more .Mac.  Ultimately, the same will be true of Mobile Me, when Google and its ilk replace every feature of Mobile Me with something better. And then, Apple will likely dump Mobile Me rather than try to compete in an area where they aren’t wanted and can’t do better.

This is why Apple won’t embrace Live Search. If they’re willing to cut their own failed initiatives and recognize that somebody else can do something better (Google Sync, anyone?), then why in the world would they embrace Live Search.

Snow Leopard or not, I don’t expect a Microsoft/Apple search alliance.

Slate, others: Please stop humping the Cloud

Seriously, there’s an irrational exuberance in the online apps space that beginning to sound like a droning din.  Slate, for example, is espousing qualities to net-based apps that probably aren’t as big a deal as they sound, going so far as to declare Outlook dead because Google Mail now supports Gears:

Now that Gmail has bested the Outlooks of the world, it’s a good time to assess the state of desktop software. There are some things that work better on your computer (your music app, your photo editor, your spreadsheets), and there are some that work better online (everything else).

Everything else is better online?  You mean like iMovie, or podcast production, or something secretive, or multitrack recording?   See, cloud humpers like this guy from Slate only look at software from the vantage point of office productivity–and EVEN THERE, the rationale of the Cloud’s superiority is overstated. The Cloud offers no tightly-integrated, productivity-boosting desktop environment, after all. Drag and drop? Nope. Personalized formats and preferences?  Not so much. And what about CONTROL?

Over the last few years, we’ve seen many programs shifting from the first category to the second—now you can get spreadsheets and photo editors online, though they’re still not as good as programs hosted on your computer. But e-mail has crossed the line completely. Hosted services like Gmail are now the most powerful and convenient way to grapple with a daily onslaught of mail. If you’re still tied to a desktop app—whether Outlook, the Mac’s Mail program, or anything else that sees your local hard drive, rather than a Web server, as its brain—then you’re doing it wrong.

Oh, really?   Never mind the fact that most people who choose Outlook or Entourage do so because of the benefits of Microsoft Exchange.  Not to mention the fact that it simply may not be a good idea  for Google to be the “world’s hard drive”.   Limited contigous storage is one drawback of the Google Apps / Cloud approach.  So is privacy.

Please, talk about the net-based apps with all of their qualities, pro and con, instead of all this mindless babble about how Google killed Outlook…   Come on people, think critically!

Microsoft aggressive with Windows 7 push, openly admits defeat on Vista

Put the last nail in the Vista coffin.  Windows 7 is on the fast track.  At least that’s what I glean from Ballmer’s CES talk yesterday.  The bottom line? You’ll be able to download the beta of Windows 7 starting tomorrow by clicking this link.

The wording of the announcement is tantamount to admitting defeat on Vista:

Over the past few years, you’ve asked us to make some changes to Windows. We listened closely. Now it’s time to share an early look at how we’ve used your feedback. Windows 7 is faster, more reliable, and makes it easier to do what you want.

We sent out our company newsletter today. Katie, my CRM manager, wrote a piece about Windows 7.  I don’t know why this release has so much buzz. Maybe it’s because Microsoft has returned to sane version numbering.  Or maybe it’s because they’ve kind of become the underdog, what with Google and Apple trundling all over what’s left of their Windows XP ego.

In any event, I’m actually looking forward to Windows 7 beta tomorrow. See you in the download queue.

A rant about research that tells stuff we already know

I ran across this study by Pew and read the entire 5 or 6 paragraph teaser. As I did so, my brain was saying, “check, check, check,” as if I already knew all of the information in the study.  All the research, as it were, seemed to confirm the obvious: the vast majority of adults are only casual video game players, and the older you get, the less likely you are to invest waste your time playing video games.

Since I’m complaining, how about asking for an abvious answer on an entirely different subject? Does anybody else agree with me that Steve Ballmer is essentially a PR liability for Microsoft?

FCC says yes to TV spectrum deal, networks pissed

Well, this is a harbinger.  The deal supported by Microsoft, Google, and others to unlock spectrum between frequencies used by television station for unlicensed data access applications was approved by the FCC yesterday, and the usual suspects are upset about it.

That is–NBC, Disney, and the traditional TV gang are concerned that localized use of these relatively low frequency channels will impeded delivery of television service.  To which I’ll say this.  Most folks who consume a lot of TV (me not included) already receive television delivery through cable, fiber, or satellite schemes, making interference a non-issue.  The remainder tend to be people who don’t watch a lot of TV or people who are of little interest to advertisers.

So the question is: what are the TV people so upset about? Control.

Their industry is vanishing under sands blown by the winds of change.   Consumers’ awareness of user-centricity has pushed the debate over good access technologies into the spotlight, and the stubbornness of local telcos and cable operators to deliver on the promise of post-broadband Internet services has forced the hand of those who benefit most from a heavily utilized Internet infrastructure: Microsoft, Google, and the like.

Not surprising. And definitely a welcome move from my point of view.

It will be interesting to see how the spectrum ends up getting used.  What devices will facilitate the use of these channels?  Will we see new kinds of access points, or will local service operators finally be able to deliver good wireless last mile access along with their other services? Imagine post-broadband speed from your satellite operator or even your local television broadcaster.  This opens up a lot of possibilities.

Clouds are made of vapor

With all the exuberance over cloud computing lately, the push to turn applications into a utility has got me thinking: is all the hype over cloud-hosted apps really worth the amount of strenuous thought and discourse we see?

Or is Cloud Computing the latest in a series of niche technology paradigms that is receiving much broader credit and faith than it is due?

Time will be the ultimate judge, of course. Will the Cloud end up a buzzterm that in retrospect seems silly to have given so much due, joining previous dead buzzterms like “push content” and “webcasting”?

It seems to me that the Cloud’s best role is that of a shared infrastructure, where teaming creates economies of scale for data manipulation, high-intensity calculation (like rendering, indexing, and DSP), file sharing, content management, and other multi-node or multi-user tasks.

But why is the trumpet sounding so loudly on behalf of using the Cloud to host productivity applications? Who really wants to give up the comforts of desktop apps for the “greener” pastures of the Cloud?   Microsoft Office may be moving online, but does it really matter whether my launchpoint for the software is my local drive or a web server?  It’s not like I’m running out of hard disk space.  Moreover, there are many frustrating nuances to using productivity apps through the web.  Native drag and drop is missing.  Font management is effectively missing.  And what about bandwidth?   Ever try to embed a 300 DPI 11×17 RAW into a two-page spread using the Cloud?  Drink a cup of coffee, nom a doughnut, and it *might* be done by the time you’re finished with your snack.

Oh, and what if your Internet connectivity goes down.  Eh, sorry, there goes your document.  And, oh, by the way, you can’t relaunch the office suite until your Internet connectivity comes back up.  Just yesterday I had a Salesforce.com-using client asking me how to get web reports from Salesforce.com without Internet access. She was offline.  I told her to go find a WiFi hotspot. See what I mean?

We love things because they’re new and bold, and perhaps not because they warrant our adoration. Cloud Computing is just such a concept.  Not saying there isn’t a noble purpose for it, but farming processing tasks to the cloud is smart because it doesn’t slow the user down, doesn’t require an online-all-the-time user state, and doesn’t require desktop OE interoperability the way user-facing apps do.  That’s why I’ve never been a real big fan of Zoho or the Google apps, and why I’m unlikely to become a Cloud-based MS Office user.

I actually agree with Microsoft’s hesitation on this one. Sure, their arrival to the Cloud party is late, but look at what is being celebrated at this bash: something most people A) don’t need B) can’t use regularly and C) will actually experience better results by avoiding.

Google’s Gears technology seeks to bridge the gap between web-service-based apps (last year’s word for “the Cloud”).  Hardware-centricity still matters, because ultimately it’s hardware features that sell people into the Cloud to begin with.  So if web computing is the end-all-be-all of desktop apps, things like Gears are going to start coming from Microsoft.  If not, Microsoft will have saved a ton of R&D money.

Gadgets are sexy, and they are the face of the global network.  Imagine buying a suit from a store where all the sales reps are ugly, slow, and occassionally take a very lengthy lunch break during the middle of your measurements.  You wouldn’t come back to that store.   That’s why high end clothiers have well-dressed, well-groomed, attentive salespeople.  They’re on when you’re on, they help you at all times, and they look good.

The Cloud can’t possibly provide the same level of service when it comes to desktop apps.  Not today, not tomorrow. Probably not next year.  So I’ll keep buying my suits at decent stores and I’ll keep my productivity apps where they work best for me–my desktop.

In reality, Linux desktops don’t matter (at all)

The guy who funded Ubuntu has come out and said that it’s not possible to make money with desktop Linux, but that value-added services have to accompany the brand adoption of his Linux distibution, Ubuntu.  Ie. services earn revenue; software licenses don’t.  Wait a minute, isn’t this what Red Hat said about Linux 12 years ago?  Seriously.  This isn’t news, and it isn’t a new strategy.

What really cracks me up is the collective refusal by our industry talking heads to accept the fact that the market will not tolerate a third desktop OE competitor.  Add to that this notion of cloud computing (which itself is somewhat overblown, if not more compelling than the free software “movement”), and you’ve got all the evidence in the world that Apple and Microsoft NEED NOT WORRY about Linux, whether it’s Ubuntu, Fedora, or some other funny-named flavor.

The world (or 99.95% of it) just doesn’t care about Linux on the desktop, yet the commentators in the industry keep pulling for desktop Linux as if it was “the little engine who could”.    Show me something desktop Linux brings to the table that Windows and Mac OS X don’t, and I’ll show you a product that probably STILL won’t succeed against the established players, even when it’s FREE.  We’re too entrenched, too invested, and too resistant to learning curves to ever considering a sizable swing to desktop Linux.

So all you GNU purists and techno-hippies–give up the ghost already.   It’s over.