05.28.10
Posted in Home at 9:11 am by JohnB
It seems that Apple are catching up to Microsoft in terms of being the worlds most valuable technology company. The reasons are manifold but I think that there are a couple of key areas which have been critical.
Apple do niche and consumer devices very, very well. the ‘i’ series have become the ubiquitous brand – you don’t buy an mp3 player, you buy an iPod, even if it’s actually not an Apple device. They all work together well and have a certain appeal.
It’s certainly been said that “Apple fans will simply buy everything Apple” and although this is somewhat of a slur, the facts are that an appreciation of quality will promote further adoption. The point here is that the very fact such a slur exists shows that something has promoted a loyalty in the brand.
If we move away from the consumer space and into Enterprise then the story obviously changes. Microsoft are king here and for many of the same reasons. Microsoft’s business systems and applications work well together and there’s not really a significant alternative to the Office suite of servers and applications which it comes to interoperability. Apple have a presence in the Enterprise but it’s very small and provides an interesting challenge to IT/IS teams in terms of support, management and integration.
So why does the Cupertino firm seem to be vying for the top spot? I see it as a combination of things, there’s been a growth in the use of Mac machines across the board, for education, in-home and in the enterprise. Adoption has been through the “It just works” experience and the availability of effective applications to provide the services these groups want. The second element is Microsoft’s effort to move into the consumer devices space.
Media players (they do so much more than MP3 now) belong to Apple. The Zune, although a nice device in itself, simply hasn’t had enough of a differential to be a decision point for most folks. If anything they’ve been the protest vote of those who, for their own reason, simply don’t like Apple. Windows Mobile was a great idea let down in execution by Microsoft’s historical position as as software vendor, “We build the OS, you use it in your devices”, this caused performance issues, inconsistencies in functionality and a general frustration with the devices. Oh, for sure they hooked up to the Enterprise environment well for Exchange support, but with the licensing of Active-sync out to the other Phone OS vendors, even that has become diluted. The new portable OS – Metro – is very slick, very pretty and certainly provides a different experience to anything else on the market, and it’s use as the base for Windows Phone 7 makes perfect sense or at least it would if it existed in a vacuum. The problem is that the model for WP7 is so radically different than that for the older Mobile OS and that change is actually going to be a barrier to adoption rather than encourage it.
“The third screen”, as Steve Ballmer coined the mobile device space, is certainly important as more and more services become remote and the delivery mechanism becomes more portable. Phones are no longer phone, they’re terminal devices but does this mean that Microsoft has to compete there? I would say not, they don’t. Microsoft needs to do what it does best and that’s to make solid reliable Enterprise systems and solutions which can be accessed by devices in such a way that promotes their adoption rather than inhibits.
Already I can here the shouts… “They already do that!!”. Yes they do, and that’s where they are successful. The news that the Exchange 2010 web application will now provide the will user experience on Firefox, Safari and Chrome as well as IE shows that some thought is now going into the process. Organisations are more likely to adopt a central system if it’s able to be accessed from anything, than if there are limits on the client side.
Consumer cool is great for press releases and “Oooo – Ahhhh” product launches, but Enterprise efficiency is where Microsoft made it’s big bucks and that’s where it’s strengths now remain. The current leadership is one of corporate stewardship, the previous was one of technical innovation. The products should reflect that position and in some areas do – but that’s the problem, it’s only in some areas. Microsoft’s internal structure sometimes provides some real differentiation in their products – look at the success of the XBox – but sometimes it shows a real disconnect in strategies. The business units have to do their job and that job is to make their products sell as well as possible, you can’t fault them for that. Bu sometimes they seem to be acting at odds with other business units and it’s this disconnect which confuses people.
Apple have a singular vision with which EVERY product aligns but this can lead to accusations of ‘closed systems’ and the associated negative aspects.
Which is right, which is wrong?
It would be great to have Microsoft delivering systems – either in-house or on-line – which could be accessed by the BEST remote / mobile devices available. That’s what will happen eventually, but Microsoft need to stop tying to be cool and remember what they do best and that’s Enterprise Efficiency
Permalink
05.11.10
Posted in Hosting Thoughts, Work at 8:39 am by JohnB
It used to be so easy – if you were a techie – to describe an environment. You’d simply list out the numbers and types of server, the OS versions running and the server-side apps they’ve been dedicated to. We’d even call them “The SQL server, the Exchange Server, the AD controller…” These physical devices were know by the service they were running.
And if you wanted to add another service you’d, more than likely, add another server or two to run it. This was the easy way, the most trusted and risk free way because we knew that the requirements would only ever increase and we were building in future-proofing. We had to because these things had to last, to run and perform for 3-5 years! This was really about money, IT departments speculated at the start of each financial year as to what would need to be replaced, upgraded and what new systems or services would be required. They got their budget, or a part thereof, and then did what needed to be done, perhaps picking up a few ‘goodies’ along the way – because that’s what we did!
So corporate server rooms and datacenters and even small businesses with the typical too-hot, under-powered cupboards had server hardware spinning away just waiting, ever waiting, for the time when their capacity would be realised. Of course the reality is that, that time never really came. Servers went end-of-life and were retired, re-purposed and ultimately scrapped (or sold on eBay), budgets were re-negotiated to replace them with the newest models because “they will provide significant future-proofing” and the cycle of speculation began again.
The times they are a-changing though and the move is away from the old server-per-service model and we are now starting to talk about workloads. The Database workload, the Exchange workload, the Web workload, the Application workload… All are the new expressions of what needs to be done and none talk about the hardware underneath – and neither should they!
The correct and only way to deliver services is in the most resilient and efficient method possible. This means taking a number of physical resources sufficient to provide service continuity in the event of failure and making them run these workloads. If that sounds kind of wooly and fluffy, well that’s because it is! Server hardware should not, now, be the definition of a service infrastructure it should simply be the mechanisms upon which the services are built.
Infrastructure-as-a-Service (“IaaS”), one of the three main “Cloud” definitions, means that I can define what I want in terms of workload and get it, I don’t need to worry about the numbers, the networking configuration, the will-it/won’t-it nature of any fail-over I’m expecting or speculate upon the “future-proofing” my hardware spend is assuring. This is because I have no hardware spend.
If my requirements are for a database and application workload I can simply buy the horsepower I need to support that DB/Application combination and use it, usually within a few hours. OK I don’t have the fun of specc’ing up a server set and un-boxing the kit when it arrives but they were short-lived pleasure anyway!
For smaller businesses and organisation there is the issue that this is going to be a hosted service, out there in “The Cloud” or simply on-line if you’re me! And this might pose something if an initial barrier to adoption. That’s OK! Really it is, there’s no-one telling you that you have to move your “stuff” out there today, or even tomorrow. IDC has predicted that we’re in the first phase of an adoption cycle which may last up to 30 years! It’s fine to hang back, make the most of your current investment, make sure you understand what it means to adopt an on-line/hybrid service model and make sure your strategies – both technical and business – are in place and ready for when you make the move.
For larger enterprise businesses though, it’s perfectly possible to build an IaaS infrastructure in-house. The technologies are available today and, depending upon the age of your kit, you might not need to spend a huge amount on server hardware to make it happen. The keys to delivery are virtualisation and automation and the tools are ready now to help you deliver this “Private Cloud”. It’s a change in thought processes for any IT Team but it’s also the right way to think about your technology services and how you consume them.
Remember the word is Workload, the method is up to you!
Permalink
04.23.10
Posted in Home at 10:16 am by JohnB
Lets get one thing VERY VERY clear. I am NOT a basher of all things Microsoft. I hope that over the months and years my stance on ‘the right tools for the job’ has become well enough established that I can avoid the religious rants that other lapse into.
There are some great if not exceptional tools and systems available from the Redmond giant and I’m more than happy to use, endorse and promote them in the right space, but the presentation on Window Phone 7 I attended the other day left me wondering what they must have been thinking!
The pitch and positioning of WP7 was interesting in a number of different ways:
- The “Chassis” approach Microsoft is taking to the release plan shows that WP7 is not being positioned just as a Phone OS for vendors to buy and load onto their devices. It’s going to be released to support very specific chassis – i.e. hardware – specifications only.
- The OS build is “ground up”, so this isn’t a further tweaking or set of modifications and enhancements to the old CE/Mobile base. It’s brand new. This however means that it’s lacking a little functionality in some areas – there’s no Cut-Paste for example, neither does it support multi-tasking. I seem to remember a certain other device being lambasted for such shortcomings byt Windows Mobile users… times they do change!
- Application development and management. Int he old days, anyone could pick up a copy of the Windows Mobile SDK and write themselves a little application – and lots did, there are quite a few, very specific, applications out there running to provide monitoring updates and information feeds written by and for technical teams (I’m sure there are many others too). Now though, all applications will have to be put through a formal approval process before – wait for it – being made available to install through a Microsoft owned and controlled portal! I’m having weird flashes at this point and the rest of the room are chuckling and exchanging glances too!
- Windows Mobile Phone v6.5 will remain supported an available “For the forseeable future” to allow for applications to be ported over and to cover the lower end of the market, the sub £200 devices.
- WP7 outfitted devices will, at launch, be pitched as “Premium”, this in price terms is £250 plus.
Well, well, well there is much hay to be made here isn’t there?! The comparisons are obvious and not a little invidious too and I for one can’t see why I’d buy something which looks and works like and iPhone but has – at launch – far inferior functionality. And it’s not just the iPhone either, Googles Android on top of HTC’s hardware is looking more and more like a platform people can relate too and ‘own’.
I left Windows Mobile 6.1 behind because, frankly, it simply failed to work properly. My TyTn II wouldn’t obey the backlight settings and I had to repeatedly switch the thing on if I needed the keypad during a call, even to hang up at the end! I eventually resented even having to pick the thing up and use it. Am I therefore likely to return to something unproven, with less functionality? Well of course not. I got an iPhone last month – my first one – and to over-use an over-used phrase, it just works.
Reasons to change to WP7 demonstrated so far = 0.
It used to be said that Apple created and maintained a niche market of brand-fans and I’m sure this, in some respects, was true but it was interesting to note a couple of things from the day. On my train to London, 3 out of 4 of us at the table were using iPhones, the 4th had a BlackBerry. At the event itself I’d estimate that a good 50% plus were touting Apples device too, if you factor in the BlackBerry horde and a good sprinkling of Nokia’s the Windows Mobile presence could not have been high. Are Microsoft then pitching a device at a hard-core fan base? Are we looking at MS-geeks replacing Apple-geeks? Perhaps…
My feeling is that Microsoft got stung, very badly too, by the iPhone and by Android. The very fact the WP7 is a brand new OS shows an acknowledgment that the old OS along with Microsoft “We do software” position simply wasn’t right. The death of the Windows phone has been predicted, it may happen, but it’s going to have a struggle to take ground back from the empires of Apple and Google.
Permalink
« Previous Page — « Previous entries « Previous Page · Next Page » Next entries » — Next Page »
