Rob Enderle

RE: EMC, Cisco, Dell, Oracle Shoot for Super-Company Status

edgeuser — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:19:50 GMT

--"The Sun Oracle deal is and always has been about JAVA"

Where is JAVA used anymore? On the web, I rarely see JAVA. Everything is Flash or Javascript, which has no relationship to JAVA. On Windows, '.Net' has pretty much killed JAVA on the OS. '.Net' even runs on Linux platforms.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

edgeuser — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:10:03 GMT

Well, anytime you compete with Microsoft, you are competing with the OS by proxy, since majority of Microsoft revenues come from the OS.

23% of Microsoft revenue for the last quarter came from the client market. The client market ties in with the Office market (34% of revenues), and both of them together tie in with the Server Market (26% of revenues)

Microsoft is going to use the revenues from the OS market and ties-ins to compete against you. So Microsoft is attacking you on your own soil, while it has a constant revenue stream from its divisions that it doesn't have to defend that aggressively.

Even if Google had bought Firefox, its still a Windows app, it's still swimming in Microsoft's own pool. If Microsoft gets aggressive with the browser market and releases an open source version of IE that's compatible with all Firefox addons, does away with ActiveX, adopts a faster javascript engine, integrates closely with the client and server Windows and Office apps, Firefox could be in for a rough time.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

RobEnderle — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 01:00:26 GMT

They could get that by just doing the browser, they don't need an OS for that. If they simply took over Firefox (which they fund) they'd have nearly 30% of the desktops on day one. In fact, the actually own Firefox search access now even though the product doesn't have Google's brand on it. The OEMs are more than happy to use them as the browser of choice and all they need is a window to the web. The OS route is nasty because it puts them in competition with other OS providers (like Apple) who then will not use their search tools.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

edgeuser — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 23:17:27 GMT

Ideally, you want some kind of synergy in your business units.

If Microsoft really wanted to go after Google, I really don't think Google could do anything to defend itself. If Bing offered higher bribes for using search ( http://www.bing.com/cashback/ ), or paid people to use Bing toolbar, or cut Bing ad rates to almost zero, I don't see what Google can really do about it. I think that is why Google is going into the OS space. As long as Microsoft has a dominant OS, it is untouchable, and Google knows this. The only thing Microsoft has to worry about is keeping under the regulatory radar.

I also think this was Netscape's downfall. There was no way a company can release a Windows app that can beat a similar Microsoft app. So, Microsoft pours money into Internet Explorer, much more than Netscape can, bundles it with the OS, game over.

RE: EMC, Cisco, Dell, Oracle Shoot for Super-Company Status

RobEnderle — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:49:44 GMT

Perhaps but I'll bet they could buy a part of Sun for far less than they are spending for the whole thing. Sun is bleeding so badly that it doesn't have that much time left. But, agree that their clearly are parts of Sun they really want.

RE: EMC, Cisco, Dell, Oracle Shoot for Super-Company Status

user1650847 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:18:12 GMT

The Sun Oracle deal is and always has been about JAVA and the consequences to Oracle if someone else controlled JAVA. The hardware part of Sun was not what drove the deal. Oracle will not abandon the deal without somehow extracting JAVA

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

RobEnderle — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:36:30 GMT

Yes but the branches should be close to your core. Google is at the core an advertising company. That's the revenue pool they know and don't yet fully own. They could branch to other internet areas but OS and Smart Grid are far from what they know how to do well. Reminds me too much of Chrysler in the 60s or Netscape.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

edgeuser — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:29:28 GMT

--" Should they really be in the OS or Smart Grid business?"

I don't see what else they could be doing with the cash that they have. It's either improving search or branching into other aspects of the net. They can pour millions into search algorithms and improve it maybe 2%? Or do gimmicks like page preview, which I've never found useful. And with no real justification for the cost, since they dominate search and with no real competitor.

Its always a good idea to have branches, so that if one aspect of your business come under fire, you can use the profits from other branches to defend it.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

RobEnderle — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:55:26 GMT

But, at its core and where its profit is sourced Microsoft is still largely what they were. Yes Microsoft does more but most of these efforts contribute little to the bottom line. Apple remains a hardware company. Microsoft could sell to Apple (and did early on). Apple doesn't sell to Microsoft. I think they cross over more than they really should.

Companies often have trouble remembering what business they are really in. Look at Google for instance. Should they really be in the OS or Smart Grid business?

Agree that Google kind of owns Firefox at the moment, they certainly fund it.

RE: Ballmer and Microsoft: Credit Where Credit Is Due

edgeuser — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 20:48:30 GMT

--"Microsoft is an operating system and tools company."

Not really. Microsoft also makes games, keyboards, consoles, music players. I think its fair to compare Microsoft against Apple. They are both competing in the same space, with the difference being Apple locks the hardware.

--"but to try to go after Amazon, Apple and Google likely would be suicidal"

Too late. For every Apple product I can think of there is a competing Microsoft offering (minus the locked hardware). It's already trying to go after Google with Bing. And getting ready for Amazon ( http://www.virtualization.info/2009/09/microsoft-prepares-azure-to-compete.html )

--"Its Chrome browser lags Firefox"

I'm still trying to figure out why Google didn't just buy Firefox. What is gained by releasing a 3rd-5th browser? They practically own it now, since Firefox makes most of its revenue from Google search.

RE: First Windows 7 Deployment Update: Under $26 Cost; $852 Annual Benefit

RobEnderle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:37:48 GMT

You're thinking too much. The power savings is largely coming from turning the machines off or suspending them when not in use. Something they weren't evidently able to control under XP centrally as well. You've been able to lower the clock speed of the processor for some time, this is an automatic function for thermal management in place since the mid-90s. Typically we try to go the other way, its called overclocking. Current hardware typically allows you to do this more dynamically rather than through settings though.

We've had storage headroom for much of this decade. This is a financial company and would rather not have a lot of storage on PCs anway, the loss in capacity might actually be considered a plus because they would likely rather have the information remian on secure servers.

In a lot of companies people work throug lunch or take staggerred lunch breaks and work after 5. If the system is off you need to be able to wake it up to patch it. I can recall watching people actually have a patch reboot thier XP systems the middle of a powerpoint presentation. Auditors tend to work long hours and often don't take set lunches. So you could but it would disrupt the work.

RE: The FCC's Social-Networking Approach to Net Neutrality

RobEnderle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 18:24:56 GMT

Actually no, eventually the change does happen it just takes an extra 2 to 4 years to bring it about. Unfortunately the marority of voters here don't actually vote.

RE: First Windows 7 Deployment Update: Under $26 Cost; $852 Annual Benefit

edgeuser — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:26:13 GMT

--"PC power ($28) savings."

I'm curious as to how they actually determined power savings. Did they hook up a power meter to a XP system and an identical Win7 system for a week? And where exactly is Win7 getting these additional savings from? The only real details I've found on this topic is at http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/01/06/windows-7-energy-efficiency.aspx They talk about slowing the processor clock, but that is assuming your processor supports it (things like Intel speedstep, which wasn't available on desktop CPU's a while back). XP also had the ability to scale down the processor clock.

--"It also found that Windows 7 ran on 4-year-old Dell hardware"

That is certainly possible, but again, as far as I know, the desktop CPU's 4 years didn't support lowering processor clock.

And what about losing memory to the OS? Win 7 requires 1GB vs 128 MB XP. And hard drive space? Win7 (16GB) vs XP (1.5GB).

--"Because Windows 7 (and Vista, actually) can be patched more easily in the background, "

I don't see why you can't just set up XP to update over the lunch break or after 5pm on Tuesdays.

RE: The FCC's Social-Networking Approach to Net Neutrality

edgeuser — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:53:32 GMT

"Here in California we often pass votes down to the voters, the voters generally vote no, and nothing happens for a few more years. "

That's exactly the way it should be. The alternative to that is a few party elders decide to pass a law that may or may not be supported by the majority of the voters. Which is pretty much the system we have now, which really isn't a democracy.

RE: First Windows 7 Deployment Update: Under $26 Cost; $852 Annual Benefit

RobEnderle — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:46:51 GMT

Typically for a roll out of a product you look at the incremental extra cost against measured benefit. The strongest benefit here is likely the ability to extend the life of the hardware and reduce ongoing support costs for the result.

But when SA comes up for renewal the cost saved would be factored in to justify the SA renewal. Remember that SA cuts across a variety of products (mostly server side) so the estimated $100 per desktop software cost savings (at volume rates) would, in addition to the savings for their coming server and exchange deployments (which are in plan) justify the SA renewal cost.

Now it might be interesting, after the fact, to roll up all the costs and take them against the alternatives but this is rarely done. IT shops typically operate project to project and don't have the bandwidth to do analysis that cuts across a series of projects (often this is because each project is generally staffed differently).

In the end, and what we often forget, is the true benefit of SA isn't the savings but the ability to avoid budget surprises by making spending predictable. Generally it is worse to blow out a budget than it is to overspend because budget surprised reflect on management competance and overspending isn't as visible.

This is one of the things I'm not sure folks like Google or the Open Source community really understand.

RE: First Windows 7 Deployment Update: Under $26 Cost; $852 Annual Benefit

KenHardin — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:06:21 GMT

Hi, Rob -- Ken here. Just wondering, is it typical for large shops to simply not factor in some swag at the proportional cost of a software upgrade beneath a program like SA if they are taking as hard a look at a rollout as Baker Tilly obviously is? Obviously, they'd be under SA anyway, but it seems that some cost-recognition would be in order, if for no other reason than to justify the overall SA outlay. But that's a cost center manager from an SMB talking, and of course we try to count everything. Thanks, Hardin

RE: The FCC's Social-Networking Approach to Net Neutrality

RobEnderle — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:35:42 GMT

Here in California we often pass votes down to the voters, the voters generally vote no, and nothing happens for a few more years. My experience has been this doesn't actually work, but I agree, I'm not very happy with our representatives at the moment either.

RE: The FCC's Social-Networking Approach to Net Neutrality

edgeuser — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:16:36 GMT

"where FOX news is the most successful news program I don't really want to think what would result"

Well, doesn't FOX news unofficially represent a party anyways? You would just be taking out the middleman. Moreover, I could argue the reason there is FOX news, is because we have a party/ideology based system.

"I'd want to make sure folks actually researched things first before giving them this power "

You mean like senators? Do you really think they research anything, or just vote along with their party?

RE: The FCC's Social-Networking Approach to Net Neutrality

RobEnderle — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:56:20 GMT

OMG, what a mess that would be. In a perfect world where people would research things on their own I'd be with you but in a world where FOX news is the most successful news program I don't really want to think what would result. I'd want to make sure folks actually researched things first before giving them this power otherwise we might not have a planet to live on really quickly. Here in California the success of private interest marketing on elections is truly scary.

RE: The FCC's Social-Networking Approach to Net Neutrality

edgeuser — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:49:23 GMT

"I'd vote to not vote on healthcare reform."

Not quite sure what you mean there. If it were up to me, everything would be put up for a public vote. I don't see the reasoning in electing someone to vote for you. Just let me vote on everything, the technology is here, but people are slow to change.