I know you hate Microsoft. Now all I want to know is , why ?

Why ? Why is it ? Why do we do it ? Why do we all hate Microsoft ? It's just a very sensible and sincere questions, can somebody answer it genuinely, without terming me as a "Microsoft Evangelist". I mean , what I did was (a.) Raise some doubts about the ability of Microsoft to maintain the lead in an increasing competitive world and (b.) Based on a few observations, stated , in my humble opinion, that Microsoft seems to be a company that's very well aware of the changing dynamics of the marketplace and is working hard towards keeping up with the market. Was anything fundamentally wrong with this observation ? Well, my friend Ramjee thought so. Barely hours after I posted my last blog entry "Microsoft : Will the dominance continue? Yeah baby", Ramjee told me that "That was the most hard-core pro Microsoft stuff I have seen recently." Yeah right. And what do you have to say about the post that I wrote before that ? The one titled "Microsoft : Will the dominance continue?" where I raise doubts about the ability of Microsoft to be the king of the technology world. Did you actually read it ?

Let me take on his points, one-by-one. I post his comments in black followed by my reply in red.

Now I don't contradict what ever you have mentioned over here. It is true. But, then doing many things does not guarantee that it is the right thing that is being done. (Keep that in Mind).

Very well. Doing many things definitely do not guarantee that the right thing is being done. But whn you are spending billions of dollars on 'doing' many things. When you have top researchers from elite universities consulting on each such 'things'. When you have dedicated teams of engineers working on many such 'things', there's a high chance that at least 'some' of these things ought to be right. Right ?

Also one thing that one should understand as a technologist in business is, "Best Technology Does not Win". It is the cardinal rule.

Wow ! You've already assumes that all the technologies being developed at Microsoft are actually the "best technologies". Ahaan, thats a surprise, even for me

ipTV has been on radar of Microsoft ever since I know of them. (late 90's). However they haven't done anything significant to enhance the user experience. Today you have startups like joost, and host of others. M$ does not stand a chance here

So, what other companies you know of, that are selling a better IPTV platform than Microsoft ? "Joost" did you say ? Check it out again. The two are totally different things. Microsoft develops and markets platform technologies that allow telecom players to deploy IPTV services on TV, using their telecom networks. Three players in India are working on it. Airtel - already launched the pilot project in Gurgaon. Reliance - testing IPTV in Uttar Pradesh and Hutch-Vodafone. None of them has yet started the commercial rollouts. If and when the IPTV takes off, Microsoft will be supplying the integration and the deployment solutions for all of these. Secondly, Microsoft is having another technology called "LiveStation". This one is the closest that comes to Joost. If you wanna compare Joost with, compare it with Livestation.

Coming to convergence, where is convergence?? Do you see once device doing all the things that yo u need? That's a big NO!!
you have more and more devices doing more and more things, giving you the ability to interact seamlessly. Is that what you mean by convergence?

Where is convergence ???? Dude, you sure you wanna ask that question ? OK. Let me tell ya. When I use my mobile phone for checking my mails, listening to music, carrying around my data, as a phonebook and to organize my rendezvous , I call it convergence. "Do you see one device doing all the things that you need". No certainly not. My phone still cant wash the dishes, or mop my floor, or cook pasta. Stupid thing it cant even tell me how to propose to a girl. If that's what you mean by "One device doing all the things that you need", then you are right, we are not there yet.

Exactly DEC failed, Microsoft may not face the same fate (they are smart enough), but they are not good enough!

MS has over 90% share in desktop operating systems. If that's not "good enough", I don't know what is !

x-box ok!! was sure beaten by psp-2. Check out the figures for x-box 360. (M$ sells it at a loss). And mind you it is not a hot cake you made it out to be! Nintendo wii has overshadowed any gaming console ever in the history. WII is innovation not x-box 360. Adding more features to an existing mediocre product does not make it better

Firstly, it was NOT beaten up by PSP-2, but by PS-2.
"MS sells it at a loss" ! You have ANY idea how this business works ? OK ! Now, let me educate you on this one. Companies develop consoles which they sell to the customers at a loss. Yes, thats the part of the business. The idea is that discounted price will entice more and more customers into buying the consoles. And once people have the consoles, they WILL buy the game titles. The companies make money on these game titles. That's the business model, dude. Even Playstation is sold for a loss. Check your stats. This is just to say that HP is not doing a good business on printers because every printer that they sell, they sell it at a loss. It's the same thing. HP makes more than it loses out on the printer cartridges. The cartridges make the money. Not the printer. We have a similar situation in Media. where the newspapers are sold at losses. So the Bennett & Coleman company (thats the company behind The Times of India, in case you did not know) loses a good deal on every newspaper copy that's sold. The money flows in through the advertisements. Thats the business model.

And Nintendo surely did a splendid job. I'm myself a fan of Wii and the way its outselling any other gaming console in the history. But whoever says if thats a winner, others can't. The fact remains (and I can support it with data), that X-Box 360 is a commercial success for Microsoft. Although I'm not claiming its the # 1 gaming console.

Coming to execution, VISTA!!!

Agreed.

Yes M$ surface is great. No doubt about that. But how is it going to revolutionize stuff. Wait and watch, there are a few startups in the space which I am sure by end of the year will make surface look like a kiddo.

What startups ? And what are these technologies ? Be specific. List the technologies if you know of them.I liked what I saw.And if there are others doing things better, I would be interested in seeing them as well. Trust me, nobody wants this space to evolve better than me.

M$ was smart and lucky with IBM (read the story about it).

Irrelevant comment. 25 years is a long time. And a company has to have more than "luck" to be at the top for 25 long years.

there are many things that you haven't broached which will make the difference.
1) The world of tomorrow is no longer based on desktops. Its connected world.
2) User power is the name of the game today.

Nobody is doubting that. However, how you concluded Microsoft is not aware of these two factors, when you are, I fail to understand.

In the end, I don't want M$ to go

And that, is the whole point. You don't WANT Microsoft to go. That's it. You have any reason to support that ? I'm not pro-Microsoft or something like that. Give me a valid reason for thrashing Microsoft and watch me at my best. But the reason that "I don't want M$ to go" just doesn't cuts in. No , I refuse to be partial. I need reasons to believe in. I need evidences. Baseless assumptions and views just doesn't makes sense to me.

M$ will not vanish off as many other companies did, but it no longer can sit on the huge cash piles and say, I am the King. It has to slog it out just like any one.

Agreed. Look harder, you can see that happening.


Another of my friend recently attended an Open Source Conference in the city yesterday and on coming back told me how Windows will lose out on market share completely in four years. Wow ! Predictions ! Let me tell you when I first heard this prediction. It was mid-1998. That was about 9 years back. I started reading about Linux and all. And everyone predicted the death of MS in two years flat. Four "two years" have passed since then, and Microsoft still beats Linux base 9 : 1.

I'm all for the open source movement and free software. I personally feel softwares should be available to anybody and everybody. And it should be completely customizable. And the open source community and Linux users do a great job doing all that. And I would expect Microsoft to come up openly in support of the Open Source movement. Although this may seem contradictory in the beginning, a closer look at Microsoft will tell us that Microsoft is actually more pro-open source than some of its contemporaries like Apple. Whereas Apple maintains a tight-lip about the technologies used in their products, Microsoft is very well known to go out and help developers build applications around their platform and products. Microsoft , in this sense, is more pro- Open Source than Apple.

All I want to say is, can we stop thrashing MS and Mr. Gates , without any reason ? Agreed, there are products better than Microsoft's but hey, Microsoft doesn't makes crappy products as well. For, if it's granted that they do, then I must say to continue making crappy products for 25 years and still stay at the top is a real feat and hats off to Bill Gates for fooling us for this long.

Microsoft : Will the dominance continue ? Yeah baby !

My last post raised questions about the ability of Microsoft to sustain its competitive edge. As mentioned earlier, one of the strengths of Microsoft has been to churn out new products. Products that people will like. We are now witnessing an era where convergence of the products and services have reached a point where the boundaries between different engineering functions of technology companies has started to blur. So, we have "Apple Computers" change its name to "Apple Inc." and produce products like iPod , iTV and iPhone.

This shift is desirable in the present scenario. Even unavoidable, if I might say. Innovation has always been the foundation of the business in technology companies. We have seen mammoth corporation fall in the past just because they refused to change with time or underestimated the customer. Remember what happened to Digital Equipment Corporation after the advent of the Personal Computers ? Digital used to make minicomputers and its machines were in huge demand in the 1970s and 1980s. As per Wikipedia "Its PDP and VAX products were arguably the most popular minicomputers for the scientific and engineering communities during the 1970s and 1980s". But how many of us reading this blog have ever heard of a company by that name ?

Digital refused to acknowledge the emergence of the PC. It had a glorified past. One where large industrial and scientific applications were designed to run on the proprietary architecture produced by Digital. Digital products served the needs and served it well for a good number of years. And then, something happened. Apple Computers introduced the first personal computer. They called it "Macintosh". That was in 1984. (Its an amazing video, Steve Jobs unveiling the first Mac. Watch it here ). Soon after IBM followed and produced its first PC. The operating system , was designed by Microsoft, called MS-DOS. And soon after that, Compaq successfully cloned the IBM PC. This was made possible b'coz of IBM's decision to open up the architecture of the PC. Compaq soon rose to heights in no time selling clones of IBM PC. In the meanwhile, Digital was still harvesting (or so it thought) the benefits of its minicomputers, thinking personal computer were too "hobbyist" to pose any serious threat to its business. What happened next was that Digital started losing out on the Compaq and IBM machines. Compaq finally bought Digital in 1998.

The advent of new-age consumer-centric companies point to the increased sense of urgency in the businesses worldwide. Even when the Windows and the Office platform were selling like hot cakes, Microsoft felt the need to come up with an X-Box and a Zune. It faltered in its first attempt at gaming, in X-Box. The competition, Sony's Playstation 2 was a winner then. Microsoft, however was determined to learn its lessons, and redesigned the console. What came out was a pleasant product in the form of X-Box 360. Microsoft, notorious for over-extending deadlines, surprisingly did a good job this time of introducing the product a good six months prior to the competition (Sony's Playstation 3).

Zune, the hardware media player from Microsoft fell flat on its face though. The customers didn't find any compelling reason to 'upgrade' to the new Microsoft offering. Plagued by jerky DRM and half-baked features (read wireless sharing), the offering failed to make an impact. But thats secondary. What's important here is that Microsoft attempted a product in a category that it had no business in previously.

Apart from these, two recent technologies from Microsoft have forced me to rethink about Microsoft as a company. One of them is called Microsoft Surface. Surface (codename : Milan) is developed as a hardware and software combination technology that allows a user, or multiple users, to manipulate digital content by the use of natural motions, hand gestures, or physical objects. Surface is essentially a Windows Vista PC tucked inside a black table base, topped with a 30-inch touchscreen in a clear acrylic frame. Five cameras that can sense nearby objects are mounted beneath the screen. Users can interact with the machine by touching or dragging their fingertips and objects such as paintbrushes across the screen, or by setting real-world items tagged with special barcode labels on top of it.

Surface has been optimized to respond to 52 touches at a time. During a demonstration with a reporter, Mark Bolger, the Surface Computing group's marketing director, "dipped" his finger in an on-screen paint palette, then dragged it across the screen to draw a smiley face. Then he used all 10 fingers at once to give the face a full head of hair.

In addition to recognizing finger movements, Microsoft Surface can also identify physical objects. Microsoft says that when a diner sets down a wine glass, for example, the table can automatically offer additional wine choices tailored to the dinner being eaten.

Surface features multi-touch technology that allows a user to interact with the device at more than one point of contact. For example, using all of their fingers to make a drawing instead of just one. As an extension of this, multiple users can interact with the device at once. The computer's "vision" is created by a near-infrared, 850-nanometer-wavelength LED light source aimed at the surface. When an object touches the tabletop, the light is reflected to multiple infrared cameras with a net resolution of 1280 x 960, allowing it to sense, and react to items touching the tabletop.


Another technology thats come to my notice is "Photosynth". Now this one is completely rocking. I suggest having a look at it before you read up any further. Here's the link.

The program works by analyzing multiple photographs taken of the same area. Each photograph is processed by noting specific features, like the corner of a window frame or a door handle. Photos that share features are then linked together in a web. When the same feature is found in multiple images, its 3D position can be calculated. Photosynth's 3D model is a cloud of points showing where these features are in space. This model enables the program to show a particular area from various angles, based on the different angles found in the photos. While the process works when only two photographs are used, it is better with more.

Think about it. The implications of such a technology can be immense. What if this can be coupled togeather with Google Earth and Microsoft Maps. The results will be wonderful. And needless to say, immensely useful. You can then walk or fly through a scene to see photos from any angle, zoom in or out of a photo , see where pictures were taken in relation to one another and find similar photos to the one you're currently viewing . No surprise I found the video link under the heading "Ridiculously Cool Technology"

Microsoft, once known for being an Operating System company, is trying hard to shed that image. It, however has no intentions to renounce that position. Microsoft is the king of the Operating System and it tends to be at the top in that category for a good number of years. The research going on in Microsoft on the next-gen OS, "Vienna" prove that point. With an entirely new file system in place, Vienna, Microsoft claims, is what can change the way users interact with the computers today. It is said, the physical location of a file will become irrelevant if Microsoft has its way. Good idea, as we don't really give a damn about the physical location of a file anyways. All we want is some information and if this can be classified, without having to worry about its 'geography', well and good.

Microsoft could have easily been a long forgotten company that once supplied IBM with its first ever operating system. But it chose to be different. Churning out products like Windows, Office, Visual Studio made sure Microsoft remains in sight. And now, there is another shift happening in customer preferences. And Microsoft is taking note of it.

Microsoft has enough projects in its kitty to keep the users interested. And users ARE interested. Zune, X Box, Vienna, Surface, Photosynth. Hints galore. Microsoft is here to stay. And stay for long.

For your convenience, the Photosynth video is posted below.

Microsoft - Will the dominance continue ?

"With great power comes great responsibility." No one understand this better than Mr. William H. Gates. Watching Peter Parker think these lines in the closing scene of Spiderman reminded me instantly of Bill Gates. The dude has earned his fortune. And a lot of it. His products are the reason most of the people use computers today. Even for trivial things like watching movies. Or listening to music. "Windows" has acquired a completely new definition. Yes, its still the small opening that offers us glimpses of hitherto unseen 'vistas'. Only, the vistas are composed of "bits" this time. And Windows is capable of a lot more than allowing us to "view" the world.

A lot has changed since Microsoft introduced first Windows in November 1985. Although a GUI, Windows shot to instant stardom with the launch of Windows 95 in, well, 1995. Computer became a lot more easier to use now. It was no longer just for the engineers or the office folks. People started buying computers for their homes. And Bill Gates had everything to do with it. Had it not been for Windows, PCs would not have been so popular and omnipresent as they are today. Yes, GUI did exist before Windows. Apple had it first, but remember, the proprietary nature of Apple as a corporation prevented other clones of the machines, and so, never really got that critical mass.

Windows continued to dominate the world client operating system market for long, and it still does. What with over 90% of all people using the Windows OS. Microsoft always emerged as a smart company. So, although it already had the largest selling software in world history, it was prompt enough to introduce other softwares like the Office suite of products. The world, already familiar with the Microsoft Windows familiar platform, jumped to have another piece of software giving them the same look-n-feel. Perhaps, one of the two great strength of Microsoft is to keep churning out products that people will like and keep updating its existing portfolio with newer releases. OK, I said "two" strengths. So, whats, the second, you ask ? The seconds is the immense amount of support that Microsoft gives to the developers community to develop products on the Windows platform. They know and know this very well, they cannot make every software in the world. So, they invited people to participate and build softwares that others might feel useful. Their Visual Studio suite of development application is an excellent development platform. They also keep releasing the latest APIs of their softwares and holding events that attract fresh developers to the Microsoft platform. From giving free Visual Studio copies to the engineering students, to providing complete source code of some of its web applications (Yes , yes, NOT Windows) to striking an alliance with Novell, the prominent name in the Open Source community, Microsoft does it all and does it right.

So, the latest release form Microsoft is out. They call it "Vista". Microsoft Windows Vista. Beautiful eye-candy, secure and robust. Thats the claim. Well, it had to be. These are the issues reported with any previous release of Windows. This time, they say, its different. Any release HAS to be better than the previous one. Thats for sure. Now the important question is "Is there a compelling need to upgrade to Vista". And the market sentiment says "No". Users can still do without Vista, thats what's out in the open. What with its requirements of 1GB RAM, how many present computers are actually geared to handle the OS ? One of my colleagues narrated an incident. He went to a computer showroom. The guy at the showroom told him that they never demonstrate a new customer a computer running on Vista 'coz its painfully slow and gives a wrong impression on the prospective customer.

So, what went wrong. Well for one, I think, Microsoft did really bad in managing the software development process in the new OS. Under immense pressure of meeting the already-missed deadlines, they put in code that has bloated the software to no limits. Vista could have been a lot leaner. The programmers need to use their creativity. But the market pressure was just too much. Why, I fail to understand. Many complain, it took Microsoft 5 years to come up with an OS. Now why would you need an operating system upgrade every year, I completely fail to understand. Even now, we are claiming we could do for few months without upgrading to Vista.

Microsoft has made a bad image of itself in the past by making softwares that have been, at times, sub-standard. It hung, crashed and lost the important data. The reputation was build mainly 'coz of Windows 98. Even while the following release, Windows XP was better, the image continues. And even as we use Windows, there is an increasing affinity and above that, sympathy for the Linux and the open source movement.

Microsoft now has a challenge to maintain its dominance. And for this to happen it needs to change it image. It needs to become more user-friendly. The software needs to be changed, COMPLETELY. Perhaps with the introduction of its next-gen file-system, WinFS, it will achieve that. The user HAS to be in the center of all activities. And the total cost of ownership of Microsoft products needs to be brought down drastically.

The open source movement is taking more and more people into confidence. Although, its far to think that Linux will take over Windows as the most widely used OS, anytime soon, the shift is clearly visible.

Mr. Gates has ruled the world for long. And if he wants to continue doing so, he better act now.