Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts

October 16, 2018

Paul Allen And Steve Jobs - Both Left Us Early!


Paul Allen, co-founder of Microsoft died yesterday, Oct. 15, 2018.

His untimely death reminded me of Steve Jobs, co-founder of Microsoft who died Oct. 5, 2011.

Allen co-founder Microsoft in 1975 and Jobs co-founded Apple in 1976

Allen was 65 and Jobs was just 56 at time of death.

Both were pioneers in the IT Revolution.

Both died of cancer.

Both dropped out of college.

Both accumulated $20B of wealth in today's money.

Both own(ed) 2 sports teams (Jobs posthumously)

Both were huge philanthropists in terms of what they left the world: money in Allen's case and many innovations in Job's.

Both have been in Time's 100 Most Influential People.

Both died an early death--sadly too young!

(Source Graphic: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

June 14, 2016

The Continued Softening Of Microsoft

Microsoft should not be acting old and grey.

Yet they are throwing away another $26.2 billion dollars in purchasing the relative revenue and profit weakling, LinkedIn, the professional networking social media site (where odds are you have your high-level resume-type information). 

Have you ever paid a dime to LinkedIn or have you ever paid attention to  single advertisement on LinkedIn (I can’t even remember if there is advertising on there—see I pay it zero attention!)?

Unfortunately Microsoft is following suite with it’s worthless purchase of Nokia in September 2013 for $9.4 billion that was all written off and then some with yet another ridiculous, desperate move.

Microsoft has been living off their legacy product suites of Windows, Office, Outlook, and SharePoint for years…and apparently, aside from the regular forced upgrades, they seem to have virtually nothing in the innovation hopper. 

Hence, loser acquisitions of things like Yammer in 2012 for $1.2 billion (anyone use that BS Facebook-like service for inside their organization—work is not social playtime folks!).

Anyway, I like Microsoft products--they are functional, which is what I want from email, creating and editing documents, spreadsheets and slides, as well as sharing files--it's great for bread and butter tasks--nothing sexy.

But every attempt that Microsoft makes in desperation to expand beyond their core competencies comes up soft and a big money loser. 

Innovation and success is not bred by acquiring virtually worthless properties in terms of high-technology with no synergy to who they fundamentally are.  

It is almost heartbreaking to see a once great company like Microsoft continue to drown in its own excess cash and strategically hollow ideas.

Microsoft will only be successful by thinking beyond the boxed in windowed organization that they have imprisoned themselves in. 

I hope they can break a few windows and escape to some new technological thinking again soon--but the big question is whether they currently have the talent to make it so. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 26, 2016

When They Say They Want To Kill You, Do You Think They Might Mean It?

We tried out a new large conservative synagogue in Rockville today. 

And they had an interesting speech this Shabbat by scholar in residence, Tal Becker.

He spoke about how as a Jewish people traumatized post Holocaust, we tend to view threats to us as existential or the possibility of them escalating to that. 

And of course, many of the threats out there are or could be--like the Iranian Ballistic Nukes or terrorism combined with WMD!

But in terms of overall Jewish security, normalcy, and exceptionalism--with two thriving Jewish communities in Israel and in America--we are probably doing better than at any time in recent history. 

It's a paradox, he mentioned, that in America, the Jews are a minority but amidst all the freedom, they may at times feel like a majority, while in Israel, the Jews are a majority, but amidst the dangerous neighborhood they live in, they can feel like a minority. 

Unfortunately, there is still quite a lot of hatred and anti-Semitism out there whether in America or the Middle East. 

Just this week, we saw numerous terror attacks in Israel and Turkey that left several Israelis dead or wounded again. And in America, not only did we have Palestinian protests on college campuses painting Jews as the occupiers and Apartheidists (rather than as the victims of daily Palestinians terror and intransigence toward a two-state solution living side-by-side with Israel in peace), but also Microsoft having to take down their AI Bot after users taught it to spew anti-Semitic remarks like "Jews deserve death" and holocaust-denial posts in social media.

So as wonderful as it is to be Jewish, there is typically not a day that goes by when we are not somehow reminded of those that reject us, hate us, and may want to kill Jews. 

The truth is that Jews (as Mark Twain pointed out)--despite having a pretty large and impressive footprint--are a very small minority of the people out there, and they have endured unbelievably difficult times from slavery to the destruction of the temple and exile (twice), forced conversions, tortured inquisitions, expulsions, pogroms, and genocide...so it is hard not to be a little touchy about people saying or implying that they  don't like you and want to kill you...someone may take that as an existential threat and it wouldn't even have to be a bad day at that. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

February 6, 2016

What does 600613 Spell?

As per my previous blogs on the mystical number 613 (corresponding to the G-d's commandments in the Torah), today we have a technological twist.

Recently, Google paid an award to a former employee of $6,006.13.

The amount is special in two ways as you can see:

First of all, Google saw that, if you look closely, this number spells Google. 

Secondly, it has the number mystical number 613 in it. 

613 is a winner and so is Google, which is now the the most valuable company in the U.S. (worth more than Apple) at $554 billion!

If you use simple Gematria, where each letter is a number (A=1, B=2, C=3...Z=26), then Guess what other successful technology companies has the mystical 613 in their names:















(Also, see which amazing technology company has 613 twice in their name!)

In contrast, some ailing technology companies that do not have 613:

- Yahoo

- Twitter

- LinkedIn

613 is a reminder of G-d's benevolence to mankind in that he G-d us the commandments as a roadmap to live by.  613 is a symbol of faith in G-d almighty and in his holy Torah (Bible). 

For those that keep His charge, we believe that Hashem will bless them and keep them. 

Indeed, technology used for the good of mankind is a blessing to us all.  ;-)

(Source Graphics: Andy and Dossy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

October 24, 2015

Where's The Value?

So I don't know how I feel about this or maybe I do. 

The Wall Street Journal reports today that from the 10 largest companies by market capitalization:

1) The top 3 are technology companies

- Apple $679B
- Alphabet (Google's Parent) $489B
- Microsoft $422B

2) Moreover, a full 5 (half) of the top 10 are technology companies

That includes the 3 above and the other 2 below:

- Facebook $288B
- Amazon $280B

As a technology person, I am thrilled at the impact that IT has on our society. 

We are no longer the same thanks to our Apple iPhones, Google Search, Microsoft's business tools like Outlook, Office and SharePoint, Facebook's social networking, and Amazon's online shopping. 

But to think that these information capabilities outweigh by value everything else in society that we need as people is somewhat astounding.

For example, the other 5 of the top 10 companies are:

- Exxon Mobil (Oil and Gas) $346B 
- Berkshire Hathaway (Insurance, Utilities, Clothing, Building Products, Retail, Flight Services) $340B
- General Electric (Power and Water, Oil and Gas, Energy Management, Aviation, Healthcare, Transportation) $298B
- Wells Fargo (World's Largest Bank) $280B
- Johnson and Johnson (Pharmaceuticals) $278B

So when you add these behemoths up--this is what we have:

The 5 top technology companies are worth $2.158T

Vs.

The top 5 traditional companies from all the other industries combined are worth only $1.542T

Net it out:

The largest representative IT companies are worth $616B or 40% more than the other major companies combined.

(In fact, just the top 3 IT companies at $1.56T are worth more than the top 5 other companies at $1.542T.) 

Sure IT growth has been on a tear for the last couple of decades and we love everything futuristic it brings us. 

But isn't it a little scary to think that the companies that meet all our other needs from food, clothing, shelter, medicine, transportation, energy, finance, retail, etc. isn't worth more to us than just the IT alone. 

Perhaps adding it up from a value perspective just doesn't add up in a real life perspective. 

I love technology and want more and more of it, but man does not live by technology alone. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

March 20, 2015

Death To PowerPoint

Ok, we've all heard of "Death by PowerPoint" (well, I'm advocating death to PowerPoint).

It's the unfortunate occurrence that happens when a speaker presents a wad too many slides (OMG, some people seem to go on and on forever--get them off that podium)!

Or when they present too much information, too little information, or just don't know what or how to present at all. 

Their (slide) presentations leave the audience basically wanting to just kill themselves, if not the inconsiderate S.O.B. speaker.

But aside from lousy speakers, you have a crappy presentation mechanism, which is PowerPoint slides.

Hello out there, tell the truth...

Can any of you remember much of a darn thing that anyone has ever conveyed to you by PowerPoint?

Think of webinars, conferences, and meetings galore with slide after slide of 2-dimensional boredom.

Is your head hurting you yet or are you just glad you can't remember any of it--natural selection of memory saves you the pain...why thank you.

Then consider what someone has told you in great thoughtfulness, confidence, or with genuine passion, caring and sincerity.

- Perhaps, the wisdom of a parent or teacher who took you aside to tell you a life's lesson.

- Or a Rabbi or Priest who shared with you something spiritual and uplifting to guide you on your path.

- How about someone in the office who was passionate about an idea or project and who motivated you as well.

Most of the communication between people that really means something never makes it to a PowerPoint slide.

Imagine for a moment, if something meaningful was conveyed to you by slide presentation--you would think, how ridiculous it is to use PowerPoint for that?

- I love you--will you marry me?

- We're having a baby, how wonderful. 

- Just got that promotion, yes!

- So and so is sick or just passed away, how terrible. 

PowerPoint just doesn't happen here in real life--thank G-d!

And no matter how much organizations such as TED would like to make a (show)business out of presentations using PowerPoint...(ah, nope).

Real communication happens when one person talks from the heart to another person who receives it in their heart. 

The greatest orators in history...never used a slide presentation.

Other presentation products like Prezi tried to take slides to the next level with a storytelling format using a virtual canvas, but that didn't pan out to well either...see many Prezis lately (and without getting dizzy)?

PowerPoint slides, and the like, are for distraction...now I don't have to pay that much attention to the rambling, numbnut speaker anymore.

The bottom line...we don't listen with our eyes!

Rather, we hear words of wisdom and see when someone is genuine, sincere and worth listening to.

The rest is PowerPoint... ;-)

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Chris Pirillo)
Share/Save/Bookmark

December 8, 2014

They Ain't Nothing


So Microsoft has tried to do the copycat thing of the Apple Store. 

See Apple (top photo) streaming with customers trying out their world-class computers and smartphones yesterday. 

See Microsoft (photo underneath) just a few storefronts down in the mall with nice vibrant colors, but just a handful of customers (the non-red shirts) in the entire place.

BTW, I took a look at the iPhone 6 Plus and liked the size (I thought I wouldn't) and ordered one (will be nice I hope to actually see the screen on this thing). 

At the same time, I tried the Microsoft Surface, and my wife says to me can you videotape me showing how long it takes to actually try to figure this thing out--piece of garbage!

It was also confusing why the Microsoft store was selling Dells and other companies computing devices--Ah, maybe because they don't have anything competitive of their own???

Microsoft great try with the overall store (Touche!) but you just don't have the retail products to compete with Apple--and the piles of Xbox in the rear of the store to draw people in--that wasn't working either. 

Microsoft still a winner at enterprise computing, but Apple hands-down has you on personal computing--everyone to their corners. ;-)

(Source Photos: Andy Blumenthal)
Share/Save/Bookmark

September 5, 2013

Microsoft + Nokia = HP + Palm

Microsoft buying Nokia is a desperate play at mobile computing.

Unfortunately, the purchase doesn't add up  in terms of common business sense. 

Remember, in 2010, when HP bought Palm for $1.2B?

Palm once held 70% of the smartphone market to fall to only 4.9% share at the time that HP bought it and committed to "double down on WebOS."

Now, fast forward to 2013 and Microsoft is buying Nokia for $7.2B, with a mobile software market share of about 4% combined (compared to their prior Windows desktop operating system market share of over 90%) and ZDNet reporting that it was "double down or quit."

When HP bought Palm, it was a hardware maker buying software; now with Microsoft buying Nokia, it is the software maker buying the hardware vendor.

But in both cases, it's the same losing proposition. 

In 2010, at the time that HP bought Palm, Stephen Elop was leaving Microsoft to become CEO of Nokia (and in 2011 Nokia made the deal for a "strategic partnership" with Microsoft).

Now in 2013, when Microsoft is buying Nokia, HP has thrown in the towel and just sold off the remnants of Palm O/S to LG Electronics.

Ballmer is right that Apple and Google do not have a permanent monopoly on mobile computing, but purchasing Nokia is not the answer. 

Microsoft's stock is down more than 5% on the day of the merger announcement...and there is more pain to come from this acquisition and Microsoft's hubris. 

Buy more outdated technology, and you've bought nothing, but change the culture to innovate, design, and integrate, and you've changed your organization's fortunes. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)


Share/Save/Bookmark

August 24, 2013

Ballmer Led Microsoft Into The Ground

Steve Ballmer, one of the forefathers of Microsoft (with a career spanning 3 decades there) and its CEO since 2000, is finally retiring.

Well what can we say except, Thank G-d!

The Wall Street Journal reports how the markets cheered yesterday with Microsoft stock rising 7% at his exit and that's with no successor identified.

In other words, better nobody, than Steve Ballmer somebody!

Ballmer managed to take the genius of Gates and a company stock valuation of $603 billion in 2000 and turn it into less than half--$290 billion--by the time he announced he was going.

Not bad destroying over $313 billion of value in a little more than a decade.

Gates was the visionary--the inventor (with the help of Apple) of Windows and Microsoft Office.

He was brilliant and he left us with products that still today dominate desktop computing, which was predominantly what existed up until he handed the reins to Ballmer.

But since 2000--we have smartphones and tablets--bringing Microsofts's share of market to just 15% today.

Ballmer was an operations guy (not what you need in a fast-changing technology market), while Gates was a innovator (who could spearhead the change itself).

Ballmer was the wrong man for the right job.

A technology guru could've taken the lofty perch Microsoft sat on in 2000 and used it as a springboard to the technology stars and beyond, but an operations nerd could only run it into the ground.

Yes, Microsoft is still highly profitable at almost $22 billion last year on sales of $78 billion--nothing to sneeze at--but the problem is they are fighting last decades technology war.

That's why Apple, Google, and Amazon eclipse Microsoft in prestige and excitement, if not all by market share (yet).

In almost 14 years, Ballmer couldn't manage one major fully new product innovation--except Xbox in 2001 (let's cough that one up to Gates), Bing in 2009 (a Google look-alike), and Kinect in 2010 (Ok, maybe one cool thing).

Ballmer couldn't even put in a place a viable succession plan and is leaving the company in a chaotic leadership void for the top spot.

Gates was smart to sell the vast majority of his stake in Microsoft--not because they are not a great company with lots of talented people, but because without a true leader at the helm, they are lost in the vast technology sea of change without direction or innovation of their own.

Ballmer, it was 14 years too long, maybe now there is still hope for Microsoft to rise and be great again. ;-)

(Source Photo: Andy Blumenthal)


Share/Save/Bookmark

July 3, 2012

I'll Take The Stairs

Woke up this morning to the elevator being out of service--again (and this was the sign that was up)!

Thank G-d our automobiles and airplanes aren't as unreliable (generally).

Anyway, I didn't mind walking a little more, and I got a chuckle out of this sign.

Of course, less funny this morning was news of Microsoft's $6.2 billion! dollar writedown on their Internet division.

For a long time, Microsoft has been waiting for the elevator to pick them up and take them to virtual heaven, but instead everyday they try to buy (e.g. aQuantive for $6.3 billion all cash in 2007) their way there, and they end up in a place a lot hotter and nastier.

Microsoft can still make a comeback, but it's past time for them to unleash their creative juices again.

What type of name is Bing (bing-bong) for a search engine, anyway? ;-)

Share/Save/Bookmark

June 15, 2012

Nokia and Microsoft, Desperate Bedfellows

A couple of hours ago, Nokia's debt was downgraded by Moody's to Junk!

Nokia was once the world largest vendor for mobile phones with almost 130,000 employees, but since the iPhone and Android, they have since fallen on hard times--who would've thought?

Just 16 months ago, in February 2011, Nokia announced a strategic partnership with Microsoft to try and stem their losses by adopting Windows Mobile, but this was like a drowning victim grabbing on to whoever is nearby to try and save themselves but only ends up in a double drowning.

No, Microsoft is not drowning exactly, but their stock has been more or less flat from a decade ago and one of the worst large-tech stock performers for the last ten years!

Will the acquisition of Yammer for $1.2 billion this week change this trend--I doubt it. 

Between Yammer for social networking and the acquisition of Skype for video-calling last year (May 2011) for yet another $8.5 billion, Microsoft is trying to fill some of it's big holes in its technology portfolio, just like Nokia was trying to fill it's gaping hole in mobile operating systems by partnering with Microsoft.

Unfortunately both Microsoft and Nokia have essentially missed the boat on the mobile revolution and the sentiment is flat to negative on their long-term prospects.

So the shidduch (match) of Nokia and Microsoft seems like just another case of misery loves company.

Desperation makes for lonely bedfellows, and thus the announcement this week by Nokia that they are going to layoff 10,000 and close 3 plants by end of 2013 was really no surprise. 

Aside from the short-term stock pop from the news of the acquisition, what do you think is going to be in the cards for Microsoft if they don't get their own innovative juices back in flow? 

Can you just acquire innovation or at some point do you need to be that innovative company yourself once again?

Rhetorical question. 

Hopefully for Microsoft they can get their mojo back on--meaning rediscover their own innovative talents from within and not just try to acquire from without.

(Source Photo: here with attribution to Kidmissile)

Share/Save/Bookmark

January 29, 2012

Platforms - Open or Closed

Ever since the battles of Windows versus Linux, there have been two strong competing philosophies on systems architecture.

Many have touted the benefits of open architecture--where system specifications are open to the public to view and to update.  

Open sourced systems provide for the power of crowdsourcing to innovate, add-on, and make the systems better as well as provides less vendor lock-in and lower costs.  

Open Source -----> Innovation, Choice, and Cost-Savings

While Microsoft--with it's Windows and Office products--was long the poster child for closed or proprietary systems and has a history of success with these, they have also come to be viewed, as TechRepublic (July 2011) points out as having an "evil, monopolistic nature."

However, with Apple's rise to the position of the World's most valuable company, closed solutions have made a strong philosophical comeback.

Apple has a closed architecture, where they develop and strictly control the entire ecosystem of their products. 

Closed systems provides for a planned, predictable, and quality-controlled architecture, where the the whole ecosystem--hardware, software and customer experience can be taken into account and controlled in a structured way.  

Closed Systems -----> Planning, Integration, and Quality Control

However, even though has a closed solutions architecture for it's products, Apple does open up development of the Apps to other developers (for use on the iPhone and iPad). This enables Apple to partner with others and win mind share, but still they can retain control of what ends-up getting approved for sale at the App Store. 
I think what Apple has done particularly well then is to balance the use of open and closed systems--by controlling their products and making them great, but also opening up to others to build Apps--now numbering over 500,000--that can leverage their high-performance products.

Additionally, the variety and number of free and 99 cent apps for example, show that even closed systems, by opening up parts of their vertical model to partners, can achieve cost-savings to their customers. 

In short, Apple has found that "sweet spot"--of a hybrid closed-open architecture--where they can design and build quality and highly desirable products, but at the same time, be partners with the larger development community. 

Apple builds a solid and magnificent foundation with their "iProducts," but then they let customers customize them with everything from the "skins" or cases on the outside to the Apps that run on them on the inside. 

Closed-Open Systems -----> Planned, Integrated, and Quality PLUS Innovation, Choice, and Cost-Savings

Closed-Open Systems represent a powerful third model for companies to choose from in developing products, and which benefits include those from both open and closed systems.

Share/Save/Bookmark

December 30, 2011

Are You Thing 1 or 2?

The old Dr Seuss story of The Cat In The Hat had the crazy part when "Thing 1" and "Thing 2" jump out from under The Cat's hat and proceed to make a messy house disaster even worse.

Recently, I saw some people wearing the matching type shirts--you know the ones that that generate attention--bright red, with one shirt saying "Thing 1" and the other person's shirt saying "Thing 2."

It was cute the way the family members were connected through the shirts, and I smiled to myself thinking, like in the children's story, which one is the bigger "trouble-maker" in this family--Thing 1 or 2?

Today, I saw this picture online of these twins, again with these matching type t-shirts, but this time, one said "Ctrl + C" and the other one had written on it "Ctrl + V" -- these are the well-known Microsoft commands for copy and paste.

I guess with twins, the copy-paste imagery makes a lot of sense--copy kid 1, paste, and there you have it, kid 2.

Generally, t-shirts have messages about peace, rock and roll bands, corporate branding, or satire of some sort--I wouldn't say it's exactly a fashion statement, but more of an identity thing--how we choose to brand ourselves in a world of 7 billion people. It's not necessarily about who we are, but more like how we choose to identify ourselves--a meaningful one for example, is for breast cancer awareness.

I remember as a kid, my sister, who was a budding biomedical scientist, bought me t-shirts from a scientific catalogue--so that I was wearing the Periodic Table and Einstein on my chest from very early on in life. While I always did like science too, it was not what I ended up pursuing, but I would still wear these shirts today, because in some ways, I still identify with science and psychology and learning and so on.

These days, if I had to choose some t-shirt themes, I am pretty sure technology and futurism would be in the mix. Then again, my current t-shirts include a hefty mix of Rocky and Everlast--you see identity is a complex subject. Also, a whole bunch came 4 for 10--who can say no to a sale? ;-)

A simple t-shirt, and the messaging can take you from Dr. Seuss to Microsoft, the Periodic Table and to the future (or even to the bargain bin).

What are you wearing--who are you?

(Source Photo: here)

Share/Save/Bookmark

November 13, 2011

Designer Bobigner

In a book review in Fortune Magazine (7 November 2011) of "Steve Jobs: The Biography...His Rivalry With Bill Gates", one of Apple's early employees from the 1980's is quoted as saying "Each one thought he was smarter than the other one, but Steve generally treated Bill as someone who was slightly inferior, especially in matters of taste and style."
While Microsoft seemed to lead for many years especially in terms of "business acumen," in the end, Apple built the "more valuable company"--Jobs was the design extraordinare and his imagination for user-centric product designs like the iPhone, iPad, iMac and more touched people in ways that no "other business leader of our time could possibly match."
I have found that not everyone overtly appreciates the importance of design--and in fact, some people make fun of it, almost like children chanting "designer bobigner"--whether because they value function over design or they simply don't have "taste and style" like Steve Jobs complained about his rival.
In either case, I think people who seem or act oblivious to the importance of design are missing the incredible power of those who can develop products with an eye towards beauty, novelty, and functionality combined. A computer is a magnificent thinking machine, but an Apple is generally a work of art.
Think about how people neurotically cover their Apple devices with all sorts of protective cases as if it were a precious jewel instead of a just a phone or computer.
Art is treated as priceless, but a computer is often just a commodity. However, Steve Jobs knew how to combine the functional power of a computer with the design of a master.
While "Big Box" retailers like Wal-Mart and Costco continue to grow and expand, our world seems smaller because of it--their shelves and aisles are stocked high with rows and rows of commodity, look-a-like goods of toothpaste, sweat pants, and TVs; it is easy to forget that those products that are really valuable to us, usually aren't just good to use, but great to hold, feel, and look at.
In this light, I found two product designs that I thought were pretty cool to share.
The first is the white milk container that says Milk and the other is a box of tea bags, each bag with its own hanger for display and use of the side of a cup. The ideas are so simple, yet somehow so creative and appetizing. Two age-old commodities like milk and tea can be made new and special by how we package and meld with it in our environment.
Like the Chinese concept of feng shui, there are brilliant ways to develop our surroundings that energize and inspire, and great design is a magical element in a commodity world and what was not so long ago dominated by the one color black Ford Model-T.
Thank you Steve Jobs and the many other great design minds out there--keep the special things coming that make us say, "I want one!"
(Source Photos: here)


Share/Save/Bookmark

October 21, 2011

Display It Everywhere

We are getting closer to the day when mobile computing will truly be just a computer interaction anywhere--on any surface or even on no surface.

In this video we see the OmniTouch, developed by Microsoft in conjunction with Carnegie Mellon University, display your computer interface on everyday objects--yourself, a table, wall, and so on.

This takes the Kinect gaming technology to a whole new level in that the OmniTouch doesn't just detect and sense your motions and gestures, but it meshes it with the way people typically interact with computers.

Using a wearable pico projector and a depth camera, the OmniTouch creates a human-computer interface with full QWERTY keyboard and touch pan, zoom, scroll capabilities.

It's amazing to see the person demonstrating the interaction with the computer practically in thin air--oh boy, Minority Report here we come. ;-)

Of course, to become a viable consumer solution, the shoulder-mounted contraption has got to go really small--no bigger than a quarter maybe, and able to be mounted, with processors and connectivity, unobtrusively in clothing, furniture, or right into building construction in your home or office.

At that point, and it hurts to say it given how much I love my iPhone, computers will no longer be device-driven, but rather the application takes center stage.

And the ability to project and click anywhere, anytime helps us reach a new level of mobility and convenience that almost boggles the senses.

Share/Save/Bookmark

March 23, 2011

ZyPAD + iPad = Wow!

This is great--the ZyPAD by Eurotech.

A true wrist-mounted computer.

Rugged, wearable, ergonomic, GPS, bluetooth and Wi-Fi enabled.

Turns off when arm is down and lights up when arm is up.

According to Trendhunter, sales are initially targeting military, law enforcement, emergency services, and healthcare.

I can see this expanding to sales, delivery, production, warehousing, and loads of service-based jobs--such as in "may I take your order please?" or "how would you like to pay for that?"

Runs on Windows CE--ugh!

I'd like to marry up the function and operating system of an iPad with the fit and form of the ZyPAD and then I think we may just have a real winner!

Share/Save/Bookmark

December 17, 2010

What's Next For Microsoft, Google, And The Rest Of The IT Industry?

Published in Government Technology

By Andy Blumenthal

We are living in a material world, and I am a material girl.” — Madonna



For some people, like Madonna, the “material world” represents a society where people must pay to get their way. To me it means the mortal world, where we are born, live, try to thrive and ultimately pass the baton to others. 



Mortality isn’t limited to human beings, but is also a property of organizations. Several articles have appeared about it lately in mainstream and IT publications. Industry analysts are looking to Microsoft and Google and wondering how they, like other technology organizations, will master the competency of, as Computerworld puts it, “Getting to next.”



A curious irony runs throughout these conversations. Microsoft and Google are seemingly on top of their respective games, dominating the market and earning tens of billions in revenue per year. Despite being at the pinnacle of the technology industry, various industry watchers have noticed, they appear unable to see what’s the next rung on their ladder. It’s almost like they’re dumbfounded that nobody has placed it in front of them.



Consider, for example, that Microsoft dominates desktop operating systems, with approximately a 90 percent share of the market, business productivity suites at 80 percent and browser software at 60 percent. Google similarly dominates Internet search at about 64 percent. 


Everyone is asking: Why can’t these companies find their next great act? Microsoft launched the Kin and dropped it after less than two months; Bing has a fraction of Google’s market share in search; and Windows Mobile never became a major player as an operating system. Further, as The Wall Street Journal pointed out, the Xbox video game system, though finally profitable, Microsoft will likely never recoup the initial investment in research and development.



Similarly Google gambled by acquiring the ad network DoubleClick in 2007 for $3.1 billion, YouTube in 2006 for $1.6 billion and the mobile ad platform AdMob in 2009 for $750 million. But so far, as Fortune noted, Google hasn’t seen significant benefit from these purchases in terms of diversifying its revenue stream. “The day is coming when … the activity known as ‘Googling’ no longer will be at the center of our online lives. Then what?” said The Wall Street Journal.



From the perspective of organizational behavior, there’s a natural law at work here that explains why these resource-rich companies, which have the brains and brawn to repeatedly reinvent themselves, are in apparent decline. All organizations, like all people and natural organisms, have a natural life cycle — birth, growth, maturity, decline and death. 



To stay competitive and on top of our game, we constantly must plan our strategy and tactics to move into the future. However, organizations, like people, are mortal. Some challenges are part of life’s natural ups and downs. Others tell us we are in a decline that cannot be reversed. At that point, the organization must make decisions that are consonant with the reality of its situation, salvage what it can and return to the shareholders what it can’t. 



In other words, eventually every organism will cease to exist in its current form. During its life cycle, it can reinvent itself like IBM did in the 1990s. And when reinvention is no longer an option, it goes the way of Polaroid. 



This is similar to technology itself. As a new technology emerges, time and effort is spent further developing it to full capacity. We optimize and integrate it into our lives and fix it when it’s broken. But there comes a time when horses and buggies are no longer needed, and it’s time to face the facts and move on to cars — and one day, who knows, space scooters?



Going back full circle to the human analogy: People can reinvent themselves by going back to school, changing careers, perhaps remarrying and so on. But eventually we all go gray. And that’s fine; that’s the way it should be. Let’s reinvent ourselves while we can. And when we can’t, let’s accept our mortality graciously and be joyful for the great things that we have done.


Share/Save/Bookmark

November 11, 2010

Microsoft’s Three-headed Play

Computerworld, 8 November 2010, has an article called “Ozzie to Microsoft: Simplify, Simplify.” Unless Microsoft can become nimbler and less bureaucratic, they will not be able to keep pace with technology change in the marketplace.

Ray Ozzie, Microsoft’s departing Chief Software Architect (and Bill Gate’s successor since 2006) has prepared a five-year plan for the company that “exhorts the company to push further into the cloud—or perish.” (Hence, a recent Microsoft stock price that is half of what it was more ten years ago!)

According to Ozzie—and I believe most technology architects today would agree—the future of computing is far less about the PC and Windows and much more about mobile devices and services, which are not traditional core competencies of Microsoft.

The new technology landscape is one that is based on:

  • Mobility—access anywhere (smartphones, tablets, and embedded appliances)
  • Pervasiveness—access anytime (24/7, “always on”)
  • Shared services—access that is hosted and shared, rather than device or enterprise-based.

Despite seeing the future, Microsoft is having trouble changing with the times and many are questioning whether they are in a sense a “one pony show” that can no longer keep up with the other technology innovators such as Apple, Google, Amazon, and others that seem to be riding the mobility and cloud wave.

Wes Miller, a technology analyst, states about Microsoft: “My frustration is that it’s a big ship, and the velocity with which the boat is going will make it hard” for them to move from a PC-centric to a cloud-oriented world. “You’re talking about competing with companies that are, if not out-innovating Microsoft, then outpacing them.”

With the deep bench of intellectual talent and investment dollars that Microsoft has, why are they apparently having difficultly adjusting with the changing technology landscape that their own chief architect is jumping up and down screaming to them to confront head-on?

To me, it certainly isn’t ignorance—they have some of the smartest technologists on the planet.

So what is the problem? Denial, complacency, arrogance, obstinance, accountability, leadership, or is it a combination of these coupled with the sheer size (about 89,000 employees) and organizational complexity of Microsoft—that Ozzie and Miller point out—that is hampering their ability to effectively transform themselves.

This certainly wouldn’t be the first time that the small and nimble have outmaneuvered lumbering giants. That’s why according to Fortune Magazine, of Fortune 500 companies, only 62 have appeared on the list every year since 1955, another 1,952 have come and gone. It’s sort of the David vs. Goliath story again and again.

While Microsoft is struggling to keep pace, they are fortunate to have had people like Ray Ozzie pointing them in the right direction, and they have made major inroads with cloud offering for Office365 (Office, Exchange, SharePoint, and Lync—formerly OCS), Windows Azure (service hosting and management), and Hyper V (for server virtualization).

As I see it, Microsoft has 3 choices:

  1. Change leadership—find someone who can help the company adapt to the changing environment
  2. Break up the company into smaller, more nimble units or “sub-brands,” each with the autonomy to compete aggressively in their sphere
  3. Instead of focusing on (the past)—base product enhancements and the “next version,” they need to be thinking completely outside the box. Simply coming out with “Windows 13” is a bit ridiculous as a long-term strategy, as is mimicking competitors’ products and strategies.

As is often the case, this is really isn’t so much a question of the technology, because Microsoft can certainly do technology, but it is whether Microsoft can overcome their cultural challenges and once again innovate and do it quickly like their smaller and more agile rivals.


Share/Save/Bookmark

October 2, 2010

You Can Slow Them Down, But You Can’t Stop Them

What happens when someone does something and you don’t like it—I mean you really don’t like it (and that something is painful—physically, emotionally, or even financially)—you try to get them to stop.

You see it all starts when we are little and growing up and big brother Johnny pulls our hair or takes our toy and we go running to mommy, yelling to make Johnny stop. Mommy comes out standing straight and tall and pointing her sharpened finger at Johnny, and looking Johnny straight in the eyes says stop bothering you’re little sister. Johnny looks down, sulks, and says okay (maybe even expressing a barely audible, and hollow, sorry). But then what happens when mommy leaves the room for a few minutes, Johnny’s at it again.

And that’s what happens when Johnny is doing something wrong…imagine if he believes he is doing the right thing all along, of course, he continues on his merry way doing what he was doing.

Organizations, like people, seek to stop the pain as well and if they can’t compete in the markets, they take it elsewhere.

The Wall Street Journal, 2-3 October 2010, reports “Microsoft Lawsuit Seeks To Slow Google.”

Like Johnny, Google (although technically smaller than Microsoft revenue-wise) is doing something that Microsoft really doesn’t like; Google is walloping Microsoft in smartphones: “Microsoft’s share of the worldwide smartphone market this year is expected to fall to 6.8% from 13% in 2008, while Google is forecast to jump to 16% from less than 1% two years ago, according to IDC.”

Microsoft like the kid, who wants the hair pulling to stop, and they can’t make it stop themselves through a competitive product at this time, is running to “Mommy,” in this case the courts, and seeking relief by suing Motorola, the handset maker for the Android.

As one patent lawyer put it: “My gut feeling is Microsoft is losing the hand-held wars and they’re using their patent portfolio to get some of it back.”

Certainly, Microsoft isn’t alone is using this slowing tactic, for example, recently HP filed to sue Oracle for hiring their ex-CEO Mark Hurd, even though as 24-7 press release notes California tends to favor the free movement of employees and do not enforce non-competition agreements.

While Microsoft believes their new Windows Phone 7 (i.e. the Windows Mobile replacement) is the answer to their smartphone operating system prayers, and will help them to compete against the Google Android (and the Apple iPhone), the market results remain to be seen.

If Microsoft continues with an inferior product, then like a Johnny in the right, Google will continue to go right on beating Microsoft at their own game (unless of course, the courts say otherwise).


Share/Save/Bookmark

August 31, 2010

Watching Me, Watching You

This is not a vendor or product endorsement, but I saw one of these video collaboration devices in action today and wanted to share.

It is a Polycom CX5000 and it does 360 degree panoramic group video conferencing (in conjunction with Microsoft Live Meeting 2007 and Microsoft Office Communications Server 2007).

The head at the top of the Polycom is a series of cameras and mirrors that takes the video and it can automatically change the camera view to whoever is speaking.

The integration of the voice and video in this unified conference station was functional and fun.

Share/Save/Bookmark