A Certified Master: Microsoft and MOSS
December 24, 2008
Randy Muller wrote an interesting article about Microsoft’s newest certification track, the Microsoft Certified Master. You can read his story “The New Microsoft Certified Master” here. Mr. Muller noted that the Master program has “generated some confusion about its purpose, scope, and place within the certification hierarchy.” His article’s purpose was to clarify the program. For me the most important comment in the write up was:
The costs of the tests are part of the US $18,000 dollar program fee – but are expensive if you need to retake them.
I know about Jedi knights and black belts in karate, but I don’t know if I would have the desire, stamina, or cash to fork over $18,000 to become a certified master of SharePoint 2007. SharePoint 2007 is a complicated amalgam of functions and in order to deliver a successful hook up of SharePoint and Fast Enterprise Search Platform, I would have to be a heck of a lot more intelligent than I am. With SharePoint a simple challenge can expand to consume considerable time. Toss in Fast ESP and you have an even more daunting task. I would assert that a single Certified Master would not be up to the task. If I step back from a program to create a Certified Master, I am of the opinion that the certification is designed to generate cash and overly confident individuals. When tackling the job of hooking two Microsoft servers together, the task may be impossible. A Certified Master will fail just as surely as my engineers. Try this. Select any three Microsoft server products such as Dynamics, Performance Point, and Exchange plus SharePoint. Now configure these to make their content and services available to a SharePoint user. If you have difficulties getting those graphical reports from each application into SharePoint, you are in my corner of the world. We found that the transport mechanism that works okay is plain vanilla Excel. A lowly spreadsheet becomes the way to display data in a multi server environment, not the servers’ built in graphing functions. Maybe $18,000 includes common sense. Well, maybe not. The Certified Master just spent $18,000.
Stephen Arnold, December 24, 2008
Internet Explorer and European Users at Odds
December 24, 2008
Update: December 25, 2008–You will want to read this useful analysis of Microsoft’s brower market share woes here. Wolfgang Gruener has done a good job in his article “How serious is the market share loss of Microsoft’s Internet Explorer?”
Original Post
PCWorld ran a story called “IE Loses European Market Share” here. Certain types of data interest me, and I fancy statistics that chart the ups and downs of certain software giants. Microsoft is fun to watch. It offers what I call the “ejecting executive game.” The idea is to count the number of executives who leave the company’s search and content processing units. Another interesting activity is watching the company’s share of the Web search market. The Microsoft Web search 8.3 percent market share is documented here. Ouch. I found the data about Internet Explorer’s market share even more interesting; to wit:
Microsoft’s browser dipped under 60% for the first time in August, rallied slightly in September, but then dipped below that bar again during October and November, said XiTi Monitor, a Web measurement site operated by Applied Technologies Internet of Merignac, France.
Why the slip? Internet Explorer lacks those nifty plug ins and the cachet which seems to surround Firefox. I use Firefox portable, and I am delighted with its speed. I find it intuitive. The weird focus changes in Internet Explorer drive me wild with the opportunity to retype certain strings.
Add up the declining share of the Web search market, toss in a few ejected execs, and the loss of Internet Explorer users in Europe. Ask yourself, “What’s this mean?” And let you mind conclude that Microsoft has trouble in the old country.
Stephen Arnold, December 24, 2008
Google and Microsoft: Question about Trust
December 24, 2008
I think you know the answer. The free market generated the current financial environment here in rural Kentucky. You may have a better time of it in your locale, however. When I read “Can Google and Microsoft Be Trusted with the Web?”, I know the answer. I will share it after a couple of comments. You will want to read Mat Asay’s article for CNet news here. The story was pegged by the impact of Chrome on Google’s Mozilla relationship and comments by Silicon Valley luminaries about the growing influence of Google and Microsoft. Mr. Asay also references the special “fast lane” Google allegedly floated to telcos until the Wall Street Journal broke the story. Google responded, “Who me?” Several observations:
- I am not sure Microsoft is carrying the same weight as the GOOG. Dominance of the Web is, in my opinion, Google’s area of expertise. Microsoft is probably flattered by inclusion, but I think its role is somewhat less than Google’s.
- What’s with the sudden concern? The GOOG has been plodding along for a decade and now people are concerned. Too late, in my opinion.
- Trust? Now I am not sure I trust anyone to manage the Web. I am confident that Google will make an effort to become the Web. Whatever falls within its grasp, it will use to its benefit. Not much of a surprise there in my opinion.
So, the answer to this question, Can Google and Microsoft Be Trusted with the Web?”, is “No.” A better question is, “What will Web users do about the situation?” I have no answer to this question. My instinct is that denial and procrastination may be useful tools. What’s your take? Here’s the Washington Post’s angle?
Stephen Arnold, December 24, 2008
Price Pressure on Search Vendors
December 23, 2008
The PC World story “Enterprise Software in 2009: Opportunities, Risks” is interesting. The thrust of the story is that the lousy economy means that organizations can wheel and deal for discounts. You can read the article here. If the Yahoo version of the story 404s, you can try the PC World Web site, but it too can be hit and miss. In general, I agree with this write up. The core of the argument pivots on SAP’s price flexibility. For me, the most important comment in the story was:
In addition, a company’s end users may not be as busy as usual, potentially making it easier to push through IT changes..
Now this remark suggested to me that in a downturn, employees have more free time. I thought that in a downturn, employees would have to work harder. Maslow and self interest kick in, not the desire to buy enterprise software and change business procedures. But if this statement is true, what will the company be doing to generate revenue while employees procure software? Buying cheap enterprise software generates revenue for vendors and increased costs for customers. In my opinion, enterprise software sales will slow, and I don’t think employees will be inclined to change. Employees will be inclined to look after their own interests which means that enterprise software vendors may face price inelasticity. Bad news will persist as customers and vendors create a feedback loop. What goes up is not sales. The higher frequency generated is the pain of imploding business models.
Stephen Arnold, December 23, 2008
Google Auto Analogy Is a Flat Tire
December 23, 2008
Larry Dignan wrote “Google, Microsoft, Yahoo as Ford, GM, and Chrysler here. I like the notion of comparing floundering software companies to the giants of the US auto industry. Read the article and judge for yourself. I think equating Google with Ford is just plain wrong. Ask.com would fit. Google occupies a different sector in the business world. Google is not a Lexus or a Rolls Royce. These are autos and Google’s similarity to the beleaguered auto industry does not work for me. Google is closer to the young AT&T just as the company was building out its monopoly. Google’s growth continues; for example, in the face of a sharp downturn, Google expanded its lead in Web search. The company continues to nudge forward in the enterprise. Mr. Dignan relies on Bernstein analyst Jeffrey Lindsay for this argument. Mr. Lindsay can offer some useful insights but in this metaphor, he is off base.
Stephen Arnold, December 23, 2008
Google: Stomping Blinkx, Microsoft, Yahoo–Everybody
December 23, 2008
I am not a video centric person. But I have examined data that suggest in two or three years, rich media will be an increasingly big chunk of an organization’s data. I like to read; 15 year olds watch videos. The TechCrunch article here should make the blood run cold in quite a few search companies. Erick Schonfeld’s “YouTube Now 25 Percent of All Google Searches” means one thing–the Google is extending its lead in search. For me, the point of these data is not that the numbers are necessarily spot on. Stats never are when someone is tracking Internet traffic. The point is that users are becoming habituated to Googzilla. Well meaning but uninformed people who don’t look beyond the baloney generated by azure chip consultants miss the delayed impact of habits in online access. Once these habits are formed, competitors have to work overtime to change them. With Google’s dominance in search, why is it so difficult for folks to consider the implications of Google centric behavior in organizations? I figured it out a couple of years ago. The YouTube search data underscore the pay forward advantage the GOOG has in place.
Stephen Arnold, December 22, 2008
Microsoft in a Fog
December 23, 2008
TechRadar has an interesting write up about Microsoft here. “Has Microsoft Lost It? Rejected by Yahoo, Outgunned by Apple, It’s Fighting for It’s Survival” is required reading for anyone who wants to understand Microsoft’s challenges in search. If you have broader interests than I, you will find the article quite instructive as well. The article is in five parts. For me, the most significant comment was:
Google’s sheer dominance of the search market makes it a hard company to beat – a position that, rather ironically, Microsoft has been in once or twice over the years. As Microsoft’s rivals know all too well, it’s not enough to build a better mousetrap; you also need to persuade huge numbers of people to use it.
For Microsoft to make progress in Web search, the company has to leapfrog over Google. For Microsoft to prevent Google from dominating the enterprise the way it has Web search, Microsoft needs more than home grown me-too innovations, the tired Powerset technology, and the problem-riddled Fast Search & Transfer operation. Paying $1.2 billion for a company whose principal contribution has been a police raid and unwelcome publicity about alleged malfeasance is not going to hobble the GOOG. This is more akin to shooting oneself in the thigh in a New York night club.
What is the path forward for Microsoft? Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/26/52270496_89c54f5d98.jpg
The TechRadar analysis tails slightly from page 4 to the conclusion on page 5. But overall, I found a number of useful and interesting ideas to consider. Do I agree with the note of optimism that threads through the write up. No. I think the situation is worsening, and the potential for a customer push back is rising. Nothing brings out the legal eagles like an economic downturn and software that drops cost increases like water balloons from a freshman’s dorm.
Stephen Arnold, December 23, 2008
Genentech Goes Google
December 23, 2008
The public relations machine–after a decade of floundering–seems to be cooperating with some journalists. You can read Genentech’s rave review of things Google here. I won’t be quoting from this article. My goosey eyes picked out the Associated Press identifier. The story–written by Michael Liedtke–is pretty good. For me, the most significant comment in the long write up is this killer point:
The economics appealed to Genentech. Based on the number of Genentech employees granted Google software accounts, the South San Francisco-based company is paying at least $800,000 per year for the online package.
In my opinion, as the economy worsens, Google’s happy customers will be explaining the advantages of shifting from incumbent on premises software to Googzilla’s in the cloud offerings. I will be watching for the Microsoft public relations Hummer to shift into gear. If the article were from an outfit other than the Associated Press, I would download and keep it, borrowing the data Mr. Liedtke gather for his story. But because the AP would cook this goose, I just read it. One day soon the AP will be a memory. Maybe I will be able to find the story on the Wayback Machine?
Stephen Arnold, December 23, 2008
Google Can Do Big, Just Not Small
December 22, 2008
eWeek’s Google Watch ran “Google, T-Mobile and the Android G2 Conspiracy” here. I pay some attention to Google’s mobile phone activities because mobile devices make entrances and exits in Google’s patent documents. The mobile search world is getting bigger, and I want to know how the GOOG will make search more automatic for old geese like me. I read the article by Clint Boulton, and I found it interesting. Mr. Boulton’s focus is the forthcoming–or alleged début–of another Google phone. The new one is cleverly named the G2. Mr. Boulton is skeptical about the G2, and I agree with him. However, his write up has sparked some comments from other Google pundits, and I found the “Santa Brought Googlers Unlocked G-1 Phones” interesting because carriers want lock in. You can read this item here. From my point of view, there is nothing very surprising to me with Google’s pushing button A and then pushing button B. Google finds useful information in reactions to distributed, loosely connected events. Google sees the big picture. Folks like T-Mobile and Google pundits have to put the pieces together. What’s Google doing with unlocked G1s and alleged G2s? The answer in my opinion is, “Learning.” Handsets are not what Google does well. Handsets are small and more like doorways to what Google does really well: big, cloud based services. Next Android will get tweaked. Then we will see some more API action. What’s next? More Google Lego blocks for competitors, journalists, and azure chip consultants to try and assemble.
Stephen Arnold, December 22, 2008
Newspapers and Doom
December 22, 2008
You fans of dead tree companies will want to read James Surowiecki’s “News You Can Lose” in the New Yorker. You can find the digital version of the story here. To cut to the chase, for me the most telling comment Mr. Surowiecki made in this article was:
The difference is that today they don’t have to pay for it. The real problem for newspapers, in other words, isn’t the Internet; it’s us…. Does that mean newspapers are doomed? Not necessarily.
This goose doesn’t the mental equipment to dispute Mr. Surowiecki’s argument. True, I worked for a newspaper with a profitable electronic unit, but the paper self destructed and sold me like a box of Wheaties to a rust belt outfit. That team of management wizards spurred me to jump to Ziff Communications, a more enlightened information operation. But that too was broken up and sold off. I managed to weasel a consulting contract, and I have been a rental goose for almost 20 years. A happy rental goose, I might add.
The business undertaker is ready for the next dead tree outfit to take up residence. Will it be a newspaper like the Detroit Free Press or will it be a little guy like the local penny shopper. What about a small, over leveraged specialty publisher? Maybe a big New York book publisher? What about a magazine like Newsweek? Any nominees? Are there enough readers to support both Harper’s and The Atlantic? Interesting questions this silly goose opines.
I understand what Mr. Surowiecki has asserted. However, he does write this article for a dead tree outfit. He makes money by selling books published by another dead tree outfit. He has his roots (no pun intended) in the dead tree information sector. So, his “not necessarily” is a very gentle way to suggest that doom has not blanketed every nook and cranny of the dead tree publishing world.
But to be candid, I read “not necessarily” as a way of emphasizing a photon of hope. I would have concluded his article with this statement, “Hasta la vista, baby.”
Stephen Arnold, December 22, 2008
-
- Subscribe to Beyond Search
Feature archive
News archive
-
