Slashdot Mirror
Windows Marketing Executive Doug Miller
Doug Miller is Director of Competitive Strategy in Microsoft's Windows
Server Marketing Group. Doug is responsible for a team within Microsoft
focused on competitive strategy and enterprise interoperability
products. He's been spotted at Linux shows. He uses vi. He was a Unix guy for many years. His previous company, Softway Systems, was acquired by Microsoft in 1999. What are you going to ask him today? Up to you, but one question per post, please. We'll send Doug 10 of the highest-moderated questions and post his answers next week.
Is Microsoft planning on having their own Linux distribution ?
Why is MSFT support SAP (Secure Audio Path)?
What benefit does this tech provide the consumer?
Microsoft representatives are often talking about innovation and it is well known in the developer communities that Microsoft often seeks to "embrace and extend" certain technologies. Examples include Kerberos and Java (although I'm sure there are others.)
Many readers/posters on Slashdot like to joke about this philosophy calling it instead "embrace and extinguish" because it seems that Microsoft, in their "extending" a particular technology, also make it incompatible with the originating technology. This "extending", coupled with Microsofts huge (some would say monopolistic) presence in the marketplace, places the original technology in jeopardy.
In another interoperability area, the SAMBA software suite has encountered more than a bit of difficulty in making it easier for Unix and Unix-like OS's to interoperate with Windows.
My question:
Since your focus at Microsoft seems to be the interoperability of your products with others, could you explain Microsoft's reluctance to "play fair" and adhere to existing standards?
Co-founder and designer at Music Nearby: http://musicnearby.com
Current copyright law has certain interesting provisions. For instance there are statutory exceptions that permit users who have legally obtained software to install and run it, and to back it up, without the necessity of agreeing to a license.
Fair Use provisions both encoded in law by Congress and recognized by the Courts prior to and regardless of Congress' opinion on the matter permit users to buy, sell and trade software as desired, as well as discuss and review it.
Yet programmers are still entitled to copyrights on their software - the copyrights simply don't expand into those areas, not at all.
With this in mind, how do you justify MS's draconian EULAs for single-user software? The laws discussed above negate any need for them to protect either party, after all. Additionally, how do you justify the upcoming licensing scheme that will tie installations closely to hardware, again given that MS would be just as protected under the law if it had no licensing at all. Why is it desirable? If you don't think it's desirable, what specifically are you doing within MS to get rid of these practices?
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I'll put is straight on the line:
Can you ever see Microsoft applications like Office, Visio, and Project being ported to Linux, and why or why not?
FM
Frank W. Miller
With the recent release of MacOS X what are your reactions to it and what plans do you have to compete with a truly user-friendly desktop OS combined with the stability of a UNIX backend?
--neutrino
History has the relation to truth that theology has to religion-i.e. none to speak of. - Lazarus Long
We keep hearing rumours that Microsoft will eventually be coming out with this or that for Linux, but on the flip side, Microsoft PR has some very negative things to say about Linux. What I am wondering, is there any truth to the rumours, and given the recent announcement that Microsoft will be developing a product with Transmeta, will we be seeing Microsoft put a kinder face towards Linux?
You say you want a revolution....
Balmer recently said that Microsoft.NET will interoperate on multiple platforms, including MacOS X and Linux to name a few. How do you suppose that this will be technically possible? Will Microsoft bring Internet Explorer to Linux or will they create Netscape 6 / Mozilla plugins for what will run Microsoft.NET.
Furthermore, how will it be marketed? I have learned that consumers typically do not take well to products that are turned into services. From the consumers standpoint they were able to own Microsoft Office, however with .NET it will follow a service bureau model instead.
Just for kicks I will throw out the 27 million dollar question, what is your opinion concerning the future of Linux in the server / desktop / small devices markets? Do you think that it has been successful, what (of the Linux market) would you improve if you could?
I've often wanted to meet Bill just to ask him this. Does Bill contribute any code to any of Microsoft's products? If yes, how much?
My (small) company creates web-based applications and delivers them as an ASP. We use Linux, Apache, MySQL and Perl or PHP (LAMP), and we're happy with the results. Our software costs approach zero, and we don't have to worry about per-seat or per-server licensing.
On occasion, a feature we need is missing from the LAMP toolset. This feature is available in a Microsoft product, and we think about switching. However, when we look at the economics of the situation, we find a way to work around our "need" for the feature.
I'm no Linux zealot -- I've been in this business for 15 years, and I've used (and been happy with) Microsoft products. But, as a small software shop, the business decision to use LAMP instead of Windows 2000, IIS, SQL Server and ASP seems like a no-brainer.
My question: How does Microsoft compete with LAMP in this kind of environment?
I would strongly suggest people read Microsoft's OEM guidelines before believing this. Slashdot received a submission of this early this morning, and I downloaded and read said guidelines from MS's web site. Microsoft has some suggestions for an "Easy PC", a sort of IMac for the PC world - it should have bright colors, interesting designs, no confusing upgradability, etc. etc. It is clear from reading the specifications that there is no intent for ALL PCs to be "Easy PCs" - this would be just for certain product lines intended for new PC owners.
So, ZDNet is full of shit. At best they are poor readers. At worst they are intentionally confusing these guidelines for the Easy PC with all of the other guidelines (in the same document) for regular desktops, servers, etc., none of which say anything about expansion cards except for notes like "All expansion slots in the system are accessible for users to insert cards" (that's a direct quote from the general system guide, by the way).
There are plenty of things going on in the hardware world that people need to be concerned about. Copy protection is being built in at a very basic level. But in this particular case, ZDNet is entirely wrong.
Microsoft has a reputation for not playing well with others, both for having closed networking/internet protocols and for making incompatible versions of open protocols. Do you think Microsoft deserves this reputation? What is Microsoft's position on open and compatible protocols? What is Microsoft's position on reverse engineering efforts of its closed protocols?
MS is now running commercials stating that the SQL server database "plays nice with others". OTOH MS has no JDBC drivers, UNIX ODBC drivers or any other tool to connect to a SQL server from a unix environment. MS also does not support the Freetds project which attempts this. In fact MS is moving away from TDS which will render this project useless.
What exactly does MS mean by "plays nice with others?". What does "interoperability" mean to you and to MS. Does MS plan on providing JDBC drivers for any of it's databases.
War is necrophilia.
1. What has been the hardest thing for you to deal with from a marketing perspective? The DOJ trial, or something else? What do you think the next difficult thing is that's coming up?
2. Do you view Windows as a competitor to Linux? :)
What are the current, and future opinions at Microsoft about Copy Protection at the hardware level?
:)
If a spec is developed that has TRUE hardware-industry support, would Microsoft utilize it in its software, would it ignore such abilities, or would it give consumers the right to check a box to turn it on or off?
(And if you choose the check option, what would the default be)
Thanks for your time.
GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
Dear Doug, could you clear something up for me once and for all?
9 d. htm
Was the "AARD detection code" bug a true self-modifying virus, intentionally planted by Microsoft? And if not, how did self-modifying, XOR encrypted code get into Windows?
Here's the link to the AARD code:
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/930
Thanks for your reply! Microsoft's years of silence on this have really had me wondering whether MS really unleashed a stealth virus on its users. Please tell us they didn't!
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
Dear Doug,
Much of Microsoft's strategy in the past has involved embracing a standard, and then changing it in such a way that specific interoperabilities (specifically, MS client to non-MS server) are disabled.
Some examples of protocols that have been adapted in this manner are HTML, SSL and Kerberos.
Which protocols, in the future, do you intend to apply this paradigm to?
Thanks for your input!
--
What happens when you outlaw guns
I regularly see published diatribes about the monopolistic attitudes inside Microsoft and the "crush 'em" competitive strategies used by the company to dominate markets (not to mention the DOJ case and subsequent initial ruling...).
Can you give us some insight into how you (personally and as a Microsoft-employeed individual) approach the generation of a competitive strategy when entering a new market? Do you consciously set out to eliminate all competition, or is there a deeper, broader, more long-term strategy at work?
-drin
Anyway, I believe Intel's got parts of their x86 instruction set patented -- if you implement those instructions, you pay Intel.
You are correct that the old license agreement ended last year, and AMD is not currently paying Intel. The problem is: they have not yet negotiated a new agreement:
source
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
When Compaq (later followed by others) loosened the Golden Ring from IBM's grasp by reverse engineering their proprietary bios, the Open Hardware PC platform revolution was ignited. Motherboards, memory, adapter cards, etc... could be made by anybody; hardware innovation increased at a rapid pace, and prices plummeted.
That left only two proprietary pieces atop the Open Hardware PC: the Intel CPU and the Microsoft OS.
Intel's been loosing ground, especially with clone maker AMD (but, AMD still has to pay Intel royalties for every clone processor).
The OS, though, has proven tough to emulate. Not only does it reach the pinnacle of complexity (where chaos kicks in), but any emulator must chase Microsoft's tail: the emulation will be worthless come Microsoft's next OS patch (i.e. the DRDOS settlement).
Ballmer has recently stated that he thinks Linux is Microsoft's biggest potential competitor.
Could Open Source be a revolution similar to the PC Open Hardware
revolution of the early 80's, bringing true competition and innovation to PC software, or is Ballmer's statement just a ruse?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
I would think someone in charge of "interoperability" at Microsoft would be akin to the guy at the NRA whose job it is to promote new gun control legislation.
Software has traditionally been a 1-player game: the "proprietary lock-in" (using proprietary formats, protocols, and standards to assure incompatibility) captures customers in the vendors grasp. It's not just Microsoft's game, the Unix vendors play too (not as well). Once a customer is hooked, they have to stay with that vendor; switching software risks loosing old data, and requires a steep/expensive learning curve. As if once you bought a Ford, you'd always have to buy a Ford (or have to completely relearn how to drive on a totally new road system). Open Source has the promise to allow true competition in software, not allowing any vendors' proprietary protocols, standards, or formats (at least with the foundation of the distribution).
This "interoperability" could be an attempt to show the Justice Department that Microsoft is committed to competition.
Then again, it could a ruse to throw the Justice Department off your trail.
When I think of other "interoperability" attempts at Microsoft (i.e. Posix and Streams compliance), it was really a bait-and-switch tactic: Microsoft produced half-baked software in order to lure unix-based customers with the promise of NT compatibility. Once the customers were committed, they found that the "compatibility" was nonexistent, and they had to hurriedly switch to Microsoft proprietary API's in order to cover their poor decision to switch to Microsoft.
So, are you:
making Microsoft look like it promotes competition, or,
part of the bait-and-switch team?
When I die, please cast my ashes upon Bill Gates -- for once, make him clean up after me!
My question is this: Most Slashdot readers have been around long enough to have witnessed some of what has been referred to as Microsoft's "Embrace and Extinguish" strategy.
With .Net, Microsoft is pushing the idea that Microsoft technologies will play well with others. In the past "interoperability" at Microsoft has seemed to mean, "we'll make our products work with yours just long enough that we can match your featureset then bury you with marketing and add many new features that only work in a homogeneous Microsoft environment."
What about .Net is different in this regard, over the long haul?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Given that Microsoft now supports Win3.1, Win95, Win98, WinNT, Win2000 in its various flavors, WinCE, EmbeddedCE, and probably other OSes I'm not even aware of, how do you intend to differentiate these OSes in a way that doesn't confuse people?
To me it looks like these days Microsoft is doing what Proctor and Gamble has been doing for years - competing with its own brands against its own brands. It's hard not to chuckle when I see an ad comparing Win2k performance to WinNT performance. It's just like those "more whitening power" ads for Tide, but there are actual numbers behind the claims, and they don't make NT look very good at all.
My understanding is that at companies like P&G, separate brands are handled as separate profit centers - small companies inside larger companies, competing against each other. But Tide doesn't have to be interoperable with Clorox - you buy one, or you buy the other.
How do you think MS will deal with this going forward?
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
What are your thoughts about the "Microsoft Breakup Theory?" Is it really going to happen? If so, what will the future look like?
Got Rhinos?
How has Microsoft's marketing strategies evolved over the years? How have the software market, competition, and social trends affected how Windows is packaged, advertised and sold?
Got Rhinos?
William Gates III is, no doubt, the most hated figure among geeks and at the same time can be revered and honored by the press/media for the innovations of the last two decades. While his popularity is dubious or at least dichotomous, his fame and fortune are unquestionable. My question is: What's it like working with the second richest man in the world? What's he like as a person? (man behind the mogul, as it were) Any personal anecdotes that you feel obliged to share? What does Mr. Gates really think of Open Source etc...?
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Hypothetically, if Microsoft was working on it's own version of Linux, how would Microsoft market it to the public?
Would they emphasize compatibility with Windows or would they try to make it stand on it's own merits or what other strategies would be used?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Since the Linux community suffers from poor to no marketing, what advice would you give to the Linux community to improve their marketing? Keep in mind that the Linux community does not have unlimitied marketing funds what would be the most effect ways to market Linux to the public?
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Every OS has a place. I don't dispute that MS wants to be the the popular OS. But why must MS engage in business tactics that do not give the consumer choice?
Since you are the "Server Marketing Guy" at Microsoft, and not the director of corporate strategies, as so many people seem to think, here are a few questions that you might be able to answer. :-)
In what situations have you found that Microsoft Windows NT/2000 servers preform better on similiar hardware than Linux/Unix/BSD systems? What situations do Unix servers work better?
Doh!
I'm still waiting for my "I survived service pack #2" t-shirt. Do you know when they will be shipping?
--Richard
When I see Gates saying "all Microsoft software will be rented in ten years", I see IT managers scheduling exit strategies from Microsoft products. Clearly, a services model benefits Microsoft, but do you really think corporate America will go for it?
The advances that these projects have been making is incredible. And at the same time differences between these projects is amazing. So what is Microsoft's evaluation of the situation. What does Microsoft think of KDE vs GNOME, in terms of the consequences for Microsoft and Linux?
Thanks Doug! Here's to an entertaining answer.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
What's wrong with consistent version scheme?
--
Je t'aime Stéphanie
Well, there's two ways to interpret this "no access" policy.
The first is that it's not a requirement of WinXP per se but is instead a recommendation for builders like Dell and Gateway: that the ideal, low-cost, affordable "WinXP" box should be an all-in-one solution. As has been pointed out, this is probably good news for Dell and Gateway since obsolecence will happen much, much faster.
So it's not so much an ex cathedra pronouncement as it is a goal: make the box in such a way so that the user will get X months out of it and not worry about having to muss and fuss with video cards, sound cards, and nics. (I imagine this is way MS will spin it. They'll say that this "no-access" policy is actually a thing that their basic users have been wanting for a long time: "Hey, all we want is a low-cost computer to browse the web. We don't want to have to worry about added a sound card."
Moreover, the sentence here says that *end-users* won't have access. The alternate way of spinning this is that MS here is trying to throw some business over to those wonderful Best Buy tech wizards. Maybe MS is looking to create a series of "Authorized Service Centers" -- Best Buy, for example -- that can install all the sound-cards that the user wants. But, dammit, if you break this "seal" then you null-and-void your warranty. (Because, as you'll note, there are "no user servicable parts" inside.)
Obviously, this is a way to keep the WinXP experience "pure" -- sorta the same way that Apple tried to keep the "Macintosh" experience pure (at least in the early days) and, say, the way that TIVO attempts to deter folks from tinkering. (Obviously it hasn't worked in the case of Apple or TIVO, but that's never the point with these kinds of corporate dictums.)
THe second -- and certainly more sinister -- view is that this is the first murmur of the "secure box." MS is working on the "secure box" and it could be that their in the beginning stages of "molding the customer experience" away from the do-it-yourself box of today to the "all-in-one" box of the future -- complete with the RIAA, MPAA, and NSA (for crypto) stamps of approval.
I'm *sure* that MS is in fairly intense negotiations with the RIAA and MPAA (and probably the NSA, too) to begin crafting the specs of the secure box that will be most probably be released in 2002/2003. Signed drivers only, no analog outputs, secure video and audio paths.
My theory is that they'll position this as the "consumer box". Windows XP 2002 (or whatever it will be called) will only work on the "secure box". Authorized service centers will appear that will service the box. The "professional box" will be the computer that we're using now, but if you want to run Windows on it, you'll need the "professional" version of Windows XP 2002 which will be prohibitively expensive for the ordinary consumer. (It will probably cost more than the hardware itself and be subject to hefty licensing restrictions. In fact, MS might only offer Windows XP 2002 in some sort of corporate multi-pack. You will not be able to purchase 1 copy of Windows XP 2002 Professional.)
They'll also make sure that whatever new browser they release -- IE 7.0 -- will only run on the customer or pro versions of XP 2002. Users who continue to use Win2000 or WinME will find themselves unable to browse sites "optimized for IE 7.0". (MS will implement some wacky signing/bizarre crypto that forces non-MS browsers to either upgrade to the 'secure path' or stop browsing.)
Now here's the kicker. I'm almost positive this is what will happen within the next 12 months:
Ballmer -- around the time of the XBOX release -- plans to leverage the "complexity" of Linux (a blatant falsehood, but it will be something that we'll hear more of once we start hearing about Windows XP 2002 -- the "Next Generation of Net") and will force ordinary users to choose between the all-in-one MS "secure box" or the more "complex" Linux option. Ballmer won't denigrate Linux, but he'll gradually shift his spin to indicate that, yeah, Linux is an option. It will always be an option. But we at MS have the monopoly on the low-cost, easy-to-use compute r-- our secure PC running XP 2002. Sure, go ahead and get Linux. But why? It's complex, unwiedly, and cannot be easily supported. (Again, all of this isn't true, but this is the direction of future FUD: complexity. There might also be a salvo of FUD -- and this is trickier -- which will focus on the "legality" of the secure PC running XP 2002. Copyright violators will be targetted, and part of the allure of the secure MS pc will be that it will be the "legal" choice. Mom's and Dad's: don't worry that that your kids will get arrested. Get a secure PC and we guarantee that they'll be safe. This will tie into MS's positioning of themselves as a friendlier, "family" option.)
It will be interesting to see how XBOX fits into the scheme here, but my guess will be that somehow it will be the "satellite" PC -- the main PC in the home will be the secure box running XP 2002 with some sort of secure datapath going to and from the XBOX which will -- in two years -- turn into a dumb terminal since most homes will have several XBOXen, all of which will communicate with the secure-box.
What is your take on Microsoft's "corporate culture" versus that of other companies you have worked with? Does it resemble the all powerful Empire of Star Wars that oh-so-many Slashdotters seem to believe in - or is it just another company with all the action items, BS initiatives, and corporate doublespeak that we have all come to know and love? (Note: feel free to present your own alternative answer to the choices - should you feel compelled to do so).
Thanks for your time,
Jay
I love idealists not because I am one, but because they make life bearable for pragmatists such as myself.
How does Wine development fit in with Windows development? Is it seen as a threat or as an advantage?
Now, with Windows and Office XP, it looks as though Microsoft is finally going to make it difficult for the home user to copy the software. Do you really think home user piracy is damaging to Microsofts' business? In reality, it has done more to estabish Microsoft as a standard than it has to reduce revenue. Why the change?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
Microsoft recently announced that .Net would provide support for Linux and Unix servers. How will your group present this given the intergration problems and lack of standard support in the past. (i.e. The non standard use of Kerebose, the lack of W3C conformance in IE, etc.)
Do you feel Windows is becoming more like the Unix world in recent years (in terms of protected memory, process management, etc.), or is the Unix world becoming more like Windows (in terms of usability, graphical interfaces, etc.)?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
We know the spiel with the marketers, but from within Microsoft do the programmers view OSes like Linux and FreeBSD as a bonefide competitor to the Windows platform, or a tool to help improve the platform? Is the GPL'd source code ever looked at and used with some modifications?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Have you ever taken part in a meeting where there has been discusison of *breaking* an interface or an API to reduce interoperability or backwards compatability with other products?
Being in charge of Enterprise Interoperability products you must be aware of the (some say deliberate) incompatibilities that Microsoft introduced into the Kerberos protocol. Why were these changes made and is there any intention of rectifying them at Microsoft?
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
In what ways, if any, has the DOJ anti-trust case affected Microsoft's "competitive strategies", as well as the work towards "interoperability"?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
Those two concepts - interoperability and competitive strategy - seem difficult to conciliate. What can the developers expect to make their work the most interopereable possible ?
Men are born ignorant, not stupid; they are made stupid by education. Bertrand Russel
This is a bunch of meaningless techno babble and doesn't answer the question. The questions should have been much deeper anyways, so I'll rephrase it.
What is .Net from a End User point of view, how is it different for the features Java, Macromedia, and W3C Compliance can offerer developers TODAY, and why whould I can about it as an MacOS X user?
Burn Hollywood Burn
As an example, I'd single out (though it is by no means the only example) Microsoft Outlook. The inclusion of active code (scripts, ActiveX controls) in what was formerly static data (SMTP email) combined with defaulting to the least secure configuration (opening and running emails without user intervention) left the door wide open for the Melissa virus and its desendants. What happened here?
OK,
- B
--
http://www.bradheintz.com/
- updated
Being a Linux user for only a little while I have noticed that it lacks two things: a consistent, easy to use graphical interface, and a powerful, interoperable "Office suite" set of software that is being used in the workplace. What work is being done to port Microsoft Office to Linux/*nix while maintaining cross platform interoperability, since that has been one of Microsoft's most successful software pieces to date?
And now my question:
Mr. Miller, a quick trip to Netcraft's site shows that Microsoft's IIS is struggling for marketshare among web servers. Considering that corporations and businesses are a large source of Microsoft's revenue, I was wondering what Microsoft has in store in the future to help entice more business customers into using Microsoft's own products. I must admit that I'm impressed with Win2K's stability and uptime, but what else does Microsoft have in store for it's users that would justify spending several thousand dollars on a Microsoft based infrastructure as opposed to a quite capable free alternative?
Slashdot: Open Source, Closed Minds.
Doug, I was reading a review of Windows XP today, and came across some interesting information on the new licensing scheme. From what I read, the XP will use the current hardware configuration to generate an id string (I believe they called it a fingerprint), which you then tell Microsoft, over the phone, to get the license key for your machine. In an end-user environment (especially laptops), configurations change constantly, and thus the user would be calling in regularly to get a new key.
At the same time, several OS developers (e.g., Apple, various Linux distributions) are moving in a very different direction by open-sourcing their operating systems.
How do you feel this difference in policy will affect Microsoft in terms of new computer purchases (e.g., choosing a different OS - even a previous version of Windows) and upgrades to existing systems?
Thanks in advance,
Phoenix_SEC