Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Loses Key Engineer to Google
galdur writes "Microsoft Watch reports Marc Lucovsky, one of Microsoft's key Windows architects has defected to Google. His confidence in Microsoft's ability to ship software seems to have waned, too. Some hypothesize Google working on an OS but in the wake of Google's inroads into Ajax tech applications (GMail, Suggest, Maps), I think Google may have other plans for the chief software architect for Microsoft's .Net My Services ("Hailstorm")" CT Many users are reporting 404s on the Microsoft Watch article, but its working fine for others. Hopefully they'll fix their server soon.
It'll be interesting to see if there is any "Restriction of Trade" in the old contract.
And how useful is this Windows architect to Google if it is to come out with anything built by this guy? With the current silly-patent lawsuits happening every day, this might just give MS a bullet. What this guy "thought of" might have already been patented by MS, and in most cases, it doesn't matter if it's right or wrong.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
How many Shadowrunners it took to pull off that one.
You say you want a revolution....
http://mark-lucovsky.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/20 05/02/shipping-software.html
In case of Slashdotting, break mirror.
I'm sure this gentlemen acquired enough ethics at Microsoft, so this will not be an issue.
What keeps me going is my inertia.
Buck Fill...
Man, what'd they use to call it when Microsoft did it to their competitors... There was an actual term associated with it when they'd drive up to their competition in Limo's and try to hire away their best staff for million dollar salaries... (like they did to Borland)
And I end with a quote from Oliver of Bloom County:
"Hackers don't handle obsolescence well."
Saturday, February 12, 2005
.NET framework for a second. Suppose you wrote something innocent like a screen saver, written in C# based on the .NET framework. How would you as an ISV "ship your software"? You can't. Not unless you sign up to ship Microsoft's software as well. You see, the .NET Framework isn't widely deployed. It is present on a small fraction of machines in the world. Microsoft built the software, tested it, released it to manufacturing. They "shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it. If you want to use .NET, you need to ship Microsoft's software for them. Isn't this an odd state of affairs? Microsoft is supposed to be the one that "knows how to ship software", but you are the one doing all the heavy lifting. You are the one that has to ship their software the last mile, install it on end user machines, ensure their machines still work after you perform this platform level surgery.
Shipping Software
A few weeks ago I had lunch with the now famous "Mark Jen". I never knew Mark while we were at Microsoft, even though we both worked in the same group. Funny how large groups at Microsoft can get...
We had a great Google style lunch at a sunny table in Mountain View. I was too dense to notice that Mark was doing research for his blog. One thing he said got me thinking... Something that many have said over the years, that Microsoft "knows how to ship software".
Being a 16 year Microsoft veteran, a Distinguished Engineer, key architect and code writer for windows, architect of the largest source code control and build system ever attempted, I deeply believed that Microsoft knows how to ship software. We know how to build it, test it, localize it, manufacture it, charge lots of $$$ for it, etc.
Mark and I talked about this briefly at lunch that day, and I have been thinking about it from time to time since...
I am not sure I believe anymore, that Microsoft "knows how to ship software". When a Microsoft engineer fixes a minor defect, makes something faster or better, makes an API more functional and complete, how do they "ship" that software to me? I know the answer and so do you... The software sits in a source code control system for a minimum of two years (significantly longer for some of the early Longhorn code). At some point, the product that the fix is a part of will "ship" meaning that CD's will be pressed and delivered to customers and OEM's. In best case scenarios, the software will reach end users a few months after the Release To Manufacturing (RTM) date. In many cases, particularly for users working in large corporations, they won't see the software for a year or more post RTM...
Consider the
When an Amazon engineer fixes a minor defect, makes something faster or better, makes an API more functional and complete, how do they "ship" that software to me? What is the lag time between the engineer completing the work, and the software reaching its intended customers? A good friend of mine investigated a performance problem one morning, he saw an obvious defect and fixed it. His code was trivial, it was tested during the day, and rolled out that evening. By the next morning millions of users had benefited from his work. Not a single customer had to download a bag of bits, answer any silly questions, prove that they are not software thieves, reboot their computers, etc. The software was shipped to them, and they didn't have to lift a finger. Now that's what I call shipping software.
I would argue that Microsoft used to know how to ship software, but the world has changed... The companies that "know how to ship software" are the ones to watch. They have embraced the network, deeply understand the concept of "software as a service", and know how to deliver incredible value to their customers efficiently and quickly.
posted by Mark Lucovsky at 9:38 PM
18 Comments:
thomas woelfer said
I can get to the page without any problem. Perhaps this might work for those who can't http://www.microsoft-watch.com.nyud.net:8090/artic le2/0,1995,1772125,00.asp
That's like asking if it's ethical for there to be more than 1 company on the planet.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
I can't wait to hear all the predictions of how this is the end of Microsoft. Relax folks, a key M$ guy just got a better offer, that's all. If Google does build an operating system, they will have to face the same problem that has held up everyone else: critical mass.
Seems like 20 to life might be appropriate for this bit of malfeasance.
I don't think that the limit is the sky. I think the limit is the fact that Microsoft OS is installed on over 90% of world's desktops.
Even Apple is struggling agains Windows and they already have a superior desktop OS, and penetration in audio/video and design markets.
Heck, look at even Linux. It's free, it's useable, it's secure. And it took Linux a long time to be considered a viable desktop alternative.
I like Google's services, but I don't think they could pull off a profitable OS.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
He wrote the famous memo that claimed 63,000 bugs in Windows 2000 gold. Evidently his discontempt for Microsoft's software practices has been boiling for some time. Hope he does well at Google.
Even the Borg themselves can't keep ahold of their own collective.
All your drones are belong to Google.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
can we please ditch this acronym? it was lame last week when whats-his-name had to write a big article about this cool new technology (which has been around in one form or another since at least 1998), it's still lame now, and it will continue to be lame in the future...
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
So that part is moot.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Windows NT: thank god he's not from the Darkside of the Force...
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
Now google will start crashing too.
Apart from what others have already said, I think you're missing one key question here: why would Google actually *want* to create their own OS? The dot-com bubble days of "we'll do it just because we can" are over; these days, (most) companies will only do things if they reasonably expect to make money with it.
Furthermore, Google's main expertise is in the field of searching, and so far, literally ALL of its products services have been based around that. Where would an operating system fit in there?
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
consider the google portfolio. It's machine-independent (bar a few niggles like the google deskbar, but concentrate on the web stuff). Email? Check. Usenet/web groups? Check. Contacts? Check. Add a basic wordprocessor and a few niceties like calendaring etc and you can give joesixpack@gmail.com just about everything he'd need via a web interface from any PC he sits at.
Web apps are pretty nice these days: use a browser that supports XUL like Firefox and it's not dissimilar to a real, locally installed app. And who's partnering with Firefox....?
Google Chat
Google IM
Google portal
Google hosting
Google Forum's
A Google version of .Net Passport
Google WAP and mobile device services (which would make sense if you take into account the recent push for technology in this area).
They are definately in a position to do such thing's without placing too much effort into other area's of the I.T world. I can not see Google creating an OS, licensing that goes with it, HCL's etc etc.
I think the "Google OS" rumor was started by overzealous Google fanboys. We've heard all sorts of things, from a Google browser to a Google operating system.
They're a search engine company. In fact, their search results have been in the crapper since 2003 when they adjusted their algorithms (some believe it was because they needed to increase the DocID integer size in order to not run out of them).
Google also employs several ex-NSA guys with security clearances. I mean, if we're going to draw conclusions, why not look at Google's privacy policies that state they'll happily turn over anything the government requests on you? Did you know Google sets an IP-tracking cookie that doesn't expire for 30 years? There are bigger things to be talking about regarding Google.
I would argue that Microsoft used to know how to ship software, but the world has changed... The companies that "know how to ship software" are the ones to watch. They have embraced the network, deeply understand the concept of "software as a service", and know how to deliver incredible value to their customers efficiently and quickly.
Now does everyone see the benefit of an OS X update every 1-2 years? "Real artists ship."
If I had to choose between running a current BeOS or ever having sex again, I'd choose BeOS. It was simply astonishing.
But then again, being a geek, any chance of me actually having sex would be next to impossible. So I really wouldn't be giving up much.
Still, BeOS was fantastic.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
The stock Microsoft employment contract has a non-compete clause which, IMO (IANAL) is appropriately scoped. It basically says that you cannot work where your work is likely to overlap with the confiduential information you had access to at Microsoft for a period of a year (and one would assume that trade secret protections last longer than that).
So. Mark can't go and work on a Google OS.
But I doubt that is what Google wants to do anyway. What would they enter a crowded market and compete with all the Linux distros out there? It doesn't really fit with their portfolio.
Instead, I suspect that Mark will be working on new and improved web apps at Google. Great news for Google, and great news for Linux users. But some of the speculation is, I think, overblown.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Let me answer with a question.
Is it ethical to forbid your employees to work for your competitors if they ever leave?
In Mexico there is this case. The largest TV company in the country, Televisa, had this "shunning" clause on the contract, saying that all artist that left the company were forbidden to make TV appearances in competition's broadcasts.
Due to this fear, all the people were "loyal" to the company. They had no choice, it was the only major TV company.
And we ALL know Microsoft is a monopoly. Don't give them more ideas, please.
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office having a temper tantrum.
Wait, don't mod this as 'funny' because I'm completely serious.
From what we know about Sir Bill, he easily loses his temper, especially when someone other than Microsoft is succeeding in the technology marketplace. Google is succeeding at doing many of the things Microsoft wants to be doing right now. Google is taking the 'net to the next level -- they're turning it into a "platform" the way Netscape wanted to. Netscape failed to do this mainly because their engineers got a little too full of themselves a little too quickly, but Google appears to not be making this mistake. They're careful about who they hire and they're careful not to make too much of their own noise -- they just create new technology and let the buzz appear on its own.
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office screaming at his top-level henchmen. He's ordering them to do whatever it takes to kill Google, just as he ordered them to do whatever it takes to kill Netscape back in 1997.
It's going to be an ugly show.
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
Think about it for a minute.
What if google makes a bunch of swell services that are server centric? All computing is made on google servers and the user is just presented with a web interface like for eg. cgiirc.blitzed.org. I think thats whats going on, extending the google concept of clean easy interfaces to other services like IM and stuff.
Things like theese makes it easier to later on make another OS since they pull code away from the client into the servers. I dont think Microsoft likes that, not one tiny bit...expecielly since theyve lost the battle of the web long ago.
HTTP/1.1 400
From the article:
When a Microsoft engineer fixes a minor defect, makes something faster or better, makes an API more functional and complete, how do they "ship" that software to me? I know the answer and so do you... The software sits in a source code control system for a minimum of two years (significantly longer for some of the early Longhorn code). At some point, the product that the fix is a part of will "ship" meaning that CD's will be pressed and delivered to customers and OEM's. In best case scenarios, the software will reach end users a few months after the Release To Manufacturing (RTM) date. In many cases, particularly for users working in large corporations, they won't see the software for a year or more post RTM...
While this is true of major software releases and service packs, it's certainly not true of critical updates, is it? And besides, software on the scale of Longhorn or Office 2006 is vastly different than a point-and-click problem on a web page.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Buried in the comments to Marc's blog entry is this reply from Marcelo Lopez, Jr.:
I've come to believe that the ability to DELIVER software is INVERSELY proportional to the size of the company.
Now I'd rephrase that as proportional to the size of the product, not the company, but this comment is almost exactly on the mark. Windows has become so bloated, so patched, so susceptible to every ailment in the IT world, that it is almost impossible for Microsoft to get new updates to the customers because the amount of QA and UAT needed validate the new releases can delay product releases almost indefinitely. That they can release anything at all due to having to test for every single bug on the planet is amazing in and of itself.
Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
To me, the real OS that is going to replace everything is called the browser, and who better than Google to make that happen?
I mean, what do people actually do with a client PC that you couldn't, in theory, do with a browser and some plug-ins?
You can read news, e-mail, IM, blog, phone, listen to streaming audio and video, look at a recipie database, access an ERP or CRM system, upload the pictures from your digital camera, configure a firewall.
What if Google introduced a GWord that let you do basic word processing and store the documents in your gmail account? And a GSheet? GQuicken? (privacy nuts would freak, of course) GCalendar with a way to sync with a mobile phone? (SMS messages perhaps? Or would your always on 3G phone just access gcalendar.google.com/pda and beep when the alarms are due?)
Google are ideally placed to keep expanding this until Windows, Linux, OSX, etc. become irrelevant except for a handful of specialised tasks. Everything is in a browser; wireless is everywhere; and your computer becomes a phone handset or a TV/PVR or a imac style intelligent screen in it or a tablet or a seat in an internet cafe or a thing between PDA and tablet the size of a thin paperback novel.
I read somewhere something that gave me pause for thought. When electricity was new, companies had electricity departments and electricity managers and chief electricity officers and so on. Nowadays that sounds silly, electricity just works. Won't computing go the same way?
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
So that's the jerk who invented the windows key!
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
What's much more interested is that he was chief engineer on Hailstorm (MS Passport) for the past 5 years. Given Googles service spread and the fact that MS axed the Passport team, its much more likely he moved to Google to continue his vision of a centralized web authentication system.
If I was going to make wild predictions out of this announcement, I'd say Google is going to try a run around the Liberty Alliance and establish themselves as Passport with a more friendly face. Of course, just about everyone was predicting they would start working towards this months ago, so its just reinforcement.
The article severely misquoted his blog:
.NET framework without including it in their installers. "You" does NOT mean "the end user" like mom or pop or kid, as the article editor made it seem.
From the article: "Microsoft is supposed to be the one that 'knows how to ship software,' but you (the end user) are the one doing all the heavy lifting."
A few sentences earlier, he wrote in his blog:
From his blog: "They "shipped it", but it will take years for it to be deployed widely enough for you, the ISV to be able to take advantage of it."
The "you" in that sentence refers to Independent Software Vendors (ISV's) having difficulty taking advantage of the
$8.95/mo web hosting
Right now, Bill Gates is in his office screaming at his top-level henchmen. He's ordering them to do whatever it takes to kill Google, just as he ordered them to do whatever it takes to kill Netscape back in 1997.
Good post, BTW.
As I understand it, MS killed Netscape by giving away IE and bundling IIS with Windows. How could Netscape survive if they had to give away their product for free to compete? They weren't a services company like Google (not mostly, anyway).
Google is different. Google gives all of its products (services) away for free already (not counting its appliances, which are niche products). The end-users get all of Google's services for free. So how can Microsoft kill Google? How can Microsoft take away their revenue stream? Just as MS has critical mass with Windows, Google has critical mass with search and AdWords. How can either overcome the other in their respective areas? (Not that I think Google is going to make an OS; that would make no sense at all to me.)
"Those who consume the bulk of goods are those who make them. We must never forget this secret of our prosperity."
What does Google stand to gain by writing their own OS? Or, more likely, if they are indeed creating a new OS, will it be built heavily off of Linux or BSD?
:-/
Given the low margins, intense competition, high barriers-to-entry (like MSFT's 95% desktop market share), high initial capital investment required (startup costs), and so on, I really don't see a market for a new OS at all. There's no way Google can market a proprietary OS to compete in the server space -- Linux, being free, is dominating there (alongside Win2k/2k3), and will for the foreseeable future. The desktop space is even bleaker, again, due to MSFT's controlling 95% of the market and the massive installed base of users, apps, etc. that goes along with such a large user base.
I truly don't understand the reasoning behind a supposed Google OS... They have made themselves a fantastic info warehouse/data-mining portal for the masses, making knowledge & info formerly only barely-available to wealthy customers available to everyone for nearly-free, leveraging the "market" of links available on trillions of webpages (among other factors in their algorithm, no doubt). But that's a set of services best provided to existing OS's over the Internet - not from a brand-new OS.
Now, if Google is going to make a modified GNU/Linux distribution... that could have some considerable potential, b/c much of the heavy-lifting has already been done and there's a large enough base of users they could cater to... But what would they offer over other Linux distros to make Google's distro stand out? A better file-searching tool, probably, but what else? A replacement for X11/XOrg? Perhaps not, as this is entering ito GUI coding, something they as a company don't do much of - or at least, the GUI stuff they do isn't made public (the desktop search and IE Google bar aside)...
So even on that idea, I'm having a hard time imagining what they have up their sleeve, and therefore, a hard time imagining why they'd bother in the first place.
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
Why not? It's competition. If Alice offers Bob a better deal than Charlie, then why shouldn't Bob leave and take Alice's offer if Bob thinks it suits him better than his current job working for Charlie?
;-)
There's not even a shred of ethical dilemma here.
The simple economic fact is that Microsoft didn't compete hard enough to keep that developer, and now he's gone -- too bad, tough shit to MSFT, and now Google is one (presumably) very-competent architect richer, at the expense of probably six-figures a year in salary and benefits from Google. But Google believes he's worth it, so they're happy; Marc Lucovsky is happier at Google, else he wouldn't have jumped ship, and MSFT - well, who knows whether they care or not.
Perhaps MSFT cares - perhaps they valued Lucovsky enough to keep him at the conditions of his previous employ, but clearly they didn't value him enough to keep him at newer, higher conditions which in Lucovsky's mind beat the conditions of working at Google. And perhaps MSFT doesn't care at all; that they think they can get along just fine without him - we don't know, and probably won't know for a long time, if ever.
In the end, this is a nice example of labor economics benefiting the laborer (Lucovsky), by his playing a game of wage/benefits/happiness shopping, and "buying" the package Google offered while "selling" the package MSFT was providing. Again, there is not even a *shred* of ethical dilemma here...
If I can't convince you on the sheer fundamental economics of the situation (in which case, please try Econ101 sometime), can I at least get you on a "Microsoft is evil, so it's good that quality developers are jumping ship" argument?
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
As for leaving one company to go to a competitor, I see no problem with that. It's not like corporations have loyalty to their employees and guarantee a job until retirement. Why should employees have the loyalty to stay with an employer until the employer decides the employee is no longer wanted? Is someone morally bound to stay with one company that they're not happy at if the only companies who would pay the same or better money for their skill set happen to be competitors?
Now, certainly to give trade secrets from your former employer to your new employer would be unethical and most likely illegal, but an employer can not reasonably claim that all of their employee's knowledge and skills can be classified as trade secrets.
I'd hope the people at Google are smart enough not to hire someone away because they hope to steal some future Microsoft product. But regardless of what you think of Microsoft, you have to admit they employ some smart people, and Google wants smart people. Are they supposed to find smart people with no prior experience in software development and teach them how to program?
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
I know this just barely exceeds your statute of limitations, but how about two:
Sun (Solaris 2.x was their "NT")
Apple (Mac OS X)
This isn't to belittle Microsoft's accomplishment, but to claim they are the only company would be in error, as several OS vendors have had to go through at least one overhaul, and convince their user bases to stick with them through the transition.