Slashdot Mirror
Leaked Memo Gives Microsoft New Direction?
daria42 writes "An e-mail memo sent from Microsoft chairman Bill Gates to top execs at Microsoft has been leaked, revealing the executive wants his company to hurriedly change its focus and start to tap online advertising and services as new revenue sources. In the e-mail, Gates cites another, earlier memo, sent from MS exec Ray Ozzie, in which Ozzie also warns MS of the importance of focusing on the online medium. 'It's clear that if we fail to do so, our business as we know it is at risk,' Ozzie wrote. 'We must respond quickly and decisively. We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax, following our pioneering work in OWA (Outlook Web Access),' he continued. 'We knew search would be important, but through Google's focus they've gained a tremendously strong position.'"
Oh, and you, the user, don't get the revenue. That is reserved exclusively to MS. It'll be in the EULA.
That's just what we need: another "me too!" document format. Oh for crying out loud. Windows is fast becoming the toilet with a toaster, cordless drill, leaf blower, and pencil holder built in. It's the Chewbacca Defense of featureware.
Gates, Ballmer, Ozzie, et al: I'm going to give you a hint which will help you. I'm not supposed to do this because I'm a Linux fanatic but I'm going to do it anyway because you seem to be retarded and it makes me feel good inside to help those who are less fortunate than I am. Do you really want to stay in the game? Figure out what your job is, define it, simplify it, and do it well before you try to branch out like some mutating cancerous amoeba. Drop all the featureware that's in your OS and concentrate on simplifying, standardizing, and securing the 600 layers beneath what the users see. There, I've even invented a new 3S meme for your PR campaign--and I claim full IP on it right here on
Young, energetic, and emerging Linux devs would do well to follow the same advice before they take Linux down the same path that MS forged years ago.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Wasn't this supposed to be leaked on Halloween?
Sure, it's great and all, but it'll never change the way the web works. Improve it, yes. Change it? No. You can build as large js-applications as you wish (and yes, spend exponentially as much time debugging them) - you will never escape the fact that you're just building hacks around a stateless technology from pre 90's.
...to finally get MS Office on Linux.
Will this be the next step (after the recent reorg) of the long-awaited breakup of MS into more focused and independent companies?
"Leaked."
investor: "Wow, Microsoft is really going to push that online stuff. Let me call my broker."
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
I find it very hard to believe that anything like this coming from Microsoft is not entirely intentional.
Microsoft is nothing more than a gargantuan marketing machine. This action is no exception.
Bill and friends are too busy running around trying to put out all the fires while they cannot even fix their core product. Bill, clean up your room and then go out and play.
...It must be true. Everyone knows that you can't fake an email.
I think I think, therefore I think I am.
Gates memo warns of 'disruptive' changes
Ina Fried, Special to ZDNet
November 09, 2005
URL: http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/Gates_me mo_warns_of_disruptive_changes/0,2000061733,392214 68,00.htm
Aiming to stir up the same kind of momentum as his Internet Tidal Wave memo of a decade earlier, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates has penned a memo outlining the challenges Microsoft faces from a host of online competitors.
"This coming 'services wave' will be very disruptive," Gates said in an Oct. 30 e-mail to top Microsoft employees. "We have competitors who will seize on these approaches and challenge us."
In the memo, Gates cites an earlier missive from Ray Ozzie, outlining the importance of tapping online advertising and services as new revenue sources.
"It's clear that if we fail to do so, our business as we know it is at risk," Ozzie wrote. "We must respond quickly and decisively."
Ozzie's memo, which was also seen by CNET News.com, includes a laundry list of missed opportunities for the software maker, citing competitive threats from rivals such as Google, Skype, Research In Motion and Adobe.
Ozzie notes areas that Microsoft could have led, such as Web-based applications, but where other companies are instead more heavily focused.
"We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax, following our pioneering work in OWA (Outlook Web Access)," Ozzie wrote. "We knew search would be important, but through Google's focus they've gained a tremendously strong position."
In the memo, Ozzie talks about Google as Microsoft's most prominent of the emerging competitors, but also makes reference to Yahoo and Apple Computer.
"Google is obviously the most visible here, although given the hype level it is difficult to ascertain which of their myriad initiatives are simply adjuncts intended to drive scale for their advertising business, or which might ultimately grow to substantively challenge our offerings," Ozzie wrote. "Although Yahoo also has significant communications assets that combine software and services, they are more of a media company and--with the notable exception of their advertising platform--they seem to be utilising their platform capabilities largely as an internal asset.
"The same is true of Apple, which has done an enviable job integrating hardware, software and services into a seamless experience with dotMac, iPod and iTunes, but seems less focused on enabling developers to build substantial products and businesses," Ozzie wrote in his memo.
He also makes reference to smaller, emerging companies that are developing software and services that use the Internet, rather than Windows, as their base platform.
"Developers needing tools and libraries to do their work just search the Internet, download, develop and integrate, deploy, refine," Ozzie wrote. "Speed, simplicity and loose coupling are paramount."
At the same time, Ozzie sees am opportunity if Microsoft can create a Web-based development platform.
"The work of these startups could be improved with a 'services platform'," Ozzie said. "Ironically, the same things that enable and catalyse rapid innovation can also be constraints to their success. "
Microsoft has talked of a developer platform in conjunction with Windows Live, but the company has offered few details of how third parties will be able to build on top of Microsoft's work.
Microsoft has already reorganised the company and outlined some of its plans, but the two memos make clear the urgency and importance that the company is placing on this effort.
The company announced in September that it was reorganising itself into three units and tapping Ozzie to lead a companywide services push. Last week, Microsoft announced the first fruits of that effort--products called Windows Liv
To us brits AJAX is known for been a cleaning product, to Microsoft it sounds like the next best thing but AJAX (not the cleaner) is already widely used for various things including the MSDN, so why HAS it taken M$ so long to jump on the already rolling bannedwagon?
why?
Unix: Do one thing, and do it well
Mac: Do a few things, but be simple, and secure about it
Windows: Do lots of things, some well, most not, but get them into production fast
Charles Ferguson created the company that produced FrontPage. He sold out to MicroSoft when he realized that Netscape would lose, due to their own faults. He wrote a great book on his story dealing with VCs and selling out to MicroSoft.
5 ,308,p1.html
In the book, he describes how MicroSoft slept through the early 'net, until the Netscape Wunderkind (can't remember his name) said Windows would be reduced to a bunch of buggy device drivers by the web. Then Bill woke up. He writes about it like Sauron has been up in Redmond, sleeping away, until the Netscape guy wakes him up. And then Bill wakes up, like a big pissed off Sauron, turns Ballmer loose so he can get medieval on Netscape and so on.
Charles Ferguson also happens to have a PhD, and has done a lot on high tech competition. Here's something he's written on the topic of Microsoft fighting Google -- for real.
"... But if Microsoft gets serious about search--and there is every reason to believe that it will--Google will need brilliant strategy and flawless execution simply to survive..."
Which is an amazing think to consider.
Here's the article where discusses this:
http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_1406
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Sure thing microsoft has plans to do the same in the web-space, but the competetion is tougher in this case. The coming days are gonna be really very interesting.
They can spend billions of dollars and they will never catch up with Google, because Google has a position that money can't buy. It's not about Building a Better Browser this time - unless Microsoft manages to completely revolutionize search to where, as Eric Schmidt I believe put it, "it knows what you mean". However, Microsoft does have the right idea at least (we'll have to wait and see if they implement it well) with Live, and web-based productivity tools. Everyone has been deriding MS as "behind the curve" on the web-based, or subscription-based software model, claiming that the likes of Google will kill the desktop-oriented software market, and Microsoft with it, but Microsoft is the first to start rolling out prebetas of said software, while most else is just speculation and vapour.
Rex is 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's clear that if we fail to do so, our business as we know it is at risk
This is a seriously ambiguous line. Is he saying that the business is at risk or that the business of being fundamentally a software development company is at risk. I assume he has got to be saying the first because moving into the Google services space is a fundamental shift in the way M$ works. I have wondered from time to time why M$ have decided to go down the services + content route when their core business and money making comes from software development. They could own the software development world but are instead going head to head with massive companies in the content and service space. Odd. Here's to hoping they contiune.
I used to have a better sig but it broke.
Joy. Their "pioneering work" with outlook web access used to get me woken up in the middle of the night at least once a week to play with registry settings when the OWA server forgot how to talk to the mail servers.
Hopefully their foray into online advertising will be just as successful.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Do what you want and do it as well as you can (with a little help from your friends)
init 11 - for when you need that edge.
In a nutshell: "We missed the boat again. Smaller companies are beating us. Let's crush them. Go Microsoft!"
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
When Microsoft decides to kick ass in an area, here's what they do, in a nutshell (according to Charles Ferguson):
In all of Microsoft's successful battles, it has used the same strategies. It undercuts its competitors in pricing, unifies previously separate markets, provides open but proprietary APIs, and bundles new functions into platforms it already dominates. Once it has acquired control over an industry standard, it invades neighboring markets.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
This really is ominous news, as it means that MS is going to release - YET ANOTHER - development platform which will surely have a slick interface that n00bz can pick up and drag'n'drop together some basic apps (but experienced programmers will scoff at) which - of course - will only build apps for MS' proprietary platform ... and of course, the only client which will be able to access this new platform is MSIE7 on Vistahorn...
Nothing to see here people, its just another tactic to lock us in but this time they want to tax us -while- they rape us, rather than just beforehand.
I know its wishful thinking, but I really hope this goes the way of passport and bob...
-GenTimJS
I hope that's the chuckle of sarcasm that I hear.
fast as fast can be. you'll never catch me.
Before they think about playing with ajax they may wish to fix the slow ass script interpreter in IE. Of course they are threatened as these new rich web applications neutralize the platform. This time however there is a new kid (firefox) in town that is gonna be hard to kill off like they did with netscape.
Got Code?
This email is nothing new. All over the years Microsoft has proved having a keen eye of what competitors are doing, not for being progressive. They jump on the fastest train.
Nothing wrong with that, ofcourse. What I think will happen is that while Bill and his fellow Microman are betting on this new horse, Google is already doing something newer. For the users (that's me and you) that only means progression.
Yes, I am the one with the legendary sig.
TFA: '"We should've been leaders with all our web properties in harnessing the potential of Ajax, following our pioneering work in OWA (Outlook Web Access)," Ozzie wrote. "We knew search would be important, but through Google's focus they've gained a tremendously strong position."'
Hmm, something does not add up. I remember several other web-based email interfaces long before Outlook Web Access. I thought pioneering was essentially the early adopter phase, not the second wave.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
I am a ASP.NET Developer, recently we switched to ASP.NET 2.0. While I must say, .NET has some powerful abilities, a great leap in producitivity. Rails, as another long time coworkwer says "makes asp.net look clumbsy to use". We both been programming 12+ years, and more I use rails, more I keep trying asp.net to do it. Oh do I hate DataSets. Its simply TERRIBLE compared to ActiveRecord.
Microsoft fails to realize them naming it asp.net 2.0, I expected a good level of backward compatibility, its simply not the case, the Model is INSANELY different underneath.
Anyways back to the topic of web technology, I would be more warry of rails than google, cause rails is going to cut the life line of asp.net
At last, Microsoft decides to specialize in annoying people as opposed to just dabbling in it as a sideline.
"Microsoft is proposing its own rival to PDF, known as Metro, with Windows Vista, its new operating system that is due out next year."
Perhaps Billy failed to notice this, and I know he personally reads all my posts. The U.S. Federal Court system is accepting electronic delivery of documents. The two formats accepted by the court are WordPerfect and Portable Document Format.
What Billy is ignoring is the reason PDF is so successful as a format--its everywhere and has been for years. So, to try to come in now with a "new" document format, he'll have to surmount the legacy. Of course, he'll try to do this with some variation of the PCDos bug and Microsoft's unique market position. Although, another reason why PDF is so successful is it builds off of the PostScript file format, which oddly enough is owned by the same company as PDF--Adobe. So, what Billy will have to do is defeat PS.
All in all, that ZD article shows how grovelly they are toward Microsoft. There's nothing but positive spin on a leaked memo that itself carries little information of nutritional value.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
This article was written before GMail.
It was written before Google Maps, and more importantly, before Google Maps and Google Local combined.
It was written before Google Movies, and Google Video.
Frankly, I think Microsoft has at least a year of catching up to do, and that is *because* they are Microsoft. Any other company, I would give them at least double that.
That is just to match the technology. Then, they have to get marketshare. Sure, they have a huge channel to shove their stuff down (Windows), but Google is in a far better position than Netscape was in it's day. Netscape was still an app that had to be run. Google is a verb. You never saw the Jennifer Lopez talking about how she "Netscaped It" in Maid in Manhattan.
It is the same reason that Amazon auctions and Yahoo! auctions flounder in obscurity, even though they are cheaper to list on and have basically the exact same feature set as eBay. Ebay has the mindshare. It is featured in Movies and TV constantly. It is a verb. It is so commonplace it will be really a tough nut to crack.
Not to mention Google also has billions in the bank and is raking in revenue, while Netscape was giving away it's key product for free. They are also in a fa rbetter finiancial position to fight than Netscape ever was.
http://www.hypercamp.org/2005/11/09#a43
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
If you have seen QooxDoo then you probably thought the same thing I did when you saw it: "Microsoft should be freaking out about this!" Later when I learned that AJAX comes from discarded Microsoft Technology I realized that Microsoft had pulled a Xerox. Just as Xerox threw away the chance to be the leader of Desktop Software and gave away the GUI and Mouse... Microsoft handed Google a lead. The problem is, this is Microsoft not Xerox we're talking about. Will Google keep that lead?
[signature]
Unfortunately the article doesn't dilate on exactly what Micrososft mean by "This coming 'services wave' will be very disruptive". But broadly it does suggest that a Google/Sun combo or similar outfit offering office apps on a client/server basis would really turn over the applecart, maybe not right now but sometime soon when the technology is robust enough.
...
I guess two other things emerge from the article. First, Microsoft is getting sucked deeper into an impossible dilemma. They know they must become more and more friendly both to developers and to open source. But smooching with open source appears to shaft their lucrative closed-source licensing model. If there is a way out, they don't seem to have figured it yet.
Second, sure, the memo was probably meant to be leaked. Why? Well, it suggests that Microsoft see the next few years as a serious and testing challenge for them. Since about 2000, they've had it easy because nothing fundamental has changed in the industry. But now the plates are shifting
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
MS bashing aside, it kills me that something as vague as AJAX is touted as a specific technology with a birth date. The only thing with a birthdate is the term. Wikipedia says it's when Jesse James Garrett first coined the term, in an article dated 2/18/2005.
Of course Microsoft has a lack of focus. They spend too much time knee-jerking when the stock price of one of their competitors goes ballistic. Over-attention to competition and jumping from one topic to another (.Net, XBox, you name it, flavor du jour) is the best way to drive a company into the ground.
MS needs to get its own house in order and execute first. This fiasco with Vista being the perfect example.
The good news for Microsoft is that it sure looks like Google is losing focus now. Next they will have a disappointing quarter and a stock plunge, and then be like everyone else.
Seriously folks, how is Google competitively threatening Microsoft?
How many people here have written checks to Google that they would have otherwise written to Microsoft?
Put another way, in what product categories could you purchase a Google offering instead of a Microsoft offering? Google doesn't offer an operating system product and doesn't offer an office productivity suite.
Recently, I purchased an Apple PowerBook instead of a Wintel laptop. And recently I purchased an Apple iPod instead of a Microsoft-backed MP3 player. Then and now, Google did not offer any competitive products in either of those categories. In other words, Apple was a competitor to Microsoft for my money, but Google was not.
While it may be true that Google is the most sophisticated billboard company on the planet, selling advertising has never been one of Microsoft's core lines of business. So, even if Google had 100% of the Internet billboard revenues and Microsoft had 0%, how would Google be threatening Microsoft?
There are those who believe that Google will someday undermine Microsoft's operating system and office productivity suite lines of business by offering subscription-based versions of each or even free versions of each. Well, how many people here want to pay subscription fees for software that is currently available in product form? Not many, I'd bet. Especially if using that subscription software also required storing your sensitive data on Google's servers. And as far as free software goes, Linux and OpenOffice are available for free now, yet at least within the U.S. neither is threatening Windows and MS Office today.
And regarding all of this talk about AJAX-based offerings, let's get real folks. Who here would really like to trade in their desktop apps for AJAX-based apps?
In my opinion, Microsoft has a locked in customer base and currently has Google trapped in a browser. As things stand now, Google is not a genuine competitive threat to Microsoft. The only way that Google will be able to become a genuine competitive threat is if Microsoft makes a serious mistake by heading down its proposed path of competing with Google on Google's browser-based terms.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
In the past, Microsoft has been very good at playing catch-up. They have been able to identify an area that the company lacks, and then through a variety of methods such as standardization, guaranteeing interoperability, undercutting, and flat out buying competitors they unify a market and they make a lot of money in the process.
Microsoft in the past, rightly or not, was seen as a great innovator. I can remember in high school listening to a Microsoft employee talk about his job and being amazed about how fun it sounded to work there. Even though they were playing catch up in a lot of what they were doing, they were able to come off to a lot of people as improving whatever they were copying and pushing it in bold new directions.
The problem now is that the perception of Microsoft has shifted to a more accurate one: a company that does not innovate, and "borrows" all of its good ideas rather than pushing the limits. This memo just furthers this idea. Online advertising has been done before, it has failed miserably before (anybody remember the dot com burst?) but now that Google has made a successful business model from it, Microsoft suddenly stands at attention and decides to get into the market.
Right now Microsoft can't even compete with Google in the areas which Google is strong. Even though Microsoft released its "new" search engine, it still only occupies something like 5-10% of users with Google having something like 50%. I realize that Bill Gates desperately wants to kill Google off, because he (rightly) sees the company as a huge threat. The problem is that Google is much better at doing what Google does than Microsoft is.
If Bill Gates wants to kill Google, he's going to have to find a way to leverage what Microsoft is dominant in (oh say... desktop operating systems) against Google. An even better idea would be to start innovating again, bring back the public perception that Microsoft is a leading edge company and start bringing back really smart people back to the company, and start doing something new.
Oh, a lesson in history from Mr. I'm my own grandpa.
If you use ASP.Net 2.0, it can now auto-detect cookies, and if they are not present, it will use a "guid" subdirectory automagically to track session related information, ie.
o fiprp))/mypage.aspx
http://www.mywebsite.com/mypage.aspx
would become:
http://www.mywebsite.com/(X(1)5(bjdc50qkgtz2aez0v
This happens for you automatically, and transparent. Pretty sweet.
Not All Who Wander Are Lost
What you said is true, today. Tomorrow, it won't be. It's a toy? Don't care about the quality of the underlying techonology? If MS works in the "today", they are screwed. They are so huge, it takes them forever to react to what is going on today, let alone see what is going on in the near future. That is why they will fall. They ALL fall eventually.
Right now, there are millions and millions of people who can avoid using computers and the internet because they are scared of them, because they aren't familiar with them. That will change. Do you realize that in 50 (give or take) years there won't be anyone alive in the industrialized world who grew up not knowing about computers and the internet? (I'll be 85 and hopefullly still here) Kids won't know a world where cellphones and the internet didn't exist. Just as I grew up with televisions, but my parents didn't. The way they grew up with automobiles, but their parents didn't. The way they grew up with telephones, but their parents didn't. It is a shift in the mindset of the populace. The true quality of technology will have to improve, because it will be part of everyone's daily lives. Microsoft is short sighted, IMO. They forgot long ago about technology, and are solely concerned about making money. Period. It will be their downfall, because the demands of technology are only going to increase. I just hope I am alive to see it. I'll be the old coot listening to MP3s while everyone else is ... well, listening to whatever will be the hot technology of the day.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
While software with bugs is commonly accepted, I doubt that people will accept Pizza with bugs. Therefore I predict a failure of this service.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Only a monopoly could have this kind of logic..
PDF has become a ubiquitous standard for sharing documents on the Internet.
Conclusion for a normal business:
We better make sure we support PDF as well as possible and make sure our users can take advantage of this defacto standard.
Conclusion for a monopoly:
Some other company has managed to carve out a tiny stronghold in our otherwise impenetrable wall of power. We must use our power to overrun this foreign code with our proprietary replica of their technology.
Is this why they want to buy Claria?
I trust Microsoft to be responsible in their use of advertisements around as much as I trust, say, AOL to.
For that matter, why the Mickey Mouse fuck should a company primarily involved in operating systems, office suites, database systems, and video game systems be investigating advertisement?
I paid (sucker that I am) for Windows. Many times. I paid for Office too. I paid for my Xbox (Well, actually, I traded an old computer for it. I suppose I paid by proxy.). I paid for Microsoft Virtual PC.
Once I paid for these things, I have every reason in the world to expect that these things should not be used to feed me ads.
Then again, look at what happened with cable TV. The whole fucking IDEA of cable TV was that you pay for it and it's not broadcast, so therefore [A] people can say "fuck", "shit", "cock" and "motherfucker" on cable and [B] YOU DON'T HAVE TO SEE ADS ON CABLE.
Well, [B] fell by the wayside pretty damned quick, and from what I've heard, the FCC's been trying very hard to destroy [A].
And people put up with this shit.
Prediction: Microsoft will experiment with offering a low-cost, ad-supported version of Windows. They may opt to make the 'Home' version of their software ad-supported. At first, it may be ridiculously cheap, or maybe even free (perhaps as a limited-time promotion); after a while, though, they'll find sneaky ways to work ads into all but the 'Corporate' editions of their products.
And people will just put up with it.
I wouldn't put that past them, would you?
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Microsoft's innovation isn't necessarily about radical new ideas.
I don't think it means what you think it means...
Dictionary.com:
2 entries found for innovate.
innovate Audio pronunciation of "innovate" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-vt)
v. innovated, innovating, innovates
v. tr.
To begin or introduce (something new) for or as if for the first time.
v. intr.
To begin or introduce something new.
Admittedly, Microsoft is good at throwing a ton of money at ideas that are already taking off and refining them into a marketable product, but they can't redefine common english words no matter how much they spend on PR.
-Ryan C.
Microsoft has always had a hard-on for full desktop control. Their entry into the server market was as much to fight Novell (a cross-platform networking system) as it was to go after Unix. This is evident from the way the screwed over Novell*, as well as the general design of NT-- it essentially emulated Netware's capabilities.
The one single thing in which Microsoft has proven exceptional is controlling the market. From using the market against DR-DOS to bundling IE with MS-Windows 95, to forcing OEMs to bundle MS-Office instead of Wordperfect Office, Microsoft has controlled the market perfectly. At least, as perfectly as anyone can control the market.
These days, Microsoft is fighting not one, not two, but three major battles which they cannot control. First and foremost is Google, which is re-inventing information access by combining world-wide information access with an easy-to-use portal. Second is Apple, with the iPod. As Apple is currently the dominant distributor of on-line media, Apple is in a better position to control DRM. This could prove disasterous for Microsoft, as media distribution is going to be a huge market. Finally, the slow but invevitable move to open document standards is proving hard to manipulate, as it's hard to justify *not* moving to open standards.
As big of a Linux fanatic as I am (and oh, I am), I don't think Linux is a threat per se to Microsoft. I think as Microsoft loses its grip, Linux will be positioned to quickly become the platform of choice; but I do not believe Linux itself capable of toppling the giant. As open standards are adopted, I think Linux will have a better chance of becoming a problem for MS.
Unfortunately, I see Apple's control of the media market to be a potentially bigger issue in the next 5 years.
Anyway, that's why Microsoft is scared of Google. It means they are losing control, and mindshare, and like most bullies, they don't want to stop being the center of attention.
* Funny story. Ever wonder why MS-Windows NT was first released as MS-Windows NT 3.5, instead of NT 1.0 or MS-Windows 4.0? It seems the licensing agreement between Novell and Microsoft allowed Microsoft to ship Netware clients for any MS-Windows 3.x platform. When it came time for Microsoft to ship NT, they needed to have full compatibility with Netware, as that was the dominant networking architecture in most businesses. So, instead of re-negotiating with Novell (Microsoft knew Novell would not be happy about the competition), they simply dubbed their brand-new OS MS-Windows NT 3.5, sidestepping the problem entirely.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.