Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Ex-Chief to Launch Web-Based Software
prostoalex writes "Search for Paul Maritz and you're most likely to find Microsoft references. However, next month his new venture, PiCorp will start distributing Web-based software applications that might compete directly with Microsoft offerings. Former Microsoft exec also has an opinion on the future of software industry: '"The strength of the PC is also its weakness," Maritz says. "People don't want a single dedicated computer. They don't want their whole lives bound up in one piece of hardware. People want to get access wherever they are, from whatever device they're using."'"
. . . I might not want my life "bound up" in one piece of hardware, but I sure don't want it depending on paying some "service provider" every month while they share my files with every three letter agency, investigator, advertiser, and anyone else under the sun who will pay, either. I'll stick with open source software running on my desktop for my personal files, thank-you-very-much. If I need to not be "bound up," I'll VNC in over SSH.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
I have only one piece of hardware, you insensitive clod.
I agree with not wanting my data on-line.
But with the price of USB drives so low now, why not just encrypt your important data on one of those? That's what I do.
That way, I have a copy on my home machine and a copy with me if I need it.
This guy have a daughter ?
Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
PI (pronounced "pi," like the number) has 50 employees and is headquartered in Bangalore, India. Its 15 founding executives
15 executives to 50 workers! I wonder how many qualify as managers? 40? I don't expect to see much coming out of this company.
No Windows in the vista. All of those that are going to be sold, have been sold. Microsoft should stick to xBoxes.
This, of course, is why people own iPods, PDAs, cell phones that store dialing lists, etc. They can decide on the type of machine that's best suited to storing particular data.
At least to me, his service doesn't seem like much of an improvement on that. In fact, it seems to do rather the opposite: while I suppose with his service, my data might be spread across a bunch of machines in a web server farm (plus back end servers, etc.) it all looks and acts like it's on one centralized computer.
I have a small number of devices, each with a particular purpose. He probably has more devices, but they all seem to have the same purpose: taking my money, while reducing functionality.
The universe is a figment of its own imagination.
Does anyone actually think the "net cafe" is going to be a mainstay of our society?
I already carry a usb drive on my keyring. So do a lot of other people. My iPod can also store files, etc. Isn't it more plausible that people will soon run virtual machines off their (possibly wireless) portable storage devices?
Needing net to access your files, what a great idea.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Weeeeee!!!!!!!! the wheel goes round and round.
Actually, I like having all of my stuff in one place...
I predict that when they release their "office suite" that it will be exactly the same as Google's offerings. And I predict that credulous reporters will pass on the claim that they have 99% of the core functionality that Office users need, while eliminating all the worthless features.
You know, things like a decent set of formulas in your spreadsheet and style sheets in your word processor.
I find Alexis Smirnov.
What a great opportunity for a "In Soviet Russia..." post.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
People also want security and privacy for their data, two things you put seriously at risk when you entrust your data to others. No thanks.
Read, the article, saw the hype. I hope he succeeds, but he's got a very big uphill battle ahead of him -- the author of that article didnt even visit that issue...
From TFA:
;-)
People don't want a single dedicated computer. They don't want their whole lives bound up in one piece of hardware.
Also, people generally tend not to care about their sensitive data? Web-based software delivers even more ways to hijack it, as not only it is insecure while being transfered between two computers (that is a problem that can be fixed with, say, GPG), but also while being edited. Ok, your may encrypt it, but never the less the crackers will get quite more samples of your encrypted data than they could get if you only sent a single file. Do you really want this?
People want to get access wherever they are, from whatever device they're using.
But keep in mind that it will impact the performance of their main device.
I think we are in one of those major generational changes. And it will be interesting to see how it plays out.
If it doesn't play out the "web-is-our-OS" way, the result will actually be far better for both you and your users. Unless you intended to spy on em.
I don't think he really understands "the battle". A web app can run on any system but being closed-source can hinder the sharing and accessing information if the developer isn't thoughtful. Google seemed to care about the client machine when they ported Picassa to linux http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/26/031022 9 and also managed to aid the open-source community by adding to WINE http://code.google.com/wine.html even when developing their own proprietary software.
The technology might not fly...that is not the point. The most important take is the fact that an ex-M$ guy doing linux work!! He must know something to have a change of heart and part with windows!! That is the point.
My question is, what kind of services qualify for government snooping? Sure, if you use a service that involves storing your files on, say, Google's servers, well then government agencies can just demand that Google provide your info to them. But what if a company just provides a service to connect you to your own storage servers? Would that change things?
We need to undertstand where the boundaries lie on personal property. Take the brick-and-mortar analogy: if you own your home, nobody is supposed to be able to just come in a rifle through your stuff (I think the PATRIOT Act changes that, actually, but be that as it may), whereas if you rent an apartment you have far less protection. Even if you own an apartment inside a building, I doubt you get the same protections as if you own the land as well. The parallels to owning/renting/leasing servers are obvious. Are there any folks out there who know about the legality involved?
So, should we all be running file servers off our home PCs and just using service providers to access our own actual server via whatever device we're using, or is it enough to own one that's running at your web hosting company?
A-Bomb
Normal people don't do weekly off-site backups or verify that the backup media is readable on some other computer. (if you don't do this, quit being so damn smug) Normal people don't do any backups at all.
Normal people buy a new PC when the old one is bogged down with spyware, useless toolbars, and a spamming engine. They buy what is on sale at Walmart. This new PC does not include the user's old data files! The old PC may be kept around for access to these files, which could be printed on the $20 inkjet using $60 ink cartrages.
whole lives bound up
I'd very much more prefer my whole life bound up to pieces of hardware that are mine, than "trusting" it to some company whom I cannot influence, can change policies and terms as they see fit, have usually some obscure and ignorant thinking about "Security" and "privacy" as such, and have no control over, thankyouverymuch. Especially if that company has a leader with such a long term "education" in MS's way to see and do things.
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
From the article:
PI (pronounced "pi," like the number) has 50 employees and is headquartered in Bangalore, India. Its 15 founding executives--whose ranks include nine Microsoft veterans--are strung around the globe, in Dubai; Florence, Italy; Dublin, Ireland; Paris; London; and Montreal.
Cute. Why bother outsourcing, when you can just build the company in India, and make your rich cronies richer, while they live the good live in first-world countries?
For once, I find myself hoping that Microsoft kicks a startup's ass in the marketplace....
Let's try not to let fact interfere with our speculation here, OK?
"People want to get access wherever they are, from whatever device they're using."
He's right, and that's why web based software will continue to fail. You can't use it in places without internet access.
"People want to get access wherever they are, from whatever device they're using."
People don't want to just access information, they want to use it, modify it, create it, etc. The best platform for doing that is the PC. The fact that a web application is running in a browser doesn't make it any less PC-bound.
Sure you can run a browser on a cell phone, but in practice it's not very useful. In fact, the browser is usually the least effective "application" that a cell phone has. The problem is that devices with restricted resources don't work well with generic solutions. An application that must run on a platform with a tiny screen, a limited keyboard, and no mouse should be designed from the ground up specifically for that class of platform.
I don't mind having a "single dedicated computer" or having "my whole life bound up in one piece of hardware" (is he saying that people don't make backups??). Why? Because it's MY machine, under MY control. Nobody else has access to it, nobody else can see anything on it unless I specifically allow them to, and that's the way I like it.
This way, if I forget to pay my internet bill, or my wireless bill, etc., I don't lose my files. They're still on my computer, and I can still use them. All I have to do is be at the machine.
"So after all this, you make my case for me. To end this stalemate, you must die..."
Ex-microsoft lackey who managed to get out before Win ME hit tries to start web-services company.
"Give your information to me" Maritz exclaims "It'll be perfectly safe. All of our servers run Windows Vista, and your documents will be saved in Word!"
The business plan balances on 3 essential features
1: Relying on cheap indian labor to write sloppy code, which is then labeled "Open Source" (Except stuff written by the CEOs, who A: benefit from the company's very nice "Software Royalty Program for all code that is not open source", and B: Prevent OS efforts from actually making use of the OS code to make a competetive business). This open-source code is then bug-fixed for free by the happy Open Source elves, all non-executives are fired/turned into janitors or server maintainers, and the service gets offered for free (Until it gains a market share, when it raises at 10 cents/month^2 until step 3)
2: ???
3: PROFIT!
"People don't want a single dedicated computer. They don't want their whole lives bound up in one piece of hardware.
No, I don't want my information "bound up" in a single, non-networked device. However, this statement shows just how out of touch this guy is. The Net, in it's current form, has been around since the 90s. Non-tech people have been doing remote connections since the mid 80s. Is "I left the data in my work computer" really still a viable excuse? Do computers still exist that can't be remote accessed (excluding systems designed that way for security reasons)? And no, I'm not talking about systems that just need some switch turned on, I mean they completely lack the ability. I ask because that is the only type of system I can think of where your life might be "bound up in one piece of hardware."
One thing I can say, I don't want my whole life bound up in a single dedicated pay service. Not when it's so easy to remote access my own systems or even just take the data with me (via USB drive or some such). Why pay someone else to keep my data for me when I can keep it myself for free? On top of that, I feel much safer securing my own data. I don't want to worry about someone snooping without a warrant.
People want to get access wherever they are, from whatever device they're using."
I already have this ability without this service. Of course, this service will probably sell. I keep seeing ads for a remote access service on TV. It amazes me every time I see it. I think to myself, people really pay for a service that lets your computer do something it could already do? Wow. I wonder if I could sell a service that changes your wallpaper for you once a month? Of course you would have to supply your own wallpaper.
Request a Linux Shockwave player here: http://www.macromedia.com/support/email/wishform/
From the article
the software will let people share and access their information without having to know where a certain e-mail or photo is stored
from that, and from the diagram here I'm guessing that they are developing an API for 'peer to peer' web applications, i.e the applications are distributed over multiple servers and hosting companies but to each other and to the programmer they're part of the same environment.
Also, they seem to depend on search a lot, and want to use it instead of traditional databases. This makes sense since a distributed application wouldn't be written to connect to a hardcoded address but to request some piece of information "wherever it is".
Whether in practice that's a good or bad idea remains to be seen, but it is interesting.
What about putting knoppix on a usb drive along with your data, and when you want to use a machine just reset it, alter its bios options (if necessary) to allow booting from a usb device, plug the bugger in and off you go? If windows is the weak link allowing virii and other nasties to get onto your usb drive, then why not just avoid it? Sure, not every site will allow you to do stuff like that, but if you set your device to read only before plugging it into a windows machine, email any changes you make to your docs there to yourself and update your docs when you're next at a machine you can reboot to knoppix, you should (more or less) be in the clear
Companies tell YOU what you want! ....oh wait, nevermind.
I think this is a fantastic idea, and frankly, I'm surprised there have been so many negative reactions posted so far. There are certainly a few downsides to this approach, but for the most part I think people just have an over-inflated fear that third-parties have the time & desire to snoop through their saved files. Any document of mine that is absolutely unfit for public consumption is encrypted.. and I could care less if anybody wants to look through the rest of my stuff - have fun wasting your time. They're all stored in my gmail account.. have a blast.
Either way, ensuring privacy is a very easy problem to work around. For any documents that contain trade secrets or corporate financial data, it's almost trivial to add a layer of encryption (even at the point of user interaction) to eliminate unauthorized access. If PI is planning to market their services to large corporations, some form of user-controlled encryption will need to be built-in to comply with Sarbanes-Oxely/HIPAA/etc, so I doubt this will even be an issue.
A couple people have pointed out that Internet access is required for this model to work, and that's absolutely correct. Even today, my electricity goes out more than my Internet access does, and when that happens, I just use my cell phone & laptop. I would argue that most of their target customers are already in the same situation I am, and if not, they'll be there in time for the release.
Plan 9 from Bell Labs.
If a facility is useful, a very large proportion of people seem to not give a stuff about security e.g. Outlook.
I use different computers at work, at home on holiday, when I am out and about. They are all different systems and I don't own them myself necessarily. I have a powerful PDA phone but I don't always carry it with me and it has limited capacity anyhow.
The more "devices" that we end up using, the more desirable is will become to be able access one's information without having to be involved in the mechanics of how it moves around. I think so because I appreciate simplicity and I think that other people do too unless they are hooked on "messing around with gadgets."
I find Gmail useful because I can get to all my messages from anywhere and I don't need to stuff my pockets with devices or manage the disc space on them them or find a charger that works in country X or put up with the sometimes rubbishy software.
Gmail is like a worldwide clipboard too - you can be anywhere and put new links, travel details, addresses and phone numbers etc into it (a draft message) and can search through later on to find something - much better than post-it notes.
So - good for Paul Maritz and his efforts. I had better declare 2 reasons for bias, though:
1) He was born in Zimbabwe like me although he was brought up in South Africa.
2) He has flown a Hawker Hunter at Thunder City (a place in Cape Town where you can fly old British combat jets) and in some odd way I admire him for doing what I would like to do. I want to fly in the awesome BAC Lightning, though.
http://www.thundercity.com/tiger_paul.htm
This is all just my personal opinion.
Just curious, is anyone else in the Slashdot community really not that interested in web-based software? I find that pretty much any machine I use "on the go" has MS Office or similar installed, and when I need portability I prefer to just email myself my document(s), which as well as removing the reliance on a third party service I trust less than my mail provider, it also means I have a stored backup online if the worst happens. I really couldn't be less interested in doing office-type editing through my browser - am I alone in this?
Using an application from the web might be ok, as long as the data is processed and stored on my computer Not on the applications site. I'm not that trusting yet. Companies come and go, and there goes your data. Plus they change their terms of use all the time. ATT just changed theirs and now claim they own your personal information.
Looky at the flood of negative comments. In software design don't get prematurely caught up in implementation. Look at the big picture and you can see the future from here on most days.
h tml
Security is just part of the design.
Will they have a place to tie up my donkey when I get to the spaceport?
Let's do the splash screen first!
Besides, this idea has been around for decade.
http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/freeman/lifestreams.
Stop telling me what I want and listen to what I actually want. To the case at hand, actually, I'd much rather have all my data on my PC than somebody elses network.
Do you see what I did there?
Actually, I like having all of my stuff in one place...
Me too, I also like being able to get to it easily. I have a mail archive behind a firewall for stuff I don't need to access often. Current mail is done through my school's IMAP, which also makes archiving as easy as drag and drop. The rest of my PIM stuff has been moving toward my cable box, thanks to KDE's solid sftp PIM hooks.
KDE's awesome Kontact has really presented an easy way to share your stuff with yourself and others. The version currently in Etch atomizes everything, so you can join resources from multiple places coherently. This makes atomizing your own resources much easier. I'm moving to smaller calendars and address books, which are easier to maintain and put on different devices or get via network. Yes, I keep a local copy on my laptop, just in case I don't have a network connection, but the master copy sits on the cable box. This way, all of my machines have the same, up to date information without sync hassles whenever they are on a network, all via ssh. If I want to share with someone else, Kontact will export it's formats or html on demand. If, for some reason, you have something private mark it that way and it won't be exported by accident. It makes me cringe to remember Outlook's horrible old single file for everything format.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The problem is that all it takes is one screw-up, and you're hosed big time (depending on what kinds of data were involved). I hope people really start to think about four key words here: "out of your control". Once you've lost control, you're susceptible to whatever policies, or changes in policy, the company controlling your data wishes to exercise. I'd rather either endure the alleged inconvenience, or run my own server (which probably will not be an option).
If the file is encrypted by me (i.e., user-controlled encryption), then I am in control of the contents. With regard to the file itself- this isn't a discussion about the operational "what-ifs" of running a service like this - it's about the idea. The day-to-day operation of this service will be built to address the concerns that others have mentioned. For example, there will be uptime & data availability SLAs, multiple off-site backups, redundant power, etc.
There is no doubt in my mind that my data would be safer stored with them than it would be stored on my own PC. Sure, I could build out a mini-datacenter with 99.999% uptime, and then build an identical DR site.. but why go through all that trouble?
I find it funny that most people who disagree with this idea are mentioning MS Office. So the single point of failure chosen to store "mission critical" documents is an Internet-connected PC running Windows. I think a few posters in this thread could benefit from a brief overview of risk analysis.
Just out of curiousity - what are your views on safe deposit boxes? Do you trust the bank not to look through your stuff? They obviously have a key (and if they say they don't, why take the risk?). I wonder how that idea ever took off.. I won't even get into public storage rentals..!
Sun's old motto
"The Network IS the computer"
Rick B.
ASP
I want my information easily accessible wherever I am, using whatever app. But that doesn't mean I want web apps.
So really I want universal formats and global easy to use syncing to any device, any os.
None of which we have, simply because business don't like or care about anything but themselves. Which is fine for making money, and some customers happy...it is never going to make everyone happy.
----- I refuse to have an argument with an unarmed person
Just out of curiousity - what are your views on safe deposit boxes?
I don't use one. I am under the impression that banks do (or at least used to) respect the confidentiality of their customers- that's precisely one of the reasons for a safe deposit box. Oddly, most business used to exercise a certain degree of discretion when it came to customer data...but the whole scene is now suffering from a tragedy of the commons - once one company decided it was ok to pimp data associated with their customers, everyone joined in.
This suffers from the same issue that everything else related to technology- if all you have is one single point of failure, and it fails, you are screwed.
I just don't see the point in splitting hairs over where something is stored, when how you store it is the important thing. Always assume that everything you write down or save on a disk is going to be read by everyone. If that's not acceptable, encrypt it. By making an informed decision on which encryption algorithm to use, you can be 100% sure that your saved data will never be read by any civilian (number stations are a good example of this in practice). If the government wants to have a look, it will cost them a substantial amount of time & money, almost certainly several orders of magnitude greater than the actual value of the data.