Slashdot Mirror
MS Says All Sidekick Data Recovered, But Damage Done
nandemoari writes "T-Mobile is taking a huge financial hit in the fallout over the Sidekick data loss. But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation. As reported earlier this week, the phone network had to admit that some users' data had been permanently lost due to a problem with a server run by Microsoft-owned company Danger. The handset works by storing data such as contacts and appointments on a remote computer rather than on the phone itself. BBC news reports today that Microsoft has in fact recovered all data, but a minority are still affected (out of 1 million subscribers). Amidst this, Microsoft appears not to have suffered any financial damage. However, it seems certain that its relationship with T-Mobile will have taken a major knock. The software giant is also the target of some very bad publicity as critics question how on earth it failed to put in place adequate back-ups of the data. That could seriously damage the potential success of the firm's other 'cloud computing' plans, such as web-only editions of Office."
It is hard for me to blame T-Mobile for the MS/Danger server / backups failure. Danger both makes the phones and runs the service, where as T-Mobile appear to be little more than common carriers and the customer service department. It is a bit unreasonable to suggest that T-Mobile could have prevented the outage. I mean it not like they could host the data somewhere else right? Sure they could have done a much better job handling the failure after it happened, much much better, but I just don't think they could have prevented it.
Worth repeating every time. Nobody cares if you back up your data. Take a blank server; take whatever it is that you store offsite. If you can turn the blank server into your production system then you are fine. If you can't then your strategy is failing. If you never try it then you are an amateur.
This incompetence is something far beyond serious for MS. T-mobile is a much bigger customer than almost anyone short of vodafone can ever hope to be. MS have been moving strategically into hosting servers such as exchange for many customers. If you're a CEO you should be calling your CIO in and asking him when he plans to be free of MS services. If you are a CIO you want to be able to answer "there's nothing business critical relying on MS services" by the time that meeting comes.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
From stories circulating it looks as if they are doing this by recovering the structure of the database, not restore from backup. Note that they say that most customers should have all data restored. Not just "data up to last week" or something similar. Of course this could all just be misplaced speculation and misunderstandings.
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
What's up with all the editorializing in the summary? Danger was bought by MS only 18 months ago. What the heck has this got to with Office and cloud computing except wishful thinking by the submitter?
So... in a year and a half they shouldn't have toured their new acquisition and checked for basic things like:
1) Updated server software
2) Firewalls
3) Backups
And other "yer an idjit if you don't do this" kinda stuff?
For *any* kind of hosted service, having backups measures just slightly below "is it turned on" in terms of importance. And for a year and a half, NONE WERE DONE? Further, they did a major update to a SAN and didn't backup first?
This isn't about bashing Microsoft - highly successful businesses have had to close shop forever due to glaring, horrid oversights like this. This is gross incompetence.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Years of BSODS.
Years of viruses.
Years of trojans.
Yet THIS "damages Microsoft's reputation"?!?!?!
Well, it's a bit of a non sequitur, to be sure. But the whole incident spells out in stark detail the dangers of "cloud computing", or as us folks who actually have worked with computers for more than than ten minutes call it; the client-server model. When explained as what it really is, it's a matter of ensuring adequate and timely backups. When described in some pathetic marketing term, it sounds like some magical new way of computing, no longer constrained by those old-fashioned good practices.
Quite frankly, I would never ever ever put any mission critical data or apps on a system that I couldn't back end the data on my own out of. If I can't move my data out of the app, then my data never gets there in the first place.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You really don't see the connection?
Yesterday, you put all your cell phone contacts and calendar data up in the "cloud".
Today, your data is lost.
Tomorrow, the same companies responsible for losing your cell phone data now want to take over all your Office documents.
Well, since this is /., you take your car in for a routine oil change. The mechanic botches the job.
Are you going to go back to the same mechanic for a transmission rebuild?
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Cloud computing and remote storage are not necessarily the same.
What we see here is a small device storing it's data remotely and I wonder why.
Considering how cheap a couple of GB of memory are and how precious wireless bandwidth is this can mean only one thing, having and thus exploiting that data is worth more than the cost of the bandwidth.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
I don't see this as having a big effect on Microsoft. T-Mobile on the other hand....
I don't believe that customers care if your services providers have problems. They have an agreement with you, not your providers.
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
Except that people make decisions and don't really care if something is just "affiliated".
Microsoft and Google bid for the "cloud computing" "office" contract at some company. Do you really think Google isn't going to mention, with a bunch of references, this screw up?
With quotes from press releases like:
in big bold blocks.
They have not had this problem in their first 8 years. Then, 18 months after Microsoft acquires them, they have a critical failure. You think that's all coincidence?
I suppose it's possible for one company to buy another and leave the company alone, but Microsoft certainly didn't do this. They moved most of the developers to Project Pink (and most of them have left MS entirely by now). I think it's pretty clear that the new MS was responsible. They managed the company. The data was stored at Microsoft's data centers.
Meanwhile, Microsoft is trying to sell people on the idea that their data should be hosted at Microsoft data centers. Am I not supposed to be skeptical about this now?
-- Don't Tase me, bro!
Man, what fantasyland are your utilities located in? I wanna move there! In my experience, utilities *are* "giant rapacious corporation uncaring of human concerns".
Perhaps for people who don't care about their data... Privacy, security, accountability and reliability cannot be ensured by a third party. I'll keep my data in-house thank you.
Dude, organizations use third party data centers (or data centers that they physically own but are managed by a 3rd party) all the time w/o a glitch. Unless you are a software giant (like ebay or amazon) that can build your own data center, or are a minor/midsize operation (or are just a guy with a home computer), you will inevitably have a large part of your stuff either running on someone else's infrastructure or having it operate on someone else's watch.
It is done all the time, by many, for years now. Almost no glitches that can be directly attributed by the fact that a 3rd party was involved. In order to have a meaningful opinion on IT operations, you need to differentiate problems that occur because things are not run by you (things that are inevitable in computing) vs problems that occur because of lack of safeguards or wrong procedures (which can and will happen under your watch or someone else's.)
If you can setup offline synchronization and data encryption, there is no reason to not use cloud computing.
All a local backup will give me is reliability.
If I can't encrypt my data on their servers I don't really have privacy or security.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
I bet that most companies, when buying other companies, don't check a lot of basic things before buying them. As for "mickey-mouse outfit", in my experience, most corporations fit that definition well. The people running them really aren't that smart, and make all kinds of dumb mistakes.
"But Microsoft, which bears at least part of the responsibility for the mistake, is paying the price with its reputation."
Microsoft bears ALL THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MISTAKE!
They own Danger and they run the data center that stores the data!
It was their fault 100%.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
The "Pink" project was a Microsoft creation based on their technology, NOT a Danger product. It was the brainchild of Microsoft's Roz Ho. Microsoft may have bought a terribly run company, but that happens all the time in the real world. After a year and a half under the leadership of Microsoft, problems can no longer be blamed on the previous company's leadership. Most of those people don't even work there anymore. It's all on Microsoft's head.
The problem is not that the Danger division is run like a separate company. The problem is that every little division of Microsoft is run like a separate company. That's their biggest flaw, and they really need to get an effective leader (as in replace Steve Ballmer) who isn't afraid to fire anyone who is more concerned about protecting his/her own empire than with the good of the company. That pretty much means replacing large swaths of the management hierarchy. That's the only thing that will save Microsoft from eventual total failure. That or a huge government bailout in twenty years for being "too big to fail".
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I think you missed the point:
- With software you own, you can ignore Microsoft's mistakes (Office2007, Vista) and continue using their older products (Office2003 or 97, XP).
- With software you rent off the internet (cloud), the bad ideas are shoved upon you whether you like them or not.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall