Cultural context
The velvet glove approach worked for Microsoft every time. For over 30 years Microsoft-Lucy has been pulling the ball from developer Charlie Brown. And control over GitHub is absolutely clear to me. But to use Nat [Nat Friedman, GH CEO] as bait, in my opinion, is too much. [1]
Microsoft has a successful history of taking over and controlling a computer platform in order to control the software development industry. The support they provided to developers in the early days of Windows was legendary. And real. The fact is that while people crowded into the Windows developer community, inventing completely new categories of programs along the way, they had no idea that all their prospects and related dreams actually belonged to Microsoft. Of course, the support and marketing assistance from Microsoft has been amazing. But in hindsight, we were idiots. More precisely, I am idiot # 0055.
As soon as a certain category of programs grew to profitability, and developers and investors began to salivate that their day had finally arrived, Microsoft intervened and took out a whole category of this market. Sometimes this was due to the mere announcement that Microsoft was planning some kind of program. How it happened with the "link manager" category and the Outlook ad. Investments have stopped. Sales are up. It would take three years before the first decent version of Outlook saw the light of day. And independent developers got Those prospects, which they dreamed of, has always been for Microsoft and has always belonged to it..
Here it is - the power of control over the platform.
The platform controls the software industry. And software controls the digital information they collect and produce, and new software developers need access to tons of this software-dependent information. But this information increasingly belongs to the computing platforms Microsoft Azure and the Office 365 cloud. Want access? Sign up on GitHub. Kiss the velvet glove. And then wait until Lucy takes the ball away from all your prospects that you held onto yours.
I remember my first JavaONE conference. The first sale of Netscape shares in August 1995 rocked the world to an Internet fever. Java was introduced as a way to develop programs for the Internet. It's amazing how many Windows developers there were at the first and second JavaONE conferences. It looked more like a conference on Windows-OS / 2 days gone by. It seemed that I knew everyone there. I felt at home. In fact, I knew why we were there. The Internet was a platform "used by all, not owned by anyone." It has also become a haven for open source communities (OSS).
The tension between the OSS developers and Sun was noticeable. We - the winners - looked at this in amazement. The open source communities feared that Java was a Trojan horse invented by Sun to take over Internet software. This is exactly what happened to the Windows developers and explains where we got together at JavaONE. Whole crowds.
In the early days of public interest, the Internet seemed like a beauty - a universal platform that everyone had access to. This is the first platform I've seen where communication, computation, and collaboration could merge.
We all know the years that followed when business and OSS fought over the Internet. The velvet glove that Nat wears is nothing more than another challenge, and as always: it's all on the line again. ”Silicon Valley Rule 1: The platform owner is in control of its prospects.
The big difference this time around is that in the early days of Windows (and true for the Internet too), there was a big transition from "analog to digital" and the creation of information. This shift also meant that the data came under the control of the programs that collect and use it.
Those Internet wars, and that power, together with acting proponents of open source software, determined that the underlying software platform would be open and available to all. But it also turned out to be true that henceforth, if not all, then most of the data in the world will be program-dependent. Meaning unavailability in relation to new developers. Except when it came to open source software.
In 1995, I worked with the Intel ProShare Video Conferencing Systemdeveloping software for integrating communications with computational information and collaboration. In retrospect, this seems like a flawless project that only the Internet was capable of. But then there was no Netscape, no Java, no fixed view of what the Internet would later become. Trading in Netscape stock began in August 95th, with Java leaping the next year. That same year, there was a phenomenon called Windows. By that time, Lucy had already taken the ball and the Windows development community was well aware that Microsoft itself was in charge of all the prospects for the Windows platform. With those prospects that they could take away at any moment.
Intel had a lot of smart guys. And I emphasize: very smart. That idea of tying communication with computing power, all wrapped up in a collaboration platform, was on everyone's mind. They also derived a marketing formula that explained all this. This formula explains why the velvet glove and in which direction Microsoft is heading.
It was called the "Productivity Equation" Nice. And it sounds like this: productivity is equal to the integration of computing with communications, computing information (data, documents, messages) and collaborative exchange.
The truth is beautiful. But there is also depth when you look closely at "computational information." You notice that most of the data in the world is controlled by programs. Once you take possession of the software industry, you will also take possession of all the information that these programs control. Keep your eyes on the ball, Charlie Brown.
Sure, we live in a world of increasingly zhivotrepechuschem high efficiency and innovation in productivity benefit. Access to computing information is vital. But this is also a world where MANY programs need to work with the same data. The “many programs need” aspect of this statement is the reason why we see the velvet glove again.
Let me explain. The "data" in the equation is not software dependent. Data can be moved (thanks SQL). Many programs have access to them. If data programs had control over their information, Oracle would be in control of cloud computing.
Part two
With all this, the situation with documents is different. Worse, every day we see programmatic control over documents transform into control over the entire productivity equation. Take control of the documentary side of the equation and you will have all sorts of perspectives in a world where many programs need access to information from documents. Because the other parts of the equation are open-ended and not nearly as controllable and programmatic as documents.
Of course, Oracle would gladly leverage their software-dependent data to become a cloud computing empire. But they weren't even close to Microsoft and their iron grip on documents that are native to Office.
All of this is also true for communication and teamwork. No one else has an exclusive and important position of control in this equation, nor does Slack. Not any communications giant. This means that Microsoft's ban on information from documents can be used to influence other aspects of the equation.
It is worth paying attention to the relationship between different components of the equation. They have a template for mutual integration precisely because of the way they appeared. Communication (messages of all kinds) and computational content (data and documents) have evolved independently of each other. A key part of the equation is integrating the two, which makes a third component possible: working together.
Collaboration is the sum of integrated communications and computational information. There is also an explicit link between data and documents. Data is collected, then analyzed, or in some other way embedded in documents. Documents are a higher form of accumulated knowledge, since they express how you and I think, discuss, and analyze data. Documents are a type of linear communication. And when put together with dynamic, non-linear forms of communication, and with the Internet platform, then documents create something auspicious for collaboration, where not only people can communicate with each other, but also a place for smart programs with incredible computing power behind them.
The point is that most of the business processes and information for them depend on programs from Microsoft. No business, organization, or corporation will go anywhere in any cloud without their data, documents, and working methods.
That's why Google has such a problem attracting business. They cannot encroach on this great transition from Microsoft's monopoly until they figure out what to do with Microsoft's native documents. And they should come up with without spoiling either the documents or the processes that are tied to them. No one will rewrite and replace these documents when you can just go to the Microsoft cloud and add value to something that already works and makes money.
In general, this is not about Artificial Intelligence or some new kind of software. Everything here revolves around precious data, documents and processes. And the more information is available to AI engines, and the larger base they can "directly interact" with, the better and more useful these engines are.
IMHO, all the advances in AI that Google, SalesForce and IBM have made, as amazing as it was, was not even close to Microsoft. In the end, all the beauty of Slack correspondence will fall as soon as it appears before a barely worthy version of MS Teams, but which will be supplied with documents.
Silicon Valley hippos can even be invented with new types of programs and their functionality. But until they reach the billions of documents that are tied to Microsoft programs, the future of cloud computing will belong to Redmond. And even the fabulous first-mover advantage cannot undermine the power of control over computational data.
Pioneer strategy is a fairy tale when it comes to computational data platforms. The advantage belongs to those who programmatically control the information, as well as their new programs to which this control extends.
See for yourself: the phenomenon of cloud computing as a software platform began to gain traction with the release of Google gMail and SalesForce.com. Just think what their head start was, what time it was! And when the iPhone came out in 2007, the race to the clouds began. AWS comes out of nowhere and provides individual developers with massive computing power in the cloud.
In the report for 2014. The Gartner Magic Quadrant has been recorded by Apple as the # 1 cloud provider. Number two was DropBox, followed by Google, SalesForce, and Box. Ballmer [Steve Ballmer] leaves in February 2014, after a terrible multi-billion dollar acquisition: communications giant Nokia. This is where the velvet glove takes over and Office 365 becomes available within the iPhone empire. Everything looks good with Apple. And Windows is not very good. DropBox, SalesForce and Box rushed for the Office 365 license. They were eager to play Lucy's roulette [Russian roulette] game. And the velvet glove accepted them with open arms.
Then the incredible happened. With the release of Office 365, Microsoft's entire monopoly begins one of the greatest transformations in computer history; the transition of their information and programs from the Windows platform to Azure - the Office 365 cloud. With the first gesture, the velvet glove takes ownership of program-dependent documents in order to transfer all the pillars of the monopoly with its systems in businesses and corporations.
2018-th year Magic Quadrant is almost entirely assigned to two companies: Amazon and Microsoft. Four short years and the outcome of this action is already in sight. [2] Google is battling their cool and promising AI, messaging and business automation further against the wall. But the matter is not getting off the ground. They remain hanging on the thread of cloud computing. The rest of the leaders of cloud computing endlessly invent inspiring and fantastic software capabilities and prospects, while Microsoft also holds an iron fist over the documents and information that their competitors need.
Part three
Whatever you think of Microsoft, you must admit that this transformation is done in a masterful way. Surprisingly, none of the competitors dares to talk about what is happening. Well, of course, nothing can bring down the price of your own shares, as a recognition to the whole world that your fate lies in the hands of a cold-blooded monopolist with an iron grip, on which these velvet gloves fit so beautifully.
In 2018, Microsoft's cloud growth was estimated at $ 18 billion per year. A year later, an estimate of annual subscription growth came from a staggering $ 33 billion. All of this continues to exponentially rush upward.
Understanding this news [0]is that developers with GitHub will have access to arrays of computing information from the Microsoft cloud. And without this in any way, I agree. But before you jump over, remember: Lucy is not your friend. The velvet glove sits perfectly on the iron hand. And all the prospects that you dream of, which you pour in with all your strength and soul, your skills and money? Well, they are owned by Microsoft. Again.
You will be thanked.
~ ge ~
End
Footnotes
[0] «Microsoft? Oh it's just another partnership, insists GitHub CEO» — The Register, 24.05.2019
[1] : «But using Nat as bitch bait is a bit much.» — , , , . . ↑
[2] «and the end game is in sight.» — End game — , , , , , «». «Avengers: Endgame» . ↑
[1] : «But using Nat as bitch bait is a bit much.» — , , , . . ↑
[2] «and the end game is in sight.» — End game — , , , , , «». «Avengers: Endgame» . ↑
Historical context and note
, GitHub, Microsoft «».[0] , «hidden gem», .
— « » «» . , OpenDocument OASIS ( 2002-2005.), .. OpenOffice Microsoft Office, « OpenOffice.org», , , - ( , . 3).
2005 , OpenDocument . , Microsoft , , , , .
, Microsoft /OOo, , - - Sun, (26.09.2005):
by David A. Wheeler, October 29, 2005
GE, OOo 2.0 (, 2005): Gary Edwards: OpenOffice.org 2.0 leaping over legacy lockdown with clean XML
. 2002 ( yahoo) :) , LinkedIn , .
:
, GitHub, Microsoft «».[0] , «hidden gem», .
— « » «» . , OpenDocument OASIS ( 2002-2005.), .. OpenOffice Microsoft Office, « OpenOffice.org», , , - ( , . 3).
2005 , OpenDocument . , Microsoft , , , , .
Officials in the state have proposed a new policy that mandates that every state technology system use only applications designed around OpenDocument file formats
— Fox News, September 2005
, Microsoft /OOo, , - - Sun, (26.09.2005):
ODF Reciprocal License Allegation
: Comments on Microsoft’s Letter to Massachusetts
Hi Eduardo,
Thanks for responding. Your explanation makes sense, but the shills and lackeys are off and running wild with this new discovery
that «Sun has secret patents on ODF». Yes, they went full throttle, zero to sixty in under four seconds.
By next week this latest conspiracy theory will likely go the way of other myths that got some noise, and then into a vast echo
chamber that otherwise intelligent people reference in shamelessly self serving ways to justify the next conspiracy theory. I can
hear the deafening refrain now, «There were so many reports that Sun had patents on ODF and that it's not really open, that you have
to stop and think».
I wrote a response to Brian Jones, and sent it to PJ for review. But the truth is, today is the first time i ever had to think
through the licensing issues. The interesting thing is that it's easy to circle false arguments, and set them spinning, even without
having a clue as to what i'm talking about :) At the end of the day they will become the fateful victims of their own wishful and
self serving exuberance. Such is life when you have no sense of integrity, trust and truth. And don't understand that when push
comes to shove, trust and truth are the only things that matter. Push came to shove in Massachusetts, and everyone got to see, up
close and personal, who they really are. Not a pretty sight. +1 Open Standards. +1 Open Source. Transparency rules.
Your arguments though have the truth of being there. Would you mind if PJ published your comments? I know that's asking a lot,
especially since there's far more at stake than needing to respond to the lies and deceits of the MS Office 12 gang. But your
response is clean, clear, and to the point. Groklaw does have one loud and booming voice. And PJ is the kind of do gooder who
doesn't like FUD. She usually does an excellent job of exposing and slamming away lies, deceits and distortions.
There is the distinct probability that things will get worse. I for one am quite surprised by the heavy handed, uncompromising take
no prisoners ferocity Microsoft has shown regarding the Massachusetts decision. ODF though is a silver bullet, and the shot Eric
Kriss and Peter Quinn took at all proprietary, platform and application bound file formats found it's mark. Finally.
The day before the final decision was made, i had a chance to speak at length with Peter Quinn. They were hoping against hope that
Microsoft would respect their decision and make the necessary accommodations to provide OpenDocument files. Sadly it was not to be,
but for sure Microsoft was given every consideration. Deserved or not.
Peter did ask if i would participate in his panel discussion session at the upcoming NACIO conference in San Diego. They expect
excellent attendance from every state. He's trying to get someone from Microsoft, but so far they are refusing to participate. So i
asked him if it would be okay if showed up with a few hundred OpenOffice.org CD's to pass out. He told me i would need more than that
:) Apparently the line behind Massachusetts is both long and ready.
I also asked if he and Eric would kindly autograph my copy of the OASIS OpenDocument v 1.0 specification. He said of course, but then
asked if i could get him a copy autographed by all the engineers and TC members who worked on OpenDocument. That would be a very nice
thing to do Eduardo, but could Sun help me put something like that together?
Thanks for setting things straight,
~ge~
by David A. Wheeler, October 29, 2005
GE, OOo 2.0 (, 2005): Gary Edwards: OpenOffice.org 2.0 leaping over legacy lockdown with clean XML
. 2002 ( yahoo) :) , LinkedIn , .