Changes are also afoot at Microsoft. In late January CEO Steve Ballmer announced the departure of 23 year veteran Bob Muglia who successfully ran the company’s very profitable Server and Tools business. Under Muglia’s direction, STB recorded a $1.63 billion operating profit on sales of $3.96 billion in the prior fiscal quarter. Muglia will leave sometime this summer. To date, Microsoft has been mum about his replacement and while the company isn’t saying anything publicly word inside the company is that Ballmer forced Muglia out to accelerate Microsoft’s cloud strategy.
Whether or not that’s the case, Ballmer should speed up the search for Muglia’s successor and plug the gaping holes left by other very visible departures. They include: Brad Brooks, a corporate vice president in the Windows consumer marketing group who left to work for Juniper Networks; Matt Miszewski, the general manager of Microsoft’s government business who is taking an executive post Salesforce.com and Johnny Chung Lee, the infamous Wii hacker who partnered with engineers in Microsoft’s Applied Sciences group to develop the Kinect for the Xbox 360. Lee is defecting to Google. Ouch! The Kinect motion camera has been an unqualified success for Microsoft. It sold eight million units in the first 60 day. Microsoft is also betting heavily on its Windows Phone 7, which has garnered generally positive reviews. Microsoft says it has sold over two million units to date but it isn’t clear how many of those units (which have been shipped to partners) have actually been sold. Microsoft will have to bring its “A” game to challenge Android-based smart phones, Apple’s iPhone 4 and RIM’s Blackberry.

For future reference though, Apple and all high tech vendors would do well to respond to these issues as they occur and not wait days or weeks.

No Rush to the Cloud — Yet

Users on the Move: Number of Mobile workers increases
The survey results also confirm what has been widely reported: that greater numbers and percentages of users are spending more time telecommuting, traveling and generally working outside the corporate offices.
Over half – 58 percent of businesses say that up to 25 percent of their employees work remotely; another 18 percent of respondents said that between 26 to 50 percent of their workers are remote; 11 percent said that 51 to 75 percent work outside the office and seven percent of respondents said that 76 to 100 percent of their employees work remotely. It is significant that only 7 percent of the over 400 businesses polled say that none of their workers are remote or mobile.
Apparently, IT departments are getting used to support mobile workers: just over half 52 percent of survey respondents indicated they find it just as easy to support remote employees as their local workers; however 43 percent say they find it more difficult, while the remaining seven percent are unsure.

To date only a 17 percent minority – less than two out of 10 businesses who responded to the Sunbelt/ITIC poll say their organizations have migrated any IT functions to the cloud. By contrast, 62 percent of those surveyed say their firm have not migrated any IT functions to a cloud environment; another 19 percent of companies are studying the issue but have not yet decided and the remaining two percent are “Unsure” of their firm’s cloud deployment plans.
“No compelling business reason,” was the most oft-cited reason for holding off on a cloud deployment and that was chosen by 66 percent of the respondents. Another 49 percent of survey participants indicated their organizations’ concerns about security and the need for specific guarantees to safeguard their for sensitive data is deterring cloud deployments.
Only a small five percent minority felt that a cloud deployment would be disruptive to their current network environment.
Anti-Virus software is current
The survey respondents were certain that their anti-virus software is doing the job. In a clear indication that organizations recognize the need to keep their AV packages updated, nearly eight-out-of-10 businesses – 79 percent affirmed that their AV software is current, while 17 percent indicate that the majority of their AV packages are up-to-date. Overall, less than five percent of those polled say their AV software is outdated.
Similarly, an overwhelming 77 percent of respondents reported that they’re satisfied with the ability of their firms current security packages to alert them to the presence of viruses, worms, Trojans and other malware threats. Only 16 percent of respondents expressed concern regarding the ability of their AV software to alert them to potential security breaches, while the remaining seven percent were unsure.
Desktop Management
When it comes to desktop management, 41 percent of companies use three or four different software packages to oversee crucial functions such as Remote PC monitoring; Patch and update management/deployment; malware protection; asset inventory; critical alerting; remote assistance/remote control; IT asset management reporting. Another 16 percent deploy a singular management package while 20 percent say their firms use two management packages and 12 percent were “unsure.” The remaining 12 percent indicated they do not use any management software to manage their desktops.
The chief challenges and deterrents to installing and deploying desktop management packages are: integration and interoperability which was cited by 57 percent of survey respondents and the large upfront investment costs which 47 percent say make upper management unlikely to approve the project. Nearly one-third of survey respondents cited the difficulty of quantifying TCO and ROI and the need for too much training and orientation as the biggest challenge to deploying desktop management solutions, while 28 percent say they have difficulty comparing the functionality of the various products.
Among the other Survey Highlights:
• Over half the survey respondents – 56 percent – use a dedicated management tool to deploy their software updates, but a surprising 42 percent still manually install their software updates.
• Nearly seven out of 10 businesses – 68 percent – say they’re satisfied with their organization’s current ability to ensure that the corporate PCs have the latest security updates & patches compared with 26 percent who replied negatively to that question.
• Just over half – 55 percent – of those polled indicated they were satisfied with their firm’s ability to inventory the hardware assets (total number, make, model and specifications) in your environment; while 34 percent said “No” and 11 percent were “Unsure.” The ability to inventory hardware assets is one of the crucial components necessary to enable companies to ascertain TCO and ROI.

Regardless of the settlement, the underlying reasons that HP said it filed suit against Hurd for taking the Oracle co-Presidency: “…In his new position, Hurd will be in a situation in which he cannot perform his duties without necessarily using and disclosing HP’s trade secrets,” still exist.

Hurd and Oracle are highly unlikely to steal any of HP’s IP with respect to specific products and engineering. But there’s a lot of gray area surrounding IP and what types of knowledge are already in the public domain. You’d better believe that both HP and Oracle have set up war rooms in their respective boardrooms.
Make no mistake; there will be casualties of war.
And to quote the African proverb, the blades of grass in this fight are the respective customers, third party suppliers as well as the sales and distribution channels that support the enormous HP and Oracle ecosystems.
According to International Data Group (IDC) statistics, HP is the world’s largest technology company by revenue, and the top PC and server vendor and Oracle is the world’s third-largest software company.
HP and Oracle by the Numbers
On paper HP and Oracle appear evenly matched. The notable exception is in revenues, even after a five year multi-billion buying spree, Oracle sales still trail significantly behind HP.

From Collaborative to Competitive
Until recently the two firms did not compete head-on. Though HP and Oracle’s management and styles were/ worlds apart, their partnership thrived despite such differences.
Oracle is defined by the brash Ellison, while HP executives take a low-key and platform agnostic approach to most high tech competitors excepting IBM. For years Oracle and HP were bound by their mutual rivalry albeit in different product arenas – Oracle competed fiercely with IBM’s DB2 database while HP and IBM competed in just about everything else including, PC and server hardware, as well as the lucrative services market.
After decades of publicly hurling invectives at one another, Oracle and IBM in the last several days have done an about-face and are now engaged in an almost embarrassing display of public affection. This love fest would truly be gag-worthy if not for the realization that Big Blue and Oracle don’t hate each other any less; at this point in time they just loathe HP more. It’s truly a case of: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
IBM chief executive Sam Palmisano decided to seize the opportunity to blast HP, publicly castigating them in a September 15 Wall Street Journal interview. Palmisano gave a detailed litany of HP’s faux pas. They included mishandling Hurd’s ouster by giving him a $40 million+ severance package which he said was “not a good use of shareholder money”; allowing Hurd to slash HP’s research and development budget to $2.8 billion – just 2.5 percent of total revenue and for getting in a bidding war with Dell over the acquisition of virtualization storage vendor 3Par and paying more that what it’s worth. Palmisano’s most acerbic statement was that HP was in such a weakened state that IBM no longer considered them a competitor. Not true of course, but it stings just the same.
It was Ellison and Hurd’s turn to heap praise on IBM during the Oracle September 16 earnings call. Ellison called IBM “a great services partner,” and said his partnership with IBM is “absolutely critical.” Ellison positively gushed while observing that “IBM’s mainframes add value because they aren’t commodity boxes and serve a real need.”
HP has remained characteristically mum about Palmisano’s and Ellison’s comments but it is undoubtedly plotting a counter attack. .
Collaboration and “co-opetition” between HP and Oracle may exist on paper and publicly but there is open enmity behind the scenes.
Merger Mania
The reality is that all of the top tier high technology vendors are on a collision course with one another spurred on by the need to grow by acquisition rather than organically. In a challenging economy it’s a dog-eat-dog fight for corporate and consumer monies.
Consider this: In the last six years Oracle’s Ellison has spent as much on mergers and acquisitions – over $40 billion (including the January acquisition of Sun Microsystems for $5.9 billion) – as the company’s profits over a 30 year span. In Ellison’s grand strategy scheme, the moves make sense because a bigger Oracle can more equally compete with the likes of IBM and SAP. HP is keeping pace with Oracle in the M&A sweepstakes – having bought Compaq, EDS, 3Com and most recently swooping down and outbidding Dell Computer for virtualization storage company 3Par for $2.4 billion and security vendor ArcSight for $1.5 billion. And now HP is in a bidding war with IBM to buy Israeli based Radware which makes application delivery, application security solutions and load-balancing switches.
Winners and Losers
Corporate customers are the biggest and most immediate potential losers. Partnerships, mergers and acquisitions may look like a game of Monopoly on paper but there’s a lot at stake. Even the best of circumstances – an amicable and well planned purchase with little or no product overlap – there’s a certain amount of disruption that follows an acquisition. In these cases, it takes six months to a year to integrate and assimilate an acquired firm into the fold. Oracle’s acquisition of Sun Microsystems which includes Sun’s SPARC server hardware, Solaris operating system and the open source MySQL database has a lot of users concerned about the future of those product lines, despite the company’s public reassurances.
And while few distributors or users will go on the record, many of them are understandably nervous about the potential ramifications when their major hardware infrastructure and software vendors fall out.
Imagine you’re the CEO, CIO, CTO or VP of IT who has to make purchasing decisions for the next three-to-four year upgrade cycle. Can you trust that HP and Oracle have truly made up? Or are worried about when hostilities between the two will break out again and that your firm might get caught in the crossfire? Can you trust the promises of your vendor(s) to retain an acquired firm’s product portfolio? And even if they do, will the top engineers and product managers from a company like Sun (to cite just one example) remain with the company post-acquisition? Will the licenses carry over or will your organization face steep price hikes in volume licensing? Service and support is another big issue in a post merger entity. Once again, corporate customers are wise to ponder potential changes.
Organizations also get rightfully nervous that their vendors will get distracted by the public wrangling and potential lawsuits. These issues frequently lead to product delays and quality issues. Oracle is the world’s Number One database vendor and the Oracle database also has the dubious distinction of being the platform with the most security flaws. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency tasked with monitoring security vulnerabilities, it recorded a whopping 321 security vulnerabilities associated with the Oracle database from January 2009 through June 2010. That’s six times more than the 49 vulnerabilities Microsoft’s SQL Server notched and nearly triple the 121 security vulnerabilities recorded by IBM’s DB2 database during the same eight and a half year period. Though there’s no proof of a connection, the security issues associated with Oracle’s database spiked sharply in 2006 – around the same time, the company embarked on its merger and acquisition campaign and they’ve remained elevated over the past four years.
Though reluctant to speak on the record, corporate customers and distributors have some trepidation about the impact of the growing competition between HP and Oracle, even though the immediate crisis appears to be over. If you have concerns, now is the time to voice them and also exercise your right to comparison shop. Speak frankly with your sales representatives and resellers. Use the confusion to your advantage to negotiate for better terms and conditions.
The biggest potential winners in this fight are HP and Oracle competitors. IBM, Dell and other hardware vendors have been openly wooing Sun’s SPARC and Solaris customers ever since Oracle first announced its intention to purchase Sun. Those efforts will continue unabated. IBM and Microsoft executives are also undoubtedly contemplating special sales promotions to lure customers away from the Oracle and MySQL database platforms.
IBM’s Palmisano was right about one thing: HP seriously erred when it slashed its R&D budget to just 2.5 percent of annual revenue. It should rectify that immediately.
There’s another apt African proverb: “When the music changes, so does the dance.” And when it comes to vendors, there’s no such thing as a permanent partner.

To recap, HP and Microsoft said they will invest $250 million into their Frontline Partnership. The deal aims to deliver full, integrated stacks that support Microsoft’s Exchange Server and SQL Server, including management, virtualization and cloud implementations. The resulting product offerings will consist of pre-packaged application solution bundles that incorporate the aforementioned management and virtualization capabilities. The two companies said the pact calls for them to partner on engineering, R&D, marketing and channel sales.
Still, the announcement left many industry watchers with more questions than answers. As my colleagues Charles King and Merv Adrian noted in their Breaking News Review in the January 14 special edition of Charles King’s Pund-IT, HP and Microsoft “have worked closely for years, share tens of thousands of common customers and channel partners and have long supported each other’s interests.”
So what’s new about this announcement? That question should be answered during the coming months. A $250 million investment is considerable even for two high technology titans. It now remains for HP and Microsoft to execute on their promise to produce solutions that thoroughly integrate the two companies’ infrastructure and applications stacks to ship pre-configured and optimized solutions for Microsoft’s Exchange Server, and SQL Server, virtualization, cloud computing converged infrastructure and pre-packaged application tools.
But perhaps the most immediate and daunting challenge is for HP and Microsoft to deliver a product roadmap that also includes specific details about the pricing, training and services the two firms will commonly deliver. Above all, companies must market and sell this deal to the legions of skeptics. The high tech industry has witnessed numerous high profile partnership deals announced amidst much industry fanfare never to be heard from after the initial press releases.
Remember the Cisco Systems/Microsoft Directory Enabled Network (DEN) initiative of the late 1990s? No. Not many people do. Announced with great fanfare, this dream team was supposed to incorporate the functionality of Microsoft’s Active Directory into Cisco routers and provide network administrators with a more comprehensive means of managing various devices on their network. In reality, the Cisco/Microsoft DEN initiative was a partnership on paper only. There are dozens of similar examples. Hence, the skepticism that greets such announcements is understandable.
This is all the more reason for HP and Microsoft executives to follow up on last week’s announcement with quick, decisive action and not just more fodder for the PR Newswire. For example, when can we expect to see the first fruits of the so-called “deeply optimized machine environment” that will provide turn-key, pre-packaged and pre-integrated server, application, networking and storage solutions? Who are the specific target users and how will they benefit? How will Microsoft and HP license and service these products? Those are just a few of the questions that need to be answered.
Non-Exclusive Partnerships Sometimes Make Strange Bedfellows
The partnership also has especially intriguing implications for HP which now has pacts in place with all of the major virtualization providers, including Microsoft’s biggest rival, and VMware. The new HP/Microsoft Application-to-Infrastructure is a non-exclusive three year partnership. It’s worth noting that HP already has a deal in place with VMware, whose ESX Server is the market leader in server virtualization. Microsoft also gets a boost from this deal. Microsoft’s Hyper-V has been gaining ground, particularly among small and mid-sized corporations. However, it has a long way to go to catch up to ESX Server’s installed base, particularly among large enterprises, so this pact helps keep Microsoft competitive. Additionally, HP also delivers a full suite of management solutions that integrates VMware’s vCenter offering with HP’s Insight management product. HP and Microsoft intend to similarly integrate HP’s Insight and Microsoft’s Systems Center. So again, this helps Microsoft broaden the appeal of its virtualization appeal to its existing base and makes it a more attractive solution for prospective customers.
The partnership with Microsoft put’s HP in the proverbial cat-bird’s seat: it now has a full line of its own servers that runs all the VMware products and similar plans to support Microsoft’s SQL Server and Exchange Server. This gives HP the ability to offer a full line of integrated hardware and services customers their choice of virtualization vendors, while remaining agnostic.
From Microsoft’s perspective, the partnership with HP also has immediate value: it allows Microsoft – at least on paper – to keep pace with VMware, by working with HP, a top OEM hardware vendor and services provider, which is no mean feat. Former Microsoft executive Paul Maritz who now runs VMware is intent on rejuvenating that company and he knows that the way to solidify and expand VMware’s influence is to increase its stake in management and applications. Just last week, VMware purchased Zimbra, the open source Email and collaboration unit of Yahoo for a rumored $100 million. Not coincidentally, Zimbra describes its Collaboration suite as the “next generation” Microsoft Exchange server.
Microsoft clearly felt the need to respond in kind.
The plethora of technology and partnership deals such the HP/Microsoft Application-to-Infrastructure pact, serve as a reminder of the intensity of the IT industry’s competitive landscape – particularly in burgeoning markets like virtualization and by extension, nascent markets like cloud computing. No vendor can afford to rest on its laurels. They must continue to upgrade their product and services offerings to keep pace with the competition.
Microsoft and VMware will continue to try and top one another, and HP is the beneficiary of this ongoing rivalry. Let’s hope the end users are also winners, too.