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.

Based on ITIC’s first person customer interviews, we determined that the biggest customer complaint was not with the inherent security of a specific server OS platform, but rather in finding fixes and getting technical service and support when the organization was stymied. In many of these particular instances, the organizations were very large enterprises and a common complaint was that searching for a fix was akin to finding “proverbial needle in a haystack.” Since the underlying reliability and security of nearly all the server operating systems and server hardware has improved, the majority of the more moderate and severe Tier 2 and Tier 3 outages are mainly due to integration and interoperability issues e.g., incompatible applications or drivers.

Conclusions and Recommendations
Server OS security is fluid and not static. No server operating system, application or hardware component is immune to penetration. Customer perception can and does change the minute a security flaw is found or malware is unleashed that successfully penetrates or threatens to compromise the security of any platform.
None of the server operating system vendors can rest on their laurels. Microsoft has made impressive security gains making Windows Server inherently secure by default, design and deployment, now it must endeavor to maintain the consistency of its security. Windows Server also has the biggest bull’s eye on its back since it is one of the most widely deployed server operating systems. Other server OS distributions, most notably Apple’s OS X 10.6x, which has so far managed to avoid falling prey to very major or public security holes, must likewise maintain its vigilance as the OS increases its presence in corporate enterprises.
Corporations also bear at least 50% of the responsibility for securing their respective environments. Even the most bulletproof server OS can be compromised and undone by configuration errors and failure to install and turn on OS security features. Organizations are also advised to conduct quarterly threat assessments of their environments. Staying current on the latest patches and fixes is also a must, as are regular updates of anti-virus applications and other security packages. Corporations should also review and update their security policies and procedures annually.
These results are especially important considered in light of the ongoing economic crunch which has caused companies to cut their IT budgets and reduce staff. As they strive to accomplish more with fewer resources, IT departments must rely even more heavily on their vendors to deliver more reliable and secure servers and server OS platforms.
Time is literally money. Even a few minutes of downtime – especially when a hack or a suspected security leak occurs — can result in significant costs and cause internal business operations to grind to a halt. Downtime as a result of a security breach can also undermine company’s relationship with its customers, business suppliers and partners. Reliability or lack thereof can potentially damage a company’s reputation and result in lost business.

Three out of 10 organizations rated Oracle products, technical service and support as Excellent or Very Good. A nearly equal number of survey participants – 26 percent gave Oracle’s offerings a Good rating, while 25 percent graded it as just Satisfactory. Nearly two out of 10 of the organizations polled, gave Oracle’s products, services and support a negative rating; with 13 percent judging it Poor and the remaining six percent giving it an Unsatisfactory rating.
Oracle Reliability, Service and Support by the Numbers

 
The reliability of Oracle’s Solaris operating system and the company’s x86 and SPARC servers remains fairly strong and competitive, though their uptime and reliability do not match the leaders in those categories.
Specifically, 71 percent of customers running Oracle Solaris 10 on SPARC servers reported they experienced one or fewer minor unplanned Tier 1 outages per server, per annum; while 79 percent of users running Oracle Solaris on x86 based server hardware recorded one or fewer Tier 1 per server annual unplanned outages.
While those reliability figures are very respectable they lag well behind the 85 percent of IBM AIX 7.1; 84 percent of Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise 11 users; 84 percent of Debian GNU Linux 4.0 and 5.0 users; 82 percent of HP UX 11i v.3 and Ubuntu Server 9 and 10 users who reported one or fewer unanticipated per server, per annum minor Tier one incidents.
Oracle Solaris 10 (on x86 servers) and Oracle Solaris 10 (on SPARC servers) logged similarly respectable statistics for the most severe Tier 3 outages, with 85 percent of x86 based Solaris users and 80 percent of Solaris SPARC based users indicating they had experienced one or fewer per server, per annum Tier 3 outages of four hours or longer duration.
However, once again the Oracle Solaris OS Tier 3 performance trailed rivals HP UX 11i v3 (86 percent), IBM (all versions of AIX – v5.3, v6.1 and v7.1 – 88 percent), Microsoft (Windows Server 2003, Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 – 90 and 92 percent), Novell SuSE Linux Enterprise 11 (86 percent); and Ubuntu Server 9 and 10 (87 percent).
Even Apple Mac OS X 10.6, a recent entrant into the corporate server OS market, managed roughly equivalent Tier 3 server outage statistics (83 percent of users reporting one or less than one per server, per annum outage) to the Oracle Solaris server operating system platforms.
The survey participants were in accord that the majority of their unplanned Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 server outages were due to integration, interoperability and technical service and support issues rather than any inherent flaws in the underlying platforms themselves, the vendors’ ability to respond quickly and efficiently when problems arise becomes a crucial component that positively or negatively impacts the length and severity of a server OS or server hardware outage.
It was clear both in customers’ responses to the Web-based multiple choice questions, as well as the anecdotal essay comments and first person customer interviews, that many enterprise customers are unhappy with Oracle service and support.
Users Say Oracle Service and Support Slips

Satisfaction with Oracle’s technical service and support in its Oracle database core competency, the former Sun Solaris operating system and x86-based and SPARC hardware lagged far behind longtime rivals like IBM, Microsoft and HP.
Only 31 percent of the respondents gave Oracle an “excellent” or “very good” rating for product performance, service and support. This is in sharp contrast to the over 75 percent of survey participants who gave rivals HP and IBM and 70 percent of Dell users who gave those vendors “excellent” and “very good” marks for their hardware product performance, service and support.
And in Oracle’s core competency databases, both IBM’s DB2 and Microsoft’s SQL Server scored significantly higher satisfaction ratings among survey respondents. Over 80 percent of those polled gave IBM DB2 and Microsoft SQL Server “excellent” or “very good” ratings compared to the 43 percent of respondents who gave the Oracle DB an “excellent” or “very good” rating.
Some of the anecdotal user comments about Oracle support were scathing by any measure:
“Our Sun support has become even more abysmal since crazy Larry purchased them; it’s hard to believe,” remarked an IT manager at a large healthcare organization with over 100 servers.
The VP of IT at a large insurance company was equally critical. “We’re paying top dollar for Oracle Premier Service and support – which keeps going up – and we have little or nothing to show for it other than a big bill,” he said.
Such comments unfortunately were not the exception.
Oracle also registered the highest percentage of dissatisfied users: 20 percent or one-in-five respondents judge Oracle (Sun) hardware products, service and support to be “poor” or “unsatisfactory.” By contrast only a small five percent minority of HP users, four percent of Dell customers and less than two percent of IBM users rated those companies’ hardware offerings to be “poor” or “unsatisfactory.”

Another factor playing a pivotal part in 2011 market dynamics is how Oracle will manage, support and integrate the Sun Microsystems’ offerings into its own product portfolio. This includes the aforementioned Sun Solaris OS, x86-based and SPARC server hardware and the open source MySQL database. Despite repeated public assurances from Oracle executives that it will continue to support and develop MySQL and even provide integration with other Oracle offerings, users are still wary. The Solaris and SPARC installed base of customers are equally restive and frankly skeptical based as much on what they haven’t seen in last 12 months since Oracle completed the Sun acquisition.

Conclusions

Oracle must act quickly and decisively to shore up and improve service and support for all its major products. Otherwise, customers – particularly the already ravaged and diminished Sun Microsystems Solaris, MySQL, and SPARC and x 86 server installed base will continue to decline and defect. They will be encouraged by rival vendors, particularly IBM, HP and Microsoft, who will continue to aggressively capitalize on user confusion and dissatisfaction to entice corporations to their respective platforms.

IBM and Microsoft are very well positioned at present and over the next 12 months. IBM’s AIX server operating system, DB2 database platform and System x and Power Systems communities are solid, stable and very loyal. The fact that 72% of survey respondents to ITIC’s January 2010 Database survey said they hadn’t switched DB platforms in the last three years and the fact that it’s harder for very large enterprises in market segments like banking, financial and insurance (traditional IBM strongholds) to switch because of the legacy investment, bodes well for the company. Many of these enterprises have mature DB environments that are likely to remain stable for many years to come.

In Microsoft’s case the ongoing, tangible improvements to both the Windows Server 2008 R2 and SQL Server 2008 R2 platforms make them extremely robust, reliable enterprise ready solutions. Microsoft’s close partnership with server hardware vendors Dell and HP provides Windows Server with a solid foundation that bolsters the overall reliability of the OS. Microsoft also has a very strong developer community, combined with a vibrant reseller channel, puts Microsoft in a good position to expand its presence into SME and enterprise organizations.

By contrast the Oracle customer base and associated developer communities – particularly Open Source developers – remain extremely skeptical and wary. 

Oracle also faces other challenges that could hamper its efforts to ameliorate its all-important technical service and support issues. The company’s myriad acquisitions over the last five years could continue to be an unwelcome distraction and hamper efforts to rapidly respond to customers and developers.  That said, on the plus side, Oracle’s financials continue strong.  The company continues to see strong demand for new software license renewals and maintenance plans. Oracle posted has quarterly earnings growth of 28.30 percent and quarterly revenue growth of 46.50 percent in its latest financials. It’s profit margins are a healthy 21.18 percent and return on assets stand at 21.88 percent.

The key to Oracle and any vendor’s continued success is to put customers first. According to the findings in our survey, Oracle would be wise to fix its service and support problems fully and quickly.

The length and severity of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 unplanned outages and the patching actions related to each correspond to specific line item capital expenditure (CAPEX) and operational expenditure (OPEX) costs for the business. Reliability, measured by downtime, can positively or negatively impact TCO and accelerate or delay the time it takes to realize ROI.
Improvements or declines in reliability also mitigate or increase technical and business risks to the organization’s end users and its external customers. The ability to meet service-level agreements (SLAs) hinges on server reliability, uptime and manageability. These are key indicators that enable organizations to determine which server operating system platform or combination thereof is most suitable.
Overall, these survey responses provide crucial, comparative reliability metrics to enable customers to make informed choices on which server hardware and server operating system or combination thereof, best suits their specific business and budgets needs.
Conclusions and Recommendations
In summary the ITIC 2010-2011 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability Survey findings indicates that all of the server operating system platforms have achieved a high degree of reliability. However, the IBM AIX 7.1 operating system, followed closely by Windows Server 2008 R2, HP UX 11i v3 and Novell SuSE Enterprise Linux 11 are the top four most reliable server OS distributions.

Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla have a lot in common with Apple, Google, HTC, and Motorola & Research in Motion.
They were/are all warriors in the ongoing war to see who can amass the largest number of the most lucrative technology patents. Edison and Tesla waged their battle from the late 1860s through the 1920s and the stakes were just as high then as they are now.
Nary has a week gone by without mention of the latest contretemps among the high tech industry titans. There’s been no cessation of hostilities during the holiday season. If anything, top tier companies have become even more aggressive about solidifying and extending their dominance in and out of their core competencies as 2010 comes to a close.
This week is no exception. Now comes word (still rumored albeit, absent any confirmations or denials) that a Who’s Who of high tech Titans, including: Apple, Google, HTC, Motorola, Nokia and Research in Motion (RIM) have been engaged in a bidding war over the past six months to acquire a staggering 4,000 patents owned by Canadian telecommunications firm Nortel. You may recall that Nortel filed for bankruptcy in June 2009. Though it was unsuccessful in emerging from Chapter 11, Nortel still has great value. It holds patents in some of the technology industry’s most pivotal sectors including mobile phones, PCs, wireless infrastructure — the latest 4G wireless technology — Voice technology (VoIP) and Web-based advertising, to name a few.
So it’s not hard to see why Apple, Google, HTC, Motorola and RIM covet those patents.
Back to the Future: Edison vs. Tesla and the Fight for Patents
Ironically, in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, Edison and Tesla famously waged increasingly acrimonious battles for patent rights to precursors of the aforementioned technologies. Likewise, Alexander Graham Bell competed against Elisha Gray during this same time period to patent the telephone system.
History records that Edison emerged victorious because of his business acumen. Edison knew that the key to succeeding in technology was to monetize his inventions. The surest and swiftest way to do that was to patent his own inventions and swoop down and buy up his rivals’ patents by the dozens, sit back, collect the royalties and establish his reputation as a genius.
The Croatian-born Tesla, who worked for, competed against and whom many believe was the true genius and superior inventor, was ultimately was overshadowed by Edison.
Edison was assigned 1,093lifetime U.S. patents beginning in 1869 with US Patent No. 90,646 for the electrographic voice recorder and ending with his final patent in 1926 for a design for a phonograph cabinet. Edison’s outpaced his former employee and later acrimonious rival Tesla patent output by a 10-to-1 margin. Tesla holds 112 patents registered with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) from 1886 through 1928, with his final patent being for an “Apparatus for Aerial Transportation” or a flying machine. Tesla holds over 800 lifetime patents.
The rivalry between the two heated up in the late 1800s when they each developed competing power systems. Edison promoted direct current (DC) while Tesla championed alternating current (AC). George Westinghouse bought Tesla’s system while Edison DC system became the foundation for General Electric one of the world’s largest multinational companies.
Additionally, almost all of Edison’s patents were commercial successes. Tesla monetized his inventions and patents early on after leaving Edison’s employ and working for Westinghouse. However, once he went out on his own, he became the Linus Torvalds of his day: he wanted to make the technology behind many of his ideas “free.”
At the dawn of the 20th Century, Tesla’s most cherished dream was to create a network that would transmit audio and video wireless energy signals around the world by linking telephone and telegraph networks. Tesla’s vision was to transmit information, weather and stock reports and even pictures. Sound familiar?
In 1900, Tesla obtained $150,000 in funding from financier J.P. Morgan. That was a hefty research and development (R&D) fund that would be worth tens of millions in today’s currency. Tesla constructed his “wireless broadcasting system” tower in Shoreham, Long Island, New York. Unfortunately, it was never completed or fully functional. J.P. Morgan pulled his funding when he realized that Tesla wanted to provide “free” energy.
Tesla lived to be 86 years old, dying alone and impoverished in the New Yorker Hotel in 1943. His proponents claim that he could have eclipsed Edison’s 1,093 patents and become the preeminent inventor and recognized genius of his era, had he been able to afford the fees necessary to file the patent applications. According to Paul Brown an IT technician at the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the fees for filing patents for individuals can range from an initial investment of a few hundred dollars to several thousand for repeated filings and information before the patent is assigned. “It’s expensive for an ordinary person,” Brown says.
Patently Flush – with Cash
Fast forward to 2010 – 2011.
For companies like Apple, Google, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Intel, Microsoft, Motorola and RIM a few thousand dollars in fees is spare change. And it’s more expensive for these companies to pass up patents.
Most of the top tier high technology firms have no fear of going broke.
Apple currently has $25.62 billion in cash and no debt, while Google has $33.38 billion in the bank and just $2.12 billion in debt. Those are among the biggest war chests in Silicon Valley. Wall Street likes to see companies make strategic investments; it increases their valuation and market capitalization.
There are several main objectives spurring these industry giants to spend millions and possibly in excess of billion in pursuit of Nortel’s patents. They are:
• To keep competitors from getting them
• To grow by acquisition, strengthening leadership position and weakening rivals
• To ensure a recurring revenue stream via royalties and licensing rights
• To insulate the company from potential lawsuits involving use of IP in products
• To use the existing IP, improve upon it and spur the release of innovative new products
• To keep several technological steps ahead of competitors
• To potentially resell the patents after purchasing them
In their desire for dominance – both within their respective core competencies and to expand into new markets — all of the top tier high tech vendors are bumping into one another. Google is not just a search engine company, Apple is not just a consumer hardware manufacturer and Microsoft makes a lot more than Windows and Office.
To high technology firms, patents represent a very real and powerful form of currency. It’s like playing Monopoly, acquiring Boardwalk, Park Place and all the utilities and then putting up houses and hotels and charging anyone who lands on your property a fee – in this case licensing and royalty rights. They are the difference in collecting monies or potentially costing a company millions or billions in legal fees and settlement costs in the event one is sued for patent infringement.
Patents Breed Lawsuits & Trolls
Patents are fertile breeding grounds for controversy and lawsuits. For every patent filed by and assigned to inventors like Edison or Graham Bell or large multinational corporations like Apple, IBM, Intel, HP, Microsoft, Motorola et al, there are rivals like Tesla, Gray and other corporations who claim (sometimes truly) that they got beat to the patent office by minutes or had their ideas stolen outright.
One would be hard pressed to identify a single instance of a major patented invention that has gone unchallenged.
It doesn’t matter whether the product is as facile as a bending straw or a smile button, or as complex as the design for a new wireless communications system or software application with tens of millions of lines of code.
Lawsuits dog patents like feathers stick to hot tar.

In the last decade alone, most of the high technology vendors have sued, been sued and agreed to pay each other billions to settle patent infringement lawsuits after protracted and enervating legal battles. One could write tomes about even a single instance where one or more corporations is challenging a competitor on a specific patent.
Just as patents are big business, so are the lawsuits that accompany them. There’s a very thriving and growing industry around patent “trolls.” These are companies that purchase patents from other firms – many of which have filed bankruptcy or are going out of business – for the express purpose of suing companies that use these patents. The patent troll business is increasingly sophisticated. The trolls do their homework, discover the net worth and revenues of the patent users and then contact them, threatening to sue for patent infringement if the alleged infringer doesn’t ante up with settlement fees. The trolls are usually clever enough to ensure that the settlement fee doesn’t exceed the company’s ability to pay. And usually the settlement fee is less expensive and far less time consuming than a lengthy legal battle.
The American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) based in Arlington, Va. publishes a bi-annual Economic Survey. This research calculates the length of time and average costs associated with defending against patent infringement suits based on the monetary value of the IP at risk. In the top 20 cities, the cost ranges from over $1.5 million to well over $10 million and the case may drag on for years. AIPLA’s most recent “Report of the Economic Survey 2009 found that the median cost of litigation for cases with estimated damages of under $1 million was $650,000. For cases with projected damages of $1 million to $25 million companies could expect to spend an average of $2.5 million in legal fees. And for patent infringement cases involving damages in excess of $25 million, the average cost of litigation is $5.5 million.
In the last decade alone, Microsoft has spent billions in settling copyright and patent infringement cases with companies like Sun Microsystems (now owned by Oracle) and Novell. So it was a Happy Thanksgiving for Microsoft on November 26, when via CPTN Holdings LLC, (a consortium of technology companies that it organized) Microsoft purchased 882 patents from long term rival Novel $450 million cash, according to a US Securities and Exchange Commission filing submitted by Novell. This is a veritable bargain for Microsoft. In addition to saving money, Microsoft won’t be burdened with the distraction of having its executives spending valuable time giving depositions.
Microsoft is hardly alone. In March of this year Apple sued rival phone maker HTC of Taiwan and filed a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission, charging that the company infringed on 20 Apple patents related to the iPhone’s graphical user interface (GUI); as well as the hardware and software design. Apple is seeking a permanent injunction against HTC prohibiting them from importing and selling infringing devices into the U.S. market.
The smart phone, mobile and wireless markets are among the hottest technology arenas. It’s no surprise then that competitors are flocking to these lucrative technologies and that the competition and the number of patent infringement and intellectual property suits is increasing. One would be hard pressed to name a major vendor that is not being sued or suing one or more of its rivals.
Purchasing patents is a smart defensive and offensive strategy. Once you buy a patent you lower your risk and exposure to lawsuits and your firm gains an ongoing source of very lucrative revenue. And in today’s highly competitive fast paced world, holding IP rights to specific patents boosts companies’ chances of getting more innovative products to market more quickly at a fraction of the R&D costs associated with developing a product organically – from scratch.
High technology firms from established players to upstart startups will play the patent game to win. A quick look at the numbers tells the tale: companies are buying up patents at record numbers.
Company Patents Assigned
Apple 3,601
Google 553
HP 40,392
IBM 63,227
Intel 61,607

Microsoft 69,575

Motorola 55,366
Oracle 10,892
RIM 279
Source: US Patent and Trademark Office
The vendors don’t release how much they make and how much they save by purchasing patents but you can bet it’s a very substantial amount and growing by leaps and bounds.
Patents are pure platinum. They represent a sound investment, money in the bank, a recurring revenue stream, a powerful leverage and insurance policies all rolled into one. You can bet that Ballmer, Jobs and Schmidt know that and won’t make the same mistakes as Tesla.

Windows 7 is a winner!

As we noted in our previous blog, Windows 7 officially celebrates its 1st birthday, today — October 22nd. And there are plenty of reasons to celebrate. Yes, Windows 7 has sold over 240 million copies, to date making it the fastest selling OS in Microsoft’s (or any vendor’s) history. And yes, many of those sales can be attributed to pent-up demand because the overwhelming majority of the Windows installed base elected to remain on Windows XP and skip Vista. Admittedly, many organizations would opt to remain on Windows XP indefinitely if Microsoft was not ending support for the nearly 10 year old desktop OS. Those disclaimers aside, Windows 7′s success is no fluke.

A three-quarters majority – 73 percent of the 400+ respondents to the latest joint Sunbelt Software/ITIC poll, gave Windows 7 an “excellent,” “very good” or “good” rating.
That’s very close to the 80 percent majority of beta and early adopters who gave the Windows 7 the same high marks in the 2009 survey. The latest responses, coming after corporations have used Windows 7 in production for a full year, provides the best evidence that the Microsoft operating system is living up to the hype and fulfilling business’ needs. Only a small three percent minority of survey respondents gave Windows 7 a “Poor” and/or “Unsatisfactory” rating.
And a 72 percent majority of survey participants say they have already deployed, are in the process of deploying or will shortly deploy Windows 7. Only 7 percent of those polled indicated that they are “unlikely” to deploy Windows 7 at all and none of the respondents said they plan on switching to a rival operation system.
Lack of funds was the chief reason cited by the remaining 21 percent of respondents who said they have no definitive plans to upgrade to Windows 7 over the next 12 months. Anecdotal user comments confirmed that many companies are still in the grip of a recession and will wait until they upgrade their desktop hardware to migrate to Windows 7.
Windows XP is still the most widely deployed desktop OS – with 90 percent of the respondents indicating it was present in their shops. But Windows 7 is catching up quickly: 83 percent of those polled say they’ve deployed Windows 7 compared to only 37 percent who have Windows Vista.
Interestingly, the Apple Mac is the most popular non-Windows operating system as mainstream enterprises continue to adopt it. According to our poll, Apple Macs are present in 28 percent of your networks – which is three times more than the two most popular Linux and open source operating system distributions. Nine percent of survey respondents indicated they use Red Hat Linux and Ubuntu – the latter of which has made steady gains in the last two years.
Among large enterprises, IBM’s AIX was clearly the most popular UNIX distribution, besting both HP UX and Sun Solaris (now owned by Oracle) by a 2 to 1 margin.
Nearly two-thirds or 60% of you indicated you will deploy Windows 7; 30% of you say you’ll migrate to the new Microsoft desktop operating system within the first six months while another 30% say intend to make the transition sometime within the year. Four out of 10 businesses – 40% — have no definitive migration timetable.

Microsoft by the Numbers
Profit Margin: 30.02%
Operating Margin: 39.51%
Return on Assets: 18.82%
Return on Equity: 43.76%
Revenue: $62.48B

Quarterly Revenue Growth: 22.40%
Gross Profit: $50.09B
Quarterly Earnings Growth: 48.40%
Total Cash: $36.56B

Total Debt: $5.97B

Source: Capital IQ

Instead, many industry experts and observers paint a grim picture of the 35 year-old Microsoft in a midlife crisis, well past its prime and unable to compete in new and emerging markets like smart phones, search engines, online search and advertising and the cloud against edgier rivals, most notably Apple and Google. Recent articles have made much of the fact that Microsoft garners far fewer headlines these days – about one-third to one-half as many mentions – as Apple, Dell, Google, Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Oracle, Research in Motion (RIM) and VMware to name a few.
Press of course, is relative, depending on the type of news one is generating. Still the prevailing sentiments in the news business are that “No news is not good news” and “It’s better to be damned than ignored.”
Microsoft executives are no doubt grateful that for a change, they are not one of the headliners in the increasingly vitriolic verbal volleyball that characterizes HP and Oracle’s disintegrating partnership. Similarly, press reports about Microsoft and its executives have been remarkably devoid of scandals – such as those that have recently rocked the HP board of directors.
That then begs the question, if Microsoft’s financials are so rosy, its core Windows and Office products in the black and thriving, why then are some industry observers writing the company’s epitaph?
A Tale of Two Microsoft’s
The answer of course, is that while the numbers aren’t lying, they don’t tell the whole story. For all intents and purposes, there are two Microsoft’s: one is the company that exists in reality and the other exists in the public’s perception. And the two Microsoft’s are indivisible.
The reality is Microsoft’s core businesses – Windows and Office continue to thrive – for now. The industry however, is inexorably changing. It is morphing from a fixed premises, subscription-based licensing model that has been the foundation of Microsoft’s astounding success and dominance over the past three decades to an increasingly mobile workforce that uses smart phones (Blackberry, iPhone, Android et al); tablets (the Apple iPad) and free Email and applications (Google Mail, Google Docs) to stay connected. In these emerging environments, Microsoft is playing catch-up and struggling to stay relevant as rivals like Google and Apple continually assault its core applications businesses.
It doesn’t help Microsoft’s case when high level executives decide to exit the company “to pursue other interests.” Chief Software Architect, Ray Ozzie, the iconic developer of Lotus Notes, is the latest high profile departure. Ozzie, who was touted as Bill Gates’ successor as Chief Software Architect, announced earlier this week that he was leaving Microsoft. No departure date has been publicly announced and until he exits Ozzie will lend his considerable talents to the entertainment division.
Ozzie’s exit follows on the heels of Robbie Bach and J. Allard’s departures earlier this year as executives in the entertainment and mobile divisions, respectively. Bach and Allard reportedly clashed with Microsoft chief executive and other executives on technology direction. Such divisions were made sharper by the flagging fortunes of Microsoft’s mobile and entertainment initiatives. After suffering the stinging embarrassment of pulling its KIN 1 and KIN 2 phones off the market on June 30, a scant six weeks after the product debuted to near non-existent sales.
The company is now regrouping around the Windows Phone 7, which it is targeting at business users. The new Microsoft mobile OS has garnered good reviews so far, now it has got to get users onto the platform. Microsoft will reportedly spend $400 in a fall and winter marketing campaign throughout the U.S. and Europe. Microsoft has more than just money invested in Windows Phone 7’s success. If it fails to gain tangible and significant traction, Microsoft may effectively be shut out of the lucrative but increasingly competitive and crowded smart phone arena.
Microsoft has other definite challenges – and they are daunting ones. It must:
• Make more headway in the search market. Bing is a very good search engine and does have traction. The latest statistics released by ComScore earlier this month, show Bing with an 11.2 percent market share. However, that is far behind Google’s 66 percent.
• Clarify its Azure and BPOS cloud strategies. Microsoft has made significant strides in its cloud offerings and strategies. But its marketing is still muddy. Microsoft must craft a cogent and cohesive cloud strategy and communicate it so that it resonates with the masses of existing Windows customers and potential users.
• Retain and attract top talent. Truthfully, the number and caliber of executive departures from Microsoft over the past several years has been no better or worse than the majority of high tech firms. But Microsoft is under a microscope and is judged more harshly than most of its rivals. Many of the departures were predictable; coming after decades of tenure and after the executives in question had made millions. That said Microsoft must retain and attract top talent. Easier said than done, I know.

The biggest blow of all of course, was Bill Gates’ decision to retire from day-to-day Microsoft operations to concentrate on his philanthropic pursuits. This is great for Gates and his charities but he’s as close as you get to the indispensable man. Remember how Apple’s stock stumbled when speculation was rampant during 2009 about Steve Jobs’ health? Microsoft has also taken a beating in the press with rumors that Ballmer may leave or be forced out of the top spot. The truth is every high tech firm needs a visible face like Jobs at Apple, the triumvirate of Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt at Google and of course, Larry Ellison at Oracle. Right now, there are no obvious successors or heirs apparent to Gates or Ballmer. For Microsoft’s sake Ballmer should stay at the helm for the time being.
Despite Microsoft’s issues, it would be a big mistake to write the company off. There are lots of positives. They include:
• Revenue and entrenched market share and continued dominance in the Windows and Office markets which should continue for the next several years.
• The Xbox Kinect and Windows Phone 7 appear to be gaining real traction.
• Broad, deep portfolio of cloud products which has shown impressive growth in the past 12 months.
• Robotics: Microsoft is also a pioneer in another crucial emerging market: robotics. Microsoft’s Surface is a multi-touch, combination hardware/software product that enables users to manipulate digital content via gesture recognition, such as hand signals or real world objects. Available since 2008, it has racked up some impressive wins and is in use at Disneyland’s Tomorrowland, select Sheraton Hotels and Harrah’s Entertainment.
• Security and Reliability improvements in the core Windows products. Microsoft’s 2002 Trustworthy Computing Initiative has been a rousing success. According to the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Common Vulnerability and Exposures Database (CVE) SQL Server is the most secure of the major database platforms, with the fewest number of reported vulnerabilities associated with the platform since 2002. And the results from the ITIC 2010-2011 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability survey indicate that 86 percent of respondents rate the security of Windows Server 2008 and Windows Server 2008 R2 as either “Excellent” or “Very Good.” Similarly, 50 percent of survey participants indicated that Windows Server security has “improved significantly” while 24 percent say it has “improved somewhat” over the last three years. At the same time, none of the survey participants indicated they were contemplating wholesale defections to rival platforms, although the number of individual users deploying Apple Macs and iPads is on the rise.

There is no question that Microsoft will survive and continue to thrive in its core markets. The looming question is can Microsoft get its groove back to aggressively mount a challenge to Apple, Google et al, in the lucrative mobile, online, entertainment and cloud markets. It must go back to its roots and aggressively play to its strengths. Microsoft’s $36.56 billion in cash should buy a lot of advertising and a lot of talent.

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.

Those are the results of the ITIC 2009 Global Server Hardware and Server OS Reliability Survey which polled C-level executives and IT managers at 400 corporations from 20 countries worldwide. The results indicate that the IBM AIX operating system whether running on Big Blue’s Power servers (System p5s)  is the clear winner, offering rock solid reliability. The IBM servers running AIX consistently score at least 99.99% or just 15 minutes of unplanned per server, per annum downtime.

Overall, the results showed improvements in reliability, patch management procedures and an across-the-board reduction in per server, per annum Tier 1, Tier 2 and the most severe Tier 3 outages.  Among the other survey highlights:

• IBM leads all vendors for both server hardware and server OS reliability as well as the fewest number of Tier 1, Tier 2 and Tier 3 unplanned server outages per year. IBM AIX running on the System p5s had less than one unplanned outage incident per server in a 12 month period. More impressively, the IBM servers experience no Tier 3 outages. Tier 3 outages are the most severe and usually involve more than four hours or a half-day worth of downtime and can also result in lost data.
• HP UX also performed well though HP servers notch approximately 25 minutes more downtime than IBM servers, depending on model and configuration – or just under 40 minutes per server, per annum downtime.
• IT managers spend approximately 11minutes to apply patches to IBM servers running the AIX operating system, which is again, the least amount of time spent patching any server or operating system. The open source Ubuntu distribution is a close second with IT managers spending 12 minutes to apply patches, while IT managers in the Apple Mac OS X 10.x. Novell SuSE and customized Linux distribution environments each spend 15 to 19 minutes applying patches.
• IBM also took top honors in another important category: IBM Power servers and AIX experience the lowest amount of the more severe Tier 2 and Tier 3 outages combined of any server hardware or server operating system. The combined total of Tier 2 and Tier 3 outages accounted for just 19% of all per server, per annum failures.
• Microsoft Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server 2008 showed the biggest improvements of any of the vendors. The Windows Server 2003 and 2008 operating systems running on Intel-based platforms saw a 35% reduction in the amount of unplanned per server, per annum downtime from 3.77 hours in 2008 to 2.42 hours in 2009. The number of annual Windows Server Tier 3 outages also decreased by 31% year over year and the time spent applying patches similarly decline by 35% from last year to 32 minutes in 2009.
• This year’s survey for the first time, also incorporated reliability results for the Apple Mac and OS X 10.x OS platform.  The survey respondents indicated that Apple products are extremely competitive in an enterprise setting. IT managers spend approximately 15 minutes per server to apply patches and Apple Macs recorded just under 40 minutes of per server, per annum downtime.

Windows 7 is crucial to Microsoft’s over-arching software business and technology strategy for the next two years. Although it is an incremental upgrade and not a major overhaul of the underlying Vista kernel, Windows 7 represents a crucial upgrade for both consumer and corporate customers.

Practically speaking, Windows 7 must do what Vista didn’t: deliver near seamless, plug and play integration and interoperability with the overwhelming majority of Microsoft and third party applications, device drivers, utilities and hardware peripherals. As a standalone operating system (OS) Vista was fine. Unfortunately, there’s no such thing as a standalone OS. The lack of backwards compatibility between Vista and third party software and even incompatibilities in the file formats between Vista and Office 2007 and other Microsoft products was a nightmare for corporations and consumers alike.

As a result, there is no margin for error. Windows 7 must fulfill users’ expectations, business and technology needs from the first day it ships. Microsoft will not get a second chance to make a good first impression. Failure to do so could send customers running to rival desktop platforms like Apple’s Mac OS X 10.x and Linux distributions, or even online options such as those being pitched by Google. . And if Windows 7 does not deliver the features, integration, interoperability and reliability Microsoft is promising, it may well create a domino effect that adversely impacts the upcoming releases of related solutions like Exchange Server and the Office platform.

Integration and interoperability are the most important criteria, besting even cost, when it comes to choosing a new technology. The results of ITIC’s May 2009 Application Availability survey of 300 businesses worldwide found that 60% of business said integration and interoperability with existing and legacy applications tops the list of “must have” items in new software application and operating system purchases. Cost came in a close second with 56% of the respondents followed by ease of use and installation (55%).

The stakes for Windows 7 are also high because of intensified competition. Rumors abound that Microsoft pushed up the release date by at least three months so that Windows 7 hits the streets in advance of the low cost netbook version of Google’s Android. Microsoft also faces increased competition in its decades-old rival Apple. During the past two years Apple’s Mac OS X 10.x running on Apple’s Intel-based proprietary hardware has been making a comeback in corporate enterprises. Apple products do not represent a significant threat to Microsoft’s corporate desktop dominance, but they can nibble at the fringes, potentially dilute momentum [for Windows 7] and take some market share. In this ongoing global economic downturn, no vendor wants to concede any revenue or even a percentage point of market share.

Microsoft of course is acutely aware of these issues. In recent months, company CEO Steve Ballmer and Senior Vice President Bill Veghte have publicly stated that users were stymied by the incompatibility issues they encountered with Vista. They intend to avoid those problems with Windows 7.

Fortuitously, for Microsoft, there are many factors in Windows 7’s favor. They include:

• Pent-up Demand. To date, only 10% of the 700 survey respondents in ITIC’s 2009 Global IT and Technology Trends Global Deployment Survey have deployed Vista as their company’s primary desktop operating system. The results indicated that Windows XP remains the primary desktop OS for 89% of the respondents. Nearly half—45%—of the survey respondents indicated they would skip Vista and migrate from XP to Windows 7. The main reasons for this were cost constraints associated with the bearish economy, and reluctance to undertake a complex OS upgrade with manpower constraints.

  The prevailing sentiment among businesses is that they can afford to wait because Windows XP adequate met their business and technology needs over the last two years. ITIC believes this bodes well for Windows 7 deployments in the short and intermediate term. If 20% of the installed base of legacy Windows XP users migrate or indicate their intention to upgrade to Windows 7 within the first three or four months of shipment, Microsoft will be well-positioned. There is a reasonable likelihood of this, providing Windows 7 delivers the goods. And the advance word from customers interviewed by ITIC is generally positive.

• New feature set. Windows 7 will have six different versions, but to minimize the confusion that accompanied the Vista launch, only the Home Premium and Professional editions will be widely sold in retail outlets. Specific versions that are designed for enterprise use or developing nations will be aggressively marketed to those specific accounts and geographic regions, thus taking the guesswork out of purchasing. Most importantly: Microsoft says that every one of the versions will include all of the capabilities and features of the edition below it which will help to minimize upgrade woes. Corporations and consumers that want to move to a more feature rich version of Windows 7 can use Windows Anytime Upgrade to purchase the upgrade online and unlock the features of those editions from their desktops.

  ITIC interviewed several dozen Windows 7 beta users over the last several months and an overwhelming 9 out of 10 respondents expressed their satisfaction with improvements in many Windows 7’s core capabilities when compared to both Windows XP and Vista. This includes faster boot sequence, better reliability, improved security, a much faster and more comprehensive search engine, and more flexible configuration options. Additionally, Microsoft bolstered the inherent security of Windows 7 with DirectAccess and BitLocker To Go features. The DirectAccess capability is designed to provide remote, traveling and telecommuting workers with the same secure connectivity as though they were local by establishing a VPN “tunnel” to their corporate networks. BitLocker To Go extends the data encryption features introduced in Vista to include removable storage devices such as USB thumb drives support in Windows 7. Users can employ a password or a smart card with a digital certificate to unlock and access their data. And the devices can be used on any other Windows 7-based machine with the correct password. Users can also read, but not modify data on older Windows XP and Vista systems.

• Economical and feature rich Licensing contracts. Finally, the terms and conditions of Windows 7 licensing contracts promise to make upgrades easier on corporate IT budgets. In February, Microsoft said it would provide a license that will allow customers to directly upgrade from Windows XP to Windows 7. There is a caveat, though: users will have to wipe their hard drives and perform a clean install – so technically, it’s not an upgrade. Microsoft has not yet released pricing details for Windows 7 but ITIC believes the upgrade license will most likely cost 20% to 40% less than a new license.

  Additionally, corporations that purchased Microsoft’s Software Assurance Maintenance and upgrade plan as a standalone product or received it as part of their Enterprise Agreement (EA) licenses, are entitled to free upgrades to Windows 7 since it is an incremental release. Additionally, in order to make life easier for users (and to engender goodwill) Microsoft is letting the Release Candidate (RC) free trial license for Windows 7 last a full year until June 2010! And users looking for a discounted version of Windows 7 to run on low cost, minis or netbooks take note: Microsoft and Intel have agreed that in order for a device to be considered a netbook, the screen must not exceed 10.2” Prior to this, Microsoft allowed customers to get the Windows XP or Vista discount for or devices as large as a 12.1” screen.

In summary, all indications are that Microsoft has learned from its Vista mistakes. As a result, businesses and consumers stand ready to reap significant benefits in compatibility, features, pricing and licensing with Windows 7.