Windows 7 is now officially a year old. Since it was released October 22, 2009, Microsoft has sold over 240 million copies of the operating system — approximately seven copies per second. That makes it the fastest selling operating system in Microsoft’s history or any vendor’s history. Some industry pundits estimate that Windows 7 sales will top 300 million within the next six-to-eight months.
Microsoft has plenty of other reasons to celebrate Windows 7’s first birthday. Windows 7 has also been one of the most stable, reliable and secure releases in Microsoft’s history.
A three-quarters majority – 73 percent of the 400+ respondents to the latest joint ITIC/Sunbelt Software 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 ITIC/Sunbelt Software 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.
Windows 7’s immediate and intermediate future appears similarly rosy: 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 seven 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.
So great has been the demand for Windows 7, that it has fueled record revenue and earnings for Microsoft over the last three fiscal quarters. Microsoft recorded record revenue of $16.04 billion for the 2010 fourth fiscal quarter ended June 30.
In fact, Microsoft’s financials and balance sheet over the last several quarters is pure gold (see below) and is or should be the envy of just about any business.

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.

Ask any 10 qualified people to guess which of the major database platforms is the most secure and chances are at least half would say Oracle. That is incorrect.

The correct answer is Microsoft’s SQL Server. In fact, the Oracle database has recorded the most number of security vulnerabilities of any of the major database platforms over the last eight years.

This is not a subjective statement. The data comes directly from the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

Since 2002, Microsoft’s SQL Server has compiled an enviable record. It is the most secure of any of the major database platforms. SQL Server has recorded the fewest number of reported vulnerabilities — just 49 from 2002 through June 2010 — of any database. These statistics were compiled independently by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency that monitors security vulnerabilities by technology, vendor, and product (see Exhibit 1). So far in 2010, through June, SQL Server has a perfect record — no security bugs have been recorded by NIST CVE.

And SQL Server was the most secure database by a wide margin: Its closest competitor, MySQL (which was owned by Sun Microsystems until its January 2010 acquisition by Oracle) recorded 98 security flaws or twice as many as SQL Server.

By contrast, during the same eight-and-a-half year period spanning 2002 through June 2010, the NIST CVE recorded 321 security vulnerabilities associated with the Oracle database platform, the highest total of any major vendor. Oracle had more than six times as many reported security flaws as SQL Server during the same time span. NIST CVE statistics recorded 121 security-related issues for the IBM DB2 platform during the past eight-and-a-half years.

Solid security is an essential element for many mainstream line-of-business (LOB) applications, and a crucial cornerstone in the foundation of every organization’s network infrastructure. Databases are the information repositories for many organizations; they contain much of the sensitive corporate data and intellectual property. If database security is compromised, the entire business is potentially at risk.

SQL Server’s unmatched security record is no fluke. It is the direct result of significant Microsoft investment in its Trustworthy Computing Initiative, which the company launched in 2002. In January of that year, Microsoft took the step of halting all new code development for several months across its product lines to scrub the code base and make its products more secure.

The strategy is working. In the past 21 months since January 2009, Microsoft has issued only eight (8) SQL Server security-related alerts. To date in 2010 (January through June), there have been no SQL Server vulnerabilities recorded by Microsoft or NIST. Microsoft is the only database vendor with a spotless security record the first six months of 2010.

ITIC conducted an independent Web-based survey on SQL Server security that polled 400 companies worldwide during May and June 2010. The results of the ITIC 2010 SQL Server Security survey support the NIST CVE findings. Among the survey highlights:
• An 83% majority rated SQL Server security “excellent” or “very good” (see Exhibit 2, below).
• None of the 400 survey respondents gave SQL Server security a “poor” or “unsatisfactory” rating.
• A 97% majority of survey participants said they experienced no inherent security issues with SQL Server.
• Anecdotal data obtained during first-person customer interviews also elicited a very high level of satisfaction with the embedded security functions and capabilities of SQL Server 7, SQL Server 2000, SQL Server 2005, SQL Server 2008, and the newest SQL Server 2008 R2 release. In fact, database administrators, CIOs and CTOs interviewed by ITIC expressed their approbation with Microsoft’s ongoing initiatives to improve SQL Server’s overall security and functionality during the last decade starting with SQL Server 2000.

Strong security is a must for every organization irrespective of size or vertical industry. Databases are among the most crucial applications in the entire network infrastructure. Information in databases is the organization’s intellectual property and life blood.

Databases are essentially a company’s electronic filing system. The information contained in the database directly influences and impacts every aspect of the organization’s daily operations including relationships with customers, business partners, suppliers and its own internal end users. All of these users must have the ability to quickly, efficiently and securely locate and access data. The database platform must be secure. An insecure, porous database platform will almost certainly compromise business operations and by association, any firm that does business with it. Any lapses in database security, including deliberate internal and external hacks, inadvertent misconfiguration, or user errors can mean lost or damaged data, lost revenue, and damage to the company’s reputation, raising the potential for litigation and loss of business.

It’s also true that organizations bear at least 50 percent of the responsibility for keeping their databases and their entire network infrastructures secure. As the old proverb goes, “The chain is only as secure as its weakest link.” Even the strongest security can be undone or bypassed by user error, misconfiguration or weak computer security practices. No database or network is 100 percent hack-proof or impregnable.Organizations should consult with their vendors regarding any questions and concerns they may have about the security of ANY of their database platforms. They should also ensure they stay updated with the latest patches and install the necessary updates. Above all, bolster the inherent security of your databases with the appropriate third party security tools and applications. Make sure your organization strictly adheres to best computer security computing practices. At the end of the day only you can defend your data.

Registered ITIC site users can Email me at: ldidio@itic-corp.com for a copy of the full report.

In the mid-to-late 1980s colleagues and friends were surprised when I transitioned from working as an on camera investigative TV reporter to cover the then-fledgling high technology industry for specialized trade magazines.
After all they reasoned, how could I be content covering semiconductors, memory boards, server hardware, software and computer networks after working as a mainstream journalist covering stories such as lurid political and law enforcement corruption scandals ; drug trafficking; prostitution; dumping tainted substances on unsuspecting third world nations and cover-ups by big business when their planes, trains and automobiles malfunctioned? How could I trade in “murder and mayhem” for the staid, sterile world of high technology?
They needn’t have worried.
Admittedly, mastering the technology was a challenge. For the first few weeks every time I did story on PALs and had to spell out the acronym I wrote “Police Athletic League” instead of Programmable Array Logic. And then there was my first work-related trip to Las Vegas to cover the mammoth spectacle that was Comdex circa 1988. In the dark ages before wireless, laptops and decent broadband, it was nearly impossible to file stories from your hotel room because the trunk lines were overwhelmed. A colleague and I were forced to trek down to a bank of pay phones to transmit our news articles at 2:30 a.m. and were mistaken for hookers. The pay was arguably better than a journalist’s salary but we passed. Incidents like this made me feel close to my cops and crimes, murder and mayhem investigative TV roots.
I felt at home covering technology right away. Within a month, I was chronicling tales of high tech companies sending their top executives off to rehab for drug and alcohol addiction; there was a rash of top executives leaving established powerhouses like and taking top engineers and sales executives with them, which in turn precipitated a slew of theft of trade secrets and patent infringement lawsuits. Things really got interesting when Robert Morris, Jr. launched his now infamous Internet Worm; there were myriad other tales of sex scandals, involving corporate executives, board of director fights and coups, price fixing, hostile takeovers, corporate espionage and fiscal chicanery that entailed everything from embezzlement and theft to cooking the books .
Reality TV and the tabloids have nothing on high technology industry hijinks.
Fast forward to what’s making headlines during these “Dog Days” of summer 2010. The ancient Greeks and Romans believed that the dog days of summer (named after the constellation Sirius or Dog Star) lasted from late July to early September and hot weather foreshadowed evil doings. John Brady’s “Clavis Calendarium of 1813 describes it as “an evil time when the seas boiled, wine turned sour, dogs grew mad, and all creatures became languid, causing to man burning fevers, hysterics, and phrensies.” The recent spate of high tech headlines seems to bear that out. Here’s a sampling:
• The Hewlett-Packard board of directors abruptly fired CEO Mark Hurd, after allegations of sexual harassment surfaced.
• Oracle CEO Larry Ellison publicly blasted the HP board for firing Mark Hurd.
• Oracle sued Google for alleged patent and copyright infringement involving the use of Java intellectual property in Google’s mobile Android operating system.
• Google StreetView maps prompts privacy lawsuits and raids in several countries including South Korea
• Google releases version 6 of its Chrome web browser and vows to issue a stable new release every six weeks.
The headlines provide an accurate assessment of both the current state and the direction of the high tech industry. Four words say it all: sex, money, power and posturing. Let’s examine some of the stories in more detail.
The HP board of directors’ decision to fire CEO Mark Hurd after five years of stewardship remains cloaked in mystery. Hurd may or may not have been guilty of fudging expense reports and engaging in conduct not up to HP’s standards with Jodie Fisher, a contract HP “adviser” and sometime actress. In addition to being an adviser, Fisher also received $5,000 to attend HP events acting as a “meet and greet” hostess. Fisher, who retained the services of celebrity lawyer Gloria Allred, may or may not have been a victim of harassment. We don’t know for sure because all of the principals in this tableau are mum. Rumors are rife that the “real reason” the HP’s board may have shown Hurd the door is because: 1) he may have been more involved than was previously thought in the 2006 HP board of directors “pretexting” scandal. At that time, HP board members illegally spied on other board members to learn the source of news leaks and 2) Hurd was exceedingly unpopular with rank and file HP employees.
By all monetary measures, Hurd’s five year stint at HP was a resounding success. And for that, Hurd will walk away with a $40 to $50 million severance package. No one knows how much Fisher received, because Hurd and Fisher settled whatever transpired between them, privately. But it must be a pretty good sum, because Fisher issued a very upbeat and conciliatory statement saying she did not intend for Hurd to lose his job and wishes Hurd, his family and HP all the best. Thankfully, I read this on an empty stomach!
What’s wrong with this picture? Plenty.
The real victims here are HP’s rank and file employees, the American worker and sexual harassment victims – both men and women – who lack the clout to hire a Gloria Allred to rattle her saber for another 15 minutes of fame and a quick, inglorious settlement.
The average Joe and Jane worker have seen their ranks decimated with each new acquisition and round of layoffs. HP currently ranks number 9 on Fortune 500 list. In the past several years it has acquired Compaq, EDS, 3Com and Palm. Those mergers and acquisitions helped HP become the first high tech company to have annual revenues that exceed the $100 billion threshold. HP is also first in another category – albeit an unwelcome one: despite its stellar financial performance, over the last decade HP has cut more jobs (most of them here in the U.S.) than any other high tech firm. The head count stands at approximately 85,000.
So Mark Hurd gets $40 to $50 million and tens of thousands of HP’s American employees get shown the door.
Then there’s Ms. Fisher. I know nothing about the woman. One must presume if Hurd was willing to settle with her that her claim had some merit. However, as soon as I heard she was represented by Allred, I cringed. Allred has turned into a modern day Carrie Nation for the tabloid TV generation. In an age of instant and continual information via the Tabloids and the Web, publicity is the chief currency – the more salacious and lurid, the bigger the settlement. I phoned Allred’s office to inquire how many pro bono and non-celebrity sexual harassment cases she handles. I haven’t heard back yet and I’m not too hopeful.
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) received 12,696 complaints of sexual harassment in the workplace – 16% of them by men. The EEOC says it recovered $51.5 million in monetary benefits for those nearly 13,000 workers. That’s probably just about what Mark Hurd, Jodie Fisher and Gloria Allred pocketed among the three of them. Nice work if you can get it.
That brings me to another prominent headline of the past couple of weeks: Oracle chief Larry Ellison, in an interview with the New York Times blasted the HP board for firing his longtime friend Mark Hurd. Ellison’s comments have all the credence of a professional athlete convicted of using steroids writing an editorial extolling the virtues of doping. Oracle, which completed its acquisition of Sun Microsystems earlier this year, is gearing up to axe up to one-third to one-half of Sun’s workforce of over 25,000. No one is sure exactly how many Oracle employees will be pink slipped but estimates range from 5,000 to as high as 10,000. Oracle disclosed in a recent government finding that it will take write off $825,000 in restructuring charges.
The question is will Larry Ellison make room for Mark Hurd at Oracle? He might. Hurd has a proven record of cutting costs, cutting people and thus delivering value to shareholders.
The real measure of a company’s success should not be measured by how many jobs it cuts by how many jobs it creates for the American worker.
Oracle also made headlines and flexed its muscles last week with the announcement that it is suing Internet search engine giant Google for allegedly infringing on the Java patents Oracle now owns as part of the Sun acquisition, that are used in Google’s mobile Android operating system. This is all about Oracle making a preemptive strike to try and contain Google in what’s shaping up to be a battle of high tech titans. Google’s Android OS runs on many of the major mobile phone platforms including Motorola and HTC Corp. The implications are enormous. Don’t expect this one will ever get to court. Neither firm wants to spend millions or expend precious corporate resources in a protracted legal battle, which would be detrimental to both sides. Expect them to settle. But we can also expect the acrimony between these two rivals to rise commensurately along with the stakes in the mobile market.
Google meanwhile engaged in some posturing of its own. The company released beta version 6 of its Google Chrome web browser. Google also says it will issue a stable new release of the browser every six weeks. This move is clearly designed as a challenge to Microsoft Internet Explorer, Mozilla Firefox and Apple Safari. While I applaud Google’s initiative and desire to retain its competitive edge, releasing a new version of its browser every six weeks is overkill. No matter how fast Google or any vendor makes its browser, the actual speeds are still determined by the user’s broadband. And frankly, the constant application upgrades to everyday packages like Adobe, WordPress and the various browsers are a nuisance. One can barely log on to an application without being hounded to upgrade to the latest version. It’s a major nuisance.
But these days, companies feel compelled to make an announcement just to keep their names in the headlines at all costs. There’s never a dull moment in the high tech industry, especially during the dog days of summer. I can’t wait to see what fall brings. If you have any ideas, Email me at: ldidio@itic-corp.com.