BrustBlog

Tech Industry Pontifications, NYC Quips, and the Occasional Political Outburst


News

My Stats

  • Posts - 153
  • Comments - 82
  • Trackbacks - 0

Twitter












Recent Comments


Recent Posts


Archives


December 2009 Entries

BI (Up) in the Cloud


In the new film “Up in the Air,” George Clooney’s character, Ryan Bingham, poses a question relevant to the premise of BI as a cloud computing offering.  Bingham is a career transition specialist -- i.e. someone who fires people as an outsourced service – and he insists that his services must be delivered on-premise (if you will), despite his firm’s new initiative to start doing so via Web conference technology.  That initiative is being pushed by his colleague, Natalie Keener (played by Anna Kendrick), a new hire and recent graduate.  The film explores this inter-generational debate and competition between the effectiveness of personal presence and the efficiency of the Internet.

A similar debate is playing out between BI startup companies, many of which are cloud pure-plays, and the traditional BI heavyweights.  The startups, with names like Oco, ParAccel, and Birst, insist that the efficiency, ease of provisioning and on-demand scale of the cloud is exactly what’s needed to move BI more into the mainstream. Meanwhile, the traditional BI players like IBM/Cognos, Oracle/Hyperion, SAP/BusinessObjects and even Microsoft don’t necessarily agree, and don’t see sufficient customer demand to warrant investment in the new approach.

If Ryan Bingham were a BI specialist, he would argue (and rightly so), that enterprise BI implementations vary greatly, require significant business analysis and sometimes even business process reengineering, both which are very interactive, high-touch services best delivered in person.  Even after implementation, the volumes of data, the processor-intensive ETL (extract, transform and load) jobs, and the data- and query-specificity of cache, index and cube optimizations don’t lend themselves well to a multi-tenant, hosted environment.

Natalie Keener would likely counter (and not without merit) that in-memory database technology can render many of these post-implementation concerns moot. And I bet she’d also argue, even though it would incense Ryan, that with enough customer volume, commonalities in the analysis and business process reengineering delivery would start to emerge, making the services more mappable, repeatable and deliverable by new trainees.

Who’s right?  For large enterprises, I’d say Bingham’s right, today.  For smaller organizations looking for analytics on their Web logs, CRM/ERP transactions and other common data repositories,  Natalie’s vision may be feasible quite soon.  Even larger organizations with more customized needs might fit her paradigm in the not-so-distant future.  Only issue is that the technology’s not ready for them yet, and even if it were, the organizations would not be ready for the new technology.

As a case in point, take a look at Microsoft’s BI stack, cloud stack and SaaS stack. Microsoft has a lot of cloud BI pieces already in place.  It also has some more work to do.  SharePoint is key: its ties to Excel Services and the Excel Web App make it the sensible end-user BI point of delivery.  Then take a look at PowerPivot, which uses the high-compression, in-memory technology Natalie would love.  Its server engine integrates with SharePoint, which can initiate and load-balance instances of the server, according to demand, which is very cloud-like indeed.  But will SharePoint Online support all of these products and features?  it’s hard to tell.  And what about SQL Azure?  Seems like a great on-demand data warehousing platform.  Until you start to contemplate its 10GB limit in database size!

So Microsoft isn’t there yet; Bingham would be vindicated.  But imagine If the Excel Web App and Excel Services, which are already kissing cousins, merged.  And imagine if SQL Azure databases could be larger, and a scale-out technology, like that in the forthcoming SQL Server “Madison” product, were used to aggregate a collection of such databases into a single data warehouse.  Now, finally, envision PowerPivot running as part of SharePoint Online and in the core Analysis Services product, which would become a feature within SQL Azure.  With all of this, Microsoft would really have something for cloud BI.  And, by then, their customers might just be ready. 

On that day, Natalie might feel smug, like she were right all along.  But could she last that long?  One cloud BI startup, LucidEra, has already folded.  And by the time such product and customer maturity were reached, Ryan may be very comfortable with the change, gracefully delivering his old services within it.  Granted, he, like Microsoft, would be older.  But if the offering’s a good one, then I bet it wins.  George Clooney, and his admirers,  would corroborate that, I imagine.

posted @ Sunday, December 27, 2009 11:20 PM | Feedback (0) |


Are Pricing Models Where the Cloud Will be Won?


I may be a Microsoft aficionado, but the competition is still important, especially when it’s especially worthy.  That’s why I subscribe to Amazon Web Services’ newsletter.  A new issue arrived in my inbox recently and revealed AWS’ latest innovation: Amazon EC2 instances priced by bid.  Specifically, according to AWS’ Web posting  on the so-called EC2 Spot Instances option: “Spot Instances allow customers to bid on unused Amazon EC2 capacity and run those instances for as long as their bid exceeds the current Spot Price. The Spot Price changes periodically based on supply and demand, and customers whose bids meet or exceed it gain access to the available Spot Instances.”

I think that’s such a good idea that it almost seems absurd that Microsoft isn’t doing it.  But Microsoft is doing some pricing innovation of its own: it’s including large blocks of Azure compute hours with MSDN developer annuity licenses, and it’s also planning to make Azure services eligible for inclusion in Enterprise Agreements.  Given the reality that most large enterprises negotiate heavily over their EAs, this makes Azure subject to some of the same supply and demand forces that EC2 Spot Instances are beholden to.

Clearly the two are rather different: Azure’s negotiability covers an array of service usage over a multi-year period, while AWS’ covers very discrete, time-limited transactions.  But both companies are realizing that if the cloud is to go mainstream, it should be subject to similar arbitrage as software licenses and on-premise hardware infrastructure.  Maybe Amazon will hire Bill Shatner away from Priceline.

It’s exciting to see this evolve, and it shows that a company like Amazon has more reason to be in this business than their network of data centers: they understand markets and pricing power and the cloud is a great new scenario in which that knowledge can be applied.

It strikes me that Amazon’s market pricing options would appeal more to Web businesses (especially those with temporary spike/scale needs), whereas Microsoft’s are more geared to traditional corporate customers.  My fervent hope is that each company will accommodate both customer groups.  They are already doing so with their technologies (Windows instances on EC2; PHP and MySQL on Azure).  But I think the competition will get most beneficial for customers when the pricing schemes break barriers and comfort zones too.

posted @ Sunday, December 20, 2009 8:52 PM | Feedback (0) |


Redmond Vendor Management Matters


There’s been a lot of press in the last 24 hours concerning MSN China’s apparent (and now acknowledged) theft of code and copying of design from Taiwan’s Plurk microblogging service for the beta of its own Juku service.  Turns out the work was outsourced to an external vendor which, in turn, was the source of the plagiarism.  Microsoft, in a public statement, said “in the wake of this incident, Microsoft and our MSN China joint venture will be taking a look at our practices around applications code provided by third-party vendors."

I hope so.  Because this isn’t a one-off anomaly; it’s part of a larger phenomenon.

Remember the whole “Mojave” experiment, wherein Microsoft invited individuals to work with its allegedly new operating system, code-named Mojave, which was actually just Vista in disguise?  I thought that was a neat campaign and a good way to deflect some of the FUD hurled at Vista.  But do you remember the first take at the Mojave Web site?  It contained numerous participant interview videos and made them browse-able and viewable.  Too bad the first version of the site used Flash for the video format instead of Silverlight.  And guess what?  This was another outsource vendor gaffe.

There’s at least one other such screw-up I could mention, and it’s even more embarrassing, but I reported it to Microsoft before it got out and promised discretion.  Trust me though, if the two examples of outsourcing unruliness above don’t have you convinced of a systemic problem in Redmond with vendor management, this one would tip the scale.

Not all vendors are bad.  In fact, my own firm, twentysix New York, has developed many things for Microsoft, including reference applications, starter kits and hands-on-labs.  We do good work.  So did another vendor brought in to re-do the entire Mojave site using Silverlight. And they did it all in just two weeks.

Outsourcing isn’t the problem.  Quality control of outsourced work-product seems to be something that Microsoft could and should shore up, however.  Given the tendency of vendors to use the tools and technologies most familiar to them, rather than most consistent with their client’s offerings (which is understandable, given the budgets on some of these projects), Microsoft is deluding itself if it thinks common sense will prevent more gaffes like these. And, unfortunately, some vendors don’t just disregard good judgement, they disregard ethics too. Contractual stipulation may prohibit this, but that isn’t enough; there has to be a verification regime as well.

posted @ Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:18 PM | Feedback (0) |


MSpiNoff?


This week, TimeWarner, completed the spinoff of the online service that was at one point the initial part of its corporate name…AOL.  TimeWarner believes that the online portal is not core to its business, and that its non market-leadership would be best cured by independent management.

Should Microsoft do a similar spinoff of MSN?  Is “the butterfly” doing well under Redmond’s PC software-oriented management?  Despite an impending re-design, and a respectable market share in the US and global markets, MSN feels stuck in time and in a gradual decline.  As with AOL and TimeWarner, MSN does not seem core to Redmond’s mission.  And I’ve heard rumors that MSN is where Microsoft shifts personnel that are not succeeding elsewhere, to get them out of the way.  That’s just a rumor.  But, if true, that strategy wouldn’t help anybody, least of all MSN.

I’m not talking about Bing, or Bing Maps, or even Windows Live (properties which used to carry the MSN brand but conveniently do not any longer).  I’m not even sure if I’m talking about MSNBC.  But I am talking about the core portal and its departments, like MSN Money and MSN City Guides.  Those sites have no developer story that I know of, and have never been a good partner in terms of pushing Silverlight (the now defunct MSN SoapBox used Flash; MSN Video only recently converted and has in any case rebranded to Bing Videos). 

Had Microsoft actually acquired Yahoo, keeping certain MSN properties in-house would make sense.  But Yahoo is still independent, and yet it is a Bing partner and MSN competitor, which to me provides two reasons for spinning MSN off right there.  Also, MSN (exclusive of Bing) does not really compete with Google.  Maybe that’s a third reason to let the former go.

Even if spun off, MSN could still be owned by Microsoft.  It could retain its first initial.  It could continue to help be a primary channel for Bing searches, and it could begin anew to provide similar support for Silverlight.  But like Expedia, another erstwhile Microsoft Internet property, MSN and Microsoft (proper) might each do better on their own.

posted @ Friday, December 11, 2009 1:54 PM | Feedback (1) |


Microsoft Media Devices and the Aesthetic of “All Together Now.”


Microsoft makes an excellent digital music player (the Zune HD), a well-crafted networked storage and backup solution (Windows Home Server), a strong DVR/digital entertainment hub (Windows Media Center) and perhaps the industry leading gaming console (Xbox 360) which itself has a growing number of digital media capabilities.  But can they all get along?

That was my question almost a year ago, when I returned from the 2009 Consumer Electronics Show, which was riddled with a variety of incompatible, proprietary Network Attached Storage/TV set top box combos, from a variety of vendors.  The irony was that Microsoft’s own server and set-top option had a, shall we say, stealthy presence at the show.

This weekend, I took the plunge and upgraded my dedicated home theater PC from Vista Media Center to Windows 7 Media Center.  Last weekend, I applied an Xbox Live update to on of my Xbox 360 consoles, and a bit before that, my Windows Home Server updated itself to Power Pack  3 of that platform's core software.

The result?  (1) Media Center can now archive TV recordings to Home Server, (2) I can view the status of my Windows Home Server rig from my Media Center PC, using the remote control, and can do likewise from either of my Xbox consoles and (3) I can configure Windows Home Server to transcode my TV recordings to a lower bit rate, suitable for transfer to, and viewing on, a Zune device,  Granted, i don’t own a Zune, but the feature is intriguing nonetheless.

So there is now, in an ancillary fashion, a linkage between Xbox, Media Center, Home Server and Zune.  Finally, the pieces of Microsoft’s consumer media and electronics puzzle are fitting together.  But sometimes the jigsaw cuts puzzle pieces imprecisely and the fit between them requires some brute force to realize.

Xbox just added really nice native support for Twitter, Facebook and Last.fm.  Xbox consoles can also act as Media Center extender devices.  But the Media Center and native UIs on the Xbox are separate and Media Center offers no built-in support for these Web 2.0 services.  Want to use Last.fm on your Xbox?  Then exit out of the Media Center UI.  Want to use Netflix “Watch Instantly” services on your console?  Once again, you’ll need to get to the native Xbox user interface.  Want to Netflix on your Media PC itself?  You can, but you must do so with a native Media Center add-in, which does not run on an extender.

Twitter using  Media Center?  Nope; that’s Xbox only.  Catch podcasts on your Home Server?  Not with software form Microsoft, but you can stream video podcasts on Media Center using the Internet TV feature.  You can get podcasts on your Zune as well, but that uses different technology.  Backup my Xbox hard drive and Zune storage to my Home Server ?  Forget it.

How can so many products form just one company work in such a detached fashion?  How can the Xbox offer mutually exclusive features in its Media Center extender and native modes?  How come Windows mobile is almost totally out of the picture?  Microsoft will tell you that lack of interoperability is due to the separate development teams for each product.  And they’d be right.

But that begs a question: why are the teams so separate?   What if there were a single podcast/blog/RSS feed consumption technology and all the products used it?  What if Home server could host CableCARD devices and record TV that Media Center or Xbox simply presented through their unique UIs?  What if both XBox and Media Center could provide front-end interfaces to both the Zune Pass subscription service and the media stored locally on a Zune connected via USB (or even WiFi)?  And perhaps my backups could go to Azure storage once a week.

If all of these potentially common technologies had their own dev teams and those teams had mandates to work with various device and platform product groups to make sure those products shipped with native support, then Microsoft’s consumer device business would make more sense. Moreover, the personnel behind the technologies would be motivated to achieve the most prolific and most consistent adoption across other Microsoft products.

If Microsoft did that, they’d have perhaps the best digital home entertainment suite on the market.  As I’ve said before, this is one area where Apple hasn’t done well and so this an area where Microsoft could score an important victory over Cupertino.  That, in turn, could give Zune a fighting chance against iPod, seal the victory over Playstation 3 and Wii and maybe, one day, give rise to a compelling mobile phone play.

Maybe when I return to Las Vegas next month, for the 2010 CES, I’ll see some glimmer of hope on this front.  Maybe I’ll see a great “better together” strategy in this space that works as effectively as it does with Windows Server, SQL Server and SharePoint.

Or maybe not.  Maybe Microsoft would prefer I buy my PC from one of their OEMs, but get my phone/music player from Apple, my game console from Sony, my network storage from Netgear and my cloud storage Amazon.  If that’s the goal, then they are executing perfectly.  But if greater customer adoption, through reduced overhead and greater consistency of devices (across product lines and form factors) is what Microsoft seeks, then they need to change their game.

posted @ Monday, December 07, 2009 12:08 AM | Feedback (1) |