Microsoft’s Arc Touch Mouse

Here’s some photos of Microsoft’s latest mouse tech — the Arc Touch Mouse — from CIO.com:

(Photos are from WinFuture.de)

Microsoft Kin phone, RIP

Given the current huge ad campaign in action, this is just truly epic failure (yes, the phrase is way overused and becoming quite trite, but maybe the only way to truly express this level of corporate idiocy.)

From the link:

The company halted the rollout of Kin One and Kin Two phones after less than two months.

And:

But the timing of Kin’s arrival was off. Microsoft Corp. had just announced a new Windows Phone system. And during the years Kin was said to be in development, smart phones grew more sophisticated. Kin doesn’t have extra “apps” for download or a GPS mapping function.

Apple’s market cap passes Microsoft

Interesting. Probably not all that meaningful, but interesting.

From the link:

On Wednesday, Apple’s market capitalization edged past its longtime rival’s as investors made official what consumers have long suggested: Microsoft is no longer the industry’s alpha dog.

Just last month, Microsoft’s market cap exceeded Apple’s by about $25 billion, but now Apple is in the lead by nearly $3 billion.

$713 million

That’s how much Microsoft lost in Q3 with its Online Services Division. (Read: Bing)

From the link:

During Microsoft’s fiscal third quarter, which ended March 31, the Online Services Division, or OSD, reported a 12 percent increase in revenue, which rose to US$566 million on the back of higher advertising revenue. That wasn’t enough to offset a surge in operating expenses during the period. The division’s quarterly loss grew by 73 percent to $713 million, compared to a loss of $411 million during the same period last year.

OSD includes Microsoft’s online advertising business, the Bing search engine, and its various MSN websites.

Google makes cloud acquisition

This move really pushes Microsoft because it’s going to give Google’s users the opportunity to access full-featured Microsoft Office files in the cloud before Microsoft provides that service.

From the link:

Late last week, Google (GOOG) made another aggressive move to stay ahead of Microsoft (MSFT) in the online productivity tools space by acquiring DocVerse, a startup founded by two former Microsoft employees, known for tools that let users collaborate on Microsoft Office files on the Web.

Google nabbed the three-year-old, San Francisco-based DocVerse for $25 million, according to the Wall Street Journal. What Google gets in return is the technology to make Microsoft Office operate more like Google Docs.

DocVerse provides a 1MB plug-in to Office 2007 that allows users to edit and share Word, Excel and PowerPoint documents online and in real-time with all the features of the Office client versions intact.

Bing gaining search engine market share …

… but just barely. I’ve seen more than a few tech stories covering Bing’s modest gains in search engine market share. All well and good, but it’s worth looking at the actual numbers and some of the reasons for that gain. Let’s just say I think the Redmond bunch should probably keep the champagne on ice and heed the advice of Winston Wolf. (In case you don’t remember Wolf, he’s the “Pulp Fiction” character who used a rather colorful idiom to keep Vince and Jules’ ego in check.)

Microsoft is gaining market share, but at a very high cost. Bing has had the living hell marketed out of it, particularly on television. If all that money creates converts who consistently use Bing over Google, and market share keeps growing, it’ll be worth the cost. Right now I’m guessing whatever money Microsoft is earning from Bing is dwarfed by the search engine’s marketing budget. Microsoft has a long and proud history of losing a ton of money in a market area they want to enter and challenge a rival (see: Xbox gaming console.)

Now let’s look at the actual numbers and see just how far behind Google Bing really is, and how it may not be chipping away at the targeted rival at all, but actually stealing market share from its now partner, Yahoo.

From the first link:

	December 2009	January 2010	February 2010
Google	72.25%	71.49%	70.95%
Yahoo	14.83%	14.57%	14.57%
Bing	8.92%	9.37%	9.70%

Source: Hitwise

And:

	January 2010	February 2010
Google	65.4%	65.5%
Yahoo	17.0%	16.8%
Bing	11.3%	11.5%

Source: comScore

Also from the first link:

Bing search engine may still be a bit player in the lucrative online search business dominated byGoogle, but it’s slowly and steadily gaining users. And it appears that Bing’s share is coming at the expense of both Google (GOOG) and Yahoo, the latter of which recentlyteamed up with Microsoft to be more competitive in online search.

A commenter at the link made a great point that some of this gain could be from Windows 7 users retaining — at least for now — the Bing default search engine option.

Microsoft wants to tax you …

… to help pay for correcting its sieve-like OS and application coding. Now I’m not saying Microsoft is the only reason malware, phishing, botnets and other cybercrime goes on out there, but its shoddy and ubiquitous products are to blame for a very large majority. And that statement comes from a Microsoft user and supporter.

This internet usage tax idea from MS’s “trustworthy computing” veep is the height of stupidly ballsy statements. Maybe Microsoft should remunerate every computer user whose identity has been stolen, data compromised or computer files corrupted or lost due to yet another security fix that came a little too late.

Taxing internet usage to fix a problem largely caused by a single entity? Not a good idea. Try again, Scott Charney.

From the link:

How will we ever get a leg up on hackers who are infecting computers worldwide? Microsoft’s (MSFT) security chief laid out several suggestions Tuesday, including a possible Internet usage tax to pay for the inspection and quarantine of machines.Today most hacked PCs run Microsoft’s Windows operating system, and the company has invested millions in trying to fight the problem.

Microsoft recently used the U.S. court system to shut down the Waledac botnet, introducing a new tactic in the battle against hackers. Speaking at the RSA security conference in San Francisco, Microsoft Corporate Vice President for Trustworthy Computing Scott Charney said that the technology industry needs to think about more “social solutions.”

Update 3/8/10 — Looks like I’m not alone in condemning this crazy idea.

Microsoft wants data center legal protection

Actually, not a bad idea.

From the link:

Microsoft Corp.’s (MSFT) top legal official yesterday called on Congress to create new laws that would give data stored in the cloud the same protections as data stored on a PC. He also called for tougher penalties for hackers who access data centers, citing significant damage that’s often done in such attacks.

Brad Smith, senior vice president and general counsel at Microsoft, told an audience at a Brookings Institution forum here today that laws now protecting electronic data were written in the early days of PCs. “We need Congress to modernize the laws and adapt them to the cloud,” he said.

While many consumers have adopted cloud computing by subscribing to e-mail services like Google (GOOG) Gmail, to social networks like Facebook and to Microsoft’s increasing online services offerings, enterprises have been somewhat cautious about moving corporate data to hosted systems due to legal and security concerns both here and abroad. Those fears have been causing problem for IT vendors, forcing some to provide significant protections to large users.

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer flaw behind Google’s security breach

I haven’t been tracking this story closely enough to realize an IE security issue caused the security breach of Google’s corporate network. One pretty simple solution is to change browsers. I was never enamored with Firefox, but finally tried out Google’s Chrome browser in August and have never looked back.

The lesson, as always with online security, is to make sure you have all your patches up to date and do seriously consider capable products to replace known security sieves like IE.

From the first link:

Microsoft (MSFT) is scrambling to patch an Internet Explorer flaw that was used to hack into Google’s (GOOG) corporate networks last month. The attack was used to hack into networks at 34 companies, including Adobe (ADBE), security experts say. Typically such hacks involve several such attacks, but the IE bug is the only one definitively linked to the hacking incident, which security experts say originated in China.

In a security advisory released Thursday, Microsoft said IE 6 users on Windows XP are most at risk from the flaw, but that other users could be affected by modified versions of the attack. Microsoft said it is developing a fix, but it did not say when it expects to patch the issue. The company is slated to release its next set of security updates on Feb. 9. A Google spokesman confirmed Thursday that the Internet Explorer attack was used against Google and that the company then reported the issue to Microsoft.

Google learned of the issue in December and, after discovering the server used to control the hacked computers, notified other companies affected by the hack. Apparently convinced that the infiltration was sanctioned by the Chinese government, Google has threatened to effectively pull its business out of China.

Hit these links for more background on the actual security breach.

Could email be better?

And by better, the question is really could it be more efficient. The answer is yes, but can it be more efficient? Probably not, but that’s not stopping these guys at Defrag 2009 from mulling the possibilities.

From the link:

Wading through e-mail is one of the primary woes of office workers everywhere. Despite many theories on how workers should process their incoming messages, most people still seem to feel buried in the flood. This week at Defrag 2009, a technology conference in Denver focused on tools and technologies for handling online data, experts suggested that the best strategies for fixing e-mail might rely on information and strategies drawn from social Web technologies.

“E-mail is kind of this giant, endless task list, and you’re really the slave to a lot of stuff that comes to you,” said Lili Cheng, general manager of Microsoft’s future social experiences labs. She believes that incoming messages need to be organized and sorted in a more automated fashion.

Crazy Windows 7 promotion in Japan

Actually a cross promotion with Burger King:

From the linK:

For the next seven days, Burger King will be a selling a gigantic seven-layer Whopper, which is apparently a gargantuan five-inches thick. The price? Y777, of course — at least for the first 30 customers each day. If you’re customer number 31, you’ll be paying Y1450. Given that a double Whopper is loaded with just shy of 1,000 calories, we’re guessing that this one’s a good few days worth of “nutrition.”

Microsoft offers free antivirus

A great, and necessary idea, but really at least 15 years too late. With the sheer bloat of Microsoft’s offerings, antivirus should have been standard equipment before even the Melissa virus hit ten years ago.

From the first link:

Microsoft Corp. says its new computer security program can be downloaded starting on Tuesday.

Microsoft Security Essentials, as the free antivirus software is called, has been available in a beta test version since June.

Google to offer netbook OS

Taking another swipe at Redmond, it’ll be interesting to see if Google tries to port this new OS up to the desktop if the netbook rollout is successful.

From the link:

Google Inc plans to attack Microsoft Corp’s core business by taking on the software giant’s globally dominant Windows operating system for personal computers.Google, which already offers a suite of e-mail, Web and other software products that compete with Microsoft, said on Tuesday it would launch a new operating system that will initially be targeted at netbooks.

Microsoft shares fell 1.4 percent to $22.22 in early Nasdaq trade on Wednesday. Google shares rose 1.2 percent to $401.36.

Called the Google Chrome Operating System, the new software will be in netbooks for consumers in the second half of 2010, Google said in a blog post, adding that it was working with multiple manufacturers.

Cloud computing and business

I’ve done plenty of blogging about cloud computing in the past and here are two more links on the topic. First up is a BusinessWeek breakdown on how cloud computing will change business and next is the thoughts of Microsoft’s chief software architect, Ray Ozzie, on cloud computing.

From the BusinessWeek link:

In 1990, in a keynote speech at the Comdex computer conference, Microsoft’s (MSFT) then-chief executive, Bill Gates, bolstered his bona fides as a tech visionary when he declared the PC industry would produce advances within a few years that would put information at people’s fingertips. To get there, Gates said, the world needed three things: a more “personal” personal computer, more powerful communications networks, and easy access to a broad range of information. Sometimes visionaries are right on the vision but off on the timing.

Only now is Gates’ grand vision finally becoming a reality for businesses. While pieces of what he had in mind have been available for years, they typically were expensive and difficult to set up and use. Now that more personal PC is here in the form of smartphones and mini-laptops, and broadband wireless networks make it possible for people to be connected almost anytime and anywhere. At the same time, we’re seeing the rise of cloud computing, the vast array of interconnected machines managing the data and software that used to run on PCs. This combination of mobile and cloud technologies is shaping up to be one of most significant advances in the computing universe in decades. “The big vision: We’re finally getting there,” says Donagh Herlihy, chief information officer of Avon Products (AVP). “Today, wherever you are, you can connect to all the information you need.”

And here’s Microsoft’s Ray Ozzie:

Ray Ozzie, Microsoft’s Chief Software Architect and the guest speaker at last night’s dinner (Techmeme), said the company wasn’t necessarily talking or thinking about the cloud when he came on board as part of the acquisition of his company, called Groove Networks, in 2005. When it came time to start offering a new way of thinking about the cloud and software, the approach came slowly. At the event, he said:

In any large organization, the government, the military, Wal-Mart, Microsoft, change of management is a challenge. You cannot effect change by mandate. You can’t say this is the way it’s gonna be and everyone snaps.

Speaking at any event where the topic has to do with cloud computing means that you inevitably are asked to define cloud computing. Clearly, Ozzie must have given a lot of thought to a definition for the cloud but he actually may have given it too much thought. While not quite as babbling as Sen. Ted Stevens’ explanation of how the Internet works (remember the “series of tubes?”), Ozzie’s definition of cloud computing was definitely worthy of a “huh?” head shake.

…self-service on-demand way of accessing resources with a virtualized abstraction that is relatively homogeneous

Wow. That’s a mouthful. But it also goes to show that even someone like the Chief Software Architect at Microsoft struggles with a way to define the cloud. Still, he spoke highly of the work that Microsoft does in the cloud environment, as well as on the client side, to meet the changing needs of all types of customers, from consumers to large enterprise.

Discussing cyberattack policy

A report from the National Research Council.

The release:

Greater transparency needed in development of US policy on cyberattack

WASHINGTON — The current policy and legal framework regulating use of cyberattack by the United States is ill-formed, undeveloped, and highly uncertain, says a new report from the National Research Council. The United States should establish clear national policy on the use of cyberattack, while also continuing to develop its technological capabilities in this area. The U.S. policy should be informed by open national debate on the technological, policy, legal, and ethical issues of cyberwarfare, said the committee that wrote the report.

“Cyberattack is too important a subject for the nation to be discussed only behind closed doors,” said Adm. William Owens, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former vice chairman and CEO of Nortel Corp., and Kenneth Dam, Max Pam Professor Emeritus of American and Foreign Law at the University of Chicago School of Law, who co-chaired the committee.

Cyberattacks — actions taken against computer systems or networks — are often complex to plan and execute but relatively inexpensive, and the technology needed is widely available. Defenses against such attacks are discussed, but questions on the potential for, and the ramifications of, the United States’ use of cyberattack as a component of its military and intelligence arsenal have not been the subject of much public debate. Although the policy and organizational issues raised by the use of cyberattack are significant, the report says, “neither government nor society at large is organized or prepared to handle issues related to cyberattack, let alone to make broadly informed decisions.”

The U.S. could use cyberattack either defensively, in response to a cyberattack from another nation, or offensively to support military missions or covert actions, the report says. Deterring such attacks against the U.S. with the threat of an in-kind response has limited applicability, however; cyberattacks can be conducted anonymously or falsely attributed to another party relatively easily, making it difficult to reliably identify the originator of the attack.

Employing a cyberattack carries with it some implications that are unlike those associated with traditional physical warfare, the report says. The outcome is likely to be more uncertain, and there may be substantial impact on the private sector, which owns and operates much of the infrastructure through which the U.S. would conduct a cyberattack. The scale of such an attack can be enormous and difficult to localize. “Blowback” to the U.S. — effects on our own network systems — is possible.

Clear national policy regarding the use of cyberattack should be developed through open debate within the U.S. government and diplomatic discussion with other nations, the report says. The U.S. policy should make it clear why, when, and how a cyberattack would be authorized, and require a periodic accounting of any attacks that are conducted, to be made available to the executive branch and to Congress.

From a legal perspective, cyberattack should be judged by its effects rather than the method of attack; cyberwarfare should not be judged less harshly than physical warfare simply by virtue of the weapons employed. The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), an international law regulating conduct during war, should apply to cyberattack. However, there are aspects of cyberwarfare that will not fit neatly within this structure. LOAC was designed to regulate conflict between nations, but cyberweapons can easily be used by non-state groups, making issues such as determining appropriate targets for military retaliation difficult to address. Additional legal constructs will be needed to govern cyberattacks, and the framework of LOAC and the U.N. Charter on the use of armed force would be an appropriate starting point, the report says.

 

###

 

This study was sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, Microsoft Corp., and the National Research Council. The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are private, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under a congressional charter. The Research Council is the principal operating agency of the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. A committee roster follows.

Copies of TECHNOLOGY, POLICY, LAW, AND ETHICS REGARDING U.S. ACQUISITION AND USE OF CYBERATTACK CAPABILITIES are available from the National Academies on the Internet at HTTP://WWW.NAP.EDU.

[ This news release and report are available at HTTP://NATIONAL-ACADEMIES.ORG ]

NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Division on Engineering and Physical Sciences
Computer Science and Telecommunications Board