Summary: As Service Pack 1 (SP1) of Vista 7 comes nearer there is “a big yawn” and new security problems devastate hope of a secure Windows; Microsoft kills Hotmail taglines
THE Windows ‘Marketing Machine’ blew a gasket based on the fact that the reality behind Vista 7 remains unchanged. There are many problems under the rug and a Service Pack will hardly address any of them.
Let’s begin with a quick word about Windows in the press. Most articles seem to have something to do with “OS wars” or Windows security problems. There is not much of them, either (Apple is increasingly covered at Microsoft’s expense). Having looked at the past week’s news, we found nothing at all matching “Vista” (in the headlines) and few headlines about SP1 of “Windows 7″ (the rest is dross and just a handful or more). There is nothing about “Silverlight” either, but that’s another story about a largely-defunct Slog[PDF].
“There is nothing about “Silverlight” either, but that’s another story about a largely-defunct Slog.”Coverage about SP1 of Vista 7 came from three or four Microsoft spinners (we were unable to find any coverage from writers who are not de facto PR folks of Microsoft*). There are these typical three [1, 2, 3] with another Microsoft booster whose headline is: “Windows 7 Service Pack 1 a big yawn, and that’s good … sorta”
That’s amusing because even proponents of Microsoft (biased sources) are not particularly positive. Microsoft may be resting on its laurels while Windows declines. The Motley Fool asks, “Is It Time for You to Quit Windows?” (it’s a pro-Microsoft publication, so the headline is just provocative)
Windows in general is a risk as Web sites get hijacked and malware then delivered to Windows users. From the news:
All of the infected sites appear to be using the Microsoft Internet Information Services Web-server software running with Active Server Pages, according to researchers at Sucuri Security.
The Windows flaw reported by a Google engineer was mentioned here before, but here is more coverage [1, 2] and spin from Microsoft Nick. He possibly suggests there’s a vendetta here, despite the fact that Windows flaws are a dime a dozen. The problem is confirmed by Microsoft [1, 2], but “Microsoft leaves some Office XP users patchless,” says the title from IDG (also in [1, 2]).
From the persistently pro-Microsoft IDG blog (see for example [1, 2] to get an idea) we learn that “HP takes on Microsoft on application security” (also see [1, 2]). To be fair, there are other proprietary software vendors with security problems this month, e.g. Adobe and Apple. Microsoft is probably different because it lies about the number of flaws that it’s patching.
Spam leads to/is the cause of insecurity (phishing, malware in mail, links to malicious downloads, or compromised sites) and it is also caused by greater insecurity (botnets, zombies). █
_______ * Microsoft boosters emit a lot of promotion and spin disguised as “news” (maybe systematically pushed to those writers by the PR agencies of Microsoft).
[addendum: we later found exceptions to the claim that only Microsoft boosters covered it , after more extensive search outside of Google News [1, 2, 3, 4]. Google News did not make them visible.]
Summary: Many new problems for Xbox 360 — problems which lead to visual and nymical changes
THE reality behind Xbox is a truly dark reality. One needs to look beyond the mainstream press, which is largely ghostwritten (PR). This product has a bad name and reputation, partly because of extremely high failure rates (other key reasons being the corrupt company that it is associated with, not to mention price). According to reports, Microsoft will be dressing it up a little differently, as if changing the appearance of something will somehow fix the product itself. Well, as Bill Gates once put it, “if you can’t make it good, at least make it look good.”
Someone who is not opposed to Microsoft has just explained “Why a 360 Slim is a bad idea” (this is the headline) and “Microsoft Rumored to Be Planning the End of the Xbox Brand Name,” heralds another interesting report.
Microsoft wasn’t kidding when they said they planned on launching Natal like an entirely new console. It appears that the company intends to finish off the Xbox name after the Xbox 360. This is obviously a surprise considering the time and money that goes into building an identifiable brand name in the video game industry.
There is more renaming going on (now confirmed for “Natal” [1, 2, 3), which brings to mind Sevenwashing of many failed products. Should “Xbox 360″ be renamed “Xbox7″?
So now I will move on to why Kinect? Firstly I hope that nobody draws reference to the Kin phone, which received a less than enthusiastic response from the mainstream press outlets I follow, but more importantly we need to ask the question is Kinect released to prevent 360 users leaving for the arguably better spec’d PS3 with Blueray or for the more socially aware WII? Maybe Microsoft wants to get a few more years out of the 360 in order to recoup losses it incurred through having to replace so many? or maybe something else?
“Investors concerned with Microsoft over Xbox 360 and other consumer devices,” says the headline of another new report. Microsoft has been losing many billions (and losing the managers too [1, 2, 3, 4]).
The Xbox 360 has turned into a hot console after Microsoft took a huge loss with the original Xbox to break into the console gaming market. It currently sits in second place in console sales between the Nintendo Wii and Sony PS3 and has helped drive innovation in online gaming for the consoles. However, investors look at the bottom line and after disappointing sales with the Zune, shrinking Windows Mobile market share, and the high costs of consoles some would like to see Microsoft get out of the consumer electronics market.
Xbox 360 is a money-burning machine. It’s the same with Sony, which probably sells at a loss. The only companies to have hit a jackpot from this generation’s consoles appear to be Nintendo and IBM (which supplies/monetises chips from all three major consoles).
“No leadership, big losses, products renamed, several lawsuits for faulty hardware, and even lawsuits for patent violations.”In recent years we learned about Microsoft Xbox employees who left or got laid off. Here are some former Microsoft employees who attempt to have a go at the video games business. They are still neighbours of Microsoft.
Last night we found“Wall Street Criticizes Microsoft For Natal [Looking Forward to the Project Natal Release Date? Mircosoft Investors Aren't As Motion Control Add-On Comes Under Fire]“
So what’s next for Xbox 360 then? No leadership, big losses, products renamed, several lawsuits for faulty hardware, and even lawsuits for patent violations. Maybe Microsoft’s future in this area would have something to do with patents because that’s the only thing they are still good at in Microsoft (even if it's predominantly software patents that are not deserved). According to the Seattle Times, “Microsoft files for gesture patents: Project Natal + Minority Report”
Just ahead of next week’s public unveiling of its Project Natal motion control system for the Xbox 360, Microsoft has filed for several patents covering technology for controlling PCs and game systems with gestures and motion tracking.
What does Microsoft intend to do with those patents? Extort? Exclude? Block? Defend? Patents are not a winning strategy, it’s a protectionist measure for losers. █
The new TV campaign was launched last week but appears to have come to our screens in full force this weekend when Microsoft flooded virtually all major cable channels ranging from locals sports broadcasts to the Food channel with what the company euphemistically calls a “confidence” campaign. To us, it looks like a scare drive to convince people to download IE8.
Microsoft’s program wipes out what is known as “scareware” — pop-up ads that scare users into purchasing fake anti-virus software, USA Today reported Monday.
How about companies that scare users into installing software after “fake” allegations? Well, sort of like Microsoft is doing right now.
Suffice to say, Microsoft still “sabotages” Firefox, as we noted a few days ago. There are many more articles about it but not enough scrutiny (maybe because Microsoft did this several times before, so there is complacence). That too is a form of scare, possible an illegal one (but Mozilla is more diplomatic than litigious). █
Summary: Claims are being made that Steve Ballmer is still trying to buy AOL and David Heinemeier Hansson says that Ballmer made a “buffoon” out of Microsoft
THERE is a lot of chatter in pro-Microsoft sites about the rumour that Steve Ballmer is interested in buying AOL. Those whose personal interests are aligned with Microsoft’s are rather excited* [1, 2, 3], but their bubble is bursting now that AOL denies the claims. It was just a rumour as we explained last week and it all came from one single unnamed source. AOL’s words have just ended the rumour and made the original gossip/source look foolish and act in self defence, instead moving the goalposts:
Steve Ballmer Wants Tim Armstrong
[...]
AOL CEO Tim Armstrong is telling people there’s no truth to our report that he’d like to sell the company to Microsoft. Don’t buy it.
Steve Ballmer’s “ineptitude” has led to Microsoft’s transformation from a “gorilla” into a “buffoon,” according to Ruby on Rails developer David Heinemeier Hansson.
For those who don’t know what Microsoft does to Ruby, start in [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15]. It’s good to have someone at the level of authority of Hansson speak out his mind. He’ll get flak for it, maybe even the label “Microsoft hater” [1, 2, 3] (which is like being labeled “racist” these days). █
____ * There is also coverage from objective sources that are more independent as well also some other sites [1, 2].
Summary: A look at financial links that help create a conflict of interests; more new examples of the press in Washington and Seattle museums getting corporate controllers
LAST week we started writing about the relationship between Fraunhofer USA and big-shot financier the Gates Foundation. For those who have missed the lobbying from Fraunhofer FOKUS for Microsoft, here are some posts on the subject:
The Gates Foundation has provided more than $20 million for Fraunhofer scientists in Delaware to research and develop vaccines for malaria, avian flu and sleeping sickness.
This is also covered here. Both are reputable sources.
In less interesting news, the influence of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation on the Washington Post is being recalled in the following new article:
Wagoner Joins Board of Washington Post
[...]
Also serving on the Post board is another Buffett friend, Melinda Gates, co-chair of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and wife of Microsoft founder Bill Gates.
We mentioned this before. The appointment from GM is mentioned also in:
This publication sets a lot of political agenda because of those who read it (the other politically-influential publication is the New York Times), but it is driven by business, not by people with background in reporting. Shouldn’t this be a reason for concern? No?
In other news from Washington, “Long-time docent, Microsoft executive elected to BAM’s [Bellevue Arts Museum] board”
A long-time museum docent and a Microsoft executive were elected to the Bellevue Arts Museum’s board of trustees, the museum announced Thursday.
Gates puts money in some of these galleries and museums [1, 2]. We gave many examples before and spotted another one a few days ago. So again, corporate influence ought to be remembered. Even museums that record our history are affected.
“Microsoft has had clear competitors in the past. It’s good that we have museums to document them.”
Summary: A look at the latest evidence we have of a silent takeover of US education, courtesy of Gates’ newer monopolistic venture
LAST week we showed how US education was being hijacked by Bill Gates. This was just the latest among many posts on the subjects — posts that quote respectable people who made identical allegations against the Gates Foundation. Today we wish to present more evidence that we have gathered over the past week. As always, readers are encouraged to follow the links and reach their own conclusions based on the many reputable sources that we cite.
D.C. agency to probe Rhee critic’s complaint over ethics of school funds clause
The District’s Office of Campaign Finance will investigate a complaint, filed by an outspoken critic of Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, alleging that Rhee violated the law by soliciting donations from private foundations that reserved the right to pull their funding if there was a change in the school system’s leadership.
Fortunately for us, Gates Keepers (dedicated observer of the Gates Foundation) summarised this by saying that “Foundations bought leadership” (we will show more examples in a moment). To quote the interpretation of the article above:
Whether Michelle Rhee went too far or not, philanthropic donations involved vested interests. She should resign and see if the money stays put. The Gates Foundation appears to have dodged this bullet by not being directly involved.
Is a leadership clause really a “standard feature of private funding agreements” in education. It is not in field of health.
It is not unusual for the Gates Foundation to use funds for PR in education, or even in order to fund self-serving ‘studies’, change leadership, and to change curricula. We saw more examples like this last week (people move from top academic jobs to help the educational push of Gates) and here is another, newer example:
Harvard Trader Zuzic Quits, Said to Join Gates’s Fund Manager
Stan Zuzic, one of Harvard University’s top-paid endowment managers, quit and joined the firm that oversees investments for Microsoft Corp. Chairman Bill Gates and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
This was also covered here. Stan Zuzic has a lot of influence and Gates has a lot of money that it can offer Stan in exchange for this power. It’s not the first such story.
According to Murdoch's press, this whole intervention in education is a success. But it’s probably just PR intended to give the impression that they are beneficial. It’s a Washington article, so the bias should be expected. Gates’ foundation assesses its own performance, so he is giving himself high scores.
The university will not receive state tax dollars. The nonprofit institution is receiving startup funding for its Indiana operations from the Lumina Foundation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and will operate on tuition dollars after that.
It’s called “startup funding”, it’s not a donation. Here is some more coverage; they will probably just teach Microsoft, as expected.
Memphis City Schools has won a highly competitive $90 million grant from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation by submitting a brilliant proposal based on a commitment to obtain and train highly qualified teachers like Miss Buchanan. I cannot imagine an effort more important to the future of our city.
What Gates has been doing in Memphis is a subject that we’ve already covered in the posts below (it’s where Microsoft changes the education agenda using carrot-and-stick tactics, i.e. money). █
“…Microsoft wished to promote SCO and its pending lawsuit against IBM and the Linux operating system. But Microsoft did not want to be seen as attacking IBM or Linux.”
–Larry Goldfarb, BayStar, key investor in SCO approached by Microsoft
Summary: IBM claims that Microsoft did the unthinkable and at least one of its employees argues that Microsoft should be sued for billions after the damage it caused to GNU/Linux through lies from SCO
HIDDEN in one of the latest articles from IDG were the following statements which the author did not expand on:
IBM has been “alerting” InfoWorld this week to developments such as Oracle CEO Larry Ellison laying off more Sun employees than previously thought, and Microsoft allegedly trying to derail IBM by using SCO as a surrogate.
[...]
With its SCO-Microsoft example, IBM cited Microsoft-backed SCO’s failed attempt to get control over Unix from Novell, an effort that impacted IBM. A judge this week ruled in favor of Novell.
See what we wrote about Novell's role. This took too long to finish [1, 2]. IBM should subpoena SCO and if more of the necessary evidence is found, it should sue Microsoft for billions. That’s what some IBM employees have been saying (although not on the record). Does anyone still think that Microsoft has changed its ways? █
“[Microsoft's] Mr. Emerson and I discussed a variety of investment structures wherein Microsoft would ‘backstop,’ or guarantee in some way, BayStar’s investment…. Microsoft assured me that it would in some way guarantee BayStar’s investment in SCO.”
Apple, Facebook, and Twitter are all companies operating in a global economy under the laws of one or more countries, but thinking of them as profit driven entities, making things in competition with other companies doesn’t really help. A for profit company is expected to maximize returns for its shareholders. In that light, Facebook’s move to control the economic activity on its platform through Facebook Credits makes perfect sense, but I was not convinced it was the right thing for them to do.
When Bing started serving up Twitter real-time search results eight months ago, Microsoft also announced a global partnership with Facebook, but refused to give a launch date.
Pamela Jones from Groklaw added: “I wonder if that explains recent Facebook events?” This is also covered in [1, 2, 3]. Microsoft doesn’t need to spend money acquiring Facebook, not anymore anyway (Microsoft can hardly afford it, either). Microsoft can just use Facebook like it uses Yahoo! and Novell, for example. █
