08.03.21

Seven Eleven: 11 is to 10 What 7 Was to Vista

Posted in Deception, Marketing, Microsoft, Vista 10 at 4:20 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

“Well the initial impression is how much it [Windows 7] looks like Vista. Which I think is…uh…the thing I’m not supposed to say.”

Microsoft Jack (Schofield)

Vista 11 coming out; It's just Vista 10 with additional restrictions

Summary: Microsoft is, as usual, aggressively manipulating/bribing the media (hyping up a shallow version inflation along with paid-for vapourware advertising) while strong-arming the market; there’s no other way they can compete anymore

THE spyware bundled in
‘Third parties’ down the bin
Multi-billion-dollar media spin
Booting nothing but Win*

Innovation curtailed
Because since Vista we’ve failed
Bribery money mailed
By Trump we got bailed

Share buybacks increased
For truth tellers Cease and Desist
By regulators only slapped on the wrist
So we can persist in being a beast

08.01.21

Was Microsoft Ever First in the Market?

Posted in Antitrust, Deception, Microsoft at 7:53 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum c63991b78c1d3046bd5b4d884d32c2a8

Summary: Confronting the false belief that Microsoft ever innovates anything of significance or is “first” in some market/s

Further to the previous video (and corresponding post) about last night's piece by Mitchel Lewis, we’ve decided to make a separate video along with an accompanying post about Microsoft’s history, which mostly involves copying other people’s things and then using illegal tactics (business crimes) to get an “edge”…

I’ve intentionally limited my personal thoughts (relegated to the above video). The text below is correspondence between Mr. Lewis and a Techrights associate, who had read drafts of the article before it was published yesterday.

“I thought Microsoft was never, ever first to market,” the associate noted. “They only ever copied, and slowly and poorly at that. What they can do is implant false memories, of sorts, so that the market and then individuals forget that there was ever something better. Take Kerberos+LDAP. It was the primary way to manage identities and authentication and occupied the niche that Microsoft aimed to destroy with Active Directory. Once they started pushing Active Directory, which was about 20 years ago, it couldn’t handle more than a half dozen accounts at a time yet all the microsofters, followed by the trade press, parroted the line that there was nothing on the market to manage identities and authentication. Same when they aimed to destroy e-mail with the Outlook+Exchange combination, they started parroting that there was no competing product. Well, given how many functions and capabilities were lacking from both, maybe they were partially right, but in spite of that, there were quite a few much higher quality, established MUC and MTAs. The list goes on.”

“The text below is correspondence between Mr. Lewis and a Techrights associate, who had read drafts of the article before it was published yesterday.”“When I say that Microsoft only dominates when they are first to market,” Mr. Lewis responded, “I mean that Microsoft only dominates markets when it enters them in its infancy and that they’re almost always dead in the water when a market is already dominated.”

“Ok,” our associate responded, “but which markets was Microsoft ever early to enter? As far as I recall, they’ve only ever followed and slowly at that. Steve Jobs used to rib them on both the slowness and the bad quality. I want to know if I’ve missed an area, but otherwise the statement implying that they have ever been first to market should be walked back.”

“I can’t recall a single area where they were first to market or, for that matter, even early to enter a market: DOS (CP/M, AppleDOS), GUI (GEM, DESQview, Lisa), Shell (Bash, Ksh), WordProcessing (WordStar, WordPerfect), SpreadSheets (Visicalc, 1-2-3, Quattro), Databases (dBaseII – dBaseIII, FoxBase), E-Mail Clients (Eudora, Pine), E-Mail Server (sendmail, postfix, exim, et al), Presentation Graphics (Harvard Graphics, Freelance Graphics), Desktop Publishing (PageMaker, QuarkXPress), OOP (java, python), Developer tools (Borland, Eclipse, Emacs), Web Browsers (Mosaic, Netscape), Web Server (Apache), Web Design (Dreamweaver, HotMetal, Emacs), Music Player (iPod), SmartPhone (iPhone, Android), Hosted Services (AWS, GoogleCloud, Nebula), Document Formats (ODF), etc. Maybe my memory is getting too rusty, that’s all I can think of. I would add that even when Microsoft did introduce a product into the market, that it was usually be at least a few more years until the product became usable enough to become recognizable.”

One has to be a little more “senior” to know or recall those products. Some of the above I’ve never heard of myself. For Microsoft it is a lot easier to charm or bamboozle the younger generation, with a swath of revisionism and press entryism. I’m still in my thirties, so some of the above brands I only know from young childhood.

“I know the story of Novell and IBM.”“There is a factual error,” our associate noted about the article. “Microsoft business strategy cannot be dependent on them being among the first movers in a market because they never are and never have been among the first. They are always slow in getting on their feet. Their business model has been nearly 100% dependent on illegally leveraging their OEM and Desktop monopolies as well as their monopoly on productivity suite file formats. tldr: it is a lie to assert that Microsoft is a first mover.”

As we do not edit/censor articles, in respect to their original authors, we’ve decided that instead a response to this article will follow. We ended up making two videos.

Mr. Lewis, who received this feedback prior to publication (finalisation), defended his position by stating: “Most of the markets that Microsoft entered into were in their infancy, wide open for the taking, and were anyone’s game. They didn’t have an AWS to compete with in the OS, Server, and Productivity markets like Azure does. To their credit, they did PCs better than IBM ever could. But taking out Novell and Lotus when the market was infinitesimally smaller than it is today was inevitable; they could barely put up a fight.”

I know the story of Novell and IBM. I do not agree with those statements and I’ve responded to them in the video (along the way).

“As they were doing this,” Mr. Lewis concluded, “they were relying on various tactics, from anticompetitive to creative, to dominate these young markets and maintain this domination to this day albeit losing ground everywhere now.”

“I saw nothing creative over the last four decades in their uniformly illegal and dishonest tactics,” our associate responded. “They gained a desktop monopoly from IBM which at the time was forced by the DOJ to choose between hardware and software. IBM chose hardware and thus handed, via Bill’s mother, Microsoft a monopoly on a silver platter. Microsoft then used Kildall’s work, via Paterson for chump change, and pawned it off as their own. BASIC was gained by dumpster diving and pawned off as if their own. Etc.”

“Even their gains in the productivity suite market were due entirely to the desktop monopoly rents which were used to underwrite the apparent price dumping. They undercut WordPerfect and Quattro by at least half. Blocking DR-DOS was also only enabled by their monopoly.

“The only somewhat new market Microsoft entered was the browser market, which though short in years already had a great many independent web browsers before Bill got around to ripping off Spyglass Mosaic. Now that, I must admit was creative because they agreed with Spyglass Mosaic on price based on a percentage of sales and then gave it away as part of an illegal bundling.

“Lying to improve and soften Microsoft image might assuage some consciences among some of those involved in perpetration of those kinds of activities, but it won’t alter what happened and would be revisionism at best to present those lies as truth. At this point what’s done is done and with all the original sources dead, dying, or going out of print it is of utmost importance to squelch revisionism.

“One area where Microsoft actually was creative was in the way it could keep convincing small companies to negotiate with them under NDA. Microsoft would talk them into meeting, raid them for their ideas and trade secrets, and then shamelessly whip up a half-assed copy of whatever product or service the small company had built their business around. Often the Microsoft imitation product or service was given away or provided at an inappropriately low price, the result was that the small company quickly went under and/or sold to Microsoft.

“They still do that though more sneakily and less blatantly as in the day back when they screwed companies like Sendo.

“Another area where Microsoft is actually creative is in the lies they are able to get the public to swallow via their whisper network of consultants, salespeople, and associated minions. The best example was them going against Novell’s flagship product Netware. Microsoft’s whisper campaign convinced managers that Novell was pulling the plug on its highly profitable, highly popular SME product Netware. Microsoft replacement file server and identity management software was more than a decade away from becoming even partially usable and appeared to be in the proof-of-concept stage. Yet it spread through SME server rooms like a digital hantavirus.”

Microsoft Knows That When Shareholders Realise Azure Has Failed the Whole Boat Will Sink

Posted in Microsoft, Servers at 3:55 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum ef4d5d7a27785805a35e89a5fb0bde9a

Summary: The paranoia at Microsoft is well justified; they’ve been lying to shareholders to inflate share prices and they don’t really deliver the goods, just false hopes and unfulfilled promises

THE VIDEO above has been planned for nearly a week, albeit it wasn’t scripted or anything, nor was the bird (wallpaper of the day). Following last night's piece by Mitchel Lewis, which was work in progress for a while, we can debate a number of points raised in his article. Internal discussions about it showed disagreement about the history of Microsoft, so we thought we’d make a followup video with some more thoughts, including further input from Microsoft watchers or longtime observers.

“Azure layoffs are being hidden from them and there’s financial fraud taking place. Not for the first time in Microsoft’s history…”The main point of contention is the claim that sometimes Microsoft is “first” at things. As noted a number of days ago, it’s almost never the case. Throughout the company’s entire history it was mostly ‘stealing’ other people’s work, undermining the original. then rewriting history (to make Microsoft seem like a pioneer). Many people still think that Windows was the first operating systems with windows in it, that Microsoft Office is the ‘original’ office suite (Microsoft did not even develop it; it just bought it piece-wise), and that Microsoft had a role in the rise of the Internet or the World Wide Web. The very opposite is true!

For quite some time now (a number of years) Mr. Lewis, who was inside Microsoft, has pointed out that Microsoft is in effect defrauding shareholders. He even filed evidence and lodged a formal complaint with the SEC. Azure layoffs are being hidden from them and there’s financial fraud taking place. Not for the first time in Microsoft’s history…

How about those scattered press reports about Azure-linked datacentres being shut down?

I recently wrote that Linux is a Lot More Dominant Than You Were Led to Believe (or “Almost 50% of Web Traffic is Linux at the Client Side, Even Higher on the Server Side”) along with a chart and meme:

GNU/Linux market share
We’re not as small as they want us to think

Kong Godzilla Doge: Apple, Microsoft, GNU/Linux
Combined market share continues to grow

As a Techrights associate pointed out at the time, “below some level of market share (85% or so) Microsoft will no longer be able to maintain monopoly rents. I expect that the threshold has been crossed and that’s why they started to “give” away the new versions. It’s probably also why so many budget items have been moved under the heading “Azure” so as to provide the illusion of growth somewhere. [...] nymshifting is a common tactic among many companies. Microsoft uses it a lot [...] since NT5 bombed in the reviews. Also, technically, they should not be able to trademark common dictionary words [reference to "Surface"]. But as far as the budgets go, Microsoft did a big reshuffle after it was noted in their SEC filings that their biggest line item was advertising. The reshuffle did not change anything except the names. The “research” is advertising, etc. By putting more and more under the “Azure” heading, Microsoft can fake growth, especially when combined with the efforts of its minion stenographers out in what’s left of the trade press.” (Example puff piece from The New York Times, parroting what Microsoft claims; or “cooking the books” as the associate put it)

Regarding Vista 11, said this associate: “I’m suspecting that Vista 11 has no other purpose than to push TPM hardware and eliminate all Free, general-purpose motherboards. Once the TPM modules are ubiquitous they can start the software side…”

“How about those scattered press reports about Azure-linked datacentres being shut down?”Taking note of a site called “The No More Ransom Project”, the associate dubbed it “snakeoil”, noting that it was distracting from the fact ransomware was mostly a Microsoft/Windows issue, as Mr. Lewis pointed out several times since May. This site “shows only snakeoil and is missing Ubuntu, Devuan, FreeBSD, and the real deal,” the associate said.

That’s the desktop side for the most part, even though servers too get targeted. In the realm of servers Microsoft lost the battle a very long time ago (see “Is Azure Stagnating?” in case they’ve fooled some people into thinking they’re a big server host; they’re not! Remember there are Azure layoffs. Microsoft was super-paranoid about any of us mentioning these layoffs because that harms morale and HR! They even came to our IRC channels to discourage us talking about that!).

In another, albeit related and separate post, we’ll examine the claim that Microsoft was ever first to do something or actually innovate (as the buzzword goes). Stay tuned as we’ve not recorded or composed that yet. It oughtn’t take long.

07.31.21

[Meme] When it Comes to Server Share, Microsoft Azure is Minuscule (But Faking It)

Posted in Deception, Finance, Microsoft, Servers at 8:38 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

AWS and Microsoft Azure

Summary: Don’t believe the lies told by Microsoft's charlatans and frauds; Azure has been a total failure and that’s why there are layoffs as well

Microsoft Azure Stagnating

Posted in Deception, Finance, Microsoft at 5:39 pm by Guest Editorial Team

Reprinted with permission from Mitchel Lewis, former Microsoft employee

Azure chart
Source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-07-27/microsoft-posts-sales-profit-gain-shares-drop-on-azure-concern

It’s not a secret that Microsoft’s future depends on Azure not only being successful, but dominant. With Google Workspace dethroning Office 365 in the cloud productivity markets, Windows needing a complete re-write since a decade ago and their consequent monopoly on exploits and ransomware attacks in the PC and Server markets, much is riding on Azure’s ability to dominate the cloud infrastructure space as Microsoft has done with the OS, productivity, and server spaces before.

One consequence of Microsoft’s dependence on Azure is that Microsoft can post its best quarter ever and investors will get spooked if Azure’s revenue growth slips in the slightest. It also doesn’t help when their CFO Amy Hood admitted that Azure slowing revenue growth still performed better than she anticipated.

“Forty-five percent was both better than we expected and driven by consumption growth, which is very good,” Hood said in an interview. “Demand is healthy. The overall execution was better than I expected.” -Amy Hood

Unlike before though, Microsoft isn’t starting at the top as it did in the OS, Productivity, and Server spaces. Instead, Microsoft was 2 years late to the market and has to compete with the likes of AWS instead and claw market-share away from them. And this is bad news for Microsoft as competing with other tech monopolies in established markets is not something that they’re especially good at; they aren’t the same company that mothballed IBM all those years ago.

The success of Microsoft’s business model relies mostly on them being among the first movers of infant markets, becoming the industry standard, and entrenching its products throughout said industry; lock-in if you will. In turn, their products no longer need to compete on quality, cease to evolve, and stagnate no differently than the human race as they have no ecological competition. Apparently, the law of natural selection even applies to markets.

In doing this, Microsoft’s frustrating, insecure, and unstable architecture renders users change and technology averse, traumatized if you will, and consequently vying to keep everything the same. Further, they can artificially inflate the switching costs of moving to their competition, derail migration efforts to their competition even if it’s better technology, and maintain dominance. Put simply, Microsoft’s products and services create a moat of sorts that keeps users in and competition out while allowing them to compete with themselves. Mitigating their defenses is much easier said than done.

Being a first-mover that optimizes their solutions for lock-in is a double whammy for Microsoft and no one seems to care; hence why they do it. This happens to be why Windows, Active Directory, Server, and Exchange are still in play today despite being legacy, expensive, complex, frustrating, and unstable for users and admins alike. It’s simply too ingrained and users/admins are rendered apathetic to change.

While Microsoft can’t exactly take credit for this brilliant aspect of their business model, they can absolutely laugh all the way to the bank at anyone who is criticizing them about their quality woes without realizing that they don’t even have to compete on quality; at least until Azure became their last hope.

One immediate problem with their tactics though is that they don’t bode well in markets that are already well-established nor is it easy to re-structure a company to engineer for quality when it’s structured to maximize lock-in. Although absolute genius goes into engineering products for lock-in, especially when realizing that all of their engineers are trying to do their best/ethical job, this heroin-esque approach to engineering is systemic and cannot be turned off like a light switch; quite the contrary. Any manager at Microsoft can and will affirm that Microsoft is a big ship to steer and such a restructuring could take years to fully implement.

As such and much like their founder Bill Gates, Microsoft isn’t equipped for fair competition, hence why they lose their ass in markets they’re late to, nor are they known for being a good sport at that. And as they have shown repeatedly with cloud, mobile, social, gaming, and laptop markets, Microsoft is consistently a fish out of water when entering well-established markets because they are not optimized to compete on quality which is the only card that a new entrant has to play against the status quo; exhibit Zoom and Slack. All of which stacks the deck further against Microsoft’s ambitions with Azure.

To highlight this and although Microsoft is doing great things in the cloud space with Office 365, they were late to the market, ironically among the last to host their own services, and are in second place while losing further ground to Google Workspace. The same is true of Azure in that it was 2 years behind AWS to the cloud infrastructure market.

Azure curve

And although Microsoft and analysts claim Azure to be second in the cloud infrastructure space from a revenue perspective, Microsoft has yet to corroborate this with data and is refusing to post individual performance metrics of Azure after a decade of production. Based on what little we’ve seen though, AWS revenue is growing while Azure revenue growth is shrinking which is the opposite of what Azure needs to do. Meanwhile, AWS revenue grew 9% in the last year.

No matter where you look, you can find Microsoft consistently omitting all key performance indicators (KPIs) worthy of mention concerning Azure financials or usage; MAU, P&L, CPA, ARPA, RPE, etc; nada. Meanwhile, you’ll find a whole host of ambiguous metrics such as vague growth rates, total user counts instead of monthly use statistics, and containers like the Intelligent Cloud averaging various offerings together. All of which takes significantly more effort than simply reporting individual performance and is frankly hard to keep under wraps for 12 years. Meanwhile, AWS has no problem reporting on AWS’s performance; they have nothing to hide.

Oddly enough though and while it’s even their policy to never report on KPIs, they definitely track them and occasionally post them but only if they exude a dominant market presence. In doing this though, Microsoft has a tell so to speak. Put simply, when products are doing fantastically, Microsoft will break protocol from time to time and report KPIs. But when products are doing horribly, Microsoft seems to hide behind their bogus policy so as to keep KPIs under lock and key while sugar-coating poor performance with ambiguities instead.

In doing this though, this being not reporting common usage and financial metrics while further hiding individual performance in the Intelligent Cloud, Microsoft has made it impossible for analysts to evaluate where Microsoft stands in the fold compared to AWS or Google Cloud. Ironically, the assessments declaring Azure to be in second place among cloud providers are speculative at best.

“Muddy waters make it easy to catch fish.”Chinese Proverb

With all of this in mind, it’s easy to see why Microsoft needs investors to believe that Azure’s position is strong and why Microsoft is working so hard to keep Azure’s performance under wraps; that dog don’t hunt. Although I can only speculate, it seems as if the KPIs surrounding Azure do not exhibit dominance or a route to dominance that Microsoft needs to project in order for share prices to keep rising while its stagnant revenue growth serves as further evidence of this.

If said KPIs did exhibit Azure’s dominance or even a route to dominance, then Microsoft would have no reason to be shy and release them in the face of increasing scrutiny of their persistent refusal to report on these metrics. And their refusal to post these metrics while muddying the waters with pointless statistics/rates and odd financial containers instead isn’t exactly a good omen so far as the health of Azure is concerned; if not symptomatic of the contrary. Put simply, if Azure truly had a big ol’ dong then Microsoft would have thrown it on the table by now rather than hiding it behind excuses and obscure metrics for over a decade.

To be fair though, Microsoft could indeed be shy about Azure’s performance for the past 12 years. Azure could be doing great for all I know. What I do know is that omission is the most common form of lying with statistics, followed by obfuscating matters with bogus metrics, and Microsoft doesn’t have an incentive to resort to these squid and ink tactics if Azure is in great shape. All stars go through an inflationary phase before they go supernova.

You’re welcome to believe otherwise though. You’re welcome to believe that the 71.355 billion Microsoft spent on stock buybacks since March of 2018 were made to benefit the shareholders too; but that’s for another day.

Linspire Should Be Avoided in 2021 Just Like It Was Avoided 14 Years Ago

Posted in Deception, GNU/Linux, Google, Linspire, Microsoft, Xandros at 9:42 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Video download link | md5sum ab5b8a4ae65a514a3fdcc1898424c8e0

Summary: The brand “Linspire” was brought back, but the agenda seems to be more or less the same, namely pushing proprietary software and serving Microsoft’s commercial agenda (in ‘Linux’ clothing)

FOURTEEN years ago we called for a boycott of Linspire for its patent collusion with Microsoft. The same happened with Xandros, which would buy Linspire and temporarily push Freespire. That failed just like Novell and Turbolinux. Where are they today? Nowhere! Making alliances with Microsoft always leads to major blunders… and eventually commercial failure.

“That failed just like Novell and Turbolinux.”Well, the name “Linspire” has been repurposed. A few years ago this strange comeback was noticed with a worrisome slant — a Microsoft-centric “Linspire”, pushing Microsoft vendor lock-in, surveillance etc.

Microsoft and Linspire 2007
Trying the same thing all over again is assurance of failure

Not much has changed since then. Below we add two new links [1,2] (comments here; it’s boosted by Microsoft boosters who simultaneously promote other attacks on GNU/Linux) showing Linspire/Xandros as boosters of monopolies and surveillance, not just by Microsoft but also Google. That’s missing the whole point of GNU/Linux, pushing some sort of Microsoft-centric ChromeOS instead. They push Microsoft proprietary software out of the box (“With the Office 365 edition Bing will also be the default homepage and the default search engine in Google Chrome”) and brag about selling this. Whose agenda is served here? The issue is discussed in the video above.
______

  1. Linspire-Based Freespire Announces “Entirely New Direction” With Cloud Apps…

    What started off as Lindows twenty years ago as an easy-to-use Linux-based operating system with great Wine integration and easy application support but then changed to Linspire following a Microsoft lawsuit has had quite a journey. PC/OpenSystems LLC revived Linspire after a multi-year gap following the closure of Xandros and since then it’s been a rather peculiar platform. Today they are now shifting focus once again.

  2. Roberto’s Ramblings: Linspires new direction explained

    For the past year we have internally at PC/OpenSystems LLC launched a project called CLOUD9. The aim of this project was to create an OS that utilized cloud apps in replacement of traditional desktop applications. Some of those manifested themselves into Xandros Cloud but we wanted to bring that to all of our desktop users. Some of the efforts were successful (Xandros Cloud Office 365 was our best seller for our education customers and some of our enterprise customers) But we wanted to make the best Cloud centric OS that we could.

    [...]

    Xandros OpenDesktop 2021 will come in two flavors. Standard Edition with all the Google services preinstalled and Office 365 edition which will utilize Microsofts web services. With the Office 365 edition Bing will also be the default homepage and the default search engine in Google Chrome. Both will ship with .NET Core, Powershell and Visual Studios Code. Local apps will include, Chrome, Video Player, Rhythmbox, games, Shotwell and Krita for image editing. Both editions of Xandros OpenDesktop will also include all the proprietary media codecs and DVD/Blu-Ray support

07.29.21

The OSI Song

Posted in Microsoft, OSI at 8:22 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Song
Goodnight and goodbye

Summary: The sad demise of OSI, which has become little but a front group of proprietary software companies in pursuit of openwashing services (and outsourcing to proprietary disservices looking to eradicate copyleft)

THE Oh! Ass! Aye?

It will never die
For Microsoft is can lie
Oh my!

Openwashing as a service
Making Stallman nervous
Driving their Chevies
Collecting their levies

ClearlyDefined sellout
They really needed a bailout
Proprietary breakout
Forgetting what they’re all about

Open Source has won!
GitHub prison can be fun
By Microsoft it is run
Look what we have done!

Herding communities at scale
To ensure they always fail
Dog wagged by its tail
But hey, nobody is male!

Politics of entryism ignored
Integrity is hard to afford
Dirty money they hoard
Hanging themselves on a cord

[Meme] OSI is Doing Just Fine

Posted in GPL, Microsoft, OSI at 8:06 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Free software development rep, OSI, GitHub
Don’t worry! Microsoft will save the OSI!

Summary: So what if OSI is run by someone who raised money from Microsoft (to sell Microsoft a keynote slot in a copyleft event — the thing that Microsoft attacks through GitHub!) while funnelling the OSI's funds to a serial GPL violator?

« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channels: Come and chat with us in real time

New to This Site? Here Are Some Introductory Resources

No

Mono

ODF

Samba logo






We support

End software patents

GPLv3

GNU project

BLAG

EFF bloggers

Comcast is Blocktastic? SavetheInternet.com



Recent Posts