Matusow's Blog : Great People / Great Ideas

Document Format Junky Alert - New Blogger On The Block

jasonmatusow — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:55:00 GMT

Gray Knowlton from the Office product team is now blogging, and it is interesting stuff for any document format junkie out there. I've known Gray for a few years now and have come to respect him for many reasons. He is patient and thoughtful in his approach to issues, and he is really sharp. I'm going to enjoy following his blog.

Welcome to the blogosphere Gray!

Music Consumption - Interop, Lock-in, Business Models

jasonmatusow — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 01:55:04 GMT

Before I write word one on this topic it is important to say that these are my personal observations - have nothing to do with my employer (Microsoft) or any particular industry expertise I may have. Also, this is something of a break from my ongoing writings about Open XML and document formats.

Over the past two years I have been the very happy owner of a Creative Labs Zen Micro, and have been an URGE subscriber. Recently I was notified that the URGE service was terminating and was redirected to Rhapsody. Given my experience with Rhapsody, and the incredibly cool iTouch from Apple I was shown - I've started to look around and reconsider my method of getting and listening to music.

What it comes down to is that I have realized my initial attraction to the physical device (from Apple) is nothing compared to the business model of the music service and the subsequent effect that has on my music consumption patterns - ultimately, that is what I really care about.

So, my completely lame understanding of my choices are:

1) To completely rely upon CDs I already own and those I choose to buy - and then to rip them to my device. If this were the path I went down, then I would absolutely choose the coolest, most elegant device.

2) Pirate everything - use P2P file sharing networks and don't worry about a given service. Again, if that were my choice I would go for the coolest device. But, this doesn't work for me because I am a strong believer in the value of IP - really. I don't pirate music, I don't pirate movies, I don't pirate software. My livelihood is tied to people respecting software IP - so I reciprocate that belief.

3) Purchase my music on a per-track, or per-album basis from an online service. This is fundamentally the translation of the model behind option 1 above into a digital, connected world. So, I should go for the coolest device and the online store with the most choice. That would seem to be an Apple-favored decision again.

4) Subscription - a completely different business model being applied to the music consumer experience. I pay $x per month and get unlimited downloads - but, if the service goes away (like URGE just did) I am sitting there with album covers and songs but no permissions to listen to the music. On the other hand, the benefit to a subscription is that I can experiment with new music, books, comedians, heck - I even downloaded a Noam Chomsky speech - with no additional fees.

To me, I am stuck between option 3 and 4 from my list. The fact is, for me, that a cool device is really not that important. The quality of the sound matters - and the ability for it to store lots of music. But that is baseline at this point for all players on the market. Ok, so then it comes down to how much I will spend over time and the implications.

Interoperability - this is a big topic for the European Commission and Apple these days. Clearly I am going to stay away from any discussion of the EC and interop given the news of late regarding MS. And, the business implications of the interop discussion with music, DRM, and business models is a huge, complicated one. It is best left to those who know the ins-and-outs of that discussion.

Lock-in does concern me though. If I buy and Apple device, connect to the Apple store, and start dropping hundreds of dollars into songs in Apple's format, then it would seem I am suddenly going to be facing huge switching costs/pain to move away from them. (I know, the irony is thick on this one.)

Moreover, the expense concerns me. I am a huge fan of pandora.com and liveplasma.com to help me find new bands or artists to try. In a given month on Urge I was downloading 40-60 new tracks, never mind the fact that I like to work out to stand-up comic routines (makes time on a treadmill or stationary bike fly by) and was downloading 5-10 albums a month just for that. So, that would be approximately $80 or more a month going to the iTunes super-store. Most of that music is experimental to me and I end up deleting large quantities of it.

So, I seem to be talking myself into analyzing the subscription options out there. If anyone has the inclination to point me towards some info on this I would greatly appreciate it. - thx.

Locked-Up Data for Web 2.0?

jasonmatusow — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:39:00 GMT

I have not poked at a blog posting of Matt Asay's in quite some time, so no time like the present. This morning I ended up reading a post he wrote for CNET on August 20, "GPL is the new BSD in Web2.0, and why this matters." As always Matt is pulling at the threads that tie together the big picture elements - him being extremely smart and whatnot. The target of his comments was really about source code licensing and how that applies to the world of Web 2.0 (and beyond).

I agree that the web is driving outrageously cool technology resulting in new business models all the time. And, I agree that these changes are going to adjust the way we think about what "unique value" really means in an environment dominated by the network effect. And, I agree that the legal constructs under which we have been functioning for so long are going to be challenged and stretched. And, most importantly, I agree that in the world of Web 2.0 data is king thus making the network effect so powerful. Ok - I got all the agreeing out of the way with that.

Here is where we fundamentally part ways. The reason people don't get over the "software fetish" is because that is still a huge asset - and it tends to be the really expensive part of creating any services offering. Data is the other massive asset - but you don't get that without high value software underneath. People will continue to value their hard work in producing that software.

Open source projects with bad code...are still bad. Proprietary projects with bad code...well, you get the picture. I have had this conversation with Matt in the past, and we will continue to see this issue differently. Fine.

The thing that really surprised me in the posting though was these two simple sentences, "Lock us in through data. Fine."

Wow.

I have been talking with executives, government officials, academics, etc. all over the world for the past 2 years about data. If there is one thing that people REALLY do not want locked up by vendors it is their data. Online, enterprise apps, consumer devices...nope - don't lock up my data. In fact, this concept has catapulted the rather arcane world of data formats to the top of the industry news heap lately.

If I had to choose between buying a service online from a single vendor who believes their value is in their software, but get to control my data vs. using an open technology where my data is locked up unless I pay for it...I think I want my data thanks.

As I sit and write this my own hypocrisy comes filtering into my thoughts. I have been paying a subscription service for music lately - and don't own a song. Hmmm...so there is a place where I am tolerant of someone else controlling my data. But, I don't think I would feel the same way if I was creating the music vs. just consuming songs created by others.

I don't think we are going to wake up in 20 years and think about how goofy we were about software. I think in 20 years the development tools, and environments in which apps (or their future analogs) will run are still going to prove that he who is able to build the best code (innovation) that delivers a great service (business model), is going to be making some good money.

What I think we will find in 20 years is how much more people value their data. So much more of our lives will become digitized and that will lead to greater awareness of what data is ours, and how important it is. Just think about the progression of the privacy issue over the past 15 years. People want to control their data, they expect the companies building solutions that they use to enable that control while still offering powerful, compelling technology qua software.

****

I deleted a paragraph that I had been drafting and decided not to pursue - I goofed up by having it still on this post...

Silverlight / Moonlight - Innovation and Interop

jasonmatusow — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 23:31:31 GMT

Last week Microsoft announced that Silverlight 1.0 was being released. For those of you who may not be aware of what Silverlight is, you should go check it out at Microsoft.com. To quote the marketing pitch - Silverlight is, "a cross-browser, cross-platform plug-in for delivering richer user experiences on the web."

In other words, think kick-butt graphics, video, and audio for websites and/or web-based applications. The dev team did a bunch of work to make the use of Silverlight by other developers easy, fast, and powerful. If you want to get a feel for what is possible with the tool, look at the "Whirlything." While I don't know that I would classify the Whirlything as the coolest thing since sliced bread, it sure helped me understand how tools like this can start to influence user interfaces. So, from a tech perspective Silverlight has some depth and power and for consumers it will add to the progression of what is possible for new applications.

But, I'm a nerd in that I don't focus on the "wow" factor of this stuff from the tech front. I have a different take on it.

As you may have noticed, my blog has been rather myopic on Open XML of late. That is fine given the intensity of that issue, but it is by no means my only focus. Interoperability remains my top-level focus, and standards are only way of many to get there.

Silverlight is interesting to me in that it deals with the spectrum of elements that foster interoperability. The one that I will focus on here is the business relationship with Novell. In case you did not see this in the release, Microsoft is also going to work with Novell on a project called "Moonlight" which is the idea of Silverlight on Linux.

Why is this interesting to me? Because at the heart of Silverlight is the desire to drive innovation forward. Yes, there is competition with Flash - and that pushes both technologies forward. But success for innovators is in seeing adoption, and hopefully having that positively affect their business overall.

X-plat is all about interoperability. And here we see a case where the building of the bridge between the two platforms (Windows and Linux) is important and significantly driven through the business relationship between two firms. That relationship addresses both technology and business requirements (business including legal considerations as well).

My point is that the interoperability users will ultimately experience will not have come from a standard . It will come from the idea that innovation is driving forward the technology, and the businesses involved are finding ways to achieve interoperability via implementations, business arrangements, and IP agreements. It is too easy to fall into the myopia of interop=open standards. Real-world interop is going to come by keeping the full spectrum of possibilities in mind.

Silverlight is really cool stuff, and this announcement absolutely highlights the thinking behind our Interoperability By Design approach.

Welcome To The Blogosphere Oliver

jasonmatusow — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 06:15:00 GMT

It is always good to see someone with deep industry experience, and a sharp mind decide to add his voice to the blogosphere. I have known Oliver Bell for a number of years and have always been impressed with his mix of technical acumen and common sense smarts about the software industry. As of very recently he has kicked off a blog and sent me a mail about it. He is based in Asia, and will have interesting things to say about that part of the world.

Welcome to the conversation Oliver.

Microsoft OSS Web Site

jasonmatusow — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:01:23 GMT

Today Microsoft launched its new open source web site. Starting in 2001, we began thinking long and hard about open source from the perspective of it as a dev model, a business model, a licensing model, and a philosophical approach to software. Like anything - you look at it through your own perspective and we realized that there were things we agreed with and others that we did not.

Working with developer communities was something that we had done for a long time, and fairly well. But there was clearly so much more to learn and opportunities for us to experiment with different approaches. Looking back on it, it seems a bit odd that we chose to tackle the hardest problem first - Windows source code - rather than the edge cases with tools and resources. But, that is the benefit of hindsight talking. For 6 years we have been sharing source code, kicking off projects, experimenting with licensing models, funding projects, contributing to projects, taking contributions from others, launching tools (GDN Workspaces -painful- and then Codeplex), and establishing collaboration relationships with OSS companies. In that time, we also formed an OSS lab at Microsoft that has done some great work and continues to build bridges between OSS projects and MS dev teams.

Now, they have launched www.microsoft.com/opensource. This will be the place where information about the various activities is aggregated. Other resources that have been spun-up over the years still exist:

· Port 25 – Open Source Software Lab at Microsoft

· Codeplex – Microsoft’s open source project hosting site

· Shared Source – Microsoft’s set of programs for sharing source code with customers, partners, governments, researchers, etc.

· Microsoft Open Source ISV Forum – offer for OSS ISVs through Microsoft Partner Program

I am sure the launch of this site will kick-off a whole new round of discussion about MS and open source - but that is exactly what it is supposed to be about. The conversation continues.

Instructions For Insulting Me

jasonmatusow — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:42:00 GMT

Given that I tend to blog about contentious issues in the software industry, and that I work for Microsoft, it seems that I frequently draw the ire of some of my readers. To the extent that you wish to insult me, I now insist that you use this tool to draw out the best from your acerbic comments. Thus, I can feel both enriched and insulted at the same time - thou pribbling beef-witted foot-licker!

In case you need the full link for pasting into emails. :-) http://www.pangloss.com/seidel/Shaker/index.html

For those of you lacking a sense of humor, you may continue to insult me as you wish.

Schwartz Joins the Doc Format Discussion

jasonmatusow — Wed, 14 Feb 2007 02:26:00 GMT

I appreciate the fact that Jonathan Schwartz of SUN has jumped into the doc format discussion with a well thought out discussion. I think there are some important issues raised, control of your data, long-term archival of data, and most importantly, the translation of documents. Yet, his posting follows some very careful positioning in order to lead to the logical conclusion (for him) that you should use his products and services. Logical - but it is important to keep an eye on the issues rather than the commercial interests.

Yes - my employer has commercial objectives to see our product used. Thus goes the nature of competition.

1) Control of your data is critical. We certainly recognize that - thus the move by most formats to being XML-based. The base level standard is XML, and that gives enormous opportunity for access to the data no matter what application created it, or when. 100 years from now, XML will be the magic bullet, not ODF or Open XML.

2) Long-term archival is a huge issue and challenge. There is no question that the accessability to the Declaration of Independence is not based on a requirement for a machine to be able to read the document. Knowledge of the language sure helps though. The trade-offs in the past for data storage vs. computing capability were such that it was not feasable to have the benefits of XML-based formats. How much of the flat data stored on mainframes is readable without the mainframe applications? How about the data stored in directory services or other data manipulation systems.

I have never found the archival arguments to be complete. If you were to go completely down this path then SAP would have to open all of its data, Oracle, IBM (DB2), etc. etc. The trade off that everyone is ok with is based on the benefits that the system may offer (value) in exchange for the difficulties with long-term archival (or any one of a hundred other trade-offs).

Microsoft responded to national libraries and government agencies years ago with access to the binary formats, and source code for the Save As functions etc. Also, we provided documentation and licensing that recognized the import of the long-term archival issues. Is that a perfect solution - nope, but it was a step in the right direction. ODF is no better nor worse than Open XML at enabling technical access in 100 years simply because both are XML files and can be opened up easily. In fact, the Open XML translator project shows that it is a relatively easy task to build an independent piece of code that lets you do that.

3) The point that Mr. Schwartz makes about the bridge that is being built between Google formats and OpenOffice is exactly what we have been saying for over a year. Translation is the key. There are dozens of document format standards, some from consortia, some from national bodies, and some from international bodies. The whole "only one" argument is really a commercially-driven sentiment that does not reflect the market reality, nor the desire of customers to have more choice - not less. I think it is great they are building translation capability, I hope they continue to do so as it is the exact right thing to enable for customers.

Interesting letter from Mr. Schwartz - glad the conversation continues.

IPRs As Collaboration Framework

jasonmatusow — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:03:00 GMT

Sometimes you just have to write a response to a comment up here at the top level of the blog rather than down in the depths of the comments section. Matt Asay took my last posting and went to town on it (although he had a more thoughtful approach to it on his other blog - where he finds the time I do not know). He, although I am loathe to say it, had a good point that I want to think more about. But the rest of his response on the InfoWorld blog doesn't quite do it for me.

I'll start with the good part of Matt's comments. I like the point about the opaqueness of IP and the implications of that. A difficult one to be sure given how the business strategies around IP have developed over the years. I have long advocated a simple equation: transparency increases trust. But, I am also a believer in the caveat that perfect transparency does not equate with perfect trust. So, to the point about the role of transparency - one point to Asay. To the effect of transparency on business negotiations regarding IP - I am not ready to opine on that as I want to understand it far more deeply before I decide.

Matt also has a point about the nature of large IP holders vs. small. Clearly, the large IP holders are looking to use their assets to their advantage. Ok, fine. But the majority of patents in the U.S. are held by small companies. Many small players do look to a critical piece of IP to sustain their business. Now, they may not think of it in those terms, but if someone were to attempt to steal it, they would certainly turn to the IP law books to help them out.

I look at standards, or standards organizations to be more exact, to illustrate the point I was getting at. A standards organization is really a legal framework in which contributors and implementors alike may come together to collaborate. This collaboration is built upon a trust matrix that is absolutely framed by the IPRs. In fact, standards organizations are also legal frameworks that enable competitors to collaborate in such a way so that they do not come into conflict with anti-trust considerations as well. Now, I am not advocating (excuse the pun) for more lawyers. Nor I am singing a song about IPRs to no end. I am more interested in how we can progress around the topic of IP in general.

Open Source Software has absolutely moved the chess pieces around in the IP arena. The GPL is a sword and a shield. Look at the import of trademark to Red Hat. Think about the un-weighting of copyright and trade secret, and the natural increase of importance in patent and trademark. Powerfull stuff.

Over the past 6 years, my company has been wrestling with these changes and looking at how those changes affect our business. The report I reference in my last blog posting speaks to the fact that Sr. Executives of European firms are going through a similar process of addressing how IP can be used proactively to facilitate business growth (and not necessarily through enforcement, but rather through collaboration). Microsoft takes a full-spectrum view of IP and how it may be applied to the business. We now have a team that focuses on IP assets as a means of venture investment. We have folks that look at collaborations between companies. We are always focused on making sure our products are cleared for commercial consumption. There is more, but that is not what this posting is about.

I get it that there are problems with the system. But I don't think that discounting the idea that IPRs create a framework for callaboration has merit either.

Intellectual Property - Protection vs. Collaboration

jasonmatusow — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 21:12:00 GMT

Lately I have been wondering about the relationship of IP to the ideas of protection vs. collaboration. I know that everyone is super clear that IP rights protect the IP-holder. In other words, the system grants a right and then provides an enforcement mechanism to give the right demonstrable value. For patents (particularly software and pharma patents), the most common concern raised is all about protectionism, and blocking others from acting, etc. etc. (Keep in mind, I'm not talking about patent quality here although I do recognize what an important topic that is.) Trade secret is all about protection. Copyright concerns are raised about duration and the implication on future creativity. Trade mark - I don't know of any real controversy on this one (but am happy to learn). Yet, the common vocabulary used in association with these rights is all about "protect," "defend," "block," "counter," etc. etc.

Is there another angle to be considered? Do IPRs (intellectual property rights) provide a framework for collaboration? Does it in fact act as a catalyst for collaboration rather than an inhibitor? I am not thinking about collaboration in the free software, or open source context necessarily. I am being broader than that. In any situation where two firms, individuals etc. come together to collaborate, it is critical that there is a trust framework in place. That trust may be built upon the rule of law as much as on the personal relationship.

In open source, the very fact that there is strong copyright protections in place acts as the foundation for why those licensing models work. In VC funding of startups, what protections are in place (e.g. patents) may play a big role in the funding, but the far more important value is in what alliances you have, or in the customers who are paying you - both things greatly supported by the ownership of property that makes your firm or solutions valuable.

I am sure that this topic is significantly larger than a single posting on a blog. I did read a recent study from the economist that got me thinking though. Check it out here. If you have other readings etc. that I should look at, please let me know. I'll point to them from the blog.

Analysis of IBM's Intentions

jasonmatusow — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:02:00 GMT

If you haven't read this, it will be thought provoking at the very least. I've known Jonathan for a very long time and find this posting to be a good one.

Read it here.

Interoperability Through Community - Zend/Microsoft Tech Collab

jasonmatusow — Wed, 01 Nov 2006 16:21:00 GMT

UPDATED 11/1 with links at bottom:

Bill Hilf and his team have done another tech collab deal that makes a huge amount of sense to me. Zend and Microsoft announced yesterday that the two companies are going to work together to make the PHP scripting experience compelling for Windows Server 2003 and Windows Server “Longhorn.” From the press release the collaboration will include:

· Technical improvements for PHP deploying on the Windows Server platform will be submitted under the PHP license to the PHP community for feedback and contribution.

· Microsoft plans to develop and release an Internet Information Server (IIS) add-on component, FastCGI, that will serve as the interface between PHP and the IIS Web Server. Microsoft that this FastCGI component will be made freely available on http://www.iis.net for users of Microsot Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, Windows Vista, and Windows Server “Longhorn.”

· Zend will establish a Windows testing lab and conduct regular tests and performance improvements to maintain high performance of PHP on the Windows Server platform as PHP evolves.

· Microsoft and Zend will work to help ensure a production-quality PHP runtime environment for IIS 5.1 (Windows XP), IIS 6.0 (Windows Server 2003) and IIS 7.0 (Windows Vista and Windows Server “Longhorn”).

· Zend and Microsoft will actively participate in the PHP community, ensuring open discussion to help developers planning to deploy PHP applications on the Windows Server platform.

The Zend tech collab is another in an increasingly long line of these types of deals. JBOSS was first, then came SugarCRM, next was XenSource, and now Zend. I would say we are officially moving out of the novelty phase and into a pattern of behavior. For years I have been going to OSS events and expressing that MS is not religious about development or business models. We are likely to remain committed to our business model but that does not mean there is no room in the ecosystem for different approaches.

I look back to our inviting Jim Hugunin to come on board to help our Common Language Runtime team to more deeply understand how to work with dynamic languages (and the subsequent commitment to the IronPython project) as a precursor to this deal with Zend.

I’ll also point out that the lead point made by Bill in the release (and when he talks about this) is about interoperability. That, of course, is music to my ears. I’ll flog this horse a hundred times – interoperability not just about standards. Community is a critical path element if you are going to build out a sophisticated view of interoperability and Bill’s team is driving some of our more interesting efforts in this space.

Internetnews.com: Microsoft Opens PHP Door

vnunet.com: Microsoft teams up with Zend for PHP support

New York Times: Zend Web tools adapted for Windows (CNet re-post)

Reuters India: Microsoft forges ties with open source maker Zend

Bytepress.com: Microsoft forges ties with open source maker Zend (Reuters re-post)

CRN: Microsoft forges ties with open source maker Zend (Reuters re-post)

FoxNews.com: Microsoft forges ties with open source maker Zend (Reuters re-post)

InformationWeek: Microsoft forges ties with open source maker Zend (Reuters re-post)

DNA India: Microsoft forges ties with open source maker Zend (Reuters re-post)

InformationWeek: Microsoft Wants Speed Advantage With Open Source PHP

Dr. Dobb’s: Microsoft Wants Speed Advantage With Open Source PHP (InfoWeek re-post)

eWEEK: Zend Moves to Boost PHP Usage

Stuff.co.nz: Microsoft strikes deal with Zend

iDM: Microsoft And Zend Work Together For Better PHP Interoperability

Playfuls.com: Microsoft and Zend Technologies Announce Technical Collaboration

Blog and Community Mentions:

Andi Gutmans’ Weblog: Making PHP on Windows work!

Slashdot: Microsoft Partners With Zend

SiliconValleyWatcher: Microsoft meets PHP

TechWhack / Software Journal (India): Microsoft collaborates with open source software developer Zend

LiveJournal Blog: ZendCon Session Report - Panel - How do the Stacks Stack Up?

Bink.nu: Companies seek to improve performance, reliability and stability of PHP

Zend Developer Zone: Big News From ZendCon: Zend and Microsoft Announce Their Partnership

PHPDeveloper.org: ZendCon 2006 Accouncements - Collaborations with Microsoft, IBM, and the new ZendBox

Matt Assay: Microsoft + Zend = Faster PHP?

Craig Kitterman Joins the Blogosphere

jasonmatusow — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 01:32:00 GMT

Craig is a colleague of mine who works on interoperability at Microsoft as a part of the Interoperability & XML Architecture team. He started blogging recently, and I am only now catching up with that. I think he is a very bright guy and I'm looking forward to hearing his thoughts over time.

David Rudin Enters The Blogosphere

jasonmatusow — Thu, 14 Sep 2006 05:11:00 GMT

David Rudin is one of the attorneys on the Corporate Standards Team at Microsoft (and who has been an unending source of wisdom and assistance to me) and posted his first blog posting as of today. David is an extremely smart guy and will be a great addition to the voices out there talking about standards and their impact on the industry.

As the world continues to become an increasingly more connected place, the role of standards will increase in importance rather than decrease. The issues surrounding standards, and the technologies that ultimately are built based upon those specifications, will have a profound effect on all software businesses and interested parties.

IBM and a few other voices are bent upon trying to convince people that standards are the only answer to interop, and that standards are best implemented through open source.

That over simplifies an incredibly important and complex set of issues. I'm looking forward to hearing David's thoughts on these issues and seeing him engage in some meanignful discourse with the community at large.

Bloggers Update

jasonmatusow — Mon, 19 Jun 2006 19:41:00 GMT

I recently posted a link to Stephen McGibbon's blog and was hit with a number of complaints that his blog was stale. The good news is that he has be re-bitten by the blog bug and he is a smart guy with lots to say.

Another good man who is new to the blogosphere from MS is Brent Phillips. Brent and I work together and he is going to be doing great work on interop in the coming months.