David Chappell

  • September 2020
  • November 2017
  • April 2017
  • October 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • August 2015
  • April 2015
  • December 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003

Opinari

Get the Feed! Subscribe

What is Software + Services?  
# Sunday, June 29, 2008
 
Exactly what Microsoft means by the term Software + Services (S+S) can be hard to puzzle out. For a good example of the confusion this can cause, see Phil Wainewright's post earlier this year about Microsoft's S+S mantra, then read the response from Gianpaolo Carraro at Microsoft and Phil's rejoinder to that. While the exchange is interesting, I'd argue that their underlying premise is inaccurate--S+S doesn't mean what Phil thinks it means.

It's easy to assume, as Phil seems to, that S+S refers only to scenarios combining both on-premises software and cloud services. Yet when Microsoft hired me to write a (now slightly dated) paper on S+S, I learned that this isn't accurate. As part of that project, I talked with lots of people in Redmond who were working in this area. Like Phil, I began with the assumption that S+S meant using both together, something that's not all that common today (although it certainly happens, as with iTunes). The truth is that Microsoft really means something broader than this.

S+S is in fact a label for the world we live in today, where individuals and businesses use both on-premises software and cloud services. Sometimes we do use the two together, but more often we use one or the other on its own. Zealots believe that pretty much everything will migrate into the cloud, while Luddites argue that almost nothing will. Neither group is right--the future actually lies somewhere between these two extremes--and so both are important.

So if S+S is actually just a term for today's broad world, why does Microsoft promote this label so strongly? The answer is simple: It plays to the company's strengths. Every vendor wants to shape this discussion (and thus our perceptions) in ways that benefit it. Salesforce.com, for example, uses its No Software slogan to tilt our thinking toward services, while vendors without a strong cloud services focus, such as IBM, continue to emphasize their on-premises offerings.

S+S is an attractive label for Microsoft because they're strong in both areas. With Windows and .NET, they provide one of the dominant on-premises platforms. At the same time, their massive collection of cloud data centers gives them services scale on par with Google, Amazon, and Yahoo.

It's certainly true that Microsoft's revenues are tilted much more toward the on-premises world, and as Phil points out, it's a safe bet that they'll work hard to maintain their position here. As the attempted Yahoo acquisition shows, they're also trying to get bigger on the services front, a business in which they're not even close to dominant.

Still, expect the company to keep promoting its strengths in both areas. As the seismic shift to services continues, every vendor will position itself in the most flattering way it can find. S+S is Microsoft's expression of how it sees itself in a world where both on-premises software and cloud services are important.


0 comments :: Post a Comment

 


Comments:

Post a Comment


<< Home