Metro, that ribbon, shared mailboxes: Has Microsoft lost the plot?
More money for the same functionality
Cloud storage: Lower cost and increase uptime
Sysadmin blog In a previous piece on Office 365, I discussed how difficult it was to enable public folders. The reality is that Office 365 doesn't support public folders in the traditional sense. Instead, to achieve a similar functionality to the most common use for public folders – a storage point for group emails – Microsoft have offered "shared mailboxes".
This isn't properly supported in Outlook, and so getting the same sort of communal mail handling requires either reliance on Outlook Web Access, or some fancy tinkering in powershell to get copies of mail sent to the communal account to drop into the mailboxes of relevant staff.
After that comes more tinkering to enable permission to send on behalf of that communal account. For all the other features you used to associate with public folders - including shared calendars - Microsoft points you at SharePoint.
There's a problem in this thinking; it is focused entirely on how Microsoft would like us to use its software (so as to maximise revenue potential) and has absolutely no connection to how people actually use it in the real world.
Once you remove public folders and shared calendars from Outlook, there are few - if any - compelling reasons to use Outlook over any competing mail client, even the free ones. Migrate the most popular features into another SKU (with accompanying separate licensing) and the advantages that "Outlook + Exchange" had over "anything + IMAP" evaporate.
Once you have no reason to use Outlook, then - outside of a few Excel power users - there is no reason to use Office. Without Office as the anchor, more and more of my clients simply don't have a reason to use Windows for their desktop. Without Windows on the desktop, why invest in Windows Server?
This cascade of irrelevance certainly doesn't apply to every company or situation. Lots of companies still rely on a piece of Windows-only industry-specific software, but even this is slowly changing. Microsoft's own design choices for Windows 8 and beyond make dragging legacy software into the future untenable.
In addition, the big industry push for Software as a Service woke the world to the idea of HTML5-delivered applications that could run in any modern browser, on any operating system. Virtualisation, App-V and similar technologies provide a way of running legacy Windows applications on a non-Microsoft operating system.
For a time, Microsoft might be able to stanch the bleeding with yet more licensing shenanigans. Demand that you must hold a windows licence on the device you are using as an RDP client, or deepen the already arcane and illogical set of rules on what can or can't be virtualised and when. While it might stave off immediate irrelevance, this approach only earns enmity, and deepens the resolve to exit what is increasingly perceived as a vexatious software ecosystem focused on lock-in.
Dedicated Microsoft watchers or a sysadmins devoted to Microsoft's ecosystem go to Microsoft conferences, read all the Microsoft blogs and get a handle on the "vision" of Microsoft as presented by the PR mouthpieces. While I do try to keep up, the bulk of my exposure to Microsoft's vision is neither a fancy PowerPoint slide accompanied by a free tablet, nor deep insider information from well placed sources.
Like most of you, dear readers, I get to extrapolate what Microsoft is doing by how it affects my clients in the real world. When I am not bumping up against Microsoft's aggravating licensing restrictions, I am inventing new epithets involving Powershell and Office 365.
I don't believe that the changes Microsoft has made over the past few years are necessarily all bad. Individually, arguments could be made for each. Consider however that there is still a significant chunk of the world uncomfortable with the ribbon bar. Adding to that, Microsoft is fundamentally altering the dynamic of its client operating system with Metro.
Consider the above alongside the cancellation of Small Business Server, and it's less-than-subtle push to get SMEs using Office 365. Not only is Microsoft making changes to user interfaces, by altering feature distribution amongst the SKUs, Microsoft is also forcing higher costs to achieve the same basic functionality as with the last generation of products during a period of international economic austerity.
Microsoft is rooting around in the dark magic of its own relevance, seemingly without a cohesive plan. For many businesses, Microsoft's licenceing and feature distribution strategies for the 2012 product suite is too much change, in too many products, too fast. ®
COMMENTS
As always,
I can't help thinking that if Microsoft had been broken up by the DoJ last decade as a result of its antitrust naughtiness, the various surviving bits would seem likely to find themselves in a better state today than their cohesive whole seems to be.
The little tiny nuggests of genuine brilliance and innovation are too easily lost in a tidal wave of mediocrity and product infanticide.
When is Ballmer going to be put out to pasture?
Re: As always,
Couldn't agree more. Upvote if you think Ballmer should have been fired long ago.
It seems to me as if Microsoft has lost the plot..
Take their stupid instance on the Ribbon interface. I have been using Office for longer than I care to remember (well over 10 years), and have used it for various projects, both large and small. Up to Office 2003, I could do most of what I wanted or needed to do quickly, and with little need to go to the help system.
Now, with Ribbons, I frequently find myself having to spend a minute or two looking for an option, or in extreme cases, look it up on the help system
With Windows 8, along comes Metro. An interface that seemingly ignores 20 years of Human Computer Interaction research seemingly based on some vague idea that Joe Public loves the Windows Phone interface and would love to see it on his PC. Guess what? The WP interface is good for phones. It's probably fine for tablets (I'll be honest, I've never used in on a tablet).
There are a couple of problems I have with Metro.
1) It's not obvious how to bring up the start screen, the control panel, or even how to shut the computer down safely. I'll admit, even as a OSX fan, that OSX doesn't make those things obvious, either. This means it might be difficult for an inexperienced user to find their way around a system. It's not obvious that if you want to start another application (or switch to one), that you need to let the mouse pointer hover over an area of the screen. It's also not obvious that you need to touch an area of the screen. OSX at least has the dock at the bottom of the screen, and virtually any Finder window has an Applications shortcut on it.
My point is that people are used to buttons and switches. They've been in use since before the first computers were even conceived. There is something physical (or at least visual) that you can push, and there is usually a visual or auditory notification that it has been pushed. Even touch sensitive controls on modern electronics still have clear markings showing you where to touch. Windows 8 Metro doesn't appear to offer that. OSX offers that. So do most of the flavours of Linux (although with Unity, Canonical appear to be dragging Ubuntu down the Microsoft route UI wise). So do earlier versions of Windows.
2) Ergonomics. Steve Jobs rightly (IMO) pointed out that touch screen PCs do not work for long term use. Try holding your arm up and touching your PC screen for 20 minutes, and I suspect you'll agree. After a while, you will start to lose feeling in the arm. Now, I did see suggested on another forum that people would be using a touch screen monitor on it's back. With today's generation of monitors that is a staggeringly bad idea. Quite apart from the fact that the heat from the electronics in the back of the monitor would rise, and possibly damage the LCD of the monitor with prolonged use, even thin monitors would require the user to hold their hands several centimetres above the desk. Something that has been linked with RSI. That's with a monitor a few centimetres thick. Now imagine the problems caused by someone with an All in one PC that can be anywhere from 5 to 10 centimetres thick.
All I can say is that Apple must have looked at Windows 8, and are currently rubbing their hands with glee over the number of potential mac users that are actively looking at other platforms.
Maybe Apple used some of that huge cash pile to buy a large share of Microsoft to run it into the ground?

IT infrastructure monitoring strategies
What you need to know about cloud backup
Enabling efficient data center monitoring
Agentless Backup is Not a Myth
Top 10 SIEM implementer’s checklist