Summary: Key Vista endorser Jerry Seinfeld is named as one of IDG’s top 10 “Lousy Celebrity Endorsements”; Compatibility problems in Vista 7 stressed again to rebut Microsoft’s latest spin
Not a single headline about Vista has appeared over the past week*, but there were about 15 clusters of headlines about “Windows 7″.
We were actually amused to find Microsoft in “10 Lousy Celebrity Endorsements”, which is this new gallery from IDG. It names Jerry Seinfeld as a top example. For those who do not recall, Microsoft buried its Seinfeld ads very quickly because — just like Mojave Experiment — they failed to sell Vista, which Seinfeld is said to have dumped (along with Windows as a whole). Some might say that Seinfeld never adopted Vista in the first place. In other words, it was an endorsement as fake as it can get.
“Some might say that Seinfeld never adopted Vista in the first place.”Instead of Seinfeld brainwash and the Mojave Experiment, Microsoft decided to pretend that it built a new operating system and it even created a new deskbar. Then, it spent half a billion dollars on advertising/spin alone (“perception management” [1, 2]). It’s still going on.
Elsewhere on the Web we now find some creative new spin about the compatibility issues in Vista 7. We wrote a lot about incompatibility in Vista 7, e.g.:
“But this is going to end as all tragedies must, with tears. Steve Ballmer is getting taken for the biggest ride of his life, and one day he’s going to find himself dumped out of the limo by the side of the road wondering what happened.”
Move over, Richard Stallman, Microsoft will take it from here…
Summary: Microsoft folks have decided on ‘our behalf’ who is important to Open Source and who is not
IS IT not just lovely when Microsoft people get to define who is a valid Open Source voice and who is not? This way they can marginalise key people like Stallman (the founder of the movement back when it was more widely known as "Free software") and promote apologists of Microsoft.
“This way they can marginalise key people like Stallman (the founder of the movement back when it was more widely known as “Free software”) and promote apologists of Microsoft.”We are talking about MindTouch, the former Microsoft employees who are also Mono boosters. They were sucking up to people like Matt Asay last year [1, 2]. He is the man who helped Microsoft enter OSI and OSBC [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] — a fact that many people either don’t know or don’t remember.
They also idolise one of Microsoft’s gate openers [1, 2, 3], Tim O’Reilly. He has financial interests with the company from Redmond, just like the following man whom they included in this year’s list:
Miguel de Icaza, founder, Mono and GNOME projects
It’s almost as though MindTouch wants to go around publishers and disseminate this list which says, “these are your friends! Follow them.”
Now ponder all those who are conspicuously missing. IDG says:
Torvalds was named the most influential blogger in open source, however, despite ranking behind O’Reilly in the overall metric, which includes various Twitter analysis tools and Google Trends.
This is just the latest example of Microsoft redefining the landscape of Free/open source software by wrapping itself up with Geeknet, CodePlex, etc. Matt Asay is on the board of advisors for Geeknet, which got filled with former Microsoft employees as well [1, 2]. Geeknet’s news site, Slashdot, also promoted (front page) MindTouch’s list that lauded Asay as an Open Source champion.
Watch the author of this latest press release which promotes a Microsoft lobby that Microsoft MVP Miguel de Icaza participated in until recently. It says “CodePlex Foundation”, but it’s really just Microsoft. They try to pretend it’s something separate that submits press releases independently.
Microsoft pretends to have embraced Free software (it called it “shared source” or “open source” and bends the meaning it conveys) while attacking Free software, illegally and legally at the same time (with legal means but with accompanying racketeering [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]). We gave two examples just hours ago [1, 2]. █
“If anybody thinks open-source alternatives are free, I guess as they say, you can see me after class. [...] I will tell you that in any comparison that you would do of Windows with Linux, which is an open-source alternative, we will prove to you that when it comes to total cost of ownership our stuff is more economical, whether it’s the other patent-licensing costs that you might have to pay to use open-source software, which is kind of a big unknown right now [...]“
“Now that Microsoft settles a case of IM spam, one can’t help recalling the many incidents where Microsoft spammed people, sometimes specifically targeting GNU/Linux users by scraping their names off GNU/Linux Web sites.”Microsoft does a lot of things in bulk, including "spamming" the government last month. Going further back, we find many more examples [1, 2], including fake letters from dead people and rigging of polls against GNU/Linux and Java.
At the end of last year we showed that Microsoft was again paying IDC (IDG) to assist with lobbying, probably by producing biased results based on selective populations being massively inquired [1, 2]. Microsoft has used these tricks with IDC to belittle GNU/Linux, as we showed using Comes vs Microsoft exhibits. These self-serving ’surveys’ and ’studies’ (sometimes carried out jointly with entities like AARP) may take time for their purpose to be realised. As we showed this morning, the Gates Foundation uses the same tactics by sponsoring so-called 'studies'. Microsoft doesn’t do this out of curiosity or as a service to others. It simple cannot because it would have to justify the expenses to investors. Microsoft’s latest such ’studies’ are leading to headlines like this one: “Microsoft helps remote workers”
Remote-working programmes can benefit employees and employers through increased productivity, reduced overhead and happier workers, according to a recent survey from Microsoft.
How is Microsoft going to use these results that it paid for?
There are more new examples like this, one of which involves smart grids [1, 2, 3] and may lead to nonsense/PR such as: “Microsoft To Cut Data Center Costs in Half”
How about this for a headline: “PayPal, Microsoft team up with Foursquare to Save The Children”
How lovely. Microsoft is now saving our children. All bow in awe. In the coming weeks it will become even clearer what Microsoft intends to do with those ’studies’ that it bought. █
Summary: Microsoft’s idea of “search” continues to incorporate business bias, unnecessary censorship, bribes, and advertisements that disparage Google
THE simple reality hurts Microsoft’s Bong [sic] because having about 3% in global market share is laughable, especially when one loses over $2 billion per year in this area. Microsoft is trying to compete with Google, but perhaps it just can’t understand that by fooling users with fake rankings it simply sends out the message that it’s not interested in search, it just wants to decide for users what (mis)information that should get.
Last week we wrote about Microsoft’s Middle East censorship ((this is now confirmed by more sources [1, 2]) and recalled that in China, for instance, Microsoft does even worse things which had the New York Times (NYT) call for a boycott (at least one writer of NYT called for a Bing boycott). Homophobia at Microsoft was also brought up because of this news (Microsoft still censors the subject in some places). So what is Microsoft to search really? It’s just a business looking to maximise profit. The integrity of the search and the honesty is placed very low because Microsoft believes that it can lie to customers as long as some accomplices like the Chinese government are happy. Not a smart strategy, Microsoft, not so smart. This only reinforces the perception that Microsoft is an innately “bad” company.
“This only reinforces the perception that Microsoft is an innately “bad” company.”“Microsoft Bing bribes Farmville enthusiasts on Facebook with farm,” says this report. It would not be the first time that Microsoft is accused of “bribing” to compete with Google [1, 2] and there is also the Verizon deal [1, 2] (Microsoft reportedly paid Verizon half a billion dollars to drop Google).
Microsoft now resorts to brainwash on British TV [1, 2, 3, 4] (Google never did this), it uses US-only numbers from a partner (comScore) to make claims that are difficult to trust because of many conflicts of interests [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10], and in MSN we find new changes [1, 2] which Microsoft boosters like Microsoft Nick are advertising in the form of articles and galleries [1, 2]. This is not reporting, but then again, it’s Microsoft friends from Ziff Davis [1, 2, 3]. Here is another article about the “new” MSN:
–Remember when Microsoft was, well, Microsoft? The House That Gates Built is trying to stand tall against Google with a newly redesigned page for its portal, MSN.com. The new-and-improved site is a little cleaner and a little fresher, but not significantly different. The main purpose of the page seems to be to steer people to Microsoft’s Bing search engine, which is a good deal better than previous Microsoft search offerings but, it must be said, isn’t a Google beater.
Rupert Murdoch, a friend of Microsoft and an ally against Google [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], seems to be collaborating a little more with Microsoft, the abusive monopolist. Microsoft’s CNET booster writes about it gleefully and more details can be found here:
Now under new management, MySpace is looking to reinvent itself and rise like a Phoenix from the ashes. The once dominant social networking site fell from nearly 70 percent of the social networking market, to only 30 percent in less than a year, and was plummeting on the verge of extinction.
One of the ways that MySpace is looking to build some relevance again is through the Microsoft Outlook social connector feature–giving it some new business credibility it has always lacked. MySpace beat its social networking rival Facebook to the punch to integrate its member information and updates into Microsoft Outlook. Facebook and Windows Live integration is still listed as “coming soon”.
For those who do not know, MySpace is owned by Murdoch and it shows. █
“We have 17.1 million users of bbc.co.uk in the UK and, as far as our server logs can make out, 5 per cent of those [use Macs] and around 400 to 600 are Linux users.”
–Ashley Highfield
Summary: The latest embarrassments from the BBC, including discrimination against users of GNU/Linux
James Randi correctly pointed out that “some things are easily accepted because they are repeated so often” (watch what he says towards the end). Our disappointment with the BBC is no news [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8] and the BBC is no news, either. Many reasons were given here before.
A regular reader wrote to us about “Ashley Highfield, Microsoft, and the BBC,” explaining again this incestuous relationship that we covered here before, sometimes concentrating on Ashley Highfield in particular [1, 2, 3]. “So he’s been ‘working with’ Microsoft since 2006,” writes our reader, “spends ages slowing down the adoption of iPlayer and then goes full time at Microsoft. Meanwhile, some time back we have legal challenges to iPlayer from Murdoch, who also happens to be in talks with Microsoft. No doubt Microsoft promised him he would make lots of money if he became their attack dog against Google. What a long term devious strategy by his Billness.”
“Meanwhile, some time back we have legal challenges to iPlayer from Murdoch, who also happens to be in talks with Microsoft.” –AnonymousLast week we showed that after private debates between Murdoch and Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13], Murdoch said that he was "ready to sue" Google. This is now corroborated by CNET. But anyway, this post is mostly about Highfield.
To quote this week’s news from The Guardian, ‘”This is a big moment – we are taking out our slingshots and taking on Goliath,” said the managing director and vice-president of consumer and online at Microsoft UK, Ashley Highfield, adding that he believed Bing met a real desire from both consumers and advertisers”…’
Our reader adds this much older reference from the BBC, which says: “Ashley Highfield, director of the BBC’s new media division, shared a platform with Microsoft boss Bill Gates at a technology conference in Las Vegas.”
It also says: “Mr Highfield demonstrated how a system like iMP could work on a computer running Microsoft’s updated Windows Vista operating system as part of a potential home entertainment solution…”
The events of the past two weeks (here, here, here and here) have clarified the BBC’s stance on allowing interoperability with open-source iPlayer clients. I have therefore decided to withdraw get_iplayer with immediate effect.
Ian Hunter’s post (Managing Editor, BBC Online) provided very clear guidance on the way the BBC feels about open-source applications accessing iPlayer streams. I have no desire act against the BBC’s wishes in this respect.
Via ThistleWeb we found “More BBC / MS incest” (his words), which can be found right here in The Times:
The system was launched by Ashley Highfield, Microsoft’s UK consumer and online managing director, who had been one of the key figures behind the development of the BBC’s iPlayer.
The iPlayer has been remarkably successful in Britain, regularly dealing with more than 40 million programme requests a month.
However, Mr Highfield insisted that Microsoft’s product, which has been in testing for the past six months, is superior to the iPlayer. “Not all video players are equal,” he said. “Our average viewer watches for 25 minutes, significantly higher than other online services. It shows we’re doing more than slapping on any programme for people to watch.”
The technology company has secured deals with a number of television studios and broadcasters such as Endemol, the maker of Big Brother; RDF Media, which created Location, Location, Location; and BBC Worldwide.
Who is this guy kidding? Does the BBC not realise that hiring people like Highfield has become a total embarrassment that leads to resentment from the British public? There are quite a few other BBC executives who were hired from Microsoft UK, including Highfield's successor. It’s almost as though they discovered a new host that also enjoys the ability to deliver (or deny) content and misinformation. Such relationships between national media and corporations are always dangerous. █
Summary: HowSoftwareIsBuilt.com is paid by Microsoft, promotes Microsoft, but it runs on the very same platform Microsoft is ridiculing and extorting
Microsoft — or perhaps someone else whom Microsoft definitely pays — has created howsoftwareisbuilt.com, where Microsoft apparently tries to promote itself and ‘embrace’ the FOSS world (here is the latest interview). In the homepage, the site also links to the company’s anti-GNU/Linux pages (“compare” site). How demeaning. Notice the footer which clearly states: “How Software is Built is sponsored by Microsoft Corp.”
OS Web Server Last changed
Linux Apache/2.2.13 Unix mod_ssl/2.2.13 OpenSSL/0.9.8e-fips-rhel5 mod_bwlimited/1.4 28-Nov-2009
It does not look like an Akamai-type response and the Web site uses WordPress, which is extremely hard to run on non-UNIX-compliant platforms. We are not entirely sure who’s behind the site, as only a hosting company is listed:
Registrant Contact:
midPhase Services, Inc.
midPhase Services, Inc. ()
Fax:
223 W. Jackson Blvd #1014
Chicago, 60606
US
Administrative Contact:
midPhase Services, Inc.
midPhase Services, Inc. (techsupport@midphase.com)
+1.3123861630
Fax:
223 W. Jackson Blvd #1014
Chicago, 60606
US
Technical Contact:
midPhase Services, Inc.
midPhase Services, Inc. (techsupport@midphase.com)
+1.3123861630
Fax:
223 W. Jackson Blvd #1014
Chicago, 60606
US
It is worth adding that other such Microsoft Web sites run GNU/Linux simply because it’s better [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. As we have shown before, Microsoft wants to present F/OSS as just a “development method” (we showed this a lot around 2008), not a licensing/sharing paradigm/model, so the site’s name, howsoftwareisbuilt.com, is a good fit. █
The reason we bring this subject up yet again is that Microsoft ended up dumping software on a museum; it spins this as usual, calling it “donation”. In every sense, this is more like EDGI, i.e. dumping to block competition, disguised as “charity”.
Here it is from the news.
The Museum of Science, Boston, has been awarded a $1.9 million technology grant from Microsoft Corp., which has been named a “Premier Partner” for the museum. The company has contributed to the Museum of Science since 1997.
The Redmond, Wa.-based software giant’s corporate support included Microsoft Office products and server and development tools.
Boston’s Museum of Science did not need licences to rent Microsoft software. The Boston-based FSF could give the museum solid software to own and to modify forever (as it sees fit); By that definition, as above, the FSF could claim hundreds of billions of dollars in “charity”.
To clarify, Microsoft cannot donate unless it’s in the interests of shareholders, as in this case. Otherwise it can get sued (added below is a video on this subject, thanks to the “yes men”). Microsoft is not a charity and this is a business decision that turns the museum into a potentially-perpetual Microsoft client with higher exit barriers. The Museum of Science should have refused this ‘gift’. The only thing more insulting than this is ‘funny money’ (see explanations in [1, 2, 3, 4]), where Microsoft offers Microsoft software coupons to pay for the crimes it committed. █
“Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.”
Microsoft launched EBS in November 2008 in part to give VARs a product to sell to customers whose needs exceeded the 75-user limit of Small Business Server, and potentially attract new midmarket customers. With support for up to 300 users, EBS filled a gap that had existed in Microsoft’s SMB product portfolio, but EBS apparently wasn’t seeing a satisfactory level of uptake.
Scott Fulton explains why people predicted this correctly.
It was a solid idea. But today it was left to EBS’ own product managers to announce on their team blog this morning that Microsoft has made a decision to cancel the product. The excuse they gave was especially disheartening, as it essentially caved in to the arguments naysayers used against EBS’ viability from the beginning.
Microsoft will halt development of its mid-market oriented Windows Essential Business Server software bundle, as the company bets on “cloud computing” rather than lump licensing to woo penny-pinching IT markets.
When asked some further questions (outside the ’spin zone’), Microsoft’s response was this:
Microsoft officials declined to comment further.
They would not speak to the press, not even IDG News Service. Since the early days of Microsoft, they have had this silence policy imposed at the behest of the PR people (source: Barbarians Led by Bill Gates, a book composed by the daughter of Microsoft’s PR mogul). In any event, here is some more coverage of it [1, 2] and more spin from Ina the booster, Mary Jo Foley, the 'Microsoft press' which covered it too gently, and Microsoft Nick with his weak, one-sided ‘reporting’ at eWEEK (it should be called “eWEAK”). They mostly play along with Microsoft’s PR message, which spins this failure as an evolving strategy. They should challenge Microsoft’s spin, not simply parrot it, which would make them participants in the PR machinery.
There was another article a few days ago about more products that Microsoft discontinues.
Microsoft announced two dates recently that Windows users should heed.
On April 13, Microsoft will no longer support Windows Vista that has no service packs installed.
Second and more importantly, on July 13, support will end for all versions of Windows 2000 and all version of Windows XP with Service Pack 1 and Service Pack 2.
End of support means that Microsoft will no longer give phone and e-mail technical support and will no longer fix bugs and issue security patches.
Microsoft has some real problems these days, also financially [1, 2, 3, 4] (real numbers carry on declining). This past week, not a single headline about Vista appeared in the news, just some marketing lies for Vista 7 (fake figures of “sales”, just like Microsoft did for Vista, courtesy of Microsoft’s PR efforts). It’s a simple case of fake numbers and misclassification for hype (unused licences and XP counting as “sales” of Vista 7), but Microsoft is trying to create the false impression that many people already accept the newer version of the same old operating system. There is also the “R&D” lie from Microsoft [1, 2, 3, 4], where the company basically categorises too many activities as “R&D” and then sells this illusion that it advances science. In any event, Microsoft (MSFT) suffered a decline last week because it admitted that its financial results wouldn’t quite meet expectations, not even in the next quarter.
U.S. stocks pared gains and the Dow Jones Industrial Average retreated as Microsoft Corp. slid after predicting higher operating expenses, triggering a decline in technology companies. Intel Corp. lost 1.3 percent.
In order to reduce those expenses, Microsoft has been killing many products and even divisions that were losing money. Microsoft is still shrinking and it only ever expands in countries where labour is inexpensive and working conditions utterly poor. █
“If you can’t make it good, at least make it look good.”
