Kyle Brady: Blog » Microsoft

A List of Reasons Why Google Isn’t Evil [Expose]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 08:10:41 +0000

There's been alot of talk recently about Google "being evil", because they have their hands in so many product arenas and have access to substantial amounts of user data, so it's time that someone pointed out why Google isn't "evil" or even becoming so.

First, look at it from Google’s perspective:

their main interest is indexing the largest amount of content possible, and doing it fast so the content’s relevant

the majority of the modern internet, everything from server to browser to protocols, is at least ten years old at the core

Google’s results are only as good as their relevance and are sorted properly, so they have a vested interest in attempting to do so

Now, look at their behaviors:

“Webmaster Tools” was arguably the first attempt by Google to make things faster/better on their own, by allowing webmasters to help Google better access sites

Chrome takes marketshare away from Internet Explorer, which is beneficial to all mankind

Javascript engine developments, like those found in Chrome, are a good thing – especially when they’re spread back to the community. JS is notoriously slow in some browsers, and even in the fastest of them can still be sluggish

the HTML standards have been bogged down in meetings for years, and have achieved next to nothing – so Google’s begun pushing things like , rather than wait for the W3C, who could take many more years to produce the same results

Google has contributed highly to languages like Python, PHP, and MySQL because of their intense usage of them – creating a language entirely is only a half step away from helping optimize pre-existing languages

wanting to augment the HTTP protocol, and presumably make it backwards compatible, is a good goal: HTTP is pretty slow at times, especially over things like 3G wireless networks. If it can be expanded to do more, or do things better, this benefits everyone

In case this isn’t easily pieced all together, here’s the gist: Google may be doing lots of things out of semi-self-interest, but people need to remember that they’re not only doing these things in the open, they’re licensing many (most? all?) of these projects so that Google isn't in total control. A new language that could be used to rewrite/replace Apache, in combination with a new web protocol, may seem dubious, but once you consider their licensing it's not.

The comparison to Microsoft and other “monopolies” is easy to refute: Microsoft participated in similar activities (IE, ActiveX, VB.Net, Windows Server, etc.), but did so either behind closed doors or with strict, proprietary licensing. The fact that Google’s opening the door to Go in the same manner that PHP or Python does is an extremely crucial differentiation, and they’re very careful about doing this for all of their potentially gamechanging structure inventions.

Now if Google were to do all of this but not distribute source code, or sue a bunch of people for using it in a way they didn’t expect or don’t appreciate, that would be entirely different. But they’re not, and they’re not likely to either – even if they don’t have control over creations like Go, they’ll be happy to see it used because, in the end, it benefits them too.

Most of Google's products can't be forced on people – they have to choose to use them, something that Microsoft’s products have never really needed, or chosen, to do.

[inspired by Rob Diana]

Hulu Needs Microsoft [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:51 +0000

My idea is not as evil as it sounds. Granted, Microsoft is campaigning to change their image, and their driven nature scares me, but that's a different story for another day.

I've mentioned Hulu here before, in a plea for them to help networks understand the importance of their service, and their response (although in hindsight, Dollhouse sucks and deserved to be canceled). And we've all heard about how Netflix's streaming video service boomed after being available on the XBOX360 network.

Personally, I prefer to watch Netflix streaming movies on my TV/couch setup than on my computer/chair setup, and I'm sure many other people feel the same. In fact, I even feel like I get better quality through my XBOX than my actual computer! (Note: "differing quality based on device" is a legitimate claim.)

But my point is this: Hulu has seen great growth, but they're going to reach a point where the geek-circles are saturated with the use of the service, and they're going to need to expand. Both to continue growth of the userbase, as well as find more (and better) advertiser dollars.

And the XBOX network is a perfect way to do that.

If there was a Hulu application on my XBOX, I would use it even more than I watch Hulu on my computer now. Even if it had limiting features (like Netflix), such as only watching content, not browsing, I would still love it. And I'm willing to bet that's something they'd see across the board.

Additionally, they'd have access to a userbase that's not necessarily the same as they currently have, since the "gaming nerds" are typically separated from "computer geeks" in terms of digital interests, as well as those "weekend gamers" in their 30's and 40's.

It all comes down to where people would prefer to view their content, and the answer is almost always going to be "on TV, sitting on a couch" over a computer... having a method for Hulu to do this is crucial.

So, Hulu, please start talks with Microsoft to make a deal.

They'd get more "street cred", and we'd get a bucket full of awesome.

Thanks.

--- --- ---

Update (4/11/2009 7:15pm PST): As "the3rdsam" points out below, Netflix obviously had connections to get the cross-platform distribution deal with Microsoft (which I didn't previously know). But as I say in the reply, they were a good test case... we'll probably see this happen again with other people, or similar concepts, even if they're less connected. The vehicle was tested and found successful, now it's time for the mainlining.

Update (4/12/2009 2:30pm PST): I got a response from Varun at Hulu about this post/idea-

We're focused on the free streaming experience on the computer today, but our overall mission at Hulu is to help people find and enjoy great content when, where and how they want. That means we’re continually listening to user feedback and evaluating new technologies to develop new experiences for users to enjoy Hulu.

To me, that sounds like dancing around the subject. Maybe something's already in the works?

Windows 7 Looks Interesting [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 21:16:56 +0000

I'll be the first person to admit that I don't like Windows, and haven't for years. I've gotten frustrated with their lack of user control, their continuing assumptions on the intelligence of users, and the general crappy slowness that has become so pervasive in the operating system.

I've been using Linux (Ubuntu) for awhile, but my desktop won't install it... there's a problem with some hardware I have, so I've had to use Vista for the last 8 months. I'm not happy about it, and the only reason it's functional is because I have so much bleeding-edge hardware that the slowness is neglible.

However, I was pretty surprised at the hoopla over the Windows 7 Beta release awhile ago, and found myself interested in what may be happening on the inside of Microsoft. I've always had a love/hate relationship with Microsoft and Bill Gates, a combination of awe in their sheer dominance, and annoyance for the same reason; so this potential "radical change" in the Windows product appealed to my curiousity.

And now, today, I came across a poll from 200 users of the Beta. Take a look at what they put together and tell me you're not interested. That you're not scared. That you're not sitting in a corner, crying, with your thumb in your mouth.

Because, folks, it looks like Microsoft is ready to be back on top. We already knew that, thanks to an interview with Ray Ozzie that made me quite scared of the next few years in software (but somehow hopeful too), but they apparently mean it. Think about it: Microsoft put out a beta version of their next operating system, pretty much on time, and it got good reviews and feedback.

This is difficult to imagine in a world where Vista was lauded as the end-all-be-all of gamechanging software, but this poll seems to fit with the rumors I've been hearing around the 'net.

Microsoft finds itself, once again in a corner. But when do they perform and innovate best?

When they feel threatened, or feel a need to obliterate any and all competition.

The Beast has risen, and he has the name of Microsoft...

Ruminations on Project Completion [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 02:03:38 +0000

Here's a short piece I had to write for a class, answering the question:

What do you believe is important for successfully completing a project, the formal management structure or culture of the parent organization? Why?

--- --- ---

Completing any non-trivial project is a difficult task, and so-called "experts" are typically divided into two beliefs on the most important aspect of the project: formal management structure and the culture of the parent organization. However, I believe that a mix of both a formal management structure and the overall organization's culture are important, neither one eclipsing the other.

Companies such as Google thrived for years with an loosely formed corporate hierarchy, and a culture of freedom, fun, and brilliance. Recently, Google has found that such a structure does not facilitate a high level of productivity and innovation, and has begun to formalize itself into a more rigid version of itself. On the opposite side of the corporate structure rainbow is strictly hierarchical management, found at such companies as Microsoft. However, Microsoft is no more successful at pinning down innovation and productivity to a corporate structure, as they are well known for lazy employees and product delays of epic length.

Given these two radical examples, I can only conclude that a mix of the two would be the ideal goal: an organization with a formal hierarchy that also respects the employees' freedom and individuality, but only until said freedoms encroach on the overall productivity and innovation. Whether or not this is ultimately achievable is up for debate; however, many modern companies aspire to reach such a "happy medium" and have been at least moderately successful, both financially and culturally.

Microsoft Wants Your Keyboard [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:49:22 +0000

Eran Hammer-Lahav ("EHL") wrote up a piece on the weird thoughts Microsoft must have since they just patented, in effect, the "Page Up" and "Page Down" button.

Here's my take on it, with a different end-game scenario than EHL, more-or-less duplicated from a comment I made on his blog:

Microsoft is, and always has been, about collecting as much money as possible, while doing as little as possible. "Stealing" MS-DOS and making huge profits from it, repackaging an OS as a "new" version with very little differences... we've all heard that before.

So why should the keyboard be any different? They could potentially ingest massive profits because unlicensed keyboards (aka "not Microsoft") use the buttons associated with their patent, depending on how the courts interpret the depth and reach of this.

Also, this might be a play at what I've thought they might do for awhile: try and control and own as much of the computer as possible. As people move to Macs and Linux, it's probably becoming more and more attractive for them to disrupt competitors by simply "owning" the technology. If your keyboard (or any other common component) ends up being radically different on a Mac (besides the minimal differences now), users might reconsider switching.

Next they'll concoct a strategy about LCD monitors!

Bill Gates, Hero or Mortal Enemy? [Self]

Kyle Brady — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:47:36 +0000

An Open Letter to Bill Gates

Dear Mr. Gates (Bill?),

You don't know me, but I'm a 20 yr old living in Silicon Valley who has what only can be described as a "love/hate relationship" with you (not in a sexual sense, but intellectually and philosophically). And I thought I'd put it all in writing. For the ages, as it were.

The earliest I can remember using a computer was about 17 or 18 years ago, back in Maryland (yes, that makes me either 2 or 3 yrs old). I can remember learning how to type commands in DOS, not Windows 3.1 yet, that let me run my games that usually involved Sesame Street. After that, we got Windows 3.1 and I thought it was the best thing ever. Keep in mind this was way before the Internet was publicly used, so all my activities involved playing games or messing around with Windows itself (I actually got in alot of trouble, up to when I moved to California, for changing settings, specially configuring things, and "exploring" ... get it? ... how everything worked).

All of this set the foundation for what was to become an obsession and fascination with computers, and ultimately, how they worked. By 4th grade, I remember being "that guy" who the teachers asked to fix computer problems... even the computer teacher. By middle school, my "that guy" status had increased to include physically fixing hardware problems as well, and extended to almost everyone that knew me. By high school, I was heavily into the Internet and programming (learning HTML wasn't enough... I immediately jumped into web-based languages).

So you see, I can only credit you and my father for this. Him for his genes (Engineer) and having the computer around, and you for creating "the right thing, at the right time". But I've also had a fascination with the stories of your personality and success, often hoping that I would be the "next Bill Gates": coming from nowhere to eventually rule the computing world.

But as my computer abilities progressed, I discovered Linux, and became increasingly frustrated with the speed and access constraints that are so often associated with Windows. In fact, I am now officially a Linux "geek", and only use Windows when I have to (i.e. I have a PC for the Adobe Suite, because I hate Macs more). And with this glowing new relationship with Linux, I've discovered the freedom and security that comes with moving away from Windows. I won't bother with the details, because I'm sure you're aware of the old arguments, but they are anything but myths.

You might see my problem by now. I detest Windows, and most other Microsoft products, and avidly suggest friends and family take alternatives (Linux vs. Windows, iPod vs. Zune, Firefox vs. IE, etc.). Just yesterday I came across the issue of Fortune that features your wife, and found this quote:

Reading the article, Bill learned about the World Bank's 1993 Development Report, which calculated the cost of these disease. He got the 344-page document and read it several times. [Page 50, Right Column]

I actually tore that page out, highlighted it, and it's going on my wall. Why? Because it so perfectly describes what I've always admired about you... the attitude. "Cut the crap, get to the point" is something I have lived by for years, and the willingness to devote massive amounts of time to something you believe in is not a common human trait.

To wrap this up, I find myself often comparing myself to you (goals, personality, and, hopefully, intelligence), while hating almost everything that Microsoft does. Except the XBOX. That was a stroke of pure genius, so congrats on that one. And now, with your philanthropic efforts being mixed with your foresight and attitude, I can only hope that my goal to become the "next Bill Gates" one day comes true.

Except for the Microsoft part.

Sincerely,

Kyle Brady

Microsoft, Please Steal My Data! [Old Content]

Kyle Brady — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:06:23 +0000

I think we should all let Microsoft take our data. Really. Everything about us... blood type, injuries, health insurance...

Did you catch the sarcasm? Did you? Because something tells me the creator of the most buggy, flawed, attacked, and hacked software in the world is going to have a hard time convincing people their data is secure. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong, but I just have this weird feeling that they're probably running the same software that gets hacked thousands of times a day worldwide...

Congratulations, Microsoft. You beat Google to a release of a new product for once. That is admirable. But that doesn't mean it's a better product, or that people will even care. Being the first to the finish line may win you a race... but we all know that in war there is no ticker tape. There are only mines, rocket launchers, and stealth bombers, but I digress.

Google has been supposedly developing their own product that is intended to revolutionize the medical industry, this is common knowledge in the tech world. Who do you really think is more secure with their data? How many times have you heard of your personal account information being leaked from Google? How often has Microsoft's systems been hacked? How often has Google's systems been hacked? Who is generally treated with greater trust?

The answer is obvious: Google. The world leader in search and information storage considers your personal health information to just be one more shelf to index: all the better to personalize your services, my dear. From my personal experience, people who use Google's products love Google, whereas people who use Microsoft's products typically don't. What is your most used email account, Gmail or Hotmail/Live Mail/Whatever-they-call-it-today?

When the battle is begun, and sides are taken, where will you side? Where will the doctors, and subsequently, the industry side? I'm willing to put the smart money on Google, it's a pretty simple choice. The two behemoths will face off, and battle for the attention... this much is true. But given the history of each company, and their respective mottos (both official and unofficial), chances are that Microsoft Windows Live Spaces Personal Health Identifier Super Home Edition will fail.

Completely, utterly, disastrously... fail.