Staying clear of IBM
Microsoft's experiments in managed services are meant primarily to improve customer satisfaction and lower support costs, rather than unseat IBM's massive Global Services organisation, said Forrester Research analyst Julie Giera.
"Microsoft doesn't have any plans to become the next IBM Global Services," Giera said. "They are certainly trying to figure out how customers can avoid problems with Microsoft software, how they can run it more effectively and efficiently and figure out their role in that."
Giera said that Microsoft's reputation suffers when customers have a poor experience with the company's software, even when the problems may lie with another supplier.
She added that there is a market need for standardised and cheaper managed services, particularly among small and medium-size businesses.
For its part, IBM Global Services is also trying to nab more midsize customers. Earlier this year, it launched a programme to partner with smaller, regional consulting companies that cater to the midsize market.
At the same time, IBM is pursuing higher-end services centred around its business management consulting division.
By emphasizing these business-consulting-led engagements, IBM is seeking to differentiate itself from competitors and evade the price pressure on common outsourcing services, analysts said.
Indeed, Dell's entrance about four years ago into the market for "PC deployment" services around its hardware has pushed down prices, Giera said.
"Software and services are becoming commoditised markets. Dell has pushed hard to commoditise service and bring down the price," she said.
Ballmer recognised that Microsoft Consulting Services, or MCS, does pose potential competitive conflicts with its partners. But, he said, its standardised managed-service approach offers a better opportunity for partnering than IBM Global Services.
"I know there's always a lot of controversy around good old MCS," he said. "We say the same things, you ask the same questions, it goes on every year. But our 4,000 little MCS people is not what it's going to take by themselves to compete with IBM."
Talkback
In short: we'll think of something based on quantity rather then quality and can be pushed to the markets ahead of schedule and you'll like it. If however you more like the other guys solutions then you don't know what is good for us.
Also, in the world of Microsoft, so far, there's standardized (them) and standardized (us) . The latter they much like to patent and flavour with all sorts of attached strings. The first one they extend, embrace, exterminate (usually by means of build-in reduced or delayed functionality from their end towards the other guy solution) if they have their way just to make room for the latter, their preferred, option. Ofcourse that'll be named an invention (tm) then.
Strategy of today: control the desktops, control the servers, control the formats, control the communications and control access to data (and information) as well. That way people will have choice. The choices Microsoft allows them to make.
Perhaps Microsoft understands all to well what freedom of choice really means. Because freedom of choice doesn't mean one can choose to let ones data depand on internal solutiosn that depand on Microsoft products or outsourced solutions that depand on Microsoft products. Freedom of choice means that one can switch products, vendors and providers without loss of data, information, service and quality. Because that would trigger the kind of competition that's good for customers.
Nowedays it's rather quantity then quality that's the deciding factor for most and it has lead to overweight IT solutions including the usual risk increasements that come with being overweight.