So why exactly did Microsoft and Sun agree to kiss and make up? Was it the $2 billion Microsoft is paying Sun? Or the $800 million Sun is expecting to lose in its most recently completed quarter? Or is it because you--their customers--finally told Sun and Microsoft to get over themselves and help you run your businesses?
If you ever doubted the power of your pocketbook and your purchasing decisions, just reflect back on last month's litigation, schmitigation lovefest between Microsoft and Sun. Why exactly did they agree to kiss and make up?
First, some preliminaries: sure, it'll be good for both companies to put less money into the pockets of lawyers and more into the hands of their developers, and, for Microsoft in particular, it'll be great to knock one item off its substantial list of legal entanglements. And for Sun, which recently issued warnings that its third-quarter loss could top $800 million, anything that will help it focus on delivering high-value products and technologies instead of pursuing external distractions will be a big step forward.
But while those all played a role, it's very likely that the prime mover behind the rapprochement was you, the customers and prospects of Sun and Microsoft. I've blabbered about this before in this space, but there's a substantial body of evidence that I'll get to in a moment indicating that customer dissatisfaction and frustration and eroding confidence had finally reached a point that could no longer be ignored. Despite their long tradition of battling each other over all manner of technical issues where the outcomes were often of marginal value to customers, Sun and Microsoft finally realized that what they actually had been doing was making their problems their customers' problems. In so doing, they sent this unmistakable message to customers: the problems you're encountering and the solutions I could offer you are not as important to me as is my hissing contest with my competitor--so just shut up and deal with it.
Perhaps that has changed in the month since Microsoft and Sun dropped the brickbats, exchanged a couple of billion bucks (Microsoft pitching, Sun catching), and agreed to collaborate so that customers can interoperate. Now, of course it's possible that all the customer-centric talk from Sun CEO Scott McNealy and Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was just so much smoke, and that they're hoping the resultant smokescreen will buy them a little more time to keep trying to scratch each other's eyes out. If both companies were in perfect shape, I might be willing to consider that theory--IF Microsoft had no other legal challenges to worry about, IF Sun weren't mired in such awful financial straits, and IF both companies weren't rightly concerned about the huge momentum behind IBM's WebSphere (sales up 24% in the quarter ended April 15). But they're not in perfect shape, and the rationale for the settlement given publicly by McNealy and Ballmer centering on the desire of both companies to make life easier for customers makes a great deal of sense. And it underscores a message that every other IT vendor had better be willing to believe and practice: Customers these days have breaking points, and they have alternatives, and they will not tolerate technology partners whose actions make it unmistakably clear that their own internal troubles outweigh the needs of their customers.
Here are two examples from customers, as we reported last month:
Microsoft's reluctance to support non-Microsoft Java standards has caused the IT staff at casino operator Harrah's Entertainment Inc. to run into integration and interoperability problems, says CIO Tim Stanley. Anything that reduces those problems is welcomed. "We're so highly integrated, having the Java world and the Microsoft world be more interoperable on the software and integration level would be a big win for us," he says.
Crossmark Inc., a provider of sales and marketing services, has been using Microsoft's Java Virtual Machine but was switching to Sun's version because of earlier legal rulings. The agreement may change that, says Charlie Orndorff, VP of infrastructure services, who welcomes the truce. "This was more of an ego battle," he says. "The technologies need to work together, rather than having the companies doing things to spite each other."
And here's a comment about specific cost-savings that could arise from a better working relationship between Microsoft's Active Directory and Sun's Identity Server.
It's about time that happened, says Tony Scott, chief technology officer at General Motors Corp. "GM's whole desktop [network] runs off Active Directory," Scott says. GM also runs Sun's Directory and Identity Servers. "Getting better interoperability between them would help," he says, potentially saving 5% to 10% on project-development and deployment costs.
"These two were pushed together by a common threat from IBM and open-source consortiums. They've come together to combat their continued erosion of market share," said Richard Plane, chief technologist of Harris Corp.
[Interop ITX 2017] State Of DevOps ReportThe DevOps movement brings application development and infrastructure operations together to increase efficiency and deploy applications more quickly. But embracing DevOps means making significant cultural, organizational, and technological changes. This research report will examine how and why IT organizations are adopting DevOps methodologies, the effects on their staff and processes, and the tools they are utilizing for the best results.
2017 State of IT ReportIn today's technology-driven world, "innovation" has become a basic expectation. IT leaders are tasked with making technical magic, improving customer experience, and boosting the bottom line -- yet often without any increase to the IT budget. How are organizations striking the balance between new initiatives and cost control? Download our report to learn about the biggest challenges and how savvy IT executives are overcoming them.