About this site

Howdy, I'm MG Siegler. I’m a general partner at CrunchFund and a columnist for TechCrunch. This is where I collect things.

Recent Tweets

Liked on Tumblr

More liked posts

"-1"

Pretty damning description of “New Google” by James Whittaker, a former Google employee who recently jumped ship.

Essentially, he spins a tale of a once idealist company getting drunk on ad dollars and selling their soul to push monetization above all else. And that has directly contributed to the Google+ situation, which Whittaker more or less says is already a failure. 

And it’s not like he’s just any old Google employee complaining — he worked on Google+ as an engineering director. On it specifically, he writes:

Google was the rich kid who, after having discovered he wasn’t invited to the party, built his own party in retaliation. The fact that no one came to Google’s party became the elephant in the room.

By the way, Whittaker actually went to Google in 2009 after leaving his job at Microsoft — a common occurrence back then. Not so common: going back to Microsoft after the stint at Google, which is exactly what Whittaker has done.

Tags tech google microsoft google+

Want To Make An Android Phone? That'll Be $15 To Apple. $5 To Microsoft. $0 To Google.

This is where things start to get really interesting. Reports Ian Sherr for Dow Jones Newswire:

The consumer-electronics company [Apple] has put forth proposals to Motorola Mobility Holdings Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. to settle some pending litigation in exchange for royalty payments to license its patents, among other terms, these people said.

But:

Apple isn’t attempting to offer patent licenses to all its competitors or create a royalty business, one person familiar with the matter said.

Okay, so what are they doing then? The key may be here:

One factor is that Android has proliferated so widely that shutting the software out of the market using injunctions is no longer practical, one of the people said. Licensing is an alternative that could add cost to Android development and make it less appealing for manufacturers.

In other words, if this report is correct, Apple is simply taking a new approach in their battle to destroy Android. Instead of suing them out of existence, they may take a page from Microsoft’s playbook and demand a fee that will make the OEM partners think twice about using the “free” Android software.

Put another way, it’s a shift from “fuck you” to “fuck you pay me”, as I previously wrote about last December. This seems to be playing out exactly as this Bloomberg report predicted.

If Microsoft is getting $5 for each Android device sold from many OEMs, and Apple starts getting another $5-$15, that’s a lot of money to be paying to use an OS that was previously completely free. 

It has been reported that Steve Jobs said he would be willing to spend all of Apple’s money to destroy Android. Right or wrong, Tim Cook may be opting for the more economically viable approach.

Tags tech android google microsoft apple

The Barber Of Cupertino

Some interesting thoughts from Amit Runchal on the iPad threat to Microsoft Office and what an Office for iPad offering might look like. Of note:

If Microsoft unbundles Office, there’s a good possibility many people aren’t going to be buying Microsoft Office. They’re going to be buying Microsoft Word.

Microsoft does rely heavily on the bundling of the Office products together even though most people undoubtedly don’t use all of them equally. When I had Office way back when, it was 99% for Word, as Runchal suggests.

But bundling on the iPad doesn’t really work unless they’re all under one app. Maybe that’s how Microsoft plans to sell the suite, but stand-alone apps seem like the correct play. My guess would be selling each for $20. 

No matter which way you slice it, it seems like Microsoft will take a haircut with an Office for iPad. The real question: is it worth it to them to earn some (likely decent) money while potentially undercutting their own, more lucrative product for PCs? All while paying Apple a 30 percent commission for the privilege no less?

It may be a case of damned-if-they-do, really damned-if-they-don’t.

Tags tech ipad apple office microsoft

I remember when Soluto presented at (and won) the first TechCrunch Disrupt in New York in May 2010. The pitch was an instant hit: most PCs run like crap, but they don’t need to. 

I had solved the problem a few years earlier with an expensive solution: buying a Mac. But I recognized that this wasn’t a feasible option for millions of others. Which is why CrunchFund later became an investor in the company. 

Now with Windows 8, Soluto has some interesting new opportunities to expand what they do. And they’re wasting little time taking advantage. Just minutes after the Windows 8 Consumer Preview was unveiled a few days ago, Soluto announced they were bringing their software to the new OS. 

Today, comes the cutesy/smart/funny video. And they’re really tugging at my heartstrings by making it an homage to Apple’s iconic “1984” commercial. 

If I’m following this correctly, they’re using an ad in which Apple rips into IBM to suggest that Soluto by way of Microsoft’s new “Metro” Windows 8 interface will rip into the new PC establishment — which, of course, Microsoft is the key player in.

Interesting.

The animation is pretty killer. And I love the wall of “Vanquished Technology”, and technology “To be Vanquished”.

Tags apple microsoft soluto tech windows 8 crunchfund

What If… (Office For iPad Edition)

Watching the back-and-forth yesterday about the whole Microsoft Office for iPad thing was nothing if not amusing. The basic rundown:

“It’s coming, here it is.” “That’s not it.” “Yes it is.” “No it’s not, but we didn’t say it’s not coming.” “A Microsoft employee showed it to us.” “No they didn’t, you’re mistaken.” “No we’re not.” “Stay tuned.”

But what if we all missed something obvious going on here? What if Microsoft was being so cagey — and maybe even disingenuous — for a very real reason? What if they don’t want to spoil a very big surprise set for a certain Apple event taking place in a couple weeks?

Now, to be clear, I have no actual information on this one way or another. But this tweet by Matthew Maurice makes some sense:

It’s very clear at this point that Apple and Microsoft both hate Google far more than they hate one another. And both sides seem willing to do whatever it takes to destroy Android. What if Microsoft is planning to do Office for tablets as an exclusive for the iPad (until the Windows 8 tablets come out, of course), while totally shafting Android?

Wouldn’t such a move be worthy of an announcement on stage at an Apple event which also happens to be all about tablets? I think so. 

Doesn’t mean it will happen. That’s just a random, wild guess. But when Microsoft implies that all will be revealed in the “coming weeks”, you can helped but be tickled by the thought…

Tags tech microsoft apple google android ipad ipad 3 office

Microsoft Office For/Not For iPad

Microsoft making Office available in some capacity on the iPad is huge news, obviously. But even more interesting is the back-and-forth about this story.

Depending on the hour, Microsoft is either:

  • Readying a version of Office for the iPad in the coming weeks.
  • Not readying a version of Office for the iPad in the coming weeks.
  • Denying the screenshots are real.
  • Not denying the software is real. 
  • Showing off the software to journalists.
  • Denying the software shown to journalists is real. But not denying that software was shown to journalists.

I fully expect this to continue into the night.

Tags tech microsoft microsoft office iPad apple

Google: Microsoft Is Full Of Shit

Earlier today, I posted a link to a Microsoft blog post calling out Google for bypassing IE security measures. Google saw the post and sent me the following on-the-record statement (below).

It’s a bit verbose, so I’ll summarize: “Microsoft is full of shit.”

Statement: Attributable to Rachel Whetstone, Senior Vice President of Communications and Policy, Google

Microsoft omitted important information from its blog post today.  

Microsoft uses a “self-declaration” protocol (known as “P3P”) dating from 2002 under which Microsoft asks websites to represent their privacy practices in machine-readable form.  It is well known - including by Microsoft - that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing modern web functionality.  We have been open about our approach, as have many other websites.  

Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational. A 2010 research report indicated that over 11,000 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.

Here is some more information.

Issue has been around since 2002

For many years, Microsoft’s browser has requested every website to “self-declare” its cookies and privacy policies in machine readable form, using particular “P3P” three-letter policies.  

Essentially, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser requests of websites, “Tell us what sort of functionality your cookies provide, and we’ll decide whether to allow them.”  This didn’t have a huge impact in 2002 when P3P was introduced (in fact the Wall Street Journal today states that our DoubleClick ad cookies comply with Microsoft’s request), but newer cookie-based features are broken by the Microsoft implementation in IE.  These include things like Facebook “Like” buttons, the ability to sign-in to websites using your Google account, and hundreds more modern web services.  It is well known that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing this web functionality.  

Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational.  

In 2010 it was reported:

Browsers like Chrome, Firefox and Safari have simpler security settings. Instead of checking a site’s compact policy, these browsers simply let people choose to block all cookies, block only third-party cookies or allow all cookies…..

Thousands of sites don’t use valid P3P policies….

A firm that helps companies implement privacy standards, TRUSTe, confirmed in 2010 that most of the websites it certifies were not using valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft:

Despite having been around for over a decade, P3P adoption has not taken off. It’s worth noting again that less than 12 percent of the more than 3,000 websites TRUSTe certifies have a P3P compact policy. The reality is that consumers don’t, by and large, use the P3P framework to make decisions about personal information disclosure.

A 2010 research paper by Carnegie Mellon found that 11,176 of 33,139 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.

In the research paper, among the websites that were most frequently providing different code to that requested by Microsoft: Microsoft’s own live.com and msn.com websites.

Microsoft support website

The 2010 research paper “discovered that Microsoft’s support website recommends the use of invalid CPs (codes) as a work-around for a problem in IE.”  This recommendation was a major reason that many of the 11,176 websites provided different code to the one requested by Microsoft.

Google’s provided a link that explained our practice.

Microsoft could change this today

As others are noting today, this has been well known for years.

  • Privacy researcher Lauren Weinstein states: “In any case, Microsoft’s posting today, given what was already long known about IE and P3P deficiences in these regards, seems disingenuous at best, and certainly is not helping to move the ball usefully forward regarding these complex issues.”
  • Chris Soghoian, a privacy researcher, points out: “Instead of fixing P3P loophole in IE that FB & Amazon exploited ……MS did nothing. Now they complain after Google uses it.”
  • Even the Wall Street Journal says: “It involves a problem that has been known about for some time by Microsoft and privacy researchers….”

If you actually took the time to read half of that statement, you’d realize just how ridiculous this war of words is getting. And it’s going to get worse.

I’m not saying either side is right or wrong here. All I’m saying is that if Google has a problem with what Microsoft is saying, they should come out and say so in plain English. Instead, this is like ubernerd passive-agressiveness. 

“Microsoft omitted important information” — that’s such a cop-out. Just say: “Microsoft is trying to deceive the public.” Or: “they’re total dicks”. You know, things a human being can understand. 

My summary is crude, but in many ways much more accurate and insightful. 

Tags tech google microsoft ie

The "Microsoft Windows" Logo Evolves From "Microsoft Waving Flag" To "Microsoft Tiles"

Sam Moreau talks about the redesign of the Windows logo on the Windows Blog:

We have evolved from a world of rudimentary low resolution graphics to today’s rich high-resolution systems. And what started as a simple “window” to compliment the product name became a flying or waving flag.

It’s true that the Windows logo has long looked like a waving flag, which makes absolutely no sense. And the new logo is better. But it brings up a bigger question: why is it still called “Windows” at all?

Yes, the desktop variety will still have windows. But the mobile/tablet variety is geared towards the “tile”-style of Metro. In fact, as Moreau points out, Metro heavily influenced the new logo design.

To recap: a tile-based UI influenced the new design of the Windows logo, which previous looks less like a window and more like a waving flag.

Okay. I’m just waiting for Microsoft Windows: Tile Edition XP 2013 Pro.

Tags tech microsoft windows 8