Letters to the Editor
-
nkennedy
Actually Oracle, SAP and CA are way more buttoned down than IBM. In the services arena, Perot, CDC, Lockheed, Accenture are way more anal than IBM.
To their credit, neither MS nor Yahoo are all that good at efficient low cost high reliability online hosting. So together I wouldn't be shocked if they went to a service provider to host everything for them. Google - no one but Google can host Google. But Yahoo is a more traditionally organized data centers operation.
Buuuut - and here's the key point. Fads are fads, excellence is forever. About 8 years ago everyone and their mother, MS, Intel, Netscape, all the phone companies, a few power utilities and 40 other companies thought they could all build data centers and go into the web hosting business. They every one of them failed at it. Including Microsoft, who thought they could run MSN as a front end to every corporate network. So it begs the question - what makes this fad different than any other MS failed at?
What does Redmond get for its $40,000,000,000? Hard to see what the value proposition is.