Best conspiracy theory seen so far: Microsoft did this deliberately, in order to make people fear cloud computing (Google) and put their trust back in traditional client/server (Microsoft).
http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2009/10/12/the_sidekick_data_disaster/index.html Somebody please send a black helicopter over to Andrew Leonard's property. ;-) * * * On the subject of whether Microsoft should get the blame or not for the failure in Danger's systems: From a technology standpoint, If the rumors are correct -- a third-party SAN upgrade went very wrong -- then that's nothing against Microsoft's own technology and products. But from a business standpoint, there is no question. Microsoft is the one that gets the blame. Microsoft acquired Danger. When one company acquires another company, the purchasing company takes on all the liabilities of the purchased company. The purchasing company is required to perform "due diligence" to make sure they're not buying a lemon. I've been through a due diligence process for a 120 person company; it was a year-long process that involved auditing every last aspect of the business. Microsoft should have performed this. If they didn't, that's Microsoft's fault. If they didn't discover such a glaring problem as "no backups", that's also Microsoft's fault. If they did discover it but didn't have it fixed within a year and a half, that's also Microsoft's fault. That's the way business works. You own the problems along with the profits. So this is a mark against Microsoft's services offerings. -- Ben ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
