Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Microsoft. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Nexus 7 Tablet and Android Jelly Bean Announcement Expected Today At Google I/O Conference



By JOANNA STERN

Apple and Microsoft both had their turns to show off their latest software and hardware this month; today it is Google's turn.

Google executives will take the stage at the annual Google I/O Developer's Conference at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, where they will show off the latest versions of Google software, including Android and other services.

Google's next version of its Android operating system is expected to be one of the major points of conversation. Like earlier Android versions, this one is named after a dessert -- Jelly Bean. Ice Cream Sandwich, the current version of Android, was announced last November. Before Ice Cream Sandwich, there was Gingerbread and Honeycomb. Google put out a statue of a bowl of jelly beans at its Silicon Valley campus yesterday.

While there haven't been many details to spill out yet about Jelly Bean, Google is likely to announce a tablet to go along with the new operating system. Rumored to be called the Nexus 7, the tablet is said to have a 7-inch screen, a fast quad-core processor, and a very affordable $199 price. The tablet is expected to go head-to-head with Amazon's Kindle Fire. These rumors have been widely reported, and most recently the Wall Street Journal corroborated the reports.

While there have been lots of Android tablets released, none have been as successful as the iPad. It is expected that the Nexus 7 will ship in July and that Taiwanese manufacturer Asus is making the tablet itself. Microsoft's Windows 8 Surface tablets, which were announced last week, aren't expected until later this year.

But Google isn't only expected to talk about Android and its tablet strategy. The search giant will discuss its maps platform and other services like its Cloud storage solutions, including the new Google Drive. Apple recently ditched the Google Maps in iOS 6; it has created its own 3-D mapping for the iPad and iPhone.

Over 5,550 thousand developers will be at I/O this year. A Google spokesperson also said that the mini-kitchens at the Moscone Center will stock 1,455 pounds of snacks for the three day event. ABC News did see a Jelly Belly truck pull up in front of the conference center yesterday.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

Microsoft Dives Head-First Into Mobile Hardware With Two 10.6-Inch Tablets



By Jon Phillips

LOS ANGELES — Forget about operating systems. Forget about mice, keyboards and snoozy computer accessories. Microsoft is now a full-fledged, no-excuses mobile computing manufacturer. On Monday a team of excited executives showed off Microsoft Surface — a pair of Windows tablets accompanied by clever keyboard covers that aspire to true innovation in the mobile space.

“It’s a PC that is a great tablet, and a tablet that is a great PC,” said Steven Sinofsky, President of the Windows and Windows Live Division.

Sounds simple enough, right? No, most decidedly not. Surface is much, much more than a new tablet platform. It’s also Microsoft’s first fully branded computing device — an ambitious new development direction after years of making only simple computer peripherals. And Surface is also a challenge to every hardware partner in Microsoft’s OEM stable.

“Its a bold move on the part of Microsoft,” says Gartner analyst Michael Gartenberg. “This is a real change in strategy for them, and it’s certainly a vote of no confidence for their partners. This shows how high the stakes are. There is competitive pressure from Apple that is clearly a threat to their business. Steve Ballmer seemed to be channeling Steve Jobs on stage, saying hardware and software have to be designed to together.”

We covered the new Surface tablets in exacting detail in our live blog of Monday afternoon’s event. But here’s the cheat sheet if you just want the quick, hard facts.

Microsoft Surface comes in two iterations: One running Windows 8 Pro on top of Intel Silicon (an Ivy Bridge chip with yet-to-be-defined specs), and one running Windows RT on top of Nvidia silicon (perhaps the next iteration of Nvidia’s Tegra family — neither nVidia nor Microsoft is currently sharing specifics). The two tablets share a common industrial design language, including bezeled edges angled at 22 degrees, and physical chassis made of “VaporMG,” a fancy-schmancy new material that aims for a tactile finish worthy of a high-end, luxury watch.

“When you put it in your hands, it feels elegant,” said Panos Panay, the general manager of the newly announced Surface division. “When you touch it, you’re going to want to hold it, I promise you.” VaporMG can be molded down to a thickness of 0.65mm — thinner than a credit card and comparable to a hotel room key, as Panay demonstrated at the event.

The two tablets also share 10.6-inch screens, front- and back-mounted cameras, integrated kickstands (also made of VaporMG), full-sized USB ports, and dual Wi-Fi antennas to ensure seamless media streaming. But beyond that, the specs diverge significantly between the two models.

The Windows RT device is the thinner of the two tablets at 9.3mm (and it’s also exactly 0.1mm thinner than Apple’s new iPad). Surface for Windows RT is also the lighter of the two Surface tablets at 676 grams, and runs a “ClearType HD” display of an unreported resolution. Data I/O is supported by microSD, USB 2.0, and Micro HD Video ports. Storage can be configured to 32GB and 64GB.

Surface for Windows 8 Pro is beefier all around. Aside from its Intel Ivy Bridge processor, the tablet is thicker at 13.5mm, and heavier at 903 grams. But it also comes with a ClearType “Full HD” display capable of 1080p video playback. Data I/O is also gussied up — you’ll get microSDXC, USB 3.0, and a Mini DisplayPort video connector. Storage can be configured to 64GB and 128GB.

Oh, and how’s this for productivity options: The Windows 8 Pro version comes with a stylus that lets you write in digital ink with 600dpi precision. All told, Microsoft is pitching the Windows 8 Pro tablet as a no-excuses productivity machine (that DisplayPort lets you hook it up to desktop monitors). The Pro version was even demoed with Adobe Lightroom at the Monday event.

Everything described above is certainly exciting for Microsoft, but it’s not an earth-shatteringly new assortment of hardware. Microsoft’s new tablet covers, however, look truly innovative, and we’re excited to learn more about them.

First there’s the Touch Cover, a 3mm, magnetically attaching cover that includes an integrated pressure-sensitive keyboard. Microsoft says each keystroke is an individual gesture, and the resulting performance is faster than anything we currently experience with on-screen, virtual keyboards. If the Touch Cover isn’t quite snazzy enough for you, you can opt for the Type Cover. It’s 5mm thick, and includes (get this) physical keys. Each key includes 1.5mm of travel, and the Type Cover even boasts a full multi-touch trackpad.

So what about pricing and availability? We don’t know much, save that Surface for Windows RT will launch when Windows 8 launches, which we expect to happen in the third quarter of this year. Surface for Windows 8 Pro should launch three months after the RT iteration. As for pricing, Microsoft isn’t saying, but Gartenberg weighs in:

“I’m guessing somewhere between $600 and $1000 — Microsoft was very vague. This the problem you encounter when you launch something so far ahead of delivery,” he said. “For a launch like this, it’s all about the details. Everything about this event, the mysterious invitations, the presentation — Microsoft is trying to be Apple. But the only company that has successfully been like Apple, is Apple.”

Researcher: CIA, NSA may have infiltrated Microsoft to write malware




Did spies posing as Microsofties write malware in Redmond? How do you spell 'phooey' in C#? 0 32 0Reddit1Submit2Email

By Kevin Fogarty

A leading security researcher has suggested Microsoft's core Windows and application development programming teams have been infiltrated by covert programmer/operatives from U.S. intelligence agencies.

If it were true it would be another exciting twist to the stories of international espionage, sabotage and murder that surround Stuxnet, Duqu and Flame, the most successful cyberwar weapons deployed so far, with the possible exception of Windows itself.

Nevertheless, according to Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer of antivirus and security software vendor F-Secure, the scenario that would make it simplest for programmers employed by U.S. intelligence agencies to create the Stuxnet, Duqu and Flame viruses and compromise Microsoft protocols to the extent they could disguise downloads to Flame as patches through Windows Update is that Microsoft has been infiltrated by members of the U.S. intelligence community.

Having programmers, spies and spy-supervisors from the NSA, CIA or other secret government agencies infiltrate Microsoft in order to turn its technology to their own evil uses (rather than Microsoft's) is the kind of premise that would get any writer thrown out of a movie producer's office for pitching an idea that would put the audience to sleep halfway through the first act.

Not only is it unlikely, the "action" most likely to take place on the Microsoft campus would be the kind with lots of tense, acronymically dense debates in beige conference rooms and bland corporate offices.

The three remarkable bits of malware that attacked Iranian nuclear-fuel development facilities and stole data from its top-secret computer systems – Flame Duqu and Stuxnet – show clear signs of having been built by the same teams of developers, over a long period of time, Hypponen told PC Pro in the U.K.

Flame used a counterfeit Microsoft security certificates to verify its trustworthiness to Iranian users, primarily because Microsoft is among the most widely recognized and trusted computer companies in the world, Hypponen said.

Faking credentials from Microsoft would give the malware far more credibility than using certificates from other vendors, as would hiding updates in Windows Update, Hypponen said.

The damage to Microsoft's reputation and suspicion from international customers that it is a puppet of the CIA would be enough to keep Microsoft itself from participating in the operation, even if it were asked.

That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

"It's plausible that if there is an operation under way and being run by a US intelligence agency it would make perfect sense for them to plant moles inside Microsoft to assist in pulling it off, just as they would in any other undercover operation,” Hypponen told PC Pro. "It's not certain, but it would be common sense to expect they would do that."

The suggestion piqued the imaginations of conspiracy theorists, but doesn't have a shred of evidence to support it.

It does have a common-sense appeal, however. Planting operatives inside Microsoft would probably be illegal, would certainly be unethical and could have a long-range disadvantage by making Microsofties look like tools of the CIA rather than simply tools.

"No-one has broken into Microsoft, but by repurposing the certificate and modifying it with unknown hash collision technologies, and with the power of a supercomputer, they were able to start signing any program they wanted as if it was from Microsoft," Hypponen said. "If you combine that with the mechanism they were using to spoof MS Update server they had the crown jewels."

Hypponen is one of a number of security experts who have said Stuxnet and Duqu have the hallmarks of software written by traditionally minded software engineers accustomed to working in large, well-coordinated teams.

After studying the code for Duqu, security researchers at Kaspersky Labs said the malware was most similar to the kind of work done by old-school programmers able to write code for more than one platform at a time, do good quality control to make sure the modules were able to install themselves and update in real time, and that the command-and-control components ahd been re-used from previous editions.

"All the conclusions indicate a rather professional team of developers, which appear to be reusing older code written by top “old school” developers," according to Kaspersky's analysis. "Such techniques are normally seen in professional software and almost never in today’s malware. Once again, these indicate that Duqu, just like Stuxnet, is a 'one of a kind' piece of malware which stands out like a gem from the large mass of “dumb” malicious program we normally see."

Earlier this month the NYT ran a story detailing two years worth of investigations during which a range of U.S. officials, including, eventually, President Obama, confirmed the U.S. had been involved in writing the Stuxnet and Flame malware and siccing them on Iran.

That's far from conclusive proof that the NSA has moved its nonexistent offices to Redmond, Wash. It doesn't rule it out either, however.

Very few malware writers are able to write such clean code that can install on a variety of hardware systems, assess their new environments and download the modules they need to successfully compromise a new network, Kaspersky researchers said.

Stuxnet and Flame are able to do all these things and to get their own updates through Windows Update using a faked Windows Update security certificate.

No other malware writer, hacker or end user has been able to do that before. Knowing it happened this time makes it more apparent that the malware writers know what they are doing and know Microsoft code inside and out.

That's still no evidence that Microsoft could be or has been infiltrated by spies from the U.S. or from other countries.

It does make sense, but so do a lot of conspiracy theories.

Until there's some solid indication Flame came from inside Microsoft, not outside, it's probably safer to write off this string of associative evidence.

Even in his own blog, Hypponen makes fun of those who make fun of Flame as ineffective and unremarkable, but doesn't actually suggest moles at Microsoft are to blame.

In the end it doesn't really matter. The faked certificates and ride-along on Windows Update demonstrate the malware writers have compromised the core software development operations at Microsoft. They don't have to live there to do it; virtual compromise on the code itself would do the job more effectively than putting warm bodied programmers in the middle of highly competitive, highly intelligent, socially awkward Microsofties with a habit of asking the wrong question and insisting on an answer.

The risk of having any such infiltration discovered is far too high to expose the cyberwar version of Seal Team Six to the perils of Redmond.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

Flash Drives Replace Disks At Amazon, Facebook, Dropbox



By Cade Metz

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA — If you drive south from San Jose until the buildings are few and far between, exit the highway, and take a quick left, you’ll find a data center occupied by some of the biggest names on the web. Run by a company called Equinix, the facility is a place where the likes of Google, Facebook, and Amazon can plug their machines straight into the big internet service providers.

If you’re allowed inside and you walk past the cages of servers and other hardware, you can’t see much. In most cages, the lights are off, and even when they’re on, there are few ways of knowing what gear belongs to what company. Some companies don’t want you to see. Google engineers have been known to wear miner helmets when installing new hardware, determined to keep their specialized gear hidden from the competition.

But if you walk into the right building and down the right aisle, you’ll run into a giant Dropbox logo. Clearly, the file-sharing upstart is proud of its data center gear. But at the same time, it doesn’t think this hardware is all that different from what the rest of the world is using. And that’s about right.

Inside its cage, Dropbox is running servers equipped with solid-state drives, also known as SSDs — super-fast storage devices that could one day replace traditional hard drives. The company doesn’t use SSDs in all its servers, but it’s moving in that direction. In other words, Dropbox is like the web as a whole. Such names as Facebook, Amazon, Microsoft, Mozilla, and Wikia are also using solid-state storage in their data centers, and judging from anecdotal evidence, the trend goes even further.

Like a hard drive, an SSD is a device for storing information. But unlike a hard drive, it doesn’t have any moving parts. Today’s SSD are built with flash memory — the same stuff that stores data and applications on your iPhone. These drives have been around for years, but they’ve been slow to make headway in the real world, in part because they’re more expensive than traditional hard drives. A 300GB flash drive sells for around $500, whereas a comparable hard drive is closer to $100. A 300 terabyte hard drive — which is about ten times larger — sells for around $350.

But in just the last 12 months, SSDs have turned the corner. They’re appearing in high-profile laptops such as Google’s Chromebooks and Apple’s brand-new MacBook Pros, and in the data center, many companies are realizing that they make economic sense even with their higher price tags.

In 2011, according to Jim Handy, an analyst with research outfit Objective Analysis, businesses purchased an estimated 79 million SSDs that connect to servers using the serial-ATA interface — i.e., the interface that traditional hard drives use. That’s a $2.2 billion market, says Handy, and he expects this to grow to 13 million devices and $3.6 billion in 2012.

“I think this is getting pretty common,” says Artur Bergman, the founder of Fastly, a San Francisco outfit that uses SSDs exclusively in providing a service that helps other businesses speed their delivery of pages over the net. “Though some people still have a hard time grasping it, these drives save a tremendous amount of money. They look more expensive, but when you need higher performance, you need way less of them.”

The Speech

About a year ago, Bergman gave a four-minute speech at a Silicon Valley conference attended almost exclusively by engineers who sit on the cutting edge of web infrastructure. He started by asking if anyone in the audience used SSDs in the data center, and less than 20 percent raised their hands. And when he asked who used only SSDs in their data centers, one person raised his hand — the head of engineering at Wikia, who had inherited his SSD-happy data center from Bergman, the outfit’s previous head of engineering.

Anyone who hadn’t raised a hand, Bergman said, was “wasting their life.” Yes, wasting their life. “I keep repeating that to every single individual I talk to, and what I get back is: ‘[SSDs are] too expensive,’” he said. “Actually, they’re cheaper.” Cost shouldn’t be measured by the price tag on an individual SSD, he said, but by how much you spend on drives across the data center in order to juggle the required information with each passing second.

One SSD, he said, can handle about 40,000 reads or writes a second, whereas the average hardware gives you about 180. And it runs at about one watt as opposed to 15 watts, which means you spend far less on power. “Do the math on how much you can save,” he said. In short, you need fewer servers to do the same amount of work. At Wikia, Bergman first installed SSDs on the company’s caching servers, used for providing quick access to data that repeatedly accessed by web surfers. Then, he moved them into the company’s database servers, where data stored more permanently. This provided so much additional speed, Bergman says, the caching servers were no longer needed.

When he gave the speech, Bergman had been preaching this same message for about two and half years — and few listened. But twelve months on, he says, it seems that the web is finally heeding his advice. Companies are constantly emailing him, just to let him know they’ve embraced SSDs.

Yes, many companies are still holding back, in part because they’re waiting for prices to come down even further, in part for other reasons. SSDs are not only more expensive than traditional hard drives, they can accept only so much data before they can’t accept any more. In other words, they have a limited lifespan.

But so do hard drives, which are prone to sudden and unexpected death. Bergman doesn’t see a SSD’s limited life as a big issue. “It’s a pretty good failure mode compared to a hard drive, which just takes longer and longer to write data before dying,” he says. At Wikia, he says, he replaced the company’s first SSDs after two years, and didn’t have any write problems before that.

“I don’t trust a hard drive after three years,” he says. “They don’t fail because they run out of write cycles, but they still fail.”

Next Page>2

Google Is Evil




By Rory O'Connor

It’s bad enough when you run a search company in an increasingly social world. It’s worse when anti-trust regulators say you have unfairly and illegally used your dominance in search to promote your own products over those of competitors. Now Google executives, who like to boast of their company’s informal motto, “Don’t Be Evil,” also stand accused of being just that — and rightly so. What other interpretation is possible in light of persistent allegations that the internet titan deliberately engaged in “the single greatest breach in the history of privacy” and “one of the biggest violations of data protection laws that we had ever seen?”

Google’s history of anti-social social networks and anti-trust trust relations that deceptively breach online consumer privacy and trust has already begun to threaten its longstanding web hegemony and its vaunted brand. Now the company’s repeatedly defensive and dishonest responses to charges that its specially equipped Street View cars surreptitiously collected private internet communications — including emails, photographs, passwords, chat messages, and postings on websites and social networks — could signal a tipping point.

With the phenomenally successful and profitable internet giant being newly scrutinized by consumers, competitors, regulators and elected officials alike, all concerned about basic issues of privacy, trust and anti-trust, the question must be raised: Is Google facing an existential threat? With government regulators nipping at its heels on both sides of the Atlantic, Facebook leading in the race for attention and prestige, and “social” beginning to replace “search” as a focus of online activity, the company that revolutionized our means of finding information just a decade ago now finds itself increasingly under siege and in danger of fading from prominence to become, in essence, the “next Microsoft.”

That possibility came into sharper focus recently when fed-up European regulators gave the company an ultimatum — change your lying ways about your anticompetitive practices in search, online advertising and smartphone software or face the consequences. Regulators in the United States are poised to follow suit.

Meanwhile, the secret Street View data collection has already led to inquiries in at least a dozen countries. Yet Google still refuses to ‘fess up and supply an adequate explanation of what it was up to, why the data was collected and who knew about it. To date, no domestic regulator has even seen the information that Google gathered from American citizens. Instead, Google chose first to deny everything, then blamed a programming mistake involving experimental software, claimed that no use of the illicit data in Google products was foreseen, and said that a single “rogue” programmer was responsible for the whole imbroglio. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) determined instead that the data collection was no accident, that supervisors knew all about it and that Google in fact “intended to collect, store and review” the data “for possible use in other Google products,” and fined Google for obstructing the investigation.

Google’s response to the FCC was not unusual. At every step of the way, the company has delayed, denied and obstructed investigations into its data collection. It has consistently resisted providing information to both European and American regulators and made them wait months for it — as well as for answers as to why it was collected. Company executives even had the temerity to tell regulators they could not show them the collected data, because to do so might be breaking privacy and wiretapping laws! As Bradford L. Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel, told The New York Times while citing Google’s stated mission to “organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful,” it seems “Google’s practice is to prevent others from doing the same thing.”

Given its record, and with so little accountability, how can any of us trust Google — or other Internet giants like Facebook, which now faces its own privacy and anti-trust concerns? Who gave these new media companies the right to invade our privacy without our permission or knowledge and then secretly store the data until they can figure out how to profit from it in the future?

No one, obviously … and as a direct result of their arrogant behavior, both Google and Facebook now face the possibility of eventual showdowns with regulators, the biggest to hit Silicon Valley since the US government went after Microsoft more than a decade ago. Their constant privacy controversies have also caused politicians to begin taking notice. Senator Al Franken of Minnesota, for example, who is in charge of a subcommittee on privacy, noted in a recent speech that companies such as Google and Facebook accumulated data on users because “it’s their whole business model. And you are not their client; you are their product.”

Small wonder that Google co-founder Larry Page is feeling “paranoid”, as the Associated Press recently reported. Why? As I detail in my new book Friends, Followers and the Future: How Social Media are Changing Politics, Threatening Big Brands and Killing Traditional Media, as the new “contextual web” takes the place of the data-driven web of the early 21st century, it will mean further bad news for Google — even though the company still sold $36.5 billion in advertising last year. Couple Google’s paranoia about Facebook and the evident failure of its latest social network, Google Plus, with its problems about privacy, trust and anti-trust, and it’s no surprise that executives are feeling paranoid. After all, they are facing the very real prospect of waging a defensive war on many fronts — social, privacy, and trust — simultaneously. Despite its incredible reach, power and profit, it’s a war that Google — the 21st century equivalent of the still-powerful but increasingly irrelevant Microsoft — may well be destined to lose, along with the trust its users have long extended to one of the world’s most powerful brands.

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Urgent Windows Update To Kill Off Spy Virus



Microsoft has carried out an emergency update of Windows after discovering that the makers of a spy virus had exploited a software bug.

The Flame espionage tool infected PCs across the Middle East by tricking computer security systems into accepting it as a genuine Windows product.

Mike Reavey, a senior director with Microsoft's security team, said the attacks were targeted and "highly sophisticated".

As a result of the bug fix, any viruses that bears the fake Microsoft code are likely to stop working.
Microsoft declined to comment on whether other viruses had exploited the same flaw in Windows, or whether the company was looking for similar bugs in the operating system.

Experts said the method had probably been used to deliver other viruses that have not yet been identified.

"It would be logical to assume that (the virus creators) would have used it somewhere else at the same time," said Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer for security software maker F-Secure.

Flame has been in circulation since 2010 but because of its complexity was only discovered last week.

It was aimed primarily at Iran, but also affected Israeli and Palestinian territories, Sudan, Syria and Lebanon.

Researchers say that technical evidence suggests it was built on behalf of the same nation that commissioned the Stuxnet worm that attacked Iran's nuclear program in 2010.

Information about the virus is still being gathered by computer analysts.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Microsoft Tries a So.cl Experiment




By Rachelle Dragani / TechNewsWorld

Microsoft's latest entrant in the online social networking scene made itself available to all users Monday. So.cl -- pronounced "Social" -- is meant as an experimental destination for finding and sharing content, with an emphasis on educational environments. Microsoft doesn't appear to have positioned So.cl as a Facebook killer though. You can even sign on to So.cl via Facebook.

Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) opened So.cl, its experimental approach to a social network, to all users Monday, aiming to create a place to find and share online articles, videos and digital content, all with the help of its search engine Bing.

So.cl doesn't appear to be a direct challenge to established social media sites like Facebook (Nasdaq: FB), Twitter or LinkedIn (NYSE: LNKD). In fact, it's possible to use a Facebook ID or a Windows Live account to sign in to the site. Once they're logged on, users can post content in different categories ranging from sports to movies to different hobbies. The site will also recommend further searches.

The site also has a "Video Party" feature, wherein So.cl users can search for and assemble videos to share with other users.

So.cl users can share, comment, tag and "riff" on each other's posts, much like on Facebook or other networks, but it's not meant to be a site where old friends can go to check up on the details of each others' lives. Instead, Microsoft hopes that users will find new ways to interact based purely on content.

So.cl is geared specifically toward students or younger learners. Microsoft's FUSE Labs, the arm of the company that spearheads the project, said the site aims to explore how young people use digital content and social media to learn via the Web.

Microsoft intially rolled out So.cl (pronounced "social") in December to information and design students at the University of Washington, Syracuse and New York University, but now is the first time the network is open to all users.

Microsoft didn't respond to our request for comment.

Different Approach

Microsoft has positioned So.cl as an experiment. It's something that could go in a number of different directions, Roy Morejon, president of Command Partners, told TechNewsWorld.

"With Microsoft focusing on social search and the endless possibilities of personalized search within the So.cl network and Bing/Yahoo search queries, it will be interesting to see what overlap or integration come from this," he said.

If the company can find the right niche within education, said Morejon, it could be an interesting way for Microsoft to get ahead in an area, where sites like Facebook and Twitter are mostly discouraged.

"Much of what Microsoft is pushing is university and education-based networking, especially with their partnering with the University of Washington, Syracuse and NYU," he said. "This is where I see the potential for profits within the education niche and learning how students share information with the purposes of learning."

Over-Saturation

For all the talk of So.cl taking a different approach, though, the network shares some similarities with the mainstream social networks, Ty Downing, CEO of SayItSocial, told TechNewsWorld.

"Unfortunately, until we all can really get a chance to drive into this new network, the jury is still out on how it will compete -- or fizzle -- but as of now, I just see this as a desperate and belated attempt to jump into the billion-dollar social arena," he said.

Even the company's experimental approach to the social networking scene might be too much for the mainstream Internet user to handle, said Downing.

"Consumers are suffering from social burnout," he said. "Consumers are tired, exhausted and simply are not ready to learn another social network, in my opinion."

Ultimately, Microsoft will have to give users a huge incentive to join So.cl in addition to their already time-consuming media habits, Greg Sterling, founder of Sterling Market Intelligence, told TechNewsWorld. That's an incentive Microsoft has yet to offer, he said, and unless it can, the site will ultimately suffer.

"In this early version it hasn't yet answered that question, 'Why should I use this?' And the company will have to aggressively promote the site and its benefits to end users or it will languish," he said.