Public Cloud Core Banking: Hype or Reality? - Revisited

 

More than 4 years ago I was asked if Public Cloud Core Banking is a Hype or a Short Term Reality?

If you had read the post, you would probably find the answer that it was probably Hype and not Short Term Reality.

This post Revisits the same issue.

Size Matters

The issue is a major issue for Large Banks. Those banks use IBM Mainframe for executing their Core Banking systems. 

Smaller Banks used two decades ago UNIX based Core Banking Packages. 
The Systems Availability, Scalability and Security was not as high as the Mainframe based Core Banking Systems, but it was probably good enough.

My very limited Study

I looked for real Case Studies of deployments of Core Banking system in the Public Cloud.

I looked for articles and Research Notes by Googling.

I did not find much. No real Case Studies of Large Banks transforming their Core Banking to Cloud Based systems.

I refer to the following articles:

Mckinsey's Core systems strategy for banks 

Deloitte's Cloud Based Core Banking: Is it Possible? 

Mckinsey: Core Banking Systems Strategy for Banks

On the one hand, the Mainframe Legacy Core Banking Systems Reliability and Availability is high and their Performance is good. Performance is critical for Large number of concurrent transactions. 

On the other hand, the Financial services market is changing. 

Banks need to adapt to the New world of Digital Systems, APIs to Fintech companies and non-Financial partners. 

The Legacy Architecture is not suitable for this New World. 

The Long Term Future of Core Banking  Architecture should be a Cloud Based Micro Service Architecture.

Delloitte: Cloud based Core Banking: Is it Possible?

 

The question in the paragraph's title is a kind of evidence that Core Banking in the Public Cloud is not a viable option for the Short Term. The article is about Long Term Cloud migration benefits. 

The article does not refer to Real Large Scale Core Banking Case Studies.

Why immediate Cloud Migration is not a viable option?

1. Banks are Risk Averse

If it is not broken do not fix it. The systems are doing what they were built for. 

Migration Projects are Long and very expensive.

2. Functionality Risks

Building new Core Banking systems is a risk of lack of functionality compatibility.

The Legacy Systems were build ten or twenty years ago. They were changed due to Business and Regulatory requirements. Their Documentation probably had not fully updated. 

The new systems or Core Banking Packages were written in new Programming languages by people who are not aware of old programming languages Architecture, Capabilities and Syntax.

3. Losing systems maintenance skills

The older people maintaining the systems, usually written in COBOL programming language, may retire. Most of them are not capable of learning modern Programming Languages and Methodologies.

Their knowledge of the Systems and the Business logic may not be available. 

4. Performance Risks

Would the new systems be capable of handling a large concurrent transactions workload?

Would the new systems be capable of handling the workload providing reasonable and stable Response Time?

5. Security Risks

Few weeks ago I completed a Lead Cloud Security Manager course. 

The course is a new course by PECB.

I learned that Cloud Security Management is not as simple as Security Management within an Enterprise boundaries.

The following highlights clarify the complexities:

1. The threats management is divided between at least two organizations: the Cloud Services Provider and The Cloud Service Customer.

2. Are the Customer's systems protected from other Customers access or dependencies? 

It should be remembered that Cloud Services Customers share Infrastructure and in Multitenancy SaaS Services they also share Software and Database.

3. The contract should define the Security duties and responsibilities, however the Customer should be aware of the Cloud Provider's Security Policy, Procedures, Controls and Methods. 

4. On going Communication, updates and Reporting between Cloud Provider and Cloud Customer should be executed properly. 

5. Incident Analysis is more complex because some of the aspects and data are not accessible by the customer.

Psychologically, if an enterprise controls Security its managers tend to think that Security is better than Security controlled by a Cloud Provider. 

6. Availability Risks

The Availability of IBM Mainframe Systems is very high. 

Would the new Cloud Systems Availability remain as high as it was?

Technically the answer may be positive but there is a Risk that it would not be as high as it is in Mainframe environments due to the following reasons:

A. The Infrastructure is more complex in Cloud Computing.

B. Outage of Public Clouds.

Outage of Public Clouds of all leading Cloud Vendors systems already happened.  

C. Unavailability due to Application Software

The Availability of Hardware, Infrastructure Software and Communication Hardware and Software is higher than it was few decades ago, therefore Application Software probelms are significant unavailability source.

For example, a computing formula error could require stopping a Core Banking system until the database is restored and the transactions are executed again using a correct formula instead the wrong formula.

7. Regulatory Risks

International, as well as Regional and Country level, Regulation includes Security related Risks.

Adressing the Regulatory requirements should be verified prior to moving Core Banking to a Public Cloud.

However, it is not only Security that should be addressed properly it is also Privacy.

 

Presonally Identifiable Information (PII) should be protected.

ISO/IEC 27018 is a general stnadard that should be addressed in addition to Banking specific PII requirements.

Reasons for Long Term Core Banking in the Public Cloud

1. Digital Infrastucture

Digital systems interfaces are API based. Flexebility and Agility are a must. 

The Mainframe based Systems are less adequate for those kind of interfaces 

 

2.  Enhanced Competition

Banks should adapt to a new Financial Services Market.

Main New Competitors are:

A. Digital Wallets

Including Digital Wallets of Giant IT vendors such as Apple and Google. 

B. Fintech Services

Fintech services are cheapper than Banking Services. Fintech vendors use a Web sites or a Mobile Applications. They do not have overhead of Branches infrastucture, Emplyees working in Branches, as well as many other employees. 

The Digital Loans market is a good example.

C. P2P Services

P2P services are also cheapper than Banking Services.

3. Enhanced Digital Cooperation

In order to Survive Banks should change their strategy: Their systems should be a Services Hub. 

The Services should include Services of non-Financial Partners. The Partners systems should also include a quick access to the Bank's Services. 

Probably, comparison and access to other Banks' Services will be included in the Hub as well.

  

4. Will IBM Mainframe Survive in the Long term?

IBM plans to split its business into two companies  at the end of 2021. 

It is likely that the Mainframe will be included in the "New CO" i.e focus on revenews and limited R&D, if any. 

In the Long Term the Mainframe will not be adapted to Modern Architectures and technologies.

5. Software Maintenace

The mainframe based Core Banking systems were developed decades ago. Maintenace is becoming more and more difficult.

Maintenace of these Silo Systems is more difficult anyway.

Many of the people, who developed and maintained the systems, already retired. Others will retire soon. Y-Generation and Z-generation developers prefer working in modern environments and does not havee the skills required for maintenace of these systems,  such as the COBOL Programming language, The CICS OLTP Monitor and even the DB2 database.

The results are high maintenace costs and Backlog. 

Conclusions

Currently, Public Cloud based Core Banking for large banks is far from being Reailty. 

However, it will be a Long Term Reality.

Large Banks should gradually prepare for the transition to Cloud by Legacy Systems Modernization. 

The Key is integrated Services instead of Large Silo Systems. 

 

An Agile Architecture would enable gradual Migration from IBM Mainframe to a Cloud. It could be a Private Cloud, an Hybrid Cloud or a Public Cloud.

Migration from any Cloud Services to a Public Cloud is a lot easier. The Migration period is shorter.

The Pandemic and the Security Paradox

 Ten years ago, I wrote a post titled: Cloud Computing and the Security Paradox. In this ancient post I argued that the claim of insufficient Security of the Public Clouds systems is based on a perception that what is not controlled by the Enterprise within its Data Center is less secured. However, Public Clouds Security was better than assumed  based on our perception. 

Sometimes it was better than the Security of Data and Systems located within the Enterprise's Data center. 

The COVID-10 magnified the Security Risks and the Public Clouds are more Secured than many Private systems.

The enhanced Threats landscape

 

The COVID-19 Pandemic restrictions changed dramatically the way people collaborate and interact. The Security measures, Procedures, Policies and tools should be adapted to the new interaction style.

Adaptation is a continuos Process therefore the vulnerability is higher than before COVID-19. 

Main reasons for the higher vulnerability are summarized in the following bullets:

1. Work from home

The Client Security and the Home Network Security is not as robust as the Enterprise Security.

Some Employees had worked from home sometimes, but the magnitude is different: Many employees are working only remotely from their company's offices.  

  

2. Charecteristics of Remote Workers

Higher percent of the Pandemic Remote Workers lack technology expertise. 

The probability that they also lack Security Awareness is high. Lack of Awareness could be the weakest link in the chain. 

3. Extended usage of e-commerce

Due to COVID-19 regulations in many countries restrict activities of physical shops and due to fear of being infected by the Corona virus, more transactions are executed by online services. 

More online commerce implies more Security Attacks.

Some of the novice e-commerce users lack skills and awareness of Security and are potential attacks and fraud victims.  

4. Extended usage of Remote Services

Due to the regulations and attitude described in the previous section and due to service providers face to face interactions restrictions more services are consumed by the Web and Smartphone channels. 

More transactions and more users imply more Security threats. 

 

5. Meeting Solutions 

Meeting solutions Security robustness is questionable. 
Non-Technological Users, such as people using Meeting Solutions to conduct virtual meetings with their grand children may not use or may use improperly existing Security features of the Meeting Solutions.

New Online Services Providers' Limitations

The traditional Public Cloud vendors had plenty of time to plan their systems. The planning included Security and Business Continuity. 

They implemented their solutions. They improved them gradually based on experience of many users. 

Security is essential for their business growth. Data Breaching or other Security problems could harm their reputation and Customers may use competitors' services.

Therefore, the Security of Public Clouds is at least reasonable.

New Online Services Providers were forced to transform their model immediately due to COVID-19 restrictions.

They could not afford postponing the transformation until they plan and test their systems or services properly. They were not able to postpone launching their Services until they endorse bullet proof Security. 

The result is less Secured Services and System outside the Public Cloud.

The Security Paradox is no longer a Paradox. It is a new Reality.

IBM Mainframe in splitted IBM at 2022

The topic of the post Vendors Survival: Will IBM Survive until 2030? is no longer a question to be asked, is IBM's plans to split into two companies. 

The new IBM will focus on Hybrid Clouds and one of its goals is rapid growth.

The smaller "new Co" will address Infrastructure and IT Services issues. Its goal will be efficiency. It will include other products and Business Lines.

Some of the low margin products and Platforms will gradually disappear or will be sold to other companies.

These products and platforms may be part of "New Co" at 2022.

I promised to dedicate a post to the IBM Mainframe. This post is the promised post. 

The Mainframe's Positioning

It is likely that it will be part of the "New Co". 

The term "Modernization" appears in some non-official descriptions describing "New Co". 

Modernization refers frequently to  Silo Legacy Mainframe systems.

The idea is to build componentized integrated systems which are less platform dependent. 

It may be a part of Long-Term gradual Downsizing from Mainframe. 

What is Hybrid Cloud?

It is easy to define Private Cloud. It is easy, as well, to define Public Clouds. 

There is no single definition of Hybrid Cloud.

For example, Red Hat definition of Hybrid Cloud includes the following Clouds combinations:

1. At list one Private Cloud and One Public Cloud

2. Two or more Private Clouds

3. Two or more Public Clouds

4. A bare-metal or Virtual environment connected to at least 1 cloud Public or Private

I chose Red Hat definition because it is a significant part of IBM especially in the Clouds context. 

Hybrid Cloud in the Business Context

  

The key question is which of the definitions of Hybrid Cloud depicted in the previous section are relevant to the new IBM's Business goals.

No doubt that the third and fourth are relevant.

The third is about coexistence of different Public Clouds. It is essential to almost any vendor of PAAS services.

The fourth is about Virtualization including multiple instances of Operating System. 

As far as Virtualization is concerned, Linux is a popular Operating System.

Red Hat is a Leading Linux vendor.  

The Public Clouds deployments are based on two Operating Systems Linux and Microsoft Windows.

Six years ago Forrester Consulting survey's  findings include the following:

1. Building a Private Cloud is a Priority of nearly half of all Enterprises.

2. Next Generation Cloud should be utilized Hybrid Platforms.
They were not limited to the two commodity platforms.

3. 67% of survey respondents said access to Mainframe Data was critically important or very important in cloud environments. 

It is possible that the percentage of enterprises thinking that Mainframe inclusion is crucial for their Private Clouds is not as high as it was in 2014. 

According to Forrester Consulting, the Next Generation of Private Clouds should include variety of platforms and Operating Systems including Mainframes.

 

Key questions about the Mainframe 

1. Resources for Continual Innovation and Development

IBM Mainframes are kicking and alive for almost 60 years. 

IBM 's work in adaptation and continual development of the Mainframe platform is impressive. 

For example, read: IBM z15 Mainframe First Take: Mission Critical Hybrid Cloud. 

Will the smaller and thinner "New co" have sufficient resources for continuing the adaptation of the Mainframe to the rapid Technological Transformation which surely take place?
If the answer to the question above is negative, the Mainframe market will gradually decline.

2. Intention and plans for Continual Innovation and Development

Even if "New Co" would have the resources, would it dedicate enough resources for Mainframe adaptation?
If the answer to the question above is negative, the Mainframe market will gradually decline.

 

3. In which types of Hybrid Clouds markets the new IBM will focus?

If its solutions will address Hybrid Clouds including Private Clouds (the Clouds defined in bullets 1 and 2 in the section titled "What is Hybrid Cloud?"), it is reasonable to include the Mainframe platform as part of the solution and the architecture. 

If IBM's focus would be the Hybrid Public Clouds markets based on Linux and Windows Mainframe's long-term Survival is unlikely.

4. Synergy Between IBM and "New Co."

The degree of synergy between IBM and new Co. is another key factor.

The Mainframe would benefit from High degree of Synergy. 

High Synergy implies more investments in R&D in key "New Co" products such as the Mainframe.

High Synergy implies joint Clouds projects, including Mainframes. 

The first impression of the announcement and other explanations suggest that it is unlikely that IBM's new CEO would encourage high Synergy. It seems more likely that the new model aims at isolating Platforms and Products which are not Core Products of "New IBM". 

Conclusions

The answers to the 4 Key questions in the previous section will decide the Mainframe's future.

Answers which imply no more Innovation and Development would signal End of Life of it.

End of Life means 5-10 years of declined market share and not immediate migration to other platforms.

Immediate migration is unrealistic even in case of decision to migrate immediately. 

Migration is complex, expansive and difficult to justify in Business terms. 

There are other scenarios. Some of them are better scenarios for Mainframe installations and employees.

Even in case of optimistic scenarios, after 60 years of IBM Mainframes, counting of the years until the Mainframe will be a small Niche platform has begun with IBM splitting into two companies.

 

Vendors Survival: Will IBM Survive until 2030? is no longer a question to be asked

IBM's headquarter in Armonk, New York
Source: Wikipedia

I wrote  the first post on IBM's Survival on 2017. Issues appearing in the post were not resolved yet by IBM. 

To quote my post "The problem is that IBM does not lead any significant new technologies market."

The market that IBM should be one of the Leaders is the Public Cloud market. Unfortunately for IBM, it failed to lead this market.

On 2018 I wrote another post: First Take: IBM's Red Hat Acquisition: Is it too late? 

IBM's position was even worse than in 2017. 

"Is it too late?" refers to the Cloud market.

Like HP, few years ago, IBM plans to split its business into two companies at the end of 2021. 

IBM (currently 59 billion revenues until June 30 2020) will focus on Hybrid Clouds. 

"New CO" (currently 19 billion revenues) will focus on infrastructure services. 

the new IBM

The new IBM will focus on Public Hybrid Clouds. Mainly integrating clouds of Amazon's AWS and Microsoft's Azure but it will also compete against them with its Public Cloud Platform. 

Red Hat is a part of the new IBM. 

Arvind Krishna, IBM's new CEO since April 2020 describes the splitting and new focus as "significant shift" in the company's model.

The Cloud market is a high margin market. 

Rapid growth is one of the goals of the new more focused IBM. 

IBM management expect better business results.

the "New CO"

"New Co" focus is on Information Technology services and infrastructure. It is an extended IGS (IBM Global Services) Its main competitor is Accenture. 

Its goal is efficiency not rapid growth.

It should be noted that few years ago IBM was the Leader of that market. The main competitor in that market was EDS. However, it was acquired by HP trying to replace IBM as the market leader and failed to achieve that goal.

Which Products and Business Lines will gradually disappear?

This question is a significant question. IBM's new CEO told analysts that "We divested networking back in the ‘90s, we divested PCs back in the 2000s, we divested semiconductors about five years ago because all of them didn’t necessarily play into the integrated value proposition,”

By abandoning these business lines IBM is cannibalizing its revenues. It seems that Long Term focus and growth is more important than Short Term revenues. 

The future of IBM's Mainframe

 It is a significant question: will it be part of the "New CO" or will it be included in the disappearing Product Lines?

I will dwell upon this issue on the next post.

First Take

Arvind Krishna was the key architect behibd Red Hat acquisition. He succeeded Ginny Rometty as IBM's CEO since April 2020. 

It is possible to find similarities between the strategic business change he is executing and strategic changes in Microsoft and HP.

HP

HP was splitted into two companies because it failed to achieve its business goals. HP, which kept its logo and its name, and focused in its core business (PCs and Printers) and the HP Enterprise including the remaining Business lines. The idea was to be better focused in each sub companies-goals.

IBM is position is gradually deteriorating. The structure of the sub companies is similar to HP: a company that is focused in its main Business Goals and keeps its name and the logo. 

Microsoft

Both companies had a successful CEO. The legendary Bill Gates at Microsoft and Samueal Palmisano at IBM. Both were replaced by Conservative Managers. Steve Ballmer at Microsoft and Ginni Rometty at IBM. 

Both companies were less successful when the CEOS stepped down and Conservative Managers replaced them. 

A significant Business Strategy was required in Microsoft. Ballmer was not capable of leading the required change therefore he stepped down and Satya Nadella replaced him as a CEO. 

Nadella made a significant change by the Cloud First Strategy i.e. focusing on Cloud Platform, products and services.

Arvind Krishna who replaced Jinnny Rometty is trying also to focus on the Cloud.

There are differences between Microsoft and IBM. 

The Cloud Strategy is different and IBM is trying to get rid of low margin products and services.

The crucial difference is that it was not too late for Microsoft to focus on the Cloud. 

The question I asked in previous posts about IBM is still relevant: Is it too late?

  

Vendors Survival: Will Google Survive until 2030?

Sundar Pichai
Picture Source: Wikipedia

The previous post raised a technical issue reflecting a problem in Google's Blogspot. 
After I fixed the problem, I still get the error message:
Earnings at risk - You need to fix some ads.txt file issues to avoid severe impact to your revenue.

FIX NOW

LEARN MORE

The other message "It may take a few days for changes to update."  still appearing ten days after. "Few days" according to Google is at least ten days. The problem I depicted in the previous post is a minor problem in comparison to other problems Google should address.  
That is why I am asking the question: Will Google Survive until 2030?
I already asked few times the question: Will Google Survive for ten years? I askes it in 2008, 2011 and 2011 - Revisited. 
As far as Google's Survival is concerned, I am less optimistic than I was few years ago.

Current Problems

Employees' Dissatisfaction

The indications of employees' dissatisfaction include the following indicators:

1. Google was the preferred company to work for in an USA based survey in 2018. Google is not included in the ten leading companies in 2019.
2018 was not the only year Google was the leading company in that survey.
It is hard to remember when Google was not included among the leading ten companies in previous surveys.

2. Google is using consultancy services of a company known as expert in tackling employees' organizations.
The new practice contradicts Google's Organizational Culture.

The Founders are not leading the company

On December 4, 2019 Larry Page stepped down from is CEO position of Alphabet Inc.
Alphabet is Google's parent company. 
Page and Brin will remain Controlling Shareholders of Alphabet.
Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO replaced him as Alphabet's CEO in addition to his role as Google's CEO. 

Comparing Google to Microsoft

There are similarities between Google of 2020 and Microsoft of 2014.


1. The founders are gradually transferring their roles and duties to others. 

The first post of the Vendors Survival posts was on Microsoft's Survival. it was written in the 1990es. Actually, it was a presentation to a Customer, not a post.
Microsoft was then the dominant IT Vendor. 
One of the identified Risks was stepping down of the founder Bill Gates. 

Gates transferred is duties and roles gradually. He stepped down as Microsoft CEO in 2000 but remained Chairman and Chief Architect.
On March 2020 he announced that he will no longer be a member of Microsoft Board of Directors.

Like Microsoft, Google was founded by two people. Google's founders are Larry Page and Sergey Brin. 
Unlike Microsoft, Google's founders are involved in the company's activities. 
Of Course, Bill Gates dominated Microsoft' activities but Paul Allen, the other co-founder, left the company in early 1983.

Microsoft was one man show. Google's early growth was directed by three people: the two founders and its CEO Eric Schmidt. 
Schmidt was an unlucky, experienced and successful manager. Unfortunately, he was the CEO and Chairman of Novell. 
Novell was a leader without a Market. The Network Operating System Market it was leading was diminished because Microsoft unified it with the Server Operating Systems Market.

Following January 2011, Schmidt stepped down and Larry Page officially become the Chief Executive of Google.
On October 2015, Alphabet Inc. was founded by Page and Brin through a restructuring of Google. Alphabet is a holding company, while Google's role remained unchanged under Alphabet.

The co-founders transferred gradually their roles in Google and Larry Page was Alphabet Inc. CEO until 2019.

On December, 3, 2019 Page and Brin jointly announced that they would step down from their roles in Alphabet Inc. They still remaining as  employees and holding the majority votes in the Board of Directors. The new Alpha Bet CEO is Sundar Pichai, Google's CEO.

2. The Leading IT vendor

Microsoft was the leading IT vendors in the 1990th decade and it is still a leading IT vendor.
Google was the leading IT vendor of the 2010th decade and is still the leading vendor.

3. Monopoly

Both Microsoft and Google were suspected for breaking the antitrust law and illegally maintaining monopoly in specific IT domains. 

4. Leveraging a dominance of Application to leadership in other IT markets

Microsoft's dominance in Office suit was leveraged to other software products such Integrated Development Environment and Public Cloud Computing.   

Google's Search Engines Market dominance was leveraged to other software markets presence  including products such as Gmail, YouTube and Blogspot.

5. Operating Systems Market Leadership

Microsoft's Windows Operating System is the leading PCs Operating Systems, as well as capturing the largest market segment of the Servers Operating Systems.  

Google's Android Operating System is the Smart Phone Operating Systems market leader. 

A new Manager after the Founders 

We will replace a legendary Manager who founded a company? is a crucial question. A wrong answer to that question could lower the probability that the company will survive for another decade.

It is not only personal question it is also a question of a Manager's typology. 

I wrote few posts on Managers Typology: the Professional, the Captive, and the Conservative. This list of typologies is far from being an exhaustive list. There are many other Managers types. 
It should be noted that a single manager could be classified as more than one type of managers/ For example, a Professional manager may be also Conservative.

The adequate type of manager is related to circumstances. 
It may be a good idea to appoint a Conservative Manager after a Legendary Manager in order to ensure continuity and Business as Usual feelings.

After a period of adaptation, the company or the organization needs an Inventive Manager who would encourage new initiatives and concepts. The Conservative Manager may not fit to the new requirements.

Microsoft after Gates

If you read my posts on Microsoft Survival probability. such as Vendors Survival: Will Microsoft Survive Until 2023? that what I wrote in the previous paragraph actually happened in Microsoft. Steve Ballmer was a good Conservative Manager for a transition period who stepped down too late. Satya Nadella is a better fit for Innovations.

Google after Page and Brin

The probability that Google will survive until 2030 is high, however, as we learned from Microsoft's experience, appointing a Conservative Manager for too long time could lower its Survival probability. 

Are Sundar Pichai's Management skills different from Steve Balmer's skills?
I get the impression that they are different, therefore the probability that he will be a better fit for an adaptive and innovative company is higher. 

The following four bullets summarize the key differences:

1. according to the English Wikipedia: "Pichai joined Google in 2004, where he led the product management and innovation efforts for a suite of Google's client software products". 
I added the bold letters of the word innovation. 
Steve Ballmer's roles at Microsoft included Product Management and Sells and marketing but no Innovation role. 

2. Experience in other companies and Organizational Cultures.
Ballmer was hired by Microsoft and subsequently left the MBA program in Stanford University. He was not employed by other companies.
Pichai worked for Applied Materials and for Mckinsey and Company prior to joining Google.

3. Multi-Cultural Experience

Pichai was born in India and studied in local universities. Afterwards he sudied in Stanford University and holds M.S in Material Sciences and Engineering and MBA from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. 

Balmmer was born in Detroit, grew up in Michigan and studied only in American universities. Ballmer lived in Brussels for 3 years where he attended the International School of Brussels. 

4. In 2014 Pichai has been suggested as a contender for Microsoft's CEO.

Satya Nadella replaced Steve Ballmer as Microsoft's CEO. However, it seems that Microsoft did not considered candidates resembling Ballmer, therefore  Phichai was suggested as a contender because he is not a Conservative Manager.

Of course, there are differences between Microsoft and Google. 
For example, it is easier to replace two founders than replacing one legendary founder who made all the strategic decisions.
Do not forget Google's Eric Schmidt's influence on Business decisions in the first years of Google.  

It seems that these differences position Google and Pichai after Page and Brin in a better starting point than Ballmer and Microsoft. 

 Is the Corona a Game Change?

I started writing this post more than 6 weeks ago. I traveled to Patagonia for a wonderful tour and returned to a different world. 

The world after the Corona Pandemic will be different world. 
It is too early to predict the changes, but probably some of the forced cultural and behavioral changes are irreversible. 
For example, probably, there will be more remote interactions and less face to face meetings.

Companies will have to adapt to a new world. It may influence Vendors Survival and Vendors Position.    
Predicting a Long-Term future is very inaccurate.
Predicting a Long-Term future after a Game Change is almost impossible.