InfoWorld writes: Microsoft is stuck on the C: drive

“what would you do if you were Bill Gates and you saw the changes that are hitting our industry?”

Retire.

And that’s a serious response, btw.

“what would you do if you were Bill Gates and you saw the changes that are hitting our industry?”

Retire.

And that’s a serious response, btw.

Dori: OK, what should Microsoft do?

Dori: OK, what should Microsoft do?

Ah yes.

Last week those key words incluided something about Microsoft and others getting along…. you know, for the good of the users.

This week? When it suits you, you shamelessly slam your “competitors”.

Go for it, Robert. Might as well…. since most of your readers see through the PR you post anyways.

Sorry for being a bit personal, but damn man, you’ve been WAY overboard with the PR crap the last 10 days. (Odd how that coincides with the worst-yet-ever “demo” of something MS has “coming soon”.)

Ah yes.

Last week those key words incluided something about Microsoft and others getting along…. you know, for the good of the users.

This week? When it suits you, you shamelessly slam your “competitors”.

Go for it, Robert. Might as well…. since most of your readers see through the PR you post anyways.

Sorry for being a bit personal, but damn man, you’ve been WAY overboard with the PR crap the last 10 days. (Odd how that coincides with the worst-yet-ever “demo” of something MS has “coming soon”.)

Microsoft? Same thing I said five years ago: split up.

Currently, too many people have to sign off on everything you do, and so it takes forever to do anything. If y’all split up into several smaller and more nimble companies, some of them will actually have a chance.

Microsoft? Same thing I said five years ago: split up.

Currently, too many people have to sign off on everything you do, and so it takes forever to do anything. If y’all split up into several smaller and more nimble companies, some of them will actually have a chance.

There’s an interesting story on the WSJ site for tomorrow’s paper that discusses email exchanges between Ozzie and Bill G.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113149907029791795.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

(sorry, for subscribers only)

“In an email dated Oct. 30 sent to top Microsoft executives and engineers, Mr. Gates said the software giant needs to better address technologies and trends that are fueling a new wave of money-making on the Internet. “The next sea change is upon us,” Mr. Gates wrote.”

“the company still gets most of its revenue from selling software that is installed on users’ computers, and has become painstakingly slow to develop. The company, which draws much of its influence from setting technology standards that are followed by other programmers, is becoming less relevant as developers choose simpler techniques that allow them to quickly create Web services that users can sample, Mr. Ozzie’s memo suggests.”

There’s an interesting story on the WSJ site for tomorrow’s paper that discusses email exchanges between Ozzie and Bill G.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113149907029791795.html?mod=home_whats_news_us

(sorry, for subscribers only)

“In an email dated Oct. 30 sent to top Microsoft executives and engineers, Mr. Gates said the software giant needs to better address technologies and trends that are fueling a new wave of money-making on the Internet. “The next sea change is upon us,” Mr. Gates wrote.”

“the company still gets most of its revenue from selling software that is installed on users’ computers, and has become painstakingly slow to develop. The company, which draws much of its influence from setting technology standards that are followed by other programmers, is becoming less relevant as developers choose simpler techniques that allow them to quickly create Web services that users can sample, Mr. Ozzie’s memo suggests.”

Dave: huh? I’m trying to protect an Apple blogger’s behind. I guess you never cared about that guy, though, or never worked in a big company.

And if you think I’ve been overboard with the PR crap the past 10 days I have to wonder what you’ve been smoking. My coworkers sure aren’t happy with me pointing out how we’re being disrupted.

Maybe I’ll just go back to “happy happy joy joy” and link to stuff that is safe and boring. Sigh.

Dave: huh? I’m trying to protect an Apple blogger’s behind. I guess you never cared about that guy, though, or never worked in a big company.

And if you think I’ve been overboard with the PR crap the past 10 days I have to wonder what you’ve been smoking. My coworkers sure aren’t happy with me pointing out how we’re being disrupted.

Maybe I’ll just go back to “happy happy joy joy” and link to stuff that is safe and boring. Sigh.

Th eonly problem I see is that college kids don’t seem to be using blogs, technorati, and flock a lot - it seems like is the “computer geeks” who do so…..

Dori: interesting world if what you proposed had been done.

Th eonly problem I see is that college kids don’t seem to be using blogs, technorati, and flock a lot - it seems like is the “computer geeks” who do so…..

Dori: interesting world if what you proposed had been done.

Scoble, it’s tough love.

No, well, anyway - some people come here just to bash MSFT. I like to come to find out what Scoble (and by extension, MSFTers) is thinking. I think MSFT could be a lot smarter about deploying resources.

We have a model (http://www.renewalcycle.com) we talk about in our new book that talks about where different organizations are in their development cycles. Microsoft is clearly in what we like to call “Square IV” - the most profitable square, but also the one with the most complacency. MSFT needs to get to “Square I” - and fast. It’s not as profitable, but it allows you to take advantage of all sorts of opportunities.

Scoble, it’s tough love.

No, well, anyway - some people come here just to bash MSFT. I like to come to find out what Scoble (and by extension, MSFTers) is thinking. I think MSFT could be a lot smarter about deploying resources.

We have a model (http://www.renewalcycle.com) we talk about in our new book that talks about where different organizations are in their development cycles. Microsoft is clearly in what we like to call “Square IV” - the most profitable square, but also the one with the most complacency. MSFT needs to get to “Square I” - and fast. It’s not as profitable, but it allows you to take advantage of all sorts of opportunities.

Adam: totally agree.

Adam: totally agree.

Scanpola: you haven’t been on LiveJournal, have you? Or FaceBook.

Scanpola: you haven’t been on LiveJournal, have you? Or FaceBook.

I gave it a shot (as you know)… but never heard back

I gave it a shot (as you know)… but never heard back

Collaborate!
With the W3C, Oasis, WhatWG, for better web standards.
HTML6, SVG, XForms, JS2, E4X and more.
Not by slowing down specs by commitee but by showing and applying all your research power in an honest and open way, for the benefit of all.
Then make the best products for the new world order and compete in fair play.
You have only one opportunity to move forward, at full throttle!
Or die.

Robert: can you remind me again of that shot? I am following up on a bunch of things. Send me email at rscoble@microsoft.com.

Collaborate!
With the W3C, Oasis, WhatWG, for better web standards.
HTML6, SVG, XForms, JS2, E4X and more.
Not by slowing down specs by commitee but by showing and applying all your research power in an honest and open way, for the benefit of all.
Then make the best products for the new world order and compete in fair play.
You have only one opportunity to move forward, at full throttle!
Or die.

Robert: can you remind me again of that shot? I am following up on a bunch of things. Send me email at rscoble@microsoft.com.

Entrepreneurs: Cream of the Young Crop
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/10/young_entrepreneur/index_01.htm

Entrepreneurs: Cream of the Young Crop
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/05/10/young_entrepreneur/index_01.htm

RebelGeekz: did RSS (or Atom, for that matter) come out of any of those bodies? Did Google? Did Firefox? Did Skype? Did OPML? Did XAML? Did AJAX?

RebelGeekz: did RSS (or Atom, for that matter) come out of any of those bodies? Did Google? Did Firefox? Did Skype? Did OPML? Did XAML? Did AJAX?

Very simple suggestion - but like all “simple” suggestions, quite complex to pull off.

RADICALLY simplify EVERY offering.

7 version of Vista, to take just one example is about 6 too many.

The multitude of variations, licensing schemes, similar yet different names, and of course behind each one a large number of staff, make Microsoft a vastly too complex enterprise.

I come at this from a number of pespectives - as a small, entrepreneurial business person, as an advisor to other startups, and as a consultant to very large firms.

In all cases, I rarely suggest Microsoft based solutions - because for one, they only work (and I’ll admit that they do work very well) IF you are nearly entirely a microsoft shop - and in that case, especially as s small business (but even as a large one) you are basically committing to paying a perpetual Microsoft “tax” for a return that is quite tricky to calculate - and you run lots of different risks even then (errors in licensing, too many or too little, version mis-management, upgrades to one system that trigger a cascade of related upgrades, staff committed to managing servers which while important are not directly core to most businesses (exchange being the biggest example here perhaps).

So my suggestion:

- eliminate MOST versions of nearly all your major software in favor of a CORE version (and perhaps separate add-ons/components which add features on top of that core)

- Change your naming conventions from your current run-on sentences and repurposing of common English (plus numbers) to, perhaps, something more like your names of development projects - catchy and unique

- DRASTICALLY simplify your licensing. Make it something which can be explained in a SINGLE PAGE IN PLAIN ENGLISH (ideally covering ALL of your software licenses in one page). Perhaps you can have a second page for complex, infrequently needed specialist software.

- Make your branding consistent and MUCH clearer. Is it “MSN Messenger” “Messenger” or something else? What’s msn vs. live vs. msnbc vs. hotmail etc.

- Take a cue from the success of games like Halo and the xBox. Quality, simple experiences, delivered well with clear and unique branding and lots of value for the buck will sell like hotcakes. (and in the case of xBox live offer reoccuring revenue opportunities)

Microsoft should take a look at all of your products and see what happens if you were to strip away EVERYTHING non-core from each product, and then build them back up.

By now, the core OS should have been highly reliable, massively scalable, extremely secure, and nearly infinitely expandable and adaptable. However for most users the experience is anything but that - systems seem to slow down of their own accord after a year (or sooner), each successive OS requires more and more space, tens of thousands of files, dozens of processes, near constant updates and it is unclear at best what you get for all of that.

Microsoft should also be thinking about radical visions for the future.

- why can’t I trivially and easily plug all of my various systems together, harness their full capabilities and without much effort on my part ensure that my data is synchoronized, versioned and backed up?

- why do I still encounter on a daily basis problems which are solved by the “unplug and replug in”, repeatedly until it suddenly works (ipod Shuffle to my IBM Thinkpad T40)

- why do so many of Microsoft’s applications reformat themselves based on what I’m doing, but in the process make it very difficult to reset them and to learn how to use them efficiently (I still contend that I was more productive on Word 5.4 that I am on nearly any version since - once you learned the commands you could just make it work - though I still preferred Wordperfect because it let me edit the actual formatting)

- I know that fine grained controls is an issue on the tablet PC, but in large part it is an issue because other interfaces are not available - in way too many cases there are not other alternatives to the graphical toolbars. I think that applications like Activewords offer one vision forward - simple, customizeable, powerful and universial interfaces to all applications. (for that matter, why hasn’t Microsoft just bought Activewords and made it part of the standard OS?)

- In the enterprise arena Microsoft should take a cue from the success of the iron behind high volume web companies, like Google, and figure out how to realistically and powerfully offer infinite scalability. This means shifting from client/server to full embracing of scaleable grids. It also means making it very easy and inherent to separate tasks and services into components, possibly delivered on separate devices (i.e. storage separate from memory separate from processors).

This last item is hard. Truly and really hard - but it is also important as some of the features that it would enable would be powerfully useful to ALL users.

For example, as a small busines owner whose laptop IS everything to me, I live in fear of losing the data (and as much the effort I have had to invest into customizing it to work just right for me - though it still has quirks). By now, I really should have had very very easy ways to know that everything I change is easily and seemlessly versioned and stored on other devices across my network (I know, there are vendors who sell such products and services - but why isn’t the core os versioned yet at a file system level and why doesn’t it make it very very easy to be replicated and backed up) This also again points to the importance of much simplier licenses. I’m willing to pay for my software - but I am much less willing to pay double for the ability to have a backup system (i.e. if my first system fails I not illogically would like my “license” to let me work on another system in its place)

It is a complex issue - hope these ideas spark further discussion.

Very simple suggestion - but like all “simple” suggestions, quite complex to pull off.

RADICALLY simplify EVERY offering.

7 version of Vista, to take just one example is about 6 too many.

The multitude of variations, licensing schemes, similar yet different names, and of course behind each one a large number of staff, make Microsoft a vastly too complex enterprise.

I come at this from a number of pespectives - as a small, entrepreneurial business person, as an advisor to other startups, and as a consultant to very large firms.

In all cases, I rarely suggest Microsoft based solutions - because for one, they only work (and I’ll admit that they do work very well) IF you are nearly entirely a microsoft shop - and in that case, especially as s small business (but even as a large one) you are basically committing to paying a perpetual Microsoft “tax” for a return that is quite tricky to calculate - and you run lots of different risks even then (errors in licensing, too many or too little, version mis-management, upgrades to one system that trigger a cascade of related upgrades, staff committed to managing servers which while important are not directly core to most businesses (exchange being the biggest example here perhaps).

So my suggestion:

- eliminate MOST versions of nearly all your major software in favor of a CORE version (and perhaps separate add-ons/components which add features on top of that core)

- Change your naming conventions from your current run-on sentences and repurposing of common English (plus numbers) to, perhaps, something more like your names of development projects - catchy and unique

- DRASTICALLY simplify your licensing. Make it something which can be explained in a SINGLE PAGE IN PLAIN ENGLISH (ideally covering ALL of your software licenses in one page). Perhaps you can have a second page for complex, infrequently needed specialist software.

- Make your branding consistent and MUCH clearer. Is it “MSN Messenger” “Messenger” or something else? What’s msn vs. live vs. msnbc vs. hotmail etc.

- Take a cue from the success of games like Halo and the xBox. Quality, simple experiences, delivered well with clear and unique branding and lots of value for the buck will sell like hotcakes. (and in the case of xBox live offer reoccuring revenue opportunities)

Microsoft should take a look at all of your products and see what happens if you were to strip away EVERYTHING non-core from each product, and then build them back up.

By now, the core OS should have been highly reliable, massively scalable, extremely secure, and nearly infinitely expandable and adaptable. However for most users the experience is anything but that - systems seem to slow down of their own accord after a year (or sooner), each successive OS requires more and more space, tens of thousands of files, dozens of processes, near constant updates and it is unclear at best what you get for all of that.

Microsoft should also be thinking about radical visions for the future.

- why can’t I trivially and easily plug all of my various systems together, harness their full capabilities and without much effort on my part ensure that my data is synchoronized, versioned and backed up?

- why do I still encounter on a daily basis problems which are solved by the “unplug and replug in”, repeatedly until it suddenly works (ipod Shuffle to my IBM Thinkpad T40)

- why do so many of Microsoft’s applications reformat themselves based on what I’m doing, but in the process make it very difficult to reset them and to learn how to use them efficiently (I still contend that I was more productive on Word 5.4 that I am on nearly any version since - once you learned the commands you could just make it work - though I still preferred Wordperfect because it let me edit the actual formatting)

- I know that fine grained controls is an issue on the tablet PC, but in large part it is an issue because other interfaces are not available - in way too many cases there are not other alternatives to the graphical toolbars. I think that applications like Activewords offer one vision forward - simple, customizeable, powerful and universial interfaces to all applications. (for that matter, why hasn’t Microsoft just bought Activewords and made it part of the standard OS?)

- In the enterprise arena Microsoft should take a cue from the success of the iron behind high volume web companies, like Google, and figure out how to realistically and powerfully offer infinite scalability. This means shifting from client/server to full embracing of scaleable grids. It also means making it very easy and inherent to separate tasks and services into components, possibly delivered on separate devices (i.e. storage separate from memory separate from processors).

This last item is hard. Truly and really hard - but it is also important as some of the features that it would enable would be powerfully useful to ALL users.

For example, as a small busines owner whose laptop IS everything to me, I live in fear of losing the data (and as much the effort I have had to invest into customizing it to work just right for me - though it still has quirks). By now, I really should have had very very easy ways to know that everything I change is easily and seemlessly versioned and stored on other devices across my network (I know, there are vendors who sell such products and services - but why isn’t the core os versioned yet at a file system level and why doesn’t it make it very very easy to be replicated and backed up) This also again points to the importance of much simplier licenses. I’m willing to pay for my software - but I am much less willing to pay double for the ability to have a backup system (i.e. if my first system fails I not illogically would like my “license” to let me work on another system in its place)

It is a complex issue - hope these ideas spark further discussion.

[...] Scobleizer - Microsoft Geek Blogger » InfoWorld writes: Microsoft is stuck on the C: drive presents a dilemna for Robert, he doesn’t want to comment either to agree or to disagree. In the comments a discussion arose about what Microsoft should do. [...]

Your Kodak memory struck a chord. I did some work with what was (for a while) called “Kodak Digital Sciences” back in the early 90s.

Worked closely with a consummate gentleman, the genuinely wonderful Dave Lakness, on a software project called Imagery.

Imagery was a plug-in document imaging engine designed to add scanned image viewing and annotation tools to any networked document management system (this was back when viewing document images on a standard VGA screen was hard).

We had this big fancy product launch as part of the Kodak booth at an AIIM Show in San Francisco. Heck of a gig. Monster launch party at the Yerba Buena Center, where I got to give a 5 minute pitch right after some high-up Kodak dude, and right before Rick Smolan showed off his phenomenal “Passage to Vietnam” project (funded by Kodak). Very cool.

Kodak were all over this thing back then. All over it.

One of the side projects was a tie in with their document scanner division. They had a high speed box that would scan masses of paper and simultaneously run off both TIFF image files and twin rolls of microfilm (Irish backup: to be sure, to be sure).

Perfect – the proven reliability of archival microfilm, with the vastly superior flexibility of networked PC document imaging.

What none of us guessed back then was that Kodak would kill the whole project within 18 months of launch.

They suddenly figured that if this thing really took off, it would hurt their sales of film. Back then, Kodak’s entire business was film. So they killed it.

I remember the Kodak bigshot at that event rattling on about what a kick it was to work for such a top drawer, A-list brand. He talked about his lovely life as a highly paid, globe-trotting, big swinging dick; getting to bounce around the world to all sorts of curious places, and always seeing the familiar, mighty Kodak K everywhere he went.

So where you all at now, Mr. Kodak dude?

Doh!

Your Kodak memory struck a chord. I did some work with what was (for a while) called “Kodak Digital Sciences” back in the early 90s.

Worked closely with a consummate gentleman, the genuinely wonderful Dave Lakness, on a software project called Imagery.

Imagery was a plug-in document imaging engine designed to add scanned image viewing and annotation tools to any networked document management system (this was back when viewing document images on a standard VGA screen was hard).

We had this big fancy product launch as part of the Kodak booth at an AIIM Show in San Francisco. Heck of a gig. Monster launch party at the Yerba Buena Center, where I got to give a 5 minute pitch right after some high-up Kodak dude, and right before Rick Smolan showed off his phenomenal “Passage to Vietnam” project (funded by Kodak). Very cool.

Kodak were all over this thing back then. All over it.

One of the side projects was a tie in with their document scanner division. They had a high speed box that would scan masses of paper and simultaneously run off both TIFF image files and twin rolls of microfilm (Irish backup: to be sure, to be sure).

Perfect – the proven reliability of archival microfilm, with the vastly superior flexibility of networked PC document imaging.

What none of us guessed back then was that Kodak would kill the whole project within 18 months of launch.

They suddenly figured that if this thing really took off, it would hurt their sales of film. Back then, Kodak’s entire business was film. So they killed it.

I remember the Kodak bigshot at that event rattling on about what a kick it was to work for such a top drawer, A-list brand. He talked about his lovely life as a highly paid, globe-trotting, big swinging dick; getting to bounce around the world to all sorts of curious places, and always seeing the familiar, mighty Kodak K everywhere he went.

So where you all at now, Mr. Kodak dude?

Doh!

Listen to the college kids! They have more of the answers than we do anyway.

Groan. It’s that type of philosophy that dooms Microsoft. Hire some college kid programmer, run him up the Redmond geek culture, and 20 years later you still have a college kiddo, just now richer, heavy gadget-fetished, maybe with a family, and oblivious to real Corporate America. Anyone that thinks they know it all in college is under a seriously delusional spell. Get some real world experience, please. Not saying they aren’t smart, but a whole other level of smart that only comes from raw experience. Nothing ever works like it should. Book theory all fine and well, but alone it cannot suffice. College is a safe-haven security blanket zone. Haven’t you ever watched St. Elmo’s Fire?

PS - Oz will ruin MFST (I am predicting half revenue poof), or be replaced in 2-3 years, whichever comes first. If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I am not), almost as if the ‘Wizard of Oz’ would count that as a win. But you can mark it down to welling-meaning pie-in-sky’isms, that MFST won’t be able to do deliverables on, and if they do (by some unforseen merciful miracle of God), they won’t be able to market it even so.

PSS - I gotta call you out on Kodak, they saw it. And they devised a whole end-game strategy to operate in both waters, just took some time (and massive layoffs) to implement. (I have a relative that works for Kodak, I know some of the inside history, tho that sure would make a great book if done right. Alecia Swasy’s book was deeply flawed, and now hopelessly outdated).

The Kodak EasyShare line and others are commercial hits. Kodak now slapped up Versamark, Scitex, Heidelberg Digital and NexPres. Clueless they are not, no matter what some dorky low-level booth-bunny salesperson said in 1989. Makes for a nice anecdote, but that bit of overall history is flawed. Now if you were talking say, Polaroid, ok, yes.

Listen to the college kids! They have more of the answers than we do anyway.

Groan. It’s that type of philosophy that dooms Microsoft. Hire some college kid programmer, run him up the Redmond geek culture, and 20 years later you still have a college kiddo, just now richer, heavy gadget-fetished, maybe with a family, and oblivious to real Corporate America. Anyone that thinks they know it all in college is under a seriously delusional spell. Get some real world experience, please. Not saying they aren’t smart, but a whole other level of smart that only comes from raw experience. Nothing ever works like it should. Book theory all fine and well, but alone it cannot suffice. College is a safe-haven security blanket zone. Haven’t you ever watched St. Elmo’s Fire?

PS - Oz will ruin MFST (I am predicting half revenue poof), or be replaced in 2-3 years, whichever comes first. If I was a conspiracy theorist (which I am not), almost as if the ‘Wizard of Oz’ would count that as a win. But you can mark it down to welling-meaning pie-in-sky’isms, that MFST won’t be able to do deliverables on, and if they do (by some unforseen merciful miracle of God), they won’t be able to market it even so.

PSS - I gotta call you out on Kodak, they saw it. And they devised a whole end-game strategy to operate in both waters, just took some time (and massive layoffs) to implement. (I have a relative that works for Kodak, I know some of the inside history, tho that sure would make a great book if done right. Alecia Swasy’s book was deeply flawed, and now hopelessly outdated).

The Kodak EasyShare line and others are commercial hits. Kodak now slapped up Versamark, Scitex, Heidelberg Digital and NexPres. Clueless they are not, no matter what some dorky low-level booth-bunny salesperson said in 1989. Makes for a nice anecdote, but that bit of overall history is flawed. Now if you were talking say, Polaroid, ok, yes.

Christopher: well, if what you say is right then Google will implode. The whole thing is run by 20 somethings. The age difference between Microsoft and Google employees is striking.

Christopher: well, if what you say is right then Google will implode. The whole thing is run by 20 somethings. The age difference between Microsoft and Google employees is striking.

Shannon: good feedback!

Shannon: good feedback!

“interesting world if what you proposed had been done.”

It’s never too late.

“interesting world if what you proposed had been done.”

It’s never too late.

Sigh. Debating you gives me flashbacks of High School debates, short-sighted one-liner irrelevant catchy jabs. When in doubt, kick sand.

Microsoft is just a mature company. Age difference means nothing, products and customers are everything. Younger is not always better, just as older is not always wiser. Case by case. Microsoft is not even middle-aged at 30. Google is still an infant. And why is younger always better in software? Sure doesn’t work in Health Care, Manfacturing, and Legal. Ok, say you have a complex legal matter, you want a 20 year courtroom vet? Or a college kid? You need complex surgery, the college kid doesn’t go near you until he’s at least 35. Why with software is youth and inexperience, suddenly the “in thing”?

Fast Growth (20s), Mature (40s), Historical (Generations and Retirees). Google is still at the 0 to 60 seconds stage, in time, it will morph, all companies do. You can’t run on energy-drink adrenaline forever, eventually you have to process some protein. Trouble is mature companies can be boring, not enough “disruption”, so seconding Dare again, go join Google already.

Sigh. Debating you gives me flashbacks of High School debates, short-sighted one-liner irrelevant catchy jabs. When in doubt, kick sand.

Microsoft is just a mature company. Age difference means nothing, products and customers are everything. Younger is not always better, just as older is not always wiser. Case by case. Microsoft is not even middle-aged at 30. Google is still an infant. And why is younger always better in software? Sure doesn’t work in Health Care, Manfacturing, and Legal. Ok, say you have a complex legal matter, you want a 20 year courtroom vet? Or a college kid? You need complex surgery, the college kid doesn’t go near you until he’s at least 35. Why with software is youth and inexperience, suddenly the “in thing”?

Fast Growth (20s), Mature (40s), Historical (Generations and Retirees). Google is still at the 0 to 60 seconds stage, in time, it will morph, all companies do. You can’t run on energy-drink adrenaline forever, eventually you have to process some protein. Trouble is mature companies can be boring, not enough “disruption”, so seconding Dare again, go join Google already.

[...] Sheesh-sometimes I forget how many people actually read this stuff. Now that Robert Scoble and Daniel Jalkut have taken notice of my decision not to go ahead with my CocoaRadio interview, I feel compelled to offer some further context. [...]

Advice to Gates ? Retire. Seriously. The “way of gouging the customers through heavy interdependence” is over. The way of “over-featuring” is over.

What customers want is simple, reliable, quick. Take Apple for instance.

What customers DONT want is to wait five years for XP service pack 3. Or another few years for yet another massive copy of office, that delivers nothing more than more unused features. Office 12 - and its collaborative features ? Wow. Collaboration - something MS has consistently failed to deliver.

So time for an architectural change right at the top.

Oh - and whilst your at it - removing Balmer might actually make the stagnant share price go up.

—* Bill

Advice to Gates ? Retire. Seriously. The “way of gouging the customers through heavy interdependence” is over. The way of “over-featuring” is over.

What customers want is simple, reliable, quick. Take Apple for instance.

What customers DONT want is to wait five years for XP service pack 3. Or another few years for yet another massive copy of office, that delivers nothing more than more unused features. Office 12 - and its collaborative features ? Wow. Collaboration - something MS has consistently failed to deliver.

So time for an architectural change right at the top.

Oh - and whilst your at it - removing Balmer might actually make the stagnant share price go up.

—* Bill

But then what? Big two retire, Ozzie takes over? MFST doomed for sure then. But wow, what legions of Linux weenies couldn’t do, they do to self. The downfall of Microsoft. Can’t deliver software (or market software), tries services…hahha. Those purposedly-leaked memos are childish laughingstocks. Doozers.

No real joy on Vista and Office 12, so missed upgrade cycles, with stock price pinch, Xbox’isms and others, grand loss, eventually it will eat into bone. Cutbacks, and then morale problems, and brain drain. No company is ever invincible. You recall what goes after a haughty spirit?

But then what? Big two retire, Ozzie takes over? MFST doomed for sure then. But wow, what legions of Linux weenies couldn’t do, they do to self. The downfall of Microsoft. Can’t deliver software (or market software), tries services…hahha. Those purposedly-leaked memos are childish laughingstocks. Doozers.

No real joy on Vista and Office 12, so missed upgrade cycles, with stock price pinch, Xbox’isms and others, grand loss, eventually it will eat into bone. Cutbacks, and then morale problems, and brain drain. No company is ever invincible. You recall what goes after a haughty spirit?

Hey, Robert,

Chris Coulter is an interesting phenomenon.

Obviously a pro, his writing is superb.

But he seems to have oodles of time to devote to reading and responding to your blog.

He is a cynic.

He doesn’t believe in your openness.

Why not?

He doesn’t believe that openness is truly possible?

He doesn’t believe that openness is a good idea?

He doesn’t believe that openness will solve Microsoft’s or anyone else’s problems?

He doesn’t seem to believe that openness is anything but either:

(1) foolish on the part of those who practice it

(2) deceitful on the part of those who profess to practice it

(3) naive on the part of those that read and applaud such practices

In your case, he is delighted when he sees the regular opportunity to point out all three sins.

But he himself has one problem:

By not being open himself, about his own motivations, by being ‘exclusively objective’, devotees of openness, for all their other gullibilities (we all have them) do find themselves asking themselves a question about him:

What’s his agenda?

Who’s paying him?

Who’s his boss?

Who pays them?

Where’s his blog?

Which publications does he write for?

Where is his other writing?

Does he really believe in what he’s writing?

What is his background?

What kind of pressures is he under?

What are his passions?

Whatever he says about you, he can’t claim that you haven’t striven (perhaps more than any human being in history outside the webcam community) to deliberately put enough of your own inner and outer life on real-time display for people to come to a decision one way or another about whether you are sincere.

For all your other limitations Robert, one thing we avid readers of your blog have learned about you is that slow typing is not one of them.

So maybe, just like you, Chris is able to do more jobs than one.

But Chris looks far too smart to be doing so much unpaid work.

You’ve got yourself a new phenomenon.

A professional commenter.

An ‘A list commenter’.

The commentosphere must have an A list.

Are professional commenters (rather than bloggers) characterised by being people who are paid to antagonise and ultimately undermine bloggers?

So for all we know, Chris is not working for a Microsoft competitor, simply because he looks to be too good a journalist to be working (possibly freelance) for anything but a ‘serious’ publication.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if that publication has advertisers who are Microsoft competitors (briefing? ‘don’t let Microsoft get away with this Scoble trick’).

Now this is probably all groundless speculation.

But without openness about his own motivation and background, Christopher Coulter is open to just as much suspicion as anyone who seems so ‘selflessly devoted’ to such poignant Dorothy Parkerism.

Now if Chris was sincere, and if he ‘blogged his life’ like you do, we would have plenty of material to enable us to ‘do due diligence’ on Chris Coulter.

But all we can do here, is read his words, which attack your sincerity and credibility, then read your blog to see if it all adds up, then go looking to compare what we find there with wherever Chris Coulter is coming from, and find ourselves struggling to find it, and asking ourselves why.

Notice that I’m not being open about myself, so unlike you, ad-hominem attacks on me are fully justified.

Ricky

Hey, Robert,

Chris Coulter is an interesting phenomenon.

Obviously a pro, his writing is superb.

But he seems to have oodles of time to devote to reading and responding to your blog.

He is a cynic.

He doesn’t believe in your openness.

Why not?

He doesn’t believe that openness is truly possible?

He doesn’t believe that openness is a good idea?

He doesn’t believe that openness will solve Microsoft’s or anyone else’s problems?

He doesn’t seem to believe that openness is anything but either:

(1) foolish on the part of those who practice it

(2) deceitful on the part of those who profess to practice it

(3) naive on the part of those that read and applaud such practices

In your case, he is delighted when he sees the regular opportunity to point out all three sins.

But he himself has one problem:

By not being open himself, about his own motivations, by being ‘exclusively objective’, devotees of openness, for all their other gullibilities (we all have them) do find themselves asking themselves a question about him:

What’s his agenda?

Who’s paying him?

Who’s his boss?

Who pays them?

Where’s his blog?

Which publications does he write for?

Where is his other writing?

Does he really believe in what he’s writing?

What is his background?

What kind of pressures is he under?

What are his passions?

Whatever he says about you, he can’t claim that you haven’t striven (perhaps more than any human being in history outside the webcam community) to deliberately put enough of your own inner and outer life on real-time display for people to come to a decision one way or another about whether you are sincere.

For all your other limitations Robert, one thing we avid readers of your blog have learned about you is that slow typing is not one of them.

So maybe, just like you, Chris is able to do more jobs than one.

But Chris looks far too smart to be doing so much unpaid work.

You’ve got yourself a new phenomenon.

A professional commenter.

An ‘A list commenter’.

The commentosphere must have an A list.

Are professional commenters (rather than bloggers) characterised by being people who are paid to antagonise and ultimately undermine bloggers?

So for all we know, Chris is not working for a Microsoft competitor, simply because he looks to be too good a journalist to be working (possibly freelance) for anything but a ‘serious’ publication.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if that publication has advertisers who are Microsoft competitors (briefing? ‘don’t let Microsoft get away with this Scoble trick’).

Now this is probably all groundless speculation.

But without openness about his own motivation and background, Christopher Coulter is open to just as much suspicion as anyone who seems so ‘selflessly devoted’ to such poignant Dorothy Parkerism.

Now if Chris was sincere, and if he ‘blogged his life’ like you do, we would have plenty of material to enable us to ‘do due diligence’ on Chris Coulter.

But all we can do here, is read his words, which attack your sincerity and credibility, then read your blog to see if it all adds up, then go looking to compare what we find there with wherever Chris Coulter is coming from, and find ourselves struggling to find it, and asking ourselves why.

Notice that I’m not being open about myself, so unlike you, ad-hominem attacks on me are fully justified.

Ricky

Methinks too much conspriacy-theory Orange Crush. Hold it, but don’t drink it.

Anyways, to settle your musings, I am not paid. Sorry comment drivel doesn’t approach the level of great literature, and no real competitor would waste their time. As far as my motivations, I don’t really have any. I just knew a “Robert Scoble” then, and I know the “Robert Scoble” of now. Not the same person — it went to his head, he turned on me, and now he’s hollow-chocolate-bunny filled with Web 2.0 drivel. It’s rather painful to watch. But after those Memo’s, obvious he’s shape-shifted into the “right place”.

And actually it doesn’t take too much time to comment, it’s all stream-of-consciousness rot. I slave for weeks on a 30-50 page script, comments I trouble not with muchly. (a little 18th Century style lingo there).

Cynic? A CIO’ish ‘Tour of Duty’ will do that to you.

But I doth protest the fact that I need to “blog” to be “open”.

As as far as pro, thanks, that made my day. Not yet Wilshire tho, still corporate churn and a spec monkey. David Koepp or John August-like pro, not even close. Sigh.

As far as “plenty of material”, need only goto a Search Engine.

http://www.multi-mediaservices.com/page14.html
http://www.memoware.com/mw.cgi?screen=hof
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,42922-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

Methinks too much conspriacy-theory Orange Crush. Hold it, but don’t drink it.

Anyways, to settle your musings, I am not paid. Sorry comment drivel doesn’t approach the level of great literature, and no real competitor would waste their time. As far as my motivations, I don’t really have any. I just knew a “Robert Scoble” then, and I know the “Robert Scoble” of now. Not the same person — it went to his head, he turned on me, and now he’s hollow-chocolate-bunny filled with Web 2.0 drivel. It’s rather painful to watch. But after those Memo’s, obvious he’s shape-shifted into the “right place”.

And actually it doesn’t take too much time to comment, it’s all stream-of-consciousness rot. I slave for weeks on a 30-50 page script, comments I trouble not with muchly. (a little 18th Century style lingo there).

Cynic? A CIO’ish ‘Tour of Duty’ will do that to you.

But I doth protest the fact that I need to “blog” to be “open”.

As as far as pro, thanks, that made my day. Not yet Wilshire tho, still corporate churn and a spec monkey. David Koepp or John August-like pro, not even close. Sigh.

As far as “plenty of material”, need only goto a Search Engine.

http://www.multi-mediaservices.com/page14.html
http://www.memoware.com/mw.cgi?screen=hof
http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,42922-2,00.html?tw=wn_story_page_next1

I’d create a bullsh!t meta-response where I pointy out the most obvious absurdities like there being 3 possibilities: 1. Agree and have some credibility but I couldn’t do that because I’m a corporate shill, 2. Disagree but get laughed at because we really have nothing, or 3 just create some whiny post that goes on and on about nothing, throwing in a dig or two about a company that has little to no marketing problems, in the process hoping blog-morons would eat the sh!t up, thinking I’m some brilliant guru because I went to a trade show a quarter century ago.

But that’s just me… What I’d do.

I’d create a bullsh!t meta-response where I pointy out the most obvious absurdities like there being 3 possibilities: 1. Agree and have some credibility but I couldn’t do that because I’m a corporate shill, 2. Disagree but get laughed at because we really have nothing, or 3 just create some whiny post that goes on and on about nothing, throwing in a dig or two about a company that has little to no marketing problems, in the process hoping blog-morons would eat the sh!t up, thinking I’m some brilliant guru because I went to a trade show a quarter century ago.

But that’s just me… What I’d do.

Brilliant. Nice satire. And thou art quite a better thinker and writer than me, to boot.

Brilliant. Nice satire. And thou art quite a better thinker and writer than me, to boot.

Ricky: oh, Chris is worse than a professional commenter. He’s an information mercenary. He spreads information just for the sheer joy of watching it do its damage. And, yes, he gets paid from time to time but we don’t know where his paychecks come from.

Ricky: oh, Chris is worse than a professional commenter. He’s an information mercenary. He spreads information just for the sheer joy of watching it do its damage. And, yes, he gets paid from time to time but we don’t know where his paychecks come from.

I think Microsoft can reinvent itself once again but needs to make some major changes to to do so. They need to participate more in the Open Source world instead of denying the paradigm shift that is occuring in the software industry. Instead of figting the change, much like IBM did 25 years ago, they need to learn how it this can really add to their vision for the industry. After they figure this out, they can then work on updating their strategies to leverage Open Source.

This doesn’t mean they have to turn all of there software into OpenSource and become a Novell or RedHat. What it does mean is they need to start contributing to the community, even on a small scale. They need to communicate better to the IT community as well. The image the industry news sources have portayed them as a company who is scared of change, and who is trying to catch up to players like google and apple. They need to change this image.

Microsoft needs to be the best at there core software business. Microsoft needs to focus on platforms and developer tools first. They really need to stop trying to be everything to everybody or they will not do well in the long run. Remeber the saying, “You can’t know everything.” That goes for a company too. MS can take a lession from GE. They’re goal was to be #1 or #2 in every industry (product line) in which they participated. If a division wasn’t, they where given time to turn it around. If they didn;t turn it around, it was either sold or scrapped.

Google’s core business is search. period. That is why they are the best at it. that’s all they do.

Apple is a media products company. They are popular with writers, designers, multimedia producers, and consumers as far as the iPod is concerned. they have a nitch market in which they are the best.

Look at vmWare. They are leveragng OpenSource (RedHat) to build a product that can run multiple ‘soft servers’ on a single hardware platform. They where able to leverage OpenSource to cut a lot of overhead of the OS and run these soft servers extremely efficient. What OS is installed on top of vmWare as the soft server the majority of the time? Windows. Microsoft should have seen this. They should have used OpenSource to run the virtualization engine leverage the license sales of Windows. Now they are trying to play catch up to vmware by rewriting windows to include a more efficeient virtualization engine. They missed the boat on buying vmware before EMC got them.

I think they need to start this change or industry focus first in their HR and recruiting departments. They need to start attracting a different type of people. They also need to learn how to better identify industry thinkers wich can help them make the changes needed. This includes everyone from the SDE to the exeuctive level. This can be hard recruiting from colleges as well because the business, mangagement, and programing processes taught in schools are based upon whats worked in the past. Based on history. They don’t encourage people to invent new processes or think ‘outside the box’ often times. So the focues at MS needs to change by first bringing in a new kind of employee that isn’t used to the “MS Way” of doing things…. fresh thinking starts here.

I think Microsoft can reinvent itself once again but needs to make some major changes to to do so. They need to participate more in the Open Source world instead of denying the paradigm shift that is occuring in the software industry. Instead of figting the change, much like IBM did 25 years ago, they need to learn how it this can really add to their vision for the industry. After they figure this out, they can then work on updating their strategies to leverage Open Source.

This doesn’t mean they have to turn all of there software into OpenSource and become a Novell or RedHat. What it does mean is they need to start contributing to the community, even on a small scale. They need to communicate better to the IT community as well. The image the industry news sources have portayed them as a company who is scared of change, and who is trying to catch up to players like google and apple. They need to change this image.

Microsoft needs to be the best at there core software business. Microsoft needs to focus on platforms and developer tools first. They really need to stop trying to be everything to everybody or they will not do well in the long run. Remeber the saying, “You can’t know everything.” That goes for a company too. MS can take a lession from GE. They’re goal was to be #1 or #2 in every industry (product line) in which they participated. If a division wasn’t, they where given time to turn it around. If they didn;t turn it around, it was either sold or scrapped.

Google’s core business is search. period. That is why they are the best at it. that’s all they do.

Apple is a media products company. They are popular with writers, designers, multimedia producers, and consumers as far as the iPod is concerned. they have a nitch market in which they are the best.

Look at vmWare. They are leveragng OpenSource (RedHat) to build a product that can run multiple ‘soft servers’ on a single hardware platform. They where able to leverage OpenSource to cut a lot of overhead of the OS and run these soft servers extremely efficient. What OS is installed on top of vmWare as the soft server the majority of the time? Windows. Microsoft should have seen this. They should have used OpenSource to run the virtualization engine leverage the license sales of Windows. Now they are trying to play catch up to vmware by rewriting windows to include a more efficeient virtualization engine. They missed the boat on buying vmware before EMC got them.

I think they need to start this change or industry focus first in their HR and recruiting departments. They need to start attracting a different type of people. They also need to learn how to better identify industry thinkers wich can help them make the changes needed. This includes everyone from the SDE to the exeuctive level. This can be hard recruiting from colleges as well because the business, mangagement, and programing processes taught in schools are based upon whats worked in the past. Based on history. They don’t encourage people to invent new processes or think ‘outside the box’ often times. So the focues at MS needs to change by first bringing in a new kind of employee that isn’t used to the “MS Way” of doing things…. fresh thinking starts here.