Ephraim Schwartz writes that despite its new service offerings, Redmond will have a hard time transitioning from the desktop software model.
Actually, he was a bit more direct than that: Something is rotten in Redmond, he wrote.
Now, I have a choice. Do I respond with denials? Or say nothing? Or agree with him?
Now, I’m sure the PR types would say “keep your mouth shut.” Heck, that’s what our competitors do. Read this blogger’s (he works at Apple) post who agreed to do an interview, but then pulled out, probably due to pressure from PR folks or others inside Apple.
There’s really no winning with responding to Ephraim. Not at this point in time anyway. Why? If I agreed then I’d be telling people something that isn’t true. We are undergoing change internally. If I disagreed then I’d be forced to put up some examples of why Ephraim isn’t right and I don’t have enough examples right now.
I keep going back to a Photo Marketing Show where I was sitting in Kodak’s booth in 1989. They had just announced some of the first digital products. It was clear they were being disrupted. They had no clue that over the next 15 years their industry would totally change from a chemical-based one to a digital one (they really didn’t, you should have seen how clueless their salespeople were about digital and the changes that were going to roil over them).
I keep thinking about that. I was actually trying to help them see the new world and they kicked me out of their booth (really, they did, they wanted to control the message and didn’t want some college kid showing that he knew more about their new printers than they did). I never forgot that.
So, what’s the right answer? Listen to the college kids! They have more of the answers than we do anyway.
It’s why I’m on Matt Mullenweg’s blogging service. It’s why I’m using Flock. Why I’m trying out Kevin Burton’s new service.
And, I assume that radical and deep changes are coming to our industry and that these forces can’t be stopped. So, might as well ride the wave and go with it.
Anyway, what would you do if you were Bill Gates and you saw the changes that are hitting our industry?
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.