Paying attention to the post-memo blogs

In the aftermath of the Ray Ozzie and Bill Gates memos and emails I am seeing a few trends in the reaction. Five blogs in particular got my attention:

1) Steve Gillmor’s Don’t Mention It
2) Joshua Porter’s Why Should I Trust Microsoft with My Attention Metadata?
3) Dion Hinchcliffe’s Microsoft Gets Disrupted.
4) Stowe Boyd’s Scoble on Google.
5) Om Malik’s The Bill and Ozzie Show.

First let’s talk about Gillmor’s post. It made me laugh out loud. The “Top Ten Reasons why Dave Winer doesn’t pay attention to attention,” in particular was pretty funny. It’s my favorite post Steve’s done in a while. Mostly cause I’m friends with both Steve and Dave and it takes potshots at me too. Ahh, if you can’t laugh at yourself then there’s probably something wrong.

But, onto the meat. Joshua Porter asks why should he trust Microsoft? Wrong question: I wouldn’t trust anyone. And, it’s exactly why I’m pushing Microsoft to be more open with ALL of its formats and data. The new world is a mashup world. Mashers won’t play with APIs or formats that have limits. And they won’t play with APIs or formats they don’t trust. Joshua shows we have a LOT of work to do to gain even a basic level of trust. I think we can do it. But it’ll require doing things differently. It requires a new level of transparency and openness. It also requires doing services that you give away for free (and that you don’t try to monetize at every damn opportunity).

Along these lines, Dion has a nice chart that shows the disruption underway. Interesting analysis too. Yes, Dion, the stakes are indeed high. But, that’s not a good way to look at this. Disrupters never look at the stakes. They look at what’s fun to do. Steve Wozniak told me he didn’t build his Apple II to disrupt industries. He did it cause it’s fun and cause he wanted one!

Why did I like Memeorandum so much? Cause I wanted something that’d read through all my feeds and tell me what is important. Gabe built Memeorandum for me. That’s disruptive.

Both Om and Stowe think that Microsoft won’t be able to get its act together. That it won’t be able to morph and “get” the new services world.

Maybe not, but see this is where I have some perspective. I have seen this kind of reaction about companies before. And about Microsoft before. I remember when, in 2001-2003 people said Apple was dead. The stock price was at 12. I didn’t think that. I bought about $1,000 worth at 12 (and sold it shortly after I joined Microsoft at 22 — wish I had held that!)

I see tons of people who all believe in this services world and are just waiting to ship interesting stuff. Not only that, but I look at the research division we have here. There’s a treasure trove there waiting to be delivered as great products and services. And then I look at the cash we have. Oh, the cash! There are many Silicon Valley businesses springing up salivating at the idea that Microsoft would get into the acquisition business in a big way (and that Google would too).

And, new things pop out all the time that are damn interesting. Root.net just got turned on. It’s an amazing attention engine. I’m definitely going to trust that with my attention! Joshua talks all about that.

One last thing: Joshua, don’t trust us unless we make it win-win for you to do so. If we don’t, shame on us for not listening!

Comments

  1. “Wrong question”

    Bad deflection

    “I wouldn’t trust anyone.”

    But why trust MS? You’ve proven to be the LEAST trustworthy!

    “And, it’s exactly why I’m pushing Microsoft to be more open with ALL of its formats and data.”

    You don’t push anything. You blog and film videos.

    “The new world is a mashup world. Mashers won’t play with APIs or formats that have limits.”

    Blah, blah, blah…

    “And they won’t play with APIs or formats they don’t trust.”

    Wait… Wait one stinkin’ minute! A second ago we shouldn’t trust anyone and now we’re only using APIs we trust?

    Do you think at any point during these posts?

    “Joshua shows we have a LOT of work to do to gain even a basic level of trust. I think we can do it.”

    So… He’s asking the right question, isn’t he? Hmmm…

    “I think we can do it. But it’ll require doing things differently. It requires a new level of transparency and openness. It also requires doing services that you give away for free (and that you don’t try to monetize at every damn opportunity).”

    And there comes the blah, blah, blah bullsh!t and the part MS can’t do. Duh.

    “Disrupters never look at the stakes. They look at what’s fun to do.”

    Baloney.

    ” I remember when, in 2001-2003 people said Apple was dead. The stock price was at 12. I didn’t think that. I bought about $1,000 worth at 12 (and sold it shortly after I joined Microsoft at 22 — wish I had held that!)”

    Ah, yes, the brilliant Apple prognasticator that is Scoble. Are you forgetting that people called Apple dead every quarter throught its entire 30 year history? That you yourself claimed MS would beat Apple’s success with the iPod in 2001 in 2 years? Please, shut up. What does Apple always being able to survive have to with the formerly 400-pound (i.e. billion), now 280-pound (i.e. billion) gorilla that can only exist through domination and has made all its business decisions based on economic decisions? I’ll answer for you: NADA!!

    “There’s a treasure trove there waiting to be delivered as great products and services.”

    Ah, yes, it’s hidden in the basement again. We can’t see it, I’ve seen it… we won’t ship it for a long, long time if ever, but really, really, really, we do have it. Whatever.

    “And then I look at the cash we have.”

    You’re giving most of it back in dividends, and then using a lot of it to buy back stock because your stock no longer moves. Sure, you’ll still have billions, but that jsut means you’ll buy good companies and destroy their good products in a couple of years.

    But, really, isn’t it pretty damn pathetic to basically concede: we don’t have it, but we buy whoever does have it? You do realize that’s what you’re saying, right?

    “And, new things pop out all the time that are damn interesting. Root.net just got turned on.”

    So, wait… Now your defense of Microsoft, how it will succeed, how it can turn around it’s strategy… is to point to other tiny little outfits that can do it without MS? Ummm, okay…. Seriously, Scoble, you sound pretty foolish these days…

    “One last thing: Joshua, don’t trust us unless we make it win-win for you to do so. If we don’t, shame on us for not listening!”

    We don’t, you won’t, and who gives a crap about shaming you? You’ve been shameful from the beginning. YOU don’t have to tell US not to trust you, Scoble. We don’t!

  2. “Wrong question”

    Bad deflection

    “I wouldn’t trust anyone.”

    But why trust MS? You’ve proven to be the LEAST trustworthy!

    “And, it’s exactly why I’m pushing Microsoft to be more open with ALL of its formats and data.”

    You don’t push anything. You blog and film videos.

    “The new world is a mashup world. Mashers won’t play with APIs or formats that have limits.”

    Blah, blah, blah…

    “And they won’t play with APIs or formats they don’t trust.”

    Wait… Wait one stinkin’ minute! A second ago we shouldn’t trust anyone and now we’re only using APIs we trust?

    Do you think at any point during these posts?

    “Joshua shows we have a LOT of work to do to gain even a basic level of trust. I think we can do it.”

    So… He’s asking the right question, isn’t he? Hmmm…

    “I think we can do it. But it’ll require doing things differently. It requires a new level of transparency and openness. It also requires doing services that you give away for free (and that you don’t try to monetize at every damn opportunity).”

    And there comes the blah, blah, blah bullsh!t and the part MS can’t do. Duh.

    “Disrupters never look at the stakes. They look at what’s fun to do.”

    Baloney.

    ” I remember when, in 2001-2003 people said Apple was dead. The stock price was at 12. I didn’t think that. I bought about $1,000 worth at 12 (and sold it shortly after I joined Microsoft at 22 — wish I had held that!)”

    Ah, yes, the brilliant Apple prognasticator that is Scoble. Are you forgetting that people called Apple dead every quarter throught its entire 30 year history? That you yourself claimed MS would beat Apple’s success with the iPod in 2001 in 2 years? Please, shut up. What does Apple always being able to survive have to with the formerly 400-pound (i.e. billion), now 280-pound (i.e. billion) gorilla that can only exist through domination and has made all its business decisions based on economic decisions? I’ll answer for you: NADA!!

    “There’s a treasure trove there waiting to be delivered as great products and services.”

    Ah, yes, it’s hidden in the basement again. We can’t see it, I’ve seen it… we won’t ship it for a long, long time if ever, but really, really, really, we do have it. Whatever.

    “And then I look at the cash we have.”

    You’re giving most of it back in dividends, and then using a lot of it to buy back stock because your stock no longer moves. Sure, you’ll still have billions, but that jsut means you’ll buy good companies and destroy their good products in a couple of years.

    But, really, isn’t it pretty damn pathetic to basically concede: we don’t have it, but we buy whoever does have it? You do realize that’s what you’re saying, right?

    “And, new things pop out all the time that are damn interesting. Root.net just got turned on.”

    So, wait… Now your defense of Microsoft, how it will succeed, how it can turn around it’s strategy… is to point to other tiny little outfits that can do it without MS? Ummm, okay…. Seriously, Scoble, you sound pretty foolish these days…

    “One last thing: Joshua, don’t trust us unless we make it win-win for you to do so. If we don’t, shame on us for not listening!”

    We don’t, you won’t, and who gives a crap about shaming you? You’ve been shameful from the beginning. YOU don’t have to tell US not to trust you, Scoble. We don’t!

  3. Goebbels: I don’t ever remember saying that we’d beat the iPod. I remember saying that there’s a way we could get back in the game (which they didn’t listen to and you derided back then too). Either way, we’re still not in that game and probably won’t be.

    >You don’t push anything. You blog and film videos.

    Keep believing that.

    >A second ago we shouldn’t trust anyone and now we’re only using APIs we trust? Do you think at any point during these posts?

    Sorry, that was a case where I didn’t speak clearly. Obviously there’s trust involved if you use an API. But if I were a developer looking between, say Google Maps, VIrtual Earth, and Yahoo’s Map services, and deciding which one to use, I wouldn’t trust any of them and would be skeptical. At some point you have to go for the lesser of three evils if you want to use a Map on your site, though.

    >But, really, isn’t it pretty damn pathetic to basically concede: we don’t have it, but we buy whoever does have it? You do realize that’s what you’re saying, right?

    It’s pathetic to you, but hey, if you didn’t sign the Rolling Stones when they were a garage band, how do you sign them after they get to be a big deal? It’s business. No one cares that some record company paid them hundreds of millions of dollars. They just want to listen to the Stones. Is that pathetic? OK. Got it.

  4. I’m thinking that Microsoft cannot face what needs to be done to transform itself into a company that can dominate the next version of the Internet. But maybe it can:

    Spin off a company devoted to creating a bulletproof workstation operating system able to run third-party programs that cannot compromise the O/S. No other responsibilies.

    Spin off a company devoted to creating a bulletproof scalable server/database/web services platform.

    Spin off a company devoted to creating and providing world class web services, garnering revenue via subscriptions and ads.

    Shut everything else down. Split the cash reserves into three and return it to shareholders via dividends.

  5. Goebbels: I don’t ever remember saying that we’d beat the iPod. I remember saying that there’s a way we could get back in the game (which they didn’t listen to and you derided back then too). Either way, we’re still not in that game and probably won’t be.

    >You don’t push anything. You blog and film videos.

    Keep believing that.

    >A second ago we shouldn’t trust anyone and now we’re only using APIs we trust? Do you think at any point during these posts?

    Sorry, that was a case where I didn’t speak clearly. Obviously there’s trust involved if you use an API. But if I were a developer looking between, say Google Maps, VIrtual Earth, and Yahoo’s Map services, and deciding which one to use, I wouldn’t trust any of them and would be skeptical. At some point you have to go for the lesser of three evils if you want to use a Map on your site, though.

    >But, really, isn’t it pretty damn pathetic to basically concede: we don’t have it, but we buy whoever does have it? You do realize that’s what you’re saying, right?

    It’s pathetic to you, but hey, if you didn’t sign the Rolling Stones when they were a garage band, how do you sign them after they get to be a big deal? It’s business. No one cares that some record company paid them hundreds of millions of dollars. They just want to listen to the Stones. Is that pathetic? OK. Got it.

  6. I’m thinking that Microsoft cannot face what needs to be done to transform itself into a company that can dominate the next version of the Internet. But maybe it can:

    Spin off a company devoted to creating a bulletproof workstation operating system able to run third-party programs that cannot compromise the O/S. No other responsibilies.

    Spin off a company devoted to creating a bulletproof scalable server/database/web services platform.

    Spin off a company devoted to creating and providing world class web services, garnering revenue via subscriptions and ads.

    Shut everything else down. Split the cash reserves into three and return it to shareholders via dividends.

  7. >I’m thinking that Microsoft cannot face what needs to be done to transform itself into a company that can dominate the next version of the Internet.

    There’s no way one company can dominate the Internet. That’s not a goal of ours.

  8. >I’m thinking that Microsoft cannot face what needs to be done to transform itself into a company that can dominate the next version of the Internet.

    There’s no way one company can dominate the Internet. That’s not a goal of ours.

  9. “At some point you have to go for the lesser of three evils if you want to use a Map on your site, though.”

    Which means trust, which means your lame, circular attempt to dismiss the trust question does not work and was transparently lame from the get go. I know. You didn’t have to clarify that to me.

    “It’s pathetic to you, but hey, if you didn’t sign the Rolling Stones when they were a garage band, how do you sign them after they get to be a big deal? It’s business.”

    Wait, in the analogy, isn’t the point to BE the Rollign Stones?!! Who cares about signing them? I want to be Keith Richards. Microsoft would be Keith Richards by buying the most expensive guitar and some expensive but crappy lessons.

    “They just want to listen to the Stones. Is that pathetic? OK. Got it. ”

    Again, I’m not talking about the consumers, I’m tlaking about your company’s attempts to be cool, to be the Rolling Stones. The fans show up for a Stones show, and there’s Gates and Ballmer dressed up as some sad Stones cover band. Yes, that is pathetic. Okay. Do YOU get it?

  10. “At some point you have to go for the lesser of three evils if you want to use a Map on your site, though.”

    Which means trust, which means your lame, circular attempt to dismiss the trust question does not work and was transparently lame from the get go. I know. You didn’t have to clarify that to me.

    “It’s pathetic to you, but hey, if you didn’t sign the Rolling Stones when they were a garage band, how do you sign them after they get to be a big deal? It’s business.”

    Wait, in the analogy, isn’t the point to BE the Rollign Stones?!! Who cares about signing them? I want to be Keith Richards. Microsoft would be Keith Richards by buying the most expensive guitar and some expensive but crappy lessons.

    “They just want to listen to the Stones. Is that pathetic? OK. Got it. ”

    Again, I’m not talking about the consumers, I’m tlaking about your company’s attempts to be cool, to be the Rolling Stones. The fans show up for a Stones show, and there’s Gates and Ballmer dressed up as some sad Stones cover band. Yes, that is pathetic. Okay. Do YOU get it?

  11. I didn’t understand what Gillmor was talking about. But then I never understand what Gillmor is talking about.

  12. I didn’t understand what Gillmor was talking about. But then I never understand what Gillmor is talking about.

  13. I think your analogy, Scoble deserves further comment. It’s quite illuminating.

    You twist and contrive an analogy about getting a piece of one of the hugest, most successful (both critically and financially) musical acts ever. And what role do you (Microsoft) want to play?

    Signing them.

    Sorry, but that just goes to show that even if you are hired to be a mouthpiece for a philosophy antithetical and not at the core of Microsoft, you’ll still eventually be corrupted by their thinking.

    But, okay, let’s role with this lame analogy… How do you sign the Stones?

    You think you sign a true musical talent by throwing money? That the one with the most money wins? How does your analogy even work? Maybe you could sign the next Britney Spears or something, but not the next Rolling Stones.

    You sign them by being there from the beginning. You sign them by understanding them at their core, and at your own core. By being the perfect fit for them.

    By the way, you do know that the Stones handle their own business, right? They don’t need to sign to someone, and if they do, it’s under their terms and they maintain full control.

    Jesus. I’ve always criticized you about your need to jump on the latest marketing technobabble. But this silly announcement (that hasn’t had any of the impact of the last one — Hailstorm — and that was a complete failure) really has you spinning your wheels. It really is sad.

  14. One thing is clear you are definatley making Microsoft more open through your blog, its always helps to make a Company more reachable ..

    No single company can ever rule Internet or for that matter software, this is a business of uncertainty and should be like this only as monopoly only kills innovations …..

    Microsoft definately is taking a pitch at innovation (in internet) by offering free services …. most of the “live” services look promising albiet are unavailable currently …looking forward to work on them

  15. I think your analogy, Scoble deserves further comment. It’s quite illuminating.

    You twist and contrive an analogy about getting a piece of one of the hugest, most successful (both critically and financially) musical acts ever. And what role do you (Microsoft) want to play?

    Signing them.

    Sorry, but that just goes to show that even if you are hired to be a mouthpiece for a philosophy antithetical and not at the core of Microsoft, you’ll still eventually be corrupted by their thinking.

    But, okay, let’s role with this lame analogy… How do you sign the Stones?

    You think you sign a true musical talent by throwing money? That the one with the most money wins? How does your analogy even work? Maybe you could sign the next Britney Spears or something, but not the next Rolling Stones.

    You sign them by being there from the beginning. You sign them by understanding them at their core, and at your own core. By being the perfect fit for them.

    By the way, you do know that the Stones handle their own business, right? They don’t need to sign to someone, and if they do, it’s under their terms and they maintain full control.

    Jesus. I’ve always criticized you about your need to jump on the latest marketing technobabble. But this silly announcement (that hasn’t had any of the impact of the last one — Hailstorm — and that was a complete failure) really has you spinning your wheels. It really is sad.

  16. One thing is clear you are definatley making Microsoft more open through your blog, its always helps to make a Company more reachable ..

    No single company can ever rule Internet or for that matter software, this is a business of uncertainty and should be like this only as monopoly only kills innovations …..

    Microsoft definately is taking a pitch at innovation (in internet) by offering free services …. most of the “live” services look promising albiet are unavailable currently …looking forward to work on them

  17. Oh, one more thing: haven’t you ever heard of a producer or a big contract destroying a truly great band? It happens all the time. It’s not at all about just signing the big band; it’s about making them great, exploiting that greatness, keeping them great. Usually the producers that use the most money to attract talent and/or the big contracts are the clearest indicators of an eventual failure.

  18. Oh, one more thing: haven’t you ever heard of a producer or a big contract destroying a truly great band? It happens all the time. It’s not at all about just signing the big band; it’s about making them great, exploiting that greatness, keeping them great. Usually the producers that use the most money to attract talent and/or the big contracts are the clearest indicators of an eventual failure.

  19. I think the Microsoft guys do get it, they are working on services that are probably do far up on NDA that it would be mind numbing to even think about.

    What I don’t think Microsoft gets is the “seamless os” that Ozzie talks about. Microsoft is huge, we all know that. Software works together nicely, but not as nice as a mac, even Ray admitted that.

    What needs to be disrupted is to have the teams, all of them, yes all of them, working together.

    You have 3 divisions, have each division gather up all the program managers talk to each other, get their act together, and elect a few representatives to talk to the rest of the divisions.

    Take a little lesson from government microsoft, right now you guys are the UN, every one has a voice, nothing is making sense, nothing is getting done because it takes just too long. you need to be more like english parliment or the united states congress, two levels of hierarchy. thats it, no more no less.

    I hope that the restructering is going smoothly, all that needs to be done is some collaboration for the creative juices to start flowing in the right direction again.

  20. I think the Microsoft guys do get it, they are working on services that are probably do far up on NDA that it would be mind numbing to even think about.

    What I don’t think Microsoft gets is the “seamless os” that Ozzie talks about. Microsoft is huge, we all know that. Software works together nicely, but not as nice as a mac, even Ray admitted that.

    What needs to be disrupted is to have the teams, all of them, yes all of them, working together.

    You have 3 divisions, have each division gather up all the program managers talk to each other, get their act together, and elect a few representatives to talk to the rest of the divisions.

    Take a little lesson from government microsoft, right now you guys are the UN, every one has a voice, nothing is making sense, nothing is getting done because it takes just too long. you need to be more like english parliment or the united states congress, two levels of hierarchy. thats it, no more no less.

    I hope that the restructering is going smoothly, all that needs to be done is some collaboration for the creative juices to start flowing in the right direction again.

  21. “I want to be Keith Richards.”

    But you aren’t, and you didn’t sign him either.

    “The fans show up for a Stones show, and there’s Gates and Ballmer dressed up as some sad Stones cover band. Yes, that is pathetic. Okay. Do YOU get it? ”

    Not really. What’s truly pathetic is the guy in the back with no date who paid to go to the show so he could wallow in his self-perceived moral and intellectual superiority, and then follows that up by writing 4 letters about it to the editor of the local weekly.

  22. “I want to be Keith Richards.”

    But you aren’t, and you didn’t sign him either.

    “The fans show up for a Stones show, and there’s Gates and Ballmer dressed up as some sad Stones cover band. Yes, that is pathetic. Okay. Do YOU get it? ”

    Not really. What’s truly pathetic is the guy in the back with no date who paid to go to the show so he could wallow in his self-perceived moral and intellectual superiority, and then follows that up by writing 4 letters about it to the editor of the local weekly.

  23. Goebbels…

    You’re right. It’s not about who offers the most money. So how do you sign a great band like The Rolling Stones?

    You notice them before anybody else does. You see their potential. Then you help them unlock it.

  24. Goebbels…

    You’re right. It’s not about who offers the most money. So how do you sign a great band like The Rolling Stones?

    You notice them before anybody else does. You see their potential. Then you help them unlock it.

  25. I agree, Robert, if this seamless, internet services oriented OS thing is going to work, then it can’t be exclusive or exclusionary.

    When I saw Peter Moore hook up an iPod to the Xbox 360 a while back, the first thing I thought was, I’d like to see Microsoft find ways to hook up with Google…or half dozen other emerging service-based APIs.

    Once we’ve created an Internet Services Operating System, then the opportunites to exist and compete within that will be clear. But that mandate means looking beyong MSN Search, Virtual Earth, Gadgets, Start.com – and embracing Google, Flickr, Yahoo, etc. Give them all a big bear hug. That’s the last thing they’re expecting right now.

  26. I agree, Robert, if this seamless, internet services oriented OS thing is going to work, then it can’t be exclusive or exclusionary.

    When I saw Peter Moore hook up an iPod to the Xbox 360 a while back, the first thing I thought was, I’d like to see Microsoft find ways to hook up with Google…or half dozen other emerging service-based APIs.

    Once we’ve created an Internet Services Operating System, then the opportunites to exist and compete within that will be clear. But that mandate means looking beyong MSN Search, Virtual Earth, Gadgets, Start.com – and embracing Google, Flickr, Yahoo, etc. Give them all a big bear hug. That’s the last thing they’re expecting right now.

  27. Goebbels – You accuse Scoble of fallacy when you do no better yourself.

    You are wrong on the Trust issue. Trust is not mandatory in a relationship although such relationships are often pretty unsound and easily corruptible. Choosing to go with “a lesser evil” does not translate into trust. It translates into a need that supersedes trust as a basis of the relationship. That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.

    This is, maybe, along the lines of “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer”.

    Anyway – It’s funny how these MS memos have disrupted the entire industry in just a couple of days. Everyone is talking about them. Publicity stunt?

    I, for one, am looking forward to see what change this might bring. I’m fairly impressed that Microsoft seems to be willing to make a major change. That is a chance most “grown” companies do not want to commit to. If they fail or succeed – only time will tell (and I don’t really care, either way). I do think, though, that the times ahead are more interesting now then they were a couple of days ago. I also think that many underestimate Microsoft when it comes to making decisions like these. Microsoft has a history of success. Somehow they managed to climb to the top of the mountain and stay there for a long time. Somehow they always find ways to respond (whatever you might thing of the methods they use). They will make a huge impact in the future, just like they have in the past.

    J#

  28. Goebbels – You accuse Scoble of fallacy when you do no better yourself.

    You are wrong on the Trust issue. Trust is not mandatory in a relationship although such relationships are often pretty unsound and easily corruptible. Choosing to go with “a lesser evil” does not translate into trust. It translates into a need that supersedes trust as a basis of the relationship. That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.

    This is, maybe, along the lines of “Keep your friends close but your enemies closer”.

    Anyway – It’s funny how these MS memos have disrupted the entire industry in just a couple of days. Everyone is talking about them. Publicity stunt?

    I, for one, am looking forward to see what change this might bring. I’m fairly impressed that Microsoft seems to be willing to make a major change. That is a chance most “grown” companies do not want to commit to. If they fail or succeed – only time will tell (and I don’t really care, either way). I do think, though, that the times ahead are more interesting now then they were a couple of days ago. I also think that many underestimate Microsoft when it comes to making decisions like these. Microsoft has a history of success. Somehow they managed to climb to the top of the mountain and stay there for a long time. Somehow they always find ways to respond (whatever you might thing of the methods they use). They will make a huge impact in the future, just like they have in the past.

    J#

  29. you know what I find the most interesting about this? Microsoft’s desperate need for approval. This whole releasing the memos thing? Insecurity writ large.

    If you want to change direction, you just do it. IBM showed that. Apple does it all the time. They want to try something new, they try it. Only MS has this need to release internal communications, like a little kid hanging out with the cool teenagers, hoping to be let in the gang. “Are we cool yet, huh, huh? We’re cool now, right? right? Please?”

    But even then, the lack of a clue is obvious. It’s still all about sucking people on to Windows, and beating the other guys. Not about providing great stuff and services, and working to make them great. But about beating the other guys. MS still can only define itself in relation to everyone else.

    This is why IBM and Apple and Google and so many other companies don’t do things the Microsoft way, yet make money, and service their customers every day. Maybe one day, MS will be run by an adult…that would be cool.

  30. you know what I find the most interesting about this? Microsoft’s desperate need for approval. This whole releasing the memos thing? Insecurity writ large.

    If you want to change direction, you just do it. IBM showed that. Apple does it all the time. They want to try something new, they try it. Only MS has this need to release internal communications, like a little kid hanging out with the cool teenagers, hoping to be let in the gang. “Are we cool yet, huh, huh? We’re cool now, right? right? Please?”

    But even then, the lack of a clue is obvious. It’s still all about sucking people on to Windows, and beating the other guys. Not about providing great stuff and services, and working to make them great. But about beating the other guys. MS still can only define itself in relation to everyone else.

    This is why IBM and Apple and Google and so many other companies don’t do things the Microsoft way, yet make money, and service their customers every day. Maybe one day, MS will be run by an adult…that would be cool.

  31. “Trust no-one” is not a profitable plan on the long term.

    “Don’t trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, but trust people who have shown themselves to be trustworthy” brings home much more money. Except for the people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, of course.

  32. “Trust no-one” is not a profitable plan on the long term.

    “Don’t trust people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, but trust people who have shown themselves to be trustworthy” brings home much more money. Except for the people who have shown themselves to be untrustworthy, of course.

  33. Ignoring the raging debate above, Robert, I would have to say the record company analogy is not the best one to make. But that’s because the music industry is in worse condition (morally/ethically/artistically) than almost any other industry in the world. Major record companies, for all intents and purposes, are evil. They snatch up bands, then CREATE an image for them, force them to limit their music to a very specific genre, etc. It’s really pretty awful and as with many fields, the way that retail works makes things worse, as does [non-satellite/internet] radio. iTMS shows that by diversifying your line-up and putting most music on an equal playing field, people tend to buy more music and music they wouldn’t normally have purchased.

    What the Rolling Stones and many other artists like Springsteen and Elton John have is “superstar” status. That means that when they have record contracts, they get a number of perks, like full creative control, ownership of their music, a higher royalty rate, etc.

    My personal record purchases are pretty much entirely made up of groups that aren’t manufactured, such as the Flecktones, Phish, classical music, and some of those “superstar” artists. I do have some CDs that are the chart-topper manufactured type though, such as Evanescence. If you can ever find their 2000 CD before signing with a major label, you’ll hear their music was changed to all be radio length and squished into one particular sound.

    Basically, I don’t think that’s the best analogy to be making for Microsoft’s acquisitions. But honestly, I’m not sure you should be fighting that fight anyway. In the past, Microsoft has done many acquisitions to stop potential competitors or to get a certain product and then the product loses what made it so good (I’m sure Goebbels and Coulter have lots of examples at the ready). This is historical fact and in my opinion not worth arguing.

    I don’t pretend to be in a position to tell you what you can and can’t argue, but I think a better strategy would be to talk about what acquisitions Microsoft makes from now on. Much like you admit that Microsoft has lost trust, has made products that didn’t work to expectations and don’t try to justify those, you shouldn’t try to justify past acquisitions. Focus on what Microsoft acquires now and why we shouldn’t be frightened or skeptical by such a proposition.

  34. Ignoring the raging debate above, Robert, I would have to say the record company analogy is not the best one to make. But that’s because the music industry is in worse condition (morally/ethically/artistically) than almost any other industry in the world. Major record companies, for all intents and purposes, are evil. They snatch up bands, then CREATE an image for them, force them to limit their music to a very specific genre, etc. It’s really pretty awful and as with many fields, the way that retail works makes things worse, as does [non-satellite/internet] radio. iTMS shows that by diversifying your line-up and putting most music on an equal playing field, people tend to buy more music and music they wouldn’t normally have purchased.

    What the Rolling Stones and many other artists like Springsteen and Elton John have is “superstar” status. That means that when they have record contracts, they get a number of perks, like full creative control, ownership of their music, a higher royalty rate, etc.

    My personal record purchases are pretty much entirely made up of groups that aren’t manufactured, such as the Flecktones, Phish, classical music, and some of those “superstar” artists. I do have some CDs that are the chart-topper manufactured type though, such as Evanescence. If you can ever find their 2000 CD before signing with a major label, you’ll hear their music was changed to all be radio length and squished into one particular sound.

    Basically, I don’t think that’s the best analogy to be making for Microsoft’s acquisitions. But honestly, I’m not sure you should be fighting that fight anyway. In the past, Microsoft has done many acquisitions to stop potential competitors or to get a certain product and then the product loses what made it so good (I’m sure Goebbels and Coulter have lots of examples at the ready). This is historical fact and in my opinion not worth arguing.

    I don’t pretend to be in a position to tell you what you can and can’t argue, but I think a better strategy would be to talk about what acquisitions Microsoft makes from now on. Much like you admit that Microsoft has lost trust, has made products that didn’t work to expectations and don’t try to justify those, you shouldn’t try to justify past acquisitions. Focus on what Microsoft acquires now and why we shouldn’t be frightened or skeptical by such a proposition.

  35. “But you aren’t, and you didn’t sign him either.”

    If I was, it wouldn’t be an analogy. But you’re too dense to pass up an opportunity to insult me.

    “That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.”

    So trust is an issue? Great refutation. I never said trust was the only issue.

    “Anyway – It’s funny how these MS memos have disrupted the entire industry in just a couple of days.”

    I don’t see anyone “disrupted” by this memo at all. (Can we stop throwing around that word by the way?) A bunch of RSS wonks and media “analysts” “discussing” it is not “DISRUPTION.” Google hasn’t changed their palns, Yahoo hasn’t changed their plans, no one has changed their plans or sees the world differently.

    “You notice them before anybody else does. You see their potential. Then you help them unlock it.”

    Too bad that isn’t what Scoble said. His claim was we are great at services because they’re locked in the dungeon… well, actually, we don’t have them, but we have the most money so we’ll be the most successful at buying them.

    Actually, not too bad since Scoble doesn’t make acquisition decisions nor would he be involved in the negotiations.

  36. “But you aren’t, and you didn’t sign him either.”

    If I was, it wouldn’t be an analogy. But you’re too dense to pass up an opportunity to insult me.

    “That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.”

    So trust is an issue? Great refutation. I never said trust was the only issue.

    “Anyway – It’s funny how these MS memos have disrupted the entire industry in just a couple of days.”

    I don’t see anyone “disrupted” by this memo at all. (Can we stop throwing around that word by the way?) A bunch of RSS wonks and media “analysts” “discussing” it is not “DISRUPTION.” Google hasn’t changed their palns, Yahoo hasn’t changed their plans, no one has changed their plans or sees the world differently.

    “You notice them before anybody else does. You see their potential. Then you help them unlock it.”

    Too bad that isn’t what Scoble said. His claim was we are great at services because they’re locked in the dungeon… well, actually, we don’t have them, but we have the most money so we’ll be the most successful at buying them.

    Actually, not too bad since Scoble doesn’t make acquisition decisions nor would he be involved in the negotiations.

  37. I can’t understand Gillmore either. If Web 2.0ers insist on using a proprietary extension to the English language, you think at least they could offer a link to it on their websites? Maybe a Web 2.0-speak to English parser has been invented? Anyone? Is that an option on Babelfish?

    And Goebbels, you’re nuts. Not just your screen name, either. Don’t read his stuff if you’re just going to be blindly insulting, dismissive and obtusely focused on word chopping. But then, I imagine all the message boards kicked you out because you’re annoying.

  38. I can’t understand Gillmore either. If Web 2.0ers insist on using a proprietary extension to the English language, you think at least they could offer a link to it on their websites? Maybe a Web 2.0-speak to English parser has been invented? Anyone? Is that an option on Babelfish?

    And Goebbels, you’re nuts. Not just your screen name, either. Don’t read his stuff if you’re just going to be blindly insulting, dismissive and obtusely focused on word chopping. But then, I imagine all the message boards kicked you out because you’re annoying.

  39. While no one company will win, an oligopoly will ultimately dominate. I believe the battle for this space is going to be a bloodbath with many companies being eaten or dying. While I would NEVER underestimate Microsoft, I think it will face some MAJOR culture shock responding to these memos. If the ‘corporate cultural arteries’ are too hard, a massive stroke and ultimately a long, painful death may be the result.

    Kip Meacham

  40. While no one company will win, an oligopoly will ultimately dominate. I believe the battle for this space is going to be a bloodbath with many companies being eaten or dying. While I would NEVER underestimate Microsoft, I think it will face some MAJOR culture shock responding to these memos. If the ‘corporate cultural arteries’ are too hard, a massive stroke and ultimately a long, painful death may be the result.

    Kip Meacham

  41. Goebbels and Coulter are probably painfully conscious of the fact that every time they score points against Scoble for logic, style, accuracy, depth of knowledge, lack of insight or whatever, they are having the opposite effect to the one they are being paid to have.

    Robert, despite cheerleading, which is normally a comparatively insensitive activity, is actually an extremely sensitive guy.

    He isn’t very good at point scoring, something Goebbels and Coulter can pull off with matchless panache, time after time.

    The only problem for them, is that, even if it makes them look smarter than Scoble, it completely backfires on them.

    The whole reason that they are here is not because everyone thinks Scoble is an intellectual giant.

    Microsoft is not hated because of its intellectual supremacy.

    Microsoft is hated because many people see it as evil.

    SCoble is not seen as being evil.

    And attacking Scoble’s intelligence by showing how smart they are and making Scoble seem more vulnerable and hurt, is scoring him humanity points every time he loses.

    So go ahead, score some points.

    Make him look incompetent.

    Get Scoble to lose his temper.

    Humiliate him.

    Please your employers with every deft parry and thrust.

    (do you email the comments to accounts payable and get paid for every point scored?)

    But deep down, you know you are allowing your employers to delude themselves in to thinking this is hurting Microsoft.

    You guys are far too smart to be taken in by your own polemic.

    You can make Scoble look silly.

    But evil?

    If you could manage that, then you’d really be earning what they pay you.

    Scoble, if these guys’ employers ever do find out that they are being knowingly cheated and fire them, it’d be worth paying this double act double to come back and carry on.

    You could claim the costs on expenses, Jeff would sign.

    Why?

    You’d get THEM to explain the whole strategy to him, and believe me, these guys are VERY persuasive.

  42. Goebbels and Coulter are probably painfully conscious of the fact that every time they score points against Scoble for logic, style, accuracy, depth of knowledge, lack of insight or whatever, they are having the opposite effect to the one they are being paid to have.

    Robert, despite cheerleading, which is normally a comparatively insensitive activity, is actually an extremely sensitive guy.

    He isn’t very good at point scoring, something Goebbels and Coulter can pull off with matchless panache, time after time.

    The only problem for them, is that, even if it makes them look smarter than Scoble, it completely backfires on them.

    The whole reason that they are here is not because everyone thinks Scoble is an intellectual giant.

    Microsoft is not hated because of its intellectual supremacy.

    Microsoft is hated because many people see it as evil.

    SCoble is not seen as being evil.

    And attacking Scoble’s intelligence by showing how smart they are and making Scoble seem more vulnerable and hurt, is scoring him humanity points every time he loses.

    So go ahead, score some points.

    Make him look incompetent.

    Get Scoble to lose his temper.

    Humiliate him.

    Please your employers with every deft parry and thrust.

    (do you email the comments to accounts payable and get paid for every point scored?)

    But deep down, you know you are allowing your employers to delude themselves in to thinking this is hurting Microsoft.

    You guys are far too smart to be taken in by your own polemic.

    You can make Scoble look silly.

    But evil?

    If you could manage that, then you’d really be earning what they pay you.

    Scoble, if these guys’ employers ever do find out that they are being knowingly cheated and fire them, it’d be worth paying this double act double to come back and carry on.

    You could claim the costs on expenses, Jeff would sign.

    Why?

    You’d get THEM to explain the whole strategy to him, and believe me, these guys are VERY persuasive.

  43. Good point Ricky. I always wonder whether some trolls actually realize that they are making themselves and whatever cause they champion look worse by irrational, often hate-filled posts.

  44. Good point Ricky. I always wonder whether some trolls actually realize that they are making themselves and whatever cause they champion look worse by irrational, often hate-filled posts.

  45. “Goebbels and Coulter are probably painfully conscious of the fact that every time they score points against Scoble for logic, style, accuracy, depth of knowledge, lack of insight or whatever, they are having the opposite effect to the one they are being paid to have.”

    Most of that is right, but you’re painfully deluded if you don’t think I actually think this stuff and do NOT get paid for it.

    “Robert, despite cheerleading, which is normally a comparatively insensitive activity, is actually an extremely sensitive guy.”

    I know: I’ve offered him hugs before.

    “The only problem for them, is that, even if it makes them look smarter than Scoble, it completely backfires on them.”

    You don’t knoe my motivations? Most of the time I’m entertaining myself, and usually, I’m quite successful.

    “The whole reason that they are here is not because everyone thinks Scoble is an intellectual giant.”

    No kidding?!!

    “Microsoft is not hated because of its intellectual supremacy.

    Microsoft is hated because many people see it as evil.”

    Let’s not be so balck-and-white and simplicistic. There are many valid reasons to hate Microsoft. I would never bother listing “evil” as one of them. I’ll leave simplistic moral arguments to George Bush.

    “SCoble is not seen as being evil.”

    Who cares, I’m not a religious nutbag.

    “And attacking Scoble’s intelligence by showing how smart they are and making Scoble seem more vulnerable and hurt, is scoring him humanity points every time he loses.”

    Humanity points? I guess that means he goes to heaven then?

    “Make him look incompetent.”

    Yup

    “Get Scoble to lose his temper.”

    Occasionally. Mostly he runs away and hides now. (Despite proclaiming he wants open conversations.)

    “Humiliate him.”

    Sure, if you think so. Only when Scoble hides do I think he’s humiliated, but if you think so, I guess so.

    “Please your employers with every deft parry and thrust.

    (do you email the comments to accounts payable and get paid for every point scored?)”

    Uh huh. Sure, An Environmental Engineering firm gives a sh1t about Microsoft and Scoble. Hell, I’d bet none of my fellow employees even know what a “Scoble” is.

    “But deep down, you know you are allowing your employers to delude themselves in to thinking this is hurting Microsoft.”

    As I’ve said, my main motivation is to entertain myself. I also enjoy speaing my mind. I’m pretty sure Scoble’s in favor of that.

    “You guys are far too smart to be taken in by your own polemic.”

    I think that’s a compliment (thanks), but really it doesn’t make any sense and I don’t understand it. (In my own polemic? Whatever.)

    “You can make Scoble look silly.”

    I’m glad you agree Scoble looks silly.

    “But evil?”

    What’s your obsession with moral absolutes?

    “If you could manage that, then you’d really be earning what they pay you.”

    I’m pretty sure my employer would be happy with LESS web commentary and surfing. My review’s next week; I’ll ask them.

    “Scoble, if these guys’ employers ever do find out that they are being knowingly cheated and fire them, it’d be worth paying this double act double to come back and carry on.”

    That makes no sense, but whatever. I just wish Scoble would pay up on our bet.

    “You’d get THEM to explain the whole strategy to him, and believe me, these guys are VERY persuasive. ”

    Thanks. I enjoy that you are persuaded, think we’re smart, think we make better points, have good rational arguments but still dismiss us and kiss Scoble’s feet because we’re mean and bad. Boo hoo. I’m really impressed and enjoy meeting people who dismiss well-argued rational arguments in favor of personal niceties.

  46. “Goebbels and Coulter are probably painfully conscious of the fact that every time they score points against Scoble for logic, style, accuracy, depth of knowledge, lack of insight or whatever, they are having the opposite effect to the one they are being paid to have.”

    Most of that is right, but you’re painfully deluded if you don’t think I actually think this stuff and do NOT get paid for it.

    “Robert, despite cheerleading, which is normally a comparatively insensitive activity, is actually an extremely sensitive guy.”

    I know: I’ve offered him hugs before.

    “The only problem for them, is that, even if it makes them look smarter than Scoble, it completely backfires on them.”

    You don’t knoe my motivations? Most of the time I’m entertaining myself, and usually, I’m quite successful.

    “The whole reason that they are here is not because everyone thinks Scoble is an intellectual giant.”

    No kidding?!!

    “Microsoft is not hated because of its intellectual supremacy.

    Microsoft is hated because many people see it as evil.”

    Let’s not be so balck-and-white and simplicistic. There are many valid reasons to hate Microsoft. I would never bother listing “evil” as one of them. I’ll leave simplistic moral arguments to George Bush.

    “SCoble is not seen as being evil.”

    Who cares, I’m not a religious nutbag.

    “And attacking Scoble’s intelligence by showing how smart they are and making Scoble seem more vulnerable and hurt, is scoring him humanity points every time he loses.”

    Humanity points? I guess that means he goes to heaven then?

    “Make him look incompetent.”

    Yup

    “Get Scoble to lose his temper.”

    Occasionally. Mostly he runs away and hides now. (Despite proclaiming he wants open conversations.)

    “Humiliate him.”

    Sure, if you think so. Only when Scoble hides do I think he’s humiliated, but if you think so, I guess so.

    “Please your employers with every deft parry and thrust.

    (do you email the comments to accounts payable and get paid for every point scored?)”

    Uh huh. Sure, An Environmental Engineering firm gives a sh1t about Microsoft and Scoble. Hell, I’d bet none of my fellow employees even know what a “Scoble” is.

    “But deep down, you know you are allowing your employers to delude themselves in to thinking this is hurting Microsoft.”

    As I’ve said, my main motivation is to entertain myself. I also enjoy speaing my mind. I’m pretty sure Scoble’s in favor of that.

    “You guys are far too smart to be taken in by your own polemic.”

    I think that’s a compliment (thanks), but really it doesn’t make any sense and I don’t understand it. (In my own polemic? Whatever.)

    “You can make Scoble look silly.”

    I’m glad you agree Scoble looks silly.

    “But evil?”

    What’s your obsession with moral absolutes?

    “If you could manage that, then you’d really be earning what they pay you.”

    I’m pretty sure my employer would be happy with LESS web commentary and surfing. My review’s next week; I’ll ask them.

    “Scoble, if these guys’ employers ever do find out that they are being knowingly cheated and fire them, it’d be worth paying this double act double to come back and carry on.”

    That makes no sense, but whatever. I just wish Scoble would pay up on our bet.

    “You’d get THEM to explain the whole strategy to him, and believe me, these guys are VERY persuasive. ”

    Thanks. I enjoy that you are persuaded, think we’re smart, think we make better points, have good rational arguments but still dismiss us and kiss Scoble’s feet because we’re mean and bad. Boo hoo. I’m really impressed and enjoy meeting people who dismiss well-argued rational arguments in favor of personal niceties.

  47. Goebbels – he’s using the classic apologist response. “He’s attacking Scoble, so he must be working for a competitor”

    They’ll try to label you as an astroturfer to diminish your message.

  48. Goebbels – he’s using the classic apologist response. “He’s attacking Scoble, so he must be working for a competitor”

    They’ll try to label you as an astroturfer to diminish your message.

  49. “Scoble, if these guys’ employers ever do find out that they are being knowingly cheated and fire them, it’d be worth paying this double act double to come back and carry on.”

    That makes no sense, but whatever.”

    Are you saying it would make no sense for Scoble to pay you to carry on doing what you do here, if you decided to leave us?

    You’re right, it does look like he sometimes runs away and hides from your self-amusement.

    But we’ve seen Scoble do stuff where he doesn’t run and hide.

    Many people here would rather see him run from you than from Ballmer, and he didn’t run.

    The primary aim and content of your posts is ridicule.

    But the problem is that you win so often.

    You are really good at ridicule and mockery (you certainly made me look foolish and gullible, your attack on my overuse of the word ‘evil’ was perfectly apt and well delivered).

    But the paradox is this:

    Mocking the afflicted, if done with sufficient persistence, looks unreasonable.

    It brings sympathy to its victim, whatever their crime.

    Onlookers begin to ignore the victim’s faults and resent the assailant.

    I am sure you have many valuable criticisms of Microsoft and Scoble.

    But without couching them in terms which are at least neutral, rather than self-amusingly provocative, you merely encourage either unhelpful sycophantic support for Scoble’s understandably defensive response, or rabble rousing ‘go-on, kick him while he’s down’ from the likes of Chris.

    Which do you value more, a rational debate (which you are perfectly capable of conducting without trying to stir up unnecessarily emotion) or merely amusing yourself?

    You took care to point out the avoidable ‘personal niceties’, so you do seem to enjoy being taken seriously, amusement notwithstanding.

    Let’s test your desire to run away and hide:

    Let’s have a hyperlink to your environmental engineering firm, so that we can perform some due diligence and discover the source of you insights into how to avoid treating people ‘the Microsoft way’.

    My bet:

    You won’t run, you won’t hide, you’ll give us a perfectly reasonable excuse for hiding your ‘infinitely better than Microsoft’ firm and its ‘smarter than Microsoft’ products and services.

    Please show me up again and prove me wrong, we’ll all learn much more by seeing your employer’s practices than by some of your admittedly impressive fancy verbal footwork.

  50. “Scoble, if these guys’ employers ever do find out that they are being knowingly cheated and fire them, it’d be worth paying this double act double to come back and carry on.”

    That makes no sense, but whatever.”

    Are you saying it would make no sense for Scoble to pay you to carry on doing what you do here, if you decided to leave us?

    You’re right, it does look like he sometimes runs away and hides from your self-amusement.

    But we’ve seen Scoble do stuff where he doesn’t run and hide.

    Many people here would rather see him run from you than from Ballmer, and he didn’t run.

    The primary aim and content of your posts is ridicule.

    But the problem is that you win so often.

    You are really good at ridicule and mockery (you certainly made me look foolish and gullible, your attack on my overuse of the word ‘evil’ was perfectly apt and well delivered).

    But the paradox is this:

    Mocking the afflicted, if done with sufficient persistence, looks unreasonable.

    It brings sympathy to its victim, whatever their crime.

    Onlookers begin to ignore the victim’s faults and resent the assailant.

    I am sure you have many valuable criticisms of Microsoft and Scoble.

    But without couching them in terms which are at least neutral, rather than self-amusingly provocative, you merely encourage either unhelpful sycophantic support for Scoble’s understandably defensive response, or rabble rousing ‘go-on, kick him while he’s down’ from the likes of Chris.

    Which do you value more, a rational debate (which you are perfectly capable of conducting without trying to stir up unnecessarily emotion) or merely amusing yourself?

    You took care to point out the avoidable ‘personal niceties’, so you do seem to enjoy being taken seriously, amusement notwithstanding.

    Let’s test your desire to run away and hide:

    Let’s have a hyperlink to your environmental engineering firm, so that we can perform some due diligence and discover the source of you insights into how to avoid treating people ‘the Microsoft way’.

    My bet:

    You won’t run, you won’t hide, you’ll give us a perfectly reasonable excuse for hiding your ‘infinitely better than Microsoft’ firm and its ‘smarter than Microsoft’ products and services.

    Please show me up again and prove me wrong, we’ll all learn much more by seeing your employer’s practices than by some of your admittedly impressive fancy verbal footwork.

  51. “Mocking the afflicted, if done with sufficient persistence, looks unreasonable.”

    That’s hilarious. “Mocking the afflicted” that’s what we do, Chris! Microsoff — Home of the Afflicted.

    Ha, ha, ha!!! Give me a break!

    “But without couching them in terms which are at least neutral, rather than self-amusingly provocative, you merely encourage either unhelpful sycophantic support for Scoble’s understandably defensive response, or rabble rousing ‘go-on, kick him while he’s down’ from the likes of Chris.”

    You’re calling yourself an unhelpful sycophant? Oh no, don’t do it! Now you’re doing what I do to yourself!

    Ha, ha, ha!

    “You took care to point out the avoidable ‘personal niceties’, so you do seem to enjoy being taken seriously, amusement notwithstanding.”

    I could care less. Come up with pathetic reasons to ignore me, or listen to me. I don’t care.

    “Let’s have a hyperlink to your environmental engineering firm, so that we can perform some due diligence and discover the source of you insights into how to avoid treating people ‘the Microsoft way’.”

    Why would the company I work for be the source of my insights? Sorry, but I’m my own source of my insights. And I could care less about treating people the ‘Microsoft Way.’ Where do people enter my criticisms of Microsofts products, strategies, and business?

    “You won’t run, you won’t hide, you’ll give us a perfectly reasonable excuse for hiding your ‘infinitely better than Microsoft’ firm and its ’smarter than Microsoft’ products and services.”

    I would never and have never suggested my firm is better than Microsoft nor have I said anything about our products. What juvenile little world do you come from where criticism is only valid if you are morally superior?

    I do not believe in openness; Scoble does. I do not believe in pimping my business in a nonsensical way; Scoble does. I do not beleive any of my personal values have anything to do with the business I work for and vice versa; I think Scoble does. I did not create a blog to have an open conversation with the masses of the internet whether critical or not; Scoble did. I believe in anonymity and separation between individual and business; Scoble does not.

    “Please show me up again and prove me wrong”

    Why would I care about proving you wrong? You do that yourself?

    “we’ll all learn much more by seeing your employer’s practices than by some of your admittedly impressive fancy verbal footwork.”

    You’ll learn more about me from knowing about Brownfield Remediation or Geotechnical studies than my own words? Damn you are a strange one!

    Didn’t you call Chris a stalker the other day? Now you want to hunt down my company and learn what they do? Why, little Ricky? “Due diligence” sounds a lot like stalking to me.

  52. “Mocking the afflicted, if done with sufficient persistence, looks unreasonable.”

    That’s hilarious. “Mocking the afflicted” that’s what we do, Chris! Microsoff — Home of the Afflicted.

    Ha, ha, ha!!! Give me a break!

    “But without couching them in terms which are at least neutral, rather than self-amusingly provocative, you merely encourage either unhelpful sycophantic support for Scoble’s understandably defensive response, or rabble rousing ‘go-on, kick him while he’s down’ from the likes of Chris.”

    You’re calling yourself an unhelpful sycophant? Oh no, don’t do it! Now you’re doing what I do to yourself!

    Ha, ha, ha!

    “You took care to point out the avoidable ‘personal niceties’, so you do seem to enjoy being taken seriously, amusement notwithstanding.”

    I could care less. Come up with pathetic reasons to ignore me, or listen to me. I don’t care.

    “Let’s have a hyperlink to your environmental engineering firm, so that we can perform some due diligence and discover the source of you insights into how to avoid treating people ‘the Microsoft way’.”

    Why would the company I work for be the source of my insights? Sorry, but I’m my own source of my insights. And I could care less about treating people the ‘Microsoft Way.’ Where do people enter my criticisms of Microsofts products, strategies, and business?

    “You won’t run, you won’t hide, you’ll give us a perfectly reasonable excuse for hiding your ‘infinitely better than Microsoft’ firm and its ’smarter than Microsoft’ products and services.”

    I would never and have never suggested my firm is better than Microsoft nor have I said anything about our products. What juvenile little world do you come from where criticism is only valid if you are morally superior?

    I do not believe in openness; Scoble does. I do not believe in pimping my business in a nonsensical way; Scoble does. I do not beleive any of my personal values have anything to do with the business I work for and vice versa; I think Scoble does. I did not create a blog to have an open conversation with the masses of the internet whether critical or not; Scoble did. I believe in anonymity and separation between individual and business; Scoble does not.

    “Please show me up again and prove me wrong”

    Why would I care about proving you wrong? You do that yourself?

    “we’ll all learn much more by seeing your employer’s practices than by some of your admittedly impressive fancy verbal footwork.”

    You’ll learn more about me from knowing about Brownfield Remediation or Geotechnical studies than my own words? Damn you are a strange one!

    Didn’t you call Chris a stalker the other day? Now you want to hunt down my company and learn what they do? Why, little Ricky? “Due diligence” sounds a lot like stalking to me.

  53. Oh, i skipped over most of the beginning of your post because it wasn mostly praise for me mixed with nonsense, but this:

    “The primary aim and content of your posts is ridicule.”

    Actually, no. The primary aim of my post is logical and reasonable debate. Because Scoble tends to run away or talk in circles and people like you prefer to attack me rather than my ideas, yes, I pepper my posts with humor and , yes, when Scoble continues to make the same foolish mistakes over and over, some ridicule.

    If you’d like to engage me in a rational debate of ideas rather than petty and pointless insults, you might find that I wouldn’t have to point out how idiotic your insults are. If…

  54. Oh, i skipped over most of the beginning of your post because it wasn mostly praise for me mixed with nonsense, but this:

    “The primary aim and content of your posts is ridicule.”

    Actually, no. The primary aim of my post is logical and reasonable debate. Because Scoble tends to run away or talk in circles and people like you prefer to attack me rather than my ideas, yes, I pepper my posts with humor and , yes, when Scoble continues to make the same foolish mistakes over and over, some ridicule.

    If you’d like to engage me in a rational debate of ideas rather than petty and pointless insults, you might find that I wouldn’t have to point out how idiotic your insults are. If…

  55. It’s not just his impressive fancy verbal footwork, it’s Gobbels impressive fancy thoughtwork.

    But the ‘working for a competitor’ conspiracy theory is always overdone; a nice easy fallback that need not deal with complexities and extenuating circumstances. And then the labels…”astroturfer”, “trolls” — label it, easy to dimiss. The old classic, “Conversations” when you agree, “Mudpit” when you don’t. Hey, with “Naked Conversations” you present yourself in the raw, there will be people pointing out that indeed ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’. When they named that book, I thought it was actually quite apt, ‘The Emperor Naked as All Out, Having a Conversation’. They want the conversations, the Brave New Worlds, with none of the problems or critics. You can’t play that game. So key is to dismiss “you just don’t get it” and label-away all critics as “trolls”.

    If you want to debate Gobbels, get to substance, an emotional plea or sheer idiotic comment, will get a similar retort. Hey, I got my well-deserved share in my blind-idealist Tablet PC era (a big Microsoft letdown, geeeee what a surprise). But thing is, Scoble is perfectly ready-made for ironic sarcasm as he’s so Gillmor-Winer-New-Agey-Meme-Spacey far-out-there. It’s pre-cooked and ready-to-microwave for pure parody. But even that’s lost, as he can’t really verbally fence and wit back, missing the rich satire.

    Have any effect? It really phazes Scoble not, blogging got him his “glory”, and anything else is merely a minor pebble along the road, lest you think it troubles him. And if it does, it’s a fleeting thought, onto the next extreme ADD, Microsoft-email info-overload, newly buzzworded meme or new technobabble buzz, or Blogger Conference or Geek invite-only “Pat Self on Back” Fest or start-up Launch Party. Speaking my mind, is about all I can hope for, and Gobbels and John Welch speak so much better than I, even so.

  56. It’s not just his impressive fancy verbal footwork, it’s Gobbels impressive fancy thoughtwork.

    But the ‘working for a competitor’ conspiracy theory is always overdone; a nice easy fallback that need not deal with complexities and extenuating circumstances. And then the labels…”astroturfer”, “trolls” — label it, easy to dimiss. The old classic, “Conversations” when you agree, “Mudpit” when you don’t. Hey, with “Naked Conversations” you present yourself in the raw, there will be people pointing out that indeed ‘The Emperor Has No Clothes’. When they named that book, I thought it was actually quite apt, ‘The Emperor Naked as All Out, Having a Conversation’. They want the conversations, the Brave New Worlds, with none of the problems or critics. You can’t play that game. So key is to dismiss “you just don’t get it” and label-away all critics as “trolls”.

    If you want to debate Gobbels, get to substance, an emotional plea or sheer idiotic comment, will get a similar retort. Hey, I got my well-deserved share in my blind-idealist Tablet PC era (a big Microsoft letdown, geeeee what a surprise). But thing is, Scoble is perfectly ready-made for ironic sarcasm as he’s so Gillmor-Winer-New-Agey-Meme-Spacey far-out-there. It’s pre-cooked and ready-to-microwave for pure parody. But even that’s lost, as he can’t really verbally fence and wit back, missing the rich satire.

    Have any effect? It really phazes Scoble not, blogging got him his “glory”, and anything else is merely a minor pebble along the road, lest you think it troubles him. And if it does, it’s a fleeting thought, onto the next extreme ADD, Microsoft-email info-overload, newly buzzworded meme or new technobabble buzz, or Blogger Conference or Geek invite-only “Pat Self on Back” Fest or start-up Launch Party. Speaking my mind, is about all I can hope for, and Gobbels and John Welch speak so much better than I, even so.

  57. Heh… Scoble’s given up preaching the whole tablet thing for a while. Now he’s on the web 2.0 kick! :)

    But then again, whenever someone trashes Web 2.0, he’s there with his “but I’d pay for a Windows version that lives in my toolbar and polishes my tablet!”. I think we’re dealing with a schizophreniac, or bunch of people pretending to be scoble. How can one man sway with the breeze of the day so well?

  58. Heh… Scoble’s given up preaching the whole tablet thing for a while. Now he’s on the web 2.0 kick! :)

    But then again, whenever someone trashes Web 2.0, he’s there with his “but I’d pay for a Windows version that lives in my toolbar and polishes my tablet!”. I think we’re dealing with a schizophreniac, or bunch of people pretending to be scoble. How can one man sway with the breeze of the day so well?

  59. So, when all the hubris dies down, when all the unrealistic stuff has fallen by the wayside, have you got any ideas about what will really change, or which things will stay the same, or which things will return to an earlier state?

    What fundamental new ideas (unlike any of this other pseudo-innovative nonsense) do you have?

    Goebbels says he doesn’t believe in openness.

    But the part of his posting where he said this was actually the most refreshingly candid expression of his views that I have seen so far.

    You and he are probably bristling with new ideas, something one can tell about you simply by your being able to pinpoint exactly what Microsoft gets wrong so often.

    Don’t let him hold you back.

    Go on, don’t let Microsoft get away with looking ‘open’ by comparison with you.

  60. So, when all the hubris dies down, when all the unrealistic stuff has fallen by the wayside, have you got any ideas about what will really change, or which things will stay the same, or which things will return to an earlier state?

    What fundamental new ideas (unlike any of this other pseudo-innovative nonsense) do you have?

    Goebbels says he doesn’t believe in openness.

    But the part of his posting where he said this was actually the most refreshingly candid expression of his views that I have seen so far.

    You and he are probably bristling with new ideas, something one can tell about you simply by your being able to pinpoint exactly what Microsoft gets wrong so often.

    Don’t let him hold you back.

    Go on, don’t let Microsoft get away with looking ‘open’ by comparison with you.

  61. Wow – more religious wrangling with/against Scoble rather than focusing on the real issues at hand. Here are a few things to think about, like them or not.

    One, Microsoft is the most influential company in the computer technology world, bar none. Most influential does not translate to “smartest” or “most innovative” on every topic, or every day, but by and large if you don’t think they’re the most influential, then fill the crack pipe again and smoke on.

    Two, services make absolute sense in conjunction with a modular operating system, and/or modular applications, and/or modular components that make up applications. If you don’t believe that, see the point above about the crack pipe and join the fun.

    Three, Microsoft has the wherewithal to win in the spaces they make “big bets” on. They’re incredibly well funded (hey, anyone else have $40B or so laying around, and how big a pile of cash is that, anyway?), their research organization is world-class, and they have a machine to move research to product to revenue to profit.

    Bash Scoble if you like – I guess that’s kind of fashionable. But if you haven’t seen this focus coming you haven’t been paying attention. You don’t have to be there first to win, and in many cases not being first helps you win. In the game of sofware-as-service meets components-as-application, Microsoft will drive the market. Maybe THAT’s the definition of winning… ever think of that?

  62. Wow – more religious wrangling with/against Scoble rather than focusing on the real issues at hand. Here are a few things to think about, like them or not.

    One, Microsoft is the most influential company in the computer technology world, bar none. Most influential does not translate to “smartest” or “most innovative” on every topic, or every day, but by and large if you don’t think they’re the most influential, then fill the crack pipe again and smoke on.

    Two, services make absolute sense in conjunction with a modular operating system, and/or modular applications, and/or modular components that make up applications. If you don’t believe that, see the point above about the crack pipe and join the fun.

    Three, Microsoft has the wherewithal to win in the spaces they make “big bets” on. They’re incredibly well funded (hey, anyone else have $40B or so laying around, and how big a pile of cash is that, anyway?), their research organization is world-class, and they have a machine to move research to product to revenue to profit.

    Bash Scoble if you like – I guess that’s kind of fashionable. But if you haven’t seen this focus coming you haven’t been paying attention. You don’t have to be there first to win, and in many cases not being first helps you win. In the game of sofware-as-service meets components-as-application, Microsoft will drive the market. Maybe THAT’s the definition of winning… ever think of that?

  63. “You and he are probably bristling with new ideas, something one can tell about you simply by your being able to pinpoint exactly what Microsoft gets wrong so often.

    Don’t let him hold you back.”

    Scoble’s not holding me back, but you are insanely delusional if you think I have any interest in sharing my ideas with Microsoft.

    “Go on, don’t let Microsoft get away with looking ‘open’ by comparison with you.”

    Why? Firstly, Microsoft doesn’t look ‘open’ to me; they look like the same old Microsoft who jumped on the blog bandwagon and who have a marketing guy spouting crap that will never affect the actual product design and business decisions. And secondly, did you miss the part where I said I don’t give a sh!t about looking open?

  64. “You and he are probably bristling with new ideas, something one can tell about you simply by your being able to pinpoint exactly what Microsoft gets wrong so often.

    Don’t let him hold you back.”

    Scoble’s not holding me back, but you are insanely delusional if you think I have any interest in sharing my ideas with Microsoft.

    “Go on, don’t let Microsoft get away with looking ‘open’ by comparison with you.”

    Why? Firstly, Microsoft doesn’t look ‘open’ to me; they look like the same old Microsoft who jumped on the blog bandwagon and who have a marketing guy spouting crap that will never affect the actual product design and business decisions. And secondly, did you miss the part where I said I don’t give a sh!t about looking open?

  65. Scoble – Devil’s Henchman or Devil’s Advocate?

    Wow – more religious wrangling with/against Scoble rather than focusing on the real issues at hand… Bash Scoble if you like – I guess that’s kind of fashionable. But if you haven’t seen this focus coming you haven’t been paying attention. You don’t…

  66. “Most influential does not translate to “smartest” or “most innovative” on every topic, or every day, but by and large if you don’t think they’re the most influential, then fill the crack pipe again and smoke on.”

    Nope, I don’t think they’re the most influential. Most used maybe. Maybe they are the most influenced as well, but nope, not most influential.

    “Two, services make absolute sense in conjunction with a modular operating system, and/or modular applications, and/or modular components that make up applications.”

    I haven’t seen anyone argue to the contrary. We’ve argued that Microsoft is onwilling to risk its core business, that they don’t have particular strengths in these areas, that they have been following other better-executing companies, that they will in all likelihood create products bound or restricted by their existing products, etc…

    “Three, Microsoft has the wherewithal to win in the spaces they make “big bets” on.”

    Because they did it once with a browser? Nope, sorry, I disagree. They’ve been spinning their wheels for over 5 years.

    “They’re incredibly well funded (hey, anyone else have $40B or so laying around, and how big a pile of cash is that, anyway?)”

    Again, support Microsoft because they’ve got lots of cash. I don’t see a logical argument. That’s like saying Ross Perot should have been President because he had the most money.

    “their research organization is world-class”

    So what? About .0001% of that research has made it to product stage.

    “they have a machine to move research to product to revenue to profit.”

    Tell me which of these research projects have made it to the product stage? Go ahead… I won’t even ask you for the ones which are profitable.

    “Bash Scoble if you like – I guess that’s kind of fashionable.”

    Ignore the fact that I’ve made numerous points if you like — I guess that’s fashionable.

    “But if you haven’t seen this focus coming you haven’t been paying attention.”

    I can’t believe you claim there is any focus at all.

    “You don’t have to be there first to win, and in many cases not being first helps you win. ”

    I’d be happy if they just showed up at all at the starting line, rather than ripping pieces of MSN and rebranding it and claiming there’s tons of great stuff hidden in the basement.

    “In the game of sofware-as-service meets components-as-application, Microsoft will drive the market.”

    According to you. So far I only see them following, and I expect to see more of it for a long time.

    “Maybe THAT’s the definition of winning… ever think of that?”

    You can define success however you want, but that will only impress you. As I said, I’ll simply be happy when I actually see something worth using rather than reading the latest technobabble.

  67. “Most influential does not translate to “smartest” or “most innovative” on every topic, or every day, but by and large if you don’t think they’re the most influential, then fill the crack pipe again and smoke on.”

    Nope, I don’t think they’re the most influential. Most used maybe. Maybe they are the most influenced as well, but nope, not most influential.

    “Two, services make absolute sense in conjunction with a modular operating system, and/or modular applications, and/or modular components that make up applications.”

    I haven’t seen anyone argue to the contrary. We’ve argued that Microsoft is onwilling to risk its core business, that they don’t have particular strengths in these areas, that they have been following other better-executing companies, that they will in all likelihood create products bound or restricted by their existing products, etc…

    “Three, Microsoft has the wherewithal to win in the spaces they make “big bets” on.”

    Because they did it once with a browser? Nope, sorry, I disagree. They’ve been spinning their wheels for over 5 years.

    “They’re incredibly well funded (hey, anyone else have $40B or so laying around, and how big a pile of cash is that, anyway?)”

    Again, support Microsoft because they’ve got lots of cash. I don’t see a logical argument. That’s like saying Ross Perot should have been President because he had the most money.

    “their research organization is world-class”

    So what? About .0001% of that research has made it to product stage.

    “they have a machine to move research to product to revenue to profit.”

    Tell me which of these research projects have made it to the product stage? Go ahead… I won’t even ask you for the ones which are profitable.

    “Bash Scoble if you like – I guess that’s kind of fashionable.”

    Ignore the fact that I’ve made numerous points if you like — I guess that’s fashionable.

    “But if you haven’t seen this focus coming you haven’t been paying attention.”

    I can’t believe you claim there is any focus at all.

    “You don’t have to be there first to win, and in many cases not being first helps you win. ”

    I’d be happy if they just showed up at all at the starting line, rather than ripping pieces of MSN and rebranding it and claiming there’s tons of great stuff hidden in the basement.

    “In the game of sofware-as-service meets components-as-application, Microsoft will drive the market.”

    According to you. So far I only see them following, and I expect to see more of it for a long time.

    “Maybe THAT’s the definition of winning… ever think of that?”

    You can define success however you want, but that will only impress you. As I said, I’ll simply be happy when I actually see something worth using rather than reading the latest technobabble.

  68. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A perfect example is when someone is labeled as a troll, a fool, a lunatic, a competitor.

    Goebbels has been a target of fallacious logic. But his arguments are usually fallacious as well so he can’t complain, really. I am not in awe of his intellect or verbal (ab)use. I might be if he would get his logic straight.

    Goebbels:

    I said “That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.”

    You said “So trust is an issue? Great refutation. I never said trust was the only issue.”

    And just like that you committed a correlative based fallacy. I never said trust WASN’T an issue. I said that trust is NOT MANDATORY in a relationship although such relationships are often pretty unsound and easily corruptible. Choosing to go with “a lesser evil” does not translate into trust. You translated such a choice into trust when you answered Scoble in comment number 5 when you said:

    “…Which means trust, which means your lame, circular attempt to dismiss the trust question does not work and was transparently lame from the get go.”

    I said “Anyway – It’s funny how these MS memos have disrupted the entire industry in just a couple of days.”

    You said “I don’t see anyone “disrupted” by this memo at all. (Can we stop throwing around that word by the way?) A bunch of RSS wonks and media “analysts” “discussing” it is not “DISRUPTION.” Google hasn’t changed their palns, Yahoo hasn’t changed their plans, no one has changed their plans or sees the world differently.”

    I will accept that the word “Disruption” is probably overused these days (although your comment on my use of the word is a little bit of a Red Herring). But it is a beautiful word. It is also a word that implies scale. Disruption doesn’t have to automatically take the form of an earthquake. In my view the memos have shaken the industry. I know more then a couple of CEOs that have read them and take them pretty seriously. We are also discussing them here. They’re being discussed. And I dare question that your eyes are all seeing – through the walls of Google, Yahoo and other companies. I am pretty sure that you have no knowledge of whether these companies are changing their plans in light of those memos. You have no idea if those memos will become a catalyst of change or not.

    And by including that nifty “no one” in your last sentence you managed to introduce yet another fallacious argument. It is simply a meaningless statement because it is total and absolute and, therefore, wrong.

    J#

  69. Ad hominem is a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. A perfect example is when someone is labeled as a troll, a fool, a lunatic, a competitor.

    Goebbels has been a target of fallacious logic. But his arguments are usually fallacious as well so he can’t complain, really. I am not in awe of his intellect or verbal (ab)use. I might be if he would get his logic straight.

    Goebbels:

    I said “That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.”

    You said “So trust is an issue? Great refutation. I never said trust was the only issue.”

    And just like that you committed a correlative based fallacy. I never said trust WASN’T an issue. I said that trust is NOT MANDATORY in a relationship although such relationships are often pretty unsound and easily corruptible. Choosing to go with “a lesser evil” does not translate into trust. You translated such a choice into trust when you answered Scoble in comment number 5 when you said:

    “…Which means trust, which means your lame, circular attempt to dismiss the trust question does not work and was transparently lame from the get go.”

    I said “Anyway – It’s funny how these MS memos have disrupted the entire industry in just a couple of days.”

    You said “I don’t see anyone “disrupted” by this memo at all. (Can we stop throwing around that word by the way?) A bunch of RSS wonks and media “analysts” “discussing” it is not “DISRUPTION.” Google hasn’t changed their palns, Yahoo hasn’t changed their plans, no one has changed their plans or sees the world differently.”

    I will accept that the word “Disruption” is probably overused these days (although your comment on my use of the word is a little bit of a Red Herring). But it is a beautiful word. It is also a word that implies scale. Disruption doesn’t have to automatically take the form of an earthquake. In my view the memos have shaken the industry. I know more then a couple of CEOs that have read them and take them pretty seriously. We are also discussing them here. They’re being discussed. And I dare question that your eyes are all seeing – through the walls of Google, Yahoo and other companies. I am pretty sure that you have no knowledge of whether these companies are changing their plans in light of those memos. You have no idea if those memos will become a catalyst of change or not.

    And by including that nifty “no one” in your last sentence you managed to introduce yet another fallacious argument. It is simply a meaningless statement because it is total and absolute and, therefore, wrong.

    J#

  70. Jonas, you can throw around “fallacious” all you want. Scoble said the trust question is irrelevant, that it does not need to be asked. I never said it was a primary issue; I said it would always be an issue. Scoble made circle arguments making it clear that it was a factor. You tried to create a hypothetical that vacated the trust issue, but then you reinjected it by stating, but then someone could come along you trust more. (Paraphrase) i.e. Neither you or Scoble have eliminated the trust issue. Thus, it is a valid question to ask. YOU can claim that you can create a hypothetical where trust is irrelevant, but in my mind, and in 99.9999% of the real world trust is ALWAYS an issue no matter how big or small. I’m sorry if I didn’t break that down for you initially, but I did think you pretty much proved my point for me when you reinjected trust back into immediately after saying it was irrelevant.

    As for claiming it’s a fallacy to say that no one is disrupted by the memos: sorry, you’re far from proving anything. If you want to be narrowminded and interpret generalization or hyperbole as an absolute statement, go ahead. If you’d like me to restate:

    No one (within the tech industry that will be significant players in this marketplace or Microsoft’s customers at large or other vast quantities of people throughout the world but not specifically no one to ever have lived) is disrupted (i.e. the term which marketing wanks use to refer to a paradigmatic shift in the industry which causes competitors to reconsider their strategies and change course and which changes the fundamental conversation or vocabulary within the market) by these memos.

    You can still disagree with that if you’d like, but in general, I would say that’s a fairly accurate statement. Particularly when you have people saying things like: no kidding that’s what we’re doing, this is a re-baked version of their strategy from 5 years ago with a little bit ripped off from Google, or even people like Scoble saying, there are hundreds of small companies working on this or we’ve had lots of this stuff in our basement for years.

    So go ahead: say something as juveline as: because you said “no one” your statement means nothing, I can’t possibly see what you are saying about the general industry and climate… clearly you must referring to absolutelyt everyone.

  71. Jonas, you can throw around “fallacious” all you want. Scoble said the trust question is irrelevant, that it does not need to be asked. I never said it was a primary issue; I said it would always be an issue. Scoble made circle arguments making it clear that it was a factor. You tried to create a hypothetical that vacated the trust issue, but then you reinjected it by stating, but then someone could come along you trust more. (Paraphrase) i.e. Neither you or Scoble have eliminated the trust issue. Thus, it is a valid question to ask. YOU can claim that you can create a hypothetical where trust is irrelevant, but in my mind, and in 99.9999% of the real world trust is ALWAYS an issue no matter how big or small. I’m sorry if I didn’t break that down for you initially, but I did think you pretty much proved my point for me when you reinjected trust back into immediately after saying it was irrelevant.

    As for claiming it’s a fallacy to say that no one is disrupted by the memos: sorry, you’re far from proving anything. If you want to be narrowminded and interpret generalization or hyperbole as an absolute statement, go ahead. If you’d like me to restate:

    No one (within the tech industry that will be significant players in this marketplace or Microsoft’s customers at large or other vast quantities of people throughout the world but not specifically no one to ever have lived) is disrupted (i.e. the term which marketing wanks use to refer to a paradigmatic shift in the industry which causes competitors to reconsider their strategies and change course and which changes the fundamental conversation or vocabulary within the market) by these memos.

    You can still disagree with that if you’d like, but in general, I would say that’s a fairly accurate statement. Particularly when you have people saying things like: no kidding that’s what we’re doing, this is a re-baked version of their strategy from 5 years ago with a little bit ripped off from Google, or even people like Scoble saying, there are hundreds of small companies working on this or we’ve had lots of this stuff in our basement for years.

    So go ahead: say something as juveline as: because you said “no one” your statement means nothing, I can’t possibly see what you are saying about the general industry and climate… clearly you must referring to absolutelyt everyone.

  72. My comment about having $40B (yes, that’s “B” as in “Billion”) wasn’t about worshiping MS because they have it, its a cold, hard reality of the marketplace. Buy it or build it, whichever they choose, they have the cash and the talent to do so and then monetize the crap out of it. Wait – that’s the part where some will start crying again/more about how unfair that is, or how they’re wielding their monopoly.

  73. My comment about having $40B (yes, that’s “B” as in “Billion”) wasn’t about worshiping MS because they have it, its a cold, hard reality of the marketplace. Buy it or build it, whichever they choose, they have the cash and the talent to do so and then monetize the crap out of it. Wait – that’s the part where some will start crying again/more about how unfair that is, or how they’re wielding their monopoly.

  74. …the term which marketing wanks use to refer to a paradigmatic shift in the industry which causes competitors to reconsider their strategies and change course and which changes the fundamental conversation or vocabulary within the market

    Too phazed out on a plot “glitch” (or rather forced change) in a script to much bother, so Scoble will have his rest. But wow. The Pulitzer Prize for Blog Commenting goes to…Goebbels.

  75. …the term which marketing wanks use to refer to a paradigmatic shift in the industry which causes competitors to reconsider their strategies and change course and which changes the fundamental conversation or vocabulary within the market

    Too phazed out on a plot “glitch” (or rather forced change) in a script to much bother, so Scoble will have his rest. But wow. The Pulitzer Prize for Blog Commenting goes to…Goebbels.

  76. Goebbels, I’m sure I speak for most adults when I say, “You have waaaay too much time on your hands, kid.”

    And the rest of you . . . don’t feed the trolls. They’ll only get bigger and uglier. Isn’t that self-evident?

  77. Goebbels, I’m sure I speak for most adults when I say, “You have waaaay too much time on your hands, kid.”

    And the rest of you . . . don’t feed the trolls. They’ll only get bigger and uglier. Isn’t that self-evident?

  78. Goebbles: I regret having entered into this dialogue with you. I thought you wanted to argue your case with logic. You have asked others to do so even to the point of insulting them because, in your view, their comments were void of logic or conclusion. I now understand that this is not your intent at all as you seem to have no tolerance for your own illogical arguments. You take offence, you bristle, and you attack the person – at hominem abusive.

    This will be my final answer to you since I find it futile to argue with you. Without a doubt you will answer this comment by tearing it apart, attacking me, twisting my words around, maybe trying to prove to yourself (and others) that you are somehow mentally superior, witty and clever (which you well might be although I feel that if that’s the case you are not showing us your best side). I do not have the time to argue in this manner and I do not find any pleasure in it. I have no desire to “win” or humiliate you. In my view you have already humiliated yourself but individual readers will have to draw their own conclusions from reading these comments.

    Regarding the issue of trust: Scoble never said trust was irrelevant. You interpreted that from his words but never did he say it was irrelevant. He said that the question of “why should you trust Microsoft?” was the wrong one to ask. That he wouldn’t apply trust as a metric. He would not trust anyone. He would not base his conclusion on trust.

    Then you attacked Scoble for using a circular reference to trust where he allegedly deemed it irrelevant in the context of, in this case, vendor relationships (although he didn’t) but applied it as a major factor when it came to product, in this case an API. I fail to see how this is a circular reference when trust is applied to two different things. I can choose not to trust Microsoft but I do trust some of their products – at least enough to have them running under some of my more Mission Critical systems. I can choose not to trust Microsoft although I do trust most of their APIs. I trust that they provide me with accurate behavior. So I can choose an API I trust from a vendor I do not trust. It is funny how that works. Anyway, it completely discards your claim that Scoble used a circular argument. You, on the other hand, juxtaposed his writing to create an inconsistent comparison.

    And you did not claim that “trust would always be an issue”. Let’s recap.

    Scoble: “At some point you have to go for the lesser of three evils if you want to use a Map on your site, though.”

    Goebbels: Which means trust, which means your lame, circular attempt to dismiss the trust question, does not work and was transparently lame from the get go. I know. You didn’t have to clarify that to me.

    And that is where you are wrong. It seems petty clear to me that you are implying that a selection of a single choice from a group of three “evils” must be based on trust. If that is indeed your implication then it can be concluded that trust is the primary issue of concern since your interpretation of choice means trust. Your argument leaves no room for a relationship that is forged on something other than trust. Stockholm syndrome is an interpretation of a relationship that is void of all trust when it is initially forged.

    I called you on this earlier by saying that you were wrong on the trust issue. I then said that rust is not mandatory in a relationship although relationships that are void of trust are often pretty unsound and easily corruptible. Choosing to go with “a lesser evil” does not translate into trust. It translates into a need that supersedes trust as a basis of the relationship. That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.

    You paraphrased. You twisted my words. You make a fallacious argument which is based on your misinterpretation. By paraphrasing my point into “but then someone could come along you trust more” you imply that I injected trust as a factor in the forging of the initial relationship. I used the term “more trustworthy” – more worthy of trust – that implies that either there is little or no trust in the initial relationship but trust can, indeed, become a factor. Never did I, or Scoble, disregard the fact that trust was an issue. I disregarded the fact that it was a primacy issue of such consequence that a relationship could not be formed without trust.

    Let’s return to my initial example. I might have two possible vendors. I trust one of them and distrust the other. I still choose to form a relationship with the one I distrust because I feel that I will have more control over my relationship with him. I also feel that his products are better, even if I distrust the vendor. I also base my choice on the fact that by forging a relationship with a vendor I do not completely trust I might be able to keep a closer eye on him. So “why trust Microsoft?” Who cares? Base your choice on whatever parameter you like but do not impose it as an absolute to every relationship.

    And now for some fun:

    “Jonas, you can throw around “fallacious” all you want.” – Ad hominem

    “YOU can claim that you can create a hypothetical where trust is irrelevant, but in my mind, and in 99.9999% of the real world trust is ALWAYS an issue no matter how big or small.” – Argumentum ad populum. You cannot draw a logical conclusion based on your own biased view.

    “but I did think you pretty much proved my point for me when you reinjected trust back into immediately after saying it was irrelevant.” – Intentional fallacy, misleading vividness, special pleading. I never re-injected but your paraphrase surely did. I also never said it was irrelevant so there is another paraphrase that just happens to support your own “logic”.

    “As for claiming it’s a fallacy to say that no one is disrupted by the memos: sorry, you’re far from proving anything. ” – Wrong conclusion. I wasn’t trying to prove anything. I was simply making a point. By injecting an absolute based on your own belief (Argumentum ad populum) your statement became fallacious. For example, I am disrupted. I am a decision maker. Therefore I single-handedly discard your claim. A focus shift of the biggest IT Company in the world causes disruption. And again, disruption is linked with scale. It is a relative term. This has disrupted you because you are wasting time writing about it. Still – your “restated” explanation is much better then the original “no one is disrupted” claim. Thank you.

    “So go ahead: say something as juveline as: because you said “no one” your statement means nothing, I can’t possibly see what you are saying about the general industry and climate… clearly you must referring to absolutelyt everyone.” – Ad hominem abusive spiced with a little bit of “appeal to ridicule”. Good. Nice touch to call me juveline (whatever that means – English isn’t my native language so what do I know ;-). I’ll take it as a compliment. Just as long as you don’t claim I’m juvenile.

    Anyway. To the core issue.

    From where I am standing I am looking forward to see just how much of a shift these memos represent when it comes to Microsoft’s core business and their fundamental ideas of how to do business. I think people are watching them more closely now then before. I do think that the memos were “leaked” on purpose but then again, there is nothing wrong with that. Its a nice way to send the message. Cheap, easy and effective.

    J#

  79. Goebbles: I regret having entered into this dialogue with you. I thought you wanted to argue your case with logic. You have asked others to do so even to the point of insulting them because, in your view, their comments were void of logic or conclusion. I now understand that this is not your intent at all as you seem to have no tolerance for your own illogical arguments. You take offence, you bristle, and you attack the person – at hominem abusive.

    This will be my final answer to you since I find it futile to argue with you. Without a doubt you will answer this comment by tearing it apart, attacking me, twisting my words around, maybe trying to prove to yourself (and others) that you are somehow mentally superior, witty and clever (which you well might be although I feel that if that’s the case you are not showing us your best side). I do not have the time to argue in this manner and I do not find any pleasure in it. I have no desire to “win” or humiliate you. In my view you have already humiliated yourself but individual readers will have to draw their own conclusions from reading these comments.

    Regarding the issue of trust: Scoble never said trust was irrelevant. You interpreted that from his words but never did he say it was irrelevant. He said that the question of “why should you trust Microsoft?” was the wrong one to ask. That he wouldn’t apply trust as a metric. He would not trust anyone. He would not base his conclusion on trust.

    Then you attacked Scoble for using a circular reference to trust where he allegedly deemed it irrelevant in the context of, in this case, vendor relationships (although he didn’t) but applied it as a major factor when it came to product, in this case an API. I fail to see how this is a circular reference when trust is applied to two different things. I can choose not to trust Microsoft but I do trust some of their products – at least enough to have them running under some of my more Mission Critical systems. I can choose not to trust Microsoft although I do trust most of their APIs. I trust that they provide me with accurate behavior. So I can choose an API I trust from a vendor I do not trust. It is funny how that works. Anyway, it completely discards your claim that Scoble used a circular argument. You, on the other hand, juxtaposed his writing to create an inconsistent comparison.

    And you did not claim that “trust would always be an issue”. Let’s recap.

    Scoble: “At some point you have to go for the lesser of three evils if you want to use a Map on your site, though.”

    Goebbels: Which means trust, which means your lame, circular attempt to dismiss the trust question, does not work and was transparently lame from the get go. I know. You didn’t have to clarify that to me.

    And that is where you are wrong. It seems petty clear to me that you are implying that a selection of a single choice from a group of three “evils” must be based on trust. If that is indeed your implication then it can be concluded that trust is the primary issue of concern since your interpretation of choice means trust. Your argument leaves no room for a relationship that is forged on something other than trust. Stockholm syndrome is an interpretation of a relationship that is void of all trust when it is initially forged.

    I called you on this earlier by saying that you were wrong on the trust issue. I then said that rust is not mandatory in a relationship although relationships that are void of trust are often pretty unsound and easily corruptible. Choosing to go with “a lesser evil” does not translate into trust. It translates into a need that supersedes trust as a basis of the relationship. That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.

    You paraphrased. You twisted my words. You make a fallacious argument which is based on your misinterpretation. By paraphrasing my point into “but then someone could come along you trust more” you imply that I injected trust as a factor in the forging of the initial relationship. I used the term “more trustworthy” – more worthy of trust – that implies that either there is little or no trust in the initial relationship but trust can, indeed, become a factor. Never did I, or Scoble, disregard the fact that trust was an issue. I disregarded the fact that it was a primacy issue of such consequence that a relationship could not be formed without trust.

    Let’s return to my initial example. I might have two possible vendors. I trust one of them and distrust the other. I still choose to form a relationship with the one I distrust because I feel that I will have more control over my relationship with him. I also feel that his products are better, even if I distrust the vendor. I also base my choice on the fact that by forging a relationship with a vendor I do not completely trust I might be able to keep a closer eye on him. So “why trust Microsoft?” Who cares? Base your choice on whatever parameter you like but do not impose it as an absolute to every relationship.

    And now for some fun:

    “Jonas, you can throw around “fallacious” all you want.” – Ad hominem

    “YOU can claim that you can create a hypothetical where trust is irrelevant, but in my mind, and in 99.9999% of the real world trust is ALWAYS an issue no matter how big or small.” – Argumentum ad populum. You cannot draw a logical conclusion based on your own biased view.

    “but I did think you pretty much proved my point for me when you reinjected trust back into immediately after saying it was irrelevant.” – Intentional fallacy, misleading vividness, special pleading. I never re-injected but your paraphrase surely did. I also never said it was irrelevant so there is another paraphrase that just happens to support your own “logic”.

    “As for claiming it’s a fallacy to say that no one is disrupted by the memos: sorry, you’re far from proving anything. ” – Wrong conclusion. I wasn’t trying to prove anything. I was simply making a point. By injecting an absolute based on your own belief (Argumentum ad populum) your statement became fallacious. For example, I am disrupted. I am a decision maker. Therefore I single-handedly discard your claim. A focus shift of the biggest IT Company in the world causes disruption. And again, disruption is linked with scale. It is a relative term. This has disrupted you because you are wasting time writing about it. Still – your “restated” explanation is much better then the original “no one is disrupted” claim. Thank you.

    “So go ahead: say something as juveline as: because you said “no one” your statement means nothing, I can’t possibly see what you are saying about the general industry and climate… clearly you must referring to absolutelyt everyone.” – Ad hominem abusive spiced with a little bit of “appeal to ridicule”. Good. Nice touch to call me juveline (whatever that means – English isn’t my native language so what do I know ;-). I’ll take it as a compliment. Just as long as you don’t claim I’m juvenile.

    Anyway. To the core issue.

    From where I am standing I am looking forward to see just how much of a shift these memos represent when it comes to Microsoft’s core business and their fundamental ideas of how to do business. I think people are watching them more closely now then before. I do think that the memos were “leaked” on purpose but then again, there is nothing wrong with that. Its a nice way to send the message. Cheap, easy and effective.

    J#

  80. “I do not have the time to argue in this manner”

    You’ve posted a rather long post though…

    “Regarding the issue of trust: Scoble never said trust was irrelevant. You interpreted that from his words but never did he say it was irrelevant. He said that the question of “why should you trust Microsoft?” was the wrong one to ask. That he wouldn’t apply trust as a metric. He would not trust anyone. He would not base his conclusion on trust.”

    And this is where you miss my point on two levels. I am saying it’s not irrelevant and that he’s just deflecting. I’m saying it’s an important one and one Microsoft MUST answer because they have been the worst abusers of trust.

    Secondly, Scoble himself admitted seconds later that trust was a factor so it is a metric for him. Scoble essentially admitted that… I don’t know why you think because Scoble wants to dismiss it you, Ricky, and Scoble aren’t also referencing in your attempts to not address it.

    ““Jonas, you can throw around “fallacious” all you want.” – Ad hominem”

    No, I said your slinging around a word inappropriately. What about that statement attacks you?

    “Argumentum ad populum. You cannot draw a logical conclusion based on your own biased view.”

    It’s not a biased view nor is it my own: it is a widely held view by the community relevant to this discussion.

    “- Intentional fallacy, misleading vividness, special pleading. I never re-injected but your paraphrase surely did. I also never said it was irrelevant so there is another paraphrase that just happens to support your own “logic”.”

    Baloney. You said: “That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.”

    Like I said, you can throw “fallacious” around all you want, but your own hypothetical does return to trust. I’ve never said you said it was irrelevant: I started from the point that it is a relevant question that needs answered and Scoble’s avoiding it.

    “Wrong conclusion. I wasn’t trying to prove anything. I was simply making a point. By injecting an absolute based on your own belief (Argumentum ad populum) your statement became fallacious.”

    Your point was to prove me wrong. You can hide behind lame pronouncements about my statement but no, sorry, I can make a broad general statement and everyone besides you will understand what I am saying. If you want to be a wanker by using the few things you learned in Logic 101, it’s time you take Semantics 303.

    “For example, I am disrupted. I am a decision maker. Therefore I single-handedly discard your claim.”

    And this proves my point. Firstly, you stated Micrsoft has “disrupted the entire industry” so by your own argument your statement is wrong. But… that’s irelevant, it’s a lame argument. What is relevant is that you’re now defining “disruption” as you, individually, being in a tizzy? Sorry, your logic fails.

    “It is a relative term.”

    No sh1t. But what I say is absolute because you don’t have a strong argument.

    “This has disrupted you because you are wasting time writing about it.”

    Not at all: my opinions abotu Microsoft, the rest of the industry, and myself have not changed one iota. Did you just show up here in the last couple of days? Do you really think you have any clue about “Goebbels”?

    “I’ll take it as a compliment. Just as long as you don’t claim I’m juvenile.”

    Sorry, it is not an insult. It is childish to claim you are using logic by dismissing a general statement easy enough to understand because you want to repeat “Argumentum ad populum” over and over again.

    “I think people are watching them more closely now then before.”

    No, I disagree. But some of us have been watching thm for a long time. Not in a “ooh, how are they going to impress me” way though, but in a “we have to keep an eye on these shady mofos” kind of way.

  81. “I do not have the time to argue in this manner”

    You’ve posted a rather long post though…

    “Regarding the issue of trust: Scoble never said trust was irrelevant. You interpreted that from his words but never did he say it was irrelevant. He said that the question of “why should you trust Microsoft?” was the wrong one to ask. That he wouldn’t apply trust as a metric. He would not trust anyone. He would not base his conclusion on trust.”

    And this is where you miss my point on two levels. I am saying it’s not irrelevant and that he’s just deflecting. I’m saying it’s an important one and one Microsoft MUST answer because they have been the worst abusers of trust.

    Secondly, Scoble himself admitted seconds later that trust was a factor so it is a metric for him. Scoble essentially admitted that… I don’t know why you think because Scoble wants to dismiss it you, Ricky, and Scoble aren’t also referencing in your attempts to not address it.

    ““Jonas, you can throw around “fallacious” all you want.” – Ad hominem”

    No, I said your slinging around a word inappropriately. What about that statement attacks you?

    “Argumentum ad populum. You cannot draw a logical conclusion based on your own biased view.”

    It’s not a biased view nor is it my own: it is a widely held view by the community relevant to this discussion.

    “- Intentional fallacy, misleading vividness, special pleading. I never re-injected but your paraphrase surely did. I also never said it was irrelevant so there is another paraphrase that just happens to support your own “logic”.”

    Baloney. You said: “That relationship can either gain trust or be broken when something more trustworthy comes along.”

    Like I said, you can throw “fallacious” around all you want, but your own hypothetical does return to trust. I’ve never said you said it was irrelevant: I started from the point that it is a relevant question that needs answered and Scoble’s avoiding it.

    “Wrong conclusion. I wasn’t trying to prove anything. I was simply making a point. By injecting an absolute based on your own belief (Argumentum ad populum) your statement became fallacious.”

    Your point was to prove me wrong. You can hide behind lame pronouncements about my statement but no, sorry, I can make a broad general statement and everyone besides you will understand what I am saying. If you want to be a wanker by using the few things you learned in Logic 101, it’s time you take Semantics 303.

    “For example, I am disrupted. I am a decision maker. Therefore I single-handedly discard your claim.”

    And this proves my point. Firstly, you stated Micrsoft has “disrupted the entire industry” so by your own argument your statement is wrong. But… that’s irelevant, it’s a lame argument. What is relevant is that you’re now defining “disruption” as you, individually, being in a tizzy? Sorry, your logic fails.

    “It is a relative term.”

    No sh1t. But what I say is absolute because you don’t have a strong argument.

    “This has disrupted you because you are wasting time writing about it.”

    Not at all: my opinions abotu Microsoft, the rest of the industry, and myself have not changed one iota. Did you just show up here in the last couple of days? Do you really think you have any clue about “Goebbels”?

    “I’ll take it as a compliment. Just as long as you don’t claim I’m juvenile.”

    Sorry, it is not an insult. It is childish to claim you are using logic by dismissing a general statement easy enough to understand because you want to repeat “Argumentum ad populum” over and over again.

    “I think people are watching them more closely now then before.”

    No, I disagree. But some of us have been watching thm for a long time. Not in a “ooh, how are they going to impress me” way though, but in a “we have to keep an eye on these shady mofos” kind of way.

  82. Are all you people about done the chest thumping!!! It’s really to bad as this could have gone another way. Who cares if it’s leaked, who cares who’s first, right, or wrong. What is constructive about all the post’s here ? Why would they leak it (if indeed it was leaked) Bill talks, people listen. One announcement and he could have all the press he likes. And please, please don’t turn this into an open source against MS “winnie roast”.

    Jason

  83. Are all you people about done the chest thumping!!! It’s really to bad as this could have gone another way. Who cares if it’s leaked, who cares who’s first, right, or wrong. What is constructive about all the post’s here ? Why would they leak it (if indeed it was leaked) Bill talks, people listen. One announcement and he could have all the press he likes. And please, please don’t turn this into an open source against MS “winnie roast”.

    Jason

  84. Hey …Your comments and findings are more than fascinating !! I haven’t enabled comments on my blog, but I do sometimes wish there was a way to allow a sense of community such as livejournal provides….anyway thank you !!!

  85. Hey …Your comments and findings are more than fascinating !! I haven’t enabled comments on my blog, but I do sometimes wish there was a way to allow a sense of community such as livejournal provides….anyway thank you !!!

  86. [...] As an example, the post I commented on in “Robert Scoble – Devil’s Henchman or Devil’s Advocate” has 40 comments including mine at this writing.  I know this because after I posted I subscribed to the post’s RSS feed, and the additional comments have magically shown up in NewsGator.  Obviously, forming the feeds is automated… I’d love to know how he’s doing that.  Guess maybe its just a WordPress feature.  Blogger is starting to feel both dated and limiting…   RSS Feed for Comments on this Post | Trackback Link for this Post [...]

  87. [...] The mainstream media and the blogosphere are all awash with buzz over leaked internal memos from Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Ray Ozzie. Calling web market behaviors “the next sea change” for Microsoft, the memos’ summarize Microsoft’s recognition of the need to harness the technology leviathan’s power in pursuing a new web strategy. Gates sums up the Microsoft leadership deficit saying: “to lead we need to do far more.” [...]