Dennis asked for my take on the Microsoft Live announcements. I figure the elitist-hippie-boy-scout types that were invited to the event probably did a good enough job on the news. You know, what could I add, especially given I haven’t had a chance to peruse the demos and stuff? (its amazing how uninteresting new technology stuff becomes when you have a new baby at home).
But I got a charge from the Scobleizer bunny so here I go. I wrote this as a comment on his blog, but for some reason WordPress wasn’t working right. So here is my rant, based on some ideas Scoble has in his New Services Agenda.
MS needs to fire some of those Procter and Gamble alumni.
Licensing software is not the same as selling soap-powder. In fact, with respect to Scoble’s post, Microsoft shouldn’t be selling at all, but rather teaching. the more teaching MS does, the more sales increase. developers developers developers developers.
And learning – the more learning MS does the more money MS makes. Live is a good example. whatever you call it, MS has learned something from Google, and that is a good, not a bad thing.
I remember watching Bill Gates at Tech Ed in Amsterdam a few months back. He made a clear distinction between packaged and software as a service. His articulation on the subject was just as clear as Tim O’Reilly’s. I thought wow-something is up. I didn’t realise how fast the levee would fail though…
Professional Consumer Packaged Goods (CPG) marketers in my experience don’t get openness and dont get interoperability. I remember very clearly one of Microsoft’s senior IT pro community managers telling me that my advice to major on interop (windows and Unix, AD and LDAP, Java and .NET) was not something MS could countenance. Why would we do that, she said? Why would we talk about competitors or standards-based technologies? Because it isn’t freaking soap powder is why. When soap powder runs out you just buy more. Its not like you need to choose a softener that goes with your existing powder. Or your existing washing machine. Software is not a packaged good. It never was. Shrink wrap is just a distribution mechanism, not a viable business model. see the music industry…
Its not just Microsoft marketers and execs, of course, that sometimes have problems understanding how the ecosystem needs to be sustained. IBM too, sometimes fails to think through the implications of an uninterrupted air supply for your partners. Every software company has people that suffer from don’tusetheirstuffitis. These people can never truly be trusted advisors to customers, though. [Talking of our friends in Armonk, one way to think about the Live news is this is somewhat like the moment when IBM got serious about selling Unix servers (not the RT circa 1986, but the RS/6000 in 1990). Lets hope for Microsoft’s sake it has fewer problems with its cost structures as the implications bite.]
At first glance it might look like the interoperability point is only relevant to enterprise software, and so not the market for Live. Only enterprises hang on to their software infrastructures for the long term, right? Wrong. The issue for many users will be, as Gillmor rants, open data.
Who owns the data? Can I back out of gmail? Can I back out of flickr? Yahoo? OR AN Other web service? Bill Scott at Yahoo calls this 3d data. Here is my take on the need to keep data open over time.
How to get rich? Make users rich. Give them rich experiences. Enrich their lives. Money will follow.
I disagree with dmad’s comment on Scoble’s post. Its not about consumers. Its about producers. We’re all content producers. Even if its just creating attention data.
So I say fire the CPG marketers and go with people that understand services and the natural human desire to work together and show stuff off and be playful and share. There are plenty within MS that get it already. No new hiring required. These people may not have an MBA but they understand the kind of network marketing affects Scoble is talking to. And they understand technology. The web renaissance is going to need renaissance people – people that cut across categories, and go deep in them.
Scoble says Microsoft “looks at the world only through a businessperson’s eyes.”
I actually don’t see that as a problem. The problem is looking at the world through a big business’s eye.
Businessperson’s eyes are a great lens to look through.
But thinking like a Big Media or Big Pharma company? You won’t find answers or friends there. Only secrets and lies.
Instead – do what Kathy says. The best thing from a Microsoft point of view-is that the company is already doing pretty well according to her list… now just get rid of the CPG deadwood….
Well I guess I have my angle. Or should that be needle?
[Ah shoot. I just remembered, one of my favourite people at MS – Susan Koehler – is ex P&G. But my general points stand]
No Comments