Comments on: microsoft and chess pieces

By: Sonia Simone

Sonia Simone — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 02:29:28 +0000

It has always fascinated me that the people I know who work for Microsoft all want to save the world, and the people I know who work for Apple are all in it for the money. These are tiny fractions of those workplaces, maybe that’s not born out in the larger sample. Still, hmmm.
I dearly hope, though, that you’ll adopt “Shameless Borg Whore” as an identity somewhere. It’s too good to waste.

By: phil jones

phil jones — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 01:07:01 +0000

@Hugh, thanks. You're right. I probably missed your point about monopolies. But maybe you can clarify, because it still *sounds* to me like you're trying to shift the blame for MS monopolizing onto the US Government for defining "inconsistent" laws (eg. putting companies in the double-bind of having to maximize their profits while not being monopolies.) I'm pretty sure that everyone agrees that "not breaking the law" trumps "legal duty to shareholders". As to whether Microsoft did do illegally monopolistic things or not, I don't have any opinion. I'm not a lawyer. I don't despise Microsoft for being a monopoly (although I think the government should put a stop to it if they are). I don't think Microsoft are a bad company or full of bad people or make bad products. (I even called them the "best-case scenario" for this kind of company) I don't think there's any reason you shouldn't work for them doing Blue Monster magic. It's a great social object. But nevertheless, I don't think it's going to work unless Microsoft change something far more fundamental in their DNA. I'm not an MS hater, nor a Mac fan. I don't own a single bit of Apple gear. But look at what Apple brand stands for : "great design for the discerning", "choice of the creative", "friend of the creative industry". And look at what Microsoft's vision / strategy / brand still is : "universal standard", "default", "we are everywhere", "all your base are belong to us". I think that strategy is going to fail them. Then one day, Microsoft have to wake up and realize they can't be everywhere. They can't be the standard for everything. For word-processing documents and spreadsheets? Yes. For personal computers? More or less. For games boxes? For mobile phones? For domestic robots? For pentops? For Surfaces? At some point Microsoft need a vision of how to thrive when they are a niche player. A strategy that is not just "we will take this over and become the standard". As you once said, to change the world, your idea "doesn't have to be big, it just has to be yours alone". When "Microsoft : change the world or go home" means *that* - then I'll start to believe they've found their next big idea. @anon : thanks for the response. But convergence is upon us because of open protocols : basically TCP/IP, Wifi, USB etc. Devices will have to be very loosely coupled and they'll be available from hundreds of manufacturers. (Think of something like this for your touch-screens, tablets, surfaces, etc. http://www.made-in-china.com/Computer-Products-Catalog/PC-Camera.html ) I don't see that *this* can be Microsoft's next big idea. Sure, they may provide some of the protocol wiring. But so will Dave Winer and Flickr ( http://www.scripting.com/stories/2007/12/27/newProductReleaseToday.html ) and a number of standards bodies, and various focussed hardware and application developers. But the living room is going to be a network of devices, and there won't be a single *object* that Microsoft can "own". That doesn't mean it can't provide many tools and services around the device swarm.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:50:30 +0000

The analogy of chess is an interesting one, but I am too much of a rookie to comment. Thanks @BryanZug for creating another touch point for me. My interest has been sparked though as the idea of MS as King. The OT Biblical images for leadership we are given that also carry through into the NT are King, Priest and Prophet.
As much as I understand gapingvoid and your work, you are the prophet. You have found a way, though never easy, to speak truth to power. The King cannnot remain king unless he adhears to true prophets, whereas listening to false prophet will lead to ultimate destruction. Your challenge in being a prophet, prophets are often killed, or face severe hardship.
The priest’s as I see are the many talented long suffering employees who stick it out to change the world. Steve Clayton is one of these guys, leading and inspiring, working with MS I get to engage these people regularly. They are insipiring and often I am blown away at their talent and communication skills, they make it look easy. Like Michael Jordan dunking a basketball.

By: thomas otter

thomas otter — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:08:45 +0000

e2-e4

By: Paul

Paul — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 00:01:30 +0000

Evil shmevil Empire shmempire, integration *is* the future. If M$ doesn’t/can’t do it Apple/anyone else will. That’s a given. I don’t just mean plugging your DVD/iPod into your home theatre system. I mean how do you connect your refrigerator and kitchen cabinet to the grocery store. Or your local library to the printer on your desk (see The Media Lab by Stewart Brand, written in 1987 it is still 5 – 10 years ahead of its time). FOSS is the only real, practical way to integrate, on this scale, so just get on the ‘bandwagon’ and let’s get it rolling.
I couldn’t agree more either with the sentiment that Microsoft bashing is “so 15 minutes ago”. Maybe this comment is the last time I say M$!

By: Dennis Howlett

Dennis Howlett — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:50:30 +0000

I’m not sure the chess analogy is correct. In chess there are 2 sides and an endgame that can go one of 3 ways. In life and business, there are multiple facets along a continuum, the outcomes of which are far from predictable or conforming to the highly structured rules of chess.
Now if you’d used the Art of War metaphor, I might have been more inclined to agree as to application but again, that’s yet to be proven. Except in the mind of Larry Ellison.
It’s a bad idea to be talking about business in these terms. Implies the very things for which MSFT earned a hated reputation and from which it now shrinks back. It’s not been bloodied by customers but by far more powerful forces.
In the meantime, MaryJo’s post: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1066 might make some reading this spit the odd feather.

By: Mark Harrison

Mark Harrison — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:25:46 +0000

I’m writing this from a laptop running
- XP (MS-1)
- Flock (OpenSource-1) browser
In the guest bedroom, sit three servers:
- Windows 2000 for filesharing (MS-2)
- Our email server (OpenSource-2)
- Our test and development server (OpenSource-3)
My wife is currently using her PC:
- Windows 2000 (MS-3)
- Firefox (OpenSource-4)
My daughter (age 5) is playing on a website:
- Ubuntu (OpenSource-5)
- Firefox (OpenSource-6)
Now, in the light of that, does anyone understand why I have trouble relating to claims of a “monopoly”.
If MS _really_ had a Monopoly, none of these other things would exist!

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:03:38 +0000

@philjones – I agree with what you say on your penultimate paragraph, but the future if nothing else is about integration of devices.
There is a reason apple integrated the ipod together with the iphone and the ipod with a browser.
Convergence of technologies is where it is going to be at – both physical and software technology.
Whether that be TV and mobile or mobile and the net or tv on the net (or many other ideas as yet undiscovered, although I suspect Microsoft Surface is somewhere on the button!).

By: peter

peter — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:35:49 +0000

check out the Satyajit Ray movie “The chess players” – for more on the theme of chess world/real world, also because it’s a great movie.

By: hugh macleod

hugh macleod — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:19:27 +0000

Phil Jones, my point re, monopolies went over your head like a cruise missile. Re-read what I wrote and and get back to me.
But I like some of the thinking in your last two paragraphs. May not agree with all of it, but some of the thoughts are good ones

By: Bryan Zug

Bryan Zug — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:16:02 +0000

To borrow a theme from Lewis/Tolkein the king _must_ go through a great transformation — the cycle of creation, fall, redemption, and re-creation likely has as many implications for business as it does for interesting narrative.
Seems like this might also apply to the various cycles of “crucify” that make the rounds as our golden boys of tech (MS, Google, Apple, Sun, Adobe, et al) age.

By: Brent P. Newhall

Brent P. Newhall — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:14:44 +0000

I agree wholeheartedly with the blog post.
One thing has always intrigued me about Microsoft: its army of incredibly smart engineers. I’ve known ex-Microsoft employees, and they’ve all been brilliant (and not idiot savants). Yet Vista flops, and much of their software is mediocre. Why?
What exactly would I do differently about MSFT? I would remove whatever barriers that exist between those smart engineers and their products (I suspect a problem with middle management). I would do a lot more user testing.
My problems with MS have always been mostly with the quality of their software. I don’t mind one big, dominant company if that company makes good products (Quaker Oats, anyone?) and treats its customers fairly.
Then again, that’s just me. How to rid people of the view of MSFT as the Evil Empire?
Well, they’re an empire. Why not start acting like it? I feel like a lot of MSFT’s marketing tries to position them as a helpful enabler who gets out of the way. Feels disingenuous. What if they positioned themselves as a huge company that can help you, the customer, integrate everything as far as you want? So MSFT is powerful; let it use that power to help its customers.
Just random thoughts on a Thursday morning.

By: Andy Sernovitz

Andy Sernovitz — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:29:18 +0000

Corporations generally aren’t evil. They are slow, dumb, overloaded, non-responsive. They steer like a shopping cart – or a hippo.
The anti-Microsoft rants are tired, and silly. Half a billion people wake up every day, turn on their Windows machine, and it works just fine. That’s an astonishing accomplishment.
But here’s the fun part:
Inside most major companies, there are a few people who get it. Who want to make things better. Who go to work each day and ask, “How can we turn this thing around, how can we get it to listen, how can we make it work, really work, for consumers.” Usually these folks are somehow connected to the blogging world.
These are the smartest, most inspired people in the business world. Many of us have taken our fights out of the corporate area and chosen to fight as small businesses, consultants, or critics.
Like Hugh, I’m working for a few mega-corps that are finally learning how this social media thing works. It’s a blast. The right people get it. They are using social media to turn around the rest of their companies.
We should support big companies – or the few smart insiders – when they ask for help and want to change. We should be there when the few change agents inside a stuck company want our support. We should avoid undercutting their credibility with knee-jerk attacks. We should support their internal battles and help them win.
Andy

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 21:22:50 +0000

Hugh — As always with your posts, the quality of this post is heads above the other swill that’s floating out in the b-sphere.

By: phil jones

phil jones — Thu, 27 Dec 2007 20:02:58 +0000

Hugh … this bit of sophistry is unworthy of you :
“2. The US Government’s paradox is that, while monopolies might be illegal, for Microsoft, as a publicly traded company to act in any way other than it has would also be deemed illegal.”
This is clearly wrong. No company has a legal obligation to its shareholders to do illegal things. And even if they did have a legal obligation to do *wrong* things, anyone with any integrity would avoid them like the plague.
If you stop to consider the same argument being applied to, say, bribing foreign governments or abusing human rights, that should become obvious.
On the wider question, I can understand that there’s a genuinely interesting challenge to try to make Microsoft relevant and exciting again. But I don’t, honestly see how that can happen *yet* – they haven’t been nearly humbled enough and still in transition between Gates / Ballmer and whatever is coming next.
Yes, they *need* a new idea. But chasing any new technological trend can’t be it.
Microsoft’s big idea, which has sustained them for 30 years, and really *was* visionary when Bill Gates was promoting it in the 70s, was that, with the right intellectual property laws, you could build a “pure software” company, selling directly to the end-users rather than be part of, or a supplier to, a hardware company. And as a pure software company you could get your product onto everyone else’s hardware in every office, in every home.
I see Microsoft as the best-case scenario for a proprietory software company. But that turns out not to be good enough. We need more and more powerful software on a more complex ecosystem than anyone, even Microsoft, can keep under control. And the only way we can have that is through open platforms and protocols, free (open-source) software, “peer-production” and software-as-a-service. All of these are deeply inimical to Microsoft’s core DNA of wanting to “own” software platforms.
If MS is to have a future, its “next big idea” can’t be one *type* of device or another. (There’s going to be a multiplicity of different types of devices. More than Microsoft can produce or even write drivers for) It can’t be “advertising” because advertising itself is under huge transformative pressures. No, the big idea has to come *after* MS have exorcised the notion of “software as product” and started with a clean slate.