Here are my comments posted in different places on the
Mini-Microsoft Blog. In green-font are (snippets of) others' comments posted there that prompted me to reply.
I
It is interesting how, across most postings to Mini-Microsoft, most blame is directed at management. And, to a great extent, management is responsible--otherwise how in the sky could they justify their own compensation schemes?
In ancient times, people used to vent their passions during carnivals, when kings and fools exchanged places for a brief. In the long interval between carnival days, it used to be religion. In democracies, we have elections. Religion has been replaced by shows and morale building exercises (i.e. propaganda). When the individual (contributor) doesn't believe anymore in the show managers put on, it's time for a (ritual) reversal... So, managers, take notice!
Yet, where is the personal responsibility that arises from a conscious decision to grow up as individual and either clean up the mess around you or move on?In the end, let's face it, the cake is in only one place!
II
For the MSFT shareholder who asks why the Company has a finger in the gamming pie, I would venture to answer:
- Because of digital convergence;
- Because of no-longer growing revenues in those areas that have made him money so far;
- Because it's fun for the engineers who work on it;
- Because consumers welcome alternatives (to Sony and Nintendo);
- Because it's there--as a growing market.
...should I go on?
III
Somebody at Mini-Microsoft quoted "Microsoft Corp. and Time Warner Inc. have been discussing potential online partnerships that would help the two companies better compete against rivals Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. (Nasdaq:YHOO - news), two people familiar with the talks said Thursday."
MSN has always had a problem: it tried to be(at) AOL no matter what the users who were running to Yahoo! and Google were saying. Now, does anyone think that putting together two less-than-stellar entities will form something great? Hmmm, unless I am a hopeless geek, they should ask Carly--the former first lady at HPQ!
IV
Why is it that folks think Microsoft has lost it's agility? My guess is that most associate the Longhorn/Vista delays with this lost agility. I think this is a cop out. The systemic constipation inside of Microsoft around Longhorn/Vista is the result of the Chief Software Architect's failure to properly design and architect his vision of integrated innovation. Bill is an architect in name only.The above comment raises some interesting (insider) points. For us, the outside observers, the big question nobody has been willing to ask is: "How much does BillG still deserve the position he appointed himself to?" Follow up question becomes: "When talking about accountability, how high up can one go?"
Be it as it may, we've seen how Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison have stepped aside to make room for new blood...
Few more interesting points, and I would welcome a conversation on the subject, are those related to MSOffice on Linux, getting together with Apple's music format at the expense of WMA, etc. That such points make for heresy at Microsoft goes without saying. I'm not sure though they make a lot of business sense.
Oh well, drop us a line, especially if you are PM in one of these areas. In any case, state your function at the Company!
V
The owner of, and MSFT participants to, the Mini-Microsoft blog might have done more (for better or worse) to set things in motion at Microsoft than scores of executive wonks. Hence the value of the internet in making the workplace more democratic. Now we should wait and see how well this does to business. I cross my fingers!
VI
From all incentive systems I've known, for large organizations, I had come to respect the most the one employed by McKinsey.
Consultants (at lower levels) rate their next-level-up manager/mentor anonymously, and are being rated by their manager. There is assumed flexibility for a junior consultant from a mentor to another. This inter-rating mechanism keeps most bastards honest, and people do actually get useful feedback for improvement.
For how long has this incentive system been in place at McKinsey? For as long as anybody at the Company remembers!
Now, incentive theory is really a chapter in the science of economics. Have you wondered why when you get in a cab, it starts with a few dollars on the meter as the driver turns the engine on? And, relative to the cost per mile, the starting-fee is not trivial. They make it so a driver gets enough from such starting-fees that he's got an incentive to drive you in the shortest time to destination...
VII
Dear fellow minis,I really love this blog and I am a huge fan of the "Mini" himself. But please quit with the constant field sales bashing,e.g - that shit might get salespeople fired up but for your average introverted dev it does nothing but promote ennui.We both love and fear for the company just like you do. Signed, Longtime EPG account rep (lowest of the low but I have served one of our biggest customers for 7 years and beleive me the software you develop (a) isn't easy to sell and (b) it's a total b***tch to deploy across an enterprise.Sometimes, it takes an "EPG account rep" to see the gap between the coolest/innovative ideas and happy customers--some people call it "process." Other times, nothing does the trick but a higher stock-price.
Thinking more about the review process at MSFT, it looks like it encourages massive politicking due to its one-sidedness. I would be surprised if, in fact, there have not been executive drives to streamline middle management and increase accountability. But hey, everyone has got a friend, with a lower IQ, whom can be turned into a power base through the one-sided review process.
In other words, a bad process may be as costly as no process...
VIII
Bring back some sense of fairness between execs and rank and file. 320,000 shares for Kevin Turner? Is Kevin really worth 320X+ more than the average good employee? Should a grossly underperforming exex like Burgum not only retian his job but cash a couple $M every Q? I don't think so. I wonder since when has it become an issue the fairness of executive pay? By and large, little is fair about it, and so is life!
Having incompetent executives is a another matter. The novelty about this latter notion is given by this couple of key elements:
- MSFT has smart, and type-A, personalities who came to the Company after/under genetically less endowed managers;
- The employee-liberating, and -enabling, capabilities of a blog.
The rest will be a new page in corporate reform, driven by the explicit action of a vocal, and newly empowered, minority.
IX
Imagine if Apple suddenly decided to offer MAC OS 10 on standard Dell platforms, and when you called Dell, they asked which OS you wanted....new UI in Office 12 with other 23.984 useless featuress (where each running Office app will eat 70 MB of the memory)...Reading some recent opinions posted at Mini-Microsoft about how several of MSFT products/features turned into resource hogs, let me put it in a slightly different (non-Google) context:
There has been a yesterday's company whose platform runs most
efficiently and effectively out there. Its customers loved it so much that they saw no need to upgrade--no, it's not about some mainframe architecture.
So, what happened? Hardware system vendors (HSV's) decided to stop offering support for the old platform. The old hardware would either crash or not interconnect with the newest hardware. In the end, customers had to jump ship. Who benefited from this? MSFT, Intel, and al other usual suspects in the HSV space. Who lost? The customers and Novell.
Fast forward (I) to the early 2000. IBM, not to be fooled twice, drops a lot of mainframe-, and new-IP, into Linux (e.g. virtualization, driver support). Not to be outdone, the rest of the HSV band (formerly, of MSFT-brothers), with the partial exception of Dell, joins IBM in supporting straight Linux, or one of its corporate flavors (Red Hat, SUSE/Novell). As a measure of this transformation, 5 years ago, who would have thought SUN would complement both Solaris and Sparc with Linux and Intel/AMD, or the fact that Oracle would run on Linux??? And, except for IBM (and possible Oracle) nobody does it despite Microsoft.
Fast forward (II) to the Google's IPO. The public at large gets a taste of Google's context (i.e. simple things in small-sized software).
Fast forward (III) to 2005 corporate customers.
Here's the voice of a select few. What is the message? They want to DO MORE WITH LESS!
Fast forward (IV) to 2005 HSVs and ISVs. Oracle and IBM are doing/promoting about grids, and most every HSV is doing blades. How do I translate III & IV? Optimal allocation of IT resources or
better ROI's for the IT budgets.
Fast forward (final) to mini-msft blog. Microsoft engineers ponder how it is possible that their Company continues to invest in countless obscure Office-like features. Yeah folks, the genie is out, yet who knows when the turn comes for your management to think of growth alternatives to bloating software.
As end-user I've been able to tolerate MSFT annoyances up until two episodes. (1) When a customer from abroad emails me an audio-clip he made using MSFT tools, I could not play it back until Windows Media Player checked with some DRM-god on the internet. (2) Hearing the complaints of a partner (marketing-strategy type) about his Dell laptop slowing down I suggested, and then wanted to initiate, a reinstallation of the system from the vendor's CD. I was told that, because the XP version on the CD was older than the (patched) one on the laptop, I could not reinstall the system.
Why did I share the above two anecdotes with the readers here? To illustrate how MSFT-neutral customers might have grown unhappy with MSFT to the point they'd switch when alternatives show up. For the (mini-)Microsoft engineers, such consideration should only nuance the(ir) conversation--after all, they've gotten paid their salaries from such tactics. For those in management, it is a whole different thing. It's up to them whether or not to take their customers and (minimsft-)employees seriously, regardless of their particular biases.
X
Somebody posted a remark about Apple grabbing mindshare with the iPod and OS X. As somebody who is completely outside of Microsoft -- I'm a journalist, but very much not tech -- I can't stress enough how right that is. It is not only the products like the iPod, it is the decisions they have made, like yanking the iPod Mini at the hight of its sales to market the Nano. The collective reaction among the people I know was first something like God, the balls on those guys! followed by God, is that beautiful!. And the "halo effect", though probably overrated, is real. All the Apple people in my department have to do is say something like "If you think that is cool, you should see my Mac."
I think folks in MSFT Entertainment Group have taken notice--As proof, msofties themselves are saying the latest XBox is something they look forward to buying.
"If you think that is cool, you should see my Mac."
Now this is major indeed. Not as much for its effects--when Apple started going down, it still offered a greater experience than MSFT--as for its power of example for companies dealing with consumers. The platform approach at MSFT, which made them so big, sustains a vicious circle in which some products are put on the market without being required to compete on their own merits. We are probably witnessing in fact the price platforms are exacting on a firm by skewing the behavior of marketing and development folks. On their part, customers who sunk so many resources in MSFT technologies have little option but keep "consolidating" the platform. The ideal situation would be when customers like so much a product that they want to try others from the same vendor. Only then should the vendor look for platform synergies. Again, this would be ideal.
XI
