January 16, 2005
microsoft's "new big idea" (or lack of one)
Robert Scoble kindly responded to both my recent Microsoft gambits:
1. I asked "What is Microsoft's new big idea?" here. Robert responded here.
2. I asked Bill Gates to please build me a "Tricorder" here. Robert responded here.
Robert tells me he's off to visit the head of research at Microsoft tomorrow, a certain Rick Rashid, to hopefully shed some more light on all of this.
Fab.
And while you're doing the rounds, Robert, could you also visit the groovy cats in the marketing department? They need to do something about that godawful Microsoft tagline, "Your Potential. Our Passion." No offense, but that idea wouldn't inspire a farting hamster to action, let alone somebody in your target market. [Some more thoughts here.]
You've got over fifty thousand very smart employees working away, and tens of billions of dollars in the bank.
Yet you still can't tell me what "The Next Big Idea" is. I think that's a serious problem.
You Redmond folk really need to read The Hughtrain. But of course, I would say that.
Posted by hugh macleod at January 16, 2005 9:07 PM | TrackBackThey definitely need help in the marketing department. Robert previously pointed to a download of Avalon, in which it is stated:
"This enables developers and designers to create visually-stunning, differentiated user experiences that improve customer connection."
Say what?
Posted by: Ben at January 16, 2005 11:52 PMI have a lot of respect for Robert, but isn't there some sort of cosmic law against MS employees claiming that what they do is the "long tail" approach? The fact that the "choice" between 15 years of MS and 15 years of Apple is rhetorical is itself evidence of which end of the curve MS occupies...
cgb
Posted by: collin at January 17, 2005 12:52 AMYeah... I'm starting to think maybe the problem is a leadership vacuum at the top. I can't rightly say I have a big, clear idea what Bill Gates stands for these days.
Steve Job's schtick paints a much sharper picture in most people's minds, I reckon. Gates is somehow far more aloof.
These things matter.
Posted by: hugh macleod at January 17, 2005 1:22 AMHugh: actually, you're onto something there. Microsoft is actually run like 100 different companies. Very decentralized.
Apple is very centralized. Steve Jobs calls the shots (and gets most of the credit).
Personally, I think that longterm Microsoft's approach makes more sense.
It also is why blogging is happening at Microsoft but not at Apple.
Could you imagine an Apple employee telling Steve Jobs how to make his company better on a public blog? I can't.
But, longterm, which approach works best? I guess we'll have to stick around to find out, but I doubt that in another decade that either Gates or Jobs will be running their companies. What then?
By the way, you're asking the wrong question when you are asking for the next "big thing."
Instead, look for the small things.
Hint: my brother-in-law at Apple told me that the Mac team never thought the iPod would be successful. They thought the iPod was too small to be a major success (small market, that is). Heck, even the analysts were saying that.
We're not good at seeing the small things. It's why there's a Google today and why the iPod kicked our behind.
Posted by: Robert Scoble at January 17, 2005 3:41 AMGreat stuff, Robert =)
I just want to know what makes the whole thing tick.
;-)
Posted by: hugh macleod at January 17, 2005 9:24 AMWhy the choice of 'a farting hamster'?
Posted by: Sean Winstead at January 17, 2005 4:52 PMDon't you think a huge part of Apple's success is that Steve Jobs has a better conversational rapport with his employees and customers than Bill Gates?
Posted by: peter at January 17, 2005 5:13 PMLotus 123, Wordperfect, Novell, Netscape all used to command 60% or more of their respective markets, now Microsoft "owns" the spreadsheet, word processing, LAN and browser domains.
The Windows GUI is often perceived to be less user friendly and technically inferior to MacOS - yet it dominates the personal computing desktop market.
There are many other successes too Powerpoint, Outlook, Exchange, Access, SQLServer, MSN messenger...None had been the first to market.
Sure there's been failures too - but overall they have done (VERY) well.
Do they really need to know what "The Next Big Idea" is? Historically they have never been at the technical forefront in terms of offerings. They have just been very good at getting a lot of people using their products - by whatever means. They will only start going downhill if they forget how to do that.
Posted by: Ron at January 18, 2005 12:12 AM