Is Microsoft's First Customer You?
|
Next week's partner conference once again raises questions about who Microsoft really develops its products for. Hint: It's not enterprises. |
If Microsoft truly developed products for its business customers, which pay for Chairman Bill Gates to be the world's second richest person, priorities would be more in line with customers' needs.
Priorities are askew. In watching Microsoft for more than a decade, I've observed the company's priorities to be consistently out of alignment with its business customers.
Some of its priorities, as revealed from observation, enterprise interviews and analyst surveys:
- True Interoperability: Seamless applications operations across all platforms. Strangely, the bigger complaints I hear are about how poorly Microsoft stuff works together rather than with other software developers' stuff. Microsoft-to-Microsoft interoperability problems typically occur across versions, such as Windows 2000 and Office 2003 or Office 2003 and Office 97. In my personal testing, WordPerfect X3 offers cleaning format translation with Office 97 or 2000 than Office 2003 (I haven't tested against Office 2007 yet). While Microsoft-to-Microsoft interoperability is important, many larger companies do want Microsoft software to better work with other stuff, too.
- Simpler Everything: Easier software installation, maintenance and management across applications and platforms. IT managers expect some complexity across different developers' platforms, but complexity across Microsoft products—particularly with the company so quick to emphasize benefits of cross-product feature integration—is perplexing.
- Longer Lifecycle Support: Many customers want to put software in place and run it for as long as possible. This meets their interoperability goals. Putting something in place and leaving it is good TCO (total cost of ownership) practice. The old saying, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," is a motto for many IT organizations.
Customers don't really see these priorities met by Microsoft, which hasn't done enough over that last 10-to-15 years to reduce product complexity. I single out complexity, because I see it as root cause to the Microsoft-to-Microsoft interoperability problems. Interoperability between Microsoft and other developers' stuff is a whole other topic (worth its own post!). Longer software support is more about revenue: Microsoft makes money when companies upgrade to newer software.
How and what Microsoft delivers to customers reveals that the first customer is someone else—actually, it's two someone else's, one lesser than the other.
The lesser customer is Microsoft, and I see the focus there as really unintentional. Microsoft runs its own software and always the newest stuff. Microsoft will even shift major operations—what the company refers to as "eating our own dog food"—to beta software. Example: Microsoft.com is powered by Windows Server 2008 Beta 3.
Microsoft is the customer that runs its software first and in a way that is highly atypical of its business customers. Just a tiny percentage of businesses shift totally to the newest Microsoft software—and on almost every computer—as soon as it's released. Microsoft's network infrastructure runs Microsoft's newest software in a mostly homogenous fashion. Most enterprises—and many midsize businesses—run a heterogeneous mix of Microsoft software and Microsoft and other developer stuff. It's a huge disconnect. Microsoft's practice means that its computing infrastructure looks unlike most of its business customers most of the time.
For the most part, the channel is Microsoft's first customer and not the companies running the software. Microsoft has no hard-and-dedicated direct sales channel, relying instead on hundreds of thousands of resellers, solution providers, software developers and system integrators to promote, sell and service the company's software. Microsoft dedicates plenty of resources to servicing the channel—with new resources expected to be announced next week—and the channel accounts for a ghastly amount of company revenues.
Microsoft success derives from its ability to provide a constellation, as measured in number and breadth, to make lots of money. The company's business model is intricately entwined with the channel, which benefits from all that software complexity. Certainly, it's unfair to single out Microsoft. HP, IBM, Oracle, Red Hat, Sun and many other high-tech companies thrive on services. But Microsoft's dependence on a third-party, sales-and-services channel is a disincentive characteristic that makes the company's enterprise software more complex than it should be.
Microsoft's channel dependence also raises questions about how in touch the company is with its real customers, other than the largest businesses that typically get more hands-on treatment from Microsoft. This disconnect is one reason I believe Microsoft appears to ignore the true cost of complexity's impact on its real customers.
I don't mean to malign the channel. We love the channel at Microsoft Watch. But enterprise execs and IT administrators read Microsoft Watch, too. In too many ways, their pain is the channel's gain.
Microsoft should be able to serve both customers, whether partners or enterprises. But there is a problem about who Microsoft listens too. The company deals directly with some of its largest accounts, which priorities—such as backward compatibility—clearly are reflected in how Microsoft develops products. These largest customers are a minority, too, and their computing needs don't necessarily reflect those of other businesses, regardless of size.
It's time for Microsoft to reassess its development priorities and put more emphasis on the needs of its real customers. There is no reason why the company would have to hurt the channel by changing priorities, starting with achieving real interoperability and reducing complexity.
Partner should be a two-way relationship. Is that how you treat it, Microsoft?
Comments (14)
Microsoft is a one-trick pony. They make magnificent (some might say obscene) profits on OS and server licenses, but everything else has been a complete flop. If you look at the company without the profit center of the legacy products, it's a figgin' train wreck! Billions of dollars spent on "R&D" that yields nothing, and fiascoes like gaming (33% failure rate on Xbox), Zune, and WebTV/Mediacenter.
Despite all the delays, excuses, and happy talk over the past six years, none of this fringe stuff has returned a dime to shareholders. The Three Stooges couldn't screw up worse than Ballmer and his boyz. When is the board of directors going to grow a spine and clean house?
Posted by Ed T | July 5, 2007 7:47 PM
M$ is a creature of the bottom line, money, period. At its heart and soul is a big black hollow spot that is nothing but pure greed. Greed is the first customer of M$, not you or I. MS is willing to push the envelope to make it harder to use other software than theys on the same disk, this dispite the antitrust ruling, and the EU problems.
Interoperability, its just another word for M$ to abuse and use. As seen in this link;
http://s5h.net/linux_news/9/d/309887_Windows-Vista-Still-Sabotages-MBR-Discourages-Linux-Setups.html
Posted by chips b malroy | July 5, 2007 7:53 PM
Windows 2000 was focused on the Enterprise, XP wasn't. The default network settings on XP made it a royal pain in the butt and I think signaled the departure from MS really caring about the Enterprise, they has already locked in most of the infrastructure...or so they thought.
Business will be kicking and screaming in their move to Vista...
Posted by Dateman | July 5, 2007 8:32 PM
Dateman :
Quote;
"Business will be kicking and screaming in their move to Vista..."
------------------------------------------------
It would seem that Dell agrees with your point of Viewman Dateman. Dell warns of Vista upgrade challenges for Businesses;
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/0,1000000121,39287855,00.htm
My favorite line from the above line is; "We are not here to promote Microsoft and tell people they should buy it." Vista must not be a help to the large OEM's trying to sell PC's these days, especially with Apple now selling 13% of all new computers in the USA. Vista may make money for M$. but it is so far a flop.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 5, 2007 11:08 PM
yo's looking for someone with the knowledge to debate on the VCSY board. VCSY patents are the best, can you argue with that?
By: yo-eleven
06 Jul 2007, 12:26 AM EDT
Msg. 189071 of 189072
Seriously diekafym, thank you for taking the effort to express your contentions.
I wish others would. It would allow me to say this real fast to a bigger crowd and I could get on with my airplane model which sits, sadly, partially constructed and unpainted. And there's a whole tube of regulation grade A model glue in there all for the carpet ride to fantasy land. "Major Pucker!! Bail out! Bail out dammit!" wrrrreaaaaarraarararrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeeee kashpooosssshhhh kapowwwww blooyyyyyyyy arrrrggghhh aiiigggghghh they got me.
See there? They're only words and you can use any of them the Raging Bull spam profanity censor will tolerate. Nobody comes away bruised or broken. It's only ego and that gets repaired before breakfast.
If there is anyone else out there like diekafym who have issues, please feel free to express the questions you have. Yes you will probably be prodded by longs who might be misunderstanding your approach. They've all fought the negative crowd that was dominant here for years down to a foaming suds and they don't want to see reinforcements gain any foothold. So they're like troops in the trenches used to seeing nothing but lamebrained attempts at throwing a grenade into the bunker.
Have patience. If you're bogus, you'll give yourself away. 'They' always do. Be assured, the truth shall find you out.
If you're sincere, you'll accept this scrutiny and scrap as a ritual hazing into a unique and peculiarly derived humanhood patiently shuffling toward fostering the next age of the machine. You could actually print out the posts with a printout of your first VCSY stock trade and that would make a lovely decoupage. You know, nice walnut stain on the plywood and all.
If you do find yourself saying 'Woops, I see the elephant now.', you'll drink the koolaid. It happens while you sleep. This week's special is Ripply Frips and Razzberry Wedgies. Have a snort.
Posted by I-Man | July 6, 2007 12:38 AM
Joe, how about gracing us with your presence on the ragingbull VCSY board, you might be surprised what you'll learn.
http://ragingbull.quote.com/mboard/boards.cgi?board=BB:VCSY
ignore tepe he's the resident basher, with an agenda.
Posted by I-Man | July 6, 2007 12:45 AM
Since people continue to post comments (or spam perhaps?) about VCSY vs MS, I thought I would post a link to what little I can find on it;
http://www.infoworld.com/article/07/04/20/HNmsdotnetpatentsuit_1.html
What I am wondering is if VCSY is some kind of patent troll? Most know that I am not a big defender of MS, but, in this case, perhaps M$ should be defended.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 6, 2007 12:57 AM
Then again, the VCSY vs MS case, why should I feel sorry for M$. This company (MS) was bigtime behind these patent laws, as a means to stop competition like Linux. M$ is presently using its patent club FUD to bully Linux.
And I do not know for sure that VCSY is a patent troll, although, I suspect it is. VCSY did wisely ask for a jury trial, going be a lot of unhappy Vista users on that Jury, I bet. Remember, that M$ just had to pay 2.5 billion appox in MP3 patent infringement verdit.
The simple fact is when you go to court, is who has the most to lose. M$ has, as one of the richest companies on the face of the planet. Despite their so called "army of lawyers." MS is in a bad place in requards to software patents and patent trolls. MS has been know to openly steal code (example stac electronics) code. They have a history of losing court cases and having to settle up for big bucks. M$ is just one big fat target for the patent trolls out there. And why not sue MS, they have the money, you cannot get money from a company that does not have it. Expect more and more of these types of cases against MS.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 6, 2007 1:40 AM
MS finially admits to Xbox360 problems and gives 3 year warrenty. It however, still doesn't cover the scatched games disk that are non-microsoft Xbox360 for refunds, as far as I know.
http://www.destructoid.com/microsoft-squashes-red-ring-of-death-and-refunds-all-gamers-with-past-troubles-34406.phtml
Posted by chips b malroy | July 6, 2007 11:38 AM
The future really is being laid-out on the ragingbull VCSY board, thanks I-Man
By: yo-eleven
06 Jul 2007, 12:55 PM EDT
Msg. 189136 of 189137
Jump to msg. #
Just to give the readers a chance to see what a really useful XMLHttpRequest API using Javascript will morph into just before the bad old Patent Troll reaches up from under the bridge and grabs poor Woogy the Billygoat by the eating utensils. By the way, SavaJe was fostered by a VC fund within Ken Ross' (founder of Ross Systems) domain (Ken ross is a pioneer in distributed applications). The disappeared, disbanded and their pieces were taken up by Sun only a few months ago April 13, 2007. Five days before VCSy sued Microsoft.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/25/bye_bye_savaje/
The SavaJe concept was to sink Java down into the OS, moving telephony applications such as messaging and call management into the Java Virtual Machine to provide a more stable and flexible interface, with exposed Java APIs for enhanced capabilities.
This approach has been tried before with set-top boxes (Swisscom Blue Horizon) and desktop computers (Sun JavaOS) based entirely on Java, though generally these have resulted in expensive and embarrassing failure. Java is a great language, but it seems that trying to base an entire operating system on it might be a step too far.
Not that SavaJe didn't achieve considerable success: it produced a working prototype for developers, the Jasper, and even managed a customer or two, but it was too little too late for the company which raised $71m over the years and burnt through it all.
Posted by Scotty | July 6, 2007 1:14 PM
VCSY spammers! When the troll can sue M$ for at least 3 years of M$ income and bring them to their knees, I will be impressed. Till then, until you guys post a general whats it about comment, instead of copy and pasting into this site, you are spammers and con artists trying to sell stocks in the penny market or some other market. If I am wrong, then post some real comments and show me. Otherwise, I would ask Joe Willcox to think a about delete your worthless comments from his site.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 6, 2007 9:45 PM
Thats why I feel sorry for MS, there are worst outfits out there you know. But I am not sure its you guys, just don't act like con artists and spammers.
I hate it when I have to defend M$.
Posted by chips b malroy | July 6, 2007 9:48 PM
First off -- Excellent Article Joe!!!
Yes, Vista is an operating dud, especially for the business environment. For the individual, its too expensive, and because of this, further promotes software piracy -- Whoops getting off the subject. Excellent point on the Windows 2000 Professional operating system. No DRM, now validation, and most importantly, no stinking activation. Windows 2000 servers, whither Server, Advance Server, and DataCenter is still in substantial use though SP4 is the last of the major updates.
In the IT business myself, I use Windows Server 2003 and the ones mentioned, I also use and install Windows XP Pro for business workstations and can already see, and see for sometime that MS is becoming more anti-enterpising every day.
I believe history will show MS Vista is a dud and will no doubt be along the ranks of Windows, Me and Microsoft Bob -- But for different reasons other than just its a bad OS, and sure right now, its a dog, and a dodgy dog at that, but so was Windows XP in the early days.
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | July 7, 2007 1:19 PM
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 - 3.0.022
Stupid Is -- As Stupid Does - Part XXII
Remember, in my world there are no stupid people, only human beings -- which means that we are each capable of saying and doing some very marvelous things in addition to some very stupid ones. The object is to increase the former at the expense of the latter.
Joe Wilcox, the man in charge of eWeek's Microsoft Watch column has asked a very interesting question, "Is Microsoft's First Customer You?" Joe states:
"If Microsoft truly developed products for its business customers, which pay for Chairman Bill Gates to be the world's second richest person, priorities would be more in line with customers' needs."
"Priorities are askew. In watching Microsoft for more than a decade, I've observed the companies priorities to be consistently out of alignment with its business customers."
Joe goes on to discuss a few priorities, which I don't intend to duplicate as you can read his post; however, Joe follows with a very interesting observation:
"Customers don't really see these priorities met by Microsoft, which hasn't done enough over the last 10-to-15 years to reduce product complexity. I single out complexity, because I see it as root cause to the Microsoft-to-Microsoft interoperability problems. Interoperability between Microsoft and other developers' stuff is a whole other topic (worth its own post)."
Joe is correct about the complexity, and that complexity has been part of Microsoft's strategy as documented by Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller in their book, "Barbarians Led By Bill Gates", published in 1998:
"OLE was designed to protect the developers of big applications who were afraid of being scooped by slick applets, little applications being crafted by much smaller development companies."
"Microsoft didn't want a lot of other companies writing code that could compete. It wanted to keep the barriers to entry high. The idea, in fact, was to keep raising the bar, putting in more layers of software and APIs, which developers would then have to support. Microsoft wanted to make it so gnarly that anybody who couldn't devote a team of one hundred programmers to every Windows application would be out of the game."
And, of course, Bill Gates has succeeded with that plan -- for the exclusive benefit of Microsoft. Unfortunately, the complexity that sneaks by the anti-trust people and is so effective at eliminating competition, has a deleterious effect on the Microsoft-to-Microsoft interoperability problems.
And now, Joe, about that "other developer post"...
To be continued... obviously!!
Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com
BTW: If you wish to discuss this matter you might check my off-line forums at http://nationalcomputerassociation.com
Posted by Doug Skoglund | July 10, 2007 3:34 AM