#2, I think what we're seeing is a trend in our industry press that has applied a concerted effort to cast Vista, in particular, in a negative light. Activewin, of course does not write the stories, it just provides a path to them. Their choices simply reflect what's in the press - and sadly, there is very little objective reporting going on. Perhaps that is why we now see so many blogs and other content from Microsoft itself.
There are many ways, I suppose, a person could assess the trends in our industry's press - first, there is almost no journalism inherent to it, but people may be led to believe there is.
What I take away from it is that many people with an anti-anything-Microsoft agenda have come to realize that a great deal of very good work has been coming together at Microsoft. I think the reality is that many people have known for a long time that Microsoft had evolved some very effective development techniques and business strategies that work both singularly and collectively. Most simply, I think they are quite afraid that Microsoft really does have a platform and it can leverage that platform in any market it decides to work in.
Now, if Microsoft were closed off and all unto itself, I'd be pretty angry about it [Hey, Apple, Inc. how's it? - nah, no thanks..]. Instead, Microsoft attained its greatness by providing so many opportunities to so many small partners, and businesses of all sizes. Microsoft did the exact opposite of what Apple did and does - it shared.
The fun part for me will be to watch as people figure out that all of this is still what it has always been about... the collection, processing and dissemination of information. The pundits won't understand, as Microsoft evolves as a media power, that it isn't anything new at all - that it was and is, inevitable and entirely consistent with what a software company does - it allows for the transformation of the seemingly dissimilar into a rich and highly structured visualization of the results of analysis against that which is collected.
It is "the system" that matters and not the message - as we used to say - meaning, and as an example, the recovery of the plaintext values for any one enciphered message was far less important than recovering how a message was encrypted to begin with. It is almost always possible to reduce the former, and very rare to recover the second. In my opinion, Microsoft properly focused on the second goal and they've achieved a lot of their goals along the way. I believe that is why so many in our industry's press are so negative - they know not just that they have lost, but that they have been beaten and that they'll be beaten again.
Finally, just because Microsoft is successful, does not mean they are not supposed to be competitive, or aggressive - the opposite is more appropriate.
This post was edited by lketchum on Saturday, January 20, 2007 at 20:53.
|