What Next for Microsoft??

Last Saturday, the 20th, MSFTextrememakeover posed the question, "What if Microsoft wasn't a screwup?"

The market, it seems, doesn't much care about what might happen if MSFT weren't a screwup. They only care that MSFT is one, and is in total denial about it. As critical as I have been, I have always been optimistic that this company could eventually get back on track. That optimism is fading. Turns out the market was right five years ago when they ignored Ballmer's rosy outlook and disconnected MSFT from the broader averages. Flash forward to today, and again the market is sending a negative message while Ballmer waxes poetic. Only now, the market is the sole one with any credibility.

On Sunday, the 21st, Silicon Valley Blog posed the question, "Is Microsoft Irrevocably Broken?"

Additionally, in order to be taken seriously as a stock or as a company, investors have to believe in the management and its direction. Bill Gates has lessened his influence on the company, working more on non-profits. And Steve Ballmer doesn't have the credibility and the ability to inspire employees and customers the way Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin and Larry Page have. It could be time for a change there, as Microsoft looks more and more like yesterday's IBM than tomorrow's Google. The question is, is the company broken, and can it be saved.

On Monday, the 22nd, The Wall Street Journal reported, "Microsoft Bows to EU Regulators On 2004 Antitrust Measures."

The case touched only two corners of the sprawling Microsoft software empire-- operating systems for a single class of computer servers, and software that plays audio and video files. The EU had told Microsoft to unbundle the Media Player software it sells with its ubiquitous Windows operating system, and to give competitors the data they need to make their software work effectively with Windows

Is the company broken?? -- NO, not yet.

Can it be saved?? -- YES, depending...
...on its handling of the Antitrust Matter!!!

We need a small change in attitude on the part of all affected participants -- no matter our personal prejudices, we each have a stake in the success of Microsoft.

The crux of the antitrust matter is the bundling of applications with the operating system. Under the bundling problem lies a technological controversy about the scientific merit of computer programming. Whether Vista represents a technological advance or not, is irrelevant right now. We need to recognize that meeting the requirements of the EU will be very difficult with the present technology -- requiring much negotiation.

I have a better idea!!!

Create a new product line by unbundling at the Windows 2000 level. Market an operating system plus a Windows middleware, each with the necessary support applications

Acquire my product line and introduce a ScrapBook middleware with the necessary support applications.

Revise and introduce necessary Development Kits, compilers, linkers, along with MSDN documentation.

Obviously, there are a lot of details to be discussed -- and THAT is the crux of my proposal -- ALL OF THE DETAILS SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO AN OPEN DISCUSSION -- NO MORE HIDDEN AGENDAS. (That small change in attitude I mentioned above)

Product Information - http://pdmsb.com

Off-line discussion forums - http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

Contact - Doug Skoglund skoglund@pdmsb.comPlease put a [MYWAY] in your subject line if you wish to contact me.

Microsoft is Dead??

Monday, April 9, 2007

Microsoft is Dead??

The top posting on Techmeme, yesterday, was a posting by Paul Graham, entitled, "Microsoft is Dead", followed by a whole pile of postings on the subject -- naturally.

Now, there is a lot of wisdom in all of those postings -- in fact, an individual could extract enough wisdom from a small number of those postings to support most any argument, a feat that I am about to demonstrate.

Paul states:

"I was talking to a young startup founder about how Google was different from Yahoo. I said that Yahoo had been warped from the start by their fear of Microsoft. That was why they'd positioned themselves as a "media company" instead of a technology company. Then I looked at his face and realized that he didn't understand."

"Microsoft cast a shadow over the software world for almost 20 years starting in the late 80s. I can remember when it was IBM before them, I ignored this shadow. I never used Microsoft software, so it only affected me indirectly -- for example, in the spam I got from botnets. And because I wasn't paying attention, I didn't notice when the shadow disappeared."

The fact of the matter is -- that shadow has NOT disappeared. I use quotes from Simeon Bateman and Ryan Stewart from a post entitled, "Why Do People Hate Building Desktop Applications", by Ryan Stewart:

"Simeon: And I think paul is right on with the desktop thing. The only reason I would ever consider building an application for the desktop is because apollo lets me do it easily like a web application. "

"I would never NEVER build a desktop application."

"Ryan: At least Simeon realizes there is some benefit to building desktop applications, he just doesn't see why it's worth it to go through the effort. And he's right, building desktop applications has been hard. It's a pain: you have to create a version for each operating system, and most of them look ugly when you're finished."

Obviously, this is exactly the kind of discussion that Microsoft wants. This is wisdom -- not my kind -- but wisdom, nonetheless. The longer people see the business that way the more dominant that shadow.

As a builder of a desktop application that can make development of additional applications much easier, I am extremely sensitive to the spread of such baloney.

I must add a couple of quotes from, "Don Dodge on The Next Big Thing."

"Paul obviously wrote his headline to grab attention and attract links to his blog."

"Hyperbole is the weapon of the Web 2.0 pontificates, Facts are ignored in favor of Myopic observations."

"The Paul Graham apologists are already coming to his defense saying "he said dead, but what he really meant was that Microsoft is not feared anymore". Sorry to burst your bubble but it was never Microsoft's intent to scare anyone."

Yea, sure -- tell that to Jennifer Edstrom and Marlin Eller, the authors of "Barbarians Led by Bill Gates.", published in 1998.

That's enough -- I must assume that I have made my point.

Whether you agree or not, you will cherry pick all those postings for wisdom to support your preconceived position, just as I have done. That, in it's self, is the way things were meant to be -- we can talk about our individual viewpoints till hell freezes over.

The presence, or non-presence of a cloud will NOT change until we convert our collective viewpoint into some kind of political action.

The blogosphere was started as a reaction to the mainstream media and it's usurped control over the power of the people. The blogosphere is now part of that MSM. Nothing has changed for the majority of the people -- no sense my getting aroused -- I can't participate in the discussion, except by mailing a copy of this post to a number of well known gatekeepers.

I just happen to be dumb enough to still do a little wishful thinking.

Thanks for listening

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

This page posted at http://nationalcomputerassociation.comwhere you can join a discussion aimed at creating a real answer to that cloud.

Social Media

Brian Solis has posted a lengthy and informative treatise entitled, "What's Wrong With Social Media?", in which he brings together a number of positive and negative viewpoints on the use of the term "Social Media".

IMHO, the only thing wrong with "Social Media" is the questionable motivations of those that find it necessary to give it a name. Let's back up a bit and take another look at what has been happening.

Back when the Constitution of the United States was written, our forefathers wrote about freedom of the press, meaning newspapers. Sometime between then and now, technology gave us magazines, radio, television and the term "media" to cover everything. By and large, the media was run by journalists as delivery of news was of paramount importance.

Now, it has been downhill for the media ever since, what with the growth of advertising along with our normal competitive desires and need to control the activities of our fellow man. Newspapers, radio and television stations used to be locally owned and dedicated to the prosperity of the local community, a situation that has changed over the years.

To make matters worse, technology introduces the microprocessor, and a bunch of geeks see it as an opportunity to take over the world. (Prior to this time the geeks were quite happy serving as tool makers for the world).

So, what do the geeks do?? They turn the whole world upside-down, rename everything, throw out the baby AND the bath water. Of course, they have an advantage -- they are the only ones that understand this new technology.

Someone coined the phrase, "Revenge of the geeks/nerds." Maybe so -- one would have to admit that the geeks have done a very poor job of providing the whole of society with a safe, workable, economical "Personal Computer".

We need to understand that the first users of any technology will be suspect while they plow new ground -- but, even more so because of the extremely high financial rewards some have reaped at the expense of society as a whole.

The net effect of all of this is a system that is highly competitive. The blogosphere creates problems for the mainstream media causing them to join the competition. This, at a time when we should be lowering the competitive levels, not increasing them.

So, when Brian Solis writes:

"The key point is that Social Media has yet to reveal its true impact among those around the world who have yet to embrace it and participate."

"The way we react and share information will only continue to change until it completely transforms from one-to-many to many-to-many."

I must counter by noting that the transformation would be very simple -- switch from blogs, a one-to-many format, to forums, a many-to-many format.

You might be interested in my Off-Line Forum samples, a true many-to-many approach:

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

Peer Review...

When I went to school there was a horrendous gulf between the social sciences and the real sciences, you know, math, physics, chemistry and biology.

In the real sciences we have the Scientific Method where we collect data, formulate an hypothesis, test our hypothesis, all subject to the careful scrutiny of other scientists.

In the social sciences they have Theories, Causal Variables, critical analysis and peer review. Frankly, I don't see any difference. Theory, hypothesis, either one is of no value without peer review. And that seems like the fundamental premise supporting the ultimate definition of Democracy.

Let's look at a specific example:

One of my daily stops is Doc Searls Weblog, not because of what he says, but because he has the best links in the blogosphere. Now that is not a put down of Doc Searls, it is my way of saying that a combination of things makes it very difficult to understand precisely what he is saying. I keep reading little gems of wisdom that I can't consolidate because they are all mixed up in all the other things that interest Doc, to say nothing of the crummy blog format used by Doc.

On yesterday's post, Doc starts with the heading "Losing our heads" and links to Dave Rogers (and some other place) and then posts a quote. He interjects a comment and then continues with a very, very lengthy quote.

Now, I don't intend to provide a bunch of links beside the one to Doc Searls above. You can try and follow the discussion between Dave and Doc the same way I did. OTOH, you can skip the exercise, as most others do.

The point is -- here are two intelligent people discussing a matter of great importance to all of us -- yet there is no possibility of any Peer Review. Oh, at least Doc has the ability for any of us to post a comment; but, just try and make any sense out of that kind of thread.

What we have is the modern day equivalent of an electronic football game with one team in Indianapolis and the other in Chicago, and the audience spread all over the world. First, you tune in the Colts to see their play and then you need to tune in the Bears to see their reaction. and to make matters worse you need to tune in New York, Los Angeles, Miami, etc to get a feel for the crowd reaction. Silly, isn't it??

But, this is what we have in the blogosphere. Doc didn't like this description; however, a blog is a soapbox, one-to-many, one individual shouting a message to the world. Adding comments does not a forum make, it is still a blog with comments.

A forum may begin with the same kind of message as a blog; however it is aimed a smaller group of members involved in the evolution of the group. Now, don't get all excited by my limited comparison -- I accept that there are good blogs and bad forums. The critical point is that the forum can contain, in one place, both sides of a discussion in addition to some reader contribution. Yes, it may put a little more burden on the individual than a personal blog, but it makes it a whole lot easier on the general public.

BTW, I'm not convinced that you guys are really on different sides. Dave, you said that you are opposed to the unchecked expansion of commercial activity at the expense of social and political activities. Doc, you said that you were not going to stop trying to change the balance of power within commerce. What's the difference??

Dave, you don't like the phrase, "Markets are Conversations". I don't either; however, I see the phrase as a misguided attempt to change reality by changing the framing. In other words, while you can frame a discussion in many different ways to facilitate an understanding of reality, it is a mistake to believe that you can change reality by framing the discussion differently. Think about it!!

Doc Searls, Dave Rogers, I make this challenge, Bring your discussion to my web site. Let's set up a forum where others can get involved. Yes, it is necessary to download some software -- to accommodate present and future non-broadband users I am using a slight modification to the standard e-mail system. That same software will allow you to respond to this message, out in the open where everybody can see. (Sorry Dave, requires a PC and Windows 2000 or Windows XP, but, that's another story. I'll bet that you could borrow a laptop, someplace).

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

If you send me an email, please put a [PDMSB] in the title, to separate your message from the Spam.

Wake Up, America!!

On Sunday evening, January 28, 2007, 60 Minutes broadcast a segment on the Geek squad, that I wish I had recorded. A Google search this morning yielded a web site on Yahoo that may prove to be more valuable than the original broadcast. Here is a link.

That segment was just the tip of the iceberg, a sign of things to come. Check it out!!!

I want all of America, especially the geeks of America, to realize that, "The Sky is Falling". It is time for each and every individual, geek and non-geek to engage in some introspection.

"Are you part of the problem or part of the solution??"

Your answer to that question will become very important to your future success.

Just think about it -- I can make such a prediction because I have not predicted which side might win, or whether the problem will ever be solved: however, it is still a meaningful question that you should be thinking about.

To furnish some additional data, I want to submit the following from a letter that I wrote to Tom Reilly, Massachusetts attorney General on Saturday, October 4, 2003.

"First, without getting too political, let me state that the two most dangerous men in the world today are George W. Bush and William H. Gates III, Mr. Bush as head of the world's only super power and Mr. Gates as the head of the world's most dominant monopoly. I'm not too worried about Mr. Bush, as we have provisions for resolving any difficulty he may create - it's called an election. Mr. Gates, on the other hand, is a whole different problem."

"Both, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates have failed to recognize that responsibilities change when one succeeds to such a high position. One must be able to serve the broader community; presidents of the United States are elected to serve all the citizens, not just those that elected him. And being the only superpower, we might consider the U.S. to be an international monopoly which means that Mr. Bush and Mr. Gates, both must consider the needs of the entire world. Such is the reward for that kind of success. Failure to perform properly will be handled by the larger community in due time. Since Mr. Bush's term can be terminated next year, I am more concerned about Mr. Gates. The market will take care of him in the long run; however, we need some action quicker than that. Besides, monopolies have always been controlled by the government. Now we sit, waiting for the European Union to take over the responsibilities that the U.S. has shirked."

"Mr. Gates' decision to oppose the government, and then win in the courts is probably more destructive to our way of life than any mistakes that Mr. Bush might make. The government must prevail or we will see a slide into oblivion, far worse than anything previously experienced."

Now, here we sit, some 3-1/4 years later, George Bush's term was not terminated; however, Mr. Bush seems to be in some sort of free fall at this time. He is desperately trying to open a parachute, and while he can't stop the fall he can hope to soften the landing.

Mr. Gates' situation is not as easy to visualize, but Joe Wilcox used an interesting metaphor:

"Windows Vista is now a train near it's destination -- and it's got a lot of momentum. Microsoft won't be stopping that train and asking the passengers to get off."

Joe forgot to mention that the train is on a downward slope, making control much more difficult.

I am not trying the emphasize the "I told you so" aspect, because all kinds of people have been voicing similar opinions since long before I got in the action. What I do want to emphasize is the fact that no matter any individual's previous position, we, the citizens of the United States are responsible for the damage created by Bush and Gates.

The 60 Minutes broadcast was a preliminary notice to all geeks. We have a limited time to get our house in order because the balance of society is getting restless. The 60 Minutes people were just starting the process of problem analysis. And we must remember that our democratic society has a way of solving problems, eventually.

We must be aware that the year 2007 might very well go down in history as the turning point, meaning that each of us will be measured on what we do in the future, not what we have done in the past. No matter our past individual activity, we are all part of the problem. We lost that game and are now in the first quarter of a new game -- think about it!!!

I will be publishing some additional thoughts on problems and solutions in the near future.

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

If you send me an email, please put a [PDMSB] in the title, to separate your message from the Spam.

Paralyzed by Fear

On Wednesday, December 20, 2006, Nick Bradbury published a blog with the title, "Desktop Software is Paralyzed by Fear", and I quote:

Despite the power and rich UI that desktop applications offer, it's obvious that the move to Web applications is accelerating. For many people, the ability to access their data through any browser clearly outweighs the benefits of desktop software.

He goes on to claim that many mainstream users that may not care about the Web's benefits are still moving to the Web because of fear, "Downloading and installing software is scary".

After a short explanation of his hypothesis, Nick summarizes with the following:

It's great that Microsoft is concerned about security - given the past few years of spyware-ridden desktops, they have to make security their priority - but I sure wish they could make Windows secure without scaring away customers.

Nick, I am not posting this to take issue with you, since I agree with all that you wrote; however, you have opened the door on a subject that deserves more discussion -- much more discussion.

First, it would be nice if we had some numbers to justify the feeling (yours and mine) that the move to Web applications is accelerating. 

Second, since I am not quite certain about your motivations for making your post, I want to state, that as a Windows Desktop Programmer and a participant in the PC market, I believe that it is up to us to do something about that fear.

Third, if we hope to accomplish anything, we need an understanding of our present situation, where we are going and how we want to get there. I am referring to the entire Personal Computer business, which includes Desktops, Laptops -- as well as the Web.

I just happen to believe that we are in the early stages of a very natural process -- the process of maturing a market. Allowing that the PC has been in existence for some 25 to 30 years, we need to recognize that the maturation process has been slowed by the anti-competitive activities of some participants combined with the cooperative activities of others and the apathetic non-participation by the balance of society. The market will mature, no matter our individual contribution; however, we, the participants, can influence the speed of the process as well as the smoothness. 

The fact that the move to Web applications seems to be accelerating, means that the total fear level is decreasing and that the fear that plagues the Desktop will be decreasing also, thus allowing more companies to enter that portion of the market, which will decrease the fear that plagues users even further.

Obviously, I have no way of knowing the details about future market development -- but, I do know this:

The fear will decrease as the market matures, by definition -- good companies will survive, bad companies will perish -- problems that concern users will be solved. Ultimately we affect the market by our spending; however, we can expedite the process and influence its direction through our participation. And that's what blogs and forums are all about, participation.

Remember, the early entrants will reap the most rewards -- the desktop is NOT the exclusive property of Microsoft. So, come and join the discussion...

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

See you there...

Doug Skoglund
SandS Software, Inc.
skoglund@pdmsb.com

If you send me an email, please put a [PDMSB] in the title, to separate your message from the Spam.

Letter to George Soros

Regarding your book, "The Age of Fallibility: Consequences of the War on Terror", I want to take issue with you on a couple of very important points.

But, first, the following caveat:

I would normally buy your book and then try to make some kind of contact with you directly. You see, I am a very strong believer in two-way communication; however, failure of past authors to partake in my idea of a better world causes me to try to make the contact BEFORE spending any money. I am therefore using material from your website to support my thoughts.

Please, let me emphasize that I am not talking about major differences -- I have no argument with your general philosophy -- I am concerned with a few gaps in your logic, gaps that are most critical, as you will see.

In your introduction, you state:

"My biggest frustration is with the fundamental misconceptions that have prevailed in the United States in recent years. Misconceptions play a prominent role in my view of the world. I consider them causal factors in shaping the course of history. And I consider open society a desirable form of social organization exactly because of its ability to correct misconceptions. How is it that the oldest and most successful open society has become the victim of misconceptions?"

"My contention is that America has become a "feel-good" society unwilling to face unpleasant reality. That is why the public could be so grievously misled by the Bush administration. Unless this feel-good attitude can be changed, the United States is doomed to lose its dominant position in the world. There will be serious adverse consequences not only for America but also for the world."

And I agree, except for one thing -- you proceeded in the wrong direction -- exploring the relationship between thinking and reality. And it's not that the question lacks importance. You have not established a causal connection between thinking and your so-called feel-good society. In all fairness, there is a connection; however, there are some links in between that need examining.

America has become a "feel-good" society because that is exactly what the powers want. The last thing the powers want is a thinking society. Thinking people have a tendency to do exactly what I am doing -- writing a letter to one in power to disagree with something he said.

But -- and here is the crux of the problem -- how do I get you to read my thoughts?? You have nothing on your web site for individual contact -- no e-mail or other address -- no location whatever. So, I can post to my web sites in the hope that some reader may know how to get your attention.

Mr. Soros, Doing something about the feel-good society is easy, because there is a lot of activity in process in that area, which means that supporting some of that activity is the easiest way to get preliminary results. I am referring to the activity called blogs and/or forums or chat rooms -- activity designed to build communities, communities designed to facilitate discussion.

I am not trying to denigrate your concern for the connection between thinking and reality -- only to state that it too will need the capabilities that I am talking about. We need to get the people talking to each other, which means that we need to start with the infrastructure -- it's just as easy as that. Another point, from your introduction:

"The root cause of trouble is a false metaphor, the war on terror. It has done terrible damage to our standing in the world and endangered our open society at home; yet it is still generally accepted as the natural response to 9/11. I detail the damage and argue that it is largely self-inflicted by the willful misinterpretation of reality. We cannot start repairing the damage until we repudiate the false metaphor of the war on terror. We must do more than just revert to the policies we pursued prior to 9/11. We must recognize that as the dominant power in the world we have a special responsibility. In addition to protecting our national interests, we must take the leadership in protecting the common interests of humanity. I go to some detail as to what that entails."

While I agree that the false metaphor is a problem, I don't see it as the root cause. There are a number of people making the same points about it's usefulness; however, the key question is:

How do you expect to dispense with a false metaphor when more than half the voting citizens are not involved in the discussion -- and there is no way that they can get involved as long as we fail to provide the infra structure. In short -- how can a society be open without the ability to pursue in-depth discussion other than through sound bites??

You may contact me through my web sites:

http://nationalcomputerassociation.com

http://ifihadmyway.com

http://pdmsb.com

or my e-mail: skoglund@pdmsb.com. Please mark your subject with [SOROS]

To all other readers: I would appreciate your help getting my message to Mr. Soros.

Thanks

Doug Skoglund