All Posts in Strategy and Tactics

|In: Industry Commentary|Last Updated:

Random thoughts:

Richard Cunningham connected some dots I’d missed with last week’s column about the need for consensus in product design. Because, he said, each element of design (engineering, marketability, manufacturability, design, profitability and so on) affects all of the other elements, “… it seems like compromising is a process of each party accepting something suboptimal to what they want for the good of the overall result.”

Bullseye. Consensus leads to superior results when all participants are committed to a common overall purpose. When that isn’t the case, even a room full of geniuses becomes a collective idiot.

Among those not committed to a common purpose are the purveyors of spam; the common purpose to which they aren’t aligned is the health and well-being of the Internet they rely on — a classic example of Garrett Hardin’s “Tragedy of the Commons.”

Spam has no clear definition. To some, it’s any unwanted e-mail — a definition that is clear but circular. To others, it’s unsolicited promotional e-mail that’s sent to a large list. I’ve already critiqued that one; it doesn’t hold up to scrutiny.

I have a new definition, or at least a new criterion, which if not comprehensive is at least immune from what scientists and diagnosticians call “Type 1 Errors,” otherwise known as false positives. It’s this: If an e-mail’s Subject line, auto-preview, and content aren’t consistent, it’s spam. If the sender has to trick you into opening a message, there’s no question as to whether it belongs in the junk bin.

What I don’t understand is why anyone bothers to send stuff like this. Whether it’s physical direct mail or promotional e-mail, if you know the recipient won’t be interested before you send it, what’s the point? I always figured it was to make money, but with these the only possible result is aggravating the recipient, with no hope of a sale.

Why cheat when it’s pointless?

It’s a question that comes up over and over again, as when reading about multibillionaires who violate insider trading laws to make a $50 thousand profit, or when looking at Microsoft’s Windows Genuine Advantage license validation program. Advantage? Sure — and down is the same as up only farther. Microsoft seems to have launched it without first making sure that (1) the software works properly; (2) its database includes all vendor pre-installs; and (3) its technical support staff have been properly trained to always give the benefit of the doubt to the caller.

Ed Foster has been reporting on this story. The short version: It appears Microsoft is requiring lots of people to pay it for licenses they already own.

I hope it’s an example of Napoleon’s dictum that you shouldn’t ascribe to malice what you can explain through incompetence. Otherwise it’s an example of cheating when you don’t have to. There just can’t be enough money involved for this to matter to Microsoft, in spite of its whining about pirated copies of Windows XP.

If you add Microsoft’s cost of tech support calls, this one-license-at-a-time approach has to cost a lot more than going after those who sell the pirated copies in bulk. Beyond that, the odds of someone filing a class-action lawsuit are, if I were to calculate the odds, approximately certain, and Microsoft will spend more to make the lawsuit go away than it can possibly be making with this program.

This would seem to be a perfect opportunity for those promoting desktop Linux. It would, except for one small problem: Whoever is responsible for desktop Linux’s success is doing their best to make it a chancy proposition for CIOs.

Oh, I forgot. Nobody is responsible, and the result is that, more than a year after Open Office 2.0’s official release (the version you need if you want to exchange files with MS Office without dying of acute annoyance), it’s still listed as “test” for at least the widely used Debian distribution — the basis for some of the more popular desktop Linux brands. CIOs don’t want to wonder whether the software they need will be compatible with the Linux version they choose. They’re looking to reduce their headaches, not make them worse.

Which brings up an important question: What is the point of making the various Linux distributions different enough that software stable on some is unreliable on others?

The open source “community” represents itself as having common goals and purpose. That must not be the case, because if it was, its members would be willing to make the minor sub-optimizations necessary to achieve easy compatibility among versions.

Clearly, they aren’t in consensus.

Comments

|In: Business Ethics|Last Updated:

Talk about the end of an era …

The big news in business circles this week is Bill Gates’ decision to leave Microsoft. His decision will result in a lot of fallout in the industry, not the least of which will be the inevitable flood of opinion pieces dissecting the decision itself; its impact on the future of Microsoft; and Gates’ impact on life, the universe, and everything.

Why should Keep the Joint Running be the exception? Here’s what comes to mind:

The decision itself: Very smart. Others have pointed this out, too — Gates has nothing left to accomplish at Microsoft and would have gone stale had he stayed. By focusing on the work of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation he’ll have whatever new frontiers he wants for the rest of his life.

Impact on Microsoft: In the short term, very little — the transition will take two years, and he’s done an exemplary job of succession planning. In the long term, Microsoft will become a very different company, because corporate culture always reflects the personality of the company’s leader in some way, shape or form.

Gates’ impact on life, the universe, and everything: The personal computer would have happened with or without Bill Gates. The IBM PC architecture would have trounced both the Apple and generic CP/M architectures, too, for a very simple reason: IBM wanted to dominate the business use of personal computers, while Steve Jobs wanted to dominate being very cool with technology, Steve Wozniak wanted to play, and Gary Kildall wanted to fly.

But the personal computer wouldn’t have happened the way it did without Gates and his merry band of renegades. Because of them, the computer that invaded corporate desktops was fundamentally personal — an empowering technology that flattened corporate hierarchies and increased the ability of individual knowledge workers to influence business strategy, direction and outcomes. Had IBM maintained control of the architecture … OS/2 was its attempt to regain it … there’s little doubt that the PC would have been a very different animal.

Microsoft’s mission was to put a computer on every desk and Microsoft software in every computer. Give them credit — from a virtual green field, they accomplished what they set out to accomplish.

A few other thoughts: Start with this — Bill Gates gets a kick out of the technology itself. Anyone who has seen him demo new Microsoft products comes away with the same impression. He personally finds this stuff to be very cool. He’s like a kid in a toy store, except that he owns the toy store, and the toy factory too.

I just wish more CIOs got the same kick out of the technology they manage.

One other point: Gates and company achieved something mind-boggling in the annals of business history. They started as a garage business and continued to run it … successfully … as it grew through the $100 million, $1 billion, and $10 billion business breakpoints. It’s been done before, but it’s a rare achievement. Usually, founders have to turn over control to professional business managers because they don’t know how to run an organization beyond a certain size.

Gates, in contrast, adapted Microsoft to constantly changing business trends, at least three major technical watersheds, and its own stupendous increase in size without it ever losing its focus. Microsoft is about winning, has been from the beginning, and is to this day.

Compare that to the company you work for and ask yourself this basic question: Is “winning” in your company defined in Microsoft’s terms — winning customer mindshare, from that marketshare, and from that profits and shareholder value? If so, you’re lucky.

Probably, you work for a small business, too. In most corporate giants, “winning” is defined in terms of internal politics and rivalries, and corporate success is measured by the price of a share of stock, not by the health, success, and impact of the business.

I’ve read many times that Bill Gates turned a lot of people into millionaires, as if that was of any consequence. Bill Gates and his company changed how companies conduct business. That matters.

So here’s what you can learn from Bill Gates: Focus your attention on accomplishing something important. If you do, you and everyone who works for you will find their work less stressful and more rewarding.

You, and they, will probably manage to earn a pretty good living while you’re all at it, too.

Comments