(For me anyway). Today was my last day at Microsoft. I’m going to see if there is life beyond the 98052 zip code and make sure I avoid any future tolls on the 520 bridge.
Microsoft was a phenomenal experience and I had the opportunity to work with an amazing array of people. The company has set the benchmark for business success (if you haven’t looked at a Microsoft financial report recently, go check out all the digits, especially on the profit line). Even the most successful of those who passed through are likely to fall far short of what Microsoft has accomplished. I wish my co-workers well and continued success.
I probably could have stayed at Microsoft for a long time, but ultimately decided it was time for a self-inflicted change. Among the things I have considered:
- Spend more time with my family although they argue they have not done anything to deserve being subjected to that.
- Start preparing for the singularity and get a jump on all the disappointed Y2K millenialists who will be hunkering down again for the big one.
- Go full-time on my personal foundation where I could spend my time distributing pennies every hour.
- Head for Iowa, declare my candidacy and immediately start campaigning for the 2012 caucuses.
- Save the world by disrupting the energy industry, bring lasting peace to the Middle East, explore space, mentor a few startups and clean out my garage.
- Travel the world as an ambassador for Philly Cheese steaks.
Stay tuned for more on my actual choice. I am going to revel briefly in being unemployed.
Not sure what it means for this blog yet. I may post more, I may post less. I did find I couldn’t really blog about my job at Microsoft, so a lot of my posts were historical or irreverent (with the posts about IBM being both). Hopefully, there should be less of that going forward (unless IBM continues to do things that are really egregious, and you don’t dare bet against them on that count) and I can be more topical.
Two posts in one week and both about the same issue of Wired no less.
Yesterday’s kerfuffle in which Wired is “shocked, shocked” to learn there is a PR industry has been all over the blogosphere. Microsoft screwed up by accidentally sending Fred Vogelstein of Wired the internal briefing document written for the folks he was interviewing. This has been portrayed as a nefarious “secret dossier” about the reporter, never mind that Fred only merited a whopping five bullet points in said document (and Fred doesn’t contest the characterizations). Reactions were bimodal: 1.) this is how the PR business works although forwarding the briefing document is definitely not best practice and 2.) you mean there is a PR business that does this?
We’ll see if it sells more magazines, but it was disappointing to see the publication spent so much time on the backstory and generating controversy around the “secret dossier” that the story of how transparency works on Channel 9 (the nominal subject) was lost. Channel 9 is a developer community that has roughly five times the number of users as Wired’s own site with far deeper user engagement. Explaining how and why is left as an exercise for someone else.
As an aside, the fact stories like this can be told so subjectively is why the world finds a use for PR agencies.
Wired may be happy in the sense that controversy probably generates buzz and drives traffic, but poor Fred is having to take one for the team. Not just the comments about him in the briefing document and here (from the oh-so-non-transparent Fake Steve, my favorite source of industry news and analysis, ironically sponsored by Wired) but longer term because every company in the world now has the briefing on him and he’ll likely have to change his journalism modus operandi. Perhaps we can just fast forward to having Wikipedia entries on every journalist, summarizing their past prose, proclivities and peccadilloes, thereby saving the energy involved in every company preparing for their own interviews. The Channel 9 team did have some fun turning the tables by interviewing their interviewer (video is here on Channel 9’s sibling TEN).
I am a big believer in transparency but the interesting discussion is where are the limits. There are and will be limits. I think Wired did a disservice making the leap to “radical transparency” without much substantiation (even the cover image stopped short of “radical” transparency). Perhaps Wired will embrace their own mantra and practice what they are preaching. They could post the stories they’re working on, let people vote on who to put on the cover and might as well share all their financials (no Reg FD issues when you’re privately held). Reporters like Fred could post all their interview notes and logs of what PR people they have met and been pitched by. Put the ad revenue per page right by the page number. Letting readers have the data to look for any correlations between editorial coverage and advertising revenue would be a radical blow for transparency.
And just for the record, I should note that it was a Microsoft employee, not Waggener Edstrom our PR agency, that accidentally sent Fred the briefing document.
The April issue has an article entitled “Desktop R.I.P.” that enthuses breathlessly about “computing moving off your machine and into the cloud”. I talked to the reporter, Jason Tanz, for this article a couple months ago (real-time Wired isn’t). Tanz, whose byline suggests his most eminent qualification to do the story was writing a book about Hip-Hop in White America, ignored what I had to say (hardly the first such occasion). After all, why let pesky details get in the way of an absolutist premise. But it helps if the examples you muster for your case actually support your argument.
Salesforce.com is cited as an obvious poster child. Yet Salesforce has performed a complete u-turn from the article’s premise and has quietly rolled out Salesforce.com Offline Edition, a Windows client for their service. I assume they are quiet about it because they don’t want to have to change their “1-800 No Software” phone number, yet they can’t be competitive in sales force automation without enabling people to work on airplanes, in customer lobbies or if the service goes down.
The article also says the Nokia N800 Internet Tablet is “challenging the primacy of the desktop”. There are lots of cool new devices out there but to suggest this one is leading the charge makes one wonder if the reporter’s next book is about Hip-Hop in Finland. The reviews have been terrible (the device, not the book).
But the most egregious foul comes in the big finale:
“Sites like wesabe.com offer a glimpse of the future. What if online services could see the trail of breadcrumbs people leave behind them on the Web? Privacy concerns aren’t likely to trump the ample benefits.”
Ironically, wesabe.com uses desktop software specifically to avoid the privacy and security risks of sucking your most sensitive data into the cloud. And they’re appropriately quite righteous about it.
The reality is the desktop is moving into the cloud and the cloud is moving onto the desktop. The winners will bring together the unique capabilities of both. The losers will cling dogmatically to one or the other.