6 ms·

Now Don Dodge is writing about Paul's essay

11 points by mattculbreth 20y ago

mattculbreth 20y ago
"Sorry to burst your bubble but it was never Microsoft's intent to scare anyone. Microsoft has a huge partner network of over 80,000 companies who enjoy working with Microsoft." Eh. I personally didn't enjoy working with Microsoft. Strange mix of arrogance and mediocrity.
- dfranke 20y ago
  "Strange mix of arrogance and mediocrity." Those things tend to correlate positively.
mukund 20y ago
well what did microsoft do way back, they bought hotmail for millions from sabeer bhatia. Now what happened? hotmail is still way behind Gmail and yahoo mail. Did they improve that? NO. That shows 0 creativity or understanding of things. Only thing MSFT is good at is putting nice colors and popping things here and there and calling it cool tech. Inane people dont see that for this cool thing they are putting pressure on hardware, RAM guzzler cool things eh?
gibsonf1 20y ago
Wow. Congratulations PG, you have Microsoft on the defensive!
- pjzedalis 20y ago
  With 60,000+ employees it's fairly easy to offend somebody.
nickb 20y ago
I often wonder what Don Dodge does at MS.... he's supposedly in Emerging Business and yet he's often way off the mark and he spends an inordinate amount of time writing blog posts. I think he's actually in PR/Evangelism section... I often question his credibility when I find a link to one of his posts. He completely missed the PG's main point that no one is afraid of MS anymore. He's pointing to revenues and yet he fails to mention MS's abysmal share performance. Come on Don, at least read more than the title next time.
- pjzedalis 20y ago
  He's filling in for Scoble.
pg 20y ago
Hmm, seem to have hit a nerve here. I can't imagine anyone would have reacted so angrily if I'd said Microsoft was dead in 1995. They would have just laughed it off then. Because it wasn't true then.
- reitzensteinm 20y ago
  I'm pretty sure that the way you're framing the debate doesn't help. Literally speaking, "Microsoft is dead" just isn't true - as Don says, they're actually still growing - it's their second derivative that's screwed. Nobody cares about Vista, the 360 is about to be knocked off the throne by the Wii, the Zune is irrelevent, opearting systems are steadily becoming a commodity and not just because of web apps. I agree with it all, except I really question your choice of words.
  - mattjaynes 20y ago
    "Literally speaking, 'Microsoft is dead' just isn't true" Did anyone really think pg was 'speaking literally'?
    - randallsquared 20y ago
      Half the blogosphere, apparently. :) That title does create lots of buzz, but it's really polarized buzz. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily.
    - reitzensteinm 20y ago
      Well, I certainly didn't think he was, but that's an odd thing to ask considering the article we are discussing is basically some guy refuting the literal interpretation.
pjzedalis 20y ago
I think it's kinda lame how everyone goes over there and bashes the poor guy about "Duh Microsoft is dying" or "Paul is right!" or "You can't control the Internetz!!!" Please, this is a well paid executive. He has business meetings with other executives, oversees the big transactions. Paul may very well be right about the future of our industry, of the Internet... The problem is not that Microsoft is not feared, or that they are not agile, or even that they are not aware. I don't think they really even care. As long as the Citigroup's and other GIANT Fortune 50 companies are buying MS products, they will be in the green for decades to come. The fact that they are interested at all in what we like/think warrants some credit, however little we collectively may give them. I like to keep it in perspective, it's just a software company after all.
mukund 20y ago
LOL people snooping on PG and reading the contents? Well this only shows that they could better spend that time in building better things
bootload 20y ago
Looks like Don has a history of picking winners working for DEC, Forte, Compaq, AltaVista, Napster, Groove, deNovis and now Microsoft. [0] I love microsofties, they go straight for the throat. The circumspect ex-softies trash MS these days for MS's lack of focus & ability to adapt. This is because MS has lost their core asset, their API. '... The cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly power and incredibly profitable Windows and Office franchises, which account for virtually all of Microsoft's income and covers up a huge array of unprofitable or marginally profitable product lines, the Windows API is no longer of much interest to developers ...' [1] There is still some great stuff coming out of MS, but they hardly excite the next generation of developers of software. Some of these issues revolve around the dollar costs associated with owning MS operating systems & associated software. Cheaper and more open alternatives don't help. [2] To hear Office, Corporate ownership and X-Box [3] demonstrates to me the developers have left, and marketroids are bleating the 'marketing & business' advantages, where in the past it would have been technical advantages. [4] '... Defaults. Microsoft will design Windows so as to enable computer manufacturers and users to set non-Microsoft programs to operate by default in key categories, such as Web browsing and media playback, in lieu of corresponding end-user functionality in Windows ...' [5] And as for Microsoft being benevolent, all I have to do is look at Don's own first post in his blog to see Microsoft priorities in print. [6] Reference [0] Don Dodge, 'Linked in Bio' http://www.linkedin.com/in/dondodge?trk=btn_typepad http://www.linkedin.com/in/dondodge?trk=btn_typepad [1] Joel Spolsky, 'How Microsoft Lost the API War' http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html [2] Why is it Windows OS has got more expensive, while hardware has got cheaper? It's not distribution nor the OEM's installing the software. So why has MS consistently increased the cost of owning their OS? [3] Well maybe not X-Box. But how many developers have access to X-Box tools, can develop for it & release software? [4] MS did a great job unifying the hardware market from DOS to Windows meaning you just plugged hardware in and it worked. [5] Don Dodge, 19th July 2006, 'Microsoft's 12 principles to promote competition. Read the comments concerning defaults and MS software settings' http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/07/microsofts_12_p.html http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/07/microsofts_12_p.html [6] Don Dodge, 'Microsoft's 12 principles to promote competition' Ibid.
- mattjaynes 20y ago
mattjaynes 20y ago
Wow, did these guys even read the last paragraph of the article? Almost on cue they give the exact response predicted: "I already know what the reaction to this essay will be. Half the readers will say that Microsoft is still an enormously profitable company, and that I should be more careful about drawing conclusions based on what a few people think in our insular little "Web 2.0" bubble. The other half, the younger half, will complain that this is old news."
JMiao 20y ago
He called Apple a "hardware company." Sony is a "hardware company." Apple's killer app, especially in consumer electronics, is software. He then called Google a "consumer search company." Has he forgotten about GMail and the power of web apps based around powerful search? I completely understand if Mr. Dodge was taken aback by Paul's essay, but I really do hope (at least for Microsoft shareholders) that Microsoft's Emerging Business Group doesn't actually buy into these "classifications."
far33d 20y ago
"Holding up Apple and Google as the Microsoft killers is curious. Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a hardware company and Google does consumer web search. I have a lot of respect for Apple and Google, but Microsoft killers? I don't think so." I think that's exactly the point Don. Desktop software, while still (immensely) profitable, isn't the future of software.
Harj 20y ago
This is far too literal an interpretation of what pg's essay is saying. No one is claiming Microsoft is dead today - rather they are dying. Saying "Since when does growing $4 Billion a year = Dead?" sounds a lot like a cancer patient in denial to me, "How can I have cancer, look I can still run and jump today so I must be fine".
pg 20y ago
I added a link to this and some other similar articles at the bottom of the essay.
hello_moto 20y ago
He made a point when he said that these web 2.0 companies don't generate profits as much as MS smallest business units. Last night a friend of mine said this to me: "these websites will be empty places 5 to 10 years later". That pretty much sums up the web 2.0. Sure it's not another dot-com bust but it still not a long-term thing. Only the biggies can survive while the niches will eventually died.

11 points by mattculbreth 20y ago

"Sorry to burst your bubble but it was never Microsoft's intent to scare anyone. Microsoft has a huge partner network of over 80,000 companies who enjoy working with Microsoft." Eh. I personally didn't enjoy working with Microsoft. Strange mix of arrogance and mediocrity.

dfranke 20y ago
"Strange mix of arrogance and mediocrity." Those things tend to correlate positively.

mukund 20y ago

well what did microsoft do way back, they bought hotmail for millions from sabeer bhatia. Now what happened? hotmail is still way behind Gmail and yahoo mail. Did they improve that? NO. That shows 0 creativity or understanding of things. Only thing MSFT is good at is putting nice colors and popping things here and there and calling it cool tech. Inane people dont see that for this cool thing they are putting pressure on hardware, RAM guzzler cool things eh?

gibsonf1 20y ago

Wow. Congratulations PG, you have Microsoft on the defensive!

pjzedalis 20y ago
With 60,000+ employees it's fairly easy to offend somebody.

nickb 20y ago

I often wonder what Don Dodge does at MS.... he's supposedly in Emerging Business and yet he's often way off the mark and he spends an inordinate amount of time writing blog posts. I think he's actually in PR/Evangelism section... I often question his credibility when I find a link to one of his posts. He completely missed the PG's main point that no one is afraid of MS anymore. He's pointing to revenues and yet he fails to mention MS's abysmal share performance. Come on Don, at least read more than the title next time.

pjzedalis 20y ago
He's filling in for Scoble.

pg 20y ago

Hmm, seem to have hit a nerve here. I can't imagine anyone would have reacted so angrily if I'd said Microsoft was dead in 1995. They would have just laughed it off then. Because it wasn't true then.

reitzensteinm 20y ago
I'm pretty sure that the way you're framing the debate doesn't help. Literally speaking, "Microsoft is dead" just isn't true - as Don says, they're actually still growing - it's their second derivative that's screwed. Nobody cares about Vista, the 360 is about to be knocked off the throne by the Wii, the Zune is irrelevent, opearting systems are steadily becoming a commodity and not just because of web apps. I agree with it all, except I really question your choice of words.
- mattjaynes 20y ago
  "Literally speaking, 'Microsoft is dead' just isn't true" Did anyone really think pg was 'speaking literally'?
  - randallsquared 20y ago
    Half the blogosphere, apparently. :) That title does create lots of buzz, but it's really polarized buzz. Not that that's a bad thing, necessarily.
  - reitzensteinm 20y ago
    Well, I certainly didn't think he was, but that's an odd thing to ask considering the article we are discussing is basically some guy refuting the literal interpretation.

pjzedalis 20y ago

I think it's kinda lame how everyone goes over there and bashes the poor guy about "Duh Microsoft is dying" or "Paul is right!" or "You can't control the Internetz!!!" Please, this is a well paid executive. He has business meetings with other executives, oversees the big transactions. Paul may very well be right about the future of our industry, of the Internet... The problem is not that Microsoft is not feared, or that they are not agile, or even that they are not aware. I don't think they really even care. As long as the Citigroup's and other GIANT Fortune 50 companies are buying MS products, they will be in the green for decades to come. The fact that they are interested at all in what we like/think warrants some credit, however little we collectively may give them. I like to keep it in perspective, it's just a software company after all.

mukund 20y ago

LOL people snooping on PG and reading the contents? Well this only shows that they could better spend that time in building better things

bootload 20y ago

Looks like Don has a history of picking winners working for DEC, Forte, Compaq, AltaVista, Napster, Groove, deNovis and now Microsoft. [0] I love microsofties, they go straight for the throat. The circumspect ex-softies trash MS these days for MS's lack of focus & ability to adapt. This is because MS has lost their core asset, their API. '... The cornerstone of Microsoft's monopoly power and incredibly profitable Windows and Office franchises, which account for virtually all of Microsoft's income and covers up a huge array of unprofitable or marginally profitable product lines, the Windows API is no longer of much interest to developers ...' [1] There is still some great stuff coming out of MS, but they hardly excite the next generation of developers of software. Some of these issues revolve around the dollar costs associated with owning MS operating systems & associated software. Cheaper and more open alternatives don't help. [2] To hear Office, Corporate ownership and X-Box [3] demonstrates to me the developers have left, and marketroids are bleating the 'marketing & business' advantages, where in the past it would have been technical advantages. [4] '... Defaults. Microsoft will design Windows so as to enable computer manufacturers and users to set non-Microsoft programs to operate by default in key categories, such as Web browsing and media playback, in lieu of corresponding end-user functionality in Windows ...' [5] And as for Microsoft being benevolent, all I have to do is look at Don's own first post in his blog to see Microsoft priorities in print. [6] Reference [0] Don Dodge, 'Linked in Bio' http://www.linkedin.com/in/dondodge?trk=btn_typepad http://www.linkedin.com/in/dondodge?trk=btn_typepad [1] Joel Spolsky, 'How Microsoft Lost the API War' http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/APIWar.html [2] Why is it Windows OS has got more expensive, while hardware has got cheaper? It's not distribution nor the OEM's installing the software. So why has MS consistently increased the cost of owning their OS? [3] Well maybe not X-Box. But how many developers have access to X-Box tools, can develop for it & release software? [4] MS did a great job unifying the hardware market from DOS to Windows meaning you just plugged hardware in and it worked. [5] Don Dodge, 19th July 2006, 'Microsoft's 12 principles to promote competition. Read the comments concerning defaults and MS software settings' http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/07/microsofts_12_p.html http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2006/07/microsofts_12_p.html [6] Don Dodge, 'Microsoft's 12 principles to promote competition' Ibid.

mattjaynes 20y ago

mattjaynes 20y ago

Wow, did these guys even read the last paragraph of the article? Almost on cue they give the exact response predicted: "I already know what the reaction to this essay will be. Half the readers will say that Microsoft is still an enormously profitable company, and that I should be more careful about drawing conclusions based on what a few people think in our insular little "Web 2.0" bubble. The other half, the younger half, will complain that this is old news."

JMiao 20y ago

He called Apple a "hardware company." Sony is a "hardware company." Apple's killer app, especially in consumer electronics, is software. He then called Google a "consumer search company." Has he forgotten about GMail and the power of web apps based around powerful search? I completely understand if Mr. Dodge was taken aback by Paul's essay, but I really do hope (at least for Microsoft shareholders) that Microsoft's Emerging Business Group doesn't actually buy into these "classifications."

far33d 20y ago

"Holding up Apple and Google as the Microsoft killers is curious. Microsoft is a software company. Apple is a hardware company and Google does consumer web search. I have a lot of respect for Apple and Google, but Microsoft killers? I don't think so." I think that's exactly the point Don. Desktop software, while still (immensely) profitable, isn't the future of software.

Harj 20y ago

This is far too literal an interpretation of what pg's essay is saying. No one is claiming Microsoft is dead today - rather they are dying. Saying "Since when does growing $4 Billion a year = Dead?" sounds a lot like a cancer patient in denial to me, "How can I have cancer, look I can still run and jump today so I must be fine".

pg 20y ago

I added a link to this and some other similar articles at the bottom of the essay.

hello_moto 20y ago

He made a point when he said that these web 2.0 companies don't generate profits as much as MS smallest business units. Last night a friend of mine said this to me: "these websites will be empty places 5 to 10 years later". That pretty much sums up the web 2.0. Sure it's not another dot-com bust but it still not a long-term thing. Only the biggies can survive while the niches will eventually died.