4 ms·

I think the saddest part in all of this is that the people who say 'no' are always vindicated. Could the Kin have been a hit? Who knows. But by cutting impassio

I think the saddest part in all of this is that the people who say 'no' are always vindicated. Could the Kin have been a hit? Who knows. But by cutting impassioned people from the project and gutting backing, it was doomed to fail. And the skeptics get to say, "Look how much I saved by not investing any more in this product! God, imagine if we spent ten thousand more hours working on this, how much more we would have lost!"

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
macrael 16y ago
Every time there is a compromise, both sides are given ammunition to claim credit for eventual success and give blame for eventual failure.
karzeem 16y ago
I read an interview with Dean Kamen a while back where he said the hardest thing about inventing things is knowing when to quit.
- sdfghj 16y ago
  No it's easy to know when to quit - when a competing but more senior VP gets hold of your project.
- zmmmmm 16y ago
  The problem here is not just when they quit but how they quit. I think MS is going to take a hit in their reputation over this and it is going to carry over into soured trust from crucial carrier partners (and really any other business partner) going forward. Had they gone to Verizon and said "hey, I know we had a deal, but our business plans have changed and here is something that will be much better for both of us" then they could have killed it cleanly. It might have cost them some amount in terms of a dollar figure but it would have cost them a lot less in terms of reputation. Deliberately sabotaging something that you are doing in collaboration with a partner so that it fails on launch is a real trust breaker. How much faith would you put in Microsoft for the launch of WP7 now if you were Verizon? You certainly wouldn't be putting your business on the line.
  - IgorPartola 16y ago
    My sense is that good products come out of groups where individuals are personally attached to them. Maybe in a large enough group of people it's impossible that a critical mass or at least the critical people are attached to the product.
  - raganwald 16y ago
    Even without the Kin debacle, if I were being paid $1,000 an hour to advise partners about their relationship with Microsoft, I would suggest they look at PlaysForSure. It is NOT news that Microsoft will screw its partners, and they know it when they go into business with Ballmer. Your father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth... but he never trusted Hyman Roth!
    - hga 16y ago
      "'You made a mistake, you trusted us,' said 3Com founder Bob Metcalfe, quoting an unnamed Microsoft executive." (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2002/pulpit_20020620_000736.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2002/pulpit_20020620_0007...)
- todayiamme 16y ago
  There is a difference between quitting due to politics and design decisions. Some designs simply aren't feasible for the real world, and smart people know when they see one. I doubt that mr. Kamen was talking about VCs on power trips.
sjs 16y ago
It got at least a few good reviews. There are certainly some interesting ideas there that everybody could learn from if they look at it with an open mind.
nailer 16y ago
I'm an Apple / Android guy. I think the Kin would have absolutely rocked if MS had done what they originally intended. * Kept the sidekick name * physical keyboard + social network integration. Kids of 20 have a disturbing amount of blackberries simply because they're good at this stuff * cheap price. enough said. These really, really could have been hit devices for teenagers. All the stuff you get with an iphone, but better typing, more social, and cheaper.
- hga 16y ago
  Keeping the Sidekick name wasn't an option unless they continued to partner with T-Mobile, the owner of that trademark. Their first action WRT to T-Mobile was to cancel all future Sidekick development, only to be forced by Danger's contract to develop one more phone. After that show of bad faith it's hard to imagine fruitful future collaboration and any possibility of that was probably lost when they put the Sidekick backend on life support (while no doubt getting paid for the old level of service) and then screwed it up so badly. Your general point is well made, but when the project became nothing more than a check box for a turf obsessed manager it's hard to see how it could succeed in any market. Steve Ballmer presumably have cared about its success, but that hardly matters when he allows the people below them to play these games without fear of retribution.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

macrael 16y ago

Every time there is a compromise, both sides are given ammunition to claim credit for eventual success and give blame for eventual failure.

karzeem 16y ago

I read an interview with Dean Kamen a while back where he said the hardest thing about inventing things is knowing when to quit.

sdfghj 16y ago
No it's easy to know when to quit - when a competing but more senior VP gets hold of your project.
zmmmmm 16y ago
The problem here is not just when they quit but how they quit. I think MS is going to take a hit in their reputation over this and it is going to carry over into soured trust from crucial carrier partners (and really any other business partner) going forward. Had they gone to Verizon and said "hey, I know we had a deal, but our business plans have changed and here is something that will be much better for both of us" then they could have killed it cleanly. It might have cost them some amount in terms of a dollar figure but it would have cost them a lot less in terms of reputation. Deliberately sabotaging something that you are doing in collaboration with a partner so that it fails on launch is a real trust breaker. How much faith would you put in Microsoft for the launch of WP7 now if you were Verizon? You certainly wouldn't be putting your business on the line.
- IgorPartola 16y ago
  My sense is that good products come out of groups where individuals are personally attached to them. Maybe in a large enough group of people it's impossible that a critical mass or at least the critical people are attached to the product.
- raganwald 16y ago
  Even without the Kin debacle, if I were being paid $1,000 an hour to advise partners about their relationship with Microsoft, I would suggest they look at PlaysForSure. It is NOT news that Microsoft will screw its partners, and they know it when they go into business with Ballmer. Your father did business with Hyman Roth, he respected Hyman Roth... but he never trusted Hyman Roth!
  - hga 16y ago
    "'You made a mistake, you trusted us,' said 3Com founder Bob Metcalfe, quoting an unnamed Microsoft executive." (http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2002/pulpit_20020620_000736.html http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2002/pulpit_20020620_0007...)
todayiamme 16y ago
There is a difference between quitting due to politics and design decisions. Some designs simply aren't feasible for the real world, and smart people know when they see one. I doubt that mr. Kamen was talking about VCs on power trips.

sjs 16y ago

It got at least a few good reviews. There are certainly some interesting ideas there that everybody could learn from if they look at it with an open mind.

nailer 16y ago

I'm an Apple / Android guy. I think the Kin would have absolutely rocked if MS had done what they originally intended. * Kept the sidekick name * physical keyboard + social network integration. Kids of 20 have a disturbing amount of blackberries simply because they're good at this stuff * cheap price. enough said. These really, really could have been hit devices for teenagers. All the stuff you get with an iphone, but better typing, more social, and cheaper.

hga 16y ago
Keeping the Sidekick name wasn't an option unless they continued to partner with T-Mobile, the owner of that trademark. Their first action WRT to T-Mobile was to cancel all future Sidekick development, only to be forced by Danger's contract to develop one more phone. After that show of bad faith it's hard to imagine fruitful future collaboration and any possibility of that was probably lost when they put the Sidekick backend on life support (while no doubt getting paid for the old level of service) and then screwed it up so badly. Your general point is well made, but when the project became nothing more than a check box for a turf obsessed manager it's hard to see how it could succeed in any market. Steve Ballmer presumably have cared about its success, but that hardly matters when he allows the people below them to play these games without fear of retribution.