in Search
Welcome to Neopoleon - Sign in | Join | Help
Navigation: Home | Forums | Galleries

Mini-Microsoft - The most important Microsoft blog?

In spite of my med-funk, I've been fairly active this morning. Shaking and terrified of the whole universe, yes, but active.

I've been poring over Mini-Microsoft.

It is, undoubtedly, the very best Microsoft blog I have yet to read.

When I went to the MVP Summit in April, 2004, I remember listening to Ballmer go on and on about how Microsoft was going to win because it had a better story, better products, better support, and so on. Those of you who were there might remember that I asked him a few questions about this, beginning with a very short story about how, twenty years ago, Microsoft pit itself against a company that had a better story, better products, better support, and so on, and how that company got its ass kicked by Microsoft in the following years.

There's this weird kind of myopia in the tech world that leads people to believe, mistakenly, that better technology will somehow always lead to success. Or that there's some single X Factor that will lead a company to the top.

I don't know why this is. I could speculate all day about it, though. I've noticed that my "computer science friends" tend to lack perspective. Their worlds are very isolated and reduced to the bits. Linear, straightforward, and often lacking in vision. Incredible problem solvers, but of the "arrange these nine toothpicks to form the Eiffel Tower" problems rather than the "people don't like us - WTF?" type problems.

My "liberal arts friends", on the other hand, often have more holistic views of life that allow them to draw from different experiences and strange bits of knowledge to understand What's Going On. They might not be the greatest at applying that knowledge, but their views are still important. (For the blog of a highly intelligent liberal-arts dork who just happens to dig tech, you ought to check out Greg.)

Imagine for a moment that you're looking at Microsoft from these two different perspectives.

A Computer Nerd View

Our dev tools rule. Our office suite products rock. Our next operating system is going to finally take advantage of all this expensive hardware people have been buying now for years. Transparency, innovation, blah blah blah!

A Liberal Arts View

A great way to lose a war is to totally misunderstand the terrain and your opponent. Driving in with a bullheaded "We're going to win because we're going to drive over their bodies like a fuckin' freight train" approach is just going to cost you a lot in resources while producing little effect (plenty of noise, though, which seems like a good result, except that people will be wondering five years later why the war is still going on with few tangible results).

Why Mini-Microsoft Kicks Ass

If I were an executive at Microsoft, and if I were to subscribe to only one blog, it wouldn't be Dare's or Scoble's or Don's (and it sure as hell wouldn't be mine). They all have interesting perspectives, ranging from marketing to community to the bits, but they don't deal much with the problems that are really plaguing Microsoft. Scoble gets a little of the way there, but he's more of a Font of Eternal Positivity than he is Mr. Brutal Honesty.

Mini-Microsoft doesn't just look at technical problems, but also at social issues. Microsoft politics. Things like that. And he(?) does it pretty damned well.

What's Sad About Mini-Microsoft

Whoever's writing that blog ought to be kept in Steve Ballmer's closet. Like an intelligent sort of . If Steve needed some perspective (and he does at times), he could just whip out Mini-Microsoft, ask a question, shake him, and turn him upside-down to see what the answer is.

Steve Ballmer: I wonder... is our problem with Linux a technical problem?

[goes over to closet and pulls out Mini-Microsoft]

Steve Ballmer: Mini-Microsoft - I ask thee - Is our problem with Linux a technical problem?

[shake, shake, shake, shake - Steve turns Mini-Microsoft upside-down]

Mini-Microsoft: Seems doubtful.

Of course, Mini-Microsoft would give a much more thorough answer than this. Perhaps, hopefully, something more along the lines of, "People are willing to use Linux right now because they think we're evil. They'll put up with XFree86 config files and scan mode settings because they expect the worst of us. We need to clean up our image, and to follow through on that cleanup with action. We need a different approach than the one we're taking, because the one we're taking is wrong."

What's sad, then, is that Mini-Microsoft has to do this anonymously. If I were in charge, and I'm not, but if I were, I'd hire this guy to blog internally. In a sort of "Employee Safe Zone" where employees would be allowed to speak their minds openly and honestly in response to observations made by Mini-Microsoft.

The executive perspective is important. Duh. But, in my experience working with various corporations, what the people in the trenches think is disregarded. If you're below a certain level, you're treated as someone from whom output is expected, but not opinions. Sure, our managers ask us what we think and ask for our feedback, but it's usually for local, isolated issues (was the fruit punch at the team party fresh enough? should we have banana smoothies next time instead? do these jeans make my butt look fat?).

I don't know what the title is that I'd give to Mini-Microsoft internally. "Director of Reality" comes to mind.

I know this would piss some people off (the creation of the position - not the title (although the title probably wouldn't make people too happy, either)). I've seen some comments over at the Mini-Microsoft blog which amount to, "Stop being a naysaying punk. You don't care about Microsoft - you just want to cause problems."

It reminds me of the rabid "patriotism" that followed 9/11. If you dared to say anything negative about 'merica during the following months, you were obviously commie-pinko-terrorist slime.

The truth is, in the same way 'merica is far from perfect, Microsoft is far from perfect. Unlike 'merica, however, our problems are much simpler. As Mini-Microsoft often points out, Microsoft is a great company with huge potential, but something's wrong right now. Nobody knows what it is, but through the perspectives of someone like Mini-Microsoft, and through the discussions which follow, we can at least start to narrow it down. Or at least some aspects of it, and that would be better than nothing.

I think people get upset about this sort of thing because it sounds like hard work. I imagine that it is hard work, but it sure as hell beats the alternative, which is to continue to watch as this company makes as many bad decisions as good ones.

I came to Microsoft because it seemed broken. Not shattered, but maybe like a mug that's had its handle broken off. We just need some super-glue to get the sucker back on there. In a customer facing position, I've had the chance to do my version of trying to help where I think we have problems (company image), but like any real problem, this one is multi-faceted, and isn't going to be easily solved through a lot of linear, toothpick-puzzle-arranging steps. It needs different perspectives from many different people.

At the head of all of this, I see Mini-Microsoft.

Published Saturday, September 10, 2005 7:49 PM by Rory

Filed Under: ,

Comments

 

Scott said:

"he could just whip out Mini-Microsoft, ask a question, shake him, and turn him upside-down to see what the answer is."

So, you'd advocate Steve Balmer pulling answers out of Mini-Microsofts ass?
i guess it's better than pulling one out of his own ass. ;)
September 11, 2005 12:01 AM
 

Greg H said:

Nice. Funny thing is, they seem to hire a goodly number of people who think the way you say the company needs to think (in a collective sort of way - I know companies don't really think). So, maybe it's a question of how to get from here to there, and who can make that happen?
September 11, 2005 12:33 AM
 

Cleve said:

Yeah, but when you are calling for Ballmer and many VPs to be fired, it is hard for him to not be anonymous. I personally agree with some of his hit list, but not Ballmer. I just think Ballmer needs some reality, as you put it.

Also, his points about firing some of our less than stellar employees and getting rid of middle managers, and making people accountable to ship products are all dead on.
September 11, 2005 12:46 AM
 

Phil Weber said:

Wasn't that MVP Summit in April 2004?
September 11, 2005 12:50 AM
 

Rory said:

"Wasn't that MVP Summit in April 2004?"

Yup :) You're on top of things, Phil - Wookiee *and* 2004 - both correct.

Thanks. Corrected.
September 11, 2005 1:04 AM
 

anon said:


Disgruntled after 6 months? Ouch that's harsh!
September 11, 2005 8:02 AM
 

P-Town Hacker said:



It seems like Microsoft is really having to run a marathon to get credit for a jog around the block. They could probably change this throuth internally handled philanthropy. Everybody in the know already knows they do way more than anybody else in this industry for the benefit of people.

Maybe they should launch a site dedicated to philanthropy such as scholarships, grants, educational opportunities, economic recovery, etc... and then use this site as a delivery mechanism to help build mindshare about all the great things that Microsoft does as a company.

I've always thought that the internet could bring huge change to the quality of education that economically challenged individuals recieve. MIT really has something special with the OpenCourseware program. But just think would could happen if Microsoft teamed up with many educational institutions to provide internet based educational opportunities as a philinthropic gesture. The mindshare would have amazing value. It doesn't even seem like the costs would be all that great compared to more traditional forms of marketing.

Maybe I'm a dreamer.
September 11, 2005 9:41 AM
 

Guy said:

Yeah... I'm on par with what you wrote as a whole. And I also read mini-microsoft, but after a while it gets heavy. Some few things I thing "Who d'a punk" does get it... he's not an Oracle (not the DBMS, the thing with the Greek and Olympia and stuff ;)) His view on .NET is not right comes to mind...

Also, what pisses me off about Microsoft is not it's products, it's more the way they dont offers support to guys like me... what are guys like me ? I work in a place (big place) where Microsoft is considered evil. I'm in charge of the team (I was a developper, now I'm the lead developper for my group). My group is in charge of developing the internet web site and all the intranets of it. (14 organizations merged in to one, I was from one of them, I was chosen to manage anything web related)

Now, when I took charge, I had to use the former technology in place on the web site of the bigger former organization. The site was (and still is) a LAMP site (in fact it's Unix/Apache/Oracle/Perl... UAOP ?) but you get the point. I manage to use ASP.NET as the technology forr the intranet. Now... developing something on the internet web site takes like 100% more time then on the intranet (internet = Unix stuff Intranet = Microsoft stuff).

But when I ask for money to port our web site to ASP.NET... I dont get it... Why ? Because Microsoft is evil, IIS is not secure... Apache is better...all the stuff that anti-Microsoft always said. I know this is bogus... so every time I have to prove those guys wrong to get something done... and proving them is not an easy process. I would like to Microsoft to do something about that. To help me get unbiased numbers (kinda like Gartner and stuff), but if I can't find it myself online... forget it, Microsoft reps from the world dont care... I ask them, all I got was Microsoft created documents on the cases... useless.

An example ? On the intranet I dont manage the IIS server, someone else does... Someone from a Unix background. Now, security is strict. No way I could be an admin of this server, but I need to manage IIS... not the server as a whole! I search the net do find how to manage an IIS server whitout being local admin... I find an article on how to hack the registry... but doesn't works on my site. And this article is not supported by Microsoft. When I ask for Microsoft itself to get on the case... money's no object... no way. I ask at formation classes with Microsoft officials teachers... this can't be done. When I say that to a former Apache administrator... all he does is laugh and laugh at IIS! Yo Microsoft... this is the real world. Example like these are legions ... is this is what cause my problems... real world scenarios... not labs! The problem ain't the quality of the tools... these are incredible!
September 11, 2005 12:04 PM
 

Mark Jen said:

I think everyone - except the decision makers at MSFT - agrees that Mini-MSFT is right on with some of his observations. The problem is that no one in the MSFT management chain is going to implement Mini's ideas...

So in a way, Mini-MSFT is one of the most important MSFT blogs; but in another way, it's totally pointless :S
September 11, 2005 9:51 PM
 

Rory said:

P-Town Hacker -

"Maybe they should launch a site dedicated to philanthropy such as scholarships, grants, educational opportunities, economic recovery, etc... and then use this site as a delivery mechanism to help build mindshare about all the great things that Microsoft does as a company."

We kind of have that, except that it's purely charity - not a lot of "Microsoft is great" stuff going on:

http://www.gatesfoundation.org
September 12, 2005 2:23 AM
 

Rory said:

Mark Jen -

"So in a way, Mini-MSFT is one of the most important MSFT blogs; but in another way, it's totally pointless"

By raising awareness of something like Mini-Microsoft, we prevent it from becoming pointless. As far as google is concerned, each link to a site is a vote. The more of us who vote for Mini-Microsoft, the more relevance it has, and the less pointless it will be.
September 12, 2005 2:29 AM
 

Anonymous said:


The Gates Foundation is really great, but I was thinking of something that focused on what Microsoft does rather than what Bill and Milanda give as individuals. It seems like The Gates Foundation keeps a pretty low profile.

Maybe using philanthropy as a marketing tool seems callious, but most companies really try to milk it for all they can, in terms of Mindshare.

Not to say that any of my ideas make sense in a practical manner. I just love the Microsoft technology, and enjoy throwing out ideas even though they may have no relevance. Maybe I need to get my fuzzy logic a little bit more under control.

Best Regards,

P-Town Hacker
September 12, 2005 7:06 AM
 

EricTN said:

I don't think the people who hate Microsoft hate Microsoft because of horrible mistakes it's now making that it didn't make in, say, the 80's. It's just that it's so dominant today. It requires so much to fully learn a family of related technologies. Let's say that there are 4 main branches of technology to hang your star on: A, B, C, or D. You pick B and invest everything you've got into being a guru on B. 5 years roll by and you look around and damn if technology C doesn't have 90% of the penetration in the domain you care about. How pleasantly disposed are you going to be re: technology C, especially if it's wholey-owned by one big corporation? Either you write off the last 5 years of your life and plunge into being a beginner on C, or you cling to B and literally spit bile if anyone so much as mentions the existance of C. There's a large contingency of developers who hate Microsoft. Corporate customers don't hate Microsoft. Microsoft gives them tools that are a lot easier to use and manage, with industry-leading price/performance ratios. And re: Mini-Microsoft's ranting about all the dead-wood at MS. Microsoft has way more than their share of brilliant minds - on a percentage basis they compare extremely favorably with other corporations.
September 15, 2005 7:39 AM
 

Mark Miller said:

I agree with Guy in the sense that .Net and Microsoft technologies in general have allowed me to be a more productive developer than I otherwise would be. The thing is, in the corporate world, it's long been the case that Unix dominated on the server, and Windows dominated on the client end. From what I've heard over time, though, this is changing, though it's a slog for Microsoft.

A couple years ago I talked with someone from Microsoft about his experience selling Windows Servers. He told me it was a hard sell. What with the worm attacks that were a recent memory, Windows Server security reputation was in the toilet. I suggested he "fight on" with the task, since 17 years ago Unix was regarded as an insecure OS as well. And since then it's dramatically improved its reputation. I also reminded him that the OS that gets "banged on" the most becomes more and more secure, since the attacks point out the security holes, raise security consciousness on the part of customers and the OS's developers, and so improves the product over time. Unix went through this same "trial by fire" to get to where it is today.

I once worked at a place that used Unix almost exclusively for servers, and used Windows almost exclusively on the client. The reason was that was the configuration of our corporate customers. We actually tried selling some of them on Windows servers in the late 90s, but they didn't bite. Security was an issue even then, plus there was politics. At a few customer sites, the sysadmins threatened to revolt if their company dared have them install a system that was not the brand of Unix they had standardized upon (yes, they'd balk even if it was Unix, but not the brand of Unix they had chosen as their standard). I found Microsoft's technology interesting enough to do a sort of "career change" to pursue it. I quit my job at this place, and pursued places that were working with Microsoft technology more extensively. It was a struggle since I did this at the time that the tech bubble was starting to deflate (talk about bad timing!), but now I work for a small company. I'm doing ASP.Net development almost exclusively, and it's partly because the company hosts its customers web sites on its own Windows Server 2003 machines. They don't have to cater to what the customer uses on their end, since the app. is on our server. Maybe Guy should pursue this path, rather than being "the Microsoft guy" amongst a sea of less-efficient-to-develop-for Unix/OSS technology.

With regard to Mini-Microsoft, I think it's good for Microsoft to hear constructive criticism of itself. It reminds me of a saying I heard years ago, "Our critics are our friends, because they point our weaknesses, and where we need to improve."
September 17, 2005 8:52 PM
 

Christopher Trottier said:

It's funny how Microsoft employees still don't know why they are thought of as evil. Well, speaking as one who is mere user (I work in retail) -- and a creative type (see my website) -- I can tell you why I refuse to use a Microsoft product. And no, I'm not an ideologue.

First of all, just because you blog, that doesn't mean you are open. I just shelled out good money on SuSE, not because I think it is the best Linux flavour out there, but because I feel well supported by a company that I feel is <em>really</em> open. If I want to know what's going on with GNOME, all I have to do is join the mailing list and peruse the debates between Miguel de Icaza and Havoc Pennington. I can know why this feature was implemented and why that one wasn't. Hell, I can watch the actual development myself.

Next, you guys aren't perceived as collaborators, but as Huns who just want to crush the competition -- by any means necessary. If I was a developer, I wouldn't want to collaborate with you. I'd be afaid you would steal all my ideas, or buy out the competition. Not so with other companies like IBM. I have confidence they are not out to kill Red Hat. I say you should start collaborating in earnest in order to gain the public's trust again. Start with Apple.

Finally, why not show good will by contributing to FLOSS projects like Google did? I'm sure lots of people would change their mind about Microsoft if they gave a little money to the OpenBSD project. I doubt Theo de Raadt would refuse Bill Gates' money.

Personally, I doubt any of this is going to happen. It seems to be that Microsoft culture is quite incubated and that they are not really aware of all the exciting developments going on the outside. I mean, you guys just tried to hire ESR, for crying out loud.
September 18, 2005 1:32 AM
 

Corbin said:

Parent is correct... I'm a developer and we are even a "Microsoft shop" and their is GREAT amount of dissatisfaction with Microsoft's developer strategy and how closed it is... I posted a while back about NUnit vs. Team System unit testing / MSBuild vs. Nant and how it's absolutely insane how Microsoft doesn't collaborate with these already great Open Source projects as well as head up some more Open Source projects of it's own.

Microsoft needs to understand that the old way for developers to buy APIs and just get the binaries is gone. The genie is out of the bottle and Open Source is toooo powerful for smart developers to ignore. Microsoft understands this and give us watered down Open Source by doing things like the Enterprise Application Blocks.

I'd like Microsoft's collaboration to start with it's "developers, developers, developers."

I can give you 100s of ideas on how to do this...but something tells me you guys already know how to do it but can't get senior management to listen and do it!

September 21, 2005 3:19 AM
 

Corbin said:

Rory --

One misconception about Mini-Microsoft is that he isn't the answer to all Balmer's woes. The collective group of employees if asked to brainstorm and participate in solving problems would be MUCH more valueable that a single person. You see this is why Microsoft is in the position it's in right now. Companies get big and they create layers of seperation between the decision makers and the front-line troops. This is why the decision makers cannot make good decisions--they no longer understand the issues at hand.

Mini-Microsoft it put into a closet would just become another bad decision maker, unless he actually remained on the front-line and listened to the front-liners.

It's about harnessing the experiences and ideas of the troops in the trenches.
September 21, 2005 3:24 AM
 

Mark Miller said:

Tried reading it for a while and then quit. So many people were posting as "Anonymous" I couldn't tell who was saying what. It was bizzare to try and follow a thread of conversation (almost pointless), because it was difficult to tell who was responding to whom.

Also, most of what Mini-MS and Co. talk about is "inside baseball" stuff that was difficult for me to understand. There were the occasional good posts, on both sides of the issue: some MS critics who seemed to speak with some authority on how some managers treat their operations and employees (and it didn't sound good), and then on other side, people giving a reality check to the critics, saying "Hey, it's not necessarily better anywhere else!", and bashing the critics for being a bunch of crybabies.

Interesting perspectives, but they were rare.
September 23, 2005 6:56 AM
 

Bob said:

Mini-Microsoft seems to be really sensitive to critical comments made about Kevin Johnson and often deletes them.

So, I would say that he does not offer a complete picture of what is going on at Microsoft.
December 23, 2005 5:52 AM
 

TrackBack said:

Mini-Microsoft....
September 11, 2005 4:17 PM
 

TrackBack said:

What's going on at Microsoft?
September 17, 2005 4:24 AM
New Comments to this post are disabled

About Rory

I *own* this site, you loser.