Entelligence: Another view of Microsoft's creative destruction
By Michael Gartenberg 
posted Feb 9th 2010 7:30PM
posted Feb 9th 2010 7:30PM
Entelligence is a column by technology strategist and author Michael Gartenberg, a man whose desire for a delicious cup of coffee and a quality New York bagel is dwarfed only by his passion for tech. In these articles, he'll explore where our industry is and where it's going -- on both micro and macro levels -- with the unique wit and insight only he can provide.
Last week, the New York Times ran an op-ed piece by former Microsoft executive Dick Brass, in which he took the company to task on many issues. Brass was a VP at Microsoft who left in 2004, and prior to his departure he worked on various projects from e-books and ClearType to the Tablet PC. I've met Dick through the years and he's a super smart guy, but I'm not sure I agree with everything he wrote in his op-ed. Dick argues that internal politics and unwillingness to do "risky" hardware have led Microsoft away from innovation. Clearly, Dick has a much better view regarding Microsoft's internal politics than I do, but some of the examples that he uses to bolster his argument are a little off base, at least in my opinion.
Dick cites Clear Type, Tablet and Mobile as examples of innovative products that Microsoft managed to somehow bungle due to internal politics, and says that Xbox is at "at best an equal contender in the game console business." Let's examine those claims.
I recall when Microsoft's Bill Hill first briefed me on Clear Type. Clear Type works by using sub-pixel technology to render text more legibily, effectively anti-aliasing it to make it look smoother. It was introduced as part of Microsoft's early efforts at e-books -- Microsoft had e-book integration in Pocket PC and Windows via Microsoft Reader back when the only thing Amazon sold were paper books. The problem with ClearType is that it worked well only on LCD displays, which made it smart to integrate into Windows CE and Pocket PC when it was first developed, but it looked horrible on most CRTs -- which is likely why it was turned off by default in Windows XP, where it made its desktop debut. It's hard to imagine why any group or person would have been threatened by ClearType, as Brass asserts. The real issue was a pattern that seems to be repeating over and over: Microsoft releasing technology or products that are simply ahead of their time. The vision was there, but the technology to make it work in the marketplace was simply not mature. Microsoft's vision for e-books and making devices useful as immersive reading screens wasn't flawed, but the technology of the day simply could not match the vision.
That leads me to Tablet PC. Brass says that Tablet PCs were doomed because Office apps didn't work directly with pen input. There's no doubt a pen-enabled Office might have helped Tablet PC take hold in the market, but I don't think that was the main issue -- I think that once again, the technology was simply not up to the vision. Early Tablet PCs were expensive since the tablet features were a costly add-on, and they often had inferior specifications to cheaper non-tablet laptops. Worse, Tablet was a feature grafted on to Windows, which wasn't designed to be used for a pen. Arguably, Office apps modified to work with a pen would likely have not been properly optimized for the core Windows experience of mouse and keyboard. Brass also conveniently ignores OneNote, the Office app that was indeed optimized for Tablet and is often the key app that justifies a tablet PC purchase. That app, of course, came from the Office group.
Finally, Brass's Xbox argument exemplifies exactly why Microsoft has stayed out of the "high risk" hardware business -- it has nothing to do with being an "equal contender," and everything to do with finances. Just look at the financial history of the Xbox division, which has hardly made a positive dent in Microsoft's overall profitability despite rather good consumer adoption. For the most part, Microsoft's business remains and will remain software -- and that's probably not a bad thing.
In my view, Microsoft's biggest issue has been poor alignment of vision and execution. The vision Microsoft articulated in 2004 of the digital home was both complete and compelling, but the technology of the day simply couldn't bring it to fruition. Products like Portable Media Center, Origami / UMPC, Media Center and Tablet PC and SPOT devices are all examples of products that were far too ahead of their time. No doubt, we'll hear lots of different versions and view points of what went wrong at Microsoft over the last decade but none of it really matters anymore -- today's Microsoft is a different company, run by many different people at different levels. Proof of that? Just look at the swift response Microsoft posted the day the op-ed was released.
[Image from Robert Scoble]
Michael Gartenberg is vice president of strategy and analysis at Interpret, LLC. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
Dick cites Clear Type, Tablet and Mobile as examples of innovative products that Microsoft managed to somehow bungle due to internal politics, and says that Xbox is at "at best an equal contender in the game console business." Let's examine those claims.
I recall when Microsoft's Bill Hill first briefed me on Clear Type. Clear Type works by using sub-pixel technology to render text more legibily, effectively anti-aliasing it to make it look smoother. It was introduced as part of Microsoft's early efforts at e-books -- Microsoft had e-book integration in Pocket PC and Windows via Microsoft Reader back when the only thing Amazon sold were paper books. The problem with ClearType is that it worked well only on LCD displays, which made it smart to integrate into Windows CE and Pocket PC when it was first developed, but it looked horrible on most CRTs -- which is likely why it was turned off by default in Windows XP, where it made its desktop debut. It's hard to imagine why any group or person would have been threatened by ClearType, as Brass asserts. The real issue was a pattern that seems to be repeating over and over: Microsoft releasing technology or products that are simply ahead of their time. The vision was there, but the technology to make it work in the marketplace was simply not mature. Microsoft's vision for e-books and making devices useful as immersive reading screens wasn't flawed, but the technology of the day simply could not match the vision.
The real issue was a pattern that seems to be repeating over and over: Microsoft releasing technology or products that are simply ahead of their time. |
That leads me to Tablet PC. Brass says that Tablet PCs were doomed because Office apps didn't work directly with pen input. There's no doubt a pen-enabled Office might have helped Tablet PC take hold in the market, but I don't think that was the main issue -- I think that once again, the technology was simply not up to the vision. Early Tablet PCs were expensive since the tablet features were a costly add-on, and they often had inferior specifications to cheaper non-tablet laptops. Worse, Tablet was a feature grafted on to Windows, which wasn't designed to be used for a pen. Arguably, Office apps modified to work with a pen would likely have not been properly optimized for the core Windows experience of mouse and keyboard. Brass also conveniently ignores OneNote, the Office app that was indeed optimized for Tablet and is often the key app that justifies a tablet PC purchase. That app, of course, came from the Office group.
Finally, Brass's Xbox argument exemplifies exactly why Microsoft has stayed out of the "high risk" hardware business -- it has nothing to do with being an "equal contender," and everything to do with finances. Just look at the financial history of the Xbox division, which has hardly made a positive dent in Microsoft's overall profitability despite rather good consumer adoption. For the most part, Microsoft's business remains and will remain software -- and that's probably not a bad thing.
In my view, Microsoft's biggest issue has been poor alignment of vision and execution. The vision Microsoft articulated in 2004 of the digital home was both complete and compelling, but the technology of the day simply couldn't bring it to fruition. Products like Portable Media Center, Origami / UMPC, Media Center and Tablet PC and SPOT devices are all examples of products that were far too ahead of their time. No doubt, we'll hear lots of different versions and view points of what went wrong at Microsoft over the last decade but none of it really matters anymore -- today's Microsoft is a different company, run by many different people at different levels. Proof of that? Just look at the swift response Microsoft posted the day the op-ed was released.
[Image from Robert Scoble]
Michael Gartenberg is vice president of strategy and analysis at Interpret, LLC. His weblog can be found at gartenblog.net. Contact him at gartenberg AT gmail DOT com. Views expressed here are his own.
I spend a lot of time at Microsoft Research (the papers there are ridiculously interesting) and I definitely would agree with them jumping ahead of what the world is ready for.
@Elaith Care to give an example?
@Elaith
True, but that would be OK, the worst part is that once that the world and the technologies are ready for the vision they are thinking about something else and trying at the same time to make a buck by pushing their outdated core products and/or triyng to get out their version of sombody else vision just to avoid being left behind.
Bill did'nt work like that.
@Elaith I read alot of the research papers that microsoft puts out there and I would agree that alot of the things that come up with is often ahead of the available technology. As mentioned here already, microsoft often neglects their own ideas even when the tech is available BUT the real problem is something no one seems to mention. Microsoft has always had a strong level of influence with its hardware partners more so than what Google has been able to develop with HTC et al. and manages to do nothing more than push things that seem underdeveloped. I sight "sideshow" as a recent example.
@Elaith That seems to be the case judging by the Microsoft Surface and their mouse concepts. Maybe Apple does the same crazy stuff, but they only show stuff that they will make.
To think that Microsoft is more innovative than Apple, just too innovative for their time is an interesting thought.
@Elaith "The real issue was a pattern that seems to be repeating over and over: Microsoft releasing technology or products that are simply ahead of their time." ---- Perhaps there's some truth with that statement but one should keep it on his mind that every mogul company has their own skeletons in the closet, perhaps, the comment that MS 'failed' is such a rationalization, to think that they got so many projects lining up this year. (natal, pink, tablet etc)
And hey, the 2009 wasn't bad at all either, with their 7 hailed as one of d' most successful OS there is. http://bit.ly/windows-7-why-is-it-amazing-review
I think there's a lot of room for improvement here.
@Elaith In the interests of that improvement, I hope to see the Gazelle concept integrated into the next iteration of Internet Explorer, along with increased standards compliance, and discontinued support for IE 6 from MS itself.
@standard
Microsoft's problems are its own making. It has all of the money, all of the resources, but its vision has been scattered. I have used Microsoft's development tools since around 1990, and still experience major usability problems as late as 2010. Microsoft just does not seem focused on the customer experience. But what can you say; it is hard to be motivated when you make $5 billion in profit every three months whether you release a new product or not! I feel that we are caught between a rock and a hard place. Microsoft is a rock (lack of creativity) and Apple is a hard place (with its closed mentality).
Huh? I guess the phase where we can't make fun of Microsoft is over?
@Nitesh, he's not making fun just pointing out a fault. Microsoft has been a head of its times. Their devices have had the core features that many devices still lack. My old WM5 device can do stuff my current phone cannot do (bluetooth file sharing for one).
Hopefully with the Courier and Project Natal their other research projects start to leak out into real products. Both seem like products they would never release or show off in the past.
@Templarian
Bluetooth file exchange is hardly high-tech. It's just something that some phone makers (cough, Apple) and providers (Verizon) have decided to cripple. I had it on my Ericsson in 2000 or 01. As a previous WM5 user, I'm having a hard time thinking of anything innovative in WM5.
Most of the good MSR stuff never sees the light of day.
@UnixSystemsEngineer That's cause your thinking of 2005/2006 tech in 2010. In 2005 seriously these phones were way ahead, how can you not believe that, I remember using my old "touch" wm5 phone as a remote and thinking, WOW, this is awesome, and now in 2009/2010 they make an app for the iPhone. You have to see that they had great ideas, but what happen was tech turned into "electro-marketing"(my own term) where people buy high end technology only based on the fact it looks cool, or they believe it makes them cool. Microsoft is trying to now live in a new world where tech, is no longer just tech, and that's the real problem.
Frankly, I DON'T CARE the opinion of a ex pointy hairy boss.
In any case, from 2004 to 2010, MS did a superb job.
And for consumer viewpoint, most product mentioned (such tabletpc) are widely used
@magallanes Just because something is widely used, does certainly not mean that it is the best product.
@The REAL Lol "Best" is subjective, and people purchase what they feel would suit them best.
@magallanes
I would not call TabletPC 'widely used'.
The past decade has largely been a lost decade at MSFT. The exceptions would be the XBox program and Win7. I wouldn't call Win7 wildly innovative, but it was an extremely solid release that ended a string of disappointing desktop OSes (and I include XP in that whether you like it or not).
Some would say the 360 is not deserving of the tag wildly successful, but I think it is. Yes, they had hardware issues (okay, lots of hardware issues) but, reliability aside, it's an excellent product from a forward-thinking division of the company. Maybe I'm biased because I've never had a single problem with mine, but.. hey.
@magallanes Tablet PC is "widely used"? The best numbers seem to indicate that tablets made up 1.4% of sales back in 2006, and there were more "tablets" available then than there are now. Based on the high hopes Microsoft (or at least Bill Gates) had for the form factor back in 2000/2001, I'd call tablets a failure to date.
@magallanes
2004 - 2010 involved the release of Vista, so I wouldn't give them that much credit
@Fanfoot
heh.. and I think a chunk of those sales were for use as props on TV shows. Like Stargate Atlantis.
@magallanes
On the one hand, 2004-2010 is a failure in the realm of OS's, as the majority of that time is under the Vista flag. Win 7 certainly fixes this, but is still at the tail end of the time range given.
That being said, Office continued to improve greatly, both on PC and Mac, and the 360 is obviously more than a middle man contender.
Tablet PC's are in the win category. Here @ Virginia Tech its a requirement for incoming Freshmen to have for the Engineering Department, and a large number of Freshmen outside that department will get them as well. I personally avoided getting one at the time due to the cost difference in hardware performance, but with the new Tablet push now using Netbook processors, I could easily see myself picking up a 2nd machine. Incredibly useful
@magallanes
Yes, Vista was meh and Ribbon was awful but in compensation Windows 7 is awesome.
IMHO Microsoft must keep it away from developed gadget, Xbox360 is nice as a service but is crap as hardware, Zune is the exception to the rule (if you can find one). Microsoft is not Apple, neither it should aspirate to be one.
In hardware
Microsoft < Apple
but
Microsoft + Microsoft OEM Partner > > Apple.
I like this article.
Wow. Normally Entelligence articles are entirely unworthy of reading (I still think the other, older articles are not worth ANYONE's time), but this is pretty darn good.
Just when I thought Gartenberg couldn't get any dumber, he writes something like this....
... and totally redeem himself!
Ok, maybe not totally, but it was one of his better recent articles. Nice one.
@PerryAJ
I came to this article expecting a typical Entelligence piece and was totally blown away. Great insight!
@PerryAJ
I liked his previous posts too. They were a little underwhelming, but at least it's different point of view-he's not really writing about tech, but about the tech business, which is a completely different animal.
@PerryAJ
I love the Dumb and Dumber reference. Love it.
Finally, Brass's Xbox argument exemplifies exactly why Microsoft has stayed out of the "high risk" hardware business -- it has nothing to do with being an "equal contender," and everything to do with finances. Just look at the financial history of the Xbox division, which has hardly made a positive dent in Microsoft's overall profitability despite rather good consumer adoption. For the most part, Microsoft's business remains and will remain software -- and that's probably not a bad thing.
Can't disagree with this more. Sony was losing money on this division since the PS3, with only recently coming back into black overall, their software is finally making the hardware profitable, meanwhile of course M$ wasn't going to outdo them in the matter of 5 years in this department, so here's where you judge based on those around you. The last point talks about M$ staying in software not being a bad thing, yeah until more companies (or just Apple & Google) just starts innovating in this area more for cheaper consumer prices and their revenues evaporate. Now more than ever they need to differentiate their product line because of continual threats, they no longer have what is seen as a safe Monopoly due to their high R&D startup costs. The vultures are circling.
@juanvaldez
You think you're cute using "M$"? Cause you're not.
@juanvaldez
Joystick reported a couple days ago that Sony is still losing $18 for every PS3 they sell. Might want to check your facts.
@Delta Thanks for correcting absolutely nothing I said, ". Sony was losing money on this division since the PS3, with only recently coming back into black overall, their software is finally making the hardware profitable..." OK, so Sony was losing money on the division as a whole, now they are just losing money on the hardware.
As quoted from Engadget, "Lets' not forget the company still makes money on Blu-rays and software sales, but in the meantime, hang tight little buddy, you're this close to being profitable all by your lonesome." Meaning, software gets them back in the black on the sale of each PS3, as of today, $18 on hardware is easily recouped based on the attachment rate of their hardware.
Might want to check what I write before criticizing.
@juanvaldez
You didn't really say anything to begin with.
You said that the PS3 used to lose money, now it doesn't lose as much. Then you said that Apple and Google are innovative, but are losing their safety nets as they become more innovative and spend more on R&D (or something like that. Your wording was weird).
What's your point?
@maddawg579
Yeah, since MS doesn't really make much money these days, profit declines, and still Milking Windows...
Goog£e on the other hand..........
@Wesscoast I think this comment is serious, but forgive me if you were in any way sarcastic. MS had record profits for the 4th quarter after 3 straight quarters of decline, much of this is a reflection on how poorly Vista sold. So profits are rising, but their profits are on shaky ground, as is their market share. Their OS market share is the lowest it's been at the same time Linux and Apple are hitting record highs. Their web-browser and mobile OS are much the same story and/or trend as their OS market share.
Yes, absolutely. Having been on the dev side of the equation at MS (from the executive), I can say that many of the problems listed were simply extremely difficult. For example if Office changed their UI for tablet, then they would have been either a year late, would have had a ton of bugs and broken features, or both.
The same is true for products such as Media Center. Integrating everything into a single media echo system is very hard, and takes a lot of time and money. For example you have to support protected content if you want to function in US - and it is a legal requirement in Japan and some other environments. That means that you not only have to develop a "sharable" DRM scheme, spending dozens of millions on the DRM modules themselves, but you also need to get the cable companies to agree to that. Just getting an agreement with somebody like CableLabs could take years. And that agreement will be full of compromises and problems that limit the situation. Case in point - see the original OCUR release and restrictions placed on it.
Overall, the philosophy of Microsoft is simply different from that of many other companies. People explicitly state that the idea is not to be the best in the market with version 1.0, but be very very good and/or best by version 3. Consider Windows for example - it pretty much sucked before v. 3.1. Same is true with Office. DOS. Zune. Xbox is already very good by v. 2, although it has serious hardware issues. I am guessing v.3 will be awesome. Etc.
@Elim Garak
It sounds like you're agreeing with both sides.
@Elim Garak Um.... Zune is version 3 of hardware. Or version 4, depending on how you look at it.
And as far as hardware, XBox is version2. Original XBox, XBox 360. That's all there is. And it's two.
@iCello That's exactly what he said. The Zune HD (3rd or 4th gen product, depending-- I consider it 3rd) is a great product and definitely shows more finesse and solidity than its predecessors. The 2nd gen Xbox is an anomaly.
@Elim Garak Except that the current Zune is a horrible failure. Yes I know a lot of geeks like it, but it isn't selling. Yes its much better than the iPod Touch in some respects, but the problem is that it isn't in many others--no apps (nor even any clear vision) for example. And of course as much as everybody had hopes for some fast evolution of the product, Microsoft has moved VERY slowly since it was released. Distracted with integrating Zune with XBox and Windows Mobile at the moment maybe? Not clear. But the thing is languishing away in the corner at the moment. Not clear its going to survive to the next generation.
@Fanfoot Dude, just because its sales aren't as good as those of the iPod Touch doesn't mean it is a horrible failure. The Zune software is in a constant evolution. More and more services are being rolled out - from smooth streaming to more apps. Apple is benefiting mainly from its ecosystem - and that's what MS is working on. Zune HD is an excellent product. It's slow adoption rate in the marketplace has many factors (from over saturation of the market to a more mature app store on the iPod Touch).
What you consider to be a distraction - integration of Zune services into x-box, etc. - is actually what will hopefully drive the system forward. The idea is that you can get a song on a Zune, then continue playing it on your x-box (in-game or whatever), and then play the album from your work machine.
@Elim Garak
"Dude, just because its sales aren't as good as those of the iPod Touch doesn't mean it is a horrible failure. "
Yeah, duuude, piss poor sales make it a failure. Sorry, but that's how the real world works. Shareholders have been waiting ten years for Ballmer to catch a clue. It's time for Ballmer and Bach to get the heave-ho.
Best Entelligence article ever!! Thanks Gartenberg, I enjoyed reading this.
The problem is that Microsoft introduces these technologies but rather than developing and improving them, it forgets about them. It had all the elements of the Kindle years ago with Tablet PC, UMPC, Microsoft Reader, and a bookstore, but there it sat until Amazon came along. It had the elements of the iPhone in the Pocket PC smartphones - wifi enabled w/ Internet browser and Pocket Windows Media Player. But it failed to keep pace in interface development, failed to make buying music an easy experience, rebranded Pocket PC several times, and plain failed to update the software to remain competitive. It was a competitive player in personal media players with Plays for Sure, then undercut all its partners by going off with Zune. And Zune is a fine service but for unknown reasons, you can't use it on your Windows Mobile smartphone. Even today, the iPad will be available in 60-90 days, but the HP Slate that MS demonstrated at CES doesn't have specs or a release date or price yet. Have so many smart people ever done so little with their advantages as MS?
@VinceInSeattle And... The problem of them being released and then not worked on could easily be fixed by them open-sourcing their operating system, so that there could be a community of non-microsoft-employee developers.
@The REAL Lol
Yeah, it's a shame that Windows is being eclipsed by Unix based systems and Linux has clearly shown the world how well it works in the hands of consumers. I can't even find a computer with Windows on it any more in Best Buy!
...oh wait, crowd sourcing development of the most complicated piece of software in use today makes it utter, unusable crap to everyone but the most dedicated and die hard tech users that put up with bugs and flaws.
I'll admit I'm an MS fanboy, but if MS ever makes Windows open source, I'm going to buy a Mac and 3 iPads.
@VinceInSeattle Sounds about right. Not just follow-thru though. They don't quite get the whole vision thing right. That HP tablet? Will the UI elements work with your finger, or will you sometimes have to pull out a pen or move a little cursor around to access some settings or other, kind of like the current Windows Mobile devices? Apple at least releases something that makes sense as a whole when they release it. Microsoft will often not get around to a lot of things. When the tablet comes out will there be an eBook library integrated and negotiated? Will there be TV shows? Movies? Comic books? Magazines? Newspapers? Will I have to give my credit card to 15 different companies to get access to all of these things? Will there be lots of touch-enabled applications? Etc. We'll see but I'm not holding my breath...
@Fanfoot Every version of Windows I can remember has a WYSIWYG screen properties setting which allows you to increase the size of all UI elements to a size comfortable for your finger size. I have used XP, Vista, and Win 7 tablets / convertibles, and in all cases, I was able to increase the size of the UI elements (close box, scroll bar, menu items, task bar items, etc.) to a finger-friendly, easy to use, size for my large fingers. In most dases, the bigger elements are used by third party apps as well. I can understand why the vendors do not increase the UI elements sizes before delivery because some may desire to use a stylus, and / or users' fingers are different sizes with a different amounts of enlarging required. It would be nice if the vendors included the fact that the UI elements can be easily enlarged to a size comfortable for the users' finger sizes along with instruction on how to perform this built-in easy task.
Once you increase the UI elements to a finger-friendly, easy to use size for your fingers, you have the power of a desktop OS along with your favorite desktop apps in an easy to use, finger-friendly, famliar interface.
Finger friendly scrolling is very easy as well. With the wider scroll bar, it is easy to tap underneath the slider (scroll box, thumb) which is the same as a keyboard page down, or tap above the slider for a page up. After adjusting the UI elements, have not used a stylus with any tablet, or convertible unless I was using handwriting recognition.
@fowenati Yes, and MS has not done any innovation since then, right? For 25 years now nothing new came out at MS? It has all been Apple - they created the Media Center, smart phones, Office, invented tablets, etc.?
Microsoft has always been ahead of the times on its prototype products. Xbox Live rules though. Perfect product, perfect timing.
@(Unverified)
Microsoft was wayy of with its 360, its had wayayyyyy too many flaws in it, RROD is major one with many reasons for it to occer, not only that but it also scratches discs. Now think, if halo didnt exist and the 360 came out same day as ps3 then xboxlive would fail because it is 50$ a year