Inspirational Technology

Microsoft and the Alpha Geeks

Robert Scoble who's an evangelist for Longhorn is considering the question "so, what you gonna do to make Microsoft's communities strong again?". He seems to be saying that Microsoft needs to convince the pros that Microsoft has good technology. I believe what he refers to as pros is the same thing Tim O'Reilly refers to as alpha geeks.

These are the people who indicate trends in computing, the early adopters and the people who others turn to for advice about technology. And the number one observation about these people is that they aren't interested in Microsoft, they're interested in Mac OS X. I first observed this almost two years ago when I switched to Mac OS X from Linux and Tim O'Reilly has written about this several times. I found that Mac OS X was an easy sell to everyone who I would consider an "alpha geek". This is the problem that Microsoft has to face, and I know I personally have no intention of going back. Even though I'm now purchasing a Tablet PC, it's not because I think Microsoft has done such a great job, it's simply because I'm deeply fascinated with pen computing and the Tablet PC is the only option available. If Apple releases a product in the same market I'll gladly drop the Tablet PC in the trash and never look back. Honestly, I don't even consider the Tablet PC particularly innovative, I've read the developers manuals for PenPoint, written something like 10 years ago, and there's not much beyond simple evolution and modern hardware in the Tablet PC.

The technical people I'm seeing sticking with Microsoft fall into two camps, those who are not technically inspired (i.e. people who simply see technology as their job) and those who are really business people and are actually interested in money rather then technology. I guess you could really describe both groups as being interested mainly in money, it's simply one is more concerned about feeding their family while the other is concerned about making the payments on their mansion.

The first group just doesn't know any better, they go to work do their job and go home perfectly happy. They're not driven by technology advancement and they're definitely not the innovators who actually leverage technology to create new products. These people are builders of other peoples ideas and that makes them very important, but they're not leaders. They'll use what ever technology puts food on their table and they're not terribly interested in technology beyond that. These people are in the Microsoft camp simply because that's what pays the bills right now. Holding onto these people is easy for Microsoft as long as the other group of Microsoft camp people doesn't change direction.

The second group is interested in money, not technology, and therefore is not interested in taking risks until there is a clear path to profitability. This group is important, but it's also the group through out history that has been left behind by technological advancement. They won't move until it's clear it's safe to move, and by then it's likely too late. This is the classic Innovator's Dilemma problem, a problem Microsoft itself clearly faces. These people are the current mover and shakers in technology and the employers of all the people in the first group. They'll stay in the Microsoft camp as long as they continue to make money doing so.

Now, it's the third group, that doesn't fall into the Microsoft camp, where Microsoft has a VERY, VERY serious problem. The technologists, the alpha geeks, the people who eat, sleep and breath technology. These people are the creators, the innovators, the founders of new companies, the creators of new products and these people are predominately not interested in Microsoft. And I bet if you ask them they'll also say they have no interest in dealing with Microsoft, due to the trust problem. Well, OK, I can only speak for myself, but I sure have no interest in most of what Microsoft is trying to do. I don't believe that Microsoft is in a position to actually do something innovative enough to truly capture my interest. Microsoft has too many people to please, they're held hostage by their current customers. To do something truly innovative they'll have to break compatibility.

Breaking compatibility is a loosing proposition for them, they really can't do it because it effectively means releasing an entirely new operating system and then asking their developers to support it. At that point the question becomes if we have to port our applications to an entirely new OS to stay in the Microsoft camp, why not look at porting it to an entirely new OS that breaks us out of Microsoft's domination? Clearly Microsoft would build in backwards compatibility by stealing a page from Apple's book and leveraging their acquisition of Virtual PC. However, this will mean the apps will run non-native and won't take advantage of the advancements in the new platform. This worked on Mac OS X, because Apple has fiercely loyal customers. Microsoft does not have this advantage. Additionally, Microsoft's user base will then be spread over 5-6 versions of windows with a set of developers who are used to supporting all those versions of windows. This slow rate of upgrade, presents a very strong disincentive to porting their apps to be native on the new OS.

So unless the new OS is well and truly a clear advancement, then the end result of all this is that a truly innovative new OS from Microsoft will mean the end of their domination. They really have no choice but to be locked in to incremental improvements on the existing Windows base. Of course, this isn't a promising strategy either, the current Windows base is feeling really tired and creaky. It's not going to hold up well under the assault of several more years worth of advancement of Mac OS X and Linux. So what does this mean for Microsoft?

It means there's a transition taking place. It's in the early stages right now, but it's happening. Mind share is shifting and it's not shifting toward Microsoft. It's shifting into mobile devices that don't run Microsoft software, Linux on servers, Linux on low end desktops, Linux on desktops in countries that are smart enough to see the risk inherent in Microsoft's domination and finally to Mac OS X for the home user and the power user desktop of those who care about refinement. Overall I really don't see a very bright future for Windows and winning back the mindshare of the alpha geek is going to be almost impossible.

So how can Microsoft win back that mind share? Well, it definitely won't be easy, there's not much trust of Microsoft around. To start, it will require true innovation, not regurgitation of old ideas like the Tablet PC or glitzy, but useless eye candy like the current Longhorn demos. And it sure isn't going to happen with rights control technology like Palladium (I forget it's current name). What's required is real innovation that actually advances the state of computing. It can be done. Current computers are still way too difficult, and this includes those that run Mac OS X and Linux too. Microsoft has lots of smart people and is in a position to make a real advancement. They're under a very real competitive threat and this should ideally provide the necessary motivation. The question is whether they'll have the courage to actually take the risk of real innovation and change or if they'll simply focus on finding ways to cut of the air supply of their competitors. We all know what history says about this, but here's a tip, that's not the way to make people, like oh ... say the alpha geeks, actually like you. Microsoft, if you really, honestly want the alpha geeks back, for once in your existence do something truly innovative, something that actually advances computing and something that is honestly aimed at making peoples lives better. Right now it seems you're just doing things that propagate your dominance of the computer industry and squeezing more dollars out of your existing customers. Oh yeah, and you also better make sure that you do things in a way that allows other platforms to play too. That means no more closed file formats. Innovation that leads to lockin is innovation that isn't all that interesting. Innovate on the user experience, but you better leave the actual data open and free.

I honestly don't believe Microsoft can do this, it's too much risk and they don't have the courage. Robert Scoble is saying that's what they're going to do though (well, not the open file formats part of course), we'll see...