EYEBALL TO EYEBALL
Tech columnist Robert X. Cringely has posted what might be one of his best pieces in a while, a rumination on the implications of the "leaked" Microsoft Gates/Ozzie memos (my post on the memos here). I may not always agree with Cringely, but I think his thought process on many subjects is generally an informative one.
The piece is a candid look at the potential motivations behind the memos and an interesting read.
After making his case that the memos were an intentional leak, Cringely gets down to brass tacks :
"With this in mind, then, let's decide what is the real message here.
Microsoft always needs a bogeyman, and in this case, it is Google. There can be only one devil..."
It's back to the argument that "Microsoft was always at it's best when it had a nemesis to fight". And Microsoft has relied on many nemeses, big and small over the last thirty years. Some examples:
- "IBM" for Windows-OS-2 wars,
- "Lotus" for spreadsheet wars,
- "Borland" for development tool wars,
- "Apple" for Mac GUI wars,
- "Novell" for networking wars,
- "Oracle" for database wars,
- "AOL" for online services wars,
- "Sony Playstation" for game console wars,
- "Netscape" for browser wars, for example).
Today of course, it's "Google" for "fundamental business model shift from software as software to software as advertising and/or subscription-sponsored service wars".
Each one of the above nemeses generally helped Microsoft become a bigger than it previously was, both in financial and operational terms.
There's nothing wrong with needing a nemesis...we all do as individuals, corporations and countries. The US became a superpower fighting the Cold War against communism, remember?
If anything, Google better get themselves an internally believable and marketable nemesis soon. Lack of one can lead to hubris, arrogance and over-reaching.
And there are many individuals, corporations and countries we can think of that have seen the folly of not having a good, old-fashioned devil to fight.
Comments