Some comments about the Microsoft internal email stuff that's been coming out lately

There's been a lot made over nothing with the release of hundreds of pages of internal Microsoft emails related to the class action suit around the "Vista Capable" logo program. As I'm sure you know, since I was the person who first revealed Microsoft's plans for multiple Vista versions a year before the company announced it publicly, I've been a long-time (and thus, arguably, the longest-time) critic of this product bifurcation. It's the wrong thing to do. It just is.

But about these emails. Todd Bishop of the Seattle PI (a guy I consider a friend, incidentally, he's certainly a great guy) has made a mini-career lately out of blogging about these emails (examples here, here, here), which makes sense: Microsoft is his beat. And today, we've got Gregg Keizer at Computerworld muscling in on Todd's turf like he's afraid he just missed the boat. He's got his own revelation that Microsoft "dismissed enthusiasts in Vista marketing," in other internal emails.

No offense, guys. But "yawn."

What amazes me in all of this is that not a single person has come up with the obvious take-away from these emails. And that's this: Microsoft has been shown to have credibly debated these issues internally. They may not have always done the "right" thing from your perspective as a user, but they've arguably always done the right thing from the perspective of the company and thus for shareholders. You can disagree or agree, but there's ample evidence that smart people at Microsoft reacted in strong ways to things they thought should be debated. This should be lauded, not ridiculed.

I'm reminded of the similar internal email baloney that occurred during Microsoft's US antitrust trial, when a comment from a Microsoft executive wanting to "cut off Netscape's air supply" came up. Everyone jumped all over that like it was damning evidence of illegal behavior. But as my father, then an FDIC liaison with the FBI for interstate bank fraud, reminded me at the time, that's exactly the kind of language that shareholders should exact--and demand--from the executives running the business of their company. As long as Microsoft's behavior wasn't illegal--a different issue entirely, since it was the quote that got people most riled up--then this kind of talk is to be expected and required, even cheered.

So now we have other Microsoft emails. And you know what? I am reading and reading and all I see are people trying to do their jobs, people who actually care about the products. And if you want to talk specifics, the email about enthusiasts quotes in Computerworld shows a guy who understand the market:

"Less than 5% of customers typically upgrade OS," Windows general manager Brad Goldberg said. "Let's not confuse the masses for the sake of providing clarity to 'enthusiasts.'"

Exactly.

Instead of titling that story "Microsoft dismissed enthusiasts," maybe Computerworld could have called it, "Microsoft clarified Vista marketing for most of its users," since they did the right thing for over 95 percent of its user base. But then I guess that wouldn't be quite so sensational, now would it? 

Discuss this Article 15

DRWAM
on Mar 3, 2008
"I am reading and reading and all I see are people trying to do their jobs, people who actually care about the products" I am not surprised. I called and emailed Microsoft twice lately about a rebate and an upgrade and got fast, friendly sympathetic people and results. they seemed that they just wanted me to be happy. No questions asked. I got the rebate promptly. The email stated that my upgrade would be late and I got an apology, but it was answered in less than 24 hrs. The phone wait was less than 4 minutes. I was happy with the service, for sure.
asantissp
on Mar 3, 2008
I´m just sick of those "news". Computerworld with Microsoft internal e-mails, Infoworld with the stupid "Save XP" campaing... are those site so desperates to have visitors? *sigh*
pmcgrath
on Mar 3, 2008
The problem is that they did nothing but confuse the masses. It was only the enthusiasts that understood the difference between Vista Capable and Vista Premium Ready. I agree that the evidence of an internal debate is a good thing, but in the end they either made a very poor decision or completely failed to properly execute their marketing plan. Either way, MS needs to sleep in the bed they made. This one is going to cost them
tmiller
on Mar 3, 2008
@pmcgrath Because if a retard can't figure it out, then someone should pay? I'm not fan of Microsoft but this lawsuit epitomizes everything that is wrong with the legal system in this country. It comes down to a group of people were too damn lazy to figure out what something meant, so they bought something that didn't do what they want. Now they are claiming to have been defrauded of money.. please.
lotsamystuff
on Mar 3, 2008
"What amazes me in all of this is that not a single person has come up with the obvious take-away from these emails." Then I guess it's not that obvious, eh? ;-) "in the end they either made a very poor decision or completely failed to properly execute their marketing plan." That's much nicer than calling it something like, oh, I don't know, "lying".
Lindy
on Mar 3, 2008
O come on Paul. What not "Windows finally takes Vista out of beta" with the release of SP1 and these emails, it solid proof Vista was a beta when it was released. No "Microsoft lies to us" rants? What about the email I read where one of the top brass stated his brand new $2000 PC was reduced to email machine because the performance of Vista was so bad. I mean come on if this executive could not get Vista running correctly with engineers sweating in his office over getting his PC working.....Joe Consumer was doomed from launch day. Lets just face it, Vista the LONG overdue, missing so many promised features, half baked OS was a BETA for Windows 2008 that joe public funded. Like my 360 that has RROD twice. The only thing worse than Vista that I have used from MS was the Zune 1.0 software. Microsoft does not give a rats @$$ about consumers. Vista in 2003..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9ifQvQCO7Y
DRWAM
on Mar 3, 2008
I guess this belongs here: I think that the law suit is frivolous. First of all, there are many levels of computer hardware and you really need at least 3 levels....entry level, home user and business level. You can even argue that there needs to be a high end and low end business level of Vista. You also need these levels for an affordable price structure. Secondly, 'Vista Capable' machines should have been researched more by the purchaser. It was well established that multiple versions would be available, so it is up to the consumer to investigate if the cheap POS they bought could handle any of the versions, without upgrades. Just like the people who bought an iPhone and wanted a removable battery. Research before you buy. Here's an example. I bought a car that was 'iPod capable', however, I needed to purchase a $1200 upgrade to make it work with an iPod. It is common marketing terminology that the consumer is responsible for investigating, IMO. It's not 'buyer beware' it's buyer investigate it a little, and the Vista capable logo did not need much investigation. Otherwise, the consumer could have waited until more information was available. I still cannot believe that someone buying a $300 computer will spend money on the Vista upgrade, let alone the Ultimate version.
pmcgrath
on Mar 3, 2008
@tmiller Well I actually am a MS fan and apparently a lot of the “retards” you refer to are highly educated, tech oriented people who work for MS. I do think the whole Vista Capable branding was clear as mud. While I’m pretty neutral about the law suit, I get bent out of shape when marketing messes things up for the people who worked hard on the product. @lotsamystuff It would be lying if they didn’t publish what the specs were. To tmiller’s point, the information was available. But it wasn’t like MS was running 30 sec prime time spots to explain it.
DRWAM
on Mar 3, 2008
OK, this is a coincidence, but I just got the Office upgrade a few minutes ago. C'mon Paul, you called Redmond this morning and told them to send Doc's Office upgrade today, didn't you? Then it was parachuted to my door. Another happy customer!
lotsamystuff
on Mar 3, 2008
"@lotsamystuff It would be lying if they didn’t publish what the specs were." Sorry, pmc, I wasn't saying they were lying; I was playing off Paul's "Apple lies" headline from earlier.
drylight
on Mar 3, 2008
Can we all say "Microsoft Apologist"? All together now.
Avro
on Mar 3, 2008
Paul, If Apple pulled a stunt like this you would (quite rightly) be ripping them from one end of the planet to the other. But since its Microsoft, it is just dismissed as "Oh, well that's just business". Perhaps monkey business. The whole Vista capable thing was a cynical ploy to help out Good Buddy Intel . "In the end, we lowered the requirement to help Intel make their quarterly earnings so they could continue to sell motherboards with 915 graphics embedded," general manager John Kalkman wrote. "It was a mistake on our part to change the original graphics requirements." Just Microsoft sticking it to the consumer once again. They screwed up big-time and need to admit it.
cesjr
on Mar 4, 2008
I really don't know how Paul can possibly think he is objective after writing a piece of apology like this for MS. Really, he's out in la la land.
jvd897
on Mar 4, 2008
@prettymuchanyonewho'sresponded: Well, sometimes apologies are what's needed. Wait till Apple apologizes and let's see how you rationalize it. http://www.apple.com/hotnews/openiphoneletter/
anonymous
on Apr 2, 2009
Viagra. Free viagra. Viagra generic. Cheapest viagra prices.

Please or Register to post comments.

IT/Dev Connections

Las Vegas
September 30th - October 4th

Paul ThurottYou'll have the opportunity to experience:
• 120 Technical
Sessions
• Networking with Peers
• Expert Speakers


Come See Paul Thurrott & Mary Jo Foley in Person!

Register Now

Office 365 InfoCenter

Get the latest insight and info from Paul

Read Now!

What I Use