So an interesting effect from my April 1st joke
Category None
was how many people, and I think sadly, associate my personality with who I work for. My April 1st joke was obviously that I was going to wkr for Microsoft, some people handled the news as I would expect a friend to handle it, wishing me luck etc. others well, by their reaction you would have thought I had become a fund raiser for Al Queda. I competed against Microsoft for a lot of years, and personally did very well against them, but do I think they are inherently evil?
My personal belief for a long time is that Bill Gates got given many of his opportunities to win certain markets by the mistakes others made, at Lotus I saw these mistakes being made.
Now I offer products that work with both camps, IBM/Lotus and Microsoft. Customers often have environments that call for solutions from both vendors, which makes it so hard to read some blogs where everything is either good or evil. Yet these same blogs are probably written by people who help account for a huge amount of Microsofts profit by using Office and Windows, but they're evil so I give them money?
Where is the adult discussion of real comparisons, admitting one company may do something better than the other and vice verse? Why if an analysts report comes out favouring the competition over your product is it immediately jumped on as bogus? Which are the trustworthy independant analysts? Why so few of them?
was how many people, and I think sadly, associate my personality with who I work for. My April 1st joke was obviously that I was going to wkr for Microsoft, some people handled the news as I would expect a friend to handle it, wishing me luck etc. others well, by their reaction you would have thought I had become a fund raiser for Al Queda. I competed against Microsoft for a lot of years, and personally did very well against them, but do I think they are inherently evil?
My personal belief for a long time is that Bill Gates got given many of his opportunities to win certain markets by the mistakes others made, at Lotus I saw these mistakes being made.
Now I offer products that work with both camps, IBM/Lotus and Microsoft. Customers often have environments that call for solutions from both vendors, which makes it so hard to read some blogs where everything is either good or evil. Yet these same blogs are probably written by people who help account for a huge amount of Microsofts profit by using Office and Windows, but they're evil so I give them money?
Where is the adult discussion of real comparisons, admitting one company may do something better than the other and vice verse? Why if an analysts report comes out favouring the competition over your product is it immediately jumped on as bogus? Which are the trustworthy independant analysts? Why so few of them?
| Permalink | 
Comments
For the record, I would have wished you luck, but didn't see the joke until it was already revealed to be a joke.
I really like a LOT of what Microsoft does. I've administered Exchange and really dislike it for a lot of reasons, but I understand when it's the best tool for the job.
The thing I really hate is when reports come out from "analysts" that are so blatantly off course and not factual. Trust me, from working with Notes/Domino for so long, I KNOW what the limitations and downsides are, so I never quibble when I see those brought up. In fact I wholeheartedly agree at that point. There are just some report and stories that I think NEED to be refuted.
I do work on the side, and I am a Microsoft business partner. Much of the work I've done over the years includes MS technology, so I really thank them for helping me make money, but I'm one of those people who use the best tool for the job no matter what it is. Macromedia, Adobe, Microsoft, Lotus, IBM. All have tools that are best suited to certain things. To blindly follow one company is ludicrous, and career suicide.
I just wish that the press would compare Exchange and Notes straight up. We know it's kind of apples to oranges, but geez, it would be nice to see the correct facts and some balanced reporting for a change. We almost NEVER see that, and I think that's why the Domino community responds so fervently when these things hit.
Anyway, my two cents worth.
-Grey
P.S. For what it's worth, I'm glad you are still at Instant
Posted by Greyhawk68 At 11:42:43 AM On 04/11/2005 | - Website - |
So few trustworthy analysts...... You ask why there are so few trustworthy analysts. Probably because very few analysts can afford to do a study or review without a sponsor, and when a study is sponsored by one of the vendors, it is immediately tainted, regardless of the analysts position.
From over 15 years of published writing, one thing I pay particular attention to is the source of articles. Who wrote them, what is their position? Most people do not. In fact, people tend to take face value at things that are printed - printed, mind you, not off the Internet because the Internet has that "urban legend" feel to it. However, if it's printed in a book, they'll believe whatever the heck the book says. Sad but true.
Take the computer industry out of this. Put politics into it. What columnists would you say are truly objective? Why so few of them? The answer would be the same - you would struggle to come up with names, and the reason why is that there is so much more money to be made by joining one side or another that it's silly for most people to remain in the middle.
The question really is - why would anyone rely on this stuff?
BTW, we're a Microsoft partner too. I work on tons of Microsoft stuff. Have to. It runs the world. However, you wouldn't know that from reading my blog, I suppose. Other guys in my org are more Microsofty than I am.
Posted by Jon Johnston At 01:56:41 PM On 04/12/2005 | - Website - |