Skepticism and Mary Jo Foley

Mary Jo Foley recently wrote a piece explaining why her Microsoft skepticism is warranted given the "suspicious coincidence" that these moves toward "transparency, standards and interoperability" fell so close to important signposts in Microsoft's tangled road through the legal and regulatory minefield. The much ballyooed interoperability announcement took place close to debates over "fast track" ratification of OOXML by the ISO, and days before the imposition of a $1.35 billion fine by the EC for past antitrust malfeasance. Microsoft's decision to support "super standards" mode in IE by default seems less of a beneficent move when one notes the vigor of Microsoft past defense of their previous stance, and that Opera has filed complaints with the EC on exactly that subject.

I can't really disagree with her justifications. It's fairly clear that there are executives who are not convinced of the merits of being open, and that what brings them over the line (or else makes their opponents arguments stronger) is the "stick" wielded by antitrust authorities. Further, Microsoft has a typical big company inability to come clean about real motivations, a fact I lamented in a past post on the subject of the fine.

Speaking about Microsoft as a single entity, however - a company with 75,000 employees scattered around the world - is a bit like talking about "Europe." Though there are certain cultural overlaps that stretch throughout the area (products often span borders in the unifed marketplace that is Europe, though less so than in single-market United States), Germans, Spanish, French, Poles, Czechs, Irish, Italians and Greeks have extremely different approaches to government, social mores and culture.

In the case of Microsoft, I know that there are lots of people who believe in the power of open systems. They understand that Microsoft's success has everything to do with the fact that Microsoft created a PLATFORM that was easy for third parties to adapt and customize. If you understand the centrality of "platform" to Microsoft's business and the resulting dependence on the good will of developers, it's hard to look at attempts at closed protocols or systems under a Microsoft label with anything but disdain.

People who think these things exist in large numbers within Microsoft (it isn't just me, in other words). It is hard, however, to ignore the fact that there are a rather important bunch who don't believe or understand that, and who are (or were) in a position of power to prevent attempts to move further down that path.

It's hard to stop a river flowing through cracks in the dam once it has started, however. In the same vein, all the announcements and initiatives, added up, have resulted in a company that is radically different than it was in the mid-90s. The wild card, to my mind, is Ray Ozzie. He's not a person who speaks a lot in public, and given that, it's harder to discern where his true opinions lie.

I do find it interesting, however, that the area where Ozzie has most found his voice is on the subject of "transparency, standards and interoperability." This is the man whose "official" role is "Chief Software Architect," the role vacated recently by Bill Gates - the source of Microsoft's original orientation around platforms and APIs.  I don't think that is coincidental.

So, Mary Jo, feel free to be skeptical (not that I had to tell you that). Skepticism is warranted, as you have rightly explained.  In fact, from a self-interest standpoint (mine, not yours), it serves a useful purpose. It forces Microsoft and its executives to think more seriously about whether they really believe the principles they are espousing, and gives ammunition to open systems proponents who wish to defend those principles over the long term.

Do try to recognize, however, that Microsoft is not "the borg." Big changes can take place when founders retire, and that is set to happen with Bill Gates "retirement" this May. Given the amount of support I see internally for open systems, I have every reason to believe the shift is real.