Re: Are Customers Microsoft's Number 1 Priority?
In article <email@example.com>,
"Michael \(michka\) Kaplan"
> "W.E.(Bill) Goodrich, PhD" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote...
> > Perhaps if you set it to music and played it on your little
> > recorder, you might finally get it. .NET is "about" whatever
> > Micro$oft Marketing *says* it is about - not your little
> > fantasies. What Micro$oft Marketing gives in the .NET
> > initiative, Micro$oft Marketing may take away in the next
> > initiative. What features of VB.NET might you lose in
> > VB.Secure (or VB.next)? Only Micro$oft Marketing will
> > determine it.
> You understand very little about how things work at Microsoft,
Perhaps I understand quite a bit more about that than you think.
> and are as a consequence suffering from "cart before the horse"
> syndrome. Examples follow:
> > Marketing drives technology.
> > At Micro$oft, Marketing defines products.
> The new dev. platforms were four years in the making before
> marketing moved ahead
ONLY if you define "marketing" unnecessarily narrowly - far more
narrowly than Patrick's little marketing/technology rants do. If you
limit your definition to the organizations of Mich Mathews (Marketing)
and/or Kevin Johnson (US Sales, Marketing and Service) your
characterization would be technically close to correct (if misleading).
But the strategic business development functions of Marketing were and
are in other hands, such as Richard P. Emerson (Corporate Development
Strategy), Norman Judah (Business Development, Platforms & Technology
Strategy), Dan'l Lewin (.NET Business Development), and Sanjay
Parthasarathy (Strategy & Business Development Group). THEY are the
parts of "marketing" that defined (and continue to define) the
products - especially the .NET related products - rather than Tom
Button and Mike Nash.
> -- marketing was still stuck on their older plans?
Only in Kevin Johnson's group. Not the ones discussed above.
> > At Micro$oft, Marketing controls what is released.
> Not really -- they are the ones having the hardest time with trying
> to excplain changes and stuff.
Wrong. The strategic groups discussed above have to sign off on - and
can veto - product features and even entire products. Again, you are
confusing Kevin Johnson's group with the rest.
> > At Micro$oft, Marketing controls when things are released.
> Not true at all -- marketing was VERY unhappy that they announced
> something and the dev. team is a year later then the promise?
The failures of the dev team are irrelevant. The dev team may determine
(with review from the above "marketing" groups) when the product is
"ready" for release, but the strategic marketing groups control the
actual release dates (and configurations). As shown by the VS.NET
release, which forced the dev team to leave out certain planned (and
> They *wish* you were telling the turth!
Theirs is the ultimate control. They may have to change plans due to
Dev team screw ups or supplier failures, but they are the ones who
*make* the plans and who then adjust them.
> > At Micro$oft, Marketing accepts or rejects features.
> > At Micro$oft, VB.NET is a Marketing creation.
Especially at the Strategic level.
W.E. (Bill) Goodrich, PhD
* CHANGE YOUR SEXUALITY * http://www.nyx.net/~bgoodric/ctg.html *
* * *
* Without Aversive * email@example.com *
* Behavior Modification * Creative Technology Group *
* or Drugs * PO Box 286 *
* * Englewood, CO 80151-0286 *
Top DevX Stories
Easy Web Services with SQL Server 2005 HTTP Endpoints
JavaOne 2005: Java Platform Roadmap Focuses on Ease of Development, Sun Focuses on the "Free" in F.O.S.S.
Wed Yourself to UML with the Power of Associations
Microsoft to Add AJAX Capabilities to ASP.NET
IBM's Cloudscape Versus MySQL