Windows Home Server, Part 3 - Business / Marketing

I recently had the opportunity to discuss Windows Home Server with Charlie Kindel, Microsoft's General Manager for the Windows Home Server product. We had an email dialogue, followed by a phone conversation. I’ve pulled together four posts based on our dialogue. I hope to fill in a few areas where the publically available information is a little thin. This is part 3 of a 4 part series. (Links to Part 1, Part 2)

Business / Marketing

RH: Why did you decide to keep it under wraps?  Other than some comments by Bob Muglia and Paul Thurrott, this was extremely stealthy compared to most other Microsoft projects.  How did you pull it off?

CEK: From the very beginning we knew the concept was a “big idea”. We felt it was important that our initial disclosure had “pop” and the only way to achieve that was through keeping it a secret as long as possible and then having a significant announcement event. 

The fact that literally thousands of Microsoft employees have known about “Q” for more than 2 years, and the fact that have an internal Beta program with hundreds of participants is a testament to the integrity and spirit of Microsoft employees. We were very open with them about our plans, and simply (frequently) requested that they honor what we were trying to accomplish and keep the secret. They did.  I’ve been at Microsoft over 16 years and I pretty much love this company. I’m proud of many things we’ve accomplished as a company, but one of the things I am now most proud of is the way our employees dealt with the “secret of Q”. I especially love the fact that this is in stark contrast to how other companies work to keep secrets.

RH: How did Home Server get started?  Was it a top-down strategic push, or was there a lower level champion for the idea?

CEK: Egads. This is a long story that I am working on writing up for a blog post on my blog.  The short story is:  It started from the bottom up back in 1999 when I was running the Consumer Windows home networking team.  Windows Home Server is my fourth attempt to get it done at Microsoft (Quattro means 4 in Italian). Those 8 years of effort created both a groundswell of grass roots interest as well as an understanding of the strategic and visionary importance from the top.

RH: We've heard about HP.  I know you probably can't name specific OEMs, but can you give an estimate as to the number of OEMs that will be on board when this launches? Are we going to see something from the likes of Dell or Gateway?

CEK: We are not prepared to say anything more than we said in our announcement at CES at this time.

RH: Have you thought about developing a certification program for certifying installers to set this up for people who are still intimidated?

CEK: Yes.

Further Discussion:

I tried to get some more details out of Charlie regarding future plans and features. Charlie indicated that while they have a lot of ideas that they would like to address beyond version one of Windows Home Server, they are really trying to wait to see how the market reacts to the product, and get feedback from real customers before they make decisions. Beyond that they are very focused on getting V1 out the door.

I also asked if they might be looking at a different SKU for the SOHO market that would make use of the technology they have developed for Home Server. Charlie explained that the Home Office market is one of the areas they are trying to serve with WHS. Basically if a business is being run out of the home, it can take advantage of all of the features of WHS.

 

Mary Jo covered some of these same topics today here and here.

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:18:49 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Business | Consumer | Marketing | Microsoft | Quattro

Microsoft and Google in a Race for Brand Dilution

I used to know what Google stood for. The brand was so clear, that the company name even turned into a verb that means “To Search”. No longer. Google could mean search, email, instant message, book search, rss reader, the list goes on and on.

Whenever a company stumbles into a really popular brand, they go through stages. The first involves building the brand, making sure that customers know what to expect. The next is to protect the brand. Here a company rejects uses of the brand that don’t meet the original brand image. After a while, companies start viewing the brand as an asset to be exploited. That is where Google appears to be now. I’ve even stopped paying attention to their never-ending stream of beta service releases. I don’t know what Google stands for anymore.

Microsoft, in their apparent desire to “beat Google at something” has taken the fast track to brand dilution with their Live.com services. Live.com meant something when it was just and RSS enabled portal. I was still on board when they decided to bring search, mail, and IM under the header too, but a recent flurry of Live.com announcements has left me wondering “What does Live.com really stand for?” I thought Microsoft would have known better after they all but buried the .Net brand, but they are making the same mistakes again.

If you have a brand that means something to consumers, the worst thing you can do is attempt to leverage the brand for something that doesn’t mesh with the original image. This erodes the understanding and trust that your customers have in your brand.

Wednesday, May 31, 2006 7:35:27 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Business | Google | Marketing | Microsoft

The Future of Your Career is Online...

This post on Library crunch made it into my "Blog this" folder back in February, and I'm finally doing some spring cleaning.

Michael Casey links to some ideas from Richard Macmanus and a whitepaper by Rod Boothby.  The basic premise is that the next round of MBA graduates (I'll be able to count myself in that group in August '06) know how to work differently.  From my perspective, he's right.  My coursework has been completed exclusively through the University of Maryland University College's online classroom.  Almost half of my assignments are collaborative, and another quarter require online conference interaction.  We email, we teleconference, we chat.  We know how to self organize, chose task leaders, and get things done.  And I've never met any of my teammates in person.  Sometimes we have to work around time zone differences to accommodate teammates who are living or traveling across the world.  And all this is just the mechanics.  Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat was required reading this semester.  We're coming out reading to fight in a global marketplace, connecting by a myriad of communications links forming a web around us...

But even with all that, we're behind the curve.  As the next decade passes, we have the email generation, the IM generation, the livejournal, generation, the myspace generation, and the second life generation, all entering the workforce.  Then a subset of them will get MBA's, or mature into management roles.  These folks are going to fundamentally change the dynamics of business.  Robert Scoble touches on this in his recent Moonshot post.  The handshake is out, the business trip, phone calls and voicemail are going to fade away.  Coming out of high school, many students will have more collaborative skills then most businessmen of decades past. 

Thursday, April 27, 2006 11:03:56 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Business | Internet | Technology

Windows Vista Consumer Confusion Edition

Microsoft has finally released the official product lineup for Windows Vista.  They are going from a two SKU model in XP (with later additions of Tablet, Media Center & Starter Editions), to a whopping 6 + N SKU's for Vista.  This is bad for several reasons.

Brand Expectations:  One of the core strengths of the Microsoft OS is that people know what to expect.  By selling all of these different versions, you are confusing your brand image.  Many of the more advanced features are available only on the higher SKU's.  If someone asks how to do something related to one of these higher-end tasks (like file encryption), we must first deduce what edition they are running (Here's where the consumer says "I don't know, it's Windows!  I got Vista, you told me to get Vista!"). People (non-geeks) already feel that they have to learn too much to utilize computers, now you're asking them to learn more in order to buy computers.

People Will Buy on Price:  Many businesses and consumers will buy whatever is cheapest.  This is bad for many reasons.  First, it's less revenue for Microsoft.  Second, after these people buy the cheaper SKU, they will often be less satisfied as customers.  I've always hated the XP Home SKU, since so many small businesses have purchased it (usually on cheap prebuilt machines) only to find out that it didn't give them all of the functionality they needed.

How could Microsoft have done this better?

Option 1:  Two SKU's, Vista Home & Vista Business.  This gives folks a clear message about who each version is intended for.  Beyond that, if you must have exclusive features, sell cheap feature packs.  Instead of having a separate CD or download required for these feature packs, put them all on the original disc, and let the consumer purchase activations quickly and easily over the phone or internet.  Heck, you could even offer freebies (like "Try the media center feature pack for four weeks free starting July 4th, no credit card required!").  This makes it a social experiment where everyone can try out the cool features, and decide if it's worth a subscription or one-time fee.

Option 2:  Come up with a different brand for the Home and Business lines.  The home SKU's could be Vista, the business ones could be some other two-syllable word that embodies productivity, efficiency, collaboration, or whatever other feel-good buzzwords you need to cling to.

I guess it's too late, the ship has already sailed on this one...

Monday, February 27, 2006 9:18:09 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [1]  Business | Consumer | Microsoft | Marketing

More Evil from Google/Sun

This morning one of my PCs had a little pop-up balloon asking for permission to download an update.  This is the computer that my wife normally uses and I rarely use it except to check it for updates. The program that wanted to update was Sun's Java runtime.  I figured this was probably a good idea so I told it to go ahead.

Where's the evil?  The update wizard tried to sneak in an installation of the Google Toolbar.  If you accept the default options, and just click "Next" through the wizard, you get the Google toolbar installed along with the Java runtime update.  The Google toolbar has absolutely nothing to do with keeping my Java runtime up to date, but for some reason, they try to sneak it in.  I dislike bundling in general, but I really dislike it when the default behavior of programs is to bundle.  I didn't like it when the MSN Messenger defaulted to change my homepage and search settings, and I especially don't like it when software "updates" are used to sneak software onto my machine.

Thankfully (I guess...) my wife never updates her machine.  She's totally immune to Windows Update pop-ups, or even the Onecare beta's yellow or even red icons.  I say thankfully because if she had run the update, I'm almost certain that she would've next-clicked her way through the defaults, and then she would have been complaining that her IE window was getting cluttered by the toolbar.

Companies need to remember that for most folks, Sneaky == Evil.  Every time you gain a user through sneaky bundling, you lose some consumer trust.  Google is in a tight spot because a great deal of their business value, their market value even, is based on users trusting them with personal information.  Without a high level of consumer trust, Google is just another advertising platform serving up irrelevant ads.

How could this be better?  If you must bundle unrelated software, require explicit and obvious consent.  A pre-checked box in the middle of an update wizard is not explicit and obvious.  Better yet, toss out the bundling, and win customers based on the merits of your product. 

Saturday, February 04, 2006 3:40:10 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Business | Google

Go Read Creating Passionate Users

Kathy Sierra and the rest of the crew over at Creating Passionate Users consistently impress me with their witty, sometimes irreverent style of blogging about business decision making and marketing.  Sometimes I laugh, sometimes I just sit back and think, but without fail, it's interesting.  Some of my favorite posts include:

Death by Risk Aversion

Real Motivational Posters

Physics of Passion: The Koolaid Point

Most Classroom Learning Sucks

And there's a whole history of interesting posts.  If you ever need to give your brain a workout, just browse through some of the older posts.

(This has been a positive post brought to you by the positive post project)

Thursday, February 02, 2006 5:54:35 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Business

Will the Office 12 Ribbon Bar be Microsoft's "New Coke"?

Market research said it was going to be a big hit.  Focus groups showed that it was preferred over the old product.  Customers would be happier, and the new product would provide a competitive edge in the marketplace.

That's what they thought about the new Coke formula back in 1985. The same (somewhat contrived) lines could apply to Office 12's new UI.

The Coca-cola company miscalculated how much the identity of the brand was tied to the old formula's specific taste.  Many Coke buyers just continued on their merry way, but a very vocal subset was upset, and they let the world know.  Soon, Coca-cola brought back the original formula Coke, and all settled out in the marketplace, with Coca-cola picking up a bit of market share along the way from all the publicity.

I wonder if the "newness" of the ribbon UI is going to be too big of a hurdle for the Office brand to overcome.  People have been using the same toolbar and buttons UI for more than a decade, and old habits die hard.  The ribbon may be better & more efficient, but will the public accept it with open arms? 

Microsoft needs to spend some energy convincing the consumer that this it still the Office they know and love.  Commercials showing typical users being more productive.  Maybe a Maytag Repairman-like "Lonely Office Guru" commercial will be in order.  Play against the fact that the UI may not be familiar, and then explain why the product is still the same, but better.

They need to convince everyone that this new product really is Office, that it fits into our collective brand image, it's just better.  If Microsoft can't pull this off, they can't simply bring an "Office Classic" to market.  "Office Classic" means that people just won't upgrade.

Friday, January 06, 2006 11:03:39 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Business | Consumer | Microsoft

Clean Firetrucks Are Bad? Seth Godin on Initiative

One of my favorite business authors, Seth Godin, has an interesting blog post about initiative.  The premise is that the local volunteer firemen clean the trucks whenever they're waiting for fires to occur.  The alternative according to Godin?  Maybe they should be out actively preventing fires?  I know that many fire companies do just this with community education and safety checks, but it's an interesting metaphor that Godin uses to point out that most of our institutions do not instill nor encourage any kind of initiative. 

I've been going back and forth trying to decide how right this post really is.  On one had it rings true.  Thinking back on school, from elementary through college, I was hard pressed to find an exercise that really taught or encouraged initiative.  On the other hand, an organization where everyone was bursting with initiative would be a dissonant mess as well.  I'd say that the real problem at the fire company is that the leadership is not acting on the organization's goals.  When the junior firemen are sitting around with nothing to do, the leadership should direct their actions in a way that is consistent with the goal of saving lives and property.  Likewise, leaders in business should keep their reports focused on actions that help achieve organizational goals, and not let firedrills detract from real productivity.

Wednesday, January 04, 2006 6:23:00 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Business

Awesome ASP.NET 2.0 Shared Web Hosting

Ok, I'll throw the disclaimer up front.  If you sign up using the link below, I get a referral commission.  With that said, I'm going to try to give a fair review of my current hosting service, Webhost4Life.

A while back I decided that I needed to find a new hosting provider.  My old host had limited support for ASP.Net, and although they allowed multiple domains to be hosted on one account, they required that they all be pointed to the root directory of the hosting account.  This made it necessary to have a gimmicky default.aspx that redirected by the host header, and didn't support having full web applications in subdirectories.

I ran through trials on several hosts, and ended up signing on with Webhost4life.  I'm on the $20 per month plan, and am very happy with the interfaces that they provide.  The big bonuses in my mind are:

• I can point any domain name to a subdirectory in my hosting account.
• I can set any directory in my hosting account as an independent web application, through the web control panel.
• I have access to SQL server, My SQL, etc.
• They have a decent online interface for setting file & directory security permissions.
• They will put you on a server that has the beta .Net framework 2.0 if you ask through tech support.

On the down-side, I have found that they have a tendency to nickel-and-dime for many features.  It's free to point a new domain to your hosting root, but if you want it pointed to a subdirectory, it's an extra $10 a year.  Want to use their e-commerce wizard (it's not that great) then there's a one-time setup fee.  When they switched me over to the server with the 2.0 framework, there was a one-time fee (and some downtime) since they manually copied my websites over.

Overall I've been very happy.  My family picture website runs great, and much faster than on my old host.  Dasblog was very easy to setup, and I've got a couple of side projects using ASP.Net with the 2.0 framework, and they're working great as well.

If you want to found out more, click here, and feel free to comment or email with questions.

Update 7/13/2005: I'm not sure what the problem is yet, but my hosting server has been having some random failings lately.  It usually comes back within a couple of minutes, but the reliability isn't quite up to par for business purposes.  Just a fair warning for anyone taking the ASP.NET 2.0 route. I never had any reliability problems before I moved to the server with the ASP.NET 2.0 Beta.  To be fair, it is a beta.

Update2 7/13/2005: I had tech support switch the virtual directory for my blog site back to ASP.NET 1.1 and everything appears to be working fine now, and I haven't had any site drops since.

 

Thursday, June 23, 2005 5:23:06 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [1]  Blogging | Business | Development

Webmail.us Embraces Business Blogging
While it's interesting to watch people like Robert Scoble instigating change at a large behemoth like Microsoft, I think it’ll be much more interesting to watch how smaller, agile businesses like Webmail.us (formerly Excedent Technologies) makes use of the technology to do better in business.

The key here is that this is a company that is not exclusively about blogs, who is embracing blogs and rss as a way of improving their business & improving their focus on customers. This isn’t just some stupid PR blog. If you peruse their website, or their CEO’s blog, or their company blog, you can see that they are drinking the Business Blogging Koolaid, and asking for more.

Best wishes for success to Pat and his team!
Thursday, February 24, 2005 4:50:00 AM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Blogging | Business

Microsoft Monitor Tackles TCO
Joe Wilcox from Microsoft Monitordisects the in's and out's of TCO studies, and explains why they really don't mean much.
Friday, February 18, 2005 7:48:00 PM (Eastern Standard Time, UTC-05:00)      Comments [0]  Technology | Business