Spirited Thought

Recent articles talk about Microsoft attacking Google Base, with a new offering code-named “Fremont.” Fremont is focused on delivering classified ads based on social networking filters. For example, someone might want to advertise a situation wanted that goes out to people in their contact list. Not exactly Google Base killing material, but it is interesting enough on its own.

“Google Base is quite confusing,” said Mr. Wiseman. “We are just about classified ads and community. Google Base is more of an open data store.” – Microsoft Unwraps Fremont, Red Herring

Garry Wiseman, the product unit manager for Fremont, expresses confusion around Google Base, but quickly articulates it as an open data store. My guess is that Base confuses Wiseman’s PR representatives. This is definitely a, “wish we had done that moment,” for Microsoft, something they had articulated way back in 2001 with .Net My Services. As Elias Torres points out in his Google Base is nothing new but… posting, no one wanted to store or manage data on a Microsoft server.

Google does not seem to have that kind of ogre image yet. But with GOOG pushing above $400 a share, with 1000 millionaires in the company – imagine almost 1 out of 5 people you walk past – makes you wonder how long Google will be seen as friendly as their holiday logo treatments.

The interesting thing about Google Base is that instead of a search engine crawling the web, people are tagging and pushing content into Google. It is similar to a website owner submitting their URL to a search engine, telling it to crawl the website. The difference here is that Google will store all the content and provide a simple user experience to manage it all. That might seem complicated to some, but, if it works, it is something way beyond Wiseman’s current vision.

Lucky Ian Wylie, Fast Company writer, had a ride in BMW’s newest M5 – a 190mph 507hp v10, something you could find in a pimped Honda, but probably not appointed with the same kind of leather and fancy little button that unleashes the last 100hp without artificial accelerant. At 20,000 units per year, the 500 person M division cranks out 40 cars each and results, coincidently, in a 40% higher sticker price (over $100K for an M5).

BMW M cars are created for the auto enthusiast – the BMW early adopter. Today’s M5 informs tomorrow’s 5-series. Impressively enough, BWM assembles the distinguished M models alongside the rest of the fleet. It shows the companies ability to not only develop the next generation bimmer in a skunkworks fashion, but also integrate those innovations into their production process. BMW has long identified consumers willing to pay for leading edge R&D by offering an intentionally modified version of their regular autos – a marriage made in heaven, hopefully one without speed limits.

Remarkable is my new favorite word, inspired by a new book I picked up, The Big Moo. I never read The Purple Cow, but I have to believe it has to do with being remarkable. A purple cow does not seem to cut it anymore, and so, we have the big moo.

The cover captured my attention, “Stop Trying to Be Perfect and Start Being Remarkable.” It has 33 authors some of which I have read before and others which were foreign. The idea that I would get to read remarkable stories from 33 thinkers, sold it. Opening the book on a cross-country flight reconfirmed it. All the profits go to three charities, the Acumen Fund, Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International and Room to Read. Another thing that got me was that readers are invited to copy the pages of the book, similar to open source, helping build a community about being more than good enough.

I never thought of myself as striving for perfection. To be honest, I was never shooting for remarkable either – seems too easy. Godin points out, if you do something that makes someone remark then by definition it is remarkable – see? Too simple. On the other hand I feel the sentiment loud and clear and The Big Moo reminds me to stoke the flame and not mind standing up and out.

The notion that Google does not know what is doing is laughable. Peter Day from the BBC kicked off a recent article with that very premise – that Google’s lack of obvious direction might be the source of their genius.

Everyone can see that Google has enormous ad revenue allowing them to apparently dabble, but there is no way they have lost focus on being the dominant leader of internet search and targeted ads. Google’s management has to have a clear vision keeping their amazing progression on course. Without it, they would be looking to buy General Mills cereal.

There is elegance in Google’s ability to appear so unfocused. I have to think some of that is due to their accelerated growth – strong ad revenue, acquiring top talent and strategic market positioning decisions that help explore future opportunities.

Most large IT companies are able to spend money on acquiring companies and research and development. Not all of those investments reveal aspects of the company’s strategy. Google’s current business is heavily focused on internet ads. If they were not investing in ad supportive technology, talent / intellectual property or market position opportunities they would have a problem. Their stock price is all about the oil field they tapped into and the promise that they will continue to be a company of bankable innovation. I have no doubt they will, but spending any time thinking that this is all by accident, that Google does not know what its doing, is foolish.

I always find it interesting when internal memos allegedly leak. It is like reality TV, what actually happens inside of those corporate walls. So Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Ray Ozzie star in this most recent memo exposure where “Internet services” services are seen as the next serious disruption.

They point to a variety of threats to Microsoft’s Windows and Office franchises, from advertising-supported Internet businesses like those being pursued by Google and Yahoo to, as Mr. Gates notes, a new "grass-roots adoption and popularization model" that has made it easier for start-up companies to reach large audiences at low cost. John Markoff, November 9, 2005, New York Times

It amazes me that everyone thinks this movement is about advertising. Advertising is the bread and butter for a Google or a Yahoo. It is not how they will grow the company. The key, which is alluded to by Gates is in the grass-roots activism garnered by the survivors of the dotcoms. Google owns the minds of the people – no one hates them or their products. I have heard people refer to companies like Google as being young and destined to a crawl like everyone else, a fatal miscalculation in my opinion.

Companies like Google happen to have sizable revenue streams because of the relevant impressions they deliver for advertisers. Those impressions have also captured an intent audience, performing intimate tasks like reading email, sharing photos, searching their desktops and instant messaging. Small companies can stir up hype like no other. Large companies have to work harder to show they are nimble. Microsoft is a big company. The notion that they missed the AJAX ship is foolishness. Anyone in the space can point to the technical underpinnings at least as far back as five years. So this is not about technical capability either. There is more to Google than AJAX. There is more to “Internet services” than the servers or middleware running on them.

The document written by Mr. Ozzie, titled "The Internet Services Disruption," criticizes Microsoft for moving too slowly to capitalize on technologies it developed and for failing to capitalize on industry trends. John Markoff, November 9, 2005, New York Times

The ability to capitalize on industry trends is something larger companies do in strategic commanding ways – as leaders of the industry. Big companies are like the US military, ready for two full scale wars on two different fronts ready to deploy at any time, they rally the battalions and drive a strategy that in 12-24-36 months time they own a significant portion of the mindshare and cash flow. In the mean time the world is infatuated with Google and their lab offerings, their impressive ability to attract talent and substantial bank account. The best part of where Google sits is that they can actually dabble in these disruptive activities without losing their core business, ad revenue.

Google is disruptive, but in the best way possible. We might actually drive to a new model of simplicity that makes IT really useful.

I wonder, how scared is Microsoft of facing Google as a competitor in the services arena?

So it looks like the iPod Nano lawsuit has gone global, and yet, they seem to be flying off the shelves. Does that mean I can buy a Nano today and join the lawsuit? Who doesn’t get protective shells for this stuff anyway? I mean, it is razor thin (0.27 inches) and partially made of plastic!? So light that you might leave it in your pocket and run it through the wash.

“Apple’s iPod Nano has sold in record numbers around the world, just as it did in the US,” he [Steve Berman, lead attorney] explained. “It seems that wherever the Nano is sold, problems with the defective design soon follow.”

“If I had known the truth about the problem, I would never have purchased a Nano,” he [Ben Jennings, one of the named plaintiffs] said.

Jennings wanted to know the truth about the problem – I don’t know that he can handle the truth. The truth is that sometimes products do not perform exactly as expected. I just checked out one of my old cellphones – cracks, scratches and paint chipping off. I promise I never used it as a hockey puck. Maybe this was a case of mismatches expectations. Apple is well know for delivering a superior product with world class experience. Jennings seems to have experienced less than that, which I agree is bad, but there seems to be tons of people who do not care – they are buying them anyway.

Maybe I need to buy one so I can relate.

It is not new news that a current is underfoot, one that has us moving away from overly complex IT. Google is often associated with the desired model of application design. Gmail, Goggle Maps and the slew of other rich web and light client applications that over deliver on expectations – delighting users. Microsoft launched its live software offering to try to capture some of the attention. At the end of the day, it is not the Google Labs that is going to threaten competition. Among several things, it is the fact that Google has built its tooling on a base that begs to be remixed – pulled a part, embedded, extended and done so in short order. Moving to simple does not mean IT problems get easier. There is plenty of heavy lifting behind many important solutions, its just that we need to offer the interfaces that enable the move to simple. This is like a flash back to four years ago and the argument for web services. A measure of success will center around how remixed a solution is. If you remixed a lot then you reduced development cycles and shortened time to market or time to productive use. If your services are remixed well then you exposed the right interfaces that support so much follow on innovation. I wonder if we make simple, complicated?