Microsoft Self-FUD

Microsoft's announced this week that it would reduce the feature set of its "Viridian" virtualization software for the Longhorn release of the Windows server operating system. This has provoked good deal of pundit commentary. Yes, it once more demonstrates how you cannot count on any Microsoft development schedule or roadmap; this is Vista redux, with the boilerplate spin from the Softies. But it begs another question: what exactly is behind Microsoft's virtualization strategy?

For a great analysis of this strategy, read Alessandro Perilli's March 1 post. But what exactly is motivating Microsoft? As one reader wrote:

"Exactly what is Microsoft's business strategy here? They seem to really need focus. They certainly are not attacking VMware to prevent VMware from creating an OS or an office like suite. Are they in the space simply to be in the space?"

The answer is, I believe, self-FUD. This is not the usual fear, uncertainty and doubt propaganda ploy that is used to freeze the market. Self-FUD is fear, uncertainty and doubt directed internally within an organization, as in "Omigod I dunno what this means but the sky could fall." For the Softies, it is now a conditioned response to any new technology that seems platform-like and whose impact on the future revenue from their crown jewels -- Windows, Office, SQL Server -- is not well understood. The mantra is simple: when in doubt, seek to control.

We saw this play out in the browser wars with Netscape. Failing to have their own vision for Windows, Office and SQL Server in an Internet world, failing in fact to "get" the Internet in the 1990s, Microsoft crushed Netscape. Now they have Internet Explorer, which produces no revenue, as a development resource-hogging albatross. Windows Media Player is a similar story, leading directly to Microsoft's woes with European regulators. And so forth.

What would it be like for Microsoft if they did not have these defensive products that produce little or no revenue and for which their are viable alternatives? What would it be like if the resources these and other similar efforts consume were directed elsewhere? Perhaps we would get incremental releases of Windows, Office and SQL Server on an annual basis. Perhaps we would be able to upgrade to a new release as painlessly as Macintosh users. Perhaps we would see some real innovation coming from the Softies, some new offering that would knock our socks off, some real technology leadership. Not to mention that Microsoft, once it crushes a competitor, puts the attack weapon on the back-burner, customers be damned.

But no, we get stewardship instead. And development motivated by fear. They are too busy trying to stop the likes of VMware from, er, well, they are not sure what exactly the threat is but if they can control it they can contain it. That is the Microsoft knee-jerk reaction to self-FUD.

Copyright © 2007 Philip Bookman

Technorati: Business Strategy, Strategic Planning, Microsoft, VMware