Techcrunch has an article about Microsoft signing a Letter of Intent to to buy Xobni. Xobni has an Outlook plugin that turns your inbox into your own personal social network. It looks like a pretty nifty program although I haven't used it myself. It is still in Beta Invite mode.
What is interesting to me is the question posted by one of the readers. He asked why didn't Microsoft just buy Plaxo instead, since to him it fit more into Microsoft's strategy. I posit that there are two main reasons.
First, Xobni is an Outlook plugin, if it experiences a significant uptake then there is immediately more reason to use outlook. Tie-in means market share.
Second, buying them means Xobni won't port the plugin to other mail clients, effectively killing the possibility of a Xobni user to move to a different mail client or even OS.
Hmmm... Maybe that should be the strategy for startups that have a cool idea and want to get bought out quickly.
1. Build something on the Microsoft platform exclusively.
2. Build some buzz about your product.
3. Get a LOI from Microsoft. Cha-Ching!!!!
Monday, April 21, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Windows 7
There has been a lot of talk about Microsoft's coming "Windows 7" OS and whether it will be modular. Meaning you will pay once to get the base OS, then pay again to get the features you need. Presumably this ends up saving the consumer money since you will spend only on the stuff want in your system. In addition people see it as a way to get the monopoly monkey off Microsoft's back.
Looks good on paper but I say nay! Not gonna work fellas. First off, nobody wants to pay twice to get a product that should have been complete to begin with. Secondly, it is the control of the kernel that the monopoly watchers are really looking at. Since Microsoft has strict control of the kernel, from its APIs, to its development, to its documentation, no one can ever hope to really compete on a level playing field.
In my opinion, This is what Microsoft should do:
1. Release the kernel in Open Source - this will lift the Monopoly hammer, and as an added benefit, the Open Source Community will be automatically enlisted to find and fix any bugs in the kernel.
(Note, this will not work for kernels of existing products, you will just be inviting trouble from hackers looking to find exploits. It would work much better for future release kernels. In fact, making or using an Open Source kernel from the get go may be the best option.)
2. Build then distribute the base OS pack for free. This should include the kernel, drivers, a basic interface and a SDK. The SDK is needed to get Developers excited about building products for your OS. (Remember, there is always going to be more developer outside your company than within, no matter how big your company is, also think about your recent brain drain.)
3. Build enhanced features. In particular, build features that take advantage of the cloud(online storage, enhanced communication and online backup come to mind), then charge for the features, something like $10 per year for home users and $20 per year for business users. Low enough to entice everyone to pay instead of having to forgo the use of the extra services. A killer app may be needed here.
4. Then there are server services for companies/organizations that you can build and charge for, such as mail and collaboration.
These steps particularly good at getting rid of the piracy problem since you are no longer selling products. Services are going to be your game.
So Microsoft, if you need help implementing this don't hesitate to contact me, I don't mind being hired as a consultant.... hehe.
Looks good on paper but I say nay! Not gonna work fellas. First off, nobody wants to pay twice to get a product that should have been complete to begin with. Secondly, it is the control of the kernel that the monopoly watchers are really looking at. Since Microsoft has strict control of the kernel, from its APIs, to its development, to its documentation, no one can ever hope to really compete on a level playing field.
In my opinion, This is what Microsoft should do:
1. Release the kernel in Open Source - this will lift the Monopoly hammer, and as an added benefit, the Open Source Community will be automatically enlisted to find and fix any bugs in the kernel.
(Note, this will not work for kernels of existing products, you will just be inviting trouble from hackers looking to find exploits. It would work much better for future release kernels. In fact, making or using an Open Source kernel from the get go may be the best option.)
2. Build then distribute the base OS pack for free. This should include the kernel, drivers, a basic interface and a SDK. The SDK is needed to get Developers excited about building products for your OS. (Remember, there is always going to be more developer outside your company than within, no matter how big your company is, also think about your recent brain drain.)
3. Build enhanced features. In particular, build features that take advantage of the cloud(online storage, enhanced communication and online backup come to mind), then charge for the features, something like $10 per year for home users and $20 per year for business users. Low enough to entice everyone to pay instead of having to forgo the use of the extra services. A killer app may be needed here.
4. Then there are server services for companies/organizations that you can build and charge for, such as mail and collaboration.
These steps particularly good at getting rid of the piracy problem since you are no longer selling products. Services are going to be your game.
So Microsoft, if you need help implementing this don't hesitate to contact me, I don't mind being hired as a consultant.... hehe.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
