Newsmaker: Microsoft's Mundie: A bottom-up approach to tech

(continued from previous page)

Well, let's take that a little bit further. How do you think Microsoft needs to approach this issue of selling high-technology products to authoritarian countries or nations with anti-democratic traditions?
Mundie: Well, Microsoft software is used today in well over 200 countries. We operate globally with subsidiaries in something like 170 countries. So we encounter almost all forms of governance in that environment. Our view is that our job is to take this technology and make it available as broadly as we possibly can. And whether you happen to be pro-democracy or not, we do think that all of these issues are better off by having those people able to be part of the global community and have access to these technologies than not.

Do you think the criticism the Congress has leveled at you guys and Google and Yahoo vis-a-vis China is justified?
Mundie: Well, I think that it's a very difficult situation. All of those companies have tended to have the same view that the U.S. interests ultimately are better served by having our businesses present in those countries than not. Frankly, if you turned around many of the issues that we are challenged on, foreign companies that do business in the United States would have no choice but to answer the same way we do in those countries--which is that your business has to conform to the laws of the land in which you operate. It's really not optional.

You have to hew to the legal line that's placed in front of you in each country.

So if you start with the premise that our presence there is a good thing--both in terms of values and access to technology and trade--then just as any multinational does, you have to hew to the legal line that's placed in front of you in each country.

I do think that there have been problems at times where Congress finds it easy to look at these issues when they look across the ocean. But if you were a bit more introspective, you'd realize that we imposed some of the same constraints on any multinational that would operate in the Unites States, and so there's more symmetry there than you would observe in the way that some of the questioning was presented.

Let me turn to an organizational question. I remember that after Bill Gates announced his plans to do the slow phase-out, someone told us that one of the things that Microsoft may need to get away from is being too closely associated with just one person. Do you think that makes sense?
Mundie: Well, Microsoft is an iconic company. It was founded and led by an iconic leader in Bill. Our view is that the company has been developing an incredibly strong group of business and technical leaders, and to some extent, those people are less visible in this situation than they might have been in other situations in other companies, simply because of the star power that Bill commands.

I actually think whether it's a good thing or a bad thing is sort of irrelevant. With Bill electing to go and put his own energies in the next two years full time into the foundation, the company really has to see the natural rise, if you will, of these other extremely capable people. I think that that will be a fine thing. It's a completely natural thing. And in fact, I don't think there is any other alternative.

Is the challenge during that transition to make sure that things don't become too bureaucratic, for lack of a better term?
Mundie: Virtually all of the organizational and structural changes that will result from Bill's departure have already been made. Bill will be here, especially for the next year, with Ray and I in our jobs to make sure that we really have a graceful handoff, that we don't have any cataclysmic changes.

There are a few things to tidy up in the course of this year that we'll do, but I don't feel that there is any encumbrance that in fact Bill has internalized, and we've internalized that. His goal is to make us effective in our new role, and we are largely in that capacity now.

Then what do you see as the most pressing area for Microsoft?
Mundie: One of the things we've embarked on and will require diligent focus is the addition of the service components to all the elements of our business.

We have to be successful in rolling out the other components for these online businesses. We think we're pulling even, in terms of the search relevancy. We've moved to our ad platform. These are all things that we have to keep our eye on the ball, but we've been very focused on it the last couple of years. They're critically important.

The second thing: We're making sure that our products really have a good value proposition across the board, when they're going to be measured, in some sense, in contrast to what people think they can get either free or even, in the future, maybe ad-supported versions of these.

We may move to have some of our own products offered in that (free) environment, but I consider that as a component of having a service component of all of our traditional businesses.

Our products are used by people in virtually every country in the world, but in the aggregate, we really only sold those products effectively to the billion richest people on the planet. It's pretty clear that there's another 2 billion people who have disposable income and for whom technology is becoming an important and expected part of their lives, where in the past it wasn't.  

More Newsmakers

[freq]

think globally... act locally...

it should be easy to find a decent tech job in seattle... at least easier than the (rent controlled!) bay area, especially if one has already proved themselves in the seattle area and grew up in the seattle area... and who doesnt want to play the "pity me I have a family routine..." or "I am a believer".... bullsh-t,

I guess its ok.. who wants to work for someone who treats their employees like chattel.. or an area that tries to suck every penny from them... but even still, being hearded and preyed upon isnt so bad if your leaving your "hurst".. but honestly... works of art come from the heart.. help the people empower themselves...

so Microsoft is totally focused on "Hiring Down"... hmmm. that explains the contractor pay scheme... it explains the "be my savior" brainwashing...

yikes!! this is the bomb... 911

[Stevo]

Trustworthy Computing....

By Steve Baumann,
CCO, My Brother Steve Computer Services

Trustworthy Computing has turned out to be more like Trust-worry Computing. With Windows XP turning 5 years old this month, it makes me scratch my head just a bit that they have had to release the greatest number of patches and fixes at a single time, outside of a full service pack release, since XP was introduced. I'm not sure how much I 'trust' the security or safety of an operating system that still (from a penetration standpoint) resembles a large block of Swiss cheese. Perhaps they should take a page from the cluebook of other OS developers, and build a new OS from the ground up, even if it won't necessarily be backwards compatible with all the software currently in the hands of their customers. They could always give certificates for a discount on newer versions of MS products, and other vendors might be smart to do the same, since many consumers have been hanging on to legacy versions of software for quite a while, as they haven't seen a very compelling reason to upgrade much of their software collection (I still have clients that are running Office 97 or 2000, and 5 or 6 year old versions of Adobe, Corel & other products). As Microsoft dives deeper into the security business, most of my computer services colleagues that I have spoken with agree that this is the LAST software segment Microsoft should be involved in, since their security software is focused primarily on shoring up gaps and deficiencies in their own products. One would (almost) think that this sounds akin to the 'protection racket' schemes employed by mobsters in the first half of the 20th century (pay us every month, and we'll make sure you're safe from harm ...from US). Instead of spending all of that R&D time and money on SECURITY SOFTWARE, they should be focusing those very same resources on developing SECURE SOFTWARE that doesn't need quite so much protection to begin with. As technologies for creating great software products get better every year, it seems almost a dichotomy that the 'band-aid' approach to software evolution is ever more employed by the self-christened 'Champions of Innovation and Consumer Choice'.
It makes my mind race to visions of a certain female health guru, famous for the phrase, "...STOP THE INSANITY!!!"