[A2k] Groklaw: How to Get Your Platform Accepted as a Standard - Microsoft Style

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=3D20071023002351958#c673416


When I read that Rick Jelliffe will be one of the two representing
Australia at the upcoming Ballot Resolution Meeting regarding MSOOXML,
after Microsoft hired him to play "Devil's Advocate" with ECMA
responses, I couldn't help but recall one of the exhibits in the Comes
v. Microsoft litigation, Exhibit 3096 [PDF].

<SNIP>

Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto
standards throughout the computer industry.... Working behind the
scenes to orchestrate "independent" praise of our technology, and
damnation of the enemy's, is a key evangelism function during the
Slog. "Independent" analyst's report should be issued, praising your
technology and damning the competitors (or ignoring them).
"Independent" consultants should write columns and articles, give
conference presentations and moderate stacked panels, all on our
behalf (and setting them up as experts in the new technology,
available for just $200/hour). "Independent" academic sources should
be cultivated and quoted (and research money granted). "Independent"
courseware providers should start profiting from their early
involvement in our technology. Every possible source of leverage
should be sought and turned to our advantage.

I have mentioned before the "stacked panel". Panel discussions
naturally favor alliances of relatively weak partners - our usual
opposition. For example, an "unbiased" panel on OLE vs. OpenDoc would
contain representatives of the backers of OLE (Microsoft) and the
backers of OpenDoc (Apple, IBM, Novell, WordPerfect, OMG, etc.). Thus
we find ourselves outnumbered in almost every "naturally occurring"
panel debate.

A stacked panel, on the other hand, is like a stacked deck: it is
packed with people who, on the face of things, should be neutral, but
who are in fact strong supporters of our technology. The key to
stacking a panel is being able to choose the moderator. Most
conference organizers allow the moderator to select the panel, so if
you can pick the moderator, you win. Since you can't expect
representatives of our competitors to speak on your behalf, you have
to get the moderator to agree to having only "independent ISVs" on the
panel. No one from Microsoft or any other formal backer of the
competing technologies would be allowed =96 just ISVs who have to use
this stuff in the "real world." Sounds marvelously independent doesn't
it? In fact, it allows us to stack the panel with ISVs that back our
cause. Thus, the "independent" panel ends up telling the audience that
our technology beats the others hands down. Get the press to cover
this panel, and you've got a major win on your hands.

Finding a moderator is key to setting up a stacked panel. The best
sources of pliable moderators are:

     -- Analysts: Analysts sell out - that's their business model. But
they are very concerned that they never look like they are selling
out, so that makes them very prickly to work with.

     -- Consultants: These guys are your best bets as moderators. Get
a well-known consultant on your side early, but don't let him publish
anything blatantly pro-Microsoft. Then, get him to propose himself to
the conference organizers as a moderator, whenever a panel opportunity
comes up. Since he's well- known, but apparently independent, he'll be
accepted =96 one less thing for the constantly-overworked conference
organizer to worry about, right?

<SNIP>


Effective Evangelism
James Plamondon, Technical Evangelist

Evangelism Is War

Our mission is to establish Microsoft's platforms as the de facto
standards throughout the computer industry. Our enemies are the
vendors of platforms that compete with ours: Netscape, Sun, IBM,
Oracle, Lotus, etc. The field of battle is the software industry.
Success is measured in shipping applications. Every line of code that
is written to our standards is a small victory; every line of code
that is written to any other standard, is a small defeat. Total
victory, for DRG, is the universal adoption of our standards by
developers, as this is an important step towards total victory for
Microsoft itself: "A computer on every desk and in every home, running
Microsoft software."

Our weapons are psychological, economic, and political=96not military.
No one is forced to adopt our standards at the barrel of a gun. We can
only convince, not compel. Those who adopt our standards do so as a
rational decision to serve their own ends, whatever those may be. It
is our job to ensure that those choosing an operating system are
presented with an overwhelming abundance of evidence and reasoned
argument in favor of our standards=96so overwhelming that the choice of
our standards seems obvious, or (ideally) that the developer is not
even aware that a decision was faced, and a choice made.

We do this by understanding the barriers that might otherwise prevent
the developer from adopting our standards, and removing them; by
understanding the inducements that might facilitate the developer's
adoption of our standards, and providing them; by understanding the
arguments of our competition, and countering them.

<SNIP>

Our Enemies

Some have claimed that Microsoft has a monopoly on the market for
operating systems designed for personal computers. This is patently
untrue. IBM's OS/2, Apple's MacOS, Novell's Unix and Netware,
Taligent's CommonPoint, Netscape's Navigator, and other operating
systems (or embryonic operating systems), all compete with Windows in
the struggle for applications and business solutions. This is true for
our other platforms as well (Exchange/Notes, OLE/OpenDoc, Office/
SmartSuite, etc.).

Nor is this a static list. The computer industry is very dynamic; we
in evangelism must be even more dynamic =96 constantly searching for new
allies, enemies, and strategies.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to expound on the strengths and
weaknesses of each of our competitors. There are many other sources of
such information. Use them!

The Field of Battle

The software industry is the field on which evangelists do battle. The
industry has its own trade press, book publishers, developer SIGs,
conferences, trade shows, training organizations, retailers,
wholesalers, and distributors. It has its own culture. Understanding
the terrain of the industry is essential to effective evangelism.

It is not effective to publish an article about Mac OLE in a Unix
magazine, or to give a talk on Win32's memory-mapped file I/O at a
conference attended by executives. To be effective, the right tools
and messages must be delivered to the right place, at the right time.

Some ISVs and their applications are more important to the success of
a platform than others. They are the high ground of the battlefield.
Gaining the support of a major ISV is like taking a hill; from there,
you command the battlefield below. The same can be said for the trade
magazines, conferences, developer SIGs, etc.. You cannot control the
field of battle if the high ground is in the hands ofthe enemy.




------------------------------------------------------------


Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
thiru@keionline.org


Tel: +41 22 791 6727
Mobile: +41 76 508 0997