Re: Microsoft burning party

At the risk of drawing this out when perhaps the topic is more appropriate
for a listing elsewhere, if at all, my short comments below, in red.


On 6/20/05 08:02, in article BEDC2878.3540B%daiyaNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
"Daiya Mitchell" <daiyaNOSPAM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 6/19/05 9:49 PM, "Craig Deutsch" wrote:
> <snipped a ton, reacting to general impressions>
>>
>> Agreed. It's the definition of "their market" that concerns me.
>
> You make a lot of interesting points, which I'm not particularly concerned
> with debating, but your conception of the Mac user base does interest me.
>
> First, you seem to think that there are a number of Mac users who don't own
> MS Office because it isn't 'good enough'. I'm not really sure that's true.
> I think there are probably a lot of Mac users who refuse to buy MS products
> on principle, but I'm not sure that's related to good enough. There are
> definitely a number of people who buy Mellel because Word is not good enough
> to do right-to-left, but most of those people also have Office. I see a lot
> of people complaining about Office, but they all own it. I don't see too
> many people saying, you know, I thoroughly drove the Test Drive and decided
> not to buy because it didn't have XYZ feature. (Admittedly, haven't been
> looking, would certainly be interested in such anecdotes) So I think
> drawing conclusions by correlating features to purchases may be a flawed
> approach.

>>>Such was not my intent; I've never meant to imply that. In fact, on the
contrary; Entourage is probably overkill for the majority of the Mac market, and
that fact speaks to Mr. McGimpsey's comment from yesterday.
>
> Furthermore, as I have said on this board before, and will say again--this
> board has an extraordinarily large number of people complaining because they
> are trying to use Entourage in a corporate environment and the MacBU's
> stated market was never corporate. So yes, I think you are somewhat
> right--getting Exchange features working perfectly was probably *not* at the
> top of the priority list because a very small proportion of the MacOffice
> installed user base needed it, and those people were forced to buy Office
> for Word/Excel/PPT compatibility for their jobs *anyhow*. This may be
> changing, but let me count down how I see the past.

>>>It does appear that Microsoft is then supporting the Exchange Server
compatibility with OS X, but again (as Mr. McGimpsey so aptly points out), they
must be spending money on a feature set that is not giving them huge hard dollar
ROI. Good will and another notch in Exchange Server's bedpost, perhaps, but no
positive hard dollar ROI, at least from my limited point of view.
>
> Entourage 2001--very first version of the product--not at all trying to be
> an Outlook sub because Outlook 2001 was still parallel
> Entourage X--fast port of Office 2001 to the X platform so the OS X switch
> wouldn't fall flat on its face--few new features added anywhere, but
> apparently a start made on the Exchange ability? An update released to add
> to Exchange features
> Entourage 2004--first major upgrade of the product as the stated Exchange
> client
>
> So I don't see the four major upgrades that you have referred to twice. And
> I think any theory built on experience with Entourage as an Exchange client
> is simply too focused to accurately explain how the MacBU may be
> strategically thinking. I would love to know the percentage of MacOffice
> owners who need Exchange features, but I'm guessing it's under 25%. Seems to
> me even on this board (which draws people with problems), it's only around
> 50%. (these numbers are just wild guesses)

>>>I mixed up Outlook Express with Entourage for earlier versions of Office. I
(sit) corrected again.
>
> And I do not mean to imply that the people who complain here are asking for
> too much or complaining too much, because for sure in software development
> it seems it's the squeaky wheel gets the grease, please complain away,
> though preferably relatively politely and in a helpful manner. :) I'm just
> saying that there's a way to explain the slow improvement without resorting
> to theories about deliberate sabotage of the Mac product.
>
>> It should
>> not be the job of MS MVPs to legislate intelligence or comment on user
>> ignorance at a public message board that's designed to help, not hinder,
>> better use of the product.
>
> MS MVPs don't have a "job". They are all people who for some reason think
> it is fun to hang out and answer questions. This board is a self-regulated
> public community in which MVPs have all the same obligations and privileges
> as everyone else, including the privilege of meeting snark with snark. My
> own definition of the P for Professional involves a) not getting personal b)
> making sure helpfulness outweighs any snippiness
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/mvpfaqs

>>>Right you are, if in fact they're neither employed by or in any way
compensated by Microsoft. And, to be sure, in re-reading the snark that
prompted my response, I'm not even sure at this point whether the guy who wrote
it is an MVP.

>>>However, to your point, I don't know if many people think MVPs "don't have a
"job"" [with MS]. Again, the *perception* is that since they're online a lot,
have an "MVP" in their title, at least I thought they might be getting some sort
of remuneration from MS for being here and putting in the time.

>>>And nothwithstanding any compensation, it just struck me as odd that anyone
whose relationship with MS was real or imagined has a responsibility to help
maintain proper "corporate etiquette," for they're representing MS -- or so it
*appears*. Maybe to thwart this misnomer, their signatures should reflect
otherwise?

>>>I'm all for freedom of expression, but were I running a company that sold and
supported products to the masses, and one of my staff met a snark with a snark
without even attempting a proper "softening" (like a smiley), his *** would be
toast in a heartbeat. It's a matter of choosing one's audience, I suppose.

>>>I don't believe in coddling people, for it only enables the "poor me"
behavior and lowers (the already miserably low) lowest common denominator. But
there are certain limits that need to be in place, I think.
>
> And re that crack back there about "microsofties" (not Craig's I know)--only
> accurate if the definition of "microsofties" is people who use MS products.
> I thought "microsofties" was commonly used to refer to employees, of whom
> there are none posting on this thread.
>
> And nothing I have said above is based on information I've had access to as
> an MVP (for Word, def not Entourage), but only on my own impressions and
> reading in newsgroups, on the web, etc.
>
> DM
>
> PS. If I start burning anything, Apple and Adobe are next in line, so I'm
> really not inclined to go there in the first place. :)

>>>Ohhh, can we start another thread somewhere else? My curiosity is piqued. :)
>

.

Loading