Slashdot Mirror
Platform Evangelism
An anonymous submitter writes "James Plamondon, a former Microsoft employee is writing a book on Technological Evangelism at Microsoft. He's posted the first chapter, "Evangelism is War."
Robert Scoble, a current Microsoft Evangelist doesn't like the metaphor, but Micah Alpern is concerned Microsoft could use similar strategies against Macromedia Flash."
What if tonight, the evangelism war could be over? Isn't that work coding for? Isn't...that...worth...debugging for?
Vonal Declosion
Wow where to begin?
Well, for a start, they're not SCO...
Hate...MS....hate...Flash....must tolerate Flash.....must....*smoke drifts from ears*
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
There have been Macintosh evangelists for years, so don't worry, Microsoft isn't innovating.
Nothing from nowhere I'm no one at all
But did you notice how none of the computers rebooted? That ought to silence people who say Windows isn't fault-tolerant!
Rimshot!
What OS defines me as a person?
I remember during the Team OS/2 vs. ClubWin wars on USENET there was a drive within Microsoft to rename the position to "Technical Advocate". It failed because some product managers (not project managers) argued that "advocate" wasn't an agressive enough term. Sigh.
By and large though, Microsoft evangelists tend to be nice people (like Scoble, who used to organize the Fawcette industry conferences for a long time). Much different from sales drones and even most enterprise support reps.
I wonder if Microsoft understands how motivating it is when people to learn it regards them as pawns? In the last couple years Microsoft has succeeded in motivating me to develop software for the Palm OS, and now for OS X...
Agreed, same with Norton's and McAffee now that MS wants their share of the pie. Since, they own the browser, they can simply bundle Flash out of existence. It won't happen overnight (see Real for example) but it will happen. The only life line available for these companies is to focus and push Linux adoption. If and when Linux gets 25% of the desktop market, the monopoly will break. The sad truth is that most companies in this situation do not adopt an offensive stance but rather adopt a defensive posture aimed at maintaining their piece of the pie. That defensive posture served Corel and Borland well in any case. When you strike a deal with the devil you should know that payback will eventually come around.
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
I worked as an evangelist for Novell, and, while I think Mr. Plamondon makes some good points, I agree with Micah Alpern that war analogies aren't necessarily the right ones. Also, I would think Mr. Plamondon would be more marketing-savvy than to refer to people that are helping him as "pawns". Chess analogy or not, it's not exactly a postitive signal to be sending out to people doing your work for you. :)
One very good point he makes is the idea of empowering other people to create materials about the technology you are evangelizing. It was amazing to me that I could get a lot of high quality help out of people for just a little public recognition, or some free software, or a nice gadget. People like to feel like they are helping with things that they feel passionately about. Heck, that's one of the reasons why the Linux movement has done so well, since just about anyone can dive in and start contributing in some way.
The problem I always experienced was from internal groups who were afraid of losing control of the corporate image. For example, we talked a lot about providing open forums and community sites for end users and consultants to share their solutions. This ended up being a series of communities we called CoolSolutions. But the actual code and solutions that people wrote went through a gauntlet of legal and marketing people, and it really wasn't an "open" community, it was all carefully screened.
The book "The Cluetrain Manifesto" talks a lot about these issues with large companies afraid to give up control. I think the right thing to do is for companies to loosly try to encourage an "ecosystem" around their technologies that then becomes self supporting. In this sense, they are practicing biomimicry in the form of crop diversity. You could think of internal PR and marketing departments as monocrops that are very susceptible to a single bad link, such as a sucky chief marketing officer. Diversity is good, and a product evangelism is one role that can encourage corporate "crop" diversity.
As an aside, I'm currently looking for a job. So if anyone in management read this and said, "product evangelists? I've gotta get me one of those!", then you can get to my resume here. or e-mail me at twid @ projectjellybean.com. I don't smell, I brush my teeth several times a day, I have no open oozing wounds, and I'm great fun at parties.
- "When you want something with all your heart, the entire universe conspires to give it to you" -Paulo Coelho
is to open up your client software. That way you get your code ported to more platforms than you can count... for free.
It's difficult for a company that only really supports one platform to compete against s/w that's in widespread use everywhere.
Opening up netscape five years earlier would have killed IE before it even got started. Real may understand this now, I wonder if Macromedia does yet.
1. "This is another part of the evil plan by an evil company to use its evil monopoly for world domination."
2. "This is not new. Apple/BSD/ has done this for years. Another example of M$ just copying others and having no innovation."
3. "This is the end. As soon as customers hear about this, they will en masse migrate away and Bill will be a pauper by next year."
4. "(-1, Troll) Look, this is another example of how the great lord Bill is making things better for all of us!"
Mmmm.. Donuts
for a second i thought we where going to have a non-Microsoft bashing day, thank goodness this story came up, i was beginning to worry about our reputation.
if(story.indexOf("microsoft")!=-1){cursingMsCom
I don't get it. The sole reason Macromedia is the size it is, is simply because Windows has no option to permanently refuse a web download.
In the old days, when you hit a site that has flash content, and you don't have it installed, it would try to install Flash. The dialog box has no option to permanently refuse Flash, so sooner or later everybody just gives in.
This policy allowed Macr to reach critical mass. Now brosers ship with Flash. Now you're telling me Microsoft is against Macr?
From the article: An unconscious decision is ideal, from the platform vendorâ(TM)s perspective. When ISVs support a Microsoft platform without even realizing that they have made a decision, and rejected any alternatives, then we have truly won that platform battle.
The truth - the almost sinister truth - of that statement grips me at my soul.
The trick is that folks think they're making a choice to purchase a merely single item, be it a CD, and DVD, a software package, a computer, a vehicle, or a politician (with a vote or literally with a breifcase of money). The reson this is a trick is that by making that choice, the purchaser endorses the entire chain of policies and events that bring that product to the shelf. You're literally saying, "whatever happened to get this product in my hot little hands, it's okay by me because the price is right.
Until I read that line above, I hadn't thought of the entire hegemony that lurked behind a price sticker with the kind of laser precision that the author used to word it. And I always thought I was a reasonably self-aware guy. HOLY SHIT. His side won, and I didn't even realize I was in a battle.
I'm making that line my sig. Nothing woke me up with quite the same jolt that it did. Maybe I'm just dumber than I thought I am. Is it just me?
GMFTatsujin
> Even Linux Zealot switched to using macs
:
There's a typo, it should be
"Even Linux Zealot switched to using Emacs"
Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
From the footnotes: ...
*snip*
[2] Recently, our competitors have added âoepoliticalâ to this list. Political actions result in law, which is backed up by force. They may come to regret educating us of the power of political means. */snip*
I guess this means that MS has decided to start playing the political game wich it's own panache now. I believe the recent settlement with the government is only outcome #1 we'll see from this new activity. I wouldn't be surprised if they had some legislation brewing that would grant them some type of legalized monopoly. After all, if he who pays the piper calls the tune MS is in a position to control the Congressional Playlist for many years to come
-A.M.
Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!
Flash is an open format...there are many non-Macromedia apps that can create Flash files. In fact, Adobe even had a full featured compeditor to the Flash application before it decided to throw its weight behind SVG. Flash supports database-driven content fairly easily, and has for a long time. Flash can parse XML files fairly easily. XML is pretty easy to manipulate and generate, but creating the type of animations you see with Flash in SVG is a pain. And contrary to popular belief, there are more reasons to use Flash than to make toons or annoying ads. Example: I imported a two minute, 126MB avi that I created for a project into Flash. I added some custom controls for the video, as well as some "Pop-Up Video" points to highlight certain moments in the video. The Flash file came out to be no more than 7MB large. That's still big for dial-up users, but the video would have been impossible to present to them in the original avi format.
I am not saying SVG doesn't have it's points. But don't knock Flash. I hate to burst your bubble, but Flash is far from dead.
The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
The SWF specification.
I'm fairly sure there's an open source viewer and some open source creation tools. I've read about some on-the-fly generated SWF like for charts and graphs. The links should on the site somewhere.
This is one of those things I'll figure I'll get around to playing with someday.
Saturday Night, Redmond Washington. Microsoft Exec: Yes!! Amen! I feel his spirit in me!! You know who I'm talking about. Who'm I talking about?? Microsoft employees: Bill! Exec: Say it again!! MS Drones: BILL!! Exec: Amen, Brothers and Sisters, Amen. Tonight I'm gonna preach from the book of Market Strategies. Chapter 6, Verse 12 Exec: And I saw, and behold a white Aeron chair and he that sat on him had the code; and a laywers was given unto him: and he went forth to conquer. Then cried he upon me, and spake unto me, saying, Behold, ye Leviathian of blue, shall use my code no longer, for have violated the oath set upon thee, and shall hence forth give unto repentance of 3 billion coins of silver...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
did MS engage in illegal anti-competitive practices which are bad for the consumer and bad for the market." I don't see you answering that question.
They have been convicted of doing just that. Everybody knows that.
SVG has one huge glaring problem :
No authoring environment.
Without a well designed, functional UI, how can SVG hope to compete against things like Flash? It's all well and good for the programming types to go : "Wow! SVG is great! I can write a few dozen lines of code and make a circle go from point a to point b!" but the bald fact of the matter is that programming types are not responsible, and will not be responsible, for doing the graphic design and animation. And for good reason : they usually suck at it (people like Maeda and the like aside). Designers are used to, and require, professional class UI and organizational tools (things like timelines, text tools, visual hierarchies, etc.) to do what they do in an efficient manner. Having a good GUI would help things, but Flash already does tons of things that SVG MIGHT do in a year or more.
And Flash is perfectly capable of handling XML and database-driven content, thank you. The fact of the matter is that as of today, SVG is an esoteric curiosity, nothing more... which may well change, as Adobe and Microsoft both are getting mighty anxious about Flash and it's capabilities.
Now, I'm all for Open Source, but come on -- I'm not going to get on the "If it's proprietary, it's EVIL" bandwagon. Macromedia has spent tons to develop Flash to the point where it is now, and has done so in a fundamentally benign manner, especially when compared to things like the GIF fiasco and the other various predatory business practices out there. They have a right to make money off their product, the Flash application itself.
First: Remember that the best defence is a good offense..
.net stuff - it's still m$ 0wned)
Developer-specific:
Open Source should make sure to set de-facto standards - release early, release often.
Define your data formats in something well-known like csv, sexp or xml so other open source programs can make use of them. Better yet, use a relational database backend with a public schema of views. It'll make most development easier, and all MS's best products do that, anyway. It's great (very convenient) for business use, and easy given the existence of postgres,mysql, sapdb sqllite, etc, etc.
At the same time, don't get too hung up on data format standards - MS has shown that so long as your next version reads them, that's good enough, your next version doesn't have to use the same data format as its native format, so long as it can read the old format.
MS has shown that what matters is to get a product out there, capturing mindshare - once a user has psychologically committed to your product, they'll probably stick with it, even if your next version is a ground-up rewrite so that it actually works. And if you release for windows, code to libSDL+OpenGL for games, and use cygwin, qt or gtk for utilities. NEVER use the Win32/.net directly API for new applications, even via WINE or Mono - that's one of the "proprietary standards" the chapter excerpt talks about (don't beleive the ECMA-standardisation
For general evangelism to non-technical audiences
Make sure that your desktop runs a window manager with a really snazzy theme and some flashy applications (xmms...) when anyone drops by. Current Linux WMs can outclass WinXP in flashiness stakes. Contrary to popular opinions, consistency doesn't seem to matter a great deal - if the program is flashy enough, it might be a consistency nightmare, but will impress the yokels (don't call them yokels). It doesn't hurt to have a speech synthesis program e.g. festival going to read the subject lines of incoming mails, or some other geek-gimmick. Appearance is everything to the non-geek (and geekiness is domain-specific, a DIY geek who sees straight through gimmicky power tools won't necessarily see through flashy computer GUI gimmicks)
Try not to get all philisophical on I.P. issues. Stick to "you have the right to change it or ask/pay someone other than the original manufacturer to change it for you. Like taking your car to a garage.". Anything more complex doesn't work for MS, it won't work for you. Yes, you may think I.P. is an absurdity. But most people are keyword-scanners. The message they'll get is that you're "anti-property". Yes, information is non-scarce and therefore you should't mindlessly apply scarcity-based property laws to it, yes, the very idea of information as property runs counter to the scientific method, but boring them by droning on about it won't help (I just droned on about it, and you damn-near switched-off, didn't you?)
Choice of masters is not freedom.
Like i said, when Linux is set up by someone who knows what they're doing it will outshine. What you've said is indicative of wanting the product to suit you, when you should be adapting to your tool. Learn to code, it's really quite simple. Write the drivers you need, and don't expect others to do it for you or expect a piece of software or hardware to just miraculously adapt to your needs. Using a computer isn't like just turning on a television. Really sometimes I wonder, and think people should be licensed to own a computer before complaining.
Like I said, when your television is set up by someone who knows what they're doing it will outshine. What you've said is indicative of wanting your television to turn on when you hit the power button, and somehow display shows that you enjoy, when you should be adapting to your tool. Learn a little electrical engineering, it's really quite simple. Build a VCR out of parts, don't just expect to buy one and have it miraculously work. Using a television isn't like using a hammer. Really, sometimes I think people should be licensed to view a television before complaining.
Yeah, mod me down. I've got a useless comment quota to meet.
* Independent software vendors (ISVs[4]) assume the presence of Windows on the consumerâ(TM)s PC.
vs.An electric toaster supports the American electricity standard if
* Its plug can fit into the American-standard electrical outlet, and...
How can anybody seriously compare this kind of free-to-implement, non-trade-secret, properly documented standard with what MS does?
Standards organisations define standards, companies implement them. That way you get this thing called competition that's quite popular with economists.
Micah Alpern raises some good points about MS's attention to vector based ui's. I think though that he's completely offbase when saying that Macromedia's announcement of Royal will ilicit any response from Redmond.
Flash won't be a threat to Microsoft as a "full platform". The primary reason is that Macromedia is great at marketing their products - but architecutally their product line lacks consistancy of vision and execution. Flash for example has, over the past three versions proved time and time again that it lacks a reliable, and easy to use programming environment, an absolute necessity for building truly sophisticated ui's and functionality.
Don't get me wrong - there is some amazing flash work out there. Kudo's to the design/developers that were able to produce such things. The road to such accomplishments however is frought with errors, head scratching and mysteries.
This is primarily because Macromedia seems to think that it's OK to produce API level functions that don't behave as expected so long as they are documented. See Macromedia 'Technotes' for further ammo er info. I think somewhere along the way someone at Macromedia misread "Test and Deploy" as "Deploy and Test". Most have to do with I/O such as load movie, getUrl, and loadVariables. Solid multi source I/O is an absolute necessity for building fully featured "rich client" applications. JavaScript is also not an acceptable language for building real applications. Especailly Macromedia's implementation which has a very loose object based approach to dealing with items in the movie. Flash is also slow. On machines who are not as "swift" as their high speed grand children - high complexity movies are sluggish and don't respond well.
What this all comes down to is the fact that from a technology perspective, Macromedia lacks a coherent architecture for accomplishing complex tasks that will be required to build "Royale" and there is a good chance that developers first taste of Royale will be a bitter one.