Slashdot Mirror
Exit Interview with Scoble
capt turnpike writes "It's no secret that Windows technology evangelist Robert Scoble (of Scobelizer blogging fame) is leaving Microsoft for a startup, but Microsoft Watch's Mary Jo Foley has the first exit interview with Scoble. Topics range from what Microsoft could have done to keep him spreading the word and building out MS's Channel 9 community site, where he sees MS going and more. From the article: 'There were times when I knew I was taking risks. I didn't know what would happen when I told Steve Ballmer that his leadership on the gay rights bill wasn't good.'"
I can predict what to expect: 50% chance of a dock in pay, with showers of chairs continuing until mid-evening.
Proof that Microsoft have also been violating some of SCO's intellectual property.
ROBert SCOble
Darl has already seen straight through that obviously made up Microsoft project name.
I didn't know what would happen when I told Steve Ballmer that his leadership on the gay rights bill wasn't good.'"
Wow, it takes on a whole new meaning when you add some punctuation and capitalize Bill:
I didn't know what would happen when I told Steve Ballmer that his leadership on the gay rights: Bill, wasn't good.'
> This is another example of a rich guy with nothing better to do than expirement.
I detect negative connotations there, but why? What's wrong with taking a job that's fun over one that's safe but boring?
My other car is first.
It's interesting because it's the only specific case he mentions in the intervew where he actually told the MS leadership that he thought that they were wrong.
Isn't this guy only famous because he was hired by Microsoft to blog?
Now he is just a nobody again, right?
What's wrong is that the GP is jealous.
Philosophy.
blogosphere drama, how fascinating.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
He was a sort of newspaper ombudsman as well as their connection to the blogosphere. Someone who could take heat from the public without stonewalling it, who could act as a cheerleader for company products without coming across as too much of a shill. He built credibility by praising competitor's hit products early and often. Likeable enough to get lots of people inside and outside the company to talk. Interesting enough that readers came back the next day. Ambitious, but not so high and mighty that he would leave in a huff.
They must have figured out early on that he was only going to stay with them 2-3 years, and are relieved that he didn't move on to Google. I wonder if they'll replace him with another high profile type, or opt for the safer blog-by-committee.
If Scoble is looking for something to keep him excited, I have the pefect recipe: be a Windows Evangelist on /.
Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
He's not rich from working at Microsoft, unless he seriously lied about his salary. More likely what he means is that he doesn't have to be saving for retirement or putting his kid through college for a few years yet.
The main problem I had with him was that he put a kinder face on Microsoft than it deserved. He was a shill, knowingly or not. What he will be doing next is a lot more honest, whether it succeeds or not. I personally think that blogging, including the audio and video forms has peaked (thank God!) but I'm sure there is still money to be had from it if you have the right product.
You're kind of forgetting a few (bigger) key examples; Linux and the GNU toolset were both "experiments" (that were created by people who weren't terribly rich).
So was DOS, most pre-1996 PC video games like Wolfenstein 3D and SimCity, and lots of other successful software (let alone everything outside of the software domain that was originally an "experiment").
Not being rich doesn't mean you can't experiment; it just means you have to figure out how to experiment with someone else's money, or carry out your experiment over a longer time. Both of which can lead to getting rich.
The main problem I had with him was that he put a kinder face on Microsoft than it deserved. He was a shill, knowingly or not.
Why would I believe a regular Slashdot poster about what kind of company Microsoft is over someone who 1) interviewed many high and mid level managers 2) had a job that involved walking the halls of Microsoft to try and figure out what was going on 3) challenged his audience daily with his findings 4) thought daily about techonology and Microsoft's role in it's future 4) publicly spoke out against Microsoft on many occasions when it was deserved
It seems to me you are implying that
1) Robert Scoble is stupid
2) He is a liar
3) His employment was one big consipiracy where 49999 Microsoft employees put on an act every time he was in the room and he was the one person who was not in on the big joke
The closest definition I could find for 'shill' on Google said, "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others."
As far as I can tell, Scoble did no misleading. He made no attempts to hide the fact that he worked for MS, and he did nothing that made his blogs or videos appear untrustworthy. For example, it is painfully obvious that his videos have no PR person directing them or even editing them. He just walked into peoples' offices with a video camera, hit REC, and started talking.
He may have put a human face on MS by letting us all see inside the belly of the beast, but I don't understand what's wrong with that. What's wrong with giving some insight into how things work and why certain decisions were made? Transparency is supposed to be one of the great things about Open Source, so what's wrong when it applies to MS?
dom