# Wednesday, 26 May 2004

Scoble's 'myths'

So Scoble starts referring to all the negative publicity about Longhorn in general and WinFS specifically as "Myths". This is what we call spin. Or counter-spin. The myths could be spin and Scobles post counter-spin, or maybe Longhorn is spin, the myths are counter-spin and Scobles post is counter-counter-spin. Maybe you could call that a Re-Spin. Anyway. You see there have been some recent articles that claimed that parts of Longhorn were already being dropped or trimmed. Scoble jumps in and implies that these are just myths, (counter?)-spinning Microsoft as the victim. Continue reading... [via BitWorking]

I nearly made some similar comments, but then just couldn't be bothered. I dunno why I'm glad someone did, but I am - perhaps its because it shows (again) that Scoble really doesn't know when to stop digging. It would be quite interesting to ask MS Execs - "you willing to have this guys weblog on an MS domain"? Or do they have to retain plausible deniability?

#    Comments [4] |
Wednesday, 26 May 2004 09:37:14 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Robert Scoble is a Microsoft employee but he cannot expect him to speak for Microsoft. As you know shipping data depends on the development team as well as the marketing policies, and you can't predict that when the product is not even at its Beta stage.

Microsoft is now trying to be open, so before they ship (and even develop) a product they start talking about it and they receive lots of customer feedback.

So I don't think we can expect them to specify the exact shipping date or the retail price as soon as they start talking about a product. That is simply because they haven't decided on the feature set yet (which can have technical or marketing reasons) or they are still in deveopment phase and don't want to commit to a shipping date.
Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:16:46 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
I quite agree. The point was Scoble said they were myths and attempted to prove they were myths by saying look, here's what the developers say. This was foolish, of course things might change - he was reduced to saying you can't 'believe' them either which was a very silly position to dig yourself into.
Pete Cole
Wednesday, 26 May 2004 18:29:07 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Yes I agree, when we say Microsoft bloggers don't speak for Microsoft, that implies that they "shouldn't" speak for Microsoft either. If they start expressing their ideas in the name of Microsoft, then over time people won't trust any news coming out Microsoft blogging space.

Obviously it is impossible to draw a boundary on what we write in our blogs (which is the whole point about blogs), but my perception is that blogging about technical issues has no boundary. But when it comes to marketing and product delivery, there are official channels (e.g. MSPress) and I don't think it is a good idea for Microsoft bloggers to publish any news (or better to say personal ideas and perceptions!) before official channel publishes the news.
Wednesday, 26 May 2004 20:05:19 (GMT Daylight Time, UTC+01:00)
Team Studio seems to have been successfully kept under wraps. Presumably members of the development team have blogs, but they have not blogged about it. So, there are boundaries for employees and their blogs - unannounced stuff can't be talked about even just as a 'technical' discussion.
Pete Cole
Comments are closed.