A few weeks ago I heard a very good interview on I, Cringely‘s NerdTV with the ‘inventor’ of RSS, Dave Winer.
I remember thinking about wether I should listen to it because it had the possibility of being boring. It wasn’t. The interview was really interesting and some of the highlights include Dave talking about selling acid in college and cursing out Bill Gates.
Dave was a very engaging man and he spoke in a very pleasant manner. He had a earthy and humble tone (though some disagree). He brought up very interesting points about Microsoft and their fear of the Internet and about how Steve Jobs will eventually be the reason why the iPod fails. I will highlight a few parts of the interview which I found particularly interesting and I will make a few comments about each part. I encourage people to listen to the interview themselves.
Lets start with Dave’s comment on Microsoft fearing the web because it changes ideas about software:
>Dave: Oh, they’re always trying to go back to the old way. I mean to Microsoft, it’s – the Internet, the Web is a very nasty joke. It’s sort of like just the moment when you achieve complete world domination, God up there is having a really great laugh at your expense, because just at that precise moment when you’re sewing the whole thing up, okay?
>Dave: He pulls the rug out from under you, and all of a sudden none of the things that you’ve worked hard to gain control over matter anymore. It’s like it – I mean Bill Gates, if you study the life and the – I mean I’ve been listening to Bill Gates speak since 1980 was the first time heard him speak. And all the time his theme has been – I mean there’s gonna be a great tragedy written about Bill Gates someday, okay? I think he is our generation’s tragic figure. I mean that he – his idea – he’s the son who was going to not repeat the mistakes of the father. In this case, the father being IBM.
A few interesting points.
Bill Gates repeating the same mistake of his ‘father’, IBM? It’s happened before. Most large companies (like empires) eventually tumble under their own weight, usually caused by paradigm shift created by smaller company (in the case of empires it could be a single person). We’re seeing this happen in the telecom industry today with disruptive technologies like Voice-Over IP and companies like Skype.
Microsoft was the “cool” company, especially in the 1980s and 1990s. That lasted some time after the tech bubble bursted. There was a shift back to ‘classic’ companies after the New Economy failed and established companies like Microsoft regained their clout. But sometime in the early years of the new millinium things started to shift again and on August 19, 2004 it was clear that Microsoft was not paving the way.
Microsoft was becoming the IBM Mainframe. Microsoft was not dead but it was clear that the power they once wielded was waning. Newer companies were beginning the rule the web and the future of computers is the web.
I think its interesting that IBM did not die when Microsoft pulled the carpet under it. Microsoft sucker punched IBM and while IBM stumbled Microsoft took over. IBM did something unusual. They retreated. IBM decided not to compete with Microsoft in the PC front and decided to to tap into business consulting.
An impressive turn around for an old computer company, especially since many don’t survive the shifts.(the way of Compaq, DEC, Data General, Commodore). IBM reinvented itself and was (relatively speaking) fresh.
Now, if Microsoft gets brought down to its knees by the slicker Googles and Yahoos of the world, how will Microsoft reemerge? Would they? I am curious to see how this pans out.
The next quote starts out with Dave talking about an e-mail he wrote Bill Gates telling him that everything he has ever worked for means nothing. After their exchange Dave posted their e-mails online for everyone to see.
>Dave: Well, it said basically, “Bill Gates, You’re Fucked.” I mean it’s like – it didn’t’ quite use those terms, but, you know, everything you’re trying to do isn’t going to work. And you might as well like give it up. Or like whatever. And it was like a freedom – ah – I’m not giving you advice, Bill Gates, I’m just saying, “Wow, I’m free. I can do all this.” Not of least of which was that I was able to send out these e-mails to people. I was publishing. And I didn’t need a publisher. I was just sending ‘em out.
>And the most amazing thing happened was within like a half hour I got a response from Bill Gates. And he was classic Bill Gates. It was just sort of whiney and, you know, and irreverent. I mean,” No, you know, you think we’re gonna sell any fewer Expedias or Flight Simulators just because you can send e-mail to people?” So I ran it, and that opened peoples’ eyes. That sorta turned their heads around. I said, “Wow, you know, this is a medium that’s quick, and it can be incredibly spontaneous, unedited, no filters.” There’s Bill Gates, and Bill Gates didn’t mind. Bill Gates kinda liked it, I think, you know.
>I didn’t get an e-mail from him that said, “How dare you do this without permission.” That’s not Bill Gates. Bill Gates sort of is a dice roller. I admire that about Bill Gates, that he really doesn’t worry too much about things like that. That’s good. And I think that he would – two or three years – I think it was two years later, he had his famous come to Jesus meeting where everybody came down – came up to Redmond where he explained how they’re – he’s gonna turn the whole company around, and everything’s gonna be directed.
>In other words, it took him two years to basically agree with that DaveNet that all the crap he was doing wasn’t working, and now he needs to go redo the company. And he’s still fighting that battle. He still is trying to turn that ship back to 1992, before the Internet, and it’s still not gonna work. And that’s why Jim Allchin just quit, or was fired, your choice. Finally, I think that’s run out of gas. That they realize that they can’t get back to that place. They can’t -
Microsoft, the top software company in the world is resistant to change. Not surprising. The world works so much better when your solution already solves everyone’s problem. To have the rules change must be devastating and its only natural to fight against it. This is currently happening with ABC advertisers worrying about their livelyhood since ABC is now providing content through iTunes, without them. Bill Gates was a visionary in the 1980s and 1990s, but things had changed.
Luckily he built an empire that he can afford to play catch up. It would be silly to say that Microsoft has missed the boat, it hasn’t. Microsoft has been in hibernation for a few years but I think it would be foolish to rule them out just yet. See IBM.
One of the most daring figures in innovation over the years has been Steve Jobs (Dashboard, GUIs, iPod, OS X, Motorola -> PowerPC -> Intel, Pixar). Jobs has been the person who has shifted the tides on many technologies. He has turned obscure technologies into mainstream products. Before the iPod, only small and daring companies were developing MP3 players (Rio, MPMan), usually based from flash-memory. Then iPod came out and provided users with massive hard-disks and a massive branding campaign behind it. Dave has an interesting view on what is going to happen to the iPod.
> Dave: [...] Well, you see, [Steve Job's] fatal flaw is the iPod, right? And the iPod’s wonderful. It’s breaking the market in every – it’s breaking it wide open. But it’s breaking it wide open for somebody else, because he’s playing the damn game the same way he always does. He can’t get spread out far enough to actually be the guy who continues to run it later. He’s doing it again.
>Dave: He probably knows he’s doing it, okay. And he’s certainly cleaning up. And we’ll pay attention to whatever he comes out with next. That’s for sure. And it probably will be great, so, you know, but that’s his fatal flaw. But it’s probably one that he factors in. Jobs factors in, probably.
Dave’s argument that Jobs is breaking the market wide open for another company is interesting but it’s a bit flawed. I think he believes this because Apple’s restrictions left the market wide open for Microsoft to take over the PC market. Apple has been very controlling about the iPod, as it has been for the Macintosh, but Apple has done something better with the iPod: marketing. Apple has successfully branded the iPod as ‘cool’ and that is something that cannot be easily be replaced or reproduced. Branding is key to the iPod and even if there are superior portable audio players in the market, they will never represent what the iPod represents.
The iPod has not left the market open for anyone, not anytime soon.
This is a funny exchange about bad names:
>Dave: [...] we actually had a rule during the collaboration that we’re gonna always go for the worst possible name for every element. And that ended all the arguments where people would say, “Well, I’ve got a better name.” I said, “Well, but that’s not the point. You could tell me you have a worse name and I would listen to you. But if you’ve got a better name, I don’t wanna know about it.” And so -
>Bob: That’s with the assumption that the worst name will be the most memorable? Or the worst -
>Dave: No.
>Bob: Or the worst name will – it’s inevitably gonna be replaced.
>Dave: No, no, it doesn’t matter what the name is. That’s what it’s based on. I want to end those arguments.
>Bob: Okay.
>Dave: I want to get to closure so we can deploy. I don’t care what the damn thing’s called. You could call it something that’s completely nonsensical, and the world will figure it out. It’s just the worst thing is to have it called two different things. That we can’t do. So by throwing out Scripting News format and saying, “Okay, I’m just going with RSS,” that settled all the arguments right then and there.
My partner in software development, Marcus, and I are often fighting over tag names in XML schemas. Marcus prefers using metaphors to describe variables and I prefer descriptive nouns. Dave’s solution might save us a few extra arguments but I am not convinced that it is the best solution. For anyone listening. Don’t do this! Allot time to argue about variables names. Not everyone has XML schemas that become international standards for people to “figure out”. The rest of of have to deal with real developers who have to learn obscure schemas. Lets make it easier for them/us.
Well, that is all. If you want to learn the signigicance of September 29th, 2005, listen to the interview.