Platform Trust

The number one problem for Microsoft is regaining the trust of the companies that build the products that complement their offerings.

Developers need platforms to play on. Linux, the Internet, the game boxes, the Symbian, etc. etc. are all platforms. When deciding were to play a developer wants a few things. He want’s a big market. He want’s lots and lots of oportunities, since scarcity of oportunities means he’s likely to have to compete with some other developer. Why bother? It’s hard enough to get things done and satisfy customers.

He want’s a fair game. The anti-trust case made it painfully clear that Microsoft doesn’t offer a fair game.

But Microsoft rarely gives up. So we can be pretty sure they will be bringing another round of opportunities to market and attempting to sell them to developers.

Against that background it’s probably a good idea to read this story.


Microsoft handed over the e-mail messages on a disk, and when Burst’s lawyers had printed all the messages they filled 140 boxes. That’s a lot of messages, but not surprising for Microsoft, where the business culture of the company literally happens on e-mail.

When Burst’s lawyers put the messages in order by date and time, they claim to have noticed a peculiar phenomenon. There were literally no messages from approximately one week before until about a month after all seven meetings between the two companies. This meant that either Microsoft completely suspended its corporate e-mail culture for an aggregate period of 35 weeks, or there were messages that had been sent and received at Microsoft, but not divulged to Burst.”

0 thoughts on “Platform Trust

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.