Microsoft BOPS fumbles again

If Neo only took the blue pill when he was offered the idea of Microsoft hosting everyone would have been happy.

Kevin McLaughlin wrote a fantastic story about yet another Microsoft BOPS flop this week:

http://www.crn.com/software/215801490

In a nutshell, Microsoft executive said BOPS is something partners will have a part in. The statement later got detracted and partners are left on the outside looking in, leaving no future with Microsoft cloud services.

I have defended Microsoft’s decision on BOPS, and taken a lot of criticism for it, because I believe the company simply cannot compete in the Web 2.0 economy with the burden of it’s partner channel.

Was it worth antagonizing it’s partner base, flushing down the loyalty of so many that have built their business on Microsoft, opening the door wide open for open source, Gmail, non-Microsoft solutions and web apps? In Microsoft’s opinion and track record, yes, it was. Again, I agree.

Why man, Why?

I was asked yesterday to comment on Kevin’s story. Why does Microsoft try so terribly hard to control the client, to control the billing, to control everything and not give partners an inch?

Answer: The price.

Microsoft partners depend on markup for the solutions they design and sell. This is why we are doing so well, we understand the partner business. But we aren’t competing against Google, SalesForce, etc. Microsoft is. So Microsoft can’t afford to let partners set the price and lose a bid, they want to get into the client.

Answer: Sell the stack, Bob.

Microsoft partners have always been loyal to themselves and their client. Partner has to make money (see above) but partner also needs to do what is in the best interest of the client in order to keep them, not what is in best interest of Microsoft.

Here we find the ultimate conflict of interest: What is best for Microsoft is not what is best for the client. Microsoft wants to push it’s entire stack, SQL, Server, CRM, Dynamics, Office. On the other hand, partner has no interest in selling solutions that will not make them money and definitely no interest in selling solutions that will remove them from the loop.

Answer: Brand and Experience.

Microsoft lost a fair bit of control over the experience in opening up it’s OS. The nightmare that is Vista, not truth as Arlin suggests, started with the “Vista Ready” emblem that Microsoft originally came up with for machines that could barely run it. Microsoft’s Vista experience was tarnished for so many people and so many businesses, rightfully so, because Microsoft’s partners sold machines that were not ready for it. The real truth is, had you bought a brand new system with Vista you probably wouldn’t have had an issue. Apple controls their entire experience and most of it’s users are all too happy to overpay for it.

Microsoft hopes that it’s mistakes made on the desktop and server do not go on into the cloud. If you look at the Server code, especially Data Center edition which only runs on certified hardware, there are nearly 0 issues with reliability.

Microsoft get’s a chance to build a brand new business.

We are not in 1985 and this isn’t a tiny Microsoft looking for all the friends it can get.

This Microsoft has billions of dollars in revenue, most of it at risk and going concern from Web 2.0, Google, Linux – you’re welcome to read their 10K and financial disclosures – and the investment that they are making in the cloud is one that is void of middlemen.

If you’re a middleman, it sucks to be you. We’d still love to have you tho! Our solution is cheaper than Microsoft’s, comes with 10x more storage, branded experience for your clients and you control the deck. But we don’t have to worry about Google, we only have to worry about our clients.

Microsoft seems to have lost that perspective. And when you shut out people that want to work with you and make you successful, you don’t make it very far. A gamble that is much easier to make when you bring in $30 billion a quarter even when your brand is the subject of daily ridicule.