How Windows 8 is like Obamacare

Let's get one thing straight, this article isn't meant to be an attempt to be flippant about either topic Rather it's about mandates. 

Mandates rarely come without causing someone pain.  Does the pain of a failed operating system rival that of a botched Universal Healthcare mandate?  Unquestionably not but this isn't about equivalence, it's about arrogance.

Windows 8 was launched with great fanfare.  Preceded by not one but two public betas designed to blunt the inevitable shock by a customer base soon to lose their beloved Start Menu.  At the time Microsoft's two Steve's, Ballmer and Sinofsky, touted the gospel of one OS to rule them all.  Even if that wasn't quite true.  

The Windows on your phone wasn't the same as the one on your PC and neither was the one that graced your shiny new Surface RT.

But wait, for some strange reason, nobody wanted the Surface RT or Windows Phone...

Apparently the same went for Windows 8.

It was too much too fast.  A mandate by Goliath to David.  A directive handed down promising an end to our computing tedium and liberation from the evils of multiple platforms.  Remember what I said about not being quite true?

Let's switch from Redmond Washington to the Washington everyone cares about.  The one with D.C. in the name.  The one where the prospect of healthcare for everyone was the dream of Presidents all the way back to Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  So finally, after years of haggling, backroom deals with insurance industry lobbyists and even a Supreme Court challenge the dream became a reality.

Sort of...

The grand idea came with compromise.  Healthcare for all but still at the whim of a corrupt industry that left the poor bankrupt and the sick unhealed.  It was a mandate after all.  Everyone had to play or be subject to a fine.  There would be websites, exchanges and lip service.  If you liked things the way they were you could continue that way....

except...

You couldn't.  That part about whims of a corrupt industry?  Well, when their policies didn't measure up to the law they simply canceled them.  No warning, no notice, just a curt letter.  The claim was that the policies didn't meet muster and more expensive options were the only answer aside from no coverage at all. 

Oh what political hay was made.  Endless prattle about promises broken and families harmed soon ensued.  Meaningless, all of it.  The bottom line was a mandate executed by the executioners with the blessings of the government via flawed public policy.  It all made for glittering sound bites but the result fell short.

Employers railed against the changes claiming crippling costs to provide adequate care and vows to reduce costs on the backs of their laborers.  Even if it meant reducing the labor force itself, suppressing  wages or cutting hours to do it.  It was true costs were spiraling out of control but not because the concept of healthcare for everyone became law.  It was because the moneychangers collecting the bills demanded more.  Something's got to give and it wasn't going to be the insurance industry. 

Employers claimed an unfair burden of their employees healthcare costs but to those in their charge the employer is the only option.   Nobody making minimum wage could shoulder the costs of an individual policy that often exceeded their month's wages.

We blame the ideology instead of the real problem, the insurance companies.  It wasn't the government, well, actually it was because they let it happen.  Ultimately, however, the blame lay squarely at the feet of the messenger (the moneychangers) and they still wanted their share.  Now they had the law to get it for them. 

Nobody likes a mandate and rebellion will soon ensue either subtle or gross.  Tell someone that touch screens and tiles are how you must use a computer from now on and expect some blowback.

Tell insurance companies that they must cover everyone but do nothing to keep them honest and you end up with the healthcare mess we have now.

The similarities are staggering...

Yes, Windows is just an operating system while healthcare is often a case of life or death but the fumble is the same. 

A change in the way we work with our technology was long overdue, Windows 8 showed us a glimpse of a better future.  So too was Universal healthcare but like the ill fated operating system it was a glittering promise that couldn't deliver.  At least not as it is now.

In the case of Windows you could always just stick with the old version or wait for Microsoft to fix their error in judgment with Windows 9.  Not so with Universal Health care, there's no turning back the clock regardless of what the politicians say.   But just like any version of Windows, expect a slew of "patches" in an attempt to make things better.

Microsoft's new CFO and why Wall Street cares

Article first published as Microsoft's New CFO and Why Wall Street Cares on Technorati.

Amy Hood, Microsoft's new CFO.   It's a name I'm sure nobody knows outside of financial circles.  To the executive suites of Microsoft, however, nothing could be further from the truth.  After all, her last job was CFO of the  business division which just so happens to be the most profitable but the least glamorous. 

Let's be honest here, it's unlikely  Chairman Ballmer will be leaping across a stage to announce a new server product anytime soon. 

If you're a Microsoft shareholder fatigued over an incessant news cycle bent on denouncing Windows 8,however, it's likely you're delighted.  Hood not only oversaw the primary cash cow that nobody talks about, she also served as Chief of Staff for the Server and Tools unit. 

More than just chief bean counter her job was to set the tone for Wall Street in all things Microsoft Enterprise and she knew from whence she spoke.

Now her job is to do the same thing companywide and she's perfect for it.  Microsoft owns the Enterprise for most of the Fortune 500 and that's the story they want to tell.   Consumers likely won't care about who's CFO but they don't buy Microsoft shares either.

Let the pundits go on about the botched launch of Windows 8 and an interface only a video poker machine could love.  In the end it's the enterprise that will keep Microsoft viable long after Windows 8 is as distant a memory as new formula Coca-Cola.

A Touch of Madness Over Windows 8

Article first published as A Touch of Madness Over Windows 8 on Technorati.

A touch of madness over Windows 8

Change never comes without cost and it's usually exacted by chipping away at our comfort zone.   Like some tortured victim of Stockholm syndrome we'll  irrationally rise up against any threat to our routines.

So the coming release of Windows 8 might as well be a new red scare to many tech industry bigwigs and pundits. 

It began  with a dire prediction about the fallout of Windows 8 from game industry mogul Gabe Newell of Valve:" I think Windows 8 is a catastrophe for everyone in the PC space. I thinkwe’ll lose some of the top-tier PC/OEMs, who will exit the market."

It continued with rumblings from industry pundits over changes to the way we'll be interacting with the Windows 8 interface.  From removal of the startbutton to optimizations for touch sensitive devices that irritatedindustry press it seems  those "in the know" are of mixedopinion at best.

It doesn't matter.

Think of all the convoluted keyboard shortcuts and permutations of pointing devices and it becomes obvious that we've hated our interaction with computers for years.  If the experience was ideal we wouldn't be trying to minimize it with ergonomic gimmickry.

Chances are pretty good that most of you have a Smartphone, tablet or both and you've become accustomed to getting your stuff with a tap or a swipe.   For many it's preferable.  So is it any surprise that Microsoft thinks you want to do the same on your desktop? 

If Microsoft is guilty of anything, it's of being a bit early to the party.  If touch interfaces weren't popular Apple would never have bothered with the IPAD and Microsoft wouldn't be getting into tablets in a big way with Windows RT and Surface. 

The way you work with your PC today will be very different from how you use it just 10 years from now.  That may sound like futurist prophesying but consumer preferences eventually permeate the workplace.

 Consumers have voted for touch with their wallets, just take a look at IPAD sales for proof.  They will come to expect it in all their digital interactions even if it involves a little pain at first.

That means touch on your desktop is in your future and you'll learn to like it, even if you don't know it yet.