Full Disclosure: I work for Microsoft and enjoy my job. And this blog post is my opinion, not Microsoft’s.

This past week ended up being one of the most intense, yet rewarding, weeks of my career. For the past three weeks, I put my day job mostly on hold and took on the challenge of leading a team to put together a free virtual training event for Windows Phone 7 developers. We had developers in the thousands participating in four 3-hour sessions that covered the ins and outs of developing applications and games for Windows Phone 7.

(FYI- If you’re a developer and missed it, don’t worry, the class resource page with all course materials and demos is open to all, plus recordings of the event are coming soon. Also, see below for some behind-the-scenes pictures from the studio we used to broadcast/film.)

For better or for worse, it seems that tech blogs, Wall Street, and much of my family are using the success of the “smartphone” as the current most important defining characteristic of how a given tech company is doing. Sure, Microsoft had record earnings and sold 175 million copies of Windows 7 in nine months. And sure, Xbox 360 + Xbox Live + the upcoming Kinect is the best thing to have happened to gaming in the past 10 years (speaking as a die-hard PC gamer turned console convert).

I could go on and mention several other billion dollar businesses Microsoft has built over the years, but they’re the unsexy, enterprise type that tend to bore blog readers. The real question on everyone’s mind: how will Microsoft play in the smartphone market? Well now that there’s tons of coverage on that, we’re all in wait-and-see mode. I, for one, have loved what I’ve played with and am also very encouraged by the overwhelmingly positive response we’ve gotten from developers who took our training.

So while Wall Street yawns, I continue to use a more holistic approach to measuring the success of a tech company. Not least of which starts with it being a great place to work!

Thanks to Rob Miles and Elese Moran for the pictures.

Let’s face it: we all love making comparisons. It’s an easy way to simplify a point. The problem, though, lies in the implicit assumptions and interpretations that go along with a comparison. Meaning, as soon as you make your comparison, it’s as if you’re holding all else equal while at the same time elevating your comparison to a higher level of credibility as compared to any of the unspoken alternative comparisons involving the two things you’re comparing.

And so it happened today with a post over at TechCrunch entitled “Is Google at Risk of Becoming the Next Microsoft?” Guest author Peter Sims makes some interesting commentary about Google (after sharing an intriguing story) but then sidetracks an otherwise good read by trying to simplify his point via a comparison of Google to Microsoft (see title above). As a result, that’s probably all this article is going to be remembered for.

Ironically, this comparison is coming from a tech blog that found it necessary to discuss Apple passing Microsoft in market valuation in three separate blog posts. Interesting. Perhaps someone should remind Sims that Google needs to come up with $70+ billion of market worth before it can experience the dreadful risk of becoming like Microsoft.

Sarcastic simplified comparison rebuttal aside, here’s my real point (quoting myself with emphasis added, a comment I left on the post at TechCrunch after Sims defended his comparison based on Microsoft’s 10 years of flat stock performance):

This whole title/question is based on just one angle and flawed as a result: it’s only the shareholder’s perspective. Why not link to MSFT profits or revenues over the past 10 years? Why not link to the growth of computers in households over the last 10 years? Oh right, because we’re talking about success as defined by stock market investors… Is that really the best measurement? For them, maybe, but for the rest of us who don’t actually short or buy millions of shares of certain stocks… not so much.

Bottom line: we need a more holistic measurement when comparing success of companies like this.

Oh, and you forgot to mention (like most do) Microsoft’s not-so-sexy billion dollar businesses in Server, Sharepoint, etc. when listing Microsoft’s “struggles” over the years.

Don’t get me wrong, market valuation, stock performance, and other financial metrics projecting the future have their place in defining success of a company. But what else should be considered? In my comment, I suggest revenue and profit trends (which, in theory, are supposedly accounted for in stock price). But that’s still financial-only thinking.

What about cultural contribution? Innovation? Research? Economic impact? Job creation? Employee satisfaction? Societal improvements? Each of these is difficult to measure for comparison sake (i.e., a bit of an apples to oranges issue both in how we define the parameters for each metric and in how we weigh each metric against the others) but most are still very relevant.

Microsoft, Google, Apple, plus plenty of others have done much for the world here. But saying it that way is bland and boring. We need a way to compare! (Or do we?)

And what about philanthropy? Microsoft’s clearly the winner on this metric. There’s the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation plus the recent news of co-founder Paul Allen giving most his money to charity. None of that would be possible without Microsoft. I’m sure carbon foot print is something else to throw into the success metric mix for good measure.

Even then, I know I’m missing plenty of other good metrics in my quick-and-dirty attempt to redefine how we measure success. But I’m a bit tired of finance being the de facto metric for making company comparisons. Does anyone (with power and influence, i.e., not me) want to take a stab at coming up with a better metric? Or are we stuck, for better or for worse, with financiers ruling the day once again?

*Update* Uh, so for some reason, the TechCrunch post has been taken down (at least for now, as I write this). I’m not sure why. I’m glad I captured my comment (quoted above) before its disappearance with the post!

*Update 2* And now the TechCrunch post is back.

*Update 3* TechCrunch now has a new guest post entitled “The Many Bottom Lines of Businesses” which addresses some of the same issues I talk about above.

This weekend I wanted to catch up on the D8 conference, which is basically a series of who’s who in the tech industry being interviewed by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. The D8 website has dozens of 5-minute clips but offers no convenient way to watch them in one sitting. Some of us, you know, can handle watching (dare I say, want to watch) certain things more than 5 minutes at a time.

Regardless, I’ll give a go at consuming your content the way you want me to. But how’s the experience? The audio is so low that I can barely hear it even with my laptop speakers maxed out while the viewing window is small, and the same 15-second commercial plays once between clips.

Is there an easy way for me to get this on my TV? No. And, by easy, I mean direct integration with my Blu-ray player (which has Netflix/Vudu/YouTube), my Xbox (Netflix/Zune/Media Center), or my cable box. (Plugging in cables to A/V equipment every time does not fall under “easy.”)

Meanwhile, while watching Real Time with Bill Maher, he continually reminds me to check out something called “Overtime” after the show (exclusively online). Basically, when the shows ends, the cameras keep rolling and Bill Maher continues the discussion with his guests a little while longer. I’m already in front of my TV, what if I want to watch this? Can I get it via my cable box or some other integration with my TV? No and no.

One more example: The always excellent Fareed Zakaria asks his viewers “the question of the week” each week on which he used to respond/comment the following week. Nowadays he’s quick to remind us that if we want to know more about the responses to the question of the week, we have to check out the show’s website.

Great. So I have all these screens in my house (computers, phones, TVs, etc.), and I’m the captive audience many of these media outlets want to engage with. So why not make it easy for me to consume any of your content on any screen?

*Update* How could I forget The Daily Show with Jon Stewart? At least a couple times a month he has interviews run long, which means you have to watch them online all over again to see what was edited out. Why are extended Jon Stewart episodes not available on demand somehow directly on my TV?

How do you like my title? It came from a Wall Street Journal article entitled “Microsoft Plans Shake Up” which Henry Blodget of Silicon Alley Insider linked to, added an intro that added nothing new, and then added quite the Google-bait headline of “Microsoft Shaking Up Entertainment Group In Desperate Attempt To Catch Apple And Google”.

Now, full disclosure, I work for Microsoft but not in this division. And I have nothing to do with whatever this story is about. It seems like an interesting scoop for the WSJ, but Blodget’s title is tricking Techmeme into thinking it should be the leader story. So as a fellow blogger, I thought I’d one up Mr. Blodget with an equally exciting title of my own and a piece of advice:

As the New York Time reminded us recently, bloggers love using the embellished title technique. But you gotta pick one or the other. Either leave out the embellishment and be an echo chamber OR embellish and add something substantial. But don’t embellish and say nothing. There’s a word for that: spam.

*Update* I contacted Henry Blodget to let him know my opinion on this. He responded quickly and let me know that he dropped the word “desperate” from his title. Kudos. I’ve done the same.

*Update 2* TechFlash has the latest on the “shake up” (via Techmeme).

Wow, some major love for Apple tonight coming from none other than Bill Maher:

“America needs to focus on getting Jobs, Steve Jobs… In 2001, Apple reinvented the record player, in 2007 the phone, and this year the computer. I say, for 2011, we let them take a crack at America.”

“Our infrastructure, our business model, our institutions, get rid of the stuff that’s not working, replace it with something that does. For example: Goodbye US Senate, Hello Genius Bar. So good luck, Steve, ’cause you’ll need it. Of course, I’m sure he’ll make us change the name.”

[Cut to image below]

But interestingly enough, in an earlier segment, he showed a screenshot of an Apple customer satisfaction survey and complained (generally, even if using Apple as an example on screen) that companies bug him too much with satisfaction surveys. So what should we make of this?

Probably not much other than Bill Maher seems to be fan enough to give Apple credit for the iPad already having reinvented the computer. Record player and phone, sure, I see that. But computer? I think Maher may have watched one too many Apple ads for the iPad. The jury’s still out on whether or not it deserves being placed alongside new record players and phones.

Of course, the extrapolation makes sense and isn’t necessarily a bad bet to be making. But let’s wait and see.

*Update* There’s a video of this here that starts right after Bill Maher complains about customer satisfaction surveys (last couple minutes is the main Apple part).

*Update 2* See below for embedded YouTube version of the entire segment.

So I’m walking back to the office (work for Microsoft in Bellevue, WA) after meeting my wife for a nice dinner out. And I’m wearing a black t-shirt that says “I’M A PC” in white letters across my chest. I’m half way through crossing the street and a guy runs up to me, whips his arms around, points his two index fingers an inch away from my chest, and then yells loudly: “I’m a Mac!”

I give him a shoulder shrug and say, “cool, dude” while the rest of the crosswalk traffic is trying to ignore what just happened. We then walk our separate ways. My first thought was: “how bizarre.” But then that thought was quickly followed by my second thought, which was: “how normal.”

Sure, this is ancedotal and an isolated story. But for being completely random, I can’t think of a better story that characterizes my experience with how Mac fans express themselves as compared to PC fans. Some fans feel the need to yell their stance to your face (read any Apple fanboy blogs lately?) while others feel more comfortable simply wearing a shirt.

Now I’m wondering if I still want to wear this shirt from time to time. I think so. I wouldn’t want to pass up another chance at a Mac fan proving my point.

*Disclaimer* I work for Microsoft but do own certain Apple products, just how most all of my “Mac” friends own Microsoft products. I personally think the tech world is a better place because of both companies. But that’s too long a message to shout to someone’s face.

Cross-posted to the Microsoft Learning blog.

Meet Lisa and her son Jackson, who’s looking for “speed, big hard drive, and a good gaming computer” for under $1,500. After a quick look at some PCs, Lisa says, “Let’s go see the Macs, they’re kind of popular at this age.” But then, Lisa points out that “…these are way more money, dude” quickly followed by Jackson saying (about a Mac), “It’s a little too small.”

So back to the PCs: We’re shown how you can use a PC with a remote and then we see both Lisa and Jackson get really excited about none other than “Bluuu-ray!” And, of course, Blu-ray is missing from Macs. For me personally, not a huge selling point of the PC. But for others like Lisa and Jackson, it seems pretty cool. And that’s the point being made here: there’s something for everyone.

This is the third ad in this series (embedded below), and just like I thought the second was better than the first, I think the third is better than the second. Having a mother/son shop together gives a little more credibility to the unscripted, regular people feel that wasn’t as apparent with the first two.

As always, though, it’s only a matter of time before the Apple community figures out which Sony Vaio was purchased in the ad and does a much deeper comparison. I always enjoy seeing the reaction as much as the ad, and this time is likely to be no different.

*Update* When it rains it pours. The Windows blog has a post up entitled “Avoid the Apple Tax – Cash in on the value of Windows” (which is quickly being questioned) while there are a number of other Microsoft ads out today featuring cute British kids.

Microsoft just came out with its second Laptop Hunters video. Personally, I think this one is better than the first one, but you decide (embedded below).

We’ve got a guy with a $1,500 budget looking for portability, battery life, and power. And he says he’s “technically savvy” and knows what he wants.

After spending some time in the Mac section, he sums up his experience by saying “Macs to me are about aesthetics more than they are about the computing power. I don’t want to pay for the brand. I want to pay for the computer.”

Ouch. That pretty much sums up the Mac critique of this commercial. Oh, and it ends with “I’m a PC Because I’m Really Picky.” Can’t wait to see how the blogosphere responds to this one! I’m sure there’s plenty to dissect. Interestingly enough, I had an exchange with VentureBeat’s MG Siegler yesterday that now seems relevant:

Bob Caswell: So are you saying you’d be a lot more convinced if someone was given much more than a $1,000 and still picked a PC?

MG Siegler: Yes, that would certainly be more convincing.

In any event, just remember that if you were offended or victimized before, who knows your state of being after this.

*Update* Good ol’ Dan Lyons offers his two cents to the Newsweek audience. He may be a little late to the discussion (centering around last week’s ad), but he’s got plenty of good things to say and uses numbers and stuff to back himself up rather than relying on opinion like we do here in the blogosphere.

Also, have to say, I love the latest discussion we’re having over at VentureBeat. And for those interested, you can follow me on Twitter: @bobcaswell.

Laptop Hunters #2 – Giampaolo

So Microsoft put together an ad (embedded below with more to come apparently) that does what Apple started (comparing PCs and Macs) only from Microsoft’s perspective. That is, when either side plays this game, they focus on the pros of their team while pointing out the cons of the other side all while conveniently forgetting to mention their own cons.

That’s how commercials work, you see. By and large, Apple and Microsoft are playing the same game. A game that Apple started, I might add. And kudos to Apple for starting it; it seems to have worked well for them.

But now that a strong response is out by Microsoft (a separate tangential conversation is whether Microsoft should be throwing so much money at a “response” campaign; that’s debatable), the Apple fanboys are restless (this topic was at the top of Techmeme earlier today) and feel the need to point out the “offense,” “pointlessness,” and “inaccuracies.”

Wow. Talk about a classic case of dishing out but not being able to take it. Case in point, what was the first point of the author who wanted to explain why this was so offensive? In his own words, “…she goes into the “Mac store” — red flag here already, anyone who is even remotely interested in a Mac knows it’s the Apple Store…”

I can’t even begin to understand what that has to do with anything remotely relevant to being offensive, but to each his own, I suppose. Anyway, back to my original point: When Apple ran their commercials, I didn’t feel the need to take offense or complain about inaccuracies and onesidedness. It was a pretty good campaign. And now Microsoft has put together a decent response by using a similar formula.

Why can’t we just leave it at that? Do we really need to get out the fine tooth comb and go through all Apple’s ads and all Microsoft’s ads and benchmark them against some universal neutral fairness system (which doesn’t exist)?

Laptop Hunters #1 – Lauren

So in case you missed it, Apple responded to Microsoft’s new “I’m a PC” ad campaign. You can watch the ads on Youtube via Gizmodo and TechCrunch (or a whole bunch of other places). I was discussing this with a friend / coworker last night and thought I’d share my thoughts here:

…makes a decent point even if a bit hypocritical. I mean, Apple is all about pouring the millions into marketing/advertising. When we do it, of course, it’s because we’re misallocating how our money is spent (according to them). But when they do it, it must be justified. Right. Well, here’s my reallocation advice for Apple: use some of those millions in advertising to make a computer that’s affordable for once. You see? It’s not that hard to second guess how another company spends money.

Interesting that I wrote this before seeing Gizmodo’s take, which is basically the same:

There’s also the minor matter of Apple accusing Microsoft of spending money on advertising that would be better allocated to fixing Vista. The message, of course, is delivered in an expensive advertising campaign, the week after Apple released brand new, prohibitively expensive laptops.

But, of course, Gizmodo doesn’t work for Microsoft. So when they say it, it sounds more credible.