Thread by @stevesi

Disruption is now business canon, even though it has legit critics and isn't general as many think. What was it like face "disruption" right when the paper/book came out in late 90s? Here's "Hardcore Software" on gaining org alignment for "Office9". 1/13 …rdcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com/p/049-go-get-t…

2/ My favorite thing about disruption is how stories are always told after-the-fact when everything seems so clean and neat. Or conversely when everyone is quick to say and agree "ripe for disruption". Few consider the variable of time. Everything much more difficult.

3/ In early 1997, Office had just really taken off on Windows with Windows 95. It was a huge hit and half of Microsoft's revenue. The internet was happening at the same time. And then "Innovator's Dilemma" came out. Everyone was being disrupted. (Annual report)

4/ A key element of disruption is what goes on inside a company when disruption happens. The story is often told as though it is a technology bet that the old guard won't make and the new insurgent technologists know what is better.

Ha, that's the academic version :-)

5/ Microsoft was hardly so simple. The company was over 20,000 people. Office was a tiny group relatively in the corner even compared to most R&D groups (lean!!). Here's the contemporaneous company org chart (courtesy Directions on Microsoft, @getwired). Looks like a VLSI layout.

6/ The internet was also very "new". There were new technologies coming out all the time. Many seized on "disruptive" theory as a way to promote their new thing. Inside Microsoft, suddenly a big topic was how Office was going to be disrupted by new tech. Here's the complexity.

7/ Different parts of Microsoft had different ideas about which new "tech" would disrupt Office. Disruption was certain. Office was viewed as "not getting it". But the problem was even if we agreed we couldn't respond to each different tech.

We could only build one product.

8/ Was it building Office for the browser? In 1997 HTML 3.2 just got published. Scripting was still new and not settled. HTTP servers were still not app servers. Netscape could build lots into a browser. Internet Explorer wanted us to align with IE and extend IE to build Office.

9/ Many knew the browser wasn't enough so they created Java to run in the browser. But that was kind of a hack. The allure of write-once-run-anywhere was HUGE. Sun backed it. But it kind of didn't work. The Dev Tools team at MS was really freaked out about java v. Visual Basic.

10/ Java Beans and "Components" was a whole other way to build software that might run in browsers. COM-component object model-was viewed by many at MS as "crown jewels". To battle components we created ActiveX. Some thought Office in ActiveX avoided disruption. (Beans "Arrive"!)

11/ Network Computers were a new idea--a computer that was just a browser (!!). These were freaking out the Windows team because they were an assauly on all of desktop computing. They required Office in a browser, and a server. NCs go beyond hype (!)

12/ So question is how to work through what to do and what bets to make. There was a huge amount of uncertainty and almost panic leading to a lot of angst. In the post in hardcore software I go through these technologies and how the company was conflicted. Wrote a long memo :=)

13/ Please consider subscribing and joining in the journey of the PC. I'd appreciate it! Thank you. Next post is on the actual plan for "Office9". …rdcoresoftware.learningbyshipping.com

PS/ I think this post is perhaps what it feels like to be in traditional finance or banking these days, thinking through the technology of/competitors in crypto/defi/neobanks/etc and the different parts of a BigCo pointing at entrenched interests and potential technologies.