The rule applies to technology, the Internet, and your own company: Networks work better and more efficiently than centralization. Doesn't Microsoft get it?
Microsoft's biggest problem is not its antitrust case. Its chief competitive threat doesn't come from Apple, Nintendo, or America Online.
Its biggest problem is ignoring the rules that govern the evolution of technology -- and business.
Microsoft styled itself and its products in the image of most early computers, using what came to be known as "Von Neumann architecture."
Named for a Hungarian-American mathematician, this architecture allows one program to run through one processor to deliver one result at a time. This system was supplanted in the 1980s by massively parallel machines, consisting of simpler computers dividing up the work. When these machines were reaching their limits, around 1990, systems such as the nCUBE, which outperformed even the fastest massively parallel machines, were starting to evolve.
This activity connects with the computer in front of you through distributed-computing projects such as Intel's Philanthropic Peer-to-Peer Program, in which your PC works in a network of other computers to -- literally -- find a cure for cancer.
The Internet evolved in much the same way.
In the mid-1990s, most U.S. traffic went through one of only four public network access points (NAPs). These became bottlenecks, so large Internet service providers (ISPs) created private NAPs to get around them.
As technology and the Internet evolved from unilateral entities into networked ones, so did businesses. IBM learned this in the '60s with System 360. The more people it threw at the task of speeding the machine to market, the more the project slowed down. Microsoft's innovation, tackling specific problems by dedicating small teams working 20-hour days, was a short-term fix.
The trend reached your company with flattened organization charts and the use of technology to push decisions to the shop floor.
Equally, in software a single center means a single point of failure. A single source is a bottleneck. This is why IBM now puts all its server eggs in the Linux basket. When a bug or virus hits Linux, IBM isn't the only outfit on the case.
Anyone in the vast network of Linux users might solve the problem, because everyone has the source code. Microsoft software hits a snag, everyone has to wait for Microsoft to fix it. It alone controls the code.
That's why Gartner Group told clients earlier this year to dump Microsoft's Internet server. It's inherently insecure.
Microsoft's "solution" is to stop communication about security problems and force all discussions to funnel through a few "trusted" sources. A communications bottleneck won't stop a network of threats.
There's a lot your company and Internet operations can learn from this. When you let your people use their own networks of contacts to solve problems, problems get solved faster. When you divide work into components, it gets done faster.
Centralized organization charts don't work as well as networked ones.
Any system with a single point of failure will, in time, fail. Have a back-up plan and don't let yourself become dependent -- on Microsoft or anyone else.
Dana Blankenhorn has been a business reporter for more than 20 years. He has written parts of five books and currently contributes to Advertising Age, Business Marketing, NetMarketing, the Chicago Tribune, Boardwatch, CLEC Magazine, and other publications. His own newsletter, A-Clue.Com, is published weekly.
2015 Holiday Email Guide
The holidays are just around the corner. Download this whitepaper to find out how to create successful holiday email campaigns that drive engagement and revenue.
Three Ways to Make Your Big Data More Valuable
Big data holds a lot of promise for marketers, but are marketers ready to make the most of it to drive better business decisions and improve ROI? This study looks at the hidden challenges modern marketers face when trying to put big data to use.
December 2, 2015
1pm ET/ 10am PT
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
5pm HKT / 5am ET