Reflections on a Video Game Maker, Microsoft's 4th Billionaire - Gabe Newell

Microsoft has three billionaires - Bill Gates, Paul Allen, and Steve Ballmer.  Steve Ballmer will soon be leaving day to day operations like Bill and Paul.  Of all the other ex-Microsoft employees there are the wealthy who cashed out - Scott Oki, Charles Simonyi, Nathan Myhrvold, Jim Allchin, Paul Maritz, Mike Maples, and many more millionaires.  There is though one other ex-Microsoft person who is a billionaire, and what is more impressive is he took his Microsoft millions and turned it into over a billion launching another company.

Some may be impressed by the money, but what is more impressive is how Gabe Newell did things different than most.

Gabe is making lots of noise and news lately launching a game platform on Linux.  Gabe knows how to build a game platform as this is what he did at Microsoft 20 years ago.

For 13 years through to the mid-’90s, Gabe Newell was “producer on the first three releases of Windows” at Microsoft. At the time, according to Newell, “it was common wisdom that it wasn’t possible to write a good game in Windows because of, well, unnamed technical reasons.” In 1993 Doom was released, and according to Newell it became the number one most-used program in the entire US, ahead of Windows. When you consider that Id Software was a company of just 12 people, and Microsoft already had hundreds of developers working on Windows, this was quite an achievement.

Newell was disappointed that this game ran in MS-DOS, rather than Windows, and thus tasked some of his engineers to create a Windows port. According to an interview back in 2007, he then apparently called John Carmack at Id Software to say that Microsoft would do the port for free, and thus the port was eventually released as Doom 95. It is possible that the success of Doom, and Doom 95, showed developers that it was indeed possible to write top-notch games on Windows. It’s also worth noting that WinG, the precursor to DirectX, was maturing at the same time — perhaps it was a combination of factors that finally made Windows the de facto gaming platform.

Here is a video where Gabe reflects on the industry.

Watching the video there are many lessons to be learned.

I have an interest following Gabe.  Gabe was my first interview at Microsoft.  He took one look at my Apple experience and re-routed my whole days of interviews.  Within 5 days I had an offer and joined in Apr 1992.  My life would be quite a bit different if I had stayed at Apple.  I doubt I would have stayed at Apple for as long as I stayed at Microsoft (until 2006).

Apr 4, 2011, Google shifted from analytical data driven to an emotional customer driven design focus

When I left Apple in 1992 for Microsoft I was one of the few Apple employees to move to Microsoft.  Over the years many more Apple employees joined Microsoft, and now many more Microsoft employees have gone to Apple.  

One of the questions many asked when I first joined Microsoft was what is the difference between Apple and Microsoft.  After months of explaining I finally hit upon the following.

Microsoft is an analytical company, doing things that there is data to support the decisions.  What makes people feel good inside the company is having data to support a decision.  Apple is an emotional company where you do things that feel good for the customers.  Usability testing rarely taps into the emotional element of do people like the new service.

This split is a religious one.  Designers on one side.  Developers on the other.  Until April 4, 2011 Google had a shift in the balance and afterwards designers got more votes on what Google shipped.

Here is a post on Fast Company.

How Google Taught Itself Good Design

LONG DOMINANT IN ONLINE SEARCH, ADVERTISING, AND MAPS, GOOGLE HAS SHIFTED GEARS FROM UTILITY TO BEAUTY--AND IS NOW MORE FEARSOME THAN EVER.

...

If you ask a Google designer to mark the shift between Google's old approach to design and its new one, you're likely to get a precise date: April 4, 2011. That's the day Page became CEO. It's also the day Google designers were set free. Within a week of taking over, Page called together the company's top designers, product chiefs, and executives to outline his vision for Google's aesthetic future. Page's ideas meshed with a plan that designers had long thought Google should embrace.

Leading up to 2011 was the reality of 2010 user feedback.

 In 2010, Google conducted a series of user tests to find out how people felt about Android. The results were stark: "A lot of people felt that Android was essential to their lives, but they didn't like Android," Duarte says. The robust abilities of the OS "made them feel small. It wasn't empowering, but daunting." The same could be said for other Google products. When you loaded up something made by Google, you were more likely to feel overwhelmed than welcomed.

How much voice do you give your users?

Do you design for your users or your developers and internal views?

Do you Manage Your Trust?

Here is a Ted Video on what we don't understand about trust.  

This video is a good one to think about whether you manage your trust, and trust in your systems.

The three factors in trust discussed in this video is competent, honest, and reliable.

Onona asks it a different set of questions.

The part that resonates with so many problems in companies is this one.

Across the last few decades, we've tried to construct systems of accountability for all sorts of institutions and professionals and officials and so on that will make it easier for us to judge their trustworthiness. A lot of these systems have the converse effect. They don't work as they're supposed to. I remember I was talking with a midwife who said, "Well, you see, the problem is it takes longer to do the paperwork than to deliver the baby." And all over our public life, our institutional life, we find that problem, that the system of accountability that is meant to secure trustworthiness and evidence of trustworthiness is actually doing the opposite. It is distracting people who have to do difficult tasks, like midwives, from doing them by requiring them to tick the boxes, as we say. You can all give your own examples there.

Compass DC serves up 1.2 MW increments to Savvis in Minneapolis-St Paul

I don't know about you, but it is refreshing to see a press release that says exactly what is the first deployment vs. future capacity.  Savvis has a press release on a new data center lease in Minneapolis-St Paul, and the 2nd paragraph makes this statement

The Savvis MP2 data center is designed to serve the region's growing demand for colocation, cloud, managed hosting and network services. Built to support 4.8 megawatts of IT load on 100,000 square feet of raised floor space, it will open with an initial 1.2 megawatts and 13,000 square feet of raised floor space.

Compass data centers is serving up 1.2 megawatt increments to Savvis for the local market.

"We are excited to partner with CenturyLink's Savvis organization, which combines a global leadership position in data center excellence with a deep understanding of Minnesota market needs through the existing local CenturyLink presence," said Chris Crosby, chief executive officer of Compass Datacenters. "Working with Savvis to quickly facilitate expansion in the Minneapolis-St. Paul market, we've developed a streamlined strategy for future expansion and response to the growing demands of businesses in the region."

Now that Savvis has a taste of consuming in 1.2 megawatt increments anywhere they have a market need we'll see how many more data centers start cropping up out of the major internet hubs.

Respecting the Brand, it is worth a lot of money

In the technology industry it is common for the companies to try and use the Brand name of another company to demonstrate credibility of their product/service.  Saying you provide services to X company verbally is the easiest thing to do.  Getting written approval approval is hard.

Interbrand just released the latest on the most valuable brands and Apple has now beat Coca-Cola.

Apple takes the #1 spot and Google jumps to #2 – the first brands to unseat Coca-Cola in the history of Best Global Brands

NEW YORK, New York (30 September 2013) – For the first time in the history of Interbrand’s Best Global Brands report, there is a new #1 brand: Apple. Interbrand, the world’s leading brand consultancy, publishes Best Global Brands on an annual basis, identifying and examining the top 100 most valuable global brands. With Apple claiming the top position this year, Google jumps to #2 and Coca-Cola, the brand that held the #1 position for 13 consecutive years, moves to #3. This year, the total value of all 100 Best Global Brands is USD $1.5 trillion -- an 8.4 percent record increase over the total value of the 100 Best Global Brands in 2012.

Technology is dominating the fastest growing brands.

2013 TOP RISING BRANDS: Facebook, Google, Prada, Apple, Amazon

Facebook (#52, +43%): As the leading (and only) social media brand to claim a position on this year’s Best Global Brands ranking, Facebook has succeeded in boosting both revenue and earnings per share in the past year—and has surpassed Wall Street's expectations in the process. Facebook also increased its global user base by 26 percent since its IPO over a year ago. Around the world, the brand continues to see an increase in users, with the Asia-Pacific region experiencing the largest growth. Facebook’s mobile users also grew by 51 percent in the past year and mobile ads are poised to account for more than half of the social media giant's advertising dollars. With former Google executive Gary Briggs recently named the company's first CMO and by acquiring companies like Instagram, Facebook’s growth is likely to continue for years to come.

Google (#2, +34%): Due to evolutionary changes to its core offerings (Search, Android, and Gmail) and new innovations like Google Glass and its self-driving car, Google’s brand value increased by 34 percent – making it this year’s #2 brand and the second top rising brand after Facebook. By continuing to move beyond search and by placing big bets on innovation, Google will impact the way its consumers live and behave worldwide – and increase the value of its brand in the process.

Prada (#72, +30%): The iconic Italian luxury fashion brand emerged as Interbrand’s third top riser this year with a brand value increase of 30 percent—just behind top-rising technology brands Facebook and Google. Prada’s increase in brand value reflects the organization’s ability to strike a harmonious (and profitable) balance between honoring its Italian heritage and producing innovative and cutting-edge designs. By effectively intertwining its digital and physical touchpoints and with the Prada Foundation’s support of the art world, Prada has been able to engage with its customers in more meaningful ways – and expand its global footprint in the process.

Apple (#1, +28%): Despite having its reputation tarnished by patent spats with Samsung and the Foxconn labor conditions scandal, the Apple brand proved to be resilient and emerged as not only the leader in this year’s Best Global Brands report, but also a top riser. In addition to being resilient, Apple is also prescient – continually anticipating what consumers will want next. To maintain its #1 position over the next year, Apple will have to slow rival Samsung’s momentum in the mobile market and never lose sight of what it does best: “Think different.”

Amazon (#19, +27%): With a brand value increase of 27 percent, Amazon is a top riser in this year’s Best Global Brands report. The e-commerce innovator continues to differentiate itself from rivals by taking on initiatives such as Amazon Appstore, which provides a comprehensive mobile experience for Google Android devices. Amazon has also expanded into new businesses such as TV-set-top boxes, original programming, 3-D smartphones, the Kindle line of e-book readers, and same-day grocery delivery service. Such initiatives, if successful, could mean Amazon will play an even greater and more holistic role in its consumers’ future retail experiences.

Watch out thinking you can use a brand name without permission.  the Brand is worth billions of dollars.  And most don't want their brand used in ways that don't increase or preserve its value.

Consider that some of those in the data center industry who reference a big brand may not have current or much business with the brand. If they did, then they would most likely be asked to remove the brand from their presentations.