Exit Interview with Scoble

capt turnpike writes "It's no secret that Windows technology evangelist Robert Scoble (of Scobelizer blogging fame) is leaving Microsoft for a startup, but Microsoft Watch's Mary Jo Foley has the first exit interview with Scoble. Topics range from what Microsoft could have done to keep him spreading the word and building out MS's Channel 9 community site, where he sees MS going and more. From the article: 'There were times when I knew I was taking risks. I didn't know what would happen when I told Steve Ballmer that his leadership on the gay rights bill wasn't good.'"

So in other words

[Bryansix]

FTA: "...but I want to do the startup life for a few years while I have the ability to take on a good amount of risk."

So in other words, this guy is rich and he can afford to work on a startup and that work is probably more exciting the working for Microsoft.

Re:So in other words

[jrockway]

> This is another example of a rich guy with nothing better to do than expirement.

I detect negative connotations there, but why? What's wrong with taking a job that's fun over one that's safe but boring?

Scoble Who?

[Macrat]

Isn't this guy only famous because he was hired by Microsoft to blog?

Now he is just a nobody again, right?

oh neat

[bunions]

blogosphere drama, how fascinating.

Re:So in other words

[quanticle]

/*This is another example of a rich guy with nothing better to do than expirement.*/

And what's wrong with that? After all, if it hadn't been for some "rich guy's experiment" we wouldn't have had Ubuntu Linux. Fact is, if you're independently wealthy, you have a lot more time (because time == money) to sit around and try stuff, even when there's not a huge chance of financial success.

Re:So in other words

[cmacb]

He's not rich from working at Microsoft, unless he seriously lied about his salary. More likely what he means is that he doesn't have to be saving for retirement or putting his kid through college for a few years yet.

The main problem I had with him was that he put a kinder face on Microsoft than it deserved. He was a shill, knowingly or not. What he will be doing next is a lot more honest, whether it succeeds or not. I personally think that blogging, including the audio and video forms has peaked (thank God!) but I'm sure there is still money to be had from it if you have the right product.

Security?

[RollingThunder]

FTA:
Q: What was your biggest surprise about working at Microsoft?

A: That they'd really just let me walk around with a camcorder without having a PR person or a lawyer along. Even after quitting I have the entire run of the place. That's not typical even in the technology world. At Apple my brother-in-law's badge only works in his building.

Sooo... they're taking the same lax attitude about computing security and applying it to physical security as well?

Not everyone should have admin, and not everyone should have all-building access.

Re:So in other words

[gameforge]

You're kind of forgetting a few (bigger) key examples; Linux and the GNU toolset were both "experiments" (that were created by people who weren't terribly rich).

So was DOS, most pre-1996 PC video games like Wolfenstein 3D and SimCity, and lots of other successful software (let alone everything outside of the software domain that was originally an "experiment").

Not being rich doesn't mean you can't experiment; it just means you have to figure out how to experiment with someone else's money, or carry out your experiment over a longer time. Both of which can lead to getting rich.

Re:So in other words

[Anonymous Coward]

The main problem I had with him was that he put a kinder face on Microsoft than it deserved. He was a shill, knowingly or not.

Why would I believe a regular Slashdot poster about what kind of company Microsoft is over someone who 1) interviewed many high and mid level managers 2) had a job that involved walking the halls of Microsoft to try and figure out what was going on 3) challenged his audience daily with his findings 4) thought daily about techonology and Microsoft's role in it's future 4) publicly spoke out against Microsoft on many occasions when it was deserved

It seems to me you are implying that
1) Robert Scoble is stupid
2) He is a liar
3) His employment was one big consipiracy where 49999 Microsoft employees put on an act every time he was in the room and he was the one person who was not in on the big joke

Do you know what 'shill' means?

[Anonymous Coward]

The closest definition I could find for 'shill' on Google said, "In some cases, the members of an organization or the employees of a company may monitor and/or participate in public discussions and groups. Such people are not shills, since they don't attempt to mislead others."

As far as I can tell, Scoble did no misleading. He made no attempts to hide the fact that he worked for MS, and he did nothing that made his blogs or videos appear untrustworthy. For example, it is painfully obvious that his videos have no PR person directing them or even editing them. He just walked into peoples' offices with a video camera, hit REC, and started talking.

He may have put a human face on MS by letting us all see inside the belly of the beast, but I don't understand what's wrong with that. What's wrong with giving some insight into how things work and why certain decisions were made? Transparency is supposed to be one of the great things about Open Source, so what's wrong when it applies to MS?

dom

In Soviet Russia...

[Moraelin]

Let me tell you about another group to which your words can be applied verbatim. In Soviet Russia they had newspapers, radio, and TV, and reporters who:

1) interviewed many high high and middle level party officials

2) had a job involving walking the halls of various official institutions to try to figure out what was going on

3) challenged their audience daily with their findings

4) thought daily about politics and the Soviet Union's role in the future

5) publically spoke out against (mild and pre-approved) various shortcomings.

And yet we already know that they published lies and propaganda anyway, and put an artifficial kind face on something that was a failure both economically and as human rights go. The party officially recognized that one little bit of truth makes people more eager to swallow the big lie, so, yes, number 5 happened pretty routinely too. So, yes, it's nothing new that a propaganda shill would "dare" "bravely" confront Ballmer about such utterly irrelevant issues as his opinions of gay rights, which frankly bear no relevance to MS's products or monopolistic stance... to seem independent enough so you'll swallow the bigger lies that do bear relevance.

But, anyway, let's resume mis-using your words in that context. You don't believe them? It seems to me you're implying that

1) A journalist from Pravda was stupid,

2) He was a liar,

3) His employment was one big consipiracy where 49999 Soviet citizens put on an act every time he was in the room and he was the one person who was not in on the big joke

And, blimey, yes, you'd be right. It was number 2. He who pays the orchestra gets to choose the music, and he who pays your salary to write about the company gets to choose what positive spin he wants you to put on it. And, yes, a bit of number 3 too: people are good at putting on an act when the CEO's PR lackey comes asking questions.