5 ms·

Publishing videos to the world may have issues, but these sorts of videos can have extreme internal value (the OP mentions this). I've worked on quite of a few

by jordank 15y ago

Publishing videos to the world may have issues, but these sorts of videos can have extreme internal value (the OP mentions this). I've worked on quite of a few of these — they've turned out to be useful tools in securing budgets and coordinating teams. These concept videos can also be useful when an ingredient brand wants to push other players in their industry forward. When company A needs company B to buy into building new types of hardware, far-out concept videos can go a long way. By publishing concept videos, firms can essentially create reference designs for the future.

pohl 15y ago
When company A needs company B to buy into building new types of hardware, far-out concept videos can go a long way. Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your purchasing power do the talking, rather than a concept video. I like concept videos, personally. They are techno-lust candy to me. If this is a big part of how they move other players in their industry forward, however, then this is an inherent weakness in their business model. Industry players respond much more quickly when you're handing them money.
- dpark 15y ago
  > Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your purchasing power do the talking, rather than a concept video. This makes a lot of sense when you're Apple, and very little when you're Microsoft. Going to Samsung and saying "I'll buy 10MM units, guaranteed" isn't very fiscally responsible if you don't sell hardware. Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft
  - pohl 15y ago
    Exactly. That is the weakness in your business model to which I referred. I'm not saying that it's a failing in your business model. Clearly you're doing fine despite it. But it is a relative weakness against Apple's integrated model.
    - dpark 15y ago
      Historically it's been a strength. Apple's resurgence is a pretty recent thing, and most hardware+software companies have not done well. Look at Sun and see how well the hardware+software model worked for them. For that matter, look at Android, which is following the software-only model and has overtaken the iPhone in most areas now.
      - Tloewald 15y ago
        Or you could simply point out that a lot of companies failed because Microsoft sucked the air out of the OS market after IBM foolishly licensed DOS from them under non-exclusive terms. If IBM had bought DOS outright (or bought CP/M) the IBM PC would probably have been a successful integrated hardware+software business (actually it was, but it would probably have lasted longer) like so many others. Even without owning DOS, IBM tried to block clones, but its BIOS was too small a barrier to entry. It's actually Microsoft that's the big exception.
        dpark 15y ago
        I don't really follow. How did Microsoft suck the air out of the OS market? By being successful? That seems like a rather convenient definition for you. You blame the failure of hardware+software on the success of Microsoft's software-only approach. It actually seems we agree on the facts. You just somehow cast this in a negative light. I could likewise argue that Apple has "sucked the air" out of the smartphone market. That didn't stop Android from taking the lead from Apple.
        Tloewald 15y ago
        No, I point out that hardware+software worked before Microsoft and works well now. And if IBM had licensed DOS exclusively, it would have worked well for IBM. Android represents an example of dumping – taking a loss on a product using subsidies. It's fairly easy to be "successful" if you spend a lot on a product and then give it away.
      - pohl 15y ago
- jordank 15y ago
  Sometimes the products that companies need to buy aren't yet being made (and can't yet be purchased as components). In this case there is some financial risk associated with producing a new product — videos and other materials can help convince this player to take that risk.
OpenAmazing 15y ago
"useful tools in securing budgets and coordinating teams" This is exactly what Gruber is referring to. If crazy videos like this are being used to determine budgets, then the company is being led by fools. Any manager that would watch this video and then declare "Yes! Build me that!" doesn't understand how products get made and should not be let anywhere near the Product team.
- chaz 15y ago
  Not everyone's a product visionary, but you need a way to manifest your vision to get everyone on board or rally the troops. Sometimes it's an email, presentation, speech, or prototype. For a company with over 100 corporate executives listed and over 10,000 employees attending its global sales conference, it's not unreasonable for Microsoft to be using video. Large orgs are as much about politics as they are about products, and you need to champion your idea to others.

by jordank 15y ago

pohl 15y ago

When company A needs company B to buy into building new types of hardware, far-out concept videos can go a long way. Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your purchasing power do the talking, rather than a concept video. I like concept videos, personally. They are techno-lust candy to me. If this is a big part of how they move other players in their industry forward, however, then this is an inherent weakness in their business model. Industry players respond much more quickly when you're handing them money.

dpark 15y ago
> Compare this to how far (and how fast) one can get by letting your purchasing power do the talking, rather than a concept video. This makes a lot of sense when you're Apple, and very little when you're Microsoft. Going to Samsung and saying "I'll buy 10MM units, guaranteed" isn't very fiscally responsible if you don't sell hardware. Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft
- pohl 15y ago
  Exactly. That is the weakness in your business model to which I referred. I'm not saying that it's a failing in your business model. Clearly you're doing fine despite it. But it is a relative weakness against Apple's integrated model.
  - dpark 15y ago
    Historically it's been a strength. Apple's resurgence is a pretty recent thing, and most hardware+software companies have not done well. Look at Sun and see how well the hardware+software model worked for them. For that matter, look at Android, which is following the software-only model and has overtaken the iPhone in most areas now.
    - Tloewald 15y ago
      Or you could simply point out that a lot of companies failed because Microsoft sucked the air out of the OS market after IBM foolishly licensed DOS from them under non-exclusive terms. If IBM had bought DOS outright (or bought CP/M) the IBM PC would probably have been a successful integrated hardware+software business (actually it was, but it would probably have lasted longer) like so many others. Even without owning DOS, IBM tried to block clones, but its BIOS was too small a barrier to entry. It's actually Microsoft that's the big exception.
      - dpark 15y ago
        I don't really follow. How did Microsoft suck the air out of the OS market? By being successful? That seems like a rather convenient definition for you. You blame the failure of hardware+software on the success of Microsoft's software-only approach. It actually seems we agree on the facts. You just somehow cast this in a negative light. I could likewise argue that Apple has "sucked the air" out of the smartphone market. That didn't stop Android from taking the lead from Apple.
        Tloewald 15y ago
        No, I point out that hardware+software worked before Microsoft and works well now. And if IBM had licensed DOS exclusively, it would have worked well for IBM. Android represents an example of dumping – taking a loss on a product using subsidies. It's fairly easy to be "successful" if you spend a lot on a product and then give it away.
    - pohl 15y ago
jordank 15y ago
Sometimes the products that companies need to buy aren't yet being made (and can't yet be purchased as components). In this case there is some financial risk associated with producing a new product — videos and other materials can help convince this player to take that risk.

OpenAmazing 15y ago

"useful tools in securing budgets and coordinating teams" This is exactly what Gruber is referring to. If crazy videos like this are being used to determine budgets, then the company is being led by fools. Any manager that would watch this video and then declare "Yes! Build me that!" doesn't understand how products get made and should not be let anywhere near the Product team.

chaz 15y ago
Not everyone's a product visionary, but you need a way to manifest your vision to get everyone on board or rally the troops. Sometimes it's an email, presentation, speech, or prototype. For a company with over 100 corporate executives listed and over 10,000 employees attending its global sales conference, it's not unreasonable for Microsoft to be using video. Large orgs are as much about politics as they are about products, and you need to champion your idea to others.