P-I columnist Bill Virgin takes offense at Steve Ballmer’s recent assertion that “There will be no media consumption left in 10 years that is not delivered over an IP network. There will be no newspapers, no magazines that are delivered in paper form. Everything gets delivered in an electronic form.” In response to this, Bill Virgin argues that if Microsoft is going to proclaim the end of print newspapers it’s fair game for him to proclaim the end of Microsoft: “By 2018, there will be no more Microsoft.”
This is silly. First, the two are quite different. Ballmer isn’t arguing that the SeattlePI or any other “print” media company can’t still exist, he’s just making the point that the distribution pipeline will change. That’s like predicting the replacement of 8 Track tapes with cassette tapes or CDs, etc, etc, etc. Because 8 Track tapes disappeared didn’t mean the record businesses dried up.
Also, I think anyone at Microsoft would agree that the Microsoft 10 years from now will be different from the one today. You could say the old one dies away or you could just say it’s part of an evolutionary cycle. Change is going to happen. It’s a good thing. Are you really satisfied with the way computers are today? I’m not.
For instance, 10 years from now, what if there are super lightweight inexpensive devices that fold out easily which you can use to read books, magazines and newspapers on? Doesn’t take much to predict that if such devices exist that Microsoft would be developing software for them and/or helping to push ads out to these devices. The SeattlePI could just as easily adapt to be a content provider on these devices and maybe also manage its own ads or leverage a service from others, including Microsoft and/or Google or some other third party. Both companies would have a role in a landscape such as this.
So whereas I disagree with Ballmer that in 10 years or so print will be gone, I think his general argument is correct: That the print world is moving digital, in large part because it is a more efficient medium for most content.
That being said, I think Ballmer missed an opportunity here: He should have presented his idea in the affirmative rather than the negative. A positive statement is much more inspiring. For example, he could have said with similar vigor, “At Microsoft we envision a future, not too far from now, where all media will be offered in electronic form over an IP network.” See how much better this sounds than the same sentement phrased with “no”s and “not”s? Sure, no matter how you put it, some people will be threatened by the potential change. However, most will nod in agreement although they may quibble about the time. I doubt Bill Virgin would have penned his column this way if Ballmer been made is statement the other way. Notice, too, how a positive statement like this is similar to one Microsoft used for many years, namely that they strived to get a PC in every home. Yep, positive wins.