I wasn't going to write this initially, but with a number of my cohorts already expressing their displeasure publicly about the lack of information regarding Windows it seemed like a good time to jump on the bandwagon with my thoughts regarding the deafening silence coming from Redmond.
Some background first, Microsoft has taken a new approach to disclosing early information about Windows. One of not sharing anything at all as far as I can tell. Sure while it may be early to discuss some things Windows 7 there are other things that clearly should have already begun to surface.
Internet Explorer V.Next should have had a lot more details at MIX and Windows Vista Service Pack 1 should have been all over TechEd this year, but neither were. These are key opportunities to deliver early information to the exact audiences you are wanting to hit with products that are expected in the next year and you only get this opportunity once a year. So not matter how vague you HAVE to, absolutely have to, share what little information you do have. We have only had minor mentions of anything related to SP1 or the next Gen of Internet Explorer. Microsoft really missed the boat on both of these shows and now many of these people won't learn about any of this information for another YEAR. Leaving many attendees feeling burned by the lack of information they expected to learn about.
You may say that, well now we have blogs and the Internet, but the reality is the IE blog is shell of its former self and real world experience that are provided by events like TechEd are no substitute for some "readme" that no one does. This in my mind has already had a detrimental affect on the future adoption of Windows.
All of this silence seems to be because Microsoft is afraid of repeating incidents like "WinFS". This fear of getting "burned" is the same fear that will end up dragging down the entire Windows ecosystem, slowing adoption, development, and making the justification of alternatives that much easier.
The Windows ecosystem is a delicate balance of pieces consisting of Microsoft, Hardware Vendors, Developers, Businesses, Enthusiast, Press, and Consumers. Most of the these key pieces thrive on early information. This information has to be clear, correct, and EARLY. In fact the earlier the better in this case. The biggest reason for Windows success over those of competing efforts such as apple (as you can hear Steve Jobs say in his interview at D5) has been its ability to partner and bring the results of these partnerships to market. If you take away this critical access to information these delicate partnerships begin to crumble around you potentially killing Windows all together over time.
Microsoft it is time for some serious internal reflection on this policy. So, while you do that I offer my philosophy on information disclosure.
Under Promise and Over Deliver, it's a simple philosophy and one I have tried to live by when delivering any kind of information in my professional career. It simply means only state what you know you are capable of delivering, or in Microsoft product vernacular your "Must" have features to ship. My personal stance on this is if I am 90% or better sure that I can deliver on something then I will include info on it. If it is less than that, say 70-80% chance then I up front state very plainly that we are trying to do this, but it might not make it. That way if I don't deliver on something I have at least warned whoever it was that was expecting it. If it is less than that then I just don't bother mentioning it at all. Feel free to adopt this and don't forget to send a royalty check in the mail.