George Laszlo just posted about Microsoft’s recent announcement of the BioIT Alliance. His post includes the sort of positioning that makes no sense to me. At one level, Mr. Laszlo presents some quotes from the press release, and some reasonable commentary thereon. It could well be that Microsoft is “…simply playing catch-up here with IBM,” as Mr. Laszlo’s analysis says.Â
But Mr. Laszlo appears to have made little effort to understand what Microsoft is doing, and he throws innuendo around without citing any first-hand sources. “Hopefully they are serious about this and will not disappoint the alliance members. We shall see.” Has he talked to disappointed alliance members? He doen’t say. “…exactly what chance will other software or service providers have to break into this club?” Has he asked to join and been turned away? He doesn’t say.
So — firsthand, Mr. Laszlo — let me answer your questions. I am the CEO of a founding member of the BioIT Alliance, not in any way affiliated with Microsoft. I have worked directly with Don Rule, who has been leading the charge at Microsoft on this, and he has in no way “disappointed” this partner. He’s energetic and determined, and has been a pleasure to work with. For that matter, Bill Gates’ own views and commitment in this area date from long before this announcement — as anyone “following the discovery space for the past 5 years” should know.Â
Oh – and I “broke into this club” by asking to be invited. I articulated a vision of how our products and services can advance the (extremely worthy) goals of the organziation, including those articulated by Mr. Gates in the original BioIT Alliance announcement. Before breaking in, try the front door.
Mr. Laszlo also states that his “…personal concern is that the alliance will be swayed to use Microsoft products and thus become ‘closed minded’ when it comes to finding the best solution to a given problem.”  Is it so shocking that Microsoft would put its money, reputation, and partners on the line to demonstrate that its product groups and partner ecosystem might actually be able to contribute more to this field? Is it so concerning that Microsoft and its partners would put forward an initiative to serve an important and growing market with products that can be adapted for that market? And if those products are indeed, as Mr. Laszlo suggests, not currently “…the best, most elegant or cost effective” way to meet the needs of that market, is it so surprising that Microsoft and its partners would choose to improve those products through direct engagement in the market?Â
I find Microsoft’s growing commitment to serving this market most encouraging. Mr. Laszlo is right in implying that BioIT Alliance members will only succeed in this initiative if we bring forward solutions that are “…the best, most elegant, and cost effective.” Will we succeed? “We shall see.”
2 responses so far ↓
1 George Laszlo // Jun 13, 2006 at 5:10 pm
John, thanks for commenting on my post about the BioIT world alliance. I will make a point of following your blog going forward.
Now, to answer some of your concerns about my post. First, please note that my primary concern is the welfare of the client who buys hardware, software or services from any vendor. My experience tells me that while vendors always have good intentions, they are primarily concerned with selling whatever they have and that may or may not be in the best interest of the buyer.
Don’t get me wrong, the tools that the BioIT Alliance is building and selling may be great but that does not mean that either the Alliance or the individual vendors will stand behind them. If critical mass is not achieved, it is likely that the larger vendors will simply pull out. You know as well as I do that what a small company may think of as financially viable and even enviable, a larger company may consider an unsupportable rounding error. I can cite you many examples of this and would be happy to do so in a conversation with you. I am not, however, going to put it in a blog since it’s not my intention to hurt any given vendor.
Related to the latter point, my intention is to make the buyer aware of the pros and the cons of making a buy decision. I have seen them go down the wrong track countless times and see more failures than successes when it comes to application software. This is why it’s important that anyone evaluating any offering from the BioIT Alliance proceed with caution and ask themselves not only what benefits will be delivered by the solution but also what the short and long-term risks are to the organization. A Microsoft-centric focus, in my mind, is one of those risks.
So, my post is not about the quality of the relationship between Microsoft and its partners (a topic that you also discuss in other posts on your blog) but the potential effects of the BioIT Alliance on its customers.
P.S. – On my comment about disappointing the Alliance members, no amount of interviewing on my part would have been of use in this case. The Alliance is simply too new to see what the relationships will be like in two, four or six years. And that is the time horizon that is relevant for the members and their clients.
2 Powers Unfiltered » Blog Archive » More on the BioIT Alliance // Jun 15, 2006 at 5:07 am
[…] George Laszlo has responded to my comments about about his earlier post, regarding the Microsoft BioIT Alliance. It’s easier to just reproduce most of his response here: First, please note that my primary concern is the welfare of the client who buys hardware, software or services from any vendor. My experience tells me that while vendors always have good intentions, they are primarily concerned with selling whatever they have and that may or may not be in the best interest of the buyer. […]
Leave a Comment