Microsoft Buys LinkedIn...Another shot in the foot

If you've spent any time looking for greener professional pastures in the past few years your path has undoubtedly crossed with LinkedIn.

Touted as "The Facebook for business" the social networking site promised the same kind of experience in the professional world.  Career consultants and HR types lauded it as an invaluable resource for connecting with the hiring movers and shakers in industry.  It was supposed to be the missing link between casting your resume into the void of Monster.com and a lunch date with your potential boss.

Which it was.  That is, so long as you actually knew someone.  

Just like any other social network its usefulness is limited by the people you actually know.  The sad reality is you're more likely to run into people you never want to see again than anyone that could give you a leg up.

Worse, over the years LinkedIn has become infected with the same resume-stacking, quota chasing,  recruiter types on the job boards that send you emails like this...

"Hi Everyone,
We have Informatica Architect available @ Charlotte, NC area. He is looking opportunities only @ NC, TX and GA areas. If anyone is having requirements in that areas. Kindly share me the job details along with the client information. We are marketing around $75-80/hr c2c.
Thanks for your time…

Thanks,

Spammy D Recruiter
Ph: 555- 555- 0412 
Email: spammy@spammyrecruiter.com"

Yeah, UMMM, I'm actually looking for work not hiring and that other thing....I live in Arizona....

So what does this have to do with Microsoft?  Are they looking to take on ZipRecruiter?

Unlikely....

It's just the latest reach into the dream of ubiquity dearly held by Microsoft CEO's.  They already have a hand in Facebook, Android and gaming.  They've owned the office for years and this latest purchase is proof of their intention to keep it.

The most likely outcome from the $26.2 billion dollar deal is to absorb the analytics capabilities of the LinkedIn platform and place yet another useless live-tile flashing in the Windows 10 start menu.

So how has all this buying paid off for Microsoft?

A look at their buying habits reveals that they're better at acquiring stocks than companies.

Let's compare and contrast....

Microsoft makes $34 billion off Android Patents, writes off $9 Billion for the Nokia Acquisition.

Microsoft invests $150 million in Apple  ultimately saving the company and enjoying a tidy profit when the stock splits and they sell it a few years later.  Oh yeah, and they have a guaranteed space on a competitors platform for Office.

Microsoft buys Skype for $8.5 Billion and turns an innovative, lightweight VOIP solution into a bloated mess with a paywall making it among the most hated services in its portfolio.  

Next, they kill off the beloved Windows Messenger after buying Yammer for $1.2 billion.  Once positioned as Messenger's hipster "Facebook-esque"replacement it was never heard from again outside of an Office 365 subscription. 

It seems Microsoft's acquisition strategy is to buy up companies that are just past their heyday, gut them then take a write-down later.  Kind of like when IBM purchased ROLM and  Lotus.

LinkedIn is no different.  It's only useful to those HR types that have to meet a contact quota every week and enjoy self-congratulating articles about what a good job the industry has done commoditizing job seekers like so much cattle at an auction.

Mark my words, this isn't a good thing for Microsoft.  At least no more than Nokia was going to win them market share in the mobile space or Skype was going to supplant Cisco's VOIP offerings.

But all is not lost!  Take heart friends because every time Microsoft screws up another tech company the resulting void proves to be a boon for the open source community.

Which is almost as bad but at least you're free of Microsoft's incessant sales campaigns and licensing boondoggles. 

I got off LinkedIn a couple of months ago precisely because the service did nothing for me but fill my inbox with spam.  It's a service in decline which made it a ripe target for Microsoft. 

Meaning a change in ownership, especially when its Microsoft, won't make it any more attractive.

I'm just not interested in turning my next job search into another Microsoft marketing opportunity...

Is technology really getting more affordable? That depends on who's saying it...

Article originally published on Technorati as "Is Technology Really Getting more Affordable?"

This is a time of year when everyone has a list.  Best of, Worst of, Predictions for and the like.  Seems we have a preoccupation with looking where we've been while trying to guess where we're going.  At the beginning of 2011 most technically inclined folks were preoccupied with the next Iphone and Net Neutrality.  Now we're debating SOPA/PIPA and whether 2012 will finally bring an Android tablet to rival the IPAD. 

Oh yeah, and maybe we'll get a new version of Windows that will realize Microsoft's hopes to rival Apple's omnipresence on a myriad of devices...

That's all fine and good but one thing that hasn't changed is the push to make our data portable via "The Cloud"  and the costs associated to get it there.  With maturity and broader acceptance (read that volume) we usually enjoy better service at reduce costs.  That doesn't seem to be the case, however.

I'm a frequent viewer of Leo Laporte's Twit.TV video podcasts.  In fact I watch them more frequently than regular television.  I'm sure I'm not alone in my viewing habits.  It's an excellent source for tracking technology trends and news where you prefer a more relaxed but still professional presentation.

Still, as I watch I sometimes feel a sense of incredulity at what the hosts consider an acceptable price  when discussing products and services.  For example, Ford is a sponsor of a number of Twit.Tv podcasts with Twit produced commercial spots interwoven in their shows.  On one the 2012 Ford Focus is featured.  Economy, styling, and of course technology are featured in the spots with Ford's Sync technology being the centerpiece.  Sync can apparently integrate with the features and services on your Smartphone and make them available via voice control without distracting you from driving.

I have no issue with Ford or Twit's celebration of a technology.  What I take some issue with is what is considered affordable.  In one commercial Leo claims the Focus with Sync is affordable.  I went on Ford's website and built a similar vehicle with features equivalent to the example in the commercial.  When I was done I was looking at a $24,000 subcompact with a 4 cylinder engine. 

I personally don't find $24,000 for an entry level car line to be affordable regardless of whether it integrates with Pandora .  If you want the all electric version be prepared to shell out #39,500 for a base model.  That's not affordable either.

I'm not picking on Twit, however.  They're just  part of a larger community with a passion for new technology to the exclusion of all else.  It seems that technology companies are trying to redefine what affordable is whether or not it has any basis in reality.  Can the latest Smartphone make you more productive?  Perhaps, but is it worth the $200 price and 2 year commitment at a ridiculous monthly rate? 

Is it worth $300 for an operating system for your computer whose only purpose is to provide an environment for even more expensive software suites?   Probably not but we've been conditioned to accept the ridiculous as necessary.  Our personal fortunes may be waning but Apple, AT&T and Microsoft are doing just fine thank you.

I'm not against technology or progress but I'm stalwartly opposed to their marketing being promoted as the basis for my personal economy.  Market forces can dictate what a fair price is but they seem to be getting ignored with the latest technology trends.  Just as a box of fruit loops at $50 with a one year contract isn't justifiable or even sane;  Costs of $120 or more for  monthly cell phone bills aren't either for what you get. 

Technology features prominently in our future and promises to change the very concepts of work and play.  I applaud the liberation it's already brought to those who couldn't flourish without it.  But the price we pay needs to be dictated by those who use it, not someone's marketing department. 

I'd just like to see tech journalism push for real affordability instead of the perception of it.