From: Joachim Kempin
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 10:21 AM
To: Sanjay Parthasarathy
Cc: Steve Bush; Bill Veghte; Sherri Kennamer, Kurt Kolb; Erica Anderson;
April Olson
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
i HAVE A STAFF MEETING ON WENDSDAY AND IT MIGHT BE GOO0 TO BE THERE
TOGETHER WITH BILL.V PICK YOUR TIME 9:00-12:00
--Original Message-----
From: Sanjay Parthasarathy
Sent: Monday, Fe0ruary 16, 1998 10:19 AM
To: Joachim Kernpin
Cc: Steve Bush; Bill Veghte; Shem Kennamer, Kurt Kolb; Edca A~derson
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
I’d like to do this today if possible. Kurt is trying to get a meeting
pulled together for this.
- Original Message -
From: Joachim Kempin
Sent: Monday, February 16, 1998 9:25 AM
To: Steve Ballmer
Cc: Sanjay Parthasarathy; Bill Gates; Steve Bush
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
I agree and it is going late, again the issue is not talking early
enough. Sanjay when can you meet?
- Original Message -
From: Steve Ballmer
Sent" Monday, Febuary 16, 1998 8:46 AM
To: Joachim Kempin
Cc: Sanjay Parthasarathy, Bill Gates; Steve Bush
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
Please meet and resolve this week with sanjayp if there are differences
in view please air for bill and me. I am on vacation so bill may need to
weigh in I do not understand why the ms choice is so much worse than the
vendor choice for the oem or why involving the vendor is Os hard for MS
this is a big customer sat issue for the oem and a big strategic
imperative for MS so we may need to put in more energy than planned
----Original Message--- .
From: Joachim Kempm
Sent: Wednesday, FebnJary 11, 1998 7:21 AM .
To: Bill Gates; Steve Bush; Brad Chase; Laura Jen.nings: Sanjay
Parthasarathy; Bill Veghte; John Ludwig
Cc: Steve Ballmer; Pete Higgins; Edward Jung; Eric Rudder;, Sherri
Kennamer; Angus Cunningham; Autumn Neault (Womack); Rodney Viera
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
I do not believe the mail below reflects the facts. So I do not
understand why a prevents b. We can easily, spec this out so that the
outside vendor does promote our services. Nothing prevents us from doing
so. The reason why we doing this is very simple:
Increase registration, make it easier for customers to register with us
and the OEM in one process and not look heavy handed.
I need to understand why we need to own the transportation process -
sounds like heavy lifting without reasons, but I am flexible. I will be
back next week - let’s talk then.
From: Bill Gates
Sent: Wednesday, February 11 ,. 1998 1:22 AM
To: Steve Bush; Brad Chase; Laura Jennings; Sanjay Parthasarathy;
Joachim Kempin; Bill Veghte; John
Ludwig
Cc: Steve Ballmer, Pete Higgins; Edward Jung; Edc Rudder;, Sherri
Kennamer, Angus Cunningham;
Autumn Neauit (Womack); Rodney Vieira
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
I agree with this.
Joachim - can we hold the line on this - its important,
From: Steve Bush
Sent: Monday. February 09.1998 9:20 PM
To: Brad Chase: Laura Jennings; Sanjay Parthasarathy; Joachim Kempin;
Bill Veghte: John Ludwig: Bill Gates
Cc: Steve Balmer, Pate Higgins; Edward Jung; Eric Rudder, Sherri
Kennamer, Angus Cunmngham: Autumn Neault (Womack): Rodney Vieira
Subject: RE: Memphis Product Registration
Importance: High
Issue:
OEM’s want to replace the Memphis product registration process with a
third party (Inte!liQuest) Windows product registration process.
Problem:
Replacing the Windows product registration mechanism lets OEM’s own the
process and prevents Microsoft from building into the registration
process future valued added Windows Services. In sum. it lets OEM’s
interject themselves into the first boot customer experience and offer
customers valued added serwces before a Microsoft proposition of similar
services.
Recommendion:
OEM’s be allowed to define the client UI portion of product
registration. However. they must submit the product registration
information to a Microsoft product registration server using the
Microsoft registration transport. It’s strategically very important that
Microsoft owns the transport so that it can build upon this clientserver
interaction.
Call to Action:
I only have a very limited amount of bandwidth to dedicate to advocating
and designing a Microsoft registration process that is OEM compatible.
From a strategic standpoint, it’s critical that we own the registration
process as it’s our future vehicle for signing users, up for Windows
Services. I see no technical issues to Microsoft hosting the product
registration servers. It’s merely a matter of trading off OEM concerns
against the strategic value of owning product registration.
Part of the problem is that the overall business ownership of product,
registration is unclear. Several groups have a vested interest in this
process working flawlessly: customer database marketing, OEM, support,
product groups, etc. Who trades off OEM concerns against the strategic
important of owning the Windows product registration process.
Background:
The product registration process in Memphis is strategically very
important. It is the customer’s first impression of Microsoft and a
strategic client-server interaction that will be the platform upon which
we build for future Windows Services (Hotmail, Windows Passport,
Licensing, etc)
Unfortunately, OEM’s are unhappy with our current implementation and
want a third party IntelliQuest (IQ) to perform their product
registration (IQ will replicate product registrations to us). While I
agree that OEM's should be able to influence the product registratio
nUI, I'm strongly against the OEM's posting product registrations to
IntelliQuest instead of a Microsoft product registration server. This
would allow the OEM's to offer competing Windows services and use
product registration to sign users up for these services. The problem is
that if OEM's own the registration process we would be unable to build
value added services into the registration process (ID issuing, Windws
PAssport, Hotmail accounts, licensing, etc)
I've been a big advocate of OEM's defining the client UI and using the
Microsoft backend registration servers to accept registrations. This
approach allows Microsoft to build value added services into the process
since we're accepting the product registrations. The Microsoft.com team
who runs these servers would instantaneously replicate the OEM product
registrations to the IQ registration servers. The risk of this approach
is that Microsoft.com is a mission critical portion of the OEM
registration process and must deliver product registrations with no down
time. SanjayP and the Microsoft.com team have committed to this service
level. This decision is very unpopular with the OEM's as it makes them
dependent upon Microsoft for their registration process.
Thx.
Steve
http://edge-op.org/iowa/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/2000/PX02848.pdf
-------
analysis: lock the OEMs out of the boot sequence and any future online
services market, through the use of the registration process.
--
court documents in the case of Comes v. Microsoft.
|