So Microsoft’s Silverlight strategy…has shifted.

At Microsoft’s Professional Developers Conference (PDC) this week, the future of Silverlight is one topic that has gotten short shrift. There have been no sessions about Silverlight 5 and only one mention of Silverlight in the kick-off keynote.

…

“Silverlight is our development platform for Windows Phone,” [Bob Muglia, President of Server and Tools] said. Silverlight also has some “sweet spots” in media and line-of-business applications, he said.

But when it comes to touting Silverlight as Microsoft’s vehicle for delivering a cross-platform runtime, “our strategy has shifted,” Muglia told me.

I am not arguing against HTML 5.  For public web development that’s where you should be focused. 

But for companies, schools and anyone else with an environment they can control Silverlight is the better choice.  It’s faster to develop solutions, has a wider range of capabilities and is more consistent across platforms.  Plus it allows developers to have one consistent environment across desktop, web and mobile.

Developers, especially enterprise developers, don’t want a different environment for mobile and desktop development.  They want the same development environment for all their work.  Silverlight gave us that.

More to the point Silverlight, in it’s current form, has only been around for 2 years.  2 years isn’t a lot of time in the world of developer adoption no matter how fast Microsoft iterates (for comparison Adobe Flex 2 was released 4 years ago).

This again proves developers can’t trust Microsoft.  They’ll push technology hard enough to release 3 versions in two years and then abandon it when it doesn’t take off immediately.  Even when it seems to be making corporate inroads (I know a lot of people talking about Silverlight as a replacement for WPF and native projects).

Which is the real issue.  Microsoft’s attention span has become too short and their desperation for the startup market has become too great.  So they spend their days chasing a market that won’t give them the time of day while alienating the customers who would actually buy their solutions. 

Interesting numbers out of Techmeme regarding their early adopter audience and which browser that audience chooses to use. 

As you can see Chrome has clearly overtaken Firefox.  This got me thinking…

In my job I interact with a lot of people who aren’t computer savvy.  When those people have a problem with their home computer I’ll usually try to help them either by giving advice or by asking them to bring it in so I can take a quick look. 

One thing I’ve noticed when doing this is many of those people are using Firefox.  Not because they like it but because some well meaning friend or relative told them it was better and installed it for them while helping with some other problem.

In my experience there are tons of enthusiast-installers out there putting the latest and greatest browser on the PCs of the uninitiated. 

But that’s where the chart comes in.  Those “installers” won’t rush to Grandma’s house to change her browser once they’ve personally discovered a better one.  Generally they’ll wait until Grandma needs help with something else and upgrade the browser then.  So you get a certain period of time where the enthusiasts have moved on but the people they installed browsers for are still on the old favorite. 

Which could explain why Firefox has a larger showing in overall market surveys. 

If that’s true it means Firefox is in much bigger trouble than anyone thinks.  In the same way IE6 pumped up Microsoft’s market share there could be a huge audience of auto-updating Firefox users that have no real affection for the browser itself.  Users that will soon disappear with the next upgrade cycle. 

In a post entitled “The Dream Is Over: Music Labels Have Killed Their Digital Future” former music-startup founder Wayne Rosso makes the case that the music industry is incompatible with startups. 

The hope of pioneering the music industry’s most profound transformation, that inspired entrepreneurs over 10 years ago, has finally been snuffed out by the very people who would have profited the most—the music industry.

The table is now set. There will be no new players of significance to enter the business. Investors don’t want to entertain the remotest possibility of funding any start-up that deals with music, no matter how clever and innovative. As one major media venture firm told me a few months ago, they’re tired of writing cheques for big advances to record labels. Not to mention the huge legal fees that start-ups have to spend in order to get licensed, a process that takes at least a year (for no apparent reason, I might add).

A wise man once told me the trick to career success is realizing that all business is sales. 

Whether you’re a startup pitching to VCs or an Information Manager pitching to the CFO of your company that truism remains constant.  Because that’s how the world is structured. 

If someone has a good thing they’ll instinctively want more of it.  At the same time some people have resources (money, song rights, etc…) at their disposal and resources are a good thing.  So every person with resources wants to increase the size of those resources. 

Which in turn means there will always be opportunities in music based technology if the founder can sell their idea to the record execs. 

But that’s the key.  You have to convince them you’ll actually increase their resources.  Most music startups come in to the industry with an attitude that lessens the value of the music industry’s resources (Music should be free for example).  That usually ends the discussion before it’s begun.  Because no one is going to trust someone to increase the value of their resources if that person doesn’t seem to understand its current value.

That’s why Apple succeeded.  Because Apple came in and took the resources that were being traded for free (songs) and attached a price to it. Apple restored value to the resource and that’s why the music industry bows to Steve Jobs today. 

Which brings me back to my core point.  Business is sales and sales is about giving your customer what they want.  For Recording Executives that means proving you can make money off their music.  Do that convincingly and your VC won’t have to write a big check up front. 

Addressing the Counter Argument: The counter argument to my above point usually involves something like “the record execs are unreasonable and would never waive their fees.”  I’ll tell you right now that isn’t true.  I spent the better part of 2009 going to parties with these people and I never met an executive from a media company who didn’t want to deal with startups.  If they think you’ll make them money they’ll make the deal.  Just don’t expect it to be easy because these are people who are used to intense negotiations with talent. 

Look at Pandora.  They almost died making the deal but it did get made.