How Microsoft’s Secrecy Policy is Hurting the SharePoint Community

You may have heard that there’s a ton of new software from Microsoft on the near horizon.  Windows 8, Office 2013, SharePoint 2013, and pretty much anything on which you can slap 2013 will come out in the very near future. (Update: Not so much near future anymore)

You may also have heard that I’m not particularly fond of how Microsoft talks to the market about these things. I’m fairly negative, not because I’m offended by not being part of ‘the inner circle’ but rather because Microsoft’s silence is hurting the community.

How? Well, I’ll tell you how.

The Current State of Affairs

Today’s policy means that only a select few customers and partners are let in on what Microsoft is planning. In addition, MVPs get access, probably as some form of reward for being good puppies.

Microsoft’s reasoning may be that they don’t want to show off incomplete products because the product may change before release and thus give people the wrong impression or that the product may contain errors that may negatively affect the reputation of said product.

On the flip side, you may say that Microsoft is opening up to some people rather than being completely silent, and that their purpose is actually to elicit feedback from a select group of users that they think represent the whole market.

I’m not sure if these are the real reasons, but I don’t buy any of them if they are the reasons.

In any case, the current situation is that those who gain access to early information need to sign strict non-disclosure agreements under punishment of death (or so it is meant to seem). Break the contract and you’re liable for all sorts of bad stuff, and Microsoft will never come out to play with you again, even if you say you’re sorry.

So why is this so bad for the SharePoint community?

I Don’t Know What to Say!

During the course of a product cycle of three years, there’s at least one year of complete uncertainty, right after the first official news comes out about a new version. The uncertainty stems from several factors, depending on where you are in the food chain.

People in the community base their professional existence on knowing SharePoint, and almost like clockwork, Microsoft hints ever so slightly that the current version isn’t as good as what comes next.

Consider the following scenario: A client comes to you and asks for advice on what to do with SharePoint. Should they build their new ACME system on SharePoint now? As an advisor, you know that there is a major new version of SharePoint coming within a few months, but you have no idea what that version includes. Perhaps it contains 90% of ACME built-in. If you tell your client to start work now, they may be wasting a lot of resources building something they get for free in a few months.

But you don’t know, so what do you say? Do you take the clients money now and risk their investment in a few months or do you recommend they wait at the risk of not landing their business?

“Ah, but hang on”, you say, “nobody wants to upgrade right away in any case, so why rush? After all, a year after the next version comes out, it will be stable and tested.”

Well, that’s great, but a year after SharePoint 2013 comes out, it’s already 2014 (or close to) and Microsoft is already planning the next version! Another one year, and the news about SharePoint 2016 starts leaking and your clients are again left with the difficult choice.

This is a constant problem, however, and not just with SharePoint. After all, Office has the same situation, as does Exchange, Windows, or any other software.

However, the situation is a bit different with SharePoint. Organizations put a lot of valuable resources into SharePoint, in building solutions, training employees, and storing business critical data. Also, because SharePoint’s changes and improvements are often so drastic (just look at the user interface changes from 2007 to 2010, or the ‘new’ way of doing social in organizations) that swapping one version for another isn’t as easy as upgrading from one version of Office to another, or replacing an older version of Exchange with a new one.

There’s also the problem with those learning SharePoint development now. Should they learn .NET 2.0 because that will be used in SharePoint 2013 too? Well, Microsoft isn’t saying what version of .NET will be used so it’s anyone’s guess (or you can listen to me and go for .NET 4.0, but sshhh, don’t tell the Redmond folks I told you so).

Business is Business

Sure, I’ve addressed one problematic scenario, but that can’t be the whole problem, right? What about vendors? Well, for vendors, the situation is even more problematic.

Imagine this situation: your company makes an ACME feature for SharePoint, on which you base most of your income. Many third-party vendors are in this situation, betting that Microsoft will stay away from the product market and stick to building platforms.

Now consider this: Microsoft promises to come out with a new version of ‘something’, but not revealing what that ‘something’ is, you don’t know whether you’ll be in business in a year.

I just spoke to one SharePoint eLearning software provider, a partner of Microsoft no less, who very recently (and I mean _very_ recently) was assured by Microsoft’s head of education that Microsoft would never engage in building an education product on SharePoint, or so the provider thought.

Well, now we know different. Microsoft is building an education product on top of SharePoint Server, and it’s called “Office for Education”. They even published the specifications before the vendor was promised Microsoft would never do such a thing!

So now this vendor is in deep waters. They just got one of their closest partners as their main competitor, a huge mammoth of a company that can throw billions of dollars into marketing to grab that vendors market.

At least now, thanks to someone (who has two thumbs and doesn’t give a rats ass about Microsoft’s secrecy policy), they have a year to prepare, rather than a few months or even shorter had they waited until the privacy crap stopped.

Even this, however, isn’t news to anyone in software. Competitors come and go all the time, right?

Well, it is a major thing when Microsoft suddenly becomes a competitor, especially when they swear not to do so or try to hide the fact. Besides, Microsoft does invite some partners to know what’s going on, giving these partners advance notice compared to those outside the ‘inner circle’. At the very best, it is extremely unfair to those who are not invited but still have helped Microsoft build SharePoint to what it is today.

Competition isn’t the only problem either. Vendors are cautious about launching new products to SharePoint 2010 because they don’t know whether those products will work the same way in SharePoint 2013. Even a simple thing as the .NET 2.0/4.0 problem directly affects development decisions, and right now, vendors can’t make that decision because Microsoft refuses to let anyone know what framework they’re using in a few months.

Well, the Problem Is…

Microsoft says that they let some people have access in order to find bugs so Microsoft can fix them before release. That’s fine, but why does it make sense to only have a few people find bugs? Microsoft’s v1.0 software, whether that is the first release of a new version or an entirely new feature, is rarely bug free.

In fact, many will say that, as I mentioned earlier, upgrading to a new SharePoint version right after release is a huge risk because there may be bugs and problems that haven’t been fixed yet. These bugs are discovered only after Microsoft exposes the software to a large user base. Only after a huge number of users have worked with the new version for a few months can you get fixes and start relying on the platform as stable and more or less error free.

See where I’m getting with this? If those users had access months before ‘official’ release, those bugs would have been found earlier and the product would be much more stable when released to the public. The people who would work with the product at such a stage of completion would be the most tech-savvy of the user base, knowing full well the risks of running beta (or even alpha) software.

Microsoft actually does this to some extent already, by having a public beta be available this summer. That’s a good thing, and kudos to them for at least doing that, but at the moment they are losing out on valuable input from technology interested people who would jump at the chance to dig into the product this early and provide help in finding bugs and problems.

In fact, when the public beta hits the shelves, only minor changes will happen to the finished before the final product becomes available. What about all the wonderful feedback and suggestions that could have come from early adopters when it was still time to make important changes?

Instead, Microsoft releases a product they know will have bugs, leading people to correctly chant that you should delay adoption for a year so Microsoft can sort out all the bugs they didn’t allow anyone to discover earlier. The SharePoint name suffers, costs to early adopters  go up, and everyone but the demo-trained sales people are miserable for several months after release.

In the End

I’m not going to drag this on forever, so let me just conclude with the following. Microsoft hurts the community by making its participants uncertain about the future and alienates its partners by consistently refusing to disclose new features that directly affect them. They also hurt the community by delivering a product that everyone knows will have bugs on release, bugs that could have been discovered with a broader access to information and bits at an earlier stage.

If you disagree, I’m all ears, because I’m still looking for well-founded (and that doesn’t mean marketing-based) arguments for why Microsoft continues to deny the community vital information that directly affects their future, can help vendors prepare, and could have made SharePoint a much better product.


Found this article valuable? Want to show your appreciation? Here are some options:

a) Click on the banners anywhere on the site to visit my blog's sponsors. They are all hand-picked and are selected based on providing great products and services to the SharePoint community.

b) Donate Bitcoins! I love Bitcoins, and you can donate if you'd like by clicking the button below.

c) Spread the word! Below, you should find links to sharing this article on your favorite social media sites. I'm an attention junkie, so sharing is caring in my book!

Pin It

Published by

Bjørn Furuknap

I previously did SharePoint. These days, I try new things to see where I can find the passion. If you have great ideas, cool projects, or is in general an awesome person, get in touch and we might find out together.

15 thoughts on “How Microsoft’s Secrecy Policy is Hurting the SharePoint Community”

  1. You raise some very good points, which cause me to ask some very simple questions. Do they not want us (users) to know what’s coming and when, or do they not want their competitors to know? Or, perhaps they don’t know.

    Are they trying to control expectations, or are they trying not to let us have expectations? Remember the 15,000 things Vista was going to do? When they finally realized it was never going to do half of them, they released a late and crippled version.

    Now, let’s do some simple, unscientific and incomplete analysis, you know the stuff mainstream media does. For every feature they tell us about, there are (n) possible reactions:

    1) Somebody decides they need it and won’t build a solution until it’s actually available.

    2) Somebody decides that the new feature will make the solution they are working on today obsolete and stops their deployment.

    3) A competitor builds that feature into their (more agile) system ahead of Microsoft and actually improves upon Microsoft’s idea.

    4) People start blogging about how you can implement that feature today, with 15 lines of JavaScript, some CSS and two coat-hangers.

    5) Developers of some add-on products start developing their next version so it will mesh well with the new feature.

    6) Developers of other add-on products start planning for their next version to mesh well with the new feature, but are scared by previous last minute changes from Microsoft and decide to stop at the planning stage.

    7) Some people read the tea leaves on the new announcement and decide that SharePoint is evolving in a way that makes it less valuable to their company (even if they don’t understand the new feature)

    I could go on, but 6 out of the 7 listed are bad for Microsoft. I don’t know whether they are evil, prudent or dumb – I guess I’ll hope they are prudent.

    1. Dan,

      I’m not sure how the secrecy will prevent much of the bad effects for Microsoft. Those that must know will find out because people will leak just like it’s happening now. Further, with the amount of information Microsoft has already pushed out, it’s not a matter of the tech-savvy people not knowing or having the ability to know.

      I’m not saying Microsoft should disclose what they’re putting in SharePoint 2016 now (although to some extent they already are, considering the amount of ‘not implemented yet’ content in the protocol docs), but I don’t see the point of a segregated release of information when we’re this close to a new version.

      It has to do with predictability – to let the market, your customers, your supporters, and your partners know what to expect.



  2. As a SharePoint ISV, I’ve been playing this game since 2003. It is not fun, but I have very slowly learned that all I can do is accept it and go on.

    I have also reset my expectations that there will be little or no communication from Microsoft to us about their plans. This way, when there is some I am pleasantly surprised.

    I think this is just one of those things that probably will never change. But, I certainly agree that it would be very helpful if it would.

    Jeff Cate
    Founder and CEO
    Sharepoint Solutions

    1. Jeff, thanks for chiming in,

      I’m not sure I agree that accepting the status quo is a viable solution, though. As a vendor, it is important to voice such concerns. Although much can be said about a single voice and its value, no choir can begin unless there is at least one voice.


  3. I agree with you about a lot of your points you have made.Microsoft need to be a little bit more relaxed with the community that it is trying to grow more and be a bit more forthcoming with this information with a big red disclaimer saying subject to change.

    The only thing I can say in Microsoft’s defence and this may only be a small point perhaps, but you would not be able to do all your research and tell us about all the wonderful features 2013 is going to bring for all of us to use if Microsoft did not publish the open specification documentation in the first place and they did not need to do that. Right?

    The other point is your sites popularity has shot up since you have been openly telling everyone what will be in 2013 even if Microsoft want to hold their tongue at the moment. Not a bad thing and you even go mentioned by Mary-Jo Foley, who by the way I never heard of until I read your blog 😉

    So where there’s is a will there’s is a way to help your community and you are doing a fine job 🙂

    1. Hi Steven,

      Thanks for your kind words. The attention the SP2013 series has generated only testifies to the importance of this information to people. Microsoft should realize this and be much more clear in their communication.

      For myself, I’m not really interested in that added attention, although I’ll happily admit I’m happy that I get it. As I’ve written numerous times, I’m reading and learning this in any case, and having a chance to share it with the community is an added bonus that increases the value of what I learn.


  4. I needed a phone real bad…last second thing….so I purchased an iPhone 3g. Less than two months later a new model was released.

    My mp3 player busted, so I needed a replacement …real bad…so I puchased an ipod only to discover less than three months out a new smaller (way sexier) model was released.

    Rinse and repeat

    I do not see Microsoft acting any differently than other companies so I’m not going to bite on your bait. 🙂

    I’m more interested in seeing how you think they should handle this differently. In theory, new product release management is not just a Microsoft thing.

  5. Hey Bjørn,

    thanks for reposting this to twitter, as I missed it the previous time around.

    This is something that we’ve frequently raised with our Microsoft Relationship Manager, with mixed results. We used to rely on the Directions “magazine” which came out quarterly(?) and gave some general guidance on when new versions were expected and what the investment areas were, usually without specifics, but you got the general idea.
    Then the info about the investment areas started to dry up and Directions wasn’t much more than a calendar for new versions, which were fairly predictable anyway.
    Which isn’t too big a deal, as you had plenty of time between releases (usually 3-4 years), in which to impliment them. (I’m speaking from a corporate end-user/dev situation)

    Now Microsoft have upped their release schedule and we’re getting basically annual releases of many products, including SharePoint. (So a year after you posted this article, we’re already being teased about SP2014…)

    So now change is happening more rapidly and we feel we’re getting even less info about it. (Especially what will be in O365 vs SP201x on-premises)

    What compounds the issue is now we also have Win8 and Server2012, SQL2012 and Visual Studio all on annual’ish release schedules (at least SQL is R2), which just adds to the headache.

    I suspect you’ll see corporates adopt a skipping-versions policy, until both 3rd party vendors/devs and their internal Ops/Dev get a solid grip on the upgrade process and SP upgrades become seamless… (it’s got to be possible right?)

    E.g. if you’re currently on SP2013, skip SP2014 and then as the info comes out about SP2015, start your migration/upgrade planning, then time your migration/upgrade for SP2015 CU1. That way, you’ll know all the stuff from SP2014 already and info on SP2015 will be fairly complete, plus by the time you’re ready to move, SP2015 will have had it’s first round of fixes. Rinse and repeat (skip SP2016…)

    I can understand MS trying to keep their cards close so that competitors don’t beat them to it, but aside from 3rd party vendors filling gaps in MS products, I haven’t seen a huge amount of “firsts” from MS anyway (at least not in the SharePoint space).

    But perhaps this can now change… It would be nice to have the chance to upgrade to a version of SharePoint that’s leading edge, out-of-the-box, rather than a follower that needs 3rd party add-ins or significant dev to catch-up.

    Just my 2c.

    FYI I’ve been using SharePoint since SPTS v1.0, though only in ernist since the SP2007 beta days and normally I’m loving it, but like all products, there are pet peeves…


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.