The Guardian writer, Johnson, seems to take particular delight in pointing out the *extraordinary* fact that Microsoft employees don't use MS products exclusively, in particularly search: (according to VisitorVille MS employees use Google 68% of the time), shock, horror...:
"Actually, I'm not sure how far off the mark these are compared to normal user figures - and they don't necessarily take into account any company-based restrictions on software choices. But still, a bit of egg on the face for Microsoft particularly."
I have pointed out to Johnson that there is no 'scoop' here. MS employees openly *admit* to using Google and other non-MS products: (see Scoble, 'Sticking it to the man Firefox style'). Hardly 'egg on the face'.
Johnson's colleague at the Guardian, Jack Schofield, piles in too:
"Whether it is good PR or not is incidental to the problem, and in this case, Bobbie, I think you are dead wrong.
It is *much* better for Microsoft -- and for us -- if its employees use the better product and are not forced or cowed into using something just because it's their product.
Microsoft has always praised Google's search, andd it doesn't claim MSN Search is better. In fact, the Microsoft line is that it is doing its best to improve MSN Search to make it as good as Google, or better.
If its own staff don't think it's better, and use it out of choice, then it is not going to get outsiders to use it, is it!"
Schofield goes on...
"...Far from being egg on Microsoft's face, I think this shows the company in a good light.
Do you honestly think it would be better if it was run as some sort of cult where "Not invented here" is considered the ultimate sin?"
It will be interesting to see how VisitorVille's data looks in 6-12 months time...