Attending both of these conferences within a week of each other, this is a study in contrasts. PC Forum caters largely to the technology establishment (if there is such a thing), VP level and above, with a sprinkling of entrepreneurs like myself. Its value is in providing a venue in which people, many of whom have known each other for many years, can congregate and talk about the larger trends and technologies affecting the business, with, I’d say, a focus on their disruptive potential.
Mix ’06, on the other hand, — at least the sessions I attended — turned out to be much more about specific product plans (of Microsoft, naturally) and specific case studies, with far less emphasis on the larger picture. While PC Forum featured talks like one about which features of the Indian healthcare systems are vastly superior to the American one due to, among other things, smarter use of information technology, Mix ’06 would have talks on "the cool things I built with Windows Media Center". In a way, it focuses on product evolution instead of industry disruption.
I had the fortune to be on panels, on related subjects, in both conferences. By coincidence (or maybe not) Kim Cameron, Microsoft’s identity architect, was on both as well. Today’s panel of Mix ’06 was one of the better panels I’ve ever been on: all participants — Kim from Microsoft (moderator), Hilary Ward from Citigroup, Paul Trevithick from Socialphysics/Parity/Berkman, Stefan Brands from Credentica and myself — were quite well prepared and articulated their points quite well. There’s a value in preparation; a conference call and lunch beforehand in this case, and that helped us all being concise and to the point.
But the big question in all of these discussions on identity is always the same: there are so many initiatives and technologies and business circumstances: how are all of these ever going to come together? Pretty much everybody, ourselves at NetMesh very much included, believes that digital identity technologies themselves are just an enabler — of more security, of more privacy, of more convenience, of reduced business risk, of new categories of software previously impossible, all the way to entirely new markets.
But this will only become possible if we all in identity land get our cool stuff together and make it interoperable, otherwise none of the hoped-for outcomes will occur. Very few people disagree with that conclusion either (I should say that some still do disagree, albeit fewer all the time, taking an approach of "we have the one and only superior technology", left as an exercise for the reader who belongs to this category…). Microsoft is exhibit A in this case: in spite of uncounted billions in the bank and incredible market reach, they feel they cannot do identity alone — which is why people like me get to speak at Microsoft conferences like Mix ’06. If Microsoft feels they can’t do things alone, who can?
But fortunately, the needed convergence may be more close than we think. The recent Yadis specification was a great step in the right direction, because it shows that in spite of competitive pressure, people can rally around the common good. I hope we can replicate this on a larger level, and the signs so far a good, although I can’t talk about them yet; stay tuned. (And get in touch if you share this vision!)
[Written on the plane yesterday]