My July 2016 post entitled “Windows10: Malware Pure and Simple” was an article about how an arrogant Global Tech Titan uses its powerful position to abuse its customer base. The piece was the second most read of my articles on LinkedIn and on my website last year (the first was “If Watford #Brexits, Britain Exits”). A few weeks ago, a colleague said she had read it and was wary of upgrading from Windows 7 Professional. Considering this, I thought I would update where I am now with Windows10 and emphasise the message that individuals should never put all their digital eggs in the basket of just one Tech Titan, no matter how good the offer sounds.

Shortly after I posted last year, Microsoft pumped out its major ‘Anniversary Update’ (Version 1607) for Windows10 which (over time with subsequent minor updates) sorted out a lot of the issues I referred to back then. I now find Windows10 to be remarkably stable as a desktop operating system. However, because of its early troubles, I ditched my Microsoft tablets and relegated my Lenovo Twist laptop (which runs better on the updated Win10) and today only really use Windows10 to power a multiscreen desktop PC setup in the office (see photo). 

As I mentioned in the article I was also thinking about moving to the Apple operating system and have done this by purchasing a MacBook - although this was not entirely as a result of the Windows10 launch debacle. Anyone who works in today’s tech environment can see that MAC portables/tablets have stolen a huge share of the Developer and Millennials segments, together with Apple’s traditional Designer/New Media fraternity. I incorporated the MAC into my stable of tech tools because I felt I just had to keep up! So now I travel with and within the Apple ecosystem with the iPhone (still miss my Blackberry), iPad and MacBook.

As a result, I have come to appreciate the advantages that a company flogging an operating system has if it can fully control, and integrate with, its manufactured hardware as well. It makes perfect sense for Microsoft to put a huge investment into its Surface range. Even though I judge Windows to be a better operating system than Apple's now, the Apple OS integration with the small form factor of a MacBook leads the ultra-notebook category.

All of which does not let Microsoft off the hook for dumping a sub-standard (not even sub-optimal) Windows10 into the market two years ago and counting on people like me to fix it on the fly before Version 1607. Microsoft’s record in introducing its operating systems into mobile devices (think phones) is not good and if they try this crappy practice in rolling out their new own brand manufactured ultra-portables/tablet desktop replacement range in the future, they will likely fail in a way which makes it impossible for them to recover. Microsoft’s growth is coming from Cloud services. It doesn’t take much to lose you name in this market given the levels of competition.

My advice in response to my colleague was go ahead, upgrade to Windows10. But try Google’s Cloud office suite so you don’t put all your eggs in one Tech Titan’s pocket. Microsoft's Windows10 launch practices were the arrogance of one such Titan and I have learned my lesson. I even use Google Docs on my MacBook as it has recently settled in nicely into the MAC world an am loyal to DropBox for storage, although for how long it can stay ‘independent’ remains to be seen. Using the digital services of just one supplier whether it be a telco's quadruple play (phone, TV, broadband, mobile) or the company that supples your hardware and operating system (Apple iTunes, TV, Music etc) is just a really dumb idea. No one company can innovate in all the areas that matter to your digital life. The more areas that you hand over to them to service, the more dependent you are on one supplier, and the more arrogant they get.

Almost unnoticed the UK has become a world leader in nurturing government backed innovation. It is helping many industries to reinvent their own versions of the light bulb. I have recently been involved in helping clients who seek to raise money with pitches to venture capital organisations or with submissions in response to Innovate UK funding calls. Most people are aware of what VCs purport to do in our economy but many may be unaware of ‘Innovate UK’. It holds itself out to be the “UK's innovation agency” and is an executive non-departmental public body, sponsored by the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). It is an organisation of around 300 staff and since 2007 says it has committed over £1.8 billion to innovation, matched by a similar amount in partner and business funding.
​
I first submitted bids for UK government innovation money when Innovate UK was called the ‘Technology Strategy Board’ and, as an ardent free marketer, was sceptical of how effective government can be in ‘picking winners’ on the industrial landscape. However, as years have passed I have come to realise that, in practice, Innovate UK has proven its worth as a part of Britain’s sophisticated digital economy. This is not to say that I am convinced that the Prime Minister’s latest push for a much more comprehensive ‘industrial strategy’ is either desirable in Global Britain or has much chance of being effective given our short political time frames (think NHS reforms) – but this is a matter for another blog post.

Having given this some serious thought over past year since the UK's EU Referendum, I now see Innovate UK having three core strengths that can boost Britain’s economy in a post-Brexit world:  

First the UK's Innovation Agency, is very good at identifying broad ‘future problem areas’ which will need innovative solutions. Post the 2007/8 Great Global Financial Correction, most government’s around the world must make do with getting more from less in trying to solve some of the greatest problems facing their citizens. These may be health issues associated with aging populations or issues surrounding the quality of life in urban environments as more people move into cities. A look at the Innovate UK website shows that they have a good understanding of where future problems are likely to crop up or, more importantly, get worse.

Second, Calls for bids for Innovate UK funds show that they understand that “the trend is your friend.” They appear to be staffed with knowledgeable people who are tapped into the latest cutting edge thinking which is driving momentum in a whole range of areas from biomedical, digital health to connected autonomous vehicles, innovation in rail, connected transport and emerging and enabling technologies. In some cases, Innovate UK money may be awarded to ‘bleeding edge’ technology within an emerging trend that would never get funding from elsewhere, like those in its First of a Kind competitions.

Third, Innovate UK has developed world class processes for both awarding and tracking the success of taxpayers’ money spent on innovation. From whether such leading-edge technology solutions  pass the informed ‘Sniff Test’ (which is all you may have to go on in the most bloody of bleeding edge innovations)  to a robust but flexible analysis of how the money is spent, Innovate UK leads the world, surpassing in many instances even the accountability benchmark procedures of Britain’s VC companies.  

Today, it is not surprising that other countries which are trying to understand how to finance their own national innovation schemes are looking to Britain as source of best practice in this area. As a result, Innovate UK are sending some of their brightest across the globe to set up Innovate UK-type Calls in which British firms can link up with partners in distant markets (India, China). Clearly, as Britain Brexits (and the EU’s share of the world economy falls to only 13% without us) the Government hopes that Britain’s entrepreneurs will open their eyes to the opportunities in these markets.

Whether it is possible to set up an Innovate UK style body in countries with higher levels of corruption than in the UK is open to question. Robust integrity in awarding public money may turn out to be the most significant prerequisite for any state to successfully seed fund national businesses who have the best ideas to solve future problems. In this case, these less scrupulous countries can let the UK innovate these ideas and then steal them as they have done in the past.