Another blanket article about the pros and cons of Direct to Consumer (D2C) isn’t needed, I know. By now, we all know the rules for how this model enters a market: its disruption fights any given sector’s established sales model, a fuzzy compromise is temporarily met, and the lean innovator always wins out in the end.

That’s exactly how it played out in the music industry when Apple and record companies created a digital storefront in iTunes to usher music sales into the online era. What now appears to have been a stopgap compromise, iTunes was the standard model for 5-6 years until consumers realized there was no point in purchasing and owning digital media when internet speeds increased and they could listen to it for free through a music streaming service.  In 2013, streaming models are the new music consumption standard. Netflix is nearly parallel in the film and TV world, though they’ve done a better job keeping it all under one roof. Apple mastered retail sales so well that the majority of Apple products, when bought in-person, are bought at an Apple store. That’s even more impressive when you consider how few Apple stores there are in the U.S. (253) compared to big box electronics stores that sell Apple products like Best Buy (1,100) Yet while some industries have implemented a D2C approach to great success, others haven’t even dipped a toe in the D2C pool, most notably the auto industry.

What got me thinking about this topic is the recent flurry of attention Tesla Motors has received for its D2C model. It all came to a head at the beginning of July when a petition on whitehouse.gov to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers in all 50 states reached the 100,000 signatures required for administration comment. As you might imagine, many powerful car dealership owners armed with lobbyists have made a big stink about Elon Musk, Tesla’s CEO and Product Architect, choosing to sidestep the traditional supply chain and instead opting to sell directly to their customers through their website. These dealership owners say that they’re against the idea because they want to protect consumers, but the real motive is that they want to defend their right to exist (and who wouldn’t?). They essentially have a monopoly at their position in the sales process, and they want to keep it that way. More frightening for the dealerships is the possibility that once Tesla starts selling directly to consumers, so will the big three automakers, and they fear that would be the end of the road for their business. Interestingly enough, the big three flirted with the idea of D2C in the early 90’s before they were met with fierce backlash from dealerships. I’m sure the dealership community has no interest in mounting a fight like that again. 

To say that the laws preventing Tesla from selling online are peripherally relevant would be a compliment. By and large, the laws the dealerships point to fall under the umbrella of “Franchise Laws” that were put in place at the dawn of car sales to protect franchisees against manufacturers opening their own stores and undercutting the franchise that had invested so much to sell the manufacturer’s cars.  There’s certainly a need for those laws to exist, because no owner of a dealership selling Jeeps wants Chrysler to open their own dealership next door and sell them for substantially less. However, because Tesla is independently owned and isn’t currently selling their cars through any third party dealership, this law doesn’t really apply to them. Until their cars are sold through independent dealerships, they’re incapable of undercutting anyone by implementing D2C structure.

The innovators in technology have long paved the way for greater social advancement. No one can dispute the fact that the impact of Bill Gates and Microsoft will be far reaching for many years to come. The question is whether or not Microsoft will be able to adapt and thrive in emerging markets. The fact that Microsoft enjoys four decades of establishment also makes it difficult to make major changes without alienating the 1.5 billion Windows users.

This was apparent with the release of Windows 8. Windows users had come to expect a certain amount of consistency from their applications. The Metro tile, touch screen interface left a lot to be desired for enough people that Microsoft eventually more thoroughly implemented an older desktop view minus a traditional Start menu.

The app focused Windows 8 was supposed to be a step towards a greater integration of Cloud technology. In recent years, Microsoft lagged behind its competitors in getting established in new technologies. That includes the billions of dollars the emerging mobile market offered and Cloud computing.

Amazon was the first powerhouse to really establish themselves in the Cloud technology market. Google, Microsoft, and smaller parties are all playing catch up to take a piece of the Cloud pie. More and more businesses are embracing Cloud technology as a way to minimize their equipment and software expenses. While it does take a bit for older businesses to get onboard with such a change, start ups are looking at Cloud computing as an essential part of their business.

But what does that mean for Microsoft? Decisions were made to help update the four decade old Microsoft to the "always on" world we currently live in. Instead of operating in project "silos", different departments were brought together under more generalized headings where they could work closer with one another. Electronic delivery of software, including through Cloud tech, puts Microsoft in the position of needing to meet a pace that is very different from Gates’ early days.

The seriousness of their desire to compete with the likes of Amazon is their pricing matching on Cloud infrastructure services. Microsoft is not a company that has traditionally offered price cuts to compete with others. The fact that they have greatly reduced rates on getting infrastructure set up paves the way for more business users of their Cloud-based apps like Microsoft Office. Inexpensive solutions and free applications open the doors for Microsoft to initiate more sales of other products to their clients.

Former CEO Steve Ballmer recognized there was a need for Microsoft to change directions to remain competitive. In February 2014, he stepped down as CEO stating that the CEO needed to be there through all stages of Microsoft's transition in these more competitive markets. And the former role of his chosen successor, Mr. Satya Nadella? Head of Microsoft's Cloud services division.

Microsoft may not always catch the initial burst of a new development in their space; but they regularly adapt and drive forward. The leadership of Microsoft is clearly thinking forward in what they want to accomplish as sales of PCs have stayed on a continuous decline. It should come as no surprise that Microsoft will embrace this new direction and push towards a greater market share against the likes of Amazon and Google.

Related:

Who Are the Main Players in Big Data?

Is Cloud Computing Safe for Your Business?

Is The Grass Greener in Mobile App Development?

The iconic software company that is based in King County Washington has been getting almost universally slammed from it's recent Los Angeles press announcement about its entry into the hardware business with the convertible laptop/tablet known as Surface.

Certainly I can see the point that it is now competing with its hardware vendors/partners. Intel has done a good job in the arena creating 'reference designs' without competing with its partners.

There is another viewpoint which seems to be ignored. The cold facts are Microsoft is a public company. This puts Microsoft in a legal position of doing the most it can to return value to its shareholders. Failure to do so means somebody is going to jail.

Microsoft has a vision, which at the end of the day is, a certain way to get enough people to see enough value to hand over their money, to fulfill their fiduciary duty.