I agree whole-heartedly with you, but would like to add that the advantage that Bill Gates had with MS-DOS and later with Windows and Office was built standing on the shoulders of the great 800lb gorilla of the day IBM, whom Gates then cannily supplanted with a conglomeration of smaller hardware "cloners" like Compaq, HP, Gateway etc after reneging on a deal to provide software for the platform Microsoft and IBM jointly developed (OS2).
Excuse the partial quote but I really liked seeing this paragraph so well written. This so not understood by so many. Very well explained. I worked in the industry throughout that period and I always saw it as a case of the school yard geek protected by the bully kicking all the other kids. Then he knifed the bully in the back once he was safe.
How about going the FaceBook route. Anyone can see how big and how fast theyt have grown. But, you also hear so much of how distrustful people are about their privacy on FaceBook.
Why can't Microsoft start a competitor to them? Give the people exactly what they want. MySpace
used to rule. But they got fed up with something there. It did not take long for FaceBook to come along and rule.
It can't be to hard to start something comparable. Give it time and let it grow.
One thing for sure. They have to get Ballmer out of the limelight. He might be doing a better job than many give him credit for. But he keeps putting his shoe in his mouth. Someone else needs to be the New Face of Microsoft.
They also should be on the lookout for a company that can actually build something. Apple is a different beast than most because they actually make things.
Microsoft could hide behind the software masquerade for a long time. But with as many people as they have, and most supposedly working on rehashing their standard stuff. They are really not spreading their wings.
Remember, nowadays when one 'builds' something. They basically just put things together on a small scale. The actual thing comes out of China. I also cannot believe that there is only one Jonny Ive in the whole planet. Oh yeah. Why would Microsoft have needed anyone like him?
There are many ways that they could start looking at things outside the box.
How about going the FaceBook route. Anyone can see how big and how fast theyt have grown. But, you also hear so much of how distrustful people are about their privacy on FaceBook.
Why can't Microsoft start a competitor to them? Give the people exactly what they want. MySpace
used to rule. But they got fed up with something there. It did not take long for FaceBook to come along and rule.
It can't be to hard to start something comparable. Give it time and let it grow.
One thing for sure. They have to get Ballmer out of the limelight. He might be doing a better job than many give him credit for. But he keeps putting his shoe in his mouth. Someone else needs to be the New Face of Microsoft.
They also should be on the lookout for a company that can actually build something. Apple is a different beast than most because they actually make things.
Microsoft could hide behind the software masquerade for a long time. But with as many people as they have, and most supposedly working on rehashing their standard stuff. They are really not spreading their wings.
Remember, nowadays when one 'builds' something. They basically just put things together on a small scale. The actual thing comes out of China. I also cannot believe that there is only one Jonny Ive in the whole planet. Oh yeah. Why would Microsoft have needed anyone like him?
There are many ways that they could start looking at things outside the box.
Sometimes you just have to let go. It may be kinder to have MS put down.
As long as Ballmer is at the helm nothing will change.
Perhaps. My take is MS's problems are so fundamental and so deep rooted not even Steve Jobs could make MS competitive again.
MS needs to fully reboot itself like Apple did in 1996 (good luck finding another NeXT). Until then we'll continue to be presented with this sad slow spectacle.
I recall you explaining in an earlier post that your moniker is an amalgam of Alexander and Genghis Khan, and this analysis clearly proves your love of tactics and strategy, the short and long-term planning that goes into successful global campaigns.
I agree whole-heartedly with you, but would like to add that the advantage that Bill Gates had with MS-DOS and later with Windows and Office was built standing on the shoulders of the great 800lb gorilla of the day IBM, whom Gates then cannily supplanted with a conglomeration of smaller hardware "cloners" like Compaq, HP, Gateway etc after reneging on a deal to provide software for the platform Microsoft and IBM jointly developed (OS2).
So I would say his monumental success had more to do with being in the right place at the right time and cleverly exploiting the situation, than responding to adversity and turning near-disaster around into success. His missing the Internet phenomenon was a blunder of monumental proportions, but at least saved the entire computing world from total domination by an oligarchy. It allowed the likes of Google, FaceBook, Apache, Mozilla etc to thrive in this space and challenge successfully for mind and market share.
Likewise, his failure to recognise the modularity and scalability of Unix as a platform on which to base the future direction of his Operating System has left his company at a distinct disadvantage in scaling up to enterprise levels with the "Big Dogs" like Oracle SAP and IBM, and down to mobility levels with the "New Kids on the Block" Apple, RIM, Android et al.
Jobs on the other hand, and by your own admission, confounded all expectation and has before our very eyes taken a company from the brink of liquidation to unprecedented success and dominance in almost all its undertakings. Through a painful but painstakingly thorough process, the Apple OS has been dragged kicking and streaming to morph into a Unix-based (BSD) modular OS that can scale both ways, and is hence well primed for successful entry into both the enterprise and the mobile sectors in the months and years to come.
Lively and interesting days for strategists and theorists of all persuasions (tin-foil hatters included!)
Yes, I'm a big fan of military history and strategy and still read books about the subject all the time and am now watching documentaries about it through Netflix on my new Apple TV! Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan are definitely my two favorite figures in this realm and there really has never been anyone who has been able to match what they achieved as military commanders and strategists - especially Alexander. I still consider him the greatest strategist of all time although hubris and delusion of divinity near the end of his short life did him in at the peak of his power. Still, what he accomplished against overwhelming odds is still a breathtaking and mind-boggling thing to read about and contemplate to this very day.
I like to juxtapose what "Jobs and the Apple army" is doing to how Alexander and his invincible Macedonian army and Genghis Khan and his Mongol horde went about their business in conquering vast swaths of territories in a variety of terrains, elements and geopolitical and cultural situations against all sorts of enemies. Seriously, no other industry is quite as interesting (or fascinating) to follow as this converging tech and consumer electronics industry. I still read up on other industries but they all move as slow as molasses in comparison. Heck, with this tech-CE industry, one needs to be up on it daily to keep up with what the heck is going on. Hence, I've stopped following pro sports and cut back on my usual history reading to follow it with a lot of enthusiasm. Sure makes it more fun when I've been a loyal Apple user since the late-80's.
Regarding Gates, have you read 'Hard Drive' (early biography about Gates) and 'The Big Blues' which chronicles IBM's near-collapse in the early-90's before Lou Gerstner returned and saved IBM from ruin? Those books show how Gates was literally like a swarm of piranha that was feasting on some poor unsuspecting large mammal crossing the river. He essentially twisted the arms of IBM's senior management when he was only 29 to give up IBM's own internal development of a superior new OS (called CBM at the time, if I remember correctly) to replace DOS. Of course, he did the same to Sculley and Apple. While the whole world thought it was an Apple vs. IBM war, he pulled the rug out from underneath them and then stomped on both of them for good measure. I mean, it's quite awe-inspiring. But that's what Gates was great at.
Gates certainly understood the nuts-and-bolts of technology and knew very well how to direct his army of software programmers and engineers, but it was always incremental kinds of stuff. Maybe he had some grand visions of going well beyond the base of Windows and Office, but he could not abandon that base as it just brought in too much money and allowed him to expand that monopoly base to other areas. It's obvious that Microsoft just couldn't adapt fast enough. They succeeded in killing Netscape and Sun (if not Java altogether) and holding off the perceived threat of Sony taking over the digital living room, but by then too many other new nimble competitors started racing way ahead of what anyone at Microsoft could even anticipate. I guess we could say that, ironically, Microsoft became a victim of its own humungous success...
... It's obvious that Microsoft just couldn't adapt fast enough. They succeeded in killing Netscape and Sun (if not Java altogether) and holding off the perceived threat of Sony taking over the digital living room, but by then too many other new nimble competitors started racing way ahead of what anyone at Microsoft could even anticipate. I guess we could say that, ironically, Microsoft became a victim of its own humungous success...
The dilemma of the incumbent. A changing market becomes a threat, whereas for everyone else it's an opportunity.
How about going the FaceBook route. Anyone can see how big and how fast theyt have grown. But, you also hear so much of how distrustful people are about their privacy on FaceBook.
Why can't Microsoft start a competitor to them?
The "old" Microsoft suffered a lot from "not built here" syndrome, the "new" Microsoft is getting a lot better.
Basically if a company tries to rebuild everything all they end up with is a bunch of poorer or limited services. In many cases it is much better to integrate with existing services.
This is the approach Microsoft have taken with Facebook, and in many ways what they have created with Live ends up being better than Facebook.
I still wish someone would create a solid Facebook competitor. Not to replace Facebook (that's not going to happen) but to force Facebook to improve their service.
Didn't Robbie Bach & J Allard have more to do with WP7 than Ray Ozzie? He was all about cloud computing, I thought.
yes, Ray Ozzie was the force behind cloud computing and Web services at Microsoft. i have no idea why AppleInsider decided to link Ozzie with the mobile space.
Comments
I agree whole-heartedly with you, but would like to add that the advantage that Bill Gates had with MS-DOS and later with Windows and Office was built standing on the shoulders of the great 800lb gorilla of the day IBM, whom Gates then cannily supplanted with a conglomeration of smaller hardware "cloners" like Compaq, HP, Gateway etc after reneging on a deal to provide software for the platform Microsoft and IBM jointly developed (OS2).
Excuse the partial quote but I really liked seeing this paragraph so well written. This so not understood by so many. Very well explained. I worked in the industry throughout that period and I always saw it as a case of the school yard geek protected by the bully kicking all the other kids. Then he knifed the bully in the back once he was safe.
Why can't Microsoft start a competitor to them? Give the people exactly what they want. MySpace
used to rule. But they got fed up with something there. It did not take long for FaceBook to come along and rule.
It can't be to hard to start something comparable. Give it time and let it grow.
One thing for sure. They have to get Ballmer out of the limelight. He might be doing a better job than many give him credit for. But he keeps putting his shoe in his mouth. Someone else needs to be the New Face of Microsoft.
They also should be on the lookout for a company that can actually build something. Apple is a different beast than most because they actually make things.
Microsoft could hide behind the software masquerade for a long time. But with as many people as they have, and most supposedly working on rehashing their standard stuff. They are really not spreading their wings.
Remember, nowadays when one 'builds' something. They basically just put things together on a small scale. The actual thing comes out of China. I also cannot believe that there is only one Jonny Ive in the whole planet. Oh yeah. Why would Microsoft have needed anyone like him?
There are many ways that they could start looking at things outside the box.
How about going the FaceBook route. Anyone can see how big and how fast theyt have grown. But, you also hear so much of how distrustful people are about their privacy on FaceBook.
Why can't Microsoft start a competitor to them? Give the people exactly what they want. MySpace
used to rule. But they got fed up with something there. It did not take long for FaceBook to come along and rule.
It can't be to hard to start something comparable. Give it time and let it grow.
One thing for sure. They have to get Ballmer out of the limelight. He might be doing a better job than many give him credit for. But he keeps putting his shoe in his mouth. Someone else needs to be the New Face of Microsoft.
They also should be on the lookout for a company that can actually build something. Apple is a different beast than most because they actually make things.
Microsoft could hide behind the software masquerade for a long time. But with as many people as they have, and most supposedly working on rehashing their standard stuff. They are really not spreading their wings.
Remember, nowadays when one 'builds' something. They basically just put things together on a small scale. The actual thing comes out of China. I also cannot believe that there is only one Jonny Ive in the whole planet. Oh yeah. Why would Microsoft have needed anyone like him?
There are many ways that they could start looking at things outside the box.
Sometimes you just have to let go. It may be kinder to have MS put down.
As long as Ballmer is at the helm nothing will change.
Perhaps. My take is MS's problems are so fundamental and so deep rooted not even Steve Jobs could make MS competitive again.
MS needs to fully reboot itself like Apple did in 1996 (good luck finding another NeXT). Until then we'll continue to be presented with this sad slow spectacle.
I recall you explaining in an earlier post that your moniker is an amalgam of Alexander and Genghis Khan, and this analysis clearly proves your love of tactics and strategy, the short and long-term planning that goes into successful global campaigns.
I agree whole-heartedly with you, but would like to add that the advantage that Bill Gates had with MS-DOS and later with Windows and Office was built standing on the shoulders of the great 800lb gorilla of the day IBM, whom Gates then cannily supplanted with a conglomeration of smaller hardware "cloners" like Compaq, HP, Gateway etc after reneging on a deal to provide software for the platform Microsoft and IBM jointly developed (OS2).
So I would say his monumental success had more to do with being in the right place at the right time and cleverly exploiting the situation, than responding to adversity and turning near-disaster around into success. His missing the Internet phenomenon was a blunder of monumental proportions, but at least saved the entire computing world from total domination by an oligarchy. It allowed the likes of Google, FaceBook, Apache, Mozilla etc to thrive in this space and challenge successfully for mind and market share.
Likewise, his failure to recognise the modularity and scalability of Unix as a platform on which to base the future direction of his Operating System has left his company at a distinct disadvantage in scaling up to enterprise levels with the "Big Dogs" like Oracle SAP and IBM, and down to mobility levels with the "New Kids on the Block" Apple, RIM, Android et al.
Jobs on the other hand, and by your own admission, confounded all expectation and has before our very eyes taken a company from the brink of liquidation to unprecedented success and dominance in almost all its undertakings. Through a painful but painstakingly thorough process, the Apple OS has been dragged kicking and streaming to morph into a Unix-based (BSD) modular OS that can scale both ways, and is hence well primed for successful entry into both the enterprise and the mobile sectors in the months and years to come.
Lively and interesting days for strategists and theorists of all persuasions (tin-foil hatters included!)
Yes, I'm a big fan of military history and strategy and still read books about the subject all the time and am now watching documentaries about it through Netflix on my new Apple TV!
I like to juxtapose what "Jobs and the Apple army"
Regarding Gates, have you read 'Hard Drive' (early biography about Gates) and 'The Big Blues' which chronicles IBM's near-collapse in the early-90's before Lou Gerstner returned and saved IBM from ruin? Those books show how Gates was literally like a swarm of piranha that was feasting on some poor unsuspecting large mammal crossing the river. He essentially twisted the arms of IBM's senior management when he was only 29 to give up IBM's own internal development of a superior new OS (called CBM at the time, if I remember correctly) to replace DOS. Of course, he did the same to Sculley and Apple. While the whole world thought it was an Apple vs. IBM war, he pulled the rug out from underneath them and then stomped on both of them for good measure. I mean, it's quite awe-inspiring. But that's what Gates was great at.
Gates certainly understood the nuts-and-bolts of technology and knew very well how to direct his army of software programmers and engineers, but it was always incremental kinds of stuff. Maybe he had some grand visions of going well beyond the base of Windows and Office, but he could not abandon that base as it just brought in too much money and allowed him to expand that monopoly base to other areas. It's obvious that Microsoft just couldn't adapt fast enough. They succeeded in killing Netscape and Sun (if not Java altogether) and holding off the perceived threat of Sony taking over the digital living room, but by then too many other new nimble competitors started racing way ahead of what anyone at Microsoft could even anticipate. I guess we could say that, ironically, Microsoft became a victim of its own humungous success...
... It's obvious that Microsoft just couldn't adapt fast enough. They succeeded in killing Netscape and Sun (if not Java altogether) and holding off the perceived threat of Sony taking over the digital living room, but by then too many other new nimble competitors started racing way ahead of what anyone at Microsoft could even anticipate. I guess we could say that, ironically, Microsoft became a victim of its own humungous success...
The dilemma of the incumbent. A changing market becomes a threat, whereas for everyone else it's an opportunity.
How about going the FaceBook route. Anyone can see how big and how fast theyt have grown. But, you also hear so much of how distrustful people are about their privacy on FaceBook.
Why can't Microsoft start a competitor to them?
The "old" Microsoft suffered a lot from "not built here" syndrome, the "new" Microsoft is getting a lot better.
Basically if a company tries to rebuild everything all they end up with is a bunch of poorer or limited services. In many cases it is much better to integrate with existing services.
This is the approach Microsoft have taken with Facebook, and in many ways what they have created with Live ends up being better than Facebook.
I still wish someone would create a solid Facebook competitor. Not to replace Facebook (that's not going to happen) but to force Facebook to improve their service.
Didn't Robbie Bach & J Allard have more to do with WP7 than Ray Ozzie? He was all about cloud computing, I thought.
yes, Ray Ozzie was the force behind cloud computing and Web services at Microsoft. i have no idea why AppleInsider decided to link Ozzie with the mobile space.