This sounds to me like the wholesale sweeping change in leadership MS DESPERATELY needs. What is worrying from their perspective (not sure who 'they' are as everyone seems to be leaving!) is that the departures seem like rats jumping ship more than bold personnel changes and that the one man who for years now the entire tech-savvy world has been able to see needs to go is still in place.
MS is living off body fat and it's burning it off fast. They need a bold, visionary leader at the top fast because Windows 7 will be the last Windows that sells in such volume at such a price. If the world wants a Windows 8, it will need it on fewer devices and will demand a lower price for it.
At the end of the day, I think MS is a monolith from the past, a company that will just not be needed in its current guise for very much longer. Companies are making their own software again and Google has already established itself in the mobile sector the way MS did in the PC sector in the 80s. What does the world need from MS any more? Windows 7 does everything PC makers will need an operating system to do for the foreseeable future and as the world goes mobile, MS is way behind. WP7 looks nice but even if it is a huge success, it won't sustain a company of MS' size.
Bottom line is MS needs to downsize and prepare for a very different future.
...unless they get their own Steve Jobs and show us that they aren't just corporate men in suits out of touch with the 2011 tech sector.
Here's an irony. Back in the antitrust trial days of the '90s, the first proposed remedy was breaking Microsoft up into two companies. Of course Microsoft fiercely resisted, and the remedy was thrown out. So today it looks like it could have been the best thing for them. Probably the parts would be stronger than today's whole.
Here's an irony. Back in the antitrust trial days of the '90s, the first proposed remedy was breaking Microsoft up into two companies. Of course Microsoft fiercely resisted, and the remedy was thrown out. So today it looks like it could have been the best thing for them. Probably the parts would be stronger than today's whole.
The problem is that they basically did split into different companies. After Gates indicated his intention to leave no one was left in control.
Ballmer was given the title but he was either too scared or too clueless to do anything. So the company started falling apart. Divisions not only didn't talk to each other they competed against each other like separate companies and strong execs built their own little fiefdoms.
From top to bottom Microsoft was a bloated, uncoordinated political shit storm. It's no wonder they missed a couple of important tech trends and lacked the product integration and ecosystem of a company like Apple.
The last 6 to 12 months is basically a sign of Ballmer growing a pair and deciding to actually lead. This isn't rats fleeing a sinking ship, it's Ballmer pulling a disheveled mess back into a tech company with a single vision and a single set of goals.
Sure the guy isn't a visionary, but that isn't such a big problem. If he is getting the correct information fed to him (it looks like he is) then as long as he makes sure that ship's nose is pointed in the right direction and that everyone is on board then he is doing his job.
However, even if it does look like Microsoft may once again be on track, they are still about 2 years behind Apple in a couple of really key areas... so it might end up being too little too late.
That's just it. Had the courts done the deed, the parts probably would've been more manageable. Perhaps they would have stuck to what they do best, and not have attempted so many misbegotten, money-losing projects. Microsoft has been kidding themselves for years now that everything flows from Windows. Well at one time, maybe it did. But not any longer, and this change in the tech landscape has left them flummoxed. They are still trying to leverage Windows. Had part of the company been forced out of the Windows orbit, they might have had a fresh start.
Perhaps they would have stuck to what they do best, and not have attempted so many misbegotten, money-losing projects.
That's probably true, but it's hard to pick and choose. Xbox was a financial black hole, but it has led to the Xbox 360, Kinect and a rejuvenated (and potentially successful this time) living room strategy.
The entire online services division continues to be a financial black hole as well, however it has paved the way for a bunch of supporting online services, for the cloud to be baked into Windows 8 and things like Office365 which will be a revenue stream for Microsoft when the days of the traditional PC stronghold are over.
So a Microsoft focused just on traditional Windows/Office probably would have made more money, right up until the point where they didn't because the market moved past them. At least with all of the bomb projects a few catch on and offer growth potential when the traditional Server/Windows/Office cash cow dries up.
This sounds to me like the wholesale sweeping change in leadership MS DESPERATELY needs. What is worrying from their perspective (not sure who 'they' are as everyone seems to be leaving!) is that the departures seem like rats jumping ship more than bold personnel changes and that the one man who for years now the entire tech-savvy world has been able to see needs to go is still in place.
MS is living off body fat and it's burning it off fast.
Bottom line is MS needs to downsize and prepare for a very different future.
...unless they get their own Steve Jobs and show us that they aren't just corporate men in suits out of touch with the 2011 tech sector.
Problem is, they are a lot out of touch, corporate men in suits. MSFT resembles IBM of the late 1980s, hanging onto a decades-old business plan, only with a more bureaucratic organization, led by a less talented executive suite, in an economic environment far less likely to tolerate failure.
MS's "body fat" is its enormous installed base, particularly the enterprise sector. It can live off that for a long time, but its days of a technology growth company ended about a decade ago (it would have been earlier if not for the Y2K boondoggle). Among consumers, the Windows brand isn't recognized as being particularly lustworthy. I've taken a lot of criticism for saying so, but in my opinion the Windows moniker itself is an albatross they ought to ditch. MSFT's turnaround, if there is to be one, will begin the day it quietly abandons the name.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the role of advisor and then iCEO, he gutted entire divisions. He completely abandoned several product lines and placed just about all the company's resources into developing one product - the iMac. Any employees simply along for the ride were summarily fired. That's pretty much the playbook for any turnaround CEO (Carly Fiorina to name one of hundreds of examples), of course it takes much more than that. In addition to lots of other low-hanging fruit, those decisions completely remade the company and made it resemble more of its original self than the scattered, aimless direction in which it was headed.
Even at its depths though, AAPL still had a billion dollars in the bank, no debt, and enough talent to do great things. Avoiding bankruptcy is just the start, after that you need a plan for continued growth. That almost always means severing ties with the past (desktops and "classic" OS) and developing a new strategy for the future. In Apple's case it was OS X, powerful laptops, and has now expanded to mobile devices, iOS, iAds, the Mac App Store... they have a lot of irons in the fire, and lots of revenue to keep the fire burning.
It may be a hundred times bigger than that now but Apple still has a "startup" culture that inspires individuals to succeed. I have no first-hand knowledge of Microsoft's culture, but from what I've been able to learn it seems to be the exact opposite - a bureaucratic behemoth in which individual success is thwarted and ineptitude is promoted. A company can coast that way for a long time, especially if it has reliable revenue streams such as MSFT's licensing fees - but eventually it crumbles from within. A company that rewards and nourishes a culture of individual success and achievement will thrive. That sort of culture can't be bought, sold, or implemented by management edict. Apple has it. MSFT doesn't.
Quote:
What does the world need from MS any more? ... At the end of the day, I think MS is a monolith from the past, a company that will just not be needed in its current guise for very much longer.
Jupiter Networks announced today that it had recruited Brad Brooks, an eight year Microsoft veteran who had managed the marketing of Windows Vista and Windows 7.
huge mistake on jupiter's part.
I didn't know the largest planet in the solar system was hiring. Sign me up!
I didn't know the largest planet in the solar system was hiring. Sign me up!
You might not like the atmosphere. I hear it's noxious and cold. Everyone is full of gas and the storms last for centuries. You'll have a hard time carrying even your own weight. Besides, you're never on solid ground so you can never be certain where you stand.
But if you're familiar with MSFT, you'll be right at home.
Comments
actually, a whole new generation of leadership may be exactly what MS needs to get out of its doldrums. but a fish rots from the head ...
MS is living off body fat and it's burning it off fast. They need a bold, visionary leader at the top fast because Windows 7 will be the last Windows that sells in such volume at such a price. If the world wants a Windows 8, it will need it on fewer devices and will demand a lower price for it.
At the end of the day, I think MS is a monolith from the past, a company that will just not be needed in its current guise for very much longer. Companies are making their own software again and Google has already established itself in the mobile sector the way MS did in the PC sector in the 80s. What does the world need from MS any more? Windows 7 does everything PC makers will need an operating system to do for the foreseeable future and as the world goes mobile, MS is way behind. WP7 looks nice but even if it is a huge success, it won't sustain a company of MS' size.
Bottom line is MS needs to downsize and prepare for a very different future.
...unless they get their own Steve Jobs and show us that they aren't just corporate men in suits out of touch with the 2011 tech sector.
... oh, wait... no he's not.
The guy who really needs to be booted out is still there.
Here's an irony. Back in the antitrust trial days of the '90s, the first proposed remedy was breaking Microsoft up into two companies. Of course Microsoft fiercely resisted, and the remedy was thrown out. So today it looks like it could have been the best thing for them. Probably the parts would be stronger than today's whole.
The problem is that they basically did split into different companies. After Gates indicated his intention to leave no one was left in control.
Ballmer was given the title but he was either too scared or too clueless to do anything. So the company started falling apart. Divisions not only didn't talk to each other they competed against each other like separate companies and strong execs built their own little fiefdoms.
From top to bottom Microsoft was a bloated, uncoordinated political shit storm. It's no wonder they missed a couple of important tech trends and lacked the product integration and ecosystem of a company like Apple.
The last 6 to 12 months is basically a sign of Ballmer growing a pair and deciding to actually lead. This isn't rats fleeing a sinking ship, it's Ballmer pulling a disheveled mess back into a tech company with a single vision and a single set of goals.
Sure the guy isn't a visionary, but that isn't such a big problem. If he is getting the correct information fed to him (it looks like he is) then as long as he makes sure that ship's nose is pointed in the right direction and that everyone is on board then he is doing his job.
However, even if it does look like Microsoft may once again be on track, they are still about 2 years behind Apple in a couple of really key areas... so it might end up being too little too late.
Perhaps they would have stuck to what they do best, and not have attempted so many misbegotten, money-losing projects.
That's probably true, but it's hard to pick and choose. Xbox was a financial black hole, but it has led to the Xbox 360, Kinect and a rejuvenated (and potentially successful this time) living room strategy.
The entire online services division continues to be a financial black hole as well, however it has paved the way for a bunch of supporting online services, for the cloud to be baked into Windows 8 and things like Office365 which will be a revenue stream for Microsoft when the days of the traditional PC stronghold are over.
So a Microsoft focused just on traditional Windows/Office probably would have made more money, right up until the point where they didn't because the market moved past them. At least with all of the bomb projects a few catch on and offer growth potential when the traditional Server/Windows/Office cash cow dries up.
S.B.'s neursurgeon just just handed him a iPad!
Boy if that doesn't paint a bullseye on the fundamental problem I don't know what does.
..., Steve splitting from Apple...
A medical LOA isn't exactly "split".
This sounds to me like the wholesale sweeping change in leadership MS DESPERATELY needs. What is worrying from their perspective (not sure who 'they' are as everyone seems to be leaving!) is that the departures seem like rats jumping ship more than bold personnel changes and that the one man who for years now the entire tech-savvy world has been able to see needs to go is still in place.
MS is living off body fat and it's burning it off fast.
Bottom line is MS needs to downsize and prepare for a very different future.
...unless they get their own Steve Jobs and show us that they aren't just corporate men in suits out of touch with the 2011 tech sector.
Problem is, they are a lot out of touch, corporate men in suits. MSFT resembles IBM of the late 1980s, hanging onto a decades-old business plan, only with a more bureaucratic organization, led by a less talented executive suite, in an economic environment far less likely to tolerate failure.
MS's "body fat" is its enormous installed base, particularly the enterprise sector. It can live off that for a long time, but its days of a technology growth company ended about a decade ago (it would have been earlier if not for the Y2K boondoggle). Among consumers, the Windows brand isn't recognized as being particularly lustworthy. I've taken a lot of criticism for saying so, but in my opinion the Windows moniker itself is an albatross they ought to ditch. MSFT's turnaround, if there is to be one, will begin the day it quietly abandons the name.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in the role of advisor and then iCEO, he gutted entire divisions. He completely abandoned several product lines and placed just about all the company's resources into developing one product - the iMac. Any employees simply along for the ride were summarily fired. That's pretty much the playbook for any turnaround CEO (Carly Fiorina to name one of hundreds of examples), of course it takes much more than that. In addition to lots of other low-hanging fruit, those decisions completely remade the company and made it resemble more of its original self than the scattered, aimless direction in which it was headed.
Even at its depths though, AAPL still had a billion dollars in the bank, no debt, and enough talent to do great things. Avoiding bankruptcy is just the start, after that you need a plan for continued growth. That almost always means severing ties with the past (desktops and "classic" OS) and developing a new strategy for the future. In Apple's case it was OS X, powerful laptops, and has now expanded to mobile devices, iOS, iAds, the Mac App Store... they have a lot of irons in the fire, and lots of revenue to keep the fire burning.
It may be a hundred times bigger than that now but Apple still has a "startup" culture that inspires individuals to succeed. I have no first-hand knowledge of Microsoft's culture, but from what I've been able to learn it seems to be the exact opposite - a bureaucratic behemoth in which individual success is thwarted and ineptitude is promoted. A company can coast that way for a long time, especially if it has reliable revenue streams such as MSFT's licensing fees - but eventually it crumbles from within. A company that rewards and nourishes a culture of individual success and achievement will thrive. That sort of culture can't be bought, sold, or implemented by management edict. Apple has it. MSFT doesn't.
What does the world need from MS any more? ... At the end of the day, I think MS is a monolith from the past, a company that will just not be needed in its current guise for very much longer.
In its "current guise" MSFT is already redundant.
Just what is a core eingineer at microsoft?
Just what is a core eingineer at microsoft?
...Australian?
Jupiter Networks announced today that it had recruited Brad Brooks, an eight year Microsoft veteran who had managed the marketing of Windows Vista and Windows 7.
huge mistake on jupiter's part.
I didn't know the largest planet in the solar system was hiring. Sign me up!
"Mass exodus." Is there any other kind?
Micro exoduses have been found to occur in the Paleosynthesis Era.
Even at its depths though, AAPL still had a billion dollars in the bank, no debt, and enough talent to do great things.
I thought it got a bit more precarious. Didn't Jobs say Apple was 90 days from bankruptcy when he took over?
I didn't know the largest planet in the solar system was hiring. Sign me up!
You might not like the atmosphere. I hear it's noxious and cold. Everyone is full of gas and the storms last for centuries. You'll have a hard time carrying even your own weight. Besides, you're never on solid ground so you can never be certain where you stand.
But if you're familiar with MSFT, you'll be right at home.