According to Balmer, "We're creating products at the seam between hardware and software". Also according to Balmer, "What we say now is there is no boundary between hardware and software."
I keep hearing that Balmer is very bright, but apparently not bright enough to think before he speaks in public.
%u201CBill did hold up a tablet many years ago,%u201D Ballmer replied, adding, "Maybe if we had started innovating then, which is what we really did with Surface, maybe we should have done that earlier. Maybe that tablet shift would have been sooner.%u201D
Innovating? What's really innovative about the SURFACE other than the UI being different to an iPad.
According to Balmer, "We're creating products at the seam between hardware and software". Also according to Balmer, "What we say now is there is no boundary between hardware and software."
I keep hearing that Balmer is very bright, but apparently not bright enough to think before he speaks in public.
At least he can never claim that Microsoft operating systems are seamlessly integrated with Microsoft hardware.
yup. "coulda, woulda, shoulda." great CEO leadership!
except, it = "Fail."
the ARM Surface is Zune 2. the Intel Surface Pro ... well ask me when it ACTUALLY SHIPS!
and all those poor sad MS stock owners today ... they should buy Cubs season tickets too.
1. Washington Wizard tix too.
2. Has MS announced if they're going to be building their own version of the Surface Pro? Or conversely have they said they won't be releasing one at the intro??
the other news from the MS meeting today is Ballmer announces 40 million W8 licenses "sold".
hello, media suckers, who just report this PR handout without finding out exactly what he is talking about.
no way 40 million end user licenses have been sold for consumer PC upgrades or delivered new PC's/laptops in a month. and for businesses, it's too soon for any at all.
so that number has to include the OEM contracts where company x agrees to buy y million licenses for PC/laptops over z time period to get the best price per unit. probably about one half of that total. that's really unpaid reservations, but it's still a commitment to buy, load, and pay ... someday.
the telling information is independent reports that new W8 PC sales are "slower" than anticipated. that can't translate into a higher initial period sales figures than W7.
Good ol' Ballmer, "the marketing guy," still cooking the books for hype.
MS' fourth quarter SEC filing will have to be a bit more honest about this shell game, but we won't see that until February.
Surface is an abject failure. You can't use it in your lap, which is where your iPad sits most of the time. It's uncomfortable to use in a vertical position, which is where you want to use it for reading and most tasks (they designed it to be used horizontally).
The selection of Apps for Surface is a bit skimpy to say the least.
It's underwhelming and over priced. Costs as much or more than an iPad but not nearly as good.
So Microsoft releases a tablet in 2001. Probably would have been like a ModBook style thing.
Apple goes with their first thought and releases the iPad in 2004-5 when Jobs first thought it up. Basically looks like the original iPad did, runs iOS 1 same as the original phone which might still get introduced a year or so later.
Ballmer thinks MS and Apple would be flipped in places in that version. But I say if Windows XP was 'touched' the way Windows 8 has been, Apple would still show them up big time
Burroughs, Xerox PARC, and Apple have been much more into the idea of creating computers as a tool for people's creativity. This is a subversive idea because IBM and the Microsoft believe in making computers to control people, i.e. business and office machines. That is why Microsoft are failing.
Late... creating hardware to support software the idea goes back to 1961, Bob Barton and the Burroughs B5000: http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/AFIPS.1961.4
Burroughs, Xerox PARC, and Apple have been much more into the idea of creating computers as a tool for people's creativity. This is a subversive idea because IBM and the Microsoft believe in making computers to control people, i.e. business and office machines. That is why Microsoft are failing.
Burroughs, Xerox PARC, and Apple have been much more into the idea of creating computers as a tool for people's creativity. This is a subversive idea because IBM and the Microsoft believe in making computers to control people, i.e. business and office machines. That is why Microsoft are failing.
Ha!
That brings back memories. In 1960, I attended a class on the B5000 – It was mostly about how the ALGOL programming language was integrated into the hardware. Among the class material handouts was a set of playing cards that illustrated how the computer hardware parsed and executed the ALGOL instructions.
My deck of ALGOL playing cards is long gone… I wonder what they'd be worth today?
I remember, and copy-paste this piece from the bio, seemed appropriate:
It’s easy to throw stones at Microsoft. They’ve clearly fallen from their dominance. They’ve become mostly irrelevant. And yet I appreciate what they did and how hard it was. They were very good at the business side of things. They were never as ambitious product-wise as they should have been. Bill likes to portray himself as a man of the product, but he’s really not. He’s a businessperson. Winning business was more important than making great products. He ended up the wealthiest guy around, and if that was his goal, then he achieved it. But it’s never been my goal, and I wonder, in the end, if it was his goal. I admire him for the company he built—it’s impressive—and I enjoyed working with him. He’s bright and actually has a good sense of humor. But Microsoft never had the humanities and liberal arts in its DNA. Even when they saw the Mac, they couldn’t copy it well. They totally didn’t get it. I have my own theory about why decline happens at companies like IBM or Microsoft. The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The company starts valuing the great salesmen, because they’re the ones who can move the needle on revenues, not the product engineers and designers. So the salespeople end up running the company. John Akers at IBM was a smart, eloquent, fantastic salesperson, but he didn’t know anything about product. The same thing happened at Xerox. When the sales guys run the company, the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off. It happened at Apple when Sculley came in, which was my fault, and it happened when Ballmer took over at Microsoft. Apple was lucky and it rebounded, but I don’t think anything will change at Microsoft as long as Ballmer is running it.
Comments
yup. "coulda, woulda, shoulda." great CEO leadership!
except, it = "Fail."
the ARM Surface is Zune 2. the Intel Surface Pro ... well ask me when it ACTUALLY SHIPS!
and all those poor sad MS stock owners today ... they should buy Cubs season tickets too.
I keep hearing that Balmer is very bright, but apparently not bright enough to think before he speaks in public.
Ballmer is a douche.
Innovating? What's really innovative about the SURFACE other than the UI being different to an iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bsimpsen
According to Balmer, "We're creating products at the seam between hardware and software". Also according to Balmer, "What we say now is there is no boundary between hardware and software."
I keep hearing that Balmer is very bright, but apparently not bright enough to think before he speaks in public.
At least he can never claim that Microsoft operating systems are seamlessly integrated with Microsoft hardware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr
yup. "coulda, woulda, shoulda." great CEO leadership!
except, it = "Fail."
the ARM Surface is Zune 2. the Intel Surface Pro ... well ask me when it ACTUALLY SHIPS!
and all those poor sad MS stock owners today ... they should buy Cubs season tickets too.
1. Washington Wizard tix too.
2. Has MS announced if they're going to be building their own version of the Surface Pro? Or conversely have they said they won't be releasing one at the intro??
the other news from the MS meeting today is Ballmer announces 40 million W8 licenses "sold".
hello, media suckers, who just report this PR handout without finding out exactly what he is talking about.
no way 40 million end user licenses have been sold for consumer PC upgrades or delivered new PC's/laptops in a month. and for businesses, it's too soon for any at all.
so that number has to include the OEM contracts where company x agrees to buy y million licenses for PC/laptops over z time period to get the best price per unit. probably about one half of that total. that's really unpaid reservations, but it's still a commitment to buy, load, and pay ... someday.
the telling information is independent reports that new W8 PC sales are "slower" than anticipated. that can't translate into a higher initial period sales figures than W7.
Good ol' Ballmer, "the marketing guy," still cooking the books for hype.
MS' fourth quarter SEC filing will have to be a bit more honest about this shell game, but we won't see that until February.
The selection of Apps for Surface is a bit skimpy to say the least.
It's underwhelming and over priced. Costs as much or more than an iPad but not nearly as good.
Apple goes with their first thought and releases the iPad in 2004-5 when Jobs first thought it up. Basically looks like the original iPad did, runs iOS 1 same as the original phone which might still get introduced a year or so later.
Ballmer thinks MS and Apple would be flipped in places in that version. But I say if Windows XP was 'touched' the way Windows 8 has been, Apple would still show them up big time
They see their Surface Pro as a computer. And I suspect that will be why it will basically fail - consumer expectations
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beauty of Bath
Surface, is creating a "seam" between software and hardware and a chasm between MS and its licensees.
Meanwhile Apple's software and hardware is seamless.
Ballmer seems as clueless as ever if not more so, chucking out buzzwords like a salesman.
Ballmer is a salesman, but not much else.
At least he hints that Apple in doing both HDW & SW, got it right!
Yes I wonder how Ballmer can hang on to his job? Oh yes, he's a super salesman at directors meetings and AGMs!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshA
Ballmer is a salesman, but not much else.
At least he hints that Apple in doing both HDW & SW, got it right!
Yes I wonder how Ballmer can hang on to his job? Oh yes, he's a super salesman at directors meetings and AGMs!
until Gates himself puts the knife in his back.
"Et tu, Bill?"
http://www.computer.org/portal/web/csdl/doi/10.1109/AFIPS.1961.4
Burroughs, Xerox PARC, and Apple have been much more into the idea of creating computers as a tool for people's creativity. This is a subversive idea because IBM and the Microsoft believe in making computers to control people, i.e. business and office machines. That is why Microsoft are failing.
A very important distinction.
Ha!
That brings back memories. In 1960, I attended a class on the B5000 – It was mostly about how the ALGOL programming language was integrated into the hardware. Among the class material handouts was a set of playing cards that illustrated how the computer hardware parsed and executed the ALGOL instructions.
My deck of ALGOL playing cards is long gone… I wonder what they'd be worth today?
On the other hand it is a belated complement, and an acknowledgment that Apple is ahead of Microsoft... in a backhanded sort of way.
It’s easy to throw stones at Microsoft. They’ve clearly fallen from their dominance. They’ve become mostly irrelevant. And yet I appreciate what they did and how hard it was. They were very good at the business side of things. They were never as ambitious product-wise as they should have been. Bill likes to portray himself as a man of the product, but he’s really not. He’s a businessperson. Winning business was more important than making great products. He ended up the wealthiest guy around, and if that was his goal, then he achieved it. But it’s never been my goal, and I wonder, in the end, if it was his goal. I admire him for the company he built—it’s impressive—and I enjoyed working with him. He’s bright and actually has a good sense of humor. But Microsoft never had the humanities and liberal arts in its DNA. Even when they saw the Mac, they couldn’t copy it well. They totally didn’t get it.
I have my own theory about why decline happens at companies like IBM or Microsoft. The company does a great job, innovates and becomes a monopoly or close to it in some field, and then the quality of the product becomes less important. The company starts valuing the great salesmen, because they’re the ones who can move the needle on revenues, not the product engineers and designers. So the salespeople end up running the company. John Akers at IBM was a smart, eloquent, fantastic salesperson, but he didn’t know anything about product. The same thing happened at Xerox. When the sales guys run the company, the product guys don’t matter so much, and a lot of them just turn off. It happened at Apple when Sculley came in, which was my fault, and it happened when Ballmer took over at Microsoft. Apple was lucky and it rebounded, but I don’t think anything will change at Microsoft as long as Ballmer is running it.