Can someone explain to me how "Business Development" and "Evangelism" are related? Speaking as someone with no business degree, the juxtaposition seems jarring.
Evangelism is used to bring in new developers and users who you will then hope to sell products to.
The only innovation I can remember that ever succeeded out of Redmond, WA is the idea that we pay for a license to use software, rather than owning what's on the medium we install. After that, it was buy, borrow, steal, run the competition out of business, and exploit the virtual monopoly for Microsoft.
Really does Microsoft innovate at all, hmmm? Remember that other oxymoron "Microsoft Works" thanks for the laugh Mr Balmy and the PR/ad people suggested he use the word hollistic too wow
I have no idea about the quality of the various managers but MS did something very unique here in copying one of Apple's strongest strengths. They have eliminated much of the potential in-fighting cause by senior managers being tracked by specific P&L for their divisions. For example:
Terry Myerson is in charge of OSes including the software controlling the XBox.
Julie Larson-Green is in charge of hardware engineering including the hardware of the XBox.
Tami Reller is in charge of all marketing including the the XBox.
Steve Balmer is responsible for the profit/loss of the XBox.
This organization has the potential (and I say potential for it can be fraught with dangers as well) to allow decisions to be made for the good of the company VS the good of a single product (like protecting Office or Windows). We will see if this works out for MS. It will require Steve to be strong in his decisions and stamp out "pet projects" protected by a single high-level manager. It also forces all these people to really work together on a day by day basis and Steve Balmer HAS to be the final authority on any (and there will be many) disagreements that come up between functional managers. MS did not go "all the way" as Tim did by putting all software under a single person (though to be fair, MS has lots more software than Apple) but I think this is a good start.
I was reading a post by Mary Jo Foley (resident microsoft expert on cnet) and in true Ballmer fashion it's not a clean reorg along devices and services; he made it more complicated.
I love what Cook did with Apple's re-org. Everyone now has to work together and it will be very difficult for one leader to create a fiefdom. I still wonder though if Scotf Forstall's ouster forced the re-org or if Cook had been thinking about it for a while and knew that Scott wouldn't be a good fit in the new structure.
Typical Microsoft management thinking: order your employees to start innovating via a memo. Doesn't work that way. Microsoft's culture has deep problems. Rearranging the deck chairs won't fix those problems.
A fish rots from the head down.
Expecting Ballmer to "fix MS" is like expecting the US Admin and Congress to clean up the Surveillance State mess.
Quote:
Can someone explain to me how "Business Development" and "Evangelism" are related? Speaking as someone with no business degree, the juxtaposition seems jarring.
Apple's also used the "evangelist" title - e.g., Guy Kawasaki. From WikiP: "In 1983, Kawasaki got a job at Apple through his Stanford roommate, Mike Boich.He was the chief evangelist for four years," Whereas Alan Kay was an "Apple Fellow" for a spell.
I get that this is an Apple enthusiast forum, but I'm struck by the profoundly negative (almost belligerent) reaction to this that seems to me driven more by a partisan bias than a rational examination of the situation.
The reality is that Microsoft is large, successful and powerful company. They been stumbling for a few years to be sure, but this change could change that and could create much more competition for Apple and others.
They aren't exactly a dumb company, nor do they entirely lack technological prowess or creativity.
I get that this is an Apple enthusiast forum, but I'm struck by the profoundly negative (almost belligerent) reaction to this that seems to me drive more by a partisan bias than a rational examination of the situation.
The reality is that Microsoft is large, successful and powerful company. They been stumbling for a few years to be sure, but this change could change that and could create much more competition for Apple and others.
They aren't exactly a dumb company, nor do they entirely lack technological prowess or creativity.
Does Waggener Edstrom pay pretty decently these days?
I get that this is an Apple enthusiast forum, but I'm struck by the profoundly negative (almost belligerent) reaction to this that seems to me driven more by a partisan bias than a rational examination of the situation.
The reality is that Microsoft is large, successful and powerful company. They been stumbling for a few years to be sure, but this change could change that and could create much more competition for Apple and others.
They aren't exactly a dumb company, nor do they entirely lack technological prowess or creativity.
Replacing the Start menu with a Start screen and hiding the desktop = technological prowess or dumb?
Replacing the Start menu with a Start screen and hiding the desktop = technological prowess or dumb?
First one example doesn't rise to the level of discrediting everything else a company does. Certainly Apple has made their fair share of mistakes. The new iTunes is, in my opinion, a usability disaster. There are others as well.
So what is your point? One company is to be held to a standard of perfection while another gets it mistakes excused? That seems to fit perfectly with my claim of partisan bias.
Engineering (including supply chain and data centers)
Marketing
Business Development and Evangelism
Advanced Strategy and Research
Finance
Human Resources
Legal
Chief Operating Officer (including field, support, commercial operations and IT).
...
Wow, this is so f*cked up. A keen eye will notice that the two bolded ones are the only ones that are different from previous re-organisations or different from how most companies separate their business units … and both of them are totally ridiculous.
The last category is very telling indeed. Who does that? What other company has an entire little fiefdom devoted just to serving the boss and his minions? Any why?
And "Enginnering" now covers all software all hardware, all products, all supply chain, and the data centres too? I mean WTF?
The only thing you can say about this is that it's highly "original," obviously out of the mind of one individual (King Balmer), and about the only way one single man could control every aspect of such a large organisation. With one other guy under his thumb at the top of "Engineering," Balmer will be able to personally oversee and run everything, so this is more like the birth of a Kingdom than the reorganisation of a company.
Can someone explain to me how "Business Development" and "Evangelism" are related? Speaking as someone with no business degree, the juxtaposition seems jarring.
Call it by it's traditional name, "Sales & Marketing" and it might make more sense.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScooter63
Can someone explain to me how "Business Development" and "Evangelism" are related? Speaking as someone with no business degree, the juxtaposition seems jarring.
Evangelism is used to bring in new developers and users who you will then hope to sell products to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
And I'd bet the farm that they fired the people best suited to have innovative ideas.
Well, you do remember that Microsoft software engineer that spilled the beans on how bad things were inside, don't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
I'm at a loss to understand why Ballmer still has a job.
You're not the only one, by far.
From a career of being a buffoon, Ballmer finally makes a good move. They really need to get someone more mature to run MS though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wesley Howard
Well good to know they now have a faster way to create products and services no one wants or needs. Keep up the great work monkey boy.
"Developers!, Developers!, Developers!"
So you're an Apple fanboi huh?
Good luck, fatso. :smokey:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544
Really does Microsoft innovate at all, hmmm? Remember that other oxymoron "Microsoft Works" thanks for the laugh Mr Balmy and the PR/ad people suggested he use the word hollistic too wow
The Metro interface was quite innovative.
It was shit, but it was quite innovative!
I love what Cook did with Apple's re-org. Everyone now has to work together and it will be very difficult for one leader to create a fiefdom. I still wonder though if Scotf Forstall's ouster forced the re-org or if Cook had been thinking about it for a while and knew that Scott wouldn't be a good fit in the new structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Typical Microsoft management thinking: order your employees to start innovating via a memo. Doesn't work that way. Microsoft's culture has deep problems. Rearranging the deck chairs won't fix those problems.
A fish rots from the head down.
Expecting Ballmer to "fix MS" is like expecting the US Admin and Congress to clean up the Surveillance State mess.
Quote:
Can someone explain to me how "Business Development" and "Evangelism" are related? Speaking as someone with no business degree, the juxtaposition seems jarring.
Apple's also used the "evangelist" title - e.g., Guy Kawasaki. From WikiP: "In 1983, Kawasaki got a job at Apple through his Stanford roommate, Mike Boich.He was the chief evangelist for four years," Whereas Alan Kay was an "Apple Fellow" for a spell.
Yes, that would have been a sweeping change that was worth while .... Sweeping monkey boy out the door.
I get that this is an Apple enthusiast forum, but I'm struck by the profoundly negative (almost belligerent) reaction to this that seems to me driven more by a partisan bias than a rational examination of the situation.
The reality is that Microsoft is large, successful and powerful company. They been stumbling for a few years to be sure, but this change could change that and could create much more competition for Apple and others.
They aren't exactly a dumb company, nor do they entirely lack technological prowess or creativity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyLover
I get that this is an Apple enthusiast forum, but I'm struck by the profoundly negative (almost belligerent) reaction to this that seems to me drive more by a partisan bias than a rational examination of the situation.
The reality is that Microsoft is large, successful and powerful company. They been stumbling for a few years to be sure, but this change could change that and could create much more competition for Apple and others.
They aren't exactly a dumb company, nor do they entirely lack technological prowess or creativity.
Does Waggener Edstrom pay pretty decently these days?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones
Does Waggener Edstrom pay pretty decently these days?
Pardon? Who (or what) is that?
He was best friends with the Chairman while they were at Harvard.
Replacing the Start menu with a Start screen and hiding the desktop = technological prowess or dumb?
It involves shouting "business developers! business developers! business developers!" while sweating profusely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Replacing the Start menu with a Start screen and hiding the desktop = technological prowess or dumb?
First one example doesn't rise to the level of discrediting everything else a company does. Certainly Apple has made their fair share of mistakes. The new iTunes is, in my opinion, a usability disaster. There are others as well.
So what is your point? One company is to be held to a standard of perfection while another gets it mistakes excused? That seems to fit perfectly with my claim of partisan bias.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
...Engineering (including supply chain and data centers)
Marketing
Business Development and Evangelism
Advanced Strategy and Research
Finance
Human Resources
Legal
Chief Operating Officer (including field, support, commercial operations and IT).
Wow, this is so f*cked up. A keen eye will notice that the two bolded ones are the only ones that are different from previous re-organisations or different from how most companies separate their business units … and both of them are totally ridiculous.
The last category is very telling indeed. Who does that? What other company has an entire little fiefdom devoted just to serving the boss and his minions? Any why?
And "Enginnering" now covers all software all hardware, all products, all supply chain, and the data centres too? I mean WTF?
The only thing you can say about this is that it's highly "original," obviously out of the mind of one individual (King Balmer), and about the only way one single man could control every aspect of such a large organisation. With one other guy under his thumb at the top of "Engineering," Balmer will be able to personally oversee and run everything, so this is more like the birth of a Kingdom than the reorganisation of a company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PScooter63
Can someone explain to me how "Business Development" and "Evangelism" are related? Speaking as someone with no business degree, the juxtaposition seems jarring.
Call it by it's traditional name, "Sales & Marketing" and it might make more sense.