I'm at a loss to understand why Ballmer still has a job.
Not sure why everyone is bashing Ballmer for this change. It was a good change IMO. Ballmer may be stupid, but that doesn't mean everything he does is bad. Who knows, maybe the corporate structure is the reason we've seen such incompetence the last 15 years. Apple should be on guard. I know a tiger doesn't change its stripes, but companies do turn around sometimes......
You don't address the point I raised. You don't explain why what MS is doing is a bad business move,. Instead you you accuse me of "trolling."
I have to say that I see both sides of these arguments. Your earlier point did sound rather apologetic toward Microsoft, defending their position because they make money. You're right in saying that is, in fact, the ultimate goal of business. The other side of that is that, as a technology company, they also really need to be seen as innovative leaders 'lest they lose their place at the top as IBM did years ago and have many other companies that were in similar positions once upon a time. Anyone still remember companies like Ashton-Tate, Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect Corp? Perhaps those are not the best examples because they primarily lost their footing because of anticompetitive measures taken by Microsoft releasing products before Windows APIs were even made public, but my point is that if Microsoft continues to be seen as a follower rather than a leader, they will eventually begin to fade. It's already happening to a large extent.
Also I should point out that I strongly believe what MS is doing is a good business move. If they do truly integrate similar divisions rather than having them practically in competition with each other, it could be a rather positive change in the right direction for a company that's currently so big it simply doesn't function well. We'll see.
Balmer is still an idiot who should have been replaced years ago.
In short, "business" has been around since the dawn of time and the first day Ug the caveman traded a sabre-tooth tiger pelt for some beans, but the whole "capitalism" thing is a very modern invention, it's ideologically based (not rationally so), and flawed in many many ways.
Actually... Eve was the first business[wo]man... a carpenter... she made Adam's banana stand...
Welcome to AppleInsider! You are posting on one of the world's premiere pro-Apple web sites.
Whether or not your "bias is on the Apple side," you are contributing to the success of AppleInsider,
and for that we thank you.
Now, maybe after a year or so, you will be able to troll AppleInsider in a more subtle, more effective manner.
We look forward to that day. We see many newbie trolls. They're easy to spot. Good luck!
Not sure whether LibertyLover is a troll or not, but he's absolutely correct to question the mud slinging about the corporate structure. How is this change a bad thing? If anything they are copying Apple's structure. Again, how is that a bad thing for MS? We all know Ballmer is a complete idiot, but that doesn't make the current changes bad. It just means Ballmer's an idiot for not doing it 10 years ago.
But this has been their corporate culture since, well, probably forever. I worked out there for a short time years ago (back when Expedia was still part of Microsoft) and I remember sitting in meetings where there was data in need of processing. This is a paraphrasing of how these conversations would typically go (this happened several times over my short tenure):
Manager: "We have some logs that we need to massage into something we can understand. How should we do that?"
Developer: "I need a team of three VB coders and three weeks and we can do that for you."
Me: "Let me install Perl on my machine and I can take care of this in about three days."
Room: Full of confused looks on their faces. I could practically hear their collective minds screaming, "Perl? That's not a Microsoft product…"
Guess which decision was made, every time? I never bothered installing ActivePerl on my machine and I was gone after four months. Not enough of a team player apparently. It was, frankly, a horrid environment in which to work.
You nailed the true issue, which is the underlying corporate culture. The question is whether the change in corporate structure will have an impact on the culture. If it does, MS could morph into a good company. If not, everyone will look back and say Baller was putting lipstick on a pig.
My guess is it is just lipstick on a pig. We shall see....
I have to say that I see both sides of these arguments. Your earlier point did sound rather apologetic toward Microsoft, defending their position because they make money.
Actually, I wasn't so much defending MS (for making money or any other reason) as much as observing the majority of the responses here that had very little to do with any in-depth analysis of MS current situation and how this move might improve (or worsen.) It looked like a bunch "fan boy ism" to me. That approach reflects poorly, IMHO, on Apple enthusiasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
You're right in saying that is, in fact, the ultimate goal of business. The other side of that is that, as a technology company, they also really need to be seen as innovative leaders 'lest they lose their place at the top as IBM did years ago and have many other companies that were in similar positions once upon a time.
Well there are really two goals or purposes for a company: a) make money, and b) provide some kind of valuable products or services. These are really inseparable. Two sides of a coin if you will. You can't do A without B and few of have the ability to charitably do B with A.
As to the specifics of what MS needs to be seen as or doing strategically to do A, I'd argue yes...they do need to innovate (though perhaps not as much as many think.) Realize that a product (or service) is not just all about the features, functions and technology of it...sometimes it about the risk (or lack of risk) in it. IBM was successful less because of innovation as a business strategy than because of risk-reduction (for customers) as a strategy. That's what MS became (and maybe still is.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
Also I should point out that I strongly believe what MS is doing is a good business move. If they do truly integrate similar divisions rather than having them practically in competition with each other, it could be a rather positive change in the right direction for a company that's currently so big it simply doesn't function well. We'll see.
I agree. I think this probably is a good move for them. It's how I'd do things anyway. And I think can organize them better to compete better. We'll see.
I have to say that I see both sides of these arguments. Your earlier point did sound rather apologetic toward Microsoft, defending their position because they make money.
I wasn't so much defending MS as I was observing the knee-jerk mud-slinging that lacks any analytical insight as to why this is a bad (or good) move for MS, but rather just a partisan reaction to the move. This, IMHO, doesn't reflect well on Apple enthusiasts (of which I'm one actually.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
You're right in saying that is, in fact, the ultimate goal of business. The other side of that is that, as a technology company, they also really need to be seen as innovative leaders 'lest they lose their place at the top as IBM did years ago and have many other companies that were in similar positions once upon a time. Anyone still remember companies like Ashton-Tate, Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect Corp? Perhaps those are not the best examples because they primarily lost their footing because of anticompetitive measures taken by Microsoft releasing products before Windows APIs were even made public, but my point is that if Microsoft continues to be seen as a follower rather than a leader, they will eventually begin to fade. It's already happening to a large extent.
A business really has two purposes that are very tightly inter-twined: A) make a profit, provide products and services that solve problems, meet needs or fulfill desires. You can't do A without B and very few of us are charitable enough to do B with A.
As to what product and service strategy is best for MS...I don't know. In the technology business it surely must include some degree of innovation. But perhaps not as much as many imagine for some players. IBM for example succeeded less because of innovation and more because they focused on customer service and risk-reduction for their customers. They created the sentiment that "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" (as long as that lasted.) In a way, MS became the new IBM. They became the risk free choice. Sometimes that means that MS should innovate a bit less actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
Also I should point out that I strongly believe what MS is doing is a good business move. If they do truly integrate similar divisions rather than having them practically in competition with each other, it could be a rather positive change in the right direction for a company that's currently so big it simply doesn't function well. We'll see.
I think it is a smart move for MS too. I believe it will enable them to become more competitive. That will be a good thing for consumers.
"Marketing, advertising, and all customer interaction will focus on portraying Microsoft as a company that offers a tightly integrated ecosystem for both consumers and businesses."
Portraying yourself as a company that offers something, and actually delivering that type of experience are two different things. I think it's good that MS is trying to refocus, I mean they have to do something. I just feel that the focus needs to be strictly internal for the time being. For the most part customers don't need much convincing, all they need is a GREAT experience and they'll do all the footwork for you in terms of convincing other people that they need your product. Don't get me wrong, marketing is huge! All i'm saying is that a great product speaks for itself, and marketing a great product is far easier than marketing a mediocre one.
I'm merely describing what I'm reading. I've seen very little in the way of any reasoned arguments about what MS is doing here and very much in the way of simply knee-jerk mud-slinging...because it MS.
Ok, let's talk about this for a sec.
You're calling everyone biased because we won't give this reorg the benefit of a doubt? Or Microsoft the benefit of a doubt?
I don't give either of those the benefit of the doubt, but don't mistake the cause as "Apple fanboyism." Apple creates products that people love. As Tim Cook calls it, this is their "North Star." If a Mac or iPad is just a list of hardware specs to you, then stop reading this; we have nothing in common. Microsoft is hard to love. People put up with Microsoft. What did @adam_orth say? "#dealwithit"??? It typically takes them 3 versions to get anything right. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Bundle free what your competitors charge for, even if it's shitty. And there's a reason: their focus is not on the customer: it's on their competitors. That's their North Star. Microsoft is fixated on their competition not their customers. Customers are just collateral to them. And that's how they make me feel. Oh, yes. They earned my scorn. Every last bit of it.
You may now begin apologizing for Microsoft profusely.
You're calling everyone biased because we won't give this reorg the benefit of a doubt? Or Microsoft the benefit of a doubt?
First, not everyone. Second, not because anyone isn't giving anything any benefit of any doubt but instead because some (many actually) are simply bashing MS in various ways without really giving much thought to the news at all. To deny this has been the bulk the posts would be fascinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I don't give either of those the benefit of the doubt, but don't mistake the cause as "Apple fanboyism."
As stated above, my comments were not, per se, about anyone giving anything any benefit of any doubt. My comment was the obvious mudslinging irrespective of the news content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Apple creates products that people love.
Yes, many do. Myself included (well, most days.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
If a Mac or iPad is just a list of hardware specs to you, then stop reading this; we have nothing in common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Microsoft is hard to love. People put up with Microsoft.
Indeed. For me too. I hate them and their products. I put up with them if I have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
It typically takes them 3 versions to get anything right. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Bundle free what your competitors charge for, even if it's shitty.
Now let's not pretend that there's not a bit of this in Apple too. That would simply be dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
And there's a reason: their focus is not on the customer: it's on their competitors. That's their North Star. Microsoft is fixated on their competition not their customers. Customers are just collateral to them.
Possibly. I haven't spent much time analyzing MS faults and their causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
You may now begin apologizing for Microsoft profusely.
My point is that you're apologizing for Microsoft. You aren't bias-free. Don't come here labeling people with "partisan bias" without labeling yourself in the same way. These forums are frequented by people who hate Apple, but claim all the bias and apologists are on Apple's side, while they claim to be full of "logic and reason." Just admit you're here being partisan too. It's OK to have biases. These forums run on it.
He's just doing what the script script he was handed says to do. Waggener Edstrom doesn't pay people to go around admitting they are partisan pot stirrers.
He's just doing what the script script he was handed says to do. Waggener Edstrom doesn't pay people to go around admitting they are partisan pot stirrers.
You've now mentioned this Waggener Edstrum twice. I googled it. How clever. I've been called a "troll"...now a shill...and a MS apologist. You folks are all rather sensitive and defensive when blatant partisan mudslinging is called out. But few, have actually had the courage to defend the mudslinging and partisanship or, even better, actually address the interesting subject of what MS is doing, what it might mean for them, the industry and Apple.
What's particularly amusing is that you think this forum, and everyone in it, is important enough to MS to actually pay a PR firm to come in here and defend it. Now that's fairly self-important thinking.
You've now mentioned this Waggener Edstrum twice. I googled it. How clever. I've been called a "troll"...now a shill...and a MS apologist. You folks are all rather sensitive and defensive when blatant partisan mudslinging is called out. But few, have actually had the courage to defend the mudslinging and partisanship or, even better, actually address the interesting subject of what MS is doing, what it might mean for them, the industry and Apple.
What's particularly amusing is that you think this forum, and everyone in it, is important enough to MS to actually pay a PR firm to come in here and defend it. Now that's fairly self-important thinking.
Hey LL,
Good dialogue, I tend to agree with you. Not a lot of discussion of the issues - just a lot of "tee hee, that idiot Balmer again . . ."
Not that Balmer isn't a sad spectacle IMO or, as someone else mentioned, that MS still doesn't seem to get that it's (always) about the client/customer. After all, even if MS is still making (legacy) billions, they have to do something to get into the 21st century.
Maybe this reorg IS just smoke and mirrors - time will tell.
"Marketing, advertising, and all customer interaction will focus on portraying Microsoft as a company that offers a tightly integrated ecosystem for both consumers and businesses."
Portraying yourself as a company that offers something, and actually delivering that type of experience are two different things. I think it's good that MS is trying to refocus, I mean they have to do something. I just feel that the focus needs to be strictly internal for the time being. For the most part customers don't need much convincing, all they need is a GREAT experience and they'll do all the footwork for you in terms of convincing other people that they need your product. Don't get me wrong, marketing is huge! All i'm saying is that a great product speaks for itself, and marketing a great product is far easier than marketing a mediocre one.
If a company is trying to market a poor product you'll see a lot of song and dance in their advertising, and... wait, isn't that what we see in Microsoft ads... break dancing and tossing products... yeh...!
Microsofts original plan was to offer three versions of reorganization: home, professional, ultimate.
LOL, I'm sure that was Ballmer's first suggestion. Then someone on the board said, "wait a minute... what are the folks at Apple doing? We copied them in the 80's and it worked out nicely. Maybe we should try it again?"
In short, "business" has been around since the dawn of time and the first day Ug the caveman traded a sabre-tooth tiger pelt for some beans, but the whole "capitalism" thing is a very modern invention, it's ideologically based (not rationally so), and flawed in many many ways.
The caveman analogy is the kind of business best labeled "Free Enterprise." The management owns the business. It is still the most common form of business in the USA. Capitalism began when a company started selling shares in the business, so the stockholders became the owners. Management then had to satisfy the stockholders by producing glowing quarterly and annual reports (with the emphasis on the short term gain).
Microsoft is very short term gain oriented and that focus trickles down to the team level where every project team is programmed to come out at the end shinning brighter than some others on the team. It's part of how you keep your job.
Apple, on the other hand, is more long term focused. Apple, for example, is celebrating the fifth anniversary of iTunes, which, like most of Apple's money makers has been honed over years to be a "best in class" customer experience. Apple has put many things in action to fall into place at a much later date. Most indications are that Apple runs on a five-year product plan. They roll out planned improvements from product inception to product maturation.
At Microsoft, things may take five years to get to inception, but the start on development was a reactive move to competitor's planned actions. Then, it's a scramble to get something out the door, even if it doesn't fit into any part of a long-term plan. Example: Apple introduced the iPhone. Microsoft released the Kin phones that were quickly discontinued and dumped into a hole in the ground. Then they released the Win 7 Nokia phone, which was soon followed by the Win 8 Nokia phone with no plan for their customers upgrading Win 7 phones purchased only a few months earlier. It was like watching a Chinese Fire Drill.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
I'm at a loss to understand why Ballmer still has a job.
Not sure why everyone is bashing Ballmer for this change. It was a good change IMO. Ballmer may be stupid, but that doesn't mean everything he does is bad. Who knows, maybe the corporate structure is the reason we've seen such incompetence the last 15 years. Apple should be on guard. I know a tiger doesn't change its stripes, but companies do turn around sometimes......
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyLover
You don't address the point I raised. You don't explain why what MS is doing is a bad business move,. Instead you you accuse me of "trolling."
I have to say that I see both sides of these arguments. Your earlier point did sound rather apologetic toward Microsoft, defending their position because they make money. You're right in saying that is, in fact, the ultimate goal of business. The other side of that is that, as a technology company, they also really need to be seen as innovative leaders 'lest they lose their place at the top as IBM did years ago and have many other companies that were in similar positions once upon a time. Anyone still remember companies like Ashton-Tate, Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect Corp? Perhaps those are not the best examples because they primarily lost their footing because of anticompetitive measures taken by Microsoft releasing products before Windows APIs were even made public, but my point is that if Microsoft continues to be seen as a follower rather than a leader, they will eventually begin to fade. It's already happening to a large extent.
Also I should point out that I strongly believe what MS is doing is a good business move. If they do truly integrate similar divisions rather than having them practically in competition with each other, it could be a rather positive change in the right direction for a company that's currently so big it simply doesn't function well. We'll see.
Balmer is still an idiot who should have been replaced years ago.
Actually... Eve was the first business[wo]man... a carpenter... she made Adam's banana stand...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Welcome to AppleInsider! You are posting on one of the world's premiere pro-Apple web sites.
Whether or not your "bias is on the Apple side," you are contributing to the success of AppleInsider,
and for that we thank you.
Now, maybe after a year or so, you will be able to troll AppleInsider in a more subtle, more effective manner.
We look forward to that day. We see many newbie trolls. They're easy to spot. Good luck!
Not sure whether LibertyLover is a troll or not, but he's absolutely correct to question the mud slinging about the corporate structure. How is this change a bad thing? If anything they are copying Apple's structure. Again, how is that a bad thing for MS? We all know Ballmer is a complete idiot, but that doesn't make the current changes bad. It just means Ballmer's an idiot for not doing it 10 years ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
But this has been their corporate culture since, well, probably forever. I worked out there for a short time years ago (back when Expedia was still part of Microsoft) and I remember sitting in meetings where there was data in need of processing. This is a paraphrasing of how these conversations would typically go (this happened several times over my short tenure):
Manager: "We have some logs that we need to massage into something we can understand. How should we do that?"
Developer: "I need a team of three VB coders and three weeks and we can do that for you."
Me: "Let me install Perl on my machine and I can take care of this in about three days."
Room: Full of confused looks on their faces. I could practically hear their collective minds screaming, "Perl? That's not a Microsoft product…"
Guess which decision was made, every time? I never bothered installing ActivePerl on my machine and I was gone after four months. Not enough of a team player apparently. It was, frankly, a horrid environment in which to work.
You nailed the true issue, which is the underlying corporate culture. The question is whether the change in corporate structure will have an impact on the culture. If it does, MS could morph into a good company. If not, everyone will look back and say Baller was putting lipstick on a pig.
My guess is it is just lipstick on a pig. We shall see....
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
I have to say that I see both sides of these arguments. Your earlier point did sound rather apologetic toward Microsoft, defending their position because they make money.
Actually, I wasn't so much defending MS (for making money or any other reason) as much as observing the majority of the responses here that had very little to do with any in-depth analysis of MS current situation and how this move might improve (or worsen.) It looked like a bunch "fan boy ism" to me. That approach reflects poorly, IMHO, on Apple enthusiasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
You're right in saying that is, in fact, the ultimate goal of business. The other side of that is that, as a technology company, they also really need to be seen as innovative leaders 'lest they lose their place at the top as IBM did years ago and have many other companies that were in similar positions once upon a time.
Well there are really two goals or purposes for a company: a) make money, and b) provide some kind of valuable products or services. These are really inseparable. Two sides of a coin if you will. You can't do A without B and few of have the ability to charitably do B with A.
As to the specifics of what MS needs to be seen as or doing strategically to do A, I'd argue yes...they do need to innovate (though perhaps not as much as many think.) Realize that a product (or service) is not just all about the features, functions and technology of it...sometimes it about the risk (or lack of risk) in it. IBM was successful less because of innovation as a business strategy than because of risk-reduction (for customers) as a strategy. That's what MS became (and maybe still is.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
Also I should point out that I strongly believe what MS is doing is a good business move. If they do truly integrate similar divisions rather than having them practically in competition with each other, it could be a rather positive change in the right direction for a company that's currently so big it simply doesn't function well. We'll see.
I agree. I think this probably is a good move for them. It's how I'd do things anyway. And I think can organize them better to compete better. We'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
I have to say that I see both sides of these arguments. Your earlier point did sound rather apologetic toward Microsoft, defending their position because they make money.
I wasn't so much defending MS as I was observing the knee-jerk mud-slinging that lacks any analytical insight as to why this is a bad (or good) move for MS, but rather just a partisan reaction to the move. This, IMHO, doesn't reflect well on Apple enthusiasts (of which I'm one actually.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
You're right in saying that is, in fact, the ultimate goal of business. The other side of that is that, as a technology company, they also really need to be seen as innovative leaders 'lest they lose their place at the top as IBM did years ago and have many other companies that were in similar positions once upon a time. Anyone still remember companies like Ashton-Tate, Borland, Lotus, WordPerfect Corp? Perhaps those are not the best examples because they primarily lost their footing because of anticompetitive measures taken by Microsoft releasing products before Windows APIs were even made public, but my point is that if Microsoft continues to be seen as a follower rather than a leader, they will eventually begin to fade. It's already happening to a large extent.
A business really has two purposes that are very tightly inter-twined: A) make a profit,
As to what product and service strategy is best for MS...I don't know. In the technology business it surely must include some degree of innovation. But perhaps not as much as many imagine for some players. IBM for example succeeded less because of innovation and more because they focused on customer service and risk-reduction for their customers. They created the sentiment that "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" (as long as that lasted.) In a way, MS became the new IBM. They became the risk free choice. Sometimes that means that MS should innovate a bit less actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djames4242
Also I should point out that I strongly believe what MS is doing is a good business move. If they do truly integrate similar divisions rather than having them practically in competition with each other, it could be a rather positive change in the right direction for a company that's currently so big it simply doesn't function well. We'll see.
I think it is a smart move for MS too. I believe it will enable them to become more competitive. That will be a good thing for consumers.
"Marketing, advertising, and all customer interaction will focus on portraying Microsoft as a company that offers a tightly integrated ecosystem for both consumers and businesses."
Portraying yourself as a company that offers something, and actually delivering that type of experience are two different things. I think it's good that MS is trying to refocus, I mean they have to do something. I just feel that the focus needs to be strictly internal for the time being. For the most part customers don't need much convincing, all they need is a GREAT experience and they'll do all the footwork for you in terms of convincing other people that they need your product. Don't get me wrong, marketing is huge! All i'm saying is that a great product speaks for itself, and marketing a great product is far easier than marketing a mediocre one.
Ok, let's talk about this for a sec.
You're calling everyone biased because we won't give this reorg the benefit of a doubt? Or Microsoft the benefit of a doubt?
I don't give either of those the benefit of the doubt, but don't mistake the cause as "Apple fanboyism." Apple creates products that people love. As Tim Cook calls it, this is their "North Star." If a Mac or iPad is just a list of hardware specs to you, then stop reading this; we have nothing in common. Microsoft is hard to love. People put up with Microsoft. What did @adam_orth say? "#dealwithit"??? It typically takes them 3 versions to get anything right. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Bundle free what your competitors charge for, even if it's shitty. And there's a reason: their focus is not on the customer: it's on their competitors. That's their North Star. Microsoft is fixated on their competition not their customers. Customers are just collateral to them. And that's how they make me feel. Oh, yes. They earned my scorn. Every last bit of it.
You may now begin apologizing for Microsoft profusely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soloman
That actually hasn't been the case in years. Though Vista was a disaster they've done a good job with 7.
Bzzzt! 7 is the best MS excretion yet but people routinely run virus scans and have driver issues with it, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
You're calling everyone biased because we won't give this reorg the benefit of a doubt? Or Microsoft the benefit of a doubt?
First, not everyone. Second, not because anyone isn't giving anything any benefit of any doubt but instead because some (many actually) are simply bashing MS in various ways without really giving much thought to the news at all. To deny this has been the bulk the posts would be fascinating.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I don't give either of those the benefit of the doubt, but don't mistake the cause as "Apple fanboyism."
As stated above, my comments were not, per se, about anyone giving anything any benefit of any doubt. My comment was the obvious mudslinging irrespective of the news content.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Apple creates products that people love.
Yes, many do. Myself included (well, most days.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
If a Mac or iPad is just a list of hardware specs to you, then stop reading this; we have nothing in common.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Microsoft is hard to love. People put up with Microsoft.
Indeed. For me too. I hate them and their products. I put up with them if I have to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
It typically takes them 3 versions to get anything right. Embrace, extend, extinguish. Bundle free what your competitors charge for, even if it's shitty.
Now let's not pretend that there's not a bit of this in Apple too. That would simply be dishonest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
And there's a reason: their focus is not on the customer: it's on their competitors. That's their North Star. Microsoft is fixated on their competition not their customers. Customers are just collateral to them.
Possibly. I haven't spent much time analyzing MS faults and their causes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
You may now begin apologizing for Microsoft profusely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
I'm at a loss to understand why Ballmer still has a job.
Exactly my thoughts.
As long as Steve Ballmer is there MS hasn't refreshed itself.
Surely Ballmer has enough money by now to rest on a Hawaii beach, watching others use their Apple iDevices !
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
My point is that you're apologizing for Microsoft. You aren't bias-free. Don't come here labeling people with "partisan bias" without labeling yourself in the same way. These forums are frequented by people who hate Apple, but claim all the bias and apologists are on Apple's side, while they claim to be full of "logic and reason." Just admit you're here being partisan too. It's OK to have biases. These forums run on it.
He's just doing what the script script he was handed says to do. Waggener Edstrom doesn't pay people to go around admitting they are partisan pot stirrers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJones
He's just doing what the script script he was handed says to do. Waggener Edstrom doesn't pay people to go around admitting they are partisan pot stirrers.
You've now mentioned this Waggener Edstrum twice. I googled it. How clever. I've been called a "troll"...now a shill...and a MS apologist. You folks are all rather sensitive and defensive when blatant partisan mudslinging is called out. But few, have actually had the courage to defend the mudslinging and partisanship or, even better, actually address the interesting subject of what MS is doing, what it might mean for them, the industry and Apple.
What's particularly amusing is that you think this forum, and everyone in it, is important enough to MS to actually pay a PR firm to come in here and defend it. Now that's fairly self-important thinking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyLover
You've now mentioned this Waggener Edstrum twice. I googled it. How clever. I've been called a "troll"...now a shill...and a MS apologist. You folks are all rather sensitive and defensive when blatant partisan mudslinging is called out. But few, have actually had the courage to defend the mudslinging and partisanship or, even better, actually address the interesting subject of what MS is doing, what it might mean for them, the industry and Apple.
What's particularly amusing is that you think this forum, and everyone in it, is important enough to MS to actually pay a PR firm to come in here and defend it. Now that's fairly self-important thinking.
Hey LL,
Good dialogue, I tend to agree with you. Not a lot of discussion of the issues - just a lot of "tee hee, that idiot Balmer again . . ."
Not that Balmer isn't a sad spectacle IMO or, as someone else mentioned, that MS still doesn't seem to get that it's (always) about the client/customer. After all, even if MS is still making (legacy) billions, they have to do something to get into the 21st century.
Maybe this reorg IS just smoke and mirrors - time will tell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B
I'm at a loss to understand why Ballmer still has a job.
Photos, lots of photos of Bill and some gerbils. Oh, and a chicken. I keep forgetting about the chicken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechManMike
"Marketing, advertising, and all customer interaction will focus on portraying Microsoft as a company that offers a tightly integrated ecosystem for both consumers and businesses."
Portraying yourself as a company that offers something, and actually delivering that type of experience are two different things. I think it's good that MS is trying to refocus, I mean they have to do something. I just feel that the focus needs to be strictly internal for the time being. For the most part customers don't need much convincing, all they need is a GREAT experience and they'll do all the footwork for you in terms of convincing other people that they need your product. Don't get me wrong, marketing is huge! All i'm saying is that a great product speaks for itself, and marketing a great product is far easier than marketing a mediocre one.
If a company is trying to market a poor product you'll see a lot of song and dance in their advertising, and... wait, isn't that what we see in Microsoft ads... break dancing and tossing products... yeh...!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Microsofts original plan was to offer three versions of reorganization: home, professional, ultimate.
LOL, I'm sure that was Ballmer's first suggestion. Then someone on the board said, "wait a minute... what are the folks at Apple doing? We copied them in the 80's and it worked out nicely. Maybe we should try it again?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
In short, "business" has been around since the dawn of time and the first day Ug the caveman traded a sabre-tooth tiger pelt for some beans, but the whole "capitalism" thing is a very modern invention, it's ideologically based (not rationally so), and flawed in many many ways.
The caveman analogy is the kind of business best labeled "Free Enterprise." The management owns the business. It is still the most common form of business in the USA. Capitalism began when a company started selling shares in the business, so the stockholders became the owners. Management then had to satisfy the stockholders by producing glowing quarterly and annual reports (with the emphasis on the short term gain).
Microsoft is very short term gain oriented and that focus trickles down to the team level where every project team is programmed to come out at the end shinning brighter than some others on the team. It's part of how you keep your job.
Apple, on the other hand, is more long term focused. Apple, for example, is celebrating the fifth anniversary of iTunes, which, like most of Apple's money makers has been honed over years to be a "best in class" customer experience. Apple has put many things in action to fall into place at a much later date. Most indications are that Apple runs on a five-year product plan. They roll out planned improvements from product inception to product maturation.
At Microsoft, things may take five years to get to inception, but the start on development was a reactive move to competitor's planned actions. Then, it's a scramble to get something out the door, even if it doesn't fit into any part of a long-term plan. Example: Apple introduced the iPhone. Microsoft released the Kin phones that were quickly discontinued and dumped into a hole in the ground. Then they released the Win 7 Nokia phone, which was soon followed by the Win 8 Nokia phone with no plan for their customers upgrading Win 7 phones purchased only a few months earlier. It was like watching a Chinese Fire Drill.