It's pretty amazing to consider that in the time span between minor Windows Mobile updates Apple, Google and Palm were able to build a better product from the ground up largely built on open source projects. I think Microsoft's extreme dislike of open source is really starting to put them at a competitive disadvantage in multiple markets.
Bingo!
It's a corporate mindset which originated right from Bill Gates and the founding of Microsoft. The shallow thinking that open source is in diametric opposition to profit. All because Bill Gates met a few UNIX hippies he didn't get along with in college. So sad...
And Steve Ballmer is simply a mindless salesman who doesn't have the critical thinking skills/vision to bring Microsoft into this new era of software/hardware development (i.e. adding value/support to well designed, market proven, open technology rather than ideologically working against it). Sorry Steve, but the era of vacuous sales pitches being able to win people over in the technology sector due to ignorance is coming to a close. I for one am glad to see it.
It's a corporate mindset which originated right from Bill Gates and the founding of Microsoft. The shallow thinking that open source is in diametric opposition to profit. All because Bill Gates met a few UNIX hippies he didn't get along with in college. So sad...
And Steve Ballmer is simply a mindless salesman who doesn't have the critical thinking skills/vision to bring Microsoft into this new era of software/hardware development (i.e. adding value/support to well designed, market proven, open technology rather than ideologically working against it). Sorry Steve, but the era of vacuous sales pitches being able to win people over in the technology sector due to ignorance is coming to a close. I for one am glad to see it.
I don't think a lack of open source is their biggest problem (it is a problem though). I think the biggest problem would be parallel development. They waste too many resources solving problems that another group within Microsoft already solved. There seems to be a major problem with the flow of knowledge within Microsoft too. The divisions are too compartmentalized and operate more like separate companies than as parts of a whole, in fact I've seen many independent companies form better partnerships than what Microsoft seems to have internally. That explains why Microsoft is so hit or miss with their products (one group may get something right, but the innovation isn't shared with anyone else), and device integration is so poor. Of course this being an Apple centric website, many will argue that all Microsoft does is miss.
This story has come from two anonymous sources from two separate websites. Please cite the last time that AI was incorrect with a story? The story may be anti-Microsoft but this is an Apple website and the story seems to be true.
I listened to the same stuff when people were angry when they published a story saying there would be no cameras inside the new touch. AI's sources are always right on and Dilger/McClean is no exception.
I find it so comical the way fanbots interpret words. Nowhere in my post did I state that AI was putting out an incorrect story- NOWHERE. My whole post was referring to the pathetic fanbot mentality and how it's dictated their postings both yesterday and today here at AI.
But you've pushed me, so to your story I will add this:
AI did indeed publish a story that their would be not camera in the Touch after MONTHS AND MONTHS of stories from AI speculating that there WOULD be a camera, even putting out stories about cases for a camera Touch. But now we now that was all wrong because Steve Jobs said the Touch is primarily a gaming device because that's what Apple's customers have told Apple (believe that and I have a bridge to sell you). I've even been told on here that the blank space inside the Touch where a camera could have gone is just a coincidence and that Steve Jobs would never make that gaming claim up unless it was true based on sales of games and not because the camera along with its needed mic simply failed to work or AT&T balked or whatever.
SO please AI has great reporting but they make mistakes just like everyone else.
Also do you remember just last week AI was reporting that Eminem was suing Apple when it was actually his music publisher? I rest my case.
I don't think a lack of open source is their biggest problem (it is a problem though).
I guess I meant "open" technology in general. A large part of Microsoft's business model is trying to lock people into proprietary technology and complete ideological resistance to most open standards. And in the case where they do adopt open standards (out of necessity), they'd rather tack proprietary extensions on to those standards than actually work with the standards group to integrate their needs.
Quote:
I think the biggest problem would be parallel development. They waste too many resources solving problems that another group within Microsoft already solved.
Agreed. This is a business organizational problem which occurs in all large companies (I've watched it happen to some extent in the company I work for as well).
However, I think part of it stems from this mindset of refusing to work with others (both externally and internally). Part of it of course is not being able to recognize managers who care more about these personal turf wars than what's best for the company overall. Which again, kinda traces back to that same corporate mentality. It affects them on both a macro and a micro level.
I guess I meant "open" technology in general. A large part of Microsoft's business model is trying to lock people into proprietary technology and complete ideological resistance to most open standards. And in the case where they do adopt open standards (out of necessity), they'd rather tack proprietary extensions on to those standards than actually work with the standards group to integrate their needs.
This story has come from two anonymous sources from two separate websites. Please cite the last time that AI was incorrect with a story? The story may be anti-Microsoft but this is an Apple website and the story seems to be true.
I listened to the same stuff when people were angry when they published a story saying there would be no cameras inside the new touch. AI's sources are always right on and Dilger/McClean is no exception.
nah, no one's perfect. can't forget AI's dramatic insistence on the death of the Mac Mini two years ago, based on 'inside sources' at Apple, even! we will see pretty soon if these anon sources about Pink's demise verify.
I find it difficult to understand how such a huge corporation can be so badly run.
Short answer: Poor organization and lack of top-down direction.
Long answer: When Microsoft started expanding into every market it could, it wound up creating largely independent subdivisions in the company that often wind up competing with each other, as this story points out. Like any sufficiently large bureaucracy, these divisions of Microsoft have become more interested in internally justifying their own existence rather than fulfilling a goal of producing a good product. While we tend to think of Microsoft as a monolithic behemoth who will crush all in its path, it's really more like a loose coalition of fiefdoms who are more interested in fighting each other than outside enemies, sort of like pre-unification Germany.
Basically, Microsoft suffers from the same problems that the federal government does.
Funny, I see it entirely different. Product Management, Marketing and various execs are always asking for additional features. One exec once asked for us to add 'sexiness' to a few our our products. Dev is always having to manage limited resources and hence often has to say "No". Requests that cause bloat seem to come from outside of development, in my experience.
You are right about not letting engineers develop the interface though. Not because you will be overwhelmed with knobs, but I think because you will be underwhelmed. I often see developers leaving UI to the end and not putting much thought into the human side. The devs often expect the users would be fine having to run a script or make a manual change instead of providing a knob for them to use.
My experience over the years is that engineers feel angst if they don't add every function they've come up with. And they are constantly coming up with more.
But the fact that in MS, as you say, "various execs" are asking for features, compliments my statement that product development is without a leader at the very top. If every middle level exec who thinks they have a place at the table uses their authority to try and add their specific requirements, then it's no wonder that products come out late, and poorly implemented and de-bugged.
When I interviewed for a job with Microsoft a few months ago, I got a brief glimpse at how the "sausage is made". The reason that Microsoft so rarely presents a unified strategy for any given technology is that they operate internally as a confederacy of individual, siloed projects, each of which is led by a senior project manager who is responsible not only for the technical success of his team, but for evangelizing his team's efforts to ensure the fruits of their labor are eventually incorporated into a shipping project.
This in and of itself may not be unusual in a company as large as Microsoft. What was strange to me, and what I think accounts for the disparate array of competing products, is that there isn't strong guidance on how to align individual projects with a coherent corporate strategy. It seems that the PM who shouts loudest, and who has the strongest political ties, gets to ship his team's product, often at the expense of a competing project which may ultimately better align with corporate brand strategy.
There are many examples. The death of PlaysForSure is only the latest example. At one point, I think Microsoft was shipping 5 different, incompatible messaging standards. Look at the mess of different synchronization products and tools that seem to finally be stabilizing with Windows Live.
In most of these instances, the result is that a customer or partner who has invested heavily in Microsoft's latest and greatest solution is left with a technological dead end with no easy way to transition to a viable product.
It's almost as if they need a single leader, with good taste, who can look at each product before it ships and say "this sucks" or "this doesn't align with our brand" or ask "what is this good for?", before the decision to go to manufacturing is made.
This is exactly what I said earlier. Thanks for the confirmation.
Yesterday a respected subjective opinion columnist, a reviewer of consumer technology products and a commentator on technology issues, Walter Mossberg gets bashed left, up and down by the fannies who could not stomach Windows 7 receiving a stellar review from someone who for years has heaped praise upon Apple. SOmeone even posted that he was paid off by Microsoft to write that. Perhaps you all need to now read Walt's code of ethics:
Today that very legitimate news story is being superceded on here by "an anonymouse tipster's" story (anti Microsoft , of course) and is being welcomed on here as if he came down from the Mountain and received the 11th Commandment!
So sad and so very stupid.
Then again, there is this article commenting of Mossberg's "review". He also points out, quite correctly as I remember, that Mossberg had said about the same thing about Vista when it first came out.
I prefer a Mac too and while not all Apple products are great, most are. But I will never be a fanboy of anything and close my mind to reality. However as other unbiased members on here stated yesterday (and I was really glad to hear them speak out) , different strokes for different folks. I don't know what's right for you and you don't know what's right for me.
This story has come from two anonymous sources from two separate websites. Please cite the last time that AI was incorrect with a story? The story may be anti-Microsoft but this is an Apple website and the story seems to be true.
I listened to the same stuff when people were angry when they published a story saying there would be no cameras inside the new touch. AI's sources are always right on and Dilger/McClean is no exception.
No site like this is always right on, and I never have been a fan of the anti-Microsoft slant on articles here.
- the Pink MS phone is dead, right? Win CE still rules forever, no new OS approach will be allowed.
- MS will stick with WM 7 as its only smartphone platform to continue the multiple OEM approach - adding maybe telco's as OEM's (all of which is what Ballmer said recently, btw, no anon sources needed).
- and the Zune? the only MS hardware. it won't be merged with WM 7, but it may 'share' - what? media but not apps? cloud services? pretty much like the limited overlap of the Nano and iPhone? (the MS-pushed Zune vs. Touch hype is baloney. there is no true equivalence. one is a media player, the other is a media player plus computer. the Zune really competes with the Nano instead).
so MS spent 500 million plus just to check out Danger's possibilities. but ultimately dumps it. brilliant! and Win Mo 7? already a year late with no beta in sight. (and the interim WM 6.5 a crashing thud). the 'insider' story i'd like to read is what is so screwed up with WM 7's development that is making it take so long. such that by the time it comes out next year it will be hopelessly too late.
Then again, there is this article commenting of Mossberg's "review". He also points out, quite correctly as I remember, that Mossberg had said about the same thing about Vista when it first came out.
He is right about Windows 7 though. Best version. Wrong about Vista. Why Microsoft wouldn't work for a more seamless upgrade to 7 from XP is almost inexcusable however. For the people who think XP is good enough, they'll stick with it.
Microsoft should have made just two versions of Windows 7. Windows 7 Professional (for business and enterprise) & Windows 7 Consumer (for all home users). But that would make too much sense now wouldn't it.
I wouldn't dare say they should make only one version, that would be ludicrous!
If they did however I came up with an amazing name for it, took me weeks of deep thought, analyses and research: Windows 7
"She was also responsible for the "Pink" codename, which has a lamer backstory than anyone has guessed: she was listening to a song by*Pink*(the singer) when she decided she was just the person to go one-up the Sidekick."
Leave it to MS to - could it have been inadvertent?!? - choose a code name already infamously used for a long and painfully failed Apple project (with the name taken from the colored index cards chosen for the initial brainstorming of the project) - actually a failed "AIM" project (The "Apple-IBM-Motorola Alliance") undertaken under duress and in extremis when all three were reeling from the MS which was then eating all their lunches. Pink led to the formation of a free-standing company, Taligent under the aegis of the founding companies.
In the long run Taligent was disbanded, Apple and Moto moved on (one moving on much more successfully) while IBM managed to salvage bits of Taligent's work that linger today in some interesting places (see link below). At Apple, SJ returned with his NeXt code and somehow managed to refocus the company and pull OS X out of all that misdirection and Yellow Box, Blue Box, any box hell.....
In a parallel universe where MS Office wasn't the accepted 'standard', there might be much better apps available (like Lotus Improv from the early 90's and countless word-processors that were easier to use than Word), but we'll never know.
I still use WordPerfect (the only reason I'm still tied to Win at all), so I do know - even with the limited resources and lack of pricing power Corel's had to keep the product moving forward, it's still superior, even lacking all the on-top coding and icky gloss MS has thrown at Word.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsewell
It's almost as if they need a single leader, with good taste, who can look at each product before it ships and say "this sucks" or "this doesn't align with our brand" or ask "what is this good for?", before the decision to go to manufacturing is made.
Gee, who could that describe? Screamin' Steve Ballmer? Hmmm. Maybe another Steve.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
For the record: The UI on Windows 7 doesn't appeal to me like that of the UI on SL. I just think Apple have better taste when it comes to user interfaces. Overall I think SL provides a better user experience, and I think that difference is not small. For me it's more about the little details that make the OS great, and Apple has a better eye for those little details on the whole. As a result of how Apple works they seem to tend to get more right than other companies, for whatever reason. They invariably end up providing a far more cohesive product that's simpler to use than the other guy's, and that looks better too.
I much prefer the Apple interface, but I'm more interested in the deep plumbing than the current surface as an indicator of the future.
And with SL it's even clearer that Apple - with its reins on both hardware and software - is much freer to keep re-architecting from bottom to top, casting aside more legacy issues (tho' not all by any means), even if their approach makes more demands on users and ISV's to keep up with the train.
This also, not coincidentally, leads to a higher percentage of incremental upgrade revenue for Apple, and they clearly don't mind that, but hopefully they'll keep that aspect as Job 2, while keeping the pushing of their whole vision forward firmly entrenched at #1. If they ever reverse that order for an extended period (I think they do occasionally put current revenue over their aesthetic), a come-uppance and rejection by users will bite them in the long run.
I definitely think this will be their biggest challenge in any future post-Jobs era, especially given the inherent pressures of now being a) an RBC (really big corporation) and b) a Wall St. darling. At that point - with a conventional corp manager - there will be strong temptations to focus on this quarter's returns while forgetting that Apple's phenomenal success rests on the execution of transformative ideas (whether borrowed and polished or original), giving them something compelling and unique to market, rather than from marketing itself.
Meanwhile, for those with less demanding and slower-evolving needs, they're free to happily compute away on their Panther and Tiger PPC Macs with the productivity they need without off-loading all their discretionary income to Cupertino.
Microsofts problem is that they split development into a large number of groups who compete with one another.
Apple had this problem as well while working on Copeland. It was one of the reasons Copeland failed. Now Apple is lead from the top in a very directed way. MS doesn't have that kind of direction.
I can say from my own companies that without leadership and direction from the top, people are like a chicken without a head. At MS, it seems as though no one wants to take responsibility at the higher levels for the overall product design. When that's left to lower level management and engineering, things don't work out too well.
Your kind of correct about Copland and Apple, but I can tell you Apple has always foster competition within the company and allow the best ideas to float to the top, This is part of their DNA. The problem is for a period of time Apple did not have someone to filter the good from the bad. Along come Steve again. The reason people hate or like Steve is whether he liked your idea or not those things seem to go hand and hand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
This isn't just my take, but one that has been written about many times over the years.
I'll tell you this, having been a partner in an electronics engineering company, you can't let the engineers make the product design and interface. If you do, you'll be overwhelmed with switches and knobs.
The same thing is true for software. Programmers are the worst people to take a product to completion. They need a strong hand on the rudder. Someone to say "no!". If that doesn't happen, you get a product like MS's.
Engineers like to add features. one of their favorite phrases is " Why don't we add...".
You have to tell them "NO!". And mean it.
I don't think that there's anyone at MS who can do that.
Can not agree more, those who are not engineers fail to understand how engineers think, they think since they can create something they are God and as God you can not tell them "No". So many engineer have this God complex and it hard to deal with many times. Besides trying to create new things they feel they have to fix everything as well. Too many time I have seen engineers try to make the perfect product, or fix things a user may never experience. Also, they see all issues as an interesting problem to solve, the question is does it really need to be solved.
Software programmer as the worse, they feel they can always improve what they ate doing since it just a matter of changing a few lines of code so they never get done with what they are working on.
This is just another thing Apple is really good at, they do not allow feature creep and the do not allow engineers to go wild and fix things that do not need fixed. They know how to keep the eye on the ball. They also know when an idea will not work or technology is not ready.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey
Microsoft definitely has an unhealthy relationship with windows and proprietary everything. For another example, Take a look at Internet Explorer. It's the bane of every web developers existence and it'll probably never change because Microsoft is constantly locking itself into proprietary and outdated standards, preventing them from being innovative.
It must be really difficult to work for a company entrenched with so many limitations and still be an innovative employee; the two conditions are so contradictory.
Now that is a interesting comment, for year MS and the PC company talked about how the Mac is proprietary and PC and Window is open and a standard. As you pointed out, it really not and never has been. MS has cripple innovation and the do it at ever turn if it does not fit their model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allblue
I prefer the possibly apocryphal version that it is a tribute to Dr Alan Turing. He could be said to be the father of the modern computer, certainly the first 'software' designer. It was his mathematical genius that produced Colossus, the mechanical/electronic hybrid computer based at Bletchley Park during in World War 2. It broke the German Enigma code, and was one of the single most significant factors in the Allied victory.
He was also homosexual, and in post-war Britain suffered for it. He was never given the recognition of his huge achievements, was arrested on an 'indecency' charge and committed suicide. To do this he painted cyanide on an apple, took a bite and died.
Whether this is the real version we do not know, as with many things at Cupertino it is surrounded in mystery, because that's the way Apple likes it.
Actually he did not get recognize for it since the government in its infinite wisdom did not want anyone to know they had the technology to crack the Enigma code, this was kept top secret for 50 years. ALong with him there was another guy can not remember his name but he was a magician who developed camouflage technology during WWII that was so successful that it was still be used into recent times and is still classified and he was never allow to talk about it or get recognized for what he did. Most people who develop these military technologies can never talk about it and usually cause the life long grief.
Meanwhile, for those with less demanding and slower-evolving needs, they're free to happily compute away on their Panther and Tiger PPC Macs with all the productivity they need without off-loading all their discretionary income to Cupertino.
No one's going to shoot them if they don't upgrade. The only reason I upgraded to SL is a little birdie gave me a copy. I wouldn't have paid the €29
He is right about Windows 7 though. Best version. Wrong about Vista. Why Microsoft wouldn't work for a more seamless upgrade to 7 from XP is almost inexcusable however. For the people who think XP is good enough, they'll stick with it.
Microsoft should have made just two versions of Windows 7. Windows 7 Professional (for business and enterprise) & Windows 7 Consumer (for all home users). But that would make too much sense now wouldn't it.
I wouldn't dare say they should make only one version, that would be ludicrous!
If they did however I came up with an amazing name for it, took me weeks of deep thought, analyses and research: Windows 7
I was going to upgrade my daughter's now unused netbook from XP Starter to Win 7 basic, but the price is way too high for that. Also, the hassle is just too much.
I suspect that a lot of people wanting to upgrade from XP to 7 will either just wait until they need a new machine, or will buy 7 not knowing all the problems involved in the upgrade, which is well beyond what the average PC owner, who, after all, knows nothing about the system, can do.
Then the complaints will begin. What will happen when people spend $100 to $250 to buy the upgrade, only to find it's too much work, or too difficult to do? Likely they won't find out until they attempt the upgrade. After all, most people don't actually read the documentation that comes with products.
Possibly, instead of Win 7 slowing the migration to Macs, this will hasten it.
Considering that most people are still using XP...
Comments
It's pretty amazing to consider that in the time span between minor Windows Mobile updates Apple, Google and Palm were able to build a better product from the ground up largely built on open source projects. I think Microsoft's extreme dislike of open source is really starting to put them at a competitive disadvantage in multiple markets.
Bingo!
It's a corporate mindset which originated right from Bill Gates and the founding of Microsoft. The shallow thinking that open source is in diametric opposition to profit. All because Bill Gates met a few UNIX hippies he didn't get along with in college. So sad...
And Steve Ballmer is simply a mindless salesman who doesn't have the critical thinking skills/vision to bring Microsoft into this new era of software/hardware development (i.e. adding value/support to well designed, market proven, open technology rather than ideologically working against it). Sorry Steve, but the era of vacuous sales pitches being able to win people over in the technology sector due to ignorance is coming to a close. I for one am glad to see it.
Bingo!
It's a corporate mindset which originated right from Bill Gates and the founding of Microsoft. The shallow thinking that open source is in diametric opposition to profit. All because Bill Gates met a few UNIX hippies he didn't get along with in college. So sad...
And Steve Ballmer is simply a mindless salesman who doesn't have the critical thinking skills/vision to bring Microsoft into this new era of software/hardware development (i.e. adding value/support to well designed, market proven, open technology rather than ideologically working against it). Sorry Steve, but the era of vacuous sales pitches being able to win people over in the technology sector due to ignorance is coming to a close. I for one am glad to see it.
I don't think a lack of open source is their biggest problem (it is a problem though). I think the biggest problem would be parallel development. They waste too many resources solving problems that another group within Microsoft already solved. There seems to be a major problem with the flow of knowledge within Microsoft too. The divisions are too compartmentalized and operate more like separate companies than as parts of a whole, in fact I've seen many independent companies form better partnerships than what Microsoft seems to have internally. That explains why Microsoft is so hit or miss with their products (one group may get something right, but the innovation isn't shared with anyone else), and device integration is so poor. Of course this being an Apple centric website, many will argue that all Microsoft does is miss.
This story has come from two anonymous sources from two separate websites. Please cite the last time that AI was incorrect with a story? The story may be anti-Microsoft but this is an Apple website and the story seems to be true.
I listened to the same stuff when people were angry when they published a story saying there would be no cameras inside the new touch. AI's sources are always right on and Dilger/McClean is no exception.
I find it so comical the way fanbots interpret words. Nowhere in my post did I state that AI was putting out an incorrect story- NOWHERE. My whole post was referring to the pathetic fanbot mentality and how it's dictated their postings both yesterday and today here at AI.
But you've pushed me, so to your story I will add this:
AI did indeed publish a story that their would be not camera in the Touch after MONTHS AND MONTHS of stories from AI speculating that there WOULD be a camera, even putting out stories about cases for a camera Touch. But now we now that was all wrong because Steve Jobs said the Touch is primarily a gaming device because that's what Apple's customers have told Apple (believe that and I have a bridge to sell you). I've even been told on here that the blank space inside the Touch where a camera could have gone is just a coincidence and that Steve Jobs would never make that gaming claim up unless it was true based on sales of games and not because the camera along with its needed mic simply failed to work or AT&T balked or whatever.
SO please AI has great reporting but they make mistakes just like everyone else.
Also do you remember just last week AI was reporting that Eminem was suing Apple when it was actually his music publisher? I rest my case.
I don't think a lack of open source is their biggest problem (it is a problem though).
I guess I meant "open" technology in general. A large part of Microsoft's business model is trying to lock people into proprietary technology and complete ideological resistance to most open standards. And in the case where they do adopt open standards (out of necessity), they'd rather tack proprietary extensions on to those standards than actually work with the standards group to integrate their needs.
I think the biggest problem would be parallel development. They waste too many resources solving problems that another group within Microsoft already solved.
Agreed. This is a business organizational problem which occurs in all large companies (I've watched it happen to some extent in the company I work for as well).
However, I think part of it stems from this mindset of refusing to work with others (both externally and internally). Part of it of course is not being able to recognize managers who care more about these personal turf wars than what's best for the company overall. Which again, kinda traces back to that same corporate mentality. It affects them on both a macro and a micro level.
I guess I meant "open" technology in general. A large part of Microsoft's business model is trying to lock people into proprietary technology and complete ideological resistance to most open standards. And in the case where they do adopt open standards (out of necessity), they'd rather tack proprietary extensions on to those standards than actually work with the standards group to integrate their needs.
Yes that definitely is a problem
This story has come from two anonymous sources from two separate websites. Please cite the last time that AI was incorrect with a story? The story may be anti-Microsoft but this is an Apple website and the story seems to be true.
I listened to the same stuff when people were angry when they published a story saying there would be no cameras inside the new touch. AI's sources are always right on and Dilger/McClean is no exception.
nah, no one's perfect. can't forget AI's dramatic insistence on the death of the Mac Mini two years ago, based on 'inside sources' at Apple, even! we will see pretty soon if these anon sources about Pink's demise verify.
I find it difficult to understand how such a huge corporation can be so badly run.
Short answer: Poor organization and lack of top-down direction.
Long answer: When Microsoft started expanding into every market it could, it wound up creating largely independent subdivisions in the company that often wind up competing with each other, as this story points out. Like any sufficiently large bureaucracy, these divisions of Microsoft have become more interested in internally justifying their own existence rather than fulfilling a goal of producing a good product. While we tend to think of Microsoft as a monolithic behemoth who will crush all in its path, it's really more like a loose coalition of fiefdoms who are more interested in fighting each other than outside enemies, sort of like pre-unification Germany.
Basically, Microsoft suffers from the same problems that the federal government does.
Funny, I see it entirely different. Product Management, Marketing and various execs are always asking for additional features. One exec once asked for us to add 'sexiness' to a few our our products. Dev is always having to manage limited resources and hence often has to say "No". Requests that cause bloat seem to come from outside of development, in my experience.
You are right about not letting engineers develop the interface though. Not because you will be overwhelmed with knobs, but I think because you will be underwhelmed. I often see developers leaving UI to the end and not putting much thought into the human side. The devs often expect the users would be fine having to run a script or make a manual change instead of providing a knob for them to use.
My experience over the years is that engineers feel angst if they don't add every function they've come up with. And they are constantly coming up with more.
But the fact that in MS, as you say, "various execs" are asking for features, compliments my statement that product development is without a leader at the very top. If every middle level exec who thinks they have a place at the table uses their authority to try and add their specific requirements, then it's no wonder that products come out late, and poorly implemented and de-bugged.
When I interviewed for a job with Microsoft a few months ago, I got a brief glimpse at how the "sausage is made". The reason that Microsoft so rarely presents a unified strategy for any given technology is that they operate internally as a confederacy of individual, siloed projects, each of which is led by a senior project manager who is responsible not only for the technical success of his team, but for evangelizing his team's efforts to ensure the fruits of their labor are eventually incorporated into a shipping project.
This in and of itself may not be unusual in a company as large as Microsoft. What was strange to me, and what I think accounts for the disparate array of competing products, is that there isn't strong guidance on how to align individual projects with a coherent corporate strategy. It seems that the PM who shouts loudest, and who has the strongest political ties, gets to ship his team's product, often at the expense of a competing project which may ultimately better align with corporate brand strategy.
There are many examples. The death of PlaysForSure is only the latest example. At one point, I think Microsoft was shipping 5 different, incompatible messaging standards. Look at the mess of different synchronization products and tools that seem to finally be stabilizing with Windows Live.
In most of these instances, the result is that a customer or partner who has invested heavily in Microsoft's latest and greatest solution is left with a technological dead end with no easy way to transition to a viable product.
It's almost as if they need a single leader, with good taste, who can look at each product before it ships and say "this sucks" or "this doesn't align with our brand" or ask "what is this good for?", before the decision to go to manufacturing is made.
This is exactly what I said earlier. Thanks for the confirmation.
This is so pathetic.
Yesterday a respected subjective opinion columnist, a reviewer of consumer technology products and a commentator on technology issues, Walter Mossberg gets bashed left, up and down by the fannies who could not stomach Windows 7 receiving a stellar review from someone who for years has heaped praise upon Apple. SOmeone even posted that he was paid off by Microsoft to write that. Perhaps you all need to now read Walt's code of ethics:
http://allthingsd.com/about/walt-mossberg/ethics/
Today that very legitimate news story is being superceded on here by "an anonymouse tipster's" story (anti Microsoft , of course) and is being welcomed on here as if he came down from the Mountain and received the 11th Commandment!
So sad and so very stupid.
Then again, there is this article commenting of Mossberg's "review". He also points out, quite correctly as I remember, that Mossberg had said about the same thing about Vista when it first came out.
Do you feel the same about Vista?
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ith-windows-7/
See also Taligent.
This is what happens when two companies control a project, and have different ideas of the projects direction.
At the time, the project was very exciting, but was a failure itself.
However, both Apple and IBM incorporated concepts from the products into their future offerings, so it wasn't a total loss.
I prefer a Mac too and while not all Apple products are great, most are. But I will never be a fanboy of anything and close my mind to reality. However as other unbiased members on here stated yesterday (and I was really glad to hear them speak out) , different strokes for different folks. I don't know what's right for you and you don't know what's right for me.
Peace.
More crucially, I don't care.
This story has come from two anonymous sources from two separate websites. Please cite the last time that AI was incorrect with a story? The story may be anti-Microsoft but this is an Apple website and the story seems to be true.
I listened to the same stuff when people were angry when they published a story saying there would be no cameras inside the new touch. AI's sources are always right on and Dilger/McClean is no exception.
No site like this is always right on, and I never have been a fan of the anti-Microsoft slant on articles here.
- the Pink MS phone is dead, right? Win CE still rules forever, no new OS approach will be allowed.
- MS will stick with WM 7 as its only smartphone platform to continue the multiple OEM approach - adding maybe telco's as OEM's (all of which is what Ballmer said recently, btw, no anon sources needed).
- and the Zune? the only MS hardware. it won't be merged with WM 7, but it may 'share' - what? media but not apps? cloud services? pretty much like the limited overlap of the Nano and iPhone? (the MS-pushed Zune vs. Touch hype is baloney. there is no true equivalence. one is a media player, the other is a media player plus computer. the Zune really competes with the Nano instead).
so MS spent 500 million plus just to check out Danger's possibilities. but ultimately dumps it. brilliant! and Win Mo 7? already a year late with no beta in sight. (and the interim WM 6.5 a crashing thud). the 'insider' story i'd like to read is what is so screwed up with WM 7's development that is making it take so long. such that by the time it comes out next year it will be hopelessly too late.
Then again, there is this article commenting of Mossberg's "review". He also points out, quite correctly as I remember, that Mossberg had said about the same thing about Vista when it first came out.
Do you feel the same about Vista?
http://brainstormtech.blogs.fortune....ith-windows-7/
Woah, cred shot!
He is right about Windows 7 though. Best version. Wrong about Vista. Why Microsoft wouldn't work for a more seamless upgrade to 7 from XP is almost inexcusable however. For the people who think XP is good enough, they'll stick with it.
Microsoft should have made just two versions of Windows 7. Windows 7 Professional (for business and enterprise) & Windows 7 Consumer (for all home users). But that would make too much sense now wouldn't it.
I wouldn't dare say they should make only one version, that would be ludicrous!
If they did however I came up with an amazing name for it, took me weeks of deep thought, analyses and research: Windows 7
"She was also responsible for the "Pink" codename, which has a lamer backstory than anyone has guessed: she was listening to a song by*Pink*(the singer) when she decided she was just the person to go one-up the Sidekick."
Leave it to MS to - could it have been inadvertent?!? - choose a code name already infamously used for a long and painfully failed Apple project (with the name taken from the colored index cards chosen for the initial brainstorming of the project) - actually a failed "AIM" project (The "Apple-IBM-Motorola Alliance") undertaken under duress and in extremis when all three were reeling from the MS which was then eating all their lunches. Pink led to the formation of a free-standing company, Taligent under the aegis of the founding companies.
In the long run Taligent was disbanded, Apple and Moto moved on (one moving on much more successfully) while IBM managed to salvage bits of Taligent's work that linger today in some interesting places (see link below). At Apple, SJ returned with his NeXt code and somehow managed to refocus the company and pull OS X out of all that misdirection and Yellow Box, Blue Box, any box hell.....
See also Taligent.
Thanks for focusing my post!
In a parallel universe where MS Office wasn't the accepted 'standard', there might be much better apps available (like Lotus Improv from the early 90's and countless word-processors that were easier to use than Word), but we'll never know.
I still use WordPerfect (the only reason I'm still tied to Win at all), so I do know - even with the limited resources and lack of pricing power Corel's had to keep the product moving forward, it's still superior, even lacking all the on-top coding and icky gloss MS has thrown at Word.
It's almost as if they need a single leader, with good taste, who can look at each product before it ships and say "this sucks" or "this doesn't align with our brand" or ask "what is this good for?", before the decision to go to manufacturing is made.
Gee, who could that describe? Screamin' Steve Ballmer? Hmmm. Maybe another Steve.
For the record: The UI on Windows 7 doesn't appeal to me like that of the UI on SL. I just think Apple have better taste when it comes to user interfaces. Overall I think SL provides a better user experience, and I think that difference is not small. For me it's more about the little details that make the OS great, and Apple has a better eye for those little details on the whole. As a result of how Apple works they seem to tend to get more right than other companies, for whatever reason. They invariably end up providing a far more cohesive product that's simpler to use than the other guy's, and that looks better too.
I much prefer the Apple interface, but I'm more interested in the deep plumbing than the current surface as an indicator of the future.
And with SL it's even clearer that Apple - with its reins on both hardware and software - is much freer to keep re-architecting from bottom to top, casting aside more legacy issues (tho' not all by any means), even if their approach makes more demands on users and ISV's to keep up with the train.
This also, not coincidentally, leads to a higher percentage of incremental upgrade revenue for Apple, and they clearly don't mind that, but hopefully they'll keep that aspect as Job 2, while keeping the pushing of their whole vision forward firmly entrenched at #1. If they ever reverse that order for an extended period (I think they do occasionally put current revenue over their aesthetic), a come-uppance and rejection by users will bite them in the long run.
I definitely think this will be their biggest challenge in any future post-Jobs era, especially given the inherent pressures of now being a) an RBC (really big corporation) and b) a Wall St. darling. At that point - with a conventional corp manager - there will be strong temptations to focus on this quarter's returns while forgetting that Apple's phenomenal success rests on the execution of transformative ideas (whether borrowed and polished or original), giving them something compelling and unique to market, rather than from marketing itself.
Meanwhile, for those with less demanding and slower-evolving needs, they're free to happily compute away on their Panther and Tiger PPC Macs with the productivity they need without off-loading all their discretionary income to Cupertino.
Microsofts problem is that they split development into a large number of groups who compete with one another.
Apple had this problem as well while working on Copeland. It was one of the reasons Copeland failed. Now Apple is lead from the top in a very directed way. MS doesn't have that kind of direction.
I can say from my own companies that without leadership and direction from the top, people are like a chicken without a head. At MS, it seems as though no one wants to take responsibility at the higher levels for the overall product design. When that's left to lower level management and engineering, things don't work out too well.
Your kind of correct about Copland and Apple, but I can tell you Apple has always foster competition within the company and allow the best ideas to float to the top, This is part of their DNA. The problem is for a period of time Apple did not have someone to filter the good from the bad. Along come Steve again. The reason people hate or like Steve is whether he liked your idea or not those things seem to go hand and hand.
This isn't just my take, but one that has been written about many times over the years.
I'll tell you this, having been a partner in an electronics engineering company, you can't let the engineers make the product design and interface. If you do, you'll be overwhelmed with switches and knobs.
The same thing is true for software. Programmers are the worst people to take a product to completion. They need a strong hand on the rudder. Someone to say "no!". If that doesn't happen, you get a product like MS's.
Engineers like to add features. one of their favorite phrases is " Why don't we add...".
You have to tell them "NO!". And mean it.
I don't think that there's anyone at MS who can do that.
Can not agree more, those who are not engineers fail to understand how engineers think, they think since they can create something they are God and as God you can not tell them "No". So many engineer have this God complex and it hard to deal with many times. Besides trying to create new things they feel they have to fix everything as well. Too many time I have seen engineers try to make the perfect product, or fix things a user may never experience. Also, they see all issues as an interesting problem to solve, the question is does it really need to be solved.
Software programmer as the worse, they feel they can always improve what they ate doing since it just a matter of changing a few lines of code so they never get done with what they are working on.
This is just another thing Apple is really good at, they do not allow feature creep and the do not allow engineers to go wild and fix things that do not need fixed. They know how to keep the eye on the ball. They also know when an idea will not work or technology is not ready.
Microsoft definitely has an unhealthy relationship with windows and proprietary everything. For another example, Take a look at Internet Explorer. It's the bane of every web developers existence and it'll probably never change because Microsoft is constantly locking itself into proprietary and outdated standards, preventing them from being innovative.
It must be really difficult to work for a company entrenched with so many limitations and still be an innovative employee; the two conditions are so contradictory.
Now that is a interesting comment, for year MS and the PC company talked about how the Mac is proprietary and PC and Window is open and a standard. As you pointed out, it really not and never has been. MS has cripple innovation and the do it at ever turn if it does not fit their model.
I prefer the possibly apocryphal version that it is a tribute to Dr Alan Turing. He could be said to be the father of the modern computer, certainly the first 'software' designer. It was his mathematical genius that produced Colossus, the mechanical/electronic hybrid computer based at Bletchley Park during in World War 2. It broke the German Enigma code, and was one of the single most significant factors in the Allied victory.
He was also homosexual, and in post-war Britain suffered for it. He was never given the recognition of his huge achievements, was arrested on an 'indecency' charge and committed suicide. To do this he painted cyanide on an apple, took a bite and died.
Whether this is the real version we do not know, as with many things at Cupertino it is surrounded in mystery, because that's the way Apple likes it.
Actually he did not get recognize for it since the government in its infinite wisdom did not want anyone to know they had the technology to crack the Enigma code, this was kept top secret for 50 years. ALong with him there was another guy can not remember his name but he was a magician who developed camouflage technology during WWII that was so successful that it was still be used into recent times and is still classified and he was never allow to talk about it or get recognized for what he did. Most people who develop these military technologies can never talk about it and usually cause the life long grief.
Meanwhile, for those with less demanding and slower-evolving needs, they're free to happily compute away on their Panther and Tiger PPC Macs with all the productivity they need without off-loading all their discretionary income to Cupertino.
No one's going to shoot them if they don't upgrade. The only reason I upgraded to SL is a little birdie gave me a copy. I wouldn't have paid the €29
Woah, cred shot!
He is right about Windows 7 though. Best version. Wrong about Vista. Why Microsoft wouldn't work for a more seamless upgrade to 7 from XP is almost inexcusable however. For the people who think XP is good enough, they'll stick with it.
Microsoft should have made just two versions of Windows 7. Windows 7 Professional (for business and enterprise) & Windows 7 Consumer (for all home users). But that would make too much sense now wouldn't it.
I wouldn't dare say they should make only one version, that would be ludicrous!
If they did however I came up with an amazing name for it, took me weeks of deep thought, analyses and research: Windows 7
I was going to upgrade my daughter's now unused netbook from XP Starter to Win 7 basic, but the price is way too high for that. Also, the hassle is just too much.
I suspect that a lot of people wanting to upgrade from XP to 7 will either just wait until they need a new machine, or will buy 7 not knowing all the problems involved in the upgrade, which is well beyond what the average PC owner, who, after all, knows nothing about the system, can do.
Then the complaints will begin. What will happen when people spend $100 to $250 to buy the upgrade, only to find it's too much work, or too difficult to do? Likely they won't find out until they attempt the upgrade. After all, most people don't actually read the documentation that comes with products.
Possibly, instead of Win 7 slowing the migration to Macs, this will hasten it.
Considering that most people are still using XP...