Microsoft may announce biggest round of layoffs in company history this week - report

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 84
    plovellplovell Posts: 804member

    Maybe Microsoft would like to revisit this ??

     

     

  • Reply 62 of 84
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,406member
    chandra wrote: »
    MS should start writing software for Apple or go back to it's ill-gotten roots MS-DOS.

    Ill gotten indeed. Nothing that company has exploited for three decades wasn't stolen. From MS-DOS to Windows to Explorer to Windows Media. May MS rot in hell.
  • Reply 63 of 84
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    hypoluxa wrote: »
    I second that notion. Software is where they should continue in. Leave the OS/hardware market. They produce the tackiest HW. Sans the XBox. That seemed to have worked for them, except didnt they lose money producing it or whatever?

    Because.... their desktop/laptop/server OS platforms don't sell and don't have good majority in respective markets? Or because they do?

    That would make as much sense as Apple dropping iOS. And much less sense than Apple dropping OSX.
  • Reply 64 of 84
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
  • Reply 65 of 84
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    rogifan wrote: »
    I just visited the Verge and didn't see one story about Microsoft's potential layoffs. There was however a story about senator Cory Booker taking selfies with other senators. Wow is that site going downhill.

    25000 people coming in from Nokia, 5 - 10000 people going out (I'd expect mostly ex-Nokia people, but not necessarily). According to Anandtech.

    However you spin it, their workforce is growing, not shrinking.
  • Reply 66 of 84
    dewmedewme Posts: 2,187member
    Quote:

    It's hard to believe how they could have miscalculated so badly on mobile. A whole slew of nerds with no vision.


     

    I think it was nearly all Ballmer's delusional myopia and Bill G being retired in place and spending more time on hobbies than the business. The herd of nerds was doing exactly what it was told to do. If you look at most of the Ballmer interviews and talks in that era you'll see that he never took Apple seriously in any area at all, even the iPod. He came across as truly believing Microsoft had an answer and secret sauce to counter every product by Apple and all the other what he thought were Microsoft wannabes. He had the iPod killer with Zune, the iPhone killer with the keyboard laden Windows Mobile device, the iPad killer with Surface, and all of the other Microsoft magic dust coated me-too-late to the party ecosystem and services.

     

    Microsoft didn't miscalculate the need or timing for mobile, they (or Steve & Bill) grossly miscalculated and over estimated the value of what they had to offer. They started focusing on mobile at least decade before the iPhone hit the market. Remember Pegasus and WinPad? They had the vision to a large degree but failed on the execution. Apple's early success in the Apple Jobs Redux era was based on superior design and execution compared to Microsoft. Apple basically beat Microsoft at Microsoft's "strong follower" game. That's the part that must really sting a company that thought it could out-design and out-engineer any company on the planet.

  • Reply 67 of 84

    Nadella has a certain resemblance to Robert Zemeckis.

     

    I know - I'm not adding anything to the discussion...

  • Reply 68 of 84
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,219member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Relic View Post

     

    How would going with UNIX change anything, outside of Apple no one uses Unix in consumer products and Apple does everything it can to hide those underpinnings. The only reason why Apple went the direction they did was they were basically desperate, remember the whole Copeland debacle, using Next was a move of connivance. If Steve Jobs had sold Next before coming back to Apple, OSX would probably be of BeOS design, which it almost was despite Steve owning Next but Jean-Louis Gassée greed put a stop to that.


    Because it is their pig of an OK which makes them late to the party for everything. It's not efficient, it doesn't run on mobile very well. It's just a big nasty hack which slows them down.

     

    There's a lot of 'ifs' in your statement, fact is, Apple made the right decision, they didn't choose BeOS, they got Steve back on board who had vision, and with it Next built upon a solid foundation which could eventually be stuffed inside a mobile phone with relative ease.

  • Reply 69 of 84
    monstrositymonstrosity Posts: 2,219member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

     

     

    You may not know Microsoft already sold Unix, long before Apple/NeXT.

     

     

    The article goes on say Microsoft bailed on Xenix because eventually AT&T began selling Unix licenses directly, so Microsoft sent the Xenix development team to work on OS/2 with IBM. Microsoft started selling Xenix before MS-DOS, so they never really competed because they served different purposes. DOS was created for IBM's first PC. 


    Interesting. I did not know that.

  • Reply 70 of 84
    bugsnwbugsnw Posts: 717member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

     

    Microsoft didn't miscalculate the need or timing for mobile, they (or Steve & Bill) grossly miscalculated and over estimated the value of what they had to offer. They started focusing on mobile at least decade before the iPhone hit the market. Remember Pegasus and WinPad? They had the vision to a large degree but failed on the execution. Apple's early success in the Apple Jobs Redux era was based on superior design and execution compared to Microsoft. Apple basically beat Microsoft at Microsoft's "strong follower" game. That's the part that must really sting a company that thought it could out-design and out-engineer any company on the planet.


     

    Your point is better than mine. They did have some vision but badly failed on execution. I always forget how powerful that one word is. It's Xerox PARC all over again. Jobs saw the bitmap and went to work. The Mac set a new course for Apple. Gates had that huge monster table tablet thingy and yet couldn't execute to get it under 472 pounds so I could use it to read in bed.

     

    It's also a lack of aesthetics and beauty. Microsoft just doesn't make stuff that makes me react viscerally to it. Except negatively. It's like the difference between Pages and Word. One is a joy to use and one is simply around because it was the standard.

  • Reply 71 of 84
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

     

     

    Actually, MS has its roots in writing software for Apple, long before MS-DOS came into the picture.


    Yep, two of the biggest were Basic and Multiplan.

  • Reply 72 of 84
    relicrelic Posts: 4,735member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by monstrosity View Post

     

    Because it is their pig of an OK which makes them late to the party for everything. It's not efficient, it doesn't run on mobile very well. It's just a big nasty hack which slows them down.


     

    Microsoft's Windows 8.1 mobile software was written from the ground up and runs extremely well, fast, even on hardware with anemic specs like the Nokia 620. There may have been some problems with their first release version 7 but I can categorically say that 8.1 is an entirely different system. Their mobile OS is actually very good or I wouldn't currently be using it. I'm an extremely tech savvy and very selective about the phones I carry, so if I chose a Nokia 1020 with WM8.1 over say an iPhone or Android(insert brand here) then it must have defiantly offered something of value. Simply shooting it down by saying it's not efficient or doesn't run on mobile very well, whatever that means without any narrative of say an experience with an actual Windows 8.1 phone is then just conjecture on your part and no my friend from Ohio who has one doesn't count. I understand this is an Apple forum and it's almost a prerequisite to come here with some bias in regards to Apple's competition but  I humbly request you at least have some first hand account of the product in question before the negative onslaught begins. Even then though I would also expect some sort of con list that describes why it's so inferior. I didn't mean to corner or belittle you in any way as this is more of a plea to everyone. Simply shotgunning negative adjectives at things we don't like and calling it day is actually inherently damaging to our point of view. The more negative things we read about something the more likely we will stay away from it. Reading is a very powerful social force, we actually retain more from that activity then say watching TV.

     

    My point being if someone who has never used say a Windows 8.1 phone before and they come here and read, Microsoft's Windows 8.1 sucks 100 times in one sitting it is very likely that person will take that sentiment with him the next time they go phone shopping, probably won't even bother looking at one, oh I read somewhere that there not any good. Now, not everyone is so acceptable to such bombardment of negativity but you would be surprised to how many are. That's why people who review products at least try to weigh in the pros and cons of the product their reviewing, so people can decide for themselves, yes I know there are those exceptions with some reviewers who push their point of view on to others but what their doing isn't right.

     

    I know sometimes these forums just feel like a hangout but in a lot of ways it's also a moving commentary, but still a place where enthusiast like yourself can come together and talk tech, mostly Apple stuff but also tech in general. But you also have to realize that everything you say here is out there for everyone to read. I've had at least 12 people already who have joined AppleInsider just to PM me so they could say their praying for me and my family, well except this one pervert but I won't go into that,  just happened to see one of my posts while Googling. So even though I am high as f*****g kite right now, I believe like those tech reviewers, we have at least some responsibilities to be a little more, aaahh what's the word I'm looking for, diplomatic, no, conciliatory, getting there, tactful, there it is, when posting here. We all have opinions, but it's the ones that are insightful, articulate and tactful, can't forget tactful, that bring something worth while to the conversation.:p 

  • Reply 73 of 84
    plovellplovell Posts: 804member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DewMe View Post

     

     

    I think it was nearly all Ballmer's delusional myopia and Bill G being retired in place and spending more time on hobbies than the business. The herd of nerds was doing exactly what it was told to do. If you look at most of the Ballmer interviews and talks in that era you'll see that he never took Apple seriously in any area at all, even the iPod. He came across as truly believing Microsoft had an answer and secret sauce to counter every product by Apple and all the other what he thought were Microsoft wannabes. He had the iPod killer with Zune, the iPhone killer with the keyboard laden Windows Mobile device, the iPad killer with Surface, and all of the other Microsoft magic dust coated me-too-late to the party ecosystem and services.

     

    Microsoft didn't miscalculate the need or timing for mobile, they (or Steve & Bill) grossly miscalculated and over estimated the value of what they had to offer. They started focusing on mobile at least decade before the iPhone hit the market. Remember Pegasus and WinPad? They had the vision to a large degree but failed on the execution. Apple's early success in the Apple Jobs Redux era was based on superior design and execution compared to Microsoft. Apple basically beat Microsoft at Microsoft's "strong follower" game. That's the part that must really sting a company that thought it could out-design and out-engineer any company on the planet.


    There's another reason as well. As Alan Kay said, "People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware". For the PC era this was simple. IBM had designed the hardware and it was more-or-less standardized. But there was no such standard-setter in the early days of mobile. Nor was there a common vision of what the devices would do, aside from make phone calls, whereas the IBM PC already did - thanks to the experimentation of the 70's when hundreds of companies were experimenting with the early microcomputers. A Cambrian explosion of sorts.

     

    Microsoft's problem is that they were trying to figure out how this might all go together but they were doing only the software piece. Others were doing their hardware. With cooperation and consultation to be sure, but it's not like having a single team.

  • Reply 75 of 84
    harry wildharry wild Posts: 584member
    5,800 out of 127,000 employees is not that much percentage wise! But it could include some highly paid management and sales employees.
  • Reply 76 of 84
    ash471ash471 Posts: 705member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DewMe View Post



    This is plain and simple a textbook case of disruptive innovation. Microsoft could not bring themselves to react quickly to the iPhone, iPad, and Android threat because it was not in line with their cash cow business that was still raking in the money hand over fist. When they finally did react they offered a weak compromise solution that tried to hang on to their past, with a tweener tablet solution that tried to pull traditional PC attributes into the tablet domain and a desktop solution that tried to pull tablet attributes into the PC domain. Neither compromise really works.



    The future of Microsoft is as uncertain as any other large company at the crossroads between fading past glory and an uncertain future. They could absolutely fail just as quickly as DEC, Kodak, RCA, Allis-Chalmers, etc., have failed. Windows, Office, and the server platforms are okay, but not enough to keep 130k employees profitably engaged. The Nokia merger was a huge mistake. When all is said and done nobody on either side of that fiasco will walk away a winner except those who have already taken their money and ran, Mr Balmer included.



    ...


    Whatever they decide they have to leverage their strengths in their IP and workforce rather than laying off good people, riding the cash cows who aren't looking as healthy as they once did to death, and selling off IP. Once they start selling off their IP like Kodak did you may as we'll start making arrangements for calling hours and flowers.

    Good analysis.  However, I think MS actually needs to be much much more aggressive in letting people go.  They need to shrink by like 90%.  You can't reinvent yourself with 50,000 employees.  Most companies don't have the guts to let the people go if they have the money to keep them. They just keep the ship sailing as long as they can. That's certainly what happened at Kodak.  In order to have the Apple scenario, the company usually has to be in dire straights (i.e., run out of money).  The lack of money forces the company to fire people and provide the opportunity to reemerge.   

  • Reply 77 of 84
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,225member
    Something to keep in mind: A weakened Microsoft might become a dangerous and desperate Microsoft. They can cause a lot of harm to other techs while on the way down.
  • Reply 78 of 84
    gatorguy wrote: »
    Something to keep in mind: A weakened Microsoft might become a dangerous and desperate Microsoft. They can cause a lot of harm to other techs while on the way down.

    What makes you think that might be the case?

    I happen to think Microsoft is at its worst (culturally, as well as in terms of collateral damage) when they have maximum influence and market power. A Microsoft in decline is less dangerous, don't you think?
  • Reply 79 of 84
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,225member
    What makes you think that might be the case?

    I happen to think Microsoft is at its worst (culturally, as well as in terms of collateral damage) when they have maximum influence and market power. A Microsoft in decline is less dangerous, don't you think?

    IMHO they may pull a Nokia using IP aggressively in an effort to slow the decline of their market position. Not that it worked very well for Nokia of course. The early signs are already obvious. Rather than use innovation and creativity to answer Google's advances MS turned to threats, intimidation and half-truth ad campaigns. Pushed hard enough they could become less friendly to Apple at some point too. I doubt all their licensing agreements with Apple are perpetual.
  • Reply 80 of 84
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,503member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by LarryA View Post





    I just can't believe how bad Windows 8 is! Sure, like most I always thought it was probably a bad idea to mix tablet and laptop functionality, blah, blah, blah, but I had never actually tried to use it. That is, until my brother in-law bought his parents a Windows 8.1 laptop and my wife and I became their help desk.



    It's an unfinished product! It reminds me of Windows Mobile 6.5 - a thin coat of touch-sensitive paint on all the same old stuff. Drill down past the top layer of settings and you're back in Control Panel applets. Certain web sites force IE into desktop mode because the new GUI doesn't support everything, and the Deaktop IE looks completely different. Half of the GUI controls don't provide mouse-over help. The mail client doesn't support gmail (more of a policy decision, I guess). I can't believe they bet their future on this, and I feel sorry for the engineers losing their jobs because of it - they didn't make this call.

    I was shocked when I saw a desktop operating system for a touchscreen. All I can ever think of is Steve-O's comments about touch surfaces wanting to be flat. (IIRC, it was in the original iPad announcement, but I might be mistaken.) Boy was he right! I recently bought a little BT keyboard cover for my iPad mini (way cheep like <$20) and it is almost wholly useless. It's the worst of both worlds. If you need a laptop, get a laptop (love my MBA); if you want a desktop, get a desktop, get a desktop. Human psychology and interaction is *way* more important than saving a few bucks.

     

    Even at Apple new prices, these optimized devices for completing tasks is the way to go. You buy the tool for the job, not bastardize tools to be all in ones. With the integration of OSX and iOS coming, I don't see MS being anyhow relevant in making tools for anyone.

Sign In or Register to comment.