Ballmer created an indescribably toxic culture around reviews with his David Welch inspired "up or out" and "fire the bottom five percent" policies. Stack rankings were more like knife fights than honest appraisals of people's abilities and contributions. Teams used to deliberately hire underperformers so they could fire them , thus shielding productive people they would otherwise have to get rid of. I'm not going to…
>> potentially better medicine Jobs refused conventional treatment to treat his cancer until it was too late. He placed heavy emphasis on oriental mysticism.
While that's true, pancreatic cancer is nasty enough that even with prompt treatment, there was a good chance he'd succumb to it anyway, although he'd definitely have way better chances.
IIRC, he had insulinoma, which is a rather slow cancer. I’m not sure if treatment beyond surgery would have prolonged his life, as 10 year survival is around 30%.
> Every single thing he's credited for "turning around" was launched under Ballmer. That's nonsense. Ballmer kept Microsoft in the 90's style of doing business, but this didn't work so well in the 2000's. After Satya took over he embraced opensource. He allowed Linux into Azure, which is bold. He killed the Windows division, which is very bold. He made Windows free. He made Office free for devices with small screens.…
> After Satya took over he embraced opensource Yeah, no. article from 2012 https://www.wired.com/2012/01/meet-bill-gates/ . Adoption may have accelerated under Nadella, but this was the direction the company was headed. >He allowed Linux into Azure, which is bold. Azure was supporting Linux VMs in 2012. >He killed the Windows division, which is very bold. You say bold, I say stupid. Windows is still a big chunk of ea…
You realize Satya was at Microsoft before he became CEO, right? Sure, some of these decisions were made before Satya became CEO, but Satya made them. For example bringing Linux into Azure. Ballmer/Gates were very opposed to opensource. They may have dipped their toes a bit but it is Satya that brought about the enormous cultural change.
Who cares? They have sustainable business models in several segments, and even though they aren't on the cutting edge of pop culture, they're doing well.
Plus c# seems to be usually much further a head than java. See lamdas, async await... One thing about Microsoft, their tooling just seems more polished and things tend to just work. I'd be surprised if a lot of start ups don't start using c# since it's now open source and more platform agnostic.
I was considering .NET Core for a project but they appear to have fallen behind the JVM rather dramatically when it comes to GC performance. The JVM now has low latency collectors for very large heaps. Is there any work being done in .NET Core to catch up?
Microsoft has always had a huge developer tools footprint, so it's a natural fit.
That they did, but VS had always been aimed at MS tech stack: VC++, VB, C#, F#. And then VS Code appeared seemingly out of the blue, rapidly becoming the editor of choice for languages all across the tech landscape.
The first version of Microsoft made BASIC interpreters for any and every "home computer" that asked them to (and was willing to buy it). For a large chunk of the lifetime of the Macintosh, Microsoft was the largest Mac OS application developer, and cross-platform C++ tools was important for that. The Microsoft of "only one tech stack" is probably the outlier, more than the rule.
I'm as big of a Satya fan as anyone, but someone who doesn't get enough credit is Ballmer. It wasn't a coincidence that on the day Ballmer stepped down and Satya became CEO (2014), Microsoft also announced Office for iOS, Cloud first strategy, and a whole slew of cloud/Azure product announcements. All of which was developed under Ballmer watch and he handed off the launch and continued execution to Satya.
I remember being an intern at Microsoft in 2009 and going to a talk with Ballmer. What I remember is the most charismatic human being I've ever seen. The man could have been a cult leader. He had and maybe still has power in his ability to speak. Any question we asked (and we were interns, we asked lots of them) he had not just an answer but a good answer. He spoke of his failures well too: "They ask if we should mak…
I was at MS for his last company meeting and you're right. That guy has charisma and PASSION for Microsoft.
I never liked working there, but watching him scream "I LOVE THIS COMPANY" while in tears made me feel like I was part of something huge and important.
Google hasn't had a major new product for a decade. Prior to 2010: Search, Doubleclick, Maps, Mail, GSuite, AppEngine (which was first serverless platform). All of which were category makers or category killers. Since 2010:
You are over-generous. Android - Acquisition Doubleclick - Acquisition GSuite - Acquisition AppEngine?? - Is that still around? Google is indeed rudderless, but it's been mostly just milking their search cash cow for a long time.
Steve Ballmer was a guy who restlessly milked two Microsoft cash cows (Windows and Office) to accommodate investors quarter after quarter. He didn't have a vision or courage to push Microsoft in some other direction, and my impression was that all good things that started under his regime (Azure, more openness) was either reactionary or he simply didn't care (most of early open source push was from his lieutenants).…
> Another example of such uninspired CEO that keeps making good quarters but tarnishes his company advantages is Tim Cook. I can't wait for him to be replaced. Comments like this make zero sense to me. Apple might be better if Jobs was still alive. But without a time machine, and potentially better medicine, that's not an option. Under Cook Apple: - Increased profitability and market share massively. - Created the mo…
> Avoided the sort of ridiculous cash burning acquisitions to inflate growth
It's funny how Apple has often been exhorted by industry observers to make large acquisitions, and instead has done quite well with smaller ones. Beats has been a commercial success. PA Semi (dating back to the Jobs era) was the foundation to a hugely successful VLSI design division. The success of Siri is a bit more disputed, but it's playing an important role in many products.
Several commenters make the point that the big successes under Nadella were initiated when Ballmer was CEO. This is true, but business success is often the absence of big, ego-driven mistakes. Nokia
Microsoft has a huge number of very smart people. Aligning the company behind what they are good at will enable Microsoft to thrive.
I'm as big of a Satya fan as anyone, but someone who doesn't get enough credit is Ballmer. It wasn't a coincidence that on the day Ballmer stepped down and Satya became CEO (2014), Microsoft also announced Office for iOS, Cloud first strategy, and a whole slew of cloud/Azure product announcements. All of which was developed under Ballmer watch and he handed off the launch and continued execution to Satya.
Steve Ballmer was a guy who restlessly milked two Microsoft cash cows (Windows and Office) to accommodate investors quarter after quarter. He didn't have a vision or courage to push Microsoft in some other direction, and my impression was that all good things that started under his regime (Azure, more openness) was either reactionary or he simply didn't care (most of early open source push was from his lieutenants).…
No strong opinions on Cook but a Ballmer of the current era is Sundar Pichai. Google of the last few years is utterly rudderless, losing all the mojo and goodwill they once had. That shows in the Stock price, in (a lack of) successful new products, in Google’s loss of reputation as the “coolest company to be at”, in the bloated middle management occupied in turf wars, in essentially most of the things that matter.