Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

techemails.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 300 posts

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#291

Post by dpark »

bluegatty wrote: post #281
csnover wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Hey gang “How do you do, fellow kids?” > After thinking about it Just say the thing. > kinds of outcomes What outcomes specifically? > nipped in the bud “stop” > I suggest this probably happened because “I think” > ball dropped “failure” > must be the responsibility at the VP/Executive What does this mean? Fire the VPs who failed to do their jobs? Say what you mean. > ensuring smooth handoff “doing their jobs” > re…

This such a ridiculous comment. It feels like it was written by 'Dwight Schrute'. ---> First - the notes about language are completely glib. It's perfectly acceptable for someone to use personal tone. "> After thinking about it Just say the thing." "> nipped in the bud “stop”" ... would be ridiculous feedback to give anyone. It's perfectly acceptable for any writer to have some personalized inflection in their prose.…

Consider that three people have given you substantially similar feedback about your “candor”. Your attempt at a “personal voice” here comes off extremely fake. Compare your proposed “candid” message with the actual candor in your message at the top of this thread.

Rather than continue to dismiss the feedback, you should digest it and potentially learn something from it. Or not. It’s your choice.

> Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.

And yet you, simply by reading the email Gates sent, were able to confidently ascertain that the culture itself was failing here. You give too little credit to the recipients of this email when you imply that they can’t make the same assessment.

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#292

Post by nemothekid »

MichaelZuo wrote: post #172
eddythompson80 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen that too many times too in big companies, but I wouldn't say that it results in nothinghappens.jpg It results in the equivalent of treating an infection with Tylenol rather than antibiotics. The exact symptom reported by a "Leader" will usually get fixed, but in a more of a "KPI hacking" rather than a fundamental fix to the problem. I have seen a "Leader" point to the staggering number of support tickets…

The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns? Standard psychology says they should be highly sensitive to status loss, but it almost seems the opposite.

As you get larger there is a fire everyday and ever more competing priorities on which fires get put out.

How much money does movie maker bring Microsoft? Now which executive would want to prioritize movie maker so much that they would directionally alter the company to fix this? Consider the issue that the execs had was fixing all the issues involved a huge number of teams.

Discredit to Bill here but I honestly think he was the only one who had the power to fix this. A Jobs-like figure is the only person with the organizational power and freedom to drive details like this to completion. Anyone else would end up in a power struggle

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#293

Post by oldandboring »

left-struck wrote: post #251
LennyWhiteJr wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is unfortunately par for the course at many big companies. I have re-lived this exact same thread so many times I've lost count 1. Leader escalates issue to his team 2. The team scrambles to come up with a solution 3. No one wants to take ownership. #NotMyProblem 4. weeks or months are spent on 'developing a plan' 5. nothinghappens.jpg

You forgot the part where the leader gets more and more frustrated, it’s like a game of hot potato, if you’re the last one holding the potato when Leader finally cracks, all of it lands on you! I’ve been in this situation in a small company as well. The owner wasn’t managing the company and there was no other manager. So the owner would express his frustration in an all hands meeting “I don’t like x” or “we’re going…

I have been this owner AND this employee, at different times in my career. As the employee, it's as you describe -- having goals described to the team without actual tasks being assigned to individual employees/teams is a recipe for things not getting done. As the owner (especially with a small team) nothing is more aggravating than having employees who sit around waiting to be told exactly what to do, with no real concern for how the company provides value for its customers; employees who think they're underpaid no matter how much they make and therefore do the bare minimum unless they're getting a bonus/raise/promotion.

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#294

Post by mrandish »

LennyWhiteJr wrote: post #85
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #26

My favorite bit about this is how none of the execs want to take ownership of the change, but instead trying to put someone else in the hot seat and/or start a Committee. This feels like an email that should have been blasted to the entire company. Top-down, empower employees to think of a more unified experience. Then again, all of the external jokes about Microsoft indicate that every department is fighting for the…

This is unfortunately par for the course at many big companies. I have re-lived this exact same thread so many times I've lost count 1. Leader escalates issue to his team 2. The team scrambles to come up with a solution 3. No one wants to take ownership. #NotMyProblem 4. weeks or months are spent on 'developing a plan' 5. nothinghappens.jpg

> This is unfortunately par for the course at many big companies.

Agreed. Even at companies known for having a great culture and being "different from the rest", the Game of Thrones politics is still there - it's just more hidden and polite. I was a senior exec in the biggest BU at just such an F100 valley tech giant for >10 yrs (one level from the CEO). The company actually did have a nicer environment than its peers, no 360 reviews, no 'up or out' mandates, and a vibe genuinely a cut above.

While the net effect was more pleasant day to day and teams were insulated a few more levels down than most places, the brawling over headcount, budget and revenue attribution was simply practiced far more artfully. Sadly, I think it's just endemic to the breed of "large public corp" and while the best may be better, none are immune.

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#295

Post by RaftPeople »

jtwaleson wrote: post #7

Can someone in Microsoft confirm my suspicion that this thread is still going and nothing was fixed?

> nothing was fixed

The issue was determined to be a documentation issue and was assigned to that group to add a knowledge base article with additional information.

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#297

Post by basisword »

justsomehnguy wrote: post #284
basisword wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

File > Share is the same, just more user friendly language. I get it's a bit confusing if you've been using computers for a long time (it's certainly caught me out), but 'Share' makes much more sense. Especially because export/save to disk is only one of the multiple 'Share' options available.

Yes, yes, everyday I share myself a glass of milk from the fridge. Sure .

As opposed to exporting yourself a glass of milk from the fridge?

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#298

Post by Gagarin1917 »

bahmboo wrote: post #227
Gagarin1917 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the President of the board has an issue with how the company is fundamentally operating, they go to the CEO. If the CEO doesn’t understand or doesn’t prioritize the concerns of the board, then they get replaced. He’s may not have been the CEO… but he was the boss of the CEO and represented all the individual owners of the company.

True but the separation of concerns is to put a wall up. Billg was relating his poor experience to the company he oversees. He is strictly forbidden from micro managing at this level. Eg "this is a problem" vs "fix the problem this way". Not his job

I’m not talking about micromanaging, I’m talking about relaying the information to the actual CEO (Steve Balmer I believe?) and ensuring they achieve the goals.

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#299

Post by left-struck »

oldandboring wrote: post #293
left-struck wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the part where the leader gets more and more frustrated, it’s like a game of hot potato, if you’re the last one holding the potato when Leader finally cracks, all of it lands on you! I’ve been in this situation in a small company as well. The owner wasn’t managing the company and there was no other manager. So the owner would express his frustration in an all hands meeting “I don’t like x” or “we’re going…

I have been this owner AND this employee, at different times in my career. As the employee, it's as you describe -- having goals described to the team without actual tasks being assigned to individual employees/teams is a recipe for things not getting done. As the owner (especially with a small team) nothing is more aggravating than having employees who sit around waiting to be told exactly what to do, with no real c…

Yeah I totally get it. In this situation you could see employees burning out because of the lack of management or leadership and the chaos of the company. Like everyone cared at first and tried real hard but eventually almost formed a learnt helpless. The implicit message was don’t try, just do the bare minimum and avoid trouble. We were also paid minimum wage. Many employees were doing unpaid hours as well.

If you provided leadership in your case then I think it’s different

I think the thing that really made it horrible is like I said. The boss would say x needs to happen but would not think through the details, buy the equipment, allocate the time or human resources. Someone still had to work out how to do those things and who was going to do what.

Re: Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)

#300

Post by Telaneo »

hintymad wrote: post #248
3eb7988a1663 wrote: post #26

My favorite bit about this is how none of the execs want to take ownership of the change, but instead trying to put someone else in the hot seat and/or start a Committee. This feels like an email that should have been blasted to the entire company. Top-down, empower employees to think of a more unified experience. Then again, all of the external jokes about Microsoft indicate that every department is fighting for the…

Curious why it is so hard to find an owner to the issue. Gates' experience started with the web UI, then I'd expect that the team who owns the microsoft.com or owns the experience. To them there are only two types of bottlenecks: their web pages (usability, JavaScript performance, ways to get backend data, and etc), and their immediate dependencies. So, they drive improvement on both types of the bottlenecks, and the…

It wouldn't surprise me that what seems like whole things from the outside are split up even further on the inside of Microsoft. There's probably no single person responsible for microsoft.com (nor was there at the time). Instead the front page is one team, Windows Update (at the time) was yet another team, and sales another, and then there are 5 other teams doing other things, and no single individual or group is responsible for the whole thing. They've all got permission to push things to the website and change whatever just from time immemorial, and not through any defined authority, since that authority doesn't actually exist.

You can still see symptoms of this today. MS will (or at least would) spin up new domains rather than just update microsoft.com, or create newthing.microsoft.com, since both of those require talking to whomever is responsible for the main domain. Even if that person exists, knowing who they are in an org like MS is already a big ask when it's organised the way it is. Meanwhile, buying a new domain likely takes less than an hour, even if you include billing and such.

Post reply on HN