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

Microsoft reorganizes

microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 283 posts

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#141

Post by incision »

300bps wrote: post #119
incision wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"Ballmer is a very intimidating guy both in physical size and attitude and is always ready to be combative." As larger than average person I'm fascinated/frustrated by the way physical presence affects people. Most troublesome for me have been people who apparently feel intimidated and project it back as something intentional, as I'm trying to intimidate them or have intimidated others into agreement with me.

>Most troublesome for me have been people who apparently feel intimidated and project it back as something intentional, as I'm trying to intimidate them I am 6'7" tall and weigh 220 pounds. I've also been in IT for about 20 years in a corporate setting. Are you bigger than I am? I ask because I have never had anyone say that I intimidated them nor have I heard of anyone telling me that someone else is intimidated by…

>"Are you bigger than I am?"

I'm your height, 60+ pounds heavier and no stranger to the gym. I've been in IT for going on 16 years.

I've had many people admit they were initially intimidated after we've gotten to know each other - women a bit more than men. I've had several problems arise from superficial assumptions/accusations by people who'd never fully interacted with me.

About your situation, there are a couple things I think can help/hurt:

* Build. I can remember being 220. I'm definitely perceived differently now, more "big" than "tall" or "slim" previously.

* I'm pretty quiet. I get the impression that people assume negatives before positives when they can't read a person.

* Jobs. I've done a lot of work in the public sector where things always seem to be contentious. In a place with less infighting and political maneuvering I'd hope for less assumption and undermining as well.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#142

Post by oscargrouch »

If they want to start to "be cool" again, they definitely need to start to opensource at least the "client" stuff.. and could remain with the "cloud ones" closed. (including office here)

i think that if microsoft opens up some of its own software it would be a good sign .. things they dont monetize on.. like IE and the windows NT kernel (at least).. and with a bonus.. people would start to contribut to those projects..

This is a part of the strategy that has maded google cool.. and for the old timers to become cool too.. they need to learn some moves from the new boys in town.. just saying..

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#143

Post by georgemcbay »

snowfox wrote: post #61
snowwrestler wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many second letters does Ballmer have? http://www.mondaynote.com/2010/05/30/ballmer-just-opened-the...

It is a technology company. There is 2.0, 2.1, 2.2 ...

It is Microsoft, so the letters are Letter 1.0, Letter 2013 and LetterX 3.0 Ultimate Edition.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#144

Post by stonemetal »

cs702 wrote: post #88

I almost choked when I read Microsoft's new mission statement: "our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most." In other words, Ballmer wants the company to "focus" on being everything to everyone! Not a good sign for the business. -- PS. Compare Ballmer's long,…

focus on creating a family of devices and services

It is interesting in that the focus has moved away from software of any kind to devices and services. It is a bold move towards a post OS, Office, post COTS software Microsoft. But you are right it is about as generic as it gets, change two or three words and it could equally be describing a car company.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#145

Post by JOnAgain »

ethomson wrote: post #114
JOnAgain wrote: post #96

Azure will not catch AWS because it's not a first class division. It's an offering in a broader context. Contrast with Amazon who has an SVP of AWS (and he's considered one of the "more important" SVPs). Any chance I had of considering Azure just evaporated. And there's nothing that screams "ownership" like having a VP's reports "dotted-line" report into someone else, and to have that called out in a company-wide ema…

There's a division called "Cloud" being headed up by Executive VP Satya Nadella that encompasses Azure and the apps that build on top of it (Office 365, visualstudio.com...) That seems pretty first-class to me.

No, there's a division called "Cloud and Enterprise Engineering Group". This suggest that either it encompasses non-cloud offerings specific to enterprise or the cloud they're building is targeting specifically enterprise.

Either way, they will not be focused on making Azure a product I wouldn't be interested in: 1 of 2 focuses or targeting someone I'm not.

Furthermore, looks like they've split sales/marketing from engineering which will probably help them build more features which are irrelevant to me and put as many PMs between the clients and engineers as possible.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#147

Post by keithpeter »

mhartl wrote: post #124
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ballmer is a sales guy, not an engineer. No surprise he would write like that.

Ballmer isn't exactly non-technical; he has a degree in applied mathematics from Harvard.

I take both points (marketing, maths education) but can the man not pay a speech writer?

OK for JFK, LBJ, Obama et al

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#148

Post by marshray »

staz wrote: post #133
JOnAgain wrote: post #96

Azure will not catch AWS because it's not a first class division. It's an offering in a broader context. Contrast with Amazon who has an SVP of AWS (and he's considered one of the "more important" SVPs). Any chance I had of considering Azure just evaporated. And there's nothing that screams "ownership" like having a VP's reports "dotted-line" report into someone else, and to have that called out in a company-wide ema…

A bit more coordination would do them some good, releasing the Surface without Office was a stupid error IMHO

Eh? Surface RT came with Office.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#149

Post by Metrop0218 »

jahewson wrote: post #137
cs702 wrote: post #88

I almost choked when I read Microsoft's new mission statement: "our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most." In other words, Ballmer wants the company to "focus" on being everything to everyone! Not a good sign for the business. -- PS. Compare Ballmer's long,…

I couldn't get over this masterpiece: We will allocate resources and build devices and services that provide compelling, integrated experiences across the many screens in our lives, with maximum return to shareholders.

Can you elaborate over what you find so wrong with that?

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#150

Post by Aldo_MX »

JonFish85 wrote: post #117
stdbrouw wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another way of interpreting this would be "Microsoft wants to get out of your way, it wants to be a (ubiquitous) platform so you can focus on what you're actually trying to do rather than on your OS or your device." Doesn't sound that awful to me.

...says the company who brought you the UAC popups :)

TBH I don't perceive UAC popups as "something intrusive", they could be better, but they do their work fine: to stop non-tech savvy users from screwing up the PC.
Post reply on HN