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

171–180 of 283 posts

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#171

Post by jmduke »

archangel_one wrote: post #168
jmduke wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a universal shift from 'software' to 'services.' Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Word: they want to sell you the best method of composition. Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Powerpoint: they want to sell you the ability to make the best presentations. And so on.

I don't think they care about that. The reason they're shifting is that they don't want to sell you Word once, then fail to persuade you to upgrade to the next version; they want to sell it over and over which brings a more stable and guaranteed revenue stream.

Definitely. "Service" implies something you pay for on a monthly basis. "Software" implies something that comes in a box with a CD key.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#172

Post by Metrop0218 »

rpedroso wrote: post #161
adamnemecek wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably the "with maximum return to shareholders" part.

To elaborate further, the point of this memo isn't to alert the shareholders of Microsoft's organizational changes, it's about easing this transition with a motivational message about innovation and what not. Even if the corporation's main aim is to benefit its shareholders, that unnecessary line is going to come across as alienating to employees, who probably care very little about how these changes will affect weal…

Ah yes, I see now. I definitely agree with you then. That line will most likely not sit well with employees that don't give a damn about the shareholders and would rather just create amazing products.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#174

Post by onedev »

Metrop0218 wrote: post #89
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,…

This isn't an agile startup here, it's one of the world's largest software companies. I think aiming to do a lot isn't a big stretch.

Aiming to do a lot of things and being mediocre at all of them isn't that inspiring. It basically sums up Microsoft in the past couple of years.

What they need is real focus, and it seems they still haven't learned.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#175

Post by onedev »

Metrop0218 wrote: post #172
rpedroso wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To elaborate further, the point of this memo isn't to alert the shareholders of Microsoft's organizational changes, it's about easing this transition with a motivational message about innovation and what not. Even if the corporation's main aim is to benefit its shareholders, that unnecessary line is going to come across as alienating to employees, who probably care very little about how these changes will affect weal…

Ah yes, I see now. I definitely agree with you then. That line will most likely not sit well with employees that don't give a damn about the shareholders and would rather just create amazing products.

I'm curious what amazing products Microsoft is working on.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#176

Post by cheery »

What did Ballmer actually state there? I barely could find any message from that wall of nice words.

How the reorganization is going to differ from the earlier one?

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#177

Post by sqqqrly »

jmduke wrote: post #171
archangel_one wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think they care about that. The reason they're shifting is that they don't want to sell you Word once, then fail to persuade you to upgrade to the next version; they want to sell it over and over which brings a more stable and guaranteed revenue stream.

Definitely. "Service" implies something you pay for on a monthly basis. "Software" implies something that comes in a box with a CD key.

My software does not come in a box, nor have keys.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#178

Post by kyllo »

kvb wrote: post #157
kyllo wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about evaluating each engineer's job performance (based on sane productivity and code quality metrics) without forcing them to a curve, where even if your whole team is high-performing, someone will get a bad review and be marked for firing just because it's required that someone gets a bad review? Jack Welch-style rank-and-yank is cruel and wildly inappropriate for software developers (or any human workers, I'd…

The problem with this is that it enables weak-willed managers to claim that everyone on their team is great, serving as a kind of grade inflation that makes true high-performers seem less impressive. As I understand it, the curve is only enforced at something like the VP level, so it's not like a team of 10 great engineers is going to be forced to have 2 people scored as underperforming. Are there 200-person groups a…

I'm not convinced that "weak-willed managers claiming that everyone on their team is great" is an actual problem.

And what if they really are all doing great, on a given team? Then no sense in punishing someone just because you have to punish someone.

And if someone is underperforming? Their direct manager's job is to take care of it. If the manager isn't even doing their job of managing people, a grading curve isn't going to fix that.

Also, if it's only enforced at a higher level of hierarchy, then what happens is that it's the junior members of underperforming departments that get the shaft. They probably had the least to do with the team's underperformance, but they also have the least power and therefore the least ability to dodge blame. Shit rolls downhill.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#179

Post by mehrzad »

JonFish85 wrote: post #113

What is one good thing that Ballmer has done for MS? He's ridden the momentum left by Gates, and since then..... what? Nothing new & good. If I'm an investor in MS, is he really the best option? Not that Microsoft isn't a good company and does some great work (Microsoft Research labs are amazing, I don't care what people say), but honestly it seems like as a company, Microsoft hasn't really done anything new & better…

Windows Azure? 7? Those were under Ballmer's reign.

Re: Microsoft reorganizes

#180

Post by jimray »

I dug up Apple's reorg announcement from 1997, where Steve Jobs was officially brought on as an "advisory" role to then-CEO Gil Amelio.

http://web.archive.org/web/19990128084705/http://product.inf...

Obviously, Apple and Microsoft are different companies and looking back 16 years with the benefit of hindsight is a bit unfair.

And yet, even in the announcements, you can see a difference. Apple's is shorter, more direct, bereft of details but not trying to be everything to everyone. Most important is an emphasis on getting back to basics, whereas Microsoft is promising "one strategy, one Microsoft" and then immediately rattling off a laundry list of "core products". When every one of those products is core, it's clear nothing is.

Post reply on HN