401–410 of 784 posts
They need someone who will innovate and continue to innovate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the home game console is also a declining market. Source?
It's mostly my opinion, based on the rise of mobile. I don't think they're going to go away, but it does seem like they're already becoming more specialized. Hardcore gamers will always be with us, but the much larger casual market is moving away. I think the numbers back it up to an extent, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_conso... None of the latest generation of consoles are near the…
The Playstation 2 for example was king of the hill and dwarfed its competition (Gamecube/Xbox) but still overall you're looking at about ~200 million units. However, with the current generation you're looking at Wii, PS3, X360 all sharing an about even share with PS3 and X360 very closely tied, but the total is around ~250 million units.
So we're still seeing growth in that area, and one part that's not reflected is the added value in each platform in terms of revenue for each network (PSN, Xbox Live) as well as the growing list of peripherals (Kinect, Move) that are part of each platform.
Not only that, but PS3 and X360 had higher prices on their consoles, some even coming close to doubling the price (a top of the line PS3 at launch was $600 vs a $300 PS2).
I would say that gaming over all is becoming more mainstream to the point that the consoles are no longer the realm of hardcore gamers, because they wouldn't have kept those numbers up while people were buying iPads, iPhones and DS3's in such massive quantities if they were really a complete gaming replacement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We tend to forget that Microsoft ALREADY did what these "startups" did. MSFT already pushed the envelope and changed the way we use technology in our day to day lives. There is (probably) only so much change one company / person can do. Even if there is additional potential, in the end companies will seek profit and stability.
This may well be true. That doesn't make it any less sad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes it did. I tried Google Now the other day. It blew my mind. Google Now understands every single words I said (Asian accent); As for Siri, 50% is kinda optimistic.
Is that what determines a flop, though? Siri is definitely known, and added value to the iphone and the apple brand overall. While I use Google Now and think it is superior, I'm not sure if performance would be enough to label Siri as a flop. Bing on the other hand, not so much.
Native speakers might not see a huge difference though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that he will probably not be remembered for having more than doubled revenue and almost tripled profits. He will not be remembered for transforming Microsoft into one of the most important enterprise software companies. Not for introducing .NET, C# or Kinect either. All of that will be forgotten. He will be remembered for missing mobile. He will also be remembered for caring a lot about developers and about d…
> He will be remembered for missing mobile. Wait, what? That's like saying RIM missed mobile. Microsoft was doing mobile years before Apple or Google ever entered the market[1]. My guess is that Microsoft and Ballmer's real-world experience in mobile actually constrained their imaginations. Their failure to see how mobile could be reinvented was due more to hubris than naivete. [1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe…
...that is to say, it is a fairly reasonable thing to say. They just "missed it" in the opposite direction from how companies usually miss things. They came and went too soon. They sold smartphones and airplanes before everybody was buying them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes - Lou Gerstner was a very rare bird as a CEO. He was a consultant who became a great executive, then a CEO, then led a transformation the likes of which he'd advised on as a consultant. What's needed is of that order of magnitude. How do you find folks like that?
As a side note, I really have a hard time figuring out what was it that Gerstner did at IBM. When he started, IBM was the mainframe company. What is it doing today? They say it's services, but what are services? When I did an internship there, everyone I asked just shrugged their shoulders.
They've gotten much bigger on corporate services: They compete with Accenture on large software implementations, and do big EDS style outsourcing projects. In doing this they've shifted away from hardware preferences.
They've also bought many enterprise software packages which lend themselves to implementations and ongoing support.
From a shareholders perspective Gerstner was very aggressive about share repurchases, or giving money back. One problem with big companies is they get so much money that they start wasting it. A company can appear very large and strong, but do nothing for the shareholders, if they're just pissing away retained earnings. (One could argue that Microsoft was guilty of this)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
MSFT pays a dividend. Just looking at stock price then vs. now is ignoring that. Very common mistake.
You need to consider both the dividend and inflation; $35 in 2000 dollars is $47 today. In the intervening time, they paid a total dividend of $7.69. I haven’t done the full inflation-adjusted dividend computation, but I would guess that it works out pretty close to a wash, but slightly in the red.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's hard to disagree with sarcasm on the internet. But in this case you are absolutely correct. Microsoft used to control the future of computing. Now they are yet another enterprise software company with no apparent mission except to make money. The lay somewhere on a continuum with IBM, Oracle, SAP all the way through to companies like CA. At one end of that spectrum they do research and produce software that peop…
Is it looking to the future, or having a consumer focus versus enterprise? Consumers are fickle, and you have to be on top of the latest trends in GUI, service, products, business models. Corporate customers tend to be stickier, and more resistant to change. The A/G/A/F foursome are geared for consumers, and are suitably nimble. The others you listed aren't. The worst thing a company can do is try to be perfect for b…
So lets take, for example, ORCL.
From 2000 till today, ORCL become the clear leader in enterprise: they acquired PeopleSoft, Siebel, BEA, Sun, etc.
On the other hand, MSFT position in enterprise space is in much weaker position comparing to competitors such as ORCL. Enterprises will replace their Windows with tablets, but I don't see them replacing Oracle Database or Oracle Applications (and Siebel and PeopleSoft apps are not so bad).
So Balmer gets B- for his enterprise work. Larry, on the other hand, gets A+.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple tried social and search* with Ping and Siri. It flopped. But nobody holds it against Jobs
Did Siri flop?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Azure probably will get credited to Ray Ozzie. Rest of them are from Gates era. There are some monumental fuck-ups that happened under his guard though - Vista, Windows Phone are enough proof.
Vista Most hardware was not powerful enough for Vista when it was released. It's the pressed who killed it. Windows 7 received glamorous reviews. However, in hindsight, Vista and 7 are not all that different. Most of the changes that daily users would encounter are cosmetic. Windows Phone Microsofts primary problem was that it was late and (as one of the consequences) there are not that many Windows Phone apps. Howev…
But Microsoft gave them the gun by agreeing to the OEMs' demand to create a "Vista Capable" classification, for machines that were too underpowered to run Vista well (see http://www.crn.com/slide-shows/channel-programs/206905984/tr...).
The OEMs didn't care about customer experience, they just wanted a "Vista!" sticker they could slap on as many machines as possible. MS had to know these machines would make Vista look bad; they should have resisted the demand. But they didn't, so tons of people bought machines they thought would run Vista acceptably, only to find out they did not. So they (understandably) thought Vista was just a dog that couldn't run well even on "Vista certified" hardware.