It is mu h a worry as a factor that makes the company much stable as compared to some others it competes with. Look at BlackBerry or Nokia. Their fall from grace was precipitous. Google and to some extent Apple are one trick ponies. Although its a damn good trick, its risky to only know how to make money doing only one thing.
Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
11–20 of 52 posts
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#12> An oft-cited example of this is the reluctance of the Office applications group to release complete versions of Word, Excel and other software for iPads and Android devices. That decision, in theory, could help Microsoft tablets that run Windows, though it hasn’t yet...An even broader conglomerate is Samsung, which is in areas as varied as electronics, life insurance and petrochemicals. But each of those businesses is run with a high degree of independence from the others. The company supplies screens and semiconductors for Apple, even though Apple is the main rival to Samsung’s mobile phone business.
The Samsung software layer on their Android phones was so awful, so devoid of inspiration, that even as an Android user, I hoped that Apple would continue to spank them in the phone industry. But I highly respect whosever management decision it was to keep Samsung's units as independent as possible, even so that one hand of the company may be helping to spank the other. Perhaps it's because Apple's business is too good to lose, but hopefully there's some "a rising tide lifts all ships" mentality in there.
Meanwhile, Microsoft could've ported Office and given it a good foothold as the productivity software of mobile and the cloud..but by the time they've waited for the Surface to become a success, Google and Apple may both eat its lunch
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#13It is tricky to manage any large company. The more tricky problem for Microsoft is that it heavily depends on old business models. A significant portion of Microsoft profit comes from Windows and Office. Other companies, like Google, can offer competitive products almost for free. That could happen eventually. It won't take Google too much efforts to provide a desktop version of Android and Office-like product. Even at several billion dollars R&D cost, it is still much cheaper than Motorola purchase.
Microsoft enterprise business is hugely competitive. But other than that, it is hard to achieve meaningful profit margin (xbox may earn couple of billions, internet services always lose money, Nokia probably break even for next few years). So the problem is more about innovate than manage Microsoft.
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#14Why is this a worry for Microsoft, but not Google and Apple? This isn't really tackled until the last sentence of the article, and even then, they say that Google and Apple are more focused. Is that correct? or do Google and Apple just have one larger profit maker with many smaller profit-makers or loss-leaders?
The article is fingering the wrong problem. The trouble isn't in Microsoft's reach but in the nature of its profit center.
Microsoft makes billions each year on a monopoly. The rest of the company stagnates because it has to help defend the monopoly. Companies that make their money in competitive markets can't afford to prop up uncompetitive projects, but a monopoly has to.
And Microsoft is looking less prosperous because the market it monopolizes, desktop OS and document prep, is a smaller and smaller part of the industry.
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#15It's worrying for MS that for all the major divisions shown in that image, I've never once thought of or used them in relation to each other. MS has no unifying experience to build on in consumer consciousness.
That may be true for your average HN user, but Microsoft products generally work pretty darn well with other Microsoft products. There are always exceptions, but as someone who works with small businesses often, I don't see any obvious silo'ing in how they use products from those different divisions in their real-world work.
Cross-quadrant dynamic synergies where the rubber meets the road and pivots, off the top of my head:
- IE (technically part of the Windows division) and Xbox tie in with Bing (in Win 8.1, Windows itself searches Bing and builds OS-native search results pages that aggregate Bing results with results from the local machine).
- As Live Messenger, Lync, and Skype converge, Office should have good integration with whatever eventual amalgamation emerges since it already does so with Lync.
- Office and Bing. "Search with Bing" is right in the context menu for selected text throughout Office apps.
- SQL Server and SharePoint aren't depicted in the image, but Office has great built-in support for working against SQL Server data and SharePoint lists seamlessly.
- I don't know the official word about Azure, but I would be shocked if at least portions of services like Xbox Live and Office 365 aren't using the Azure infrastructure (if it's good enough for iCloud...).
- Skype and Windows have a bit of affinity in Win 8.1 too. The Skype app can raise a call notification even when the computer is locked and you can answer Skype calls directly from the Windows 8.1 lock screen.
- A killer, overarching connection between groups is the newish Microsoft Accounts. When you log into a Windows 8+ machine with your MS Account, settings for a lot of apps are synced automatically. Even the progress I've made on Angry Birds is automatically synced between my desktops, laptops, and tablets. I'm not sure exactly which quadrants that connects (all?), but it's a great example of MS divisions working well together.
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#16I think things will become much much worse for Microsoft before they get better. I'm afraid they will lose small and medium size enterprises and ISVs because their licensing structure has become so complex, overpriced and antiquated that a new generation of customers will refuse to deal with them.
In the past there was piracy as a way to lower the barriers to entry. Today, piracy has become dangerous for small companies in developed countries. All of a sudden SMEs and ISVs are confronted with scores of product feature matrices, weird dependencies and restrictions, kafkaesque partnership programs and long-term committments.
Sometimes they are just plain stupid. For instance, I recently came across this page that explains developer account types: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/apps/jj863494.aspx
It seems harmless if convoluted at first sight. But look at the dependencies they have created. In order to sell Windows desktop apps in the Windows store and use all device capabilities you need a company account, and to get a company account you need to be recognized as a company in your own country.
That's effectively a wholesale import of tax, social security and incorporation laws of countless countries into Microsoft's own terms of service. Microsoft operates in many countries so they have to know how onerous this rule can be. They are erecting a huge barrier to entry for individual software developers and early stage startups around the world.
I'm sure they will claim it's for their users' safety. But this must be the most uncreative, idiotic safety measure ever invented, particularly if you know how easy it is for real criminals to game this system.
Now, I'm not saying that developer relations is Microsoft's most serious problem. Not at all. But it goes to show how incapable this company is of putting themselves into the shoes of those who have to deal with them in any capacity.
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#17It is tricky to manage any large company. The more tricky problem for Microsoft is that it heavily depends on old business models. A significant portion of Microsoft profit comes from Windows and Office. Other companies, like Google, can offer competitive products almost for free. That could happen eventually. It won't take Google too much efforts to provide a desktop version of Android and Office-like product. Even…
Why would Google develop a desktop Android or Office, when they've already got this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Microsoft is focused on selling windows licenses. The xbox and its ecosystem is the exception.
"Windows licenses" alone probably include more distinct SKUs than Apple has total products. A lot of that is just inherent to enterprise vs. consumer, but even then, Microsoft has lots of complexity, seemingly on purpose, while Apple tried to be minimalist.
There are only 2 SKUs of Windows 8 that I know of. Standard and Pro. (At least that you purchase directly, not already on a device).
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#19It is tricky to manage any large company. The more tricky problem for Microsoft is that it heavily depends on old business models. A significant portion of Microsoft profit comes from Windows and Office. Other companies, like Google, can offer competitive products almost for free. That could happen eventually. It won't take Google too much efforts to provide a desktop version of Android and Office-like product. Even…
Why would Google develop a desktop Android or Office, when they've already got this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS
Because it sucks?
Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
I dunno...I think Exchange and Office (outlook) work OK together, but that is probably the exception that proves the rule.
Exchange is in the Office division.
I thought Exchange was part of Microsoft Platform Products and Services Division, whereas office is part of Microsoft Business Division.