Microsoft Looks to Cut Up to 18,000 Jobs

Post by dave1619 » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 5:38 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #177

kyrra wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cisco does buy a lot of companies, but only about as many as google has bought. Though Cisco has has more billion $ or higher deals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_acquisitions_by_Cisco_S... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisition...

Cisco has a very different M&A strategy than Google. They add product lines through acquisition, in preference to building internally (if you're on a Cisco team and you're ever given an MRD for a product, the joke goes, quit and start a company to do it instead). As often as not, Google acquires companies to absorb the people. Google typically buys much smaller companies, and more selectively. I would be very surpris…

Post by steve-howard » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 5:40 PM UTC

ehaughee wrote: post #232

72deluxe wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Didn't Ballmer's reorganisation mean that there was a triad of developer, project manager and tester working together? That would mean one project manager for each developer wouldn't it? Or am I wrong? Has that changed?

We don't have one PM/test per dev, no. My team is currently something like 8 devs, 3 testers, 3 PMs. There was an internal shift to change the test/dev ratio to something like 2/3 or 1/3 (I can't remember exactly) instead of matching it. I don't know of a team in my division that has a 1:1 for PM or test to dev.

Post by smtddr » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 5:45 PM UTC

chris_mahan wrote: post #275

Yrlec wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Usually one of the main reasons you do M&A is that there are redundancies between the organizations. Therefore, being able to lay people off while maintaining the same output is one of the goals of the deal, not a sign of failure.

Ah, perhaps if you're the MBA bean counter type. In reality, you should grow the business, because now you have much better back-office capabilities to support a more distributed, more diverse workforce. Don't be afraid of having lots of people, be afraid of not managing (supporting) them well, causing inefficiency.

Post by 72deluxe » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 5:49 PM UTC

kyllo wrote: post #264

72deluxe wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I am not your downvoter! I do not have downvoting powers yet, sadly! Probably because nobody agrees with me either haha I can understand some of your arguments. But I would not be too hasty in believing that everyone wants open source or would agree that open source kernels are better. I don't dispute it! But, a lot of Windows developers wouldn't touch Linux with a barge pole, nor would they even know about any of…

And in any case, if Microsoft were suddenly to chuck 30 years of their work in the bin and go all open-source, wouldn't that just transform them into a services company? Isn't that exactly what they have said they are trying to do? Become a "Devices and Services" company instead of a software company?

Post by 72deluxe » Thu, Jul 17, 2014, 5:50 PM UTC

headgasket wrote: post #255

72deluxe wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I am not your downvoter! I do not have downvoting powers yet, sadly! Probably because nobody agrees with me either haha I can understand some of your arguments. But I would not be too hasty in believing that everyone wants open source or would agree that open source kernels are better. I don't dispute it! But, a lot of Windows developers wouldn't touch Linux with a barge pole, nor would they even know about any of…

I'm sorry I didn't really mean to frame this as open vs close source; but more on the bsd vs nt plane. Compiling/porting C or C++ code on any bsd-derived or unix inspired platform is a lot easier than crossing over to windows IMHO, because of the WINNT kernel and the legacy of the prior oses. I think MS's force is precisely in Office Exchange etc -- business user facing stuff. The rest is a cost. XBox Zune etc. They…