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

Microsoft is interesting again

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 44 posts

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#11

Post by blumkvist »

johng wrote: post #2

If you read that article, what I see is that Microsoft has been forced to do the following: Give away everything for free Produce it's own hardware, and at a loss (Surface may have made $1b now, but it's lost more than that over it's lifetime) Frankly, I don't know how they are making money now a days.

SQL Server, Windows Server, Sharepoint Server, Exchange Server, Dyanamics NAV, Dyanmics AX, Dynamics GP, Dynamics CRM, Dynamics Marketing, Lync Server, Biztalk Server, System Center Server.

Windows Desktop, MS Office, Visual Studio, Xbox (platform AND games), Skype.

All of these are profitable. Then you have Azure, which I'm not sure if it is profitable, but will most certainly be. Very profitable.

Geesh, how are these guys alive even? They should give Dynamics AX for free, otherwise they are toast!

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#12

Post by serve_yay »

Not to downplay the change taking place, but what portion of the work that MS as a company does is represented by the flashy stuff that has everyone calling it a "new Microsoft"? Did all that middle-management and infighting and bureaucratic stasis just... disappear?

In other words, nerds often heap disdain on marketing but they are as susceptible to it as anyone else. The marketing to which they are susceptible is just less recognizable as such.

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#13

Post by freehunter »

johng wrote: post #4
IanDrake wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are transitioning to SAAS. Windows 10 upgrade will be "free for a year", but I take that to mean after a year you'll be paying $10 per month for Windows 10. Office 365 is doing well already.

I may be old school but I am not keen on paying monthly fees for software that I use. That is part of the reason I refuse to upgrade to Adobe's Creative Cloud. Microsoft can't even keep XBOX live up when someone wants to DDOS it, I don't want software that I'm renting that cant run if their servers are down.

Shoot, it's been how long since Windows XP and they can't keep their own Windows Update servers running properly. All the time I'm sitting at the update screen waiting, waiting, and waiting, then finally it throws an error. I've never been able to leave feedback on the Windows app store. Downloading from Technet was always hit or miss. My Xbox 360 has lost the ability to update, and there's nothing for the error code it's throwing when I search online. Outlook.com has had several major outages since its launch. Even when it's not being DDoS'd, Xbox Live has given a lot of trouble in matchmaking and download speeds.

When it comes to online services, Microsoft has never been reliable in my experience. Not then, not now, not ever. When a Microsoft online service works properly, I'm surprised. When it doesn't work, I expect that and I move on. If you know anything about my comment history, I'm not anti-Microsoft in any way. But man their online services really suck when it comes to reliability.

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#14

Post by serve_yay »

blumkvist wrote: post #11
johng wrote: post #2

If you read that article, what I see is that Microsoft has been forced to do the following: Give away everything for free Produce it's own hardware, and at a loss (Surface may have made $1b now, but it's lost more than that over it's lifetime) Frankly, I don't know how they are making money now a days.

SQL Server, Windows Server, Sharepoint Server, Exchange Server, Dyanamics NAV, Dyanmics AX, Dynamics GP, Dynamics CRM, Dynamics Marketing, Lync Server, Biztalk Server, System Center Server. Windows Desktop, MS Office, Visual Studio, Xbox (platform AND games), Skype. All of these are profitable. Then you have Azure, which I'm not sure if it is profitable, but will most certainly be. Very profitable. Geesh, how are the…

I agree with the point you're making. However if you look at that list... it's not all the fresh-faced glitzy stuff people are so excited about. So really, what has changed about MS as a company if they make money in the same ways they did 5 years ago.

(Skype as one of the examples, though?! Skype is likely never going to be profitable for MS, right?)

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#15

Post by bryanlarsen »

johng wrote: post #2

If you read that article, what I see is that Microsoft has been forced to do the following: Give away everything for free Produce it's own hardware, and at a loss (Surface may have made $1b now, but it's lost more than that over it's lifetime) Frankly, I don't know how they are making money now a days.

That's basically the point of the article.

In Ballmer's Microsoft, they spent cash on dividends.

In Nadel's Microsoft, they're spending cash on market share.

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#16

Post by hassaderpdole »

blumkvist wrote: post #11
johng wrote: post #2

If you read that article, what I see is that Microsoft has been forced to do the following: Give away everything for free Produce it's own hardware, and at a loss (Surface may have made $1b now, but it's lost more than that over it's lifetime) Frankly, I don't know how they are making money now a days.

SQL Server, Windows Server, Sharepoint Server, Exchange Server, Dyanamics NAV, Dyanmics AX, Dynamics GP, Dynamics CRM, Dynamics Marketing, Lync Server, Biztalk Server, System Center Server. Windows Desktop, MS Office, Visual Studio, Xbox (platform AND games), Skype. All of these are profitable. Then you have Azure, which I'm not sure if it is profitable, but will most certainly be. Very profitable. Geesh, how are the…

Yes,yes, nope,yes,nope,nope,nope,nope,nope,yes,nope,maybe,yes,yes,nope,kids,spies.

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#18

Post by 33mhz »

serve_yay wrote: post #12

Not to downplay the change taking place, but what portion of the work that MS as a company does is represented by the flashy stuff that has everyone calling it a "new Microsoft"? Did all that middle-management and infighting and bureaucratic stasis just... disappear? In other words, nerds often heap disdain on marketing but they are as susceptible to it as anyone else. The marketing to which they are susceptible is j…

They fired tens of thousands of employees, including shifting upper management thoroughly. So yes, they killed a lot of bureaucracy.

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#19

Post by blumkvist »

serve_yay wrote: post #14
blumkvist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SQL Server, Windows Server, Sharepoint Server, Exchange Server, Dyanamics NAV, Dyanmics AX, Dynamics GP, Dynamics CRM, Dynamics Marketing, Lync Server, Biztalk Server, System Center Server. Windows Desktop, MS Office, Visual Studio, Xbox (platform AND games), Skype. All of these are profitable. Then you have Azure, which I'm not sure if it is profitable, but will most certainly be. Very profitable. Geesh, how are the…

I agree with the point you're making. However if you look at that list... it's not all the fresh-faced glitzy stuff people are so excited about. So really, what has changed about MS as a company if they make money in the same ways they did 5 years ago. (Skype as one of the examples, though?! Skype is likely never going to be profitable for MS, right?)

Who are these people excited about glitzy stuff? SaaS startups? Do you know what a small part of the world those people are?

Re: Microsoft is interesting again

#20

Post by Grazester »

33mhz wrote: post #18
serve_yay wrote: post #12

Not to downplay the change taking place, but what portion of the work that MS as a company does is represented by the flashy stuff that has everyone calling it a "new Microsoft"? Did all that middle-management and infighting and bureaucratic stasis just... disappear? In other words, nerds often heap disdain on marketing but they are as susceptible to it as anyone else. The marketing to which they are susceptible is j…

They fired tens of thousands of employees, including shifting upper management thoroughly. So yes, they killed a lot of bureaucracy.

and how many of those people were from Nokia that was acquired by them?
Post reply on HN