Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond • Hacker News Board

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#101

Post by jolan » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 8:34 AM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #82

philwelch wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you snuck in an extra negation that I didn't and turned my sentence around, so now I don't know if either of us knows what the other meant! Me: "I see no evidence mobile phones are in any way even close to Microsoft's core competency" "in any way" and "even close to" are non-negating modifiers we can remove, so: Me: "I see no evidence mobile phones are Microsoft's core competency" You: "You see no evidence th…

My bad. Trying to be cute. Let me actually attempt to give a little evidence, since you claim to have none. First, if you think MS has no core competency or that software is not one of them, then we could end the discussion right here. But otherwise, it seems clear to me that mobile OS software is among their core competencies. I start with the premise that operating systems are one of their core competencies. They h…

Their main problem is that their release cycles are too long across all of their product lines.

It takes a year for Microsoft to release a minor revision to Windows Mobile 6. In a year, Apple releases a major revision to iOS. Google releases multiple revisions to Android.

It also took them 2.5 years to release Windows 7 to essentially fix Vista which should have been way better considering XP came out 5 years before Vista. Meanwhile Apple and Google have been continuously innovating and iterating.

When they did try to rush to market with the Xbox 360, they ended up having to take a $1B charge to repair the shoddy hardware.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#102

Post by jolan » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 8:37 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #68

todayiamme wrote: post #55

I don't think that even if Microsoft layed off 60% of its staff it would become competitive as Apple or Google. The more I read into their problems the more I think that this is not a management issue. No they have rigid management controls to ensure that stuff doesn't go wrong like the other giants, but due to the lack of a vision. If you ask an Apple, Google, old HP, or any employee of an innovative company they wi…

I think a lot of Microsoft's problem is that they succeeded in their mission statement. "A computer on every desk, all running Microsoft software" was incredible hubris in 1974. It's reality now. What can Microsoft do to top that? It makes me wonder about what the world will look like in 15 years. Google's mission statement is "Organize the world's information, and make it universally accessible and useful." Right no…

> I couldn't imagine how they could possibly finish their mission statement.

Aren't they almost there already? Documents, email, maps, news, phone/voice, search, videos online, and soon television.

> "Organize the world's information, and make it universally accessible and useful."

... and to sell ads based on that information. Google is still primarily an ad company that just happens to also do technology that helps them sell more ads.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#103

Post by lenni » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 8:43 AM UTC

watmough wrote: post #16

ryanjmo wrote: post #2

It looks like pg was right 3 years ago: http://www.paulgraham.com/microsoft.html

Yeah, Microsoft was relevant to me when the launched Access in about '96 or so. Then there was a brief spell of relevance with .NET and all the cool stuff attached to that. Since then, Linux or OS X have become the OS' of choice for many techies, and open software has eaten the lunch of MS when it comes to internet development. MS are on life support (though in a quite comfortable state!) kept alive by a HUGE install…

I think they will go the way of IBM: Relevant and profitable but not the all-encompassing mega-monopolist.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#104

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 8:56 AM UTC

flomo wrote: post #80

rbanffy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were highly regarded in their niches. If you needed a computer to edit photos or to assemble a print publication, a Mac would be your obvious choice. In the PowePC era, it was the fastest computer you could buy that ran off-th-shelf productivity software and many found their way into labs as instrument controllers. Considering the size of their lineup, a couple lemons (pun intended) were to be expected. Still, c…

The quality/competitiveness of Apple's mid-1990s computers is subjective and invariably turns into a back-and-forth. However, Windows 95 demolished Apple's profit margins, and that's what counts.

Indeed.

With 95, mainstream users got access to long filenames and a reasonably functional GUI.

Still, when you wanted a computer to "just work", you really had no choice.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#105

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 9:08 AM UTC

steadicat wrote: post #58

rbanffy wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They were highly regarded in their niches. If you needed a computer to edit photos or to assemble a print publication, a Mac would be your obvious choice. In the PowePC era, it was the fastest computer you could buy that ran off-th-shelf productivity software and many found their way into labs as instrument controllers. Considering the size of their lineup, a couple lemons (pun intended) were to be expected. Still, c…

That's not the history as I remember it. Windows 95 came before NT4, and it was the first to introduce the famous "start button" visuals. 95 however was still based on the old kernel and it crashed a lot. NT4 came later, with the same visuals, but due to the NT kernel it was remarkably stable.

While 95 introduced long filenames to a mainstream audience, it was very unstable. MacOS 7.5 was not perfect (and the PPC migration brought some instability), but it was not nearly as bad as 95. NT4 had a kernel internally more advanced than MacOS classic, but most users wouldn't be able to tell.

Microsoft's GUI offerings started to really compete with Apple's with 95 and matured through NT4 and 2000.

Apple had a good product, if you compare it with what the PC market was offering. OS8 and 9 were well-rounded OSs that competed mostly against the 9x family, as XP, which made the NT kernel mainstream, wasn't launched until after OSX.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#106

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 9:13 AM UTC

mikecane wrote: post #44

The problem with Microsoft isn't a lack of bright talent. It's "Who's Next?" People are jockeying for political positions, not concentrating on products. Ballmer won't be there forever and everyone wants to be the next Ballmer. If Steve Jobs passed away tomorrow, there could be similar jockeying at Apple -- we've already seen how product introductions lacking Jobs have been split up among several people. We don't kno…

> everyone wants to be the next Ballmer.

Eww... I would never want to become Ballmer. ;-)

And to keep with your example, Apple also floundered after Jobs was kicked out. They had decent products, but nothing insanely great.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#107

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 9:22 AM UTC

nostrademons wrote: post #64

wallflower wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been amazed looking back at how IBM embraced open source back in the early 90s with a vengeance. I wonder if this saved the company.

I think it both saved and killed the company. It saved the company in that it stopped the hemorrhaging of cash and gave them an actually profitable business model. Without this, they would've gone out of business entirely sometime in the early-mid 90s. It killed them as a center of innovation. IBM hasn't invented anything worthwhile since the IBM PC in 1981. (No, I don't count Eclipse: IntelliJ idea came out first an…

> IBM hasn't invented anything worthwhile since the IBM PC

I have to disagree. The PC was not innovative at all - it was little more than a repackage of existing stuff. It's architecture was hugely successful in the market thanks to IBM's muscle and its poor judgement that allowed Microsoft to sell MS-DOS to clone makers.

But nobody should say the PC is innovative. The Apple ][, the Atari's (both 8-bit and the STs), the Commodores (the VIC 20, the C64, the Amiga) were all innovative, groundbreaking products.

The PC was a kludge. And mostly still is. Recently, playing with hardware detection I found out my Atom-based netbook has an ISA bus somewhere inside it. I wanted to wash my hands.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#108

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 9:25 AM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #50

nostrademons wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IBM has been bleeding for a long time and they still haven't died yet.

Sadly, IBM is far less entertaining to watch.

And, I would like to point out, is almost as entertaining as watching Sun bleed dry.

Not at all.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#109

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 9:27 AM UTC

rao wrote: post #87

city41 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to Wikipedia, Apple has 34k employees. Microsoft has over 100k. Maybe at that scale, 34k and 100k aren't very different, or maybe that's like night and day.

The range of products offered by Microsoft is huge. Multiple versions of OS, Office, VS and various websites.

They should slash the product line. They won't because of the lock-in loops. If they cease to offer one product line, the lock-in loop where it participates gets broken.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#110

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 9:32 AM UTC

lenni wrote: post #103

watmough wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, Microsoft was relevant to me when the launched Access in about '96 or so. Then there was a brief spell of relevance with .NET and all the cool stuff attached to that. Since then, Linux or OS X have become the OS' of choice for many techies, and open software has eaten the lunch of MS when it comes to internet development. MS are on life support (though in a quite comfortable state!) kept alive by a HUGE install…

I think they will go the way of IBM: Relevant and profitable but not the all-encompassing mega-monopolist.

Microsoft has to mature a lot to become an IBM.

Check what IBM's basic research did and compare it with what Microsoft Research outputs.