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

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#121

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 1:21 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #98

kenjackson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Microsoft has the technical chops for OS's, no doubt. The business chops to introduce and push device platforms is iffy--they got XBox through, but against weak competition and with very high expense. Apple and Google are much stouter competition than Sony and Nintendo and have significant advantages over Microsoft, not least among them the fact that Google has completely undercut Microsoft's traditional point of ent…

> Microsoft has the technical chops for OS's, no doubt.

Kind of. How many really good OSs they made? DOS 4? Windows classic? Windows 3? Windows NT?

Out of that list, only the VMS-inspired NT could be called cutting edge. It had a microkernel-ish architecture with multiprocessing, multithreading and security wired in from day one. And they hired the NT team out of DEC.

I have great respect for the SQL Server team. Even after diverging from Sybase, it matured nicely and is a very good database server, comparable to MySQL and PostgreSQL. ;-)

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#122

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 1:22 PM UTC

gaius wrote: post #113

Anechoic wrote: post #3

Before succumbing to schadenfreude just remember that this will eventually happen to your favorite tech company in the future, be it HP, Dell, Apple, Google, Yahoo, Fog Creek, Amazon, Y Combinator, etc. Companies have ups and down. Hopefully MS will see this as a learning experience, become a better competitor and then we as consumers will benefit.

It happened already to HP. All the cool people quit en masse and formed Agilent.

Wasn't Agilent owned by HP?

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#123

Post by gaius » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 1:29 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #122

gaius wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It happened already to HP. All the cool people quit en masse and formed Agilent.

Wasn't Agilent owned by HP?

I was being a little facetious - HP split in two, with one half called Agilent taking the instruments, calculators and so on, and the other half still called HP doing PCs, printers, cameras. When people think of HP as being a great engineering firm, and a great place to work, they're thinking of the bit that became Agilent.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#124

Post by cubicle67 » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 2:10 PM UTC

dieterrams wrote: post #70

philwelch wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the most probable succession plan is to put Tim Cook in charge of the company with Ive in charge of design and aesthetics. Who has what job title is hard to predict.

You know, Jobs keeps insisting Siri is an AI company... "Hey virtual Steve, should we add this feature?" "Get rid of it." "Should we keep this feature?" "Get rid of it." "What do you think about--" "That's shit."

like this, you mean? http://quietcode.com/virtualsteve/

I just bought virtualsteve.com, but didn't have time to set up hosting for it, so I've just put the page here for the moment.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#125

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 3:19 PM UTC

jolan wrote: post #101

kenjackson wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

You can't please everybody. You mush choose between offering a cutting edge product and a stable one. Windows thrives on stability-staleness. Make updates too frequent and users will learn not to depend on browser specificities, API quirks and specific technologies. If Microsoft teaches its clients to be vendor-independent, they'll be doomed.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#126

Post by mahmud » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 4:17 PM UTC

kevbin wrote: post #88

tmsh wrote: post #4

Can you think of a project, a product or a company that succeeded with a somewhat negative-sounding name (even if meant somewhat ironically or as sort of a renegade mentality)? I'm drawing a blank.... It's odd that I can't think of a single one though. Even among game studios, etc.

Company: Humble Oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humble_Oil , Micro Soft, Borland, SMEG Product: * For dummies, dilbert, crack, SCSI Project: Butt-head astronomer, operation enduring freedom (when emphasis on 2nd instead of 3rd word), unix, lisp

And the previous Operation Just Cause, to remove Noreaga, just because.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#127

Post by kenjackson » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 4:33 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #125

jolan wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Their main problem is that their release cycles are too long across all of their product lines. You can't please everybody. You mush choose between offering a cutting edge product and a stable one. Windows thrives on stability-staleness. Make updates too frequent and users will learn not to depend on browser specificities, API quirks and specific technologies. If Microsoft teaches its clients to be vendor-independe…

"If Microsoft teaches its clients to be vendor-independent, they'll be doomed."

It's this sort of statement that is absurd. In some sense it is fundamentally true, but true of virtually all companies.

Apple doesn't want iPhone users to be vendor independent. Otherwise they'll use Android phones.

Google doesn't want users to be search engine independent. They make their money from people clicking ads on their search engine site.

Nike doesn't want you to be shoe-independent.

Starbucks doesn't want you drinking tap water rather than coffee.

Every company wants you using their product. And the more the better.

My issue with the statement is that there seems to be this odd implied notion that MS will go into a space where there is no upside for them, simply to create downside for another company. This is patently false. They go into markets where they think they can make profit, either directly or indirectly. This is not any different than what Google or Apple does. The only difference is that MS has done it longer (Apple has struggled with its core market that it never had the chance, but now they're flourishing, you're seeing Apple doing things just like MS did if not more egregiously). And there's nothing wrong with it. It's business.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#128

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 6:21 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #127

rbanffy wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their main problem is that their release cycles are too long across all of their product lines. You can't please everybody. You mush choose between offering a cutting edge product and a stable one. Windows thrives on stability-staleness. Make updates too frequent and users will learn not to depend on browser specificities, API quirks and specific technologies. If Microsoft teaches its clients to be vendor-independe…

"If Microsoft teaches its clients to be vendor-independent, they'll be doomed." It's this sort of statement that is absurd. In some sense it is fundamentally true, but true of virtually all companies. Apple doesn't want iPhone users to be vendor independent. Otherwise they'll use Android phones. Google doesn't want users to be search engine independent. They make their money from people clicking ads on their search e…

Apple uses paid apps to make switching away from iPhone painful. Google doesn't have that leverage (@gmail addresses excepted, perhaps) and so does Nike - no leverage unless you purchased that iPod gizmo. It's also pretty painless to switch from Starbucks to any other coffee shop.

Very few companies enjoy the network effects Microsoft depends on. And yes, Microsoft will enter a market, even burn tons of money, so that no other company gains a foothold there that could be used to threaten its dominance in other markets. They did it with the Xbox - they burned tons of money and did not achieve anything close to dominance, but were extremely successful on preventing Nintendo and Sony from doing so.

When you have a network of monopolies (or mutually reinforcing market positions), it's very smart to disrupt every market you can't dominate because, if it doesn't strengthen your position, it will at least weaken your competitor's and prevent giving them a position they could leverage against one of Microsoft's captive markets.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#129

Post by kenjackson » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 7:15 PM UTC

rbanffy wrote: post #128

kenjackson wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If Microsoft teaches its clients to be vendor-independent, they'll be doomed." It's this sort of statement that is absurd. In some sense it is fundamentally true, but true of virtually all companies. Apple doesn't want iPhone users to be vendor independent. Otherwise they'll use Android phones. Google doesn't want users to be search engine independent. They make their money from people clicking ads on their search e…

Apple uses paid apps to make switching away from iPhone painful. Google doesn't have that leverage (@gmail addresses excepted, perhaps) and so does Nike - no leverage unless you purchased that iPod gizmo. It's also pretty painless to switch from Starbucks to any other coffee shop. Very few companies enjoy the network effects Microsoft depends on. And yes, Microsoft will enter a market, even burn tons of money, so tha…

So where is MS's Facebook? Where is MS's Google Voice? Where is MS's Yelp? Where is MS's Netflix? Where is MS's JumboTron API? Where is MS's line of televisions? Where is even an MS computer?

And noting the network effect doesn't mean that companies won't user other means to stop their competition. For example, try to get Lebron James to wear shoes you make. Not going to happen. I don't care how comfortable your shoes are. Also, try getting your shoes into FootLocker. Also, not so easy, and Nike won't lubricate the process for you either.

Try getting Starbucks to open up a kiosk in your building with a Seattle's Best right next to it. Starbucks has enough influence that they can use other means, besides network effect, to push out competition.

Network effects are a beautiful thing to leverage. Actually I think MS is in trouble, because it has very little of it. Compared to Facebook or Apple. Google is trying to strengthen their network effect.

But again, there's a fundamental difference between trying to create and leverage network effects. And what you're saying, which is to simply disrupt any other company.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#130

Post by rbanffy » Thu, Jul 08, 2010, 7:29 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #129

rbanffy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple uses paid apps to make switching away from iPhone painful. Google doesn't have that leverage (@gmail addresses excepted, perhaps) and so does Nike - no leverage unless you purchased that iPod gizmo. It's also pretty painless to switch from Starbucks to any other coffee shop. Very few companies enjoy the network effects Microsoft depends on. And yes, Microsoft will enter a market, even burn tons of money, so tha…

So where is MS's Facebook? Where is MS's Google Voice? Where is MS's Yelp? Where is MS's Netflix? Where is MS's JumboTron API? Where is MS's line of televisions? Where is even an MS computer? And noting the network effect doesn't mean that companies won't user other means to stop their competition. For example, try to get Lebron James to wear shoes you make. Not going to happen. I don't care how comfortable your shoe…

> So where is MS's Facebook?

http://www.thespoke.net/ "Microsoft's digital lifestyle club for students from around the world, with message boards, hubs, blogs and 10 MB of upload space for members"

The problem for them is that their network is losing relevance fast. The value of desktop software lock-in is in sight, server software is coming next.