Live data from Hacker News

Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

blog.seattlepi.com

131–137 of 137 posts

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#131
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

I think that there's still a long, long way to go. I run into information problems that I can't solve with Google all the time, mostly relating to obscure niche interests. Are there really no people talking about my favorite books on the Internet? Because unless I want to talk about Harry Potter or Twilight, I can't find any. Has nobody run across this error message that I just found in my Haskell/LLVM program and solved it? Of the dozen or two restaurants within a mile of my apartment, only about half of them show up on a Google Local search.

Google does really well for popular stuff, basically anything with a Wikipedia entry. It's still remarkably immature for things that are very niche, when there's just a handful of people around the world interested in that topic.

Udi Manber, Google's search VP, had an interesting interview about that:

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9960259-7.html

> ... 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.

Honestly, working in search, I don't see that. I'm explicitly told not to worry about revenue or ads. There are other departments that handle that.

I think that the way the founders view it, Google is a technology company where ads give them the wherewithal to build interesting technology. It's the old Drucker view of a corporation: profit is the cost of staying in business. A business exists to fulfill a social function; the profit motive exists to keep the business honest, so that it doesn't consume more resources in pursuit of that fulfillment than it generates.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#132

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 is making focused, strategic expansions into one new market every 3-6 years. They were a computer company, but in 2001 they introduce iPod and expand into MP3 players. In 2007, having dominated MP3 players, they expand into phones. In 2010 they expand into tablets. Apple wins every major extension and ends up--to this date--with only 4 major product categories (Mac, iPod, iPhone, iPad). And each of them is massively profitable. They're like a sniper, picking off market opportunities once at a time. Headshot. Years pass. Headshot. Years pass.

Microsoft, on the other hand, is just unloading shotguns at the hip.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Eve…

They still have the NT folks, and I hear MS Research has done promising things as well.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's absurd. They've demonstrated several times over that they're willing to accept short term losses for the sole purpose of damaging or killing off competition. Hell, they even invented the slogan "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".

Everyone is willing to take short=term losses to kill off "competition". I'd expect they'd do that in the mobile space too. It's called "competition". But why are they competing in the space? Microsoft could get into the soy bean industry, but the margins there really suck. They are in the mobile space because there's money to be made. Lets put it this way, if you could prove that this mobile industry is at its peak…

> They are in the mobile space because there's money to be made.

For all we can see, not by them ;-)

To be fair, WinMo sells a lot of phones. Must at least make a profit for the division.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The Spoke predates Facebook I believe. At least the site as we know it today. The Spoke existed far before people believed there was a ton of revenue to be made on those sorts of sites... otherwise sites like MiGente and BlackPlanet would have probably been more richly funded.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#136
post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I really liked the computers the calculator division made.

Re: Amid layoffs, Microsofties reveal further turmoil in Redmond

#137

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…

Quibble: Starbucks owns Seattle's Best Coffee.
Post reply on HN