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

Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 52 posts

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#41

Post by Zigurd »

If I were King of Microsoft I would break it into two companies:

1. Take ex-Nokia handsets, XBOX, and all the miscellaneous hardware and consumer software and cloud services and call that Microsoft Devices and Services.

2. Take Windows 8 for PCs and servers, Office, everything enterprise and call it Azure, Inc.

Spin the two entities out to shareholders and reap the gains from letting investors own the thing they want to own, and from managers managing the thing they want to manage in the direction they want to go.

Azure would end up licensing a good deal of stuff to MD&S, but both entities could end up with a strong licensing business to third parties, too.

That would be nice, but I agree with fauigerzigerk: "...things will become much much worse for Microsoft before they get better"

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#42

Post by Zigurd »

pjmlp wrote: post #19
jpatokal wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Google develop a desktop Android or Office, when they've already got this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS

Because it sucks?

At the current state of development, Google has a problem: Android is by far the better general-purpose OS, but Google Drive's office productivity apps suck REALLY bad on Android. If they were implemented to the same standard as Android's GMail app, Windows would have a lot to worry about. But as it is, Android isn't going to displace any enterprise desktops this week.

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#43

Post by netcan »

pedalpete wrote: post #3

Why is this a worry for Microsoft, but not Google and Apple? This isn't really tackled until the last sentence of the article, and even then, they say that Google and Apple are more focused. Is that correct? or do Google and Apple just have one larger profit maker with many smaller profit-makers or loss-leaders?

Google are getting more complicated. If MS get into trouble, Google will probably come under pressure. A lot of Google's stuff seems to be almost side projects though. If Chrome/ChromeOS or Gmail fell off the end of the world next Tuesday Google would probably be fine. If self driving cars or glass never get to the commercial stage, that'd be ok too. It would be bad PR having high visibility failures, but nothing fatal.

Apple are the counterexample. They have very few big things. Mac hardware, OSX. iPhone & iPad, iOS. Those are most of Apple and there are very few products there, compared to other hardware companies. Then some mac apps. Some iOS apps. Again, not very many. Not very critical either (does it matter if the next iLife sucks)? iCloud, I guess and some other bits and bobs. Apple TV. iPods. Basically though they make like 5 flavours of PC, 3 flavours of tablet/phone, Two flavours of OS. Fewer products than most hardware/electronics maker 1/10 their size.

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#44

Post by pjmlp »

Zigurd wrote: post #42
pjmlp wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it sucks?

At the current state of development, Google has a problem: Android is by far the better general-purpose OS, but Google Drive's office productivity apps suck REALLY bad on Android. If they were implemented to the same standard as Android's GMail app, Windows would have a lot to worry about. But as it is, Android isn't going to displace any enterprise desktops this week.

Even the office productivity sucks, at least for my workflows.

I just use them when I need to quickly share something in a tabular form with someone else.

Otherwise I rather use Microsoft and Libre Office suites.

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#45

Post by noinsight »

DominikR wrote: post #35
MichaelGG wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're counting N and KN versions, 32+64 bit, checked/debug? Or what exactly? I'm sure Apple has SKUs for other countries, where they need different power adapters. The core Windows licensing is down to 4 now, right? 2 on desktop, 2 on server. SQL Server on the other hand...

Why is there even a distinction between 32 and 64 bit versions? Why does a customer have to know anything about it? Maybe just to f * customers which: a) bought the wrong one and now have to buy another one, because conveniently, they can't just return it. (at least in Europe that's the case) b) want to upgrade their hardware at some point in the future from 32 to 64 bit, without having to buy the exact same software…

> b) want to upgrade their hardware at some point in the future from 32 to 64 bit, without having to buy the exact same software again

Retail copies contain both versions, OEM versions only contain the one and those aren't transferable to other systems anyway. Of course, if you upgrade some parts in your current build you might get shafted with the OEM version.

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#46

Post by rdl »

nightski wrote: post #18
rdl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Windows licenses" alone probably include more distinct SKUs than Apple has total products. A lot of that is just inherent to enterprise vs. consumer, but even then, Microsoft has lots of complexity, seemingly on purpose, while Apple tried to be minimalist.

There are only 2 SKUs of Windows 8 that I know of. Standard and Pro. (At least that you purchase directly, not already on a device).

I was counting all the server OSes too, and still haven't looked at Windows 8, only Windows 7, which had ~5 consumer versions in both 32/64, the K and N versions, etc. I kind of like this because I get a few keys for each with MSDN from BizSpark, and thus never run out of licenses when I install new VMs.

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#47

Post by Encosia »

RyanZAG wrote: post #32
Encosia wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That may be true for your average HN user, but Microsoft products generally work pretty darn well with other Microsoft products. There are always exceptions, but as someone who works with small businesses often, I don't see any obvious silo'ing in how they use products from those different divisions in their real-world work. Cross-quadrant dynamic synergies where the rubber meets the road and pivots, off the top of m…

Hold on, are you saying the big integration effort between the different Microsoft products is the ability to search with Bing inside random applications and devices? Come on, this is not something any consumer would ever see as a value add. This is a waste of resources, nothing more. Integration is only integration if it adds value. No wonder Microsoft is dieing if this is the kind of thing they are wasting time on…

Huh? No, I'm not saying that any of that is the result of a monumental effort at Microsoft. Most of that has been around for quite a while. I was just responding to the parent poster who pointed out that they hadn't noticed any integration between the different Microsoft products in the image at the top of the original post.

> The awful Microsoft Accounts just gives consumers one new and popular question to ask: how do I turn off Microsoft Accounts? That's literally the most asked question in regards to that piece of terrible functionality.

Needs citation. The only response I've seen from real people is roughly "Wow, cool!" when the see their lock screen picture and wallpaper sync automatically to a new machine when they log in for the first time.

> get rid of people like this

In case it wasn't clear to you, I don't work for Microsoft and haven't ever.

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#48

Post by MichaelGG »

DominikR wrote: post #35
MichaelGG wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're counting N and KN versions, 32+64 bit, checked/debug? Or what exactly? I'm sure Apple has SKUs for other countries, where they need different power adapters. The core Windows licensing is down to 4 now, right? 2 on desktop, 2 on server. SQL Server on the other hand...

Why is there even a distinction between 32 and 64 bit versions? Why does a customer have to know anything about it? Maybe just to f * customers which: a) bought the wrong one and now have to buy another one, because conveniently, they can't just return it. (at least in Europe that's the case) b) want to upgrade their hardware at some point in the future from 32 to 64 bit, without having to buy the exact same software…

On 32/64, because downloading an extra 50% (?) meaning a GB or two more is sorta pointless? (Just speaking for MSDN.)

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#49

Post by nightski »

DominikR wrote: post #35
MichaelGG wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're counting N and KN versions, 32+64 bit, checked/debug? Or what exactly? I'm sure Apple has SKUs for other countries, where they need different power adapters. The core Windows licensing is down to 4 now, right? 2 on desktop, 2 on server. SQL Server on the other hand...

Why is there even a distinction between 32 and 64 bit versions? Why does a customer have to know anything about it? Maybe just to f * customers which: a) bought the wrong one and now have to buy another one, because conveniently, they can't just return it. (at least in Europe that's the case) b) want to upgrade their hardware at some point in the future from 32 to 64 bit, without having to buy the exact same software…

There is no distinction to a customer. You just buy Pro or Standard. This is only on MSDN, the developer network.

Re: Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage

#50

Post by matsur »

joseph_cooney wrote: post #20
matsur wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exchange is in the Office division.

I thought Exchange was part of Microsoft Platform Products and Services Division, whereas office is part of Microsoft Business Division.

Nope. http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/exchange/
Post reply on HN