Microsoft was happy to extort money from Linux distros via its patent racket until it realised it had no choice but to embrace Linux after the failure of Windows Phone. This is not about Satya Nadella or VS Code or cross-platform .Net Core - it's about The Nature of the Beast. Microsoft is a monopolistic enterprise and always will be. Cross-platform doesn't change this fact.
How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
441–450 of 487 posts
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#442Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think WSL will get there eventually but in its current state it's just more tedious to use for permissions/networking/compatability issues. Mostly things you can work around but just a bit more tinkering
(disclosure I work for Microsoft but not on this stuff) Biggest benefit for me has been how simple it has made ssh on Windows. I got a nicer spec'd Surface Laptop 3 during my last hardware refresh and haven't missed Macbook at all.
Confusing. Do you mean as an ssh server? Because there is no functional difference between Cygwin ssh client running in mintty vs WSL (1 or 2, doesn't matter) ssh running in wsltty. I think if I sat you down in front of them and switched them out you wouldn't notice a thing.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#443Earlier quoted context omitted.
We're a 40 person Design agency, that has been running on Mac hardware for almost 40 years now. Everybody of us used to be a huge apple fanboy, now every one of us hates them with a passion. They completely ignored their customers for the iPhone money grab. Their hardware and software used to be synonymous with quality, nowadays their shoddy quality has become a meme at work. "Oops reboot." - "What did you expect, it…
> Everybody of us used to be a huge apple fanboy, now every one of us hates them with a passion. Neither of these extremes are healthy attitudes. It's a company, making machines. That's all there is to it.
That's a gross oversimplification. If Apple were just another Dell turning out machines you'd have a point but Apple, above all else, is an aesthetic brand designed to inspire passion. It's like comparing Ruby with Java. Ruby appeals to the developer's aesthetic, inspring passion in its community. Java does not.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#444Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basing your opinion of a CEO solely on stock prices, which can easily be inflated via things like buybacks, is perhaps a bit narrow minded. A company is more than its stock price.
Inflating your stock price by buybacks is easier said than done. In fact according to the CAPM economic model, it is impossible. The assets of the company decrease by the money spent on buybacks, which matches the value of stock bought and destroyed. This should leave the price per remaining stock unchanged.
Sounds to me like the CAPM economic model is in need of revision. Buybacks are a common tool for increasing shareholder value and investor sentiment figures heavily in asset pricing.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#445Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inflating your stock price by buybacks is easier said than done. In fact according to the CAPM economic model, it is impossible. The assets of the company decrease by the money spent on buybacks, which matches the value of stock bought and destroyed. This should leave the price per remaining stock unchanged.
Sounds to me like the CAPM economic model is in need of revision. Buybacks are a common tool for increasing shareholder value and investor sentiment figures heavily in asset pricing.
There are a number of reasons why buybacks can increase prices. See https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/strategy-and-cor... for a list.
All are second order effects.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#446Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve Ballmer was a guy who restlessly milked two Microsoft cash cows (Windows and Office) to accommodate investors quarter after quarter. He didn't have a vision or courage to push Microsoft in some other direction, and my impression was that all good things that started under his regime (Azure, more openness) was either reactionary or he simply didn't care (most of early open source push was from his lieutenants).…
Cook hasn't damaged Apple nearly as much as Ballmer hurt MS. During Ballmer's tenure, Microsoft launched the Zune, the various disastrous incarnations of Windows Phone, Windows 8, and the Xbox One (which halved its marketshare vs the 360). Cook may not be innovative, but he has yet to have a real failure, much less a disaster on the scale of those.
If you want to talk about a failure you should talk about the kin.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#447Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another example of such uninspired CEO that keeps making good quarters but tarnishes his company advantages is Tim Cook. I can't wait for him to be replaced. Comments like this make zero sense to me. Apple might be better if Jobs was still alive. But without a time machine, and potentially better medicine, that's not an option. Under Cook Apple: - Increased profitability and market share massively. - Created the mo…
Apple under Tim enjoy short term gains and greed has blinded them. The company will soon start failing because of their anti-consumer and anti-environment culture. They create false image of themselves to be super friendly innovative brand for creative people, but the truth is far from this. Their products are designed to fail and to be only repairable by Apple. If your charging port dies on a new Mac, you cannot rep…
"Apple Doomed!"
I have seen that headline every year since 1984. Every single year.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#448Earlier quoted context omitted.
Steve Ballmer was a guy who restlessly milked two Microsoft cash cows (Windows and Office) to accommodate investors quarter after quarter. He didn't have a vision or courage to push Microsoft in some other direction, and my impression was that all good things that started under his regime (Azure, more openness) was either reactionary or he simply didn't care (most of early open source push was from his lieutenants).…
> Another example of such uninspired CEO that keeps making good quarters but tarnishes his company advantages is Tim Cook. I can't wait for him to be replaced. Comments like this make zero sense to me. Apple might be better if Jobs was still alive. But without a time machine, and potentially better medicine, that's not an option. Under Cook Apple: - Increased profitability and market share massively. - Created the mo…
That is the same argument with Microsoft in the 90s. Windows are selling great, they have great Market Share etc....
Steve Jobs: We are still Better!
Bill Gates: Does it Matter?
Time will tell.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#449Earlier quoted context omitted.
So Nadella is half as effective as Cook? More seriously, I shouldn't have put the comparison to Nadella in there at all. They are both great CEOs.
Look again. Quarterly vs yearly numbers.
You've missed the point here. This isn't a zero sum game.
Nadella is a great CEO.
Cook is a great CEO.
They've both done a good job running their respective companies. Which is better is endlessly debatable.
Re: How Satya Nadella turned Microsoft around
#450Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Another example of such uninspired CEO that keeps making good quarters but tarnishes his company advantages is Tim Cook. I can't wait for him to be replaced. Comments like this make zero sense to me. Apple might be better if Jobs was still alive. But without a time machine, and potentially better medicine, that's not an option. Under Cook Apple: - Increased profitability and market share massively. - Created the mo…
Apple lost its way when they shoved Scott Forstall out the door for refusing to take the blame for the Apple Maps debacle. Apple has been gliding on the backs of Steve's vision since then and they're terrified to make any wrong decision. That's why they overlap generations of products as they don't have a clue what will succeed.
> Apple has been gliding on the backs of Steve's vision since then and they're terrified to make any wrong decision.
That has been some of my view as well. But some of their approach have changed.
The old Apple was about making something great, charge a premium. That is about the same with current Apple. Except its whole Services Strategy reeks of money grabbing. There is nothing about Apple Music, Apple TV+, Apple Fitness that fits the definition of great.