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

Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 104 posts

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#71

Post by venus »

maratd wrote: post #70
venus wrote: post #67

Like all MS concept videos, it's all very pretty but useless except for the most shallow kinds of collaboration - it's not so much promising any specific technology so much as a future in which you don't actually have to do any work. How many people do companies really need whose role in its entirety consists of quickly slapping together pretty-looking "reports" full of 3D graphs? These superficial concept videos hav…

> and no-one cares that it doesn't have embedded videos of antelopes bounding or the galaxy turning. I care. I think Wikipedia would be greatly improved with relevant embedded video content. Unfortunately, getting high quality relevant public domain video is virtually impossible. It is nice to think about though.

Hm. Well, I agree actually, and in fact it does have some media at least associated with articles, via the "wikimedia commons".

I was more trying to illustrate that multimedia alone does not make a high quality resource, as proved the downfall of the "Multimedia CD-ROM" era of content production, which I feel these concept videos are rooted in.

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#72

Post by kvb »

milesf wrote: post #52

FTA: "Ballmer's Microsoft wasn't lacking for ideas; it was lacking execution." Derek Sivers said it best "To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions." (see https://sivers.org/multiply ) Whatever the reason for Microsoft's inability to execute, the history shows that Gates (a programmer) could get stuff done, and Ballmer (a salesman) can't. IMHO it's probabl…

Wasn't stack ranking in use during Gates's tenure as well?

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#73

Post by wahsd »

debt wrote: post #44
corresation wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ideas are worth nothing." While it is seen here regularly -- and is always strangely given a pass -- this remains the most profoundly meaningless, if not outright stupid, thing that anyone in this industry can mutter.

Ideas are worth nothing. Ideas have a mental effect, but execution still has tangible results. I could just do something, literally anything, and me, having done a thing, would be worth way more than me, having an idea. Many people have great ideas, few people have the balls or resources to actually execute them and make them worth something . Just a thought.

You have to have an idea to do something, genius.

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#74

Post by acchow »

corresation wrote: post #66
acchow wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement isn't saying "parts of a whole are worthless". It's saying that ideas are plentiful. It's saying that ideas that are astounding and fascinating to laymen and outsiders are just par for the course when taken to experts in the field. It's saying that seemingly novel ideas of solving a "pain point" in first-world life are usually fairly obvious if you'd spent an hour brainstorming with other intelligent pe…

The statement isn't saying "parts of a whole are worthless". Yes, most of the time that is exactly what it is saying. Though when engaged on it invariably the definition will start oozing around amorphously to the point of complete and utter meaninglessness. Firstly, we aren't talking about laymen and outsiders. In this case we're talking about the company that was far and away the largest technology company. Secondl…

> I have to chuckle at bit at the notion that ideas are so bountiful, though. It's a bit like how everyone is going to write the great American novel...they just need to think of the plot...but anyone can think of a plot so...

But writing a great novel is all about execution...

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#75

Post by dreamfactory »

xal wrote: post #45
dreamfactory wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OneNote is incredible, couldn't find anything close on iPad - but feels like zero effective marketing there. If Apple made anything like that it would be all over their keynotes and ads as a USP.

OneNote exists on the iPad: https://itunes.apple.com/ca/app/microsoft-onenote-for-iphone... Right, it's not quite the same.

It really doesn't compare, don't think it even has OCR so notes aren't searchable.

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#76

Post by milesf »

kvb wrote: post #72
milesf wrote: post #52

FTA: "Ballmer's Microsoft wasn't lacking for ideas; it was lacking execution." Derek Sivers said it best "To me, ideas are worth nothing unless executed. They are just a multiplier. Execution is worth millions." (see https://sivers.org/multiply ) Whatever the reason for Microsoft's inability to execute, the history shows that Gates (a programmer) could get stuff done, and Ballmer (a salesman) can't. IMHO it's probabl…

Wasn't stack ranking in use during Gates's tenure as well?

I know Gates was/is in favour of stack ranking, but I don't think it was in use during his term as CEO.

Ultimately the answer doesn't matter to me. The company has always been a bully, both in the marketplace and internally towards their staff. No one wants to see a bully succeed.

Edit: Wikipedia says "Since the 2000s, Microsoft used a stack ranking similar to the vitality curve." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitality_curve#Criticisms_of_ra...) Ballmer became CEO of Microsoft January 2000.

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#77

Post by corresation »

gnaritas wrote: post #48
car wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wholeheartedly agree. If this were true, we wouldn't need a patent system.

Patents don't cover ideas, they cover implementations of those ideas.

There are patents on time machines and those that break the laws of thermodynamics. Because many patents lies at an abstract cross road midway between idea and execution.

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#78

Post by notJim »

corresation wrote: post #31
acchow wrote: post #7

Ideas are worth nothing. A 15 minute conversation with any expert in HCI 15 years ago would cover 95% of these ideas. Execution is everything. Microsoft tried to execute on some of these ideas, but the result was always too cumbersome/confusing.

"Ideas are worth nothing." While it is seen here regularly -- and is always strangely given a pass -- this remains the most profoundly meaningless, if not outright stupid, thing that anyone in this industry can mutter.

Wholeheartedly agree here, and I applaud you for saying it. I think I've had in the back of my mind somewhere that "Ideas are worthless" is bullshit, but reading your comment and the ones you made later really solidified that thought for me.

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#79

Post by jessedhillon »

ricardobeat wrote: post #65
jessedhillon wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could just do something, literally anything, and me, having done a thing, would be worth way more than me, having an idea. The overall claim has some limited merits, but don't overstate the case. You generating an idea in your seat about a site that, say, scrapes some public resource and presents in a useful way, are more valuable than the you who uses that same time to make yourself a sandwich. And the ideas you c…

You're missing the point. People usually have that brilliant idea about an useful service while making a sandwich. If you don't act on it, it's worth nothing regardless. > someone who doesn't have your cultural and intellectual resources Unless you are a scholar at the very top of your field, there are thousands other people with the same background and resources as you, or better. A good chunk of them will have had…

People usually have that brilliant idea about an useful service while making a sandwich

How would anyone know this?

A handful will actually do something.

What you're saying is 'execution > idea', which is not in contention. It doesn't follow that the idea is worthless.

The act of choosing is the beginning of execution

This seems like semantics to me now.

And if the point is granted, you seem to be arguing against the proposition that 'ideas >= execution' which nobody is proposing.

Re: Microsoft's Concept Videos From 2000: Why Didn't Ballmer Build Any of It?

#80

Post by kvb »

milesf wrote: post #76
kvb wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wasn't stack ranking in use during Gates's tenure as well?

I know Gates was/is in favour of stack ranking, but I don't think it was in use during his term as CEO. Ultimately the answer doesn't matter to me. The company has always been a bully, both in the marketplace and internally towards their staff. No one wants to see a bully succeed. Edit: Wikipedia says "Since the 2000s, Microsoft used a stack ranking similar to the vitality curve." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vital…

Root against Microsoft all you want - I just think that stack ranking is too convenient a scapegoat. Valve and Google stack rank, too, but that doesn't mean they're not great companies. Also, Wikipedia's not necessarily an infallible source; see [1] for evidence that stack ranking dates back to '96 or so (at the latest).

[1] http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2013/08/30/microsoft-review-tim...

Post reply on HN