nun
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 4,872
Have you thought about OpenOffice? It works great on my Mac.
Microsoft's Lost Decade
- Thread starter Midpack
- Start date
Have you thought about OpenOffice? It works great on my Mac.
ItDontMeanAThing
Full time employment: Posting here.
Devil's advocate here?
MS and Apple weren't competitors until non-trivial numbers of people decided to buy iPads instead of another Wintel notebook. Apple was a niche player, occupying areas that were outside of MS's strategy. Then two of those niches GOT HUGE.
One way to look at MS's attempts with consumer electronics is they learned about areas outside of their core business. Things like Zune were R&D. MS wasn't late to the game, they were in a different game. A hugely profitable one.
Apple has grown enormously by seamlessly integrating their hand held devices with their home computing environment. I got nothing but respect for how they implemented their vision, making devices which fit people's needs exquisitely. Those devices just happen to be computers and so are eating into the Wintel market. Has Apple awoken a sleeping giant? MS wasn't sleeping, just arrogant. They thought that if Apple ever took non-trivial sales from their home desktop/laptop market they could respond, enter the market late and take a large portion of it. I don't think so.
Apple's ecosystem-like integration combined with no concern for backwards compatibility are two things MS can compete with only by abandoning their core philsophies. Until MS announces they've funded a startup who's mission statement is to use MS's money to put MS out of the home computing and consumer electronics business they will remain a minor player in those markets. Kodak was once the leader in digital imaging. They should have funded a startup, transferred their digital technology to it and said 'now put the film division out of business'. But as somebody once said "Radical ideas that are rejected by institutions become institutions that reject radical ideas."
MS and Apple weren't competitors until non-trivial numbers of people decided to buy iPads instead of another Wintel notebook. Apple was a niche player, occupying areas that were outside of MS's strategy. Then two of those niches GOT HUGE.
One way to look at MS's attempts with consumer electronics is they learned about areas outside of their core business. Things like Zune were R&D. MS wasn't late to the game, they were in a different game. A hugely profitable one.
Apple has grown enormously by seamlessly integrating their hand held devices with their home computing environment. I got nothing but respect for how they implemented their vision, making devices which fit people's needs exquisitely. Those devices just happen to be computers and so are eating into the Wintel market. Has Apple awoken a sleeping giant? MS wasn't sleeping, just arrogant. They thought that if Apple ever took non-trivial sales from their home desktop/laptop market they could respond, enter the market late and take a large portion of it. I don't think so.
Apple's ecosystem-like integration combined with no concern for backwards compatibility are two things MS can compete with only by abandoning their core philsophies. Until MS announces they've funded a startup who's mission statement is to use MS's money to put MS out of the home computing and consumer electronics business they will remain a minor player in those markets. Kodak was once the leader in digital imaging. They should have funded a startup, transferred their digital technology to it and said 'now put the film division out of business'. But as somebody once said "Radical ideas that are rejected by institutions become institutions that reject radical ideas."
ItDontMeanAThing
Full time employment: Posting here.
MS bought DOS because it was the only way to seize upon an IBM blunder that gave MS the keys to the kingdom. They had the talent to build an operating system, but they needed one Right Now!
Like Jobs, Gates visited Zerox PARC to see the future, which included a working graphical user interface. Jobs got it and built very expensive, very slow computers that almost killed the company. Gates got it and knew the CPUs available in the next few years wouldn't have the power for a graphical interface.
Last edited:
nun
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 4,872
Agreed. I see MS as looking to take existing stuff, repackage it, and sell it on. That's produced some great successes, but they've also missed the boat of a lot of stuff. Apple and Google create new stuff and take risks.......I can't remember the last time I was excited by an MS product......oooooo Windows 8, another version of Office and a keyboard that attaches with a magnet. MS just isn't sexy anymore. They should realize that they have become IBM.
Kinect is recent and quite impressive. From Wikipedia: "After selling a total of 8 million units in its first 60 days, the Kinect holds the Guinness World Record of being the 'fastest selling consumer electronics device'."
explanade
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- May 10, 2008
- Messages
- 7,448
Most of that comes from Windows and Office, which were established by different set of management.
They haven't been able to find a hit outside of those two businesses. Instead they've been trying to replicate hit products from other companies such as search advertising or iPhone (Windows Phone is using the same strategy).
Last edited:
People need to realize that Microsoft is not a consumer company (outside of Xbox). Their earnings are driven by the corporate market.
Large companies give almost all of their corporate employees a laptop with Windows and Office on it. Increasingly, they run their e-mail on an Exchange Platform. Their servers are running Microsoft Server as an OS and SQL as a database platform. The same companies are rolling out Lync and Sharepoint installations as well.
Unless Corporate America decides to move away from Microsoft, Microsoft will continue to make massive amounts of money. I see no indication that the typical company is considering reducing their dependence on Microsoft products. If anything it is increasing.
The home PC market can wither away and I don't think it makes Microsoft a bad investment at this price.
Large companies give almost all of their corporate employees a laptop with Windows and Office on it. Increasingly, they run their e-mail on an Exchange Platform. Their servers are running Microsoft Server as an OS and SQL as a database platform. The same companies are rolling out Lync and Sharepoint installations as well.
Unless Corporate America decides to move away from Microsoft, Microsoft will continue to make massive amounts of money. I see no indication that the typical company is considering reducing their dependence on Microsoft products. If anything it is increasing.
The home PC market can wither away and I don't think it makes Microsoft a bad investment at this price.
nun
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 4,872
exactly, they have become IBM, nothing wrong with that as long as they know it and don't waste resources trying to compete with Google, Amazon and Apple. They are so far behind on the publishing and music side of things they might as well give up on regular consumers and concentrate on the corporate world. Of course they have stiff competition there too with the growth of Linux and all the Unix flavors.
Apropos nun's comment as well above, perhaps the "people" that need to realize this are Microsoft's management, so they can stop wasting money on retail stores, and consumer features & products!
Seriously, though, I think Microsoft is clearly worried about the sustainability of the Windows and Office businesses in a "post-PC" world. They are already seeing it happen in the consumer space. I think you can arguably say that the consumer computing business has definitely moved beyond the PC, where handheld devices take an increasingly significant, if not central role in the consumer's computing lives. It's less clear what the "post-PC" world means to businesses. I'm sure Apple hopes that businesses will increasingly turn to iPhones and iPads with mission critical business apps, rather than just a PC on every desk. Microsofts work on a rumored Office for iPad is probably a hedge against this. All in all, I don't think its crazy at all for Microsoft to make consumer facing investments as the world moves away from mouse & keyboard based computing, its just that their track record for anything other than Windows, Office, and Servers is quite poor, and in fact, has lost money. Not a good sign.
I mostly agree with that statement, but don't forget the success of the Xbox, which generally has been considered a very successful product for Microsoft, and is clearly a retail consumer product.
Last edited:
nun
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2006
- Messages
- 4,872
...but Xbox is a tiny fraction of MS profitability.
I've been amazed at the money they've wasted on the online division.
It seems like it should be obvious by now that Bing will never be successful, but they keep dumping money into it.
I was just glad that the Yahoo purchase fell through. That was a really bad idea.
It seems like it should be obvious by now that Bing will never be successful, but they keep dumping money into it.
I was just glad that the Yahoo purchase fell through. That was a really bad idea.
I don't think most business applications are well suited to handheld devices. I've seen very little movement or interest in corporate America in changing their fundamental structure. They are adding support to get e-mail to phones and IPads, but they don't seem interested in messing with their core application on them.
Large businesses are very slow to change. I'd be more worried about businesses moving away from PC's if they'd ever actually stopped using mainframes
Large businesses are very slow to change. I'd be more worried about businesses moving away from PC's if they'd ever actually stopped using mainframes
studbucket
Recycles dryer sheets
MSFT employee here. Lots of thoughts here, some which I see as true, some which I disagree with, but I have my biases, so there's really no point expressing them, as I'm just a homer
However, just wanted to reply to Hamlet:
As far as I can tell (I don't work in the online services division), Bing doesn't exist to make money. Sure, it's a goal of the business, and they are creeping toward the black. However, what they really are about is improving the products within the company. Some recent examples include the voice and search integration into Windows Phone and XBox and some of the Bing apps for Windows 8.
I'm sure there's more coming in the future, given that there's tons of smart people and more going on in Bing than I know about.
Also, here's an article that made its rounds amongst MSFT employees, we enjoyed it: Microsoft Is the Most Exciting Company in Tech, Hands Down
However, just wanted to reply to Hamlet:
As far as I can tell (I don't work in the online services division), Bing doesn't exist to make money. Sure, it's a goal of the business, and they are creeping toward the black. However, what they really are about is improving the products within the company. Some recent examples include the voice and search integration into Windows Phone and XBox and some of the Bing apps for Windows 8.
I'm sure there's more coming in the future, given that there's tons of smart people and more going on in Bing than I know about.
Also, here's an article that made its rounds amongst MSFT employees, we enjoyed it: Microsoft Is the Most Exciting Company in Tech, Hands Down
ItDontMeanAThing
Full time employment: Posting here.
I believe his point was that MS can compete in consumer electronics. That it is a tiny fraction of their profits shows why they haven't paid much attention to that market.
LakeTravis
Recycles dryer sheets
I bought one of the first original 8088 IBM PC's. It wasn't too long before it became obvious that software was quickly racing ahead of hardware, and that was the paradox at the time that gave MS its lead.
Almost 30 years later, I'm inclined to think that the curves have crossed and now hardware is ahead of software. I've got a four year old Dell with an Intel Core i7 64 bit processor and 24gig of ram that can still run any program currently available without breaking a sweat.
My point is the single largest factor that probably contributed the most to MS's success no longer exists. Stalwart IBM is still around because their focus has evolved more on support services than either hardware or software.
Almost 30 years later, I'm inclined to think that the curves have crossed and now hardware is ahead of software. I've got a four year old Dell with an Intel Core i7 64 bit processor and 24gig of ram that can still run any program currently available without breaking a sweat.
My point is the single largest factor that probably contributed the most to MS's success no longer exists. Stalwart IBM is still around because their focus has evolved more on support services than either hardware or software.
ItDontMeanAThing
Full time employment: Posting here.
At one time Mac computers were for the outsiders. Macs were amazing, overpriced and under-powered. Their owners believed the marketing and thought they were hip, slick and cool. In the 2nd phase, Jobs created the amazing iPod. Those who could afford it joined the ranks of hip, slick and cool. In the 3rd phase, Jobs created the amazing iPhone and yadda - yadda - yadda.
Apple didn't invent the tablet. In the third, and current, phase Jobs created one that worked, due in great part to the seamless integration with the apps and media in the iStore. Where everyone else's attempts to integrate consumer electronics was clumsy, Apple's was brilliant. Phone users and Media consumers are ecstatic. Apple sells oodles of high profit margin items.
Apple, iPad and iPhone are rapidly becoming ubiquitous. If everyone owns something, the loss of hip, slick and cool will soon follow. Can Apple continue the magic without Jobs? Is their model of total control over a tightly integrated system of software, computers, consumer electronics, media sources and the cloud now a mature one that will be widely copied? How many years before the kids who want a media player decide they want anything except the ones mom and dad have? Other companies have been copying Apple's user interface concepts. Will other firms tempt the new outsiders with an interface that leapfrogged past Apple's? MS is on that path, time will tell if it works. Sometimes a mature, stodgy company wakes up and humiliates a sexy company by creating an independent team of the right people, giving them a big budget, free rein and a specific mission. Ask a Ferrari fan about the Cobra Daytona and Ford GT-40.
Apple didn't invent the tablet. In the third, and current, phase Jobs created one that worked, due in great part to the seamless integration with the apps and media in the iStore. Where everyone else's attempts to integrate consumer electronics was clumsy, Apple's was brilliant. Phone users and Media consumers are ecstatic. Apple sells oodles of high profit margin items.
Apple, iPad and iPhone are rapidly becoming ubiquitous. If everyone owns something, the loss of hip, slick and cool will soon follow. Can Apple continue the magic without Jobs? Is their model of total control over a tightly integrated system of software, computers, consumer electronics, media sources and the cloud now a mature one that will be widely copied? How many years before the kids who want a media player decide they want anything except the ones mom and dad have? Other companies have been copying Apple's user interface concepts. Will other firms tempt the new outsiders with an interface that leapfrogged past Apple's? MS is on that path, time will tell if it works. Sometimes a mature, stodgy company wakes up and humiliates a sexy company by creating an independent team of the right people, giving them a big budget, free rein and a specific mission. Ask a Ferrari fan about the Cobra Daytona and Ford GT-40.
ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
Very interesting thread. I think some people have it right that MS is way entrenched in big business, and their consumer success/fail is small potatoes. I know an MS employee, he sits at another MegaCorp to support the MS products they use. He tries to talk up their phone SW and Xbox and others, but he also says it is a tiny part of the business.
But I still think it says something that a company with all those resources can't have a better batting average. Why go after a market if you don't have a plan with a good chance of success? Maybe it does say something about their ability to innovate overall - can they deal with competition to their core business?
I recently came across something I found interesting that is related to this, in a totally unexpected place. I just switched VOIP providers, and I was looking through their support forum. They recently provided an 'app' for iPhones, I'm not even sure if it was just to get access to their accounts, or for phone calls, or both, but anyway, their customers also wanted an Android version.
Turns out the Android version got delayed and delayed, and they finally said that they didn't expect it to be so hard, but all the different hardware variations across the Android market made it much tougher to build the Android app than the iPhone app. I've always heard that about Windows versus Apple also, and it makes sense that you should be able to get the job done much easier and with fewer bugs on a limited and more defined hardware platform.
That probably was true for some, but I don't know if it was the majority. I'm probably the least susceptible to advertising/marketing, and I owned Macs for years, and still get them for the family. I'm on Xubuntu/Linux myself now (talk about almost non-existent marketing!).
Of course, I AM hip, slick and cool!
-ERD50
But I still think it says something that a company with all those resources can't have a better batting average. Why go after a market if you don't have a plan with a good chance of success? Maybe it does say something about their ability to innovate overall - can they deal with competition to their core business?
I recently came across something I found interesting that is related to this, in a totally unexpected place. I just switched VOIP providers, and I was looking through their support forum. They recently provided an 'app' for iPhones, I'm not even sure if it was just to get access to their accounts, or for phone calls, or both, but anyway, their customers also wanted an Android version.
Turns out the Android version got delayed and delayed, and they finally said that they didn't expect it to be so hard, but all the different hardware variations across the Android market made it much tougher to build the Android app than the iPhone app. I've always heard that about Windows versus Apple also, and it makes sense that you should be able to get the job done much easier and with fewer bugs on a limited and more defined hardware platform.
That probably was true for some, but I don't know if it was the majority. I'm probably the least susceptible to advertising/marketing, and I owned Macs for years, and still get them for the family. I'm on Xubuntu/Linux myself now (talk about almost non-existent marketing!).
Of course, I AM hip, slick and cool!
-ERD50
I read the Vanity Fair article and felt it was pretty accurate. The real message - at least what I got out of it - is that Ballmer has pretty much failed as CEO. The only area I'd give him credit is for maximizing revenue out of existing businesses.
The reality is he should never have been CEO. He has no technical vision and the businesses he's invested in have yet to show any real profit. Only now he might be turning it around, but for him to get to this point after 10 years speaks for itself. I'm still amazed the board treats him as well as they do, but since Bill and him own a sizeable chunk of the company, it's not really a big surprise. And just to back it up with some recent data, look at the $6.3 billion write off they had for aQuantive. It's lucky for Ballmer that the Yahoo deal fell through, if not, there'd be another big loss to add to his record. I'm curious to see how well the Skype purchase works out.
One of the problems with MS is that it really is an enterprise company, that wants to be a consumer company. But that's not where the money comes from.
Some people have mentioned the Xbox as a good MS consumer product, but realize that this product has yet to make money over its lifetime. I'm also very skeptical about the Kinect. I know they sold a lot, but how many people with them really use them. However, I am more optimistic with the Kinect in the enterprise space (Kinect for Windows). There are some interesting applications happening in that space and since it's geared towards enterprises, there is potentially good $$$ to follow.
I feel similar with some of the touch areas that MS is trying to get into, for example, their recent purchase of Perceptive Pixel, which is geared towards large touch display (think CNN, etc). Along with Kinect, they have a pretty good story for the enterprise and vertical applications. I think they'll end up owning most of this market, just like they do with a lot of Windows Embedded applications (cash registers, displays at airports, etc - a lot of this is running Windows Embedded).
I'm more skeptical in the consumer space. They always want to go for this market, but it doesn't come natural for them. But they need to be careful they don't lose traction in the enterprise space (keep mindshare). It's hard for an enterprise to move away from MS technologies, it's way to ingrained and works too well. Windows 8 is a risk in this space, because I can't see enterprises be willing to deal with the Metro UI. I suspect they'll stick with Windows 7 - as they did with Windows XP - and only move if/when they have to. And if the Metro UI really doesn't work well on the desktop, I wouldn't be surprised if MS is pressured to provide desktop access by default. We'll see how this plays out.
As for MS internally, it's pretty busted. Morale isn't high, especially among employees that have been there for a while. The review process sucks. I'm always amazed at how much time managers spend reviewing people. This is a twice a year process where managers will go for days figuring out how to rank people. And it's mostly based on how well you've managed expectations/visibility then on how you've performed.
The stack review process used to work well, over 15 years ago, but back then it wasn't enforced as much as now. Plus, the company offered stock options with a growing stock price. Now you have a two tier system: one for the partners and the other for regular employees. Partners rake it in, with questionable value (IMO), and regular employees are earning a paycheck, with a good bonus/stock grants if they manage their career well.
All in all, for an employee, it's not a bad place to start your career, but unless things change internally, then you should be looking for the exit after 5-10 years. But that might be true for a lot of companies nowadays...
The reality is he should never have been CEO. He has no technical vision and the businesses he's invested in have yet to show any real profit. Only now he might be turning it around, but for him to get to this point after 10 years speaks for itself. I'm still amazed the board treats him as well as they do, but since Bill and him own a sizeable chunk of the company, it's not really a big surprise. And just to back it up with some recent data, look at the $6.3 billion write off they had for aQuantive. It's lucky for Ballmer that the Yahoo deal fell through, if not, there'd be another big loss to add to his record. I'm curious to see how well the Skype purchase works out.
One of the problems with MS is that it really is an enterprise company, that wants to be a consumer company. But that's not where the money comes from.
Some people have mentioned the Xbox as a good MS consumer product, but realize that this product has yet to make money over its lifetime. I'm also very skeptical about the Kinect. I know they sold a lot, but how many people with them really use them. However, I am more optimistic with the Kinect in the enterprise space (Kinect for Windows). There are some interesting applications happening in that space and since it's geared towards enterprises, there is potentially good $$$ to follow.
I feel similar with some of the touch areas that MS is trying to get into, for example, their recent purchase of Perceptive Pixel, which is geared towards large touch display (think CNN, etc). Along with Kinect, they have a pretty good story for the enterprise and vertical applications. I think they'll end up owning most of this market, just like they do with a lot of Windows Embedded applications (cash registers, displays at airports, etc - a lot of this is running Windows Embedded).
I'm more skeptical in the consumer space. They always want to go for this market, but it doesn't come natural for them. But they need to be careful they don't lose traction in the enterprise space (keep mindshare). It's hard for an enterprise to move away from MS technologies, it's way to ingrained and works too well. Windows 8 is a risk in this space, because I can't see enterprises be willing to deal with the Metro UI. I suspect they'll stick with Windows 7 - as they did with Windows XP - and only move if/when they have to. And if the Metro UI really doesn't work well on the desktop, I wouldn't be surprised if MS is pressured to provide desktop access by default. We'll see how this plays out.
As for MS internally, it's pretty busted. Morale isn't high, especially among employees that have been there for a while. The review process sucks. I'm always amazed at how much time managers spend reviewing people. This is a twice a year process where managers will go for days figuring out how to rank people. And it's mostly based on how well you've managed expectations/visibility then on how you've performed.
The stack review process used to work well, over 15 years ago, but back then it wasn't enforced as much as now. Plus, the company offered stock options with a growing stock price. Now you have a two tier system: one for the partners and the other for regular employees. Partners rake it in, with questionable value (IMO), and regular employees are earning a paycheck, with a good bonus/stock grants if they manage their career well.
All in all, for an employee, it's not a bad place to start your career, but unless things change internally, then you should be looking for the exit after 5-10 years. But that might be true for a lot of companies nowadays...
Brat
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
My observations about MS:
Their upgrades of Office are counter-productive. I know of no features not already in the product and every time they change it skilled current users go nuts. Stop! (They stole Word from Word Perfect, a perfectly adequate word processing program.)
The old adage that a programmer who knows where his bugs are nesting has a secure job is true (or at least was true) at MS. Testers can't find them all. The HR tool of rack & rank is foolish.
It has been probably 15 years since I retired from corporate life. At that time here is what I observed:
I don't think you can compare MS to IBM except for some enterprise software. MS has never been in the enterprise hardware business, nor have they done consulting. They both have database products but IBM (at least in theory) delivers a product ready to implement while MS provides a platform for the customer to finish developing.
Their upgrades of Office are counter-productive. I know of no features not already in the product and every time they change it skilled current users go nuts. Stop! (They stole Word from Word Perfect, a perfectly adequate word processing program.)
The old adage that a programmer who knows where his bugs are nesting has a secure job is true (or at least was true) at MS. Testers can't find them all. The HR tool of rack & rank is foolish.
It has been probably 15 years since I retired from corporate life. At that time here is what I observed:
I don't think you can compare MS to IBM except for some enterprise software. MS has never been in the enterprise hardware business, nor have they done consulting. They both have database products but IBM (at least in theory) delivers a product ready to implement while MS provides a platform for the customer to finish developing.
Running_Man
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
- Joined
- Sep 25, 2006
- Messages
- 2,844
And today Microsoft passes the 1 trillion mark in Market Cap and is today the #1 US company in the stock market
kcowan
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
I never would have guessed that they could outrun Apple. Is it gaming that made the difference?
jollystomper
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2012
- Messages
- 6,196
The smartest investment move I made, in terms of return, was to buy Microsoft stock in the mid 1990s and hold onto it.
