That's funny. I managed to use my Windows 8 computer to not only read your comment, but respond to it. I was planning on using it to get some work done later today but I guess that's out of the question now that I know how unusable it is.
My complete computer illiterate and borderline luddite wife has no trouble using Windows 8. I wonder why you're having trouble?
Couldn't agree more. Perfect modern example is when Facebook changes ... well just about anything. Users revolt, protest polls are held, and plugins are written to bring back the "old Facebook".
However like always, users get over the change and their uproar and continue to use the product, eventually unaware that it was ever any different.
Once you show a normal Windows user where and how to get to the new start menu... they get it, and move on. The bloggers and writers for tech review sites however did not. They might have "got it" but they didn't move on, and MS had to buckle or suffer review after review that complained about the "missing" start button.
Once you get over the newness, Windows 8 is just like 7 but that doesn't make for a very exciting or controversial review.
Because when you iterate on an existing product and you try to do something new you will always have people complaining about the new system and want the old system back, no matter how good the new one is. Some of them will be more vocal than others.
It's obvious you haven't used Windows 8 and then Windows 8.1 because the "start button" is identical functionality wise in Windows 8 and Windows 8.1 and anyone that has used both knows it.
In Windows 8, there was no button unless you scrolled the mouse to the lower-left of the screen. When you did that, a button that even was labeled "Start" showed up. When you clicked it, you were brought to what people commonly call the "metro" screen.
In Windows 8.1, there is a permanent recognizable button with the picture of a Window on it in the lower-left of the screen. When you click it, you are brought to the "metro" screen.
No functionality difference in the start button. The only people appeased are those that were looking for something to complain about.
My grandmother learned to use Links browser in terminal. I sometimes use telnet to send emails via SMTP. But most people would probably call it 'unusable garbage'.
That's an interesting comparison, as the things that you mention (links, telnet, etc) are very technical, low-level tools that normal people can't be bothered to learn the arcane usage of.
By contrast, Windows 8, with the big pastel tiles and simple typography is by a long way the most n00b-friendly, regular-folk-focused, detail-hiding desktop OS that Microsoft has ever done. IMHO the problem is not usability for simple tasks, it is that MS have been alienating the power-users in chasing after this mass market that seems to want simple things.
I'm not saying that the "normal people" market is stupid or unskilled - they could be lawyers or doctors. Just that they don't care about computers as much as IT professionals do, they want the computer to just work, and in a simple way while they do something that they do care about.
Maybe windows 8 is not what people want. But it certainly isn't because it's too much like telnet.
No. They are doing fine. My employer pays me a MSDN subscription, and I see a lot of great software there - it's just that tech media aren't writing much about it.
They made some mistakes, yes, for example removing the start button from Windows 8 (best Windows so far), or they came somewhat late with Windows Phone platform. Overall, they don't need to turn somewhere else, nor around.
I should post a very informative article from 1996 here.
"Goliath at Bay: Microsoft suddenly sees itself beset by broadband rebels and its own middle age" http://www.discovery.org/a/24
MS was facing broadened challenges to its baseline and the author's writing bring it all together nicely. I see similarities to that today, let's see how MS respond to present challenges.
I find there's quite the echo chamber of doom in certain circles about Microsoft. But this one takes the cake to ask the question "Does Microsoft need a turnaround expert?" while at the same time:
Microsoft posts a 17% increase in quarterly profit to $5.2 billion; revenue rises 16% to $18.5 billion
The company made $5.2 billion profit in 3 months. Over 90% of computers are running their operating system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...). Their office productivity suite has over 95% of the market. Visual Studio, Azure, Xbox, all immensely popular. What exactly are people thinking they need to "turn around"?
They need a turn around because they feel it won't last and for good reasons. Market penetration in mobile phones is very low and some believe this is where the future is.
You don't start asking questions and changing strategies when everything is bad, otherwise you'll end up like Blackberry. The latter has no debt at all and $2 billion in the bank and everybody think they're dead. It won't be long till everybody thinks the same for Microsoft if they carry on like this.
The fact that computing is trending towards mobile and Microsoft's actions in this space have been a disaster. So big deal if Microsoft is still making money. So was Blackberry the day the iPhone was announced. That doesn't mean that people shouldn't be asking serious questions about its long term viability.
As for the specific products you mentioned Visual Studio and Azure piggyback on the strength of the overall Windows ecosystem. If that suffers then everything suffers. And Xbox is facing a resurgent Sony in the next round of console wars.
The fact that computing is trending towards mobile and Microsoft's actions in this space have been a disaster
Computing consumption is trending toward mobile. Computing production will always likely be on notebook/desktop computers.
Regarding Microsoft's mobile offering - they've almost doubled their market share in the last 3 months in most countries including in the U.S. In Italy, they are ahead of iPhone.
What's interesting is the sales only count till the end of September and thus miss most of the 5s sales and that kantar handle Microsoft's online ad sales.
I hear fairly solid rumors that MS is going to scrap the forced curve in their review system. Apparently new hires are starting to ask questions about it (and so they should).
Beyond that, they have serious problems with Windows and its never-shrinking accumulation of legacy. Apple did a great job on iOS (certainly compared to any embedded Windows offering). If Microsoft really is serious about their concentration on devices, they're going to have to lose a ton of fat and get a good understanding of what it means to ship consumer level embedded products. (The Xbox group has a good handle on this, though they had to do a bunch of work to make Win8 be reliable and predictably performant enough for a console -- I understand that the Windows group is unhappy with this. Not surprising, it's a threat!)
Maybe an outside expert will break up the internal politics enough that they can make good inroads. A strong CEO who had a clue here would do the job, too.
Update: Microsoft is now removing stack/rank from employee evaluations (as of 12 November), and looks to be valuing collaborative effort and teamwork more.
If any MSFT recruiters are reading this, I'm now available for your consideration. ;)
"... they're going to have to lose a ton of fat and get a good understanding of what it means to ship consumer level embedded products."
Isn't that what they've done with Windows Phone?
I understand the view that full-fat Windows on a consumer device like a tablet doesn't look like a good fit, but the Surface Pro seems to be disproving that. Or at least rendering it arguable.
1) The place is burning to the ground, and if we don't fix it we'll run out of money.
2) We are wasting money and losing our value* at an unacceptable rate.
Each of these requires someone different. The first requires someone decisive more than anything else. The second requires a combination of strategic thinking and discipline. The irony is Ballmer probably could have done the first type of turnaround well. Of the names frequently mentioned, some seem to be good at technology strategy, some seem to be good at discipline. I don't know of any who are good at both.
IBM was in situation #1 when Gerstner took over, so his primary value was decisiveness. Over time he was able to switch to strategic vision and discipline.
* - I am purposefully vague on value. It could mean shareholder value, it could mean intangible brand value, it could mean market strength, it could mean value to employees...
Someone like Winston Wolfe [1] would be a good choice for #1. "I solve problems"
Alan Mulally of Ford would be a good choice for type 2. He's a strategic thinker, works within the system, and has done a great job at Ford getting them to build good cars again. He had the luxury of time to make his changes work, something that Microsoft, with it's cash hoard, does as well.
Would Mulally be able to make the technical decisions required? Could he point the company in the right way?
Gerstner was able to get away with being a non-technical CEO because job one was being decisive. When he moved strategically, it was to become a services company. He didn't need vision on the industry.
Mulally is also 68. How long would he stick around?
By all means I think Alan Mulally is one of the world's top CEOs. But is the right CEO for Microsoft?
27 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 69.3 ms ] threadAlso, the fact that they enthusiastically helped the NSA subvert their own users scared me right off their entire ecosystem.
That's funny. I managed to use my Windows 8 computer to not only read your comment, but respond to it. I was planning on using it to get some work done later today but I guess that's out of the question now that I know how unusable it is.
My complete computer illiterate and borderline luddite wife has no trouble using Windows 8. I wonder why you're having trouble?
People hate change. My mom is a prime example - she found Chrome to be unusable because it wasn't 100% exactly the same as IE...
However like always, users get over the change and their uproar and continue to use the product, eventually unaware that it was ever any different.
Once you show a normal Windows user where and how to get to the new start menu... they get it, and move on. The bloggers and writers for tech review sites however did not. They might have "got it" but they didn't move on, and MS had to buckle or suffer review after review that complained about the "missing" start button.
Once you get over the newness, Windows 8 is just like 7 but that doesn't make for a very exciting or controversial review.
In Windows 8, there was no button unless you scrolled the mouse to the lower-left of the screen. When you did that, a button that even was labeled "Start" showed up. When you clicked it, you were brought to what people commonly call the "metro" screen.
In Windows 8.1, there is a permanent recognizable button with the picture of a Window on it in the lower-left of the screen. When you click it, you are brought to the "metro" screen.
No functionality difference in the start button. The only people appeased are those that were looking for something to complain about.
Usability == productivity.
By contrast, Windows 8, with the big pastel tiles and simple typography is by a long way the most n00b-friendly, regular-folk-focused, detail-hiding desktop OS that Microsoft has ever done. IMHO the problem is not usability for simple tasks, it is that MS have been alienating the power-users in chasing after this mass market that seems to want simple things.
I'm not saying that the "normal people" market is stupid or unskilled - they could be lawyers or doctors. Just that they don't care about computers as much as IT professionals do, they want the computer to just work, and in a simple way while they do something that they do care about.
Maybe windows 8 is not what people want. But it certainly isn't because it's too much like telnet.
They made some mistakes, yes, for example removing the start button from Windows 8 (best Windows so far), or they came somewhat late with Windows Phone platform. Overall, they don't need to turn somewhere else, nor around.
"Goliath at Bay: Microsoft suddenly sees itself beset by broadband rebels and its own middle age" http://www.discovery.org/a/24
MS was facing broadened challenges to its baseline and the author's writing bring it all together nicely. I see similarities to that today, let's see how MS respond to present challenges.
http://origin-www.livemint.com/Companies/tfliUBJb2Tjf3SapxQT...
Microsoft posts a 17% increase in quarterly profit to $5.2 billion; revenue rises 16% to $18.5 billion
The company made $5.2 billion profit in 3 months. Over 90% of computers are running their operating system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...). Their office productivity suite has over 95% of the market. Visual Studio, Azure, Xbox, all immensely popular. What exactly are people thinking they need to "turn around"?
You don't start asking questions and changing strategies when everything is bad, otherwise you'll end up like Blackberry. The latter has no debt at all and $2 billion in the bank and everybody think they're dead. It won't be long till everybody thinks the same for Microsoft if they carry on like this.
As for the specific products you mentioned Visual Studio and Azure piggyback on the strength of the overall Windows ecosystem. If that suffers then everything suffers. And Xbox is facing a resurgent Sony in the next round of console wars.
Computing consumption is trending toward mobile. Computing production will always likely be on notebook/desktop computers.
Regarding Microsoft's mobile offering - they've almost doubled their market share in the last 3 months in most countries including in the U.S. In Italy, they are ahead of iPhone.
http://i0.wp.com/allthingsd.com/files/2013/11/Kantar_smartph...
Many people (such as myself) owned a string of iPhones, then got fed up with the stagnation and either moved to Android or Windows Phone.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/11/05/apple-kantar-windows-...
Beyond that, they have serious problems with Windows and its never-shrinking accumulation of legacy. Apple did a great job on iOS (certainly compared to any embedded Windows offering). If Microsoft really is serious about their concentration on devices, they're going to have to lose a ton of fat and get a good understanding of what it means to ship consumer level embedded products. (The Xbox group has a good handle on this, though they had to do a bunch of work to make Win8 be reliable and predictably performant enough for a console -- I understand that the Windows group is unhappy with this. Not surprising, it's a threat!)
Maybe an outside expert will break up the internal politics enough that they can make good inroads. A strong CEO who had a clue here would do the job, too.
Stack/Rank is the #1 reason why I don't return calls from Microsoft recruiters.
If any MSFT recruiters are reading this, I'm now available for your consideration. ;)
Isn't that what they've done with Windows Phone?
I understand the view that full-fat Windows on a consumer device like a tablet doesn't look like a good fit, but the Surface Pro seems to be disproving that. Or at least rendering it arguable.
1) The place is burning to the ground, and if we don't fix it we'll run out of money.
2) We are wasting money and losing our value* at an unacceptable rate.
Each of these requires someone different. The first requires someone decisive more than anything else. The second requires a combination of strategic thinking and discipline. The irony is Ballmer probably could have done the first type of turnaround well. Of the names frequently mentioned, some seem to be good at technology strategy, some seem to be good at discipline. I don't know of any who are good at both.
IBM was in situation #1 when Gerstner took over, so his primary value was decisiveness. Over time he was able to switch to strategic vision and discipline.
* - I am purposefully vague on value. It could mean shareholder value, it could mean intangible brand value, it could mean market strength, it could mean value to employees...
Alan Mulally of Ford would be a good choice for type 2. He's a strategic thinker, works within the system, and has done a great job at Ford getting them to build good cars again. He had the luxury of time to make his changes work, something that Microsoft, with it's cash hoard, does as well.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANPsHKpti48
Gerstner was able to get away with being a non-technical CEO because job one was being decisive. When he moved strategically, it was to become a services company. He didn't need vision on the industry.
Mulally is also 68. How long would he stick around?
By all means I think Alan Mulally is one of the world's top CEOs. But is the right CEO for Microsoft?