Is Microsoft as poorly managed as I think it is?

Great Debates
1

So I’ve been mulling this question for a long time. It mainly has to do with their recent attempt to purchase Google. And any of you who have been following technology will undoubtably notice a pattern here with Microsoft. I’ll start here just going from memory of the number of time Microsoft has done the following:

A) noticed some good tecnology
B) became jealous of it’s success
C) copied it in an inferior way.

And I’ll list whether or not I feel it was successful or not. Please feel free to add to the list.

Microsoft Windows copied Macintosh–Successful
Microsoft Office copied Lotus etc–Successful starting around Office 97
Internet Exploere copies Netscape–Successful at version 4.0 (maybe 3.0)
Xbox–Successful…Certainly for the 360
Plays For Sure–Failure
Zune copies ipod–Unsuccessful, not a big player
iTunes competitor–Forget what it is now, but nowhere near iTunes
Tablet PCs–Not for the average home user, commercial use
Windows Vista–Failure…Corporate America won’t touch it.
Terraserver copies Google Maps–Failiure, map data was decades old
MSN Search copies google–Who uses this? People who don’t know better
MSN Messenger–Failure in the US, successful in Europe

Vista isn’t really a copy of anything but sort of helps my argument. Currently, microsoft’s revenue is something to the tune of 80 percent from OEM sales. Essentilaly people who buy a computer have to pay for a Windows operating system.

Yet, what is Microsoft doing now trying to aquire Yahoo? As an average internet user, I don’t pretend to know everything, but nobody I know uses Yahoo, except for email, and those people are simply stuck because that’s who they chose in the beginning. I stopped using it when they downplayed their directory aspect, which was the strongest thing they had, IMO. Yahoo Mail is terrible as you have to pay for POP access, when Google has FREE IMAP.

It’s clear that Microsoft is afraid of Google, but Why?

What should Microsoft be focusing on? I’ll tell you what I think. Microsoft has, as a company, never been forced to really understand the nature of their flagship product. It’s essentially been a freebie and as long as they made periodic updates to it, they never really had to compete. The reality is that it is highly lacking. Their latest attempt with Vista shows they don’t even have their heart in it anymore. But that is a terrible way of doing things.

Microsoft is out chasing the Internet rainbow when their true problems lie with Microsoft Windows, 80 percent of their product. What are the problems? I worked in Tech support for a while, and I always hated Vista. So many older people and less technologically savvy people were brought into the world of computing through Windows XP. Now Vista comes along and makes nothing easier at all, for no perceived benefit.

Take a look at the Zune. It’s an example of Microsoft trying to compete with Apple. It’s simply an inferior product. The only thing about it that could have been cool (The WiFi sharing bit) was DRMed to the point where it was unusable.

Microsoft needs to get back to their OS and work hard on it before spreading themselves too thinly any more. While it is true that in the future, we all might have thin clients and the rest of the services will be from the Cloud, I’m not terribly sure that’s going to happen too soon. At the very least it will require some other kind of technology that isn’t web-based. Ajax is great and all, but it’s not nearly good enough to replace true bread and butter applications just yet.

How could Microsoft use this knowledge to their advantage? Well first, Microsoft has to learn to play to their strengths. There have been a lot of instances in the history of computing where things could have happened one way but didn’t because a major player made a choice. This cloud computing will probably happen, but the way it’s implemented and many other factors will play a huge role.

Microsoft needs to get back to developing Windows, and to prepare for the future.

Rebuild the OS from scratch:
Do something unbelievable like Apple and build it off of a Unix-based subsystem like BSD or Linux. Yes that would be a huge blow to Microsoft’s ego, but you have to be honest with yourself before you can ever hope to fix your problems. That will break compatibility for a lot of people, but at least it will be for a good reason. Make an XP box that can emulate the XP APIs or whatever is needed. My iMac can emulate an entire XP installation, so I’m sure it can be done similar to the way OSX handled classic back in the day.

Find a reason to get people excited:
Microsoft can’t really give you a good reason to buy Vista. It’s more secure, sure, but that shouldn’t be a selling point. OSX is secure and has loads of features. Windows needs to actually compete with OSX instead of playing catchup.

Stop designing by committee:
One of the reason why Apple is so good is that it’s ruled by a benevolent dictator. It’s the most efficient form of government. Of course it’s not fit for governing a people because failure would hurt a lot of people. With a corporation things are less dire. If a product fails, you replace the dictator and a few people get fired… Design by committee always looks the same. Packed with buzzworthy features (specs, specs, specs) yet no true form to hold things together. People don’t respond to the Panasonic XJ2009C the way they do to an iMac. People like features, but they like simplicity more. The future lies in selecting a set of technologies rather than giving the user everything.

Get rid of the crapware:
This is technically not Microsoft’s fault, but it has the power to keep this stuff from happening in the future. Modern PCs are installed with all manner of garbage to make them cheaper. The worst part is that it is mostly SHAREWRE. A new computer these days is really a bill for 3 or 4 essential programs. This is simply inexcusable. It ruins the Windows brand, right out of the box. The perfect OS should require very little ancillary tools for day to day use. Yes I’m talking about these stupid things like DVD players, CD burning software, Audio players, Photo Viewers, etc. Vista has made a lof of this better, but it still needs more work. On Macintosh, I download a lot of stuff, but I don’t need to. Also, put some decent content creation software in there.

Get a handle on viruses:
This will be helped a lot by moving to a more secure OS base, but honestly, MS needs to buy an antivirus firm and include it in Windows. I realize it might cause some DOJ problems, but this is something that’s worth risking it on. Virus scanning and memory pattern detection should be a very important part of the operating system of the future. It should be integrated from the bottom up. It needs to be done on the memory management level. The Storm botnet needs to be a thing of the past. Computer security has further implications than the infected compter these days.

Figure out a niche for the switch to cloud computing:
Personally I don’t even know if this will happen, but if Microsoft doesn’t present some kind of alternative at least, then Google will certainly succeed. But on the other hand, people like Apps. The web-based office stuff is neat, but nowhere near as useful as MS Office. The next gen MS OS ought to include some client thinning techniques. Try offloading a few services to the cloud and see what works.

Figure out some kind of mobile strategy.
Currently Windows has a big market share for mobile devices. But watch out. The iPhone will be liberated in a month, and a lot of corporate types will be more than happy to switch.

What do you guys think? Agree, Disagree?

2

Whatever problems it might have, Windows is a steady revenue stream for Microsoft, so they’re probably not going to direct too much effort there. Microsoft is going after Yahoo! because the latter still controls a significant chunk of the online advertising market, which the former has been trying (unsuccessfully) to break into for a while now.

Microsoft’s problem is that there’s not much more room for growth in their traditional markets; instead, they need to focus on the internet, where their traditional strategies don’t work well. They need to figure out new strategies that will let them compete there, or they’re not going to be able to expand.

3

Oh, goody, another Microsoft bash. :rolleyes:

Count me in.

4

I think Bill Gates stepping down as CEO may have really hurt Microsoft. It’s lost its vision. And its operating systems have become so big and bloated, and require so many teams to update, that they’re losing control of the quality of their codebase. They can’t do an operating system correctly now, because Windows requires so many compatibility rules and must play nice with so much legacy hardware and software that new releases are crippled before the first line of code is written.

As a software developer, I read quite a bit about the development process over at Microsoft, and it’s becoming pretty dysfunctional. Every little decision has potentially huge ramifications with the installed codebase and with the expectations of users, so a developer can’t so much as choose a shape for a button without having to spend two weeks in design meetings to validate his choice.

Take for example something simple like the shutdown menu in Vista. Read the blog entry for a developer who worked on it: The Windows Shutdown Crapfest:

This guy spent a year working on the shutdown menu. A single menu. 43 people were involved. No one had real ownership over it. And after it was all over, the shutdown menu sucks. They screwed up a simple menu. It’s worse than XP’s. It has options like “Sleep” and “Hibernate”, and no one knows the difference. It’s hard to find for new users. They implemented a lock icon, and put lock on the menu beside it anyway. They have separate options for ‘log off’ and ‘switch user’ - God knows why. I know these all have subtle differences, but the organization of this is awful. And this stupid menu probably cost them a couple of man years. In the meantime, they had to pull the major selling features of Vista - the new file system, for example, because they didn’t have the resources to finish it.

Another problem Microsoft is having is also related to its size - they just can’t find enough top-quality developers for all their projects, so they’ve had to lower their standards.

This is why monopolies are very hard to establish and maintain. When a company becomes big enough to monopolize a market, it also becomes big enough to suffer from the sclerosis, information bottlenecking, and other systemic problems that large organizations face. It happened to IBM, it happened to Apple (before they recovered), it happened to Lotus, and many others.

What Microsoft probably needs to do is adopt a model like GE - one of the only successful large industrial companies that has survived the 20th century. It needs to break itself apart into autonomous divisions. GE treats each of its divisions as a wholly separate entity - even to the point where when one division needs to buy a product that another division makes, the other division has to compete on the open market against other non-GE competitors for the contract. This prevents divisions from slacking off and propping themselves up by selling their products to other GE companies.

At Microsoft, the OS side should become its own independent division, in a different location with its own hiring, etc. The MS Office team should be split out into a separate company. The Enterprise Software team could form another company. Trim the fat, cut the layers of bureaucracy, flatten the organization structure, and give more power to people farther down the food chain.

If they don’t do something like this, they’re in trouble.

5

I don’t see it as Microsoft bashing. To me Microsoft bashing is:

BILL GATES IS TEH EVIL
LINUX RULES!!
WINDOWS LUSERS ARE SHEEP
etc…
I’m simply wondering aloud why Microsoft is making so many poor business decisions with regards to the Internet and keeps ignoring its bread and butter. We can debate whether or not they were bad or good choices, but to reject my arguments out of hand as “Windows Bashing” is pretty lame.
Microsoft is out there chasing this Internet dream by trying to purchase a has-been internet concern when their real attention should be focused on Windows because, now more than ever, is their dominance at risk. If they don’t tighten down their user experience and get rid of the viruses etc, how long do you think it will be before corporate America jumps ship?

If I were a shareholder, I’d be pissed. They refuse to try any kind of organic growth, and always go for the jugular of some perceived opponent. They never try to make a new market, but rather try to jump in to one that’s already been made.

As a Mac guy, I don’t care personally one way or another about what Microsoft does. I could care less what OS anyone uses. But after years of dealing with exasperated computer users I have to wonder how MS can’t see this.

As far as creating new markets, I understand that it is difficult, but whatever they’re doing, it’s not working. How long has MSN been up? Remember when it was some competitor to AOL? In the Internet realm, Microsoft has a habit of trying to emulate an out-dated model to compete.

My point is that buying Yahoo will give them nothing they need to compete, because all they really need is a little bit of ingenuity.

6

I’m not sure Microsoft ever had much vision.
Whenever Bill Gates speaks (far too often, in my book), he always makes one of two types of predictions: obvious ones (computers will be everywhere in the future) and stupid ones (The PC will be the center of everyone’s living room).
I think it was Guy Kawasaki who said something like “Microsoft has no ideas. They just have great taste in whom they copy from.”
Microsoft has been an American success story, but they didn’t get there by being either daring or particularly innovative.

7

Only at v3 (you could argue for Windows 386 too). You obviously don’t remember v1 and v2.

I disagree: Office gained because of its integration and consistency. Success came when Office (specifically Word) became available for Windows 3. I saw a whole department move off a range of DOS apps when they decided that they wanted Word for Windows.

I disagree that it’s a failure: it’s not yet a success, which is a nice difference. When I left work last year, one site was still happily on Windows 2000 with some XP and another was just migrating to XP. The latter’s stated plan was to be one OS behind current. No bleeding edges. Besides, MS have sold plenty of licenses. That those licenses are used for previous versions of Windows is of little concern.

Cite? I’ve previously heard that the bulk of their profit (yes, I know it’s different from product) actually comes from Office.

I concur.

More to the point, bandwidth is expensive and home users want local control of their data.

I concur, but you’ll need to put it in Microsoft terms to sell it: they need to do a NT.

I’d suggest it’s more correct to say that Windows is targetted more and that MacOS hasn’t been as thoroughly tested as Windows. :smiley:

Business only. People will want to work when their internet connection doesn’t. People will want to work where there’s no internet. People want control of their data.

But really, I think that you’ve completely missed the point. As has MS. People buy computers to do something. They’re not hobbyist devices any more. You figure out what you want to do, you figure out what software you need to do that, and you buy your OS and computer accordingly. A big problem for MS is that the corporate market and the consumer market are seperating yet demand the same software. A person using Word (or whatever) at work will want to store his documents on a central server and corporate policy may dictate a locked-down and secure system - possibly only a remote desktop - while the consumer using Word expects it to run wholly on his local system with means for backup etc and total control over that system. And then there’s the mobile user, somewhere between the two.

My plan: on the technical side, a ground-up rewrite of the Windows client in 64-bit code concentrating on security, integrity, and usability, that bears as much resemblance on the inside to XP or Vista as NT did to Windows 3. It should be able to run old Windows apps in a VM. MS can still use all the design documentation. Rewrite the core of Office similarly.

On preview, Sam Stone writes much good sense, but the Windows part really depends upon Office, so those two should be kept together. If your business isn’t using Office, you’ve often little reason for using Windows.

8

Let me restate my opinion about Cloud computing, because personally I actually agree with you. I don’t know why anyone would want to use it. I prefer to have my data local. But the fact that you think it’s overblown only strengthens the importance of my point that Microsoft is ignoring Windows.

But I feel that it’s coming in some way. Yes we say that we don’t understand why anyone would want to use it, but consider how much the internet itself has changed in the past 8 years. Remember in 2000? Nobody had wifi. Your internet connection was likely a modem, and if it wasn’t it was almost certainly connected to a single desktop. Most families had one computer per household. Now, of course there are multiple laptops using wifi per household. All I’m saying is that what will the Internet be like in another 8 years? I’m guessing that it will be accessible everywhere via 4G+ cellular, or the new spectrum that Verizon bought. Another interesting point, Asus has recently shipped a motherboard with a slimmed down version of linux installed. That’s incredible, isn’t it? The point being that there will be changes. Microsoft had better anticipate them, and find a way for their core business to stay relavent.

9

I use something like this at work, and it is wonderful. First of all, I never have to worry about backups. When my computer died, it was less of a hassle than when my cellphone died. Second, when I give a talk somewhere I set it up on the computer at my desk, pull out my smart card, stick it into the computer in the conference room, and I’m done.

I agree with you it is going to happen, though. In five years a $20 memory stick will hold every bit of data you don’t trust to the network. WiFi will be everywhere, so there is no place where you won’t be able to get online. A machine without a disk will be a lot lighter and more reliable, and easier to carry around.

Microsoft’s model is selling stuff onto desktops and some servers. Google’s model is minimal software on the desktop and everything on the network. Microsoft makes money by selling companies mostly expensive software, which they can do by effectively being a monopoly. Google makes money by selling advertising. (See below.)

It is true that Ballmer is no Gates (Gates would never have screwed up the Yahoo deal this way) and that Windows is collapsing - but monopolies can make lots of mistakes and survive. But the business model is the real thing. Microsoft beat IBM when the model changed from central computing to personal computing, and they are going to lose as it changes to distributed central computing, if I can coin a phrase.

10

I don’t know how many billions of dollars MS spend on Vista, but I don’t think you can say their attention wasn’t focused on it. It is easy to say start from scratch, but how many years would that take? Vista was late enough starting from a known base. How do you know a new OS would work, and be popular?

Intel tried your strategy with Itanic (Itanium. I worked on it, I get to diss it.) It was a new start with a new instruction set, and it has been a disaster. (By now you were supposed to be buying 64 bit Itanium PCs, not 64 bit x86 PCs.)

The other problem is that what does Vista have that anyone wants? A flashy GUI which the average home user can’t run? Like cars used to be, XP is considered to be good enough. Companies certainly stay behind the OS curve, but I don’t ever remember such pushback before. Vista will eventually take over, but it is a failure by having a slower adoption curve and worse press than ever before.

11

Cloud Computing isn’t so good for anyone with confidentiality or liability issues. God knows the idea of cloud computing intersecting with HIPAA ( Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act - Wikipedia ) freaks me the hell out. I mean, trying to assure it all being protected. Whilst medical records being owned on someone else’s server? No way.

12

But a large part of that problem is undoubtedly the fact that working at Microsoft is incredibly frustrating, isn’t it? I mean, how many top-quality programmers are going to put up with spending a year on a shut-down menu that turns out wrong? My husband is a top-quality programmer, but I don’t think you could pay him enough to work there. He started his own company.

When we were in college, most people considered Microsoft to be the place you went when you weren’t in CS because you loved it, you were in CS because you figured that was where the money was.

13

Ignoring your Microsoft bashing for a second, this is completely off the mark.

Just because you don’t use Yahoo doesn’t mean millions of other people don’t. Yahoo is an Internet leader that has moved well beyond their directory beginnings.

And I’m sorry, but Yahoo Mail is the easiest email there is out there and I suggest it to every Internet novice that comes into my library. Yahoo may be playing second fiddle to Google these days, but to say they’re irrevelant is completely naive.

14

It’s interesting about completely rewriting code though…

I’ve just started with writing software, and I’ve done a few rewrites so far and I gotta say, it never seems to turn out as good as you want it to be, right? Pretty interesting. Although I think sometimes they can turn out to be better in the end. But the main problem is quashing the little bugs that turn up and that can always screw with your nice, pretty, design.

But that is kind of the reason I feel that Microsoft needs a clean break. I’m sure their source code is hacked to hell and back to accomodate for a 20 year backlog of bug fixes. They do desperately need to drop support for a lot of stuff. It’s also part of the reason why I suggested they build it on top of linux. This must be legal since Apple does it already. I think you just have to release the source for the linux portion of it. But it needn’t be linux. It could simply be a new NT designed from the ground up with security and other things in mind.

But I can see Microsoft getting screwed after a move towards thinner clients. I don’t know if they can even prevent it, but I sure as hell do know that the answer isn’t buying Yahoo.

Personally for me though the move toward the Cloud is depressing. I like owning data. In the future I’m sure we’ll all be renting everything with absolutely no rights at all. I realize that you actually don’t own software at the moment, in a lot of cases, but at least they can’t come and take it away from you.

Look at Hulu.com. It’s a pretty good example of the future. They had more content but then took it down for some reason. I felt like I was completely powerless when they did that. One of the things about having local data storage is that once you get your hands on it, you get to keep it. Say what you will about Microsoft, but I have a feeling that we’ll look back fondly to the days when you didn’t have to pay an annual fee to use a given type of software.

15

You know, this is pissing me off…

I’m not bashing Microsoft. I’m simply pointing out their mistakes. If you have a problem with any of my arguments then take them on. Dissing me out of hand is really not called for. I’m not insulting Windows users, I think Windows is fine. I just feel that Microsoft is misguided.

I have no problem with Microsoft and the fact that they have a monopoly. I wish them well, it’s not personal at all, I don’t know why you’re trying to invalidate my arguments based on some kind of perceived anti-Microsoft rant. I use Windows quite often, and have it on my machine. Am I not allowed to criticize Microsoft without being labeled as a lunatic Microsoft basher? I think my arguments are pretty good. How about taking me on the content of my arguments instead of what you perceive to be my tone?

As for Yahoo, I never said it was irrelevant, did I? I am well aware that Yahoo has a good bit of traffic to be sure. Also I still disagree about Yahoo mail. With regards to users I know, I turn them to gmail. Gmail is simple and doesn’t have a million other things going on at once like everything on the Yahoo site. I seriously wish Yahoo were as good as Google. I think competition is good for everyone.

The point of that though is, what has Yahoo done lately? Seriously? They jumped on the portal bandwagon way back when and really haven’t provided much of anything since they bought Flickr. Coasting on name recognition only. And I stand by my assertion that it’s ridiculous to pay for POP access these days.

16

A good friend of mine is of the opinion that the Peter Principal applies to corporations as well as it does to individuals. They expand until they can’t do what they once were good at any more…then they fade away. If they get really big, they can run on inertia for a long time, but still they are doomed.

17

OK, I think your arguments are moronic and here’s why…

You said…
Rebuild the OS from scratch

Why would Microsoft do this? The whole draw of Windows is that it’s backwards compatible with a whole range of software. I agree, supporting as many different programs as they do is too much, but rebuilding the OS would shrink their market share, not make it grow.

You said…
Find a reason to get people excited

It’s an OS, not a summer blockbuster movie. People shouldn’t need to be “excited” about an OS. And your assertion that OSX is secure is a joke. It’s easy to be secure when no one gives a damn about breaking into a Mac.

You said…
Stop designing by committee

Ah, Apple’s “design” strategy. I’m sorry, but in my experience, the only people that care about the Apple aesthetics already own Apple products.

You said…
Get rid of the crapware

This is a PC vendor issue, not a Microsoft issue. I’m not going to address it.

You said…
Get a handle on viruses

Again, Windows is hit harder by viruses because they are the big cheese. When you only own 5% of the market it’s easy to say there are fewer viruses targeting you because every hacker wants the big score.

You said…
Figure out a niche for the switch to cloud computing

I’ve been reading about thin clients and distributed apps since I first started getting into computers in my teens in the 90s. They were the “next big thing” then and I imagine the hype goes back further than that. Google Docs is cute, but it pales next to MS Office and even OpenOffice.

You said…
Figure out some kind of mobile strategy

Windows rules the PDA market. Just because the iPhone might be a player someday does not mean Microsoft is doing something wrong today.

18

Haven’t you run into some cases where you wonder what the hell you were thinking with some code, “fix” it, and discover it handled some obscure corner case? Now imagine MS doing the same for code that thousands of people have worked on over decades.

How to handle linux depends on which code they build from and what the licenses are. Open source licenses make my eyes glaze over.
The problem with breaking compatibility is that it gives your installed base an excellent reason to leave you. I bet there is a ton of software out there which is mission-critical for companies for which no source exists, either because it was lost at a company or because the company that wrote it went under. Even if it does, who the hell is going to recompile and test all of it. This would make the Y2K effort look like a CS 101 assignment.

I don’t think that was the reason, but rather that Yahoo has a far superior advertising presence. Good idea or bad idea, you don’t make threats and then say “never mind.” Who is ever going to be scared of Ballmer again?

BTW, I don’t think you’re Microsoft bashing. :slight_smile:

19

As a graphics professional, let me say that Microsoft Publisher is utter garbage. I wouldn’t mind if they marketed it as “Grandma’s Family Newsletter - Deluxe” but they actually try to pass it off as professional page layout software.

Pure useless rubbish.

Other than that, I’d say most of their stuff is meh. I do use Vista though. Macs are fine, but not to my taste.

20

They have successfully done this before with NT.