Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Worst Enemy: Themselves
KobyBoy writes "Saw this story posted on OSnews this morning. "Microsoft's biggest threat isn't Linux, OpenOffice, or any piece of software at all--its themselves. Over the last eighteen months two distinctly different Microsoft cultures have emerged, often in opposition to each other." You can get the full article at Sudhian Media."
This all comes down to control. What Bill wants, Bill gets, at least within his own company. You can bet your life that if Gates wanted to do something within the company, they'd turn on a dime, just the way they did back in 1995 to support Internet stuff
Yes and no. The dissonance between the two cultures could be a sign that the "cult of Bill" is waning. An autocratic leader can only be effective if everyone "drinks the koolaid". It's very hard to fight an entrenched culture, and many CEOs have failed because they couldn't get buy-in from the rank and file. I've seen this first hand, when ordinary staffers made no secret of their contempt for senior management... it's the death knell for a company.
Perhaps Microsoft are running out of the old-skool staff and the new blood they're hiring doesn't automatically defer to Bill on every decision. I'd imagine that Microsoft people are very poor at playing the sort of corporate political games that are taken for granted elsewhere, the old Microsoft culture actively discouraged it. If they've hired a bunch of people who are politically adept, they will be very difficult to control.
MS has not just been a software company for a while. It is a monstrous thing. Not for its software, but for its policies. It has become a sort of governmental figure in the Software industry. They create policies and exist under a huge bureaucracy wherein Billie boy is the the ruler in pertuity.
People are fearful of and distrustful of MS the same way they have been of the government since the LBJ days (I'm thinking Vietnam here)-- and many before then (I'm thinking Ralph Waldo Emerson types here).
IBM sure ain't dead ...
Revenues last quarter:
- Microsoft:
- IBM:
Interestingly, IBM made more GROSS PROFIT the last quarter ($8,094,000,000) than Microsoft's total revenues.$7,746,000,000
$20,592,000,00
Contrary to popular belief, IBM, not Microsoft, is the worlds' largest software company. IBM just happens to bundle a computer with many of their offerings.
The article is not bad, and it basically shows the problems that affect any software company: techies vs marketing.
However, I do think he went out on a limb with the following comment:
"The recently-revealed fact that Microsoft, in effect, offered states a bribe in order to drop their anti-trust suits against the Redmond giant. While I hold the states equally responsible for accepting the money in the first place, Redmond is known for displaying a remarkable level of NIH syndrome (Not Invented Here) perhaps only equaled by Steve Job's unparalleled Reality Distortion Field."
I haven't heard about any of this bribe business, but if it isn't true and if he is exaggerating, I think the writer has really set himself up for a potential lawsuit. To accuse someone of committing a felony like that in this day-and-age when it hasn't been proven is kind of stupid, and I would have changed the wording around if I were him.
The article wants MS not to donate any machine or Windows to poor schools for competitive issues, to protect Apple's interests, but yet at the same time it critizes MS because it donates old technology.
The article accuses MS of bribing, yet there is no known evidence of such a criminal conduct. If the bribe means here a settlement, it is a legal move. There is nothing to talk about here.
Licensing program is not a good move, but let's talk about Oracle's licensing practices. Let's talk about other licensing plans out there in the industry. If you are going to critize MS for this and not others, you are just plain lying about your facts
It is also unbelievable that any person who bullshits to bash MS can get this much of attention. It doesn't even matter what you say anymore, as long as you bash MS. The facts mentioned in the article are all very well known, but still we see it here because it is yet another MS bashing article.
I just hope the real workers behind the open source are not following this stupid trend. Otherwise open source movement is doomed.
I agree with the author that MS seems to be self-destructing, but that is not really the case. MS has always faught amongst itself. That is a similar approach to the OSS world. The only difference is that OSS does not have Marketers.
As to them, well, Bill is needing to change the strategy to survive. He was able to buy off states and even our current administration without too much repercussion. This shows that MS can adopt. What is happening behind other scences is what ppl should notice. From what I understand, there are a number of start-ups by bill that are designed to push MS. These are targeted towards unique niches. 2 companies are directed at Intuit to compete against TurboTax.
While I am a Linux developer, I do forsee that we have a rough road ahead of us. MS should never be underestimated.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
So which is it? I administer a nice big AD domain on w2k servers and I personally am insulted that Microsoft is doing their best to convince my administrators as well as others that Windows administration can be done by a non-expert. How long before CFOs believe this and wonder why they are paying for all of these expensive personnel down in IT? It's bad enough they don't understand the complexity of our jobs, now Microsoft is telling them it doesn't require an "expert" to administer Windows servers. :-(
your rights end where the rights of the next person's start.
So, um where do the other person's rights start? I keep running into people that try to lay claim to rights I have no interest in, that interfere with rights I want.
I remember in Dragonball where Goku asked a policeman where Bulma lived and the policeman could call up a picture for every person named Bulma in the city and helped him find her. Impossible with the rights some people want. But then, some people want to be afraid of their government.
Beyond that, it is nonsense. My experience with XP is that is more stable than any other consumer MS OS, but not as good as 2000. For one thing, the adaptive GUI just gets in the way. The market has spoken on XBox. It is a good machine, but not good enough. Without the benefit of monopoly, MS was not able to set the price on the product, and had to do several price reduction in order to get the results it wanted. This would also be the case with it's OS and apps if competition exists. In countries that aren't MS hostages, the XBox is not doing well. As for the tablet PC, it is not yet a product. We do not how exactly it will act. It is probably as good as XBox, which may not be good enough.
The problem with MS is that it does not have to innovate. It does not have to create great products. Without competition, there is no need to excel. It can steal , cajole, and threaten. The creativity is limited to calling the OS 'Windows'. The charity is limited to giving kids junk and then taking a writeoff for the inflated value. The programming wonders are limited to creating a paperclip that you can't get rid of, or wizards that won't let you get back to the menu. I find the culture to be pretty unified.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
are premature. People have been claiming the end of MS for years, and it's still going strong. While I'd love to see it at least shaken up and reformed, and more consumer friendly, I don't yet see any evidence of even a mild decline.
That's gotta fit into your schema somewhere
Well IBM makes boatloads of cash, thats for sure, but I wouldn't call them just a software company. Like Sun they make their cash off of services and support for overpriced hardware. MS is pretty much all software, and has a market cap more than twice that of IBM, which is why they are the worlds largest software company. Plus Im not sure where you got your profit numbers, but on Quicken a different story is painted:
MSFT:
Revenue - $7,746,000
Net Income - $2,726, 000
IBM:
Revenue - $19,821,000
Net Income - $1,694,000
And also from Quicken:
What is Net Income?
The amount of a company's total sales (revenue) remaining after subtracting all of its costs, in a given period of time (also referred to as "net earnings"). This very important figure (literally the source of the term "the bottom line" for where you find it on an income statement) is the best measure of the current operating state of a company.
People think Microsoft is the answer. Microsoft is just the question, "No" is the answer.
No, because the donated PC's are simply blatant attempt to supplant Apple's dominance in the educational market, and to generate more license revenue for Microsoft. Who do you think pays to upgrade those PCs when people realize that Windows 3.1 doesn't run any real software?
(Also, when another independent company tried to do the same thing, MS took them to court because they couldn't prove they had valid licenses for all the copies of Windows 95 that the used computers were running. They ended up having to trash several thousand used computers because they didn't have enough money to buy all brand new licenses for them.)
Your Servant, B. Baggins
How about both? The entertainment industry will not fall to Tivo, or just about any other technology. Remember that the industry has called this death knell with every major technology advancement, from the vcr, DAT, CD's, online direct distribution etc. And yet every year the industries post larger and larger profits. Technology and ease of access to their products helps the industry so long as they take the bull by the horns and controll it, when they try to quench a technology (with the exception of DAT) they lose a market.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
This author is dead on. The IT graveyard of invincible vendors is wide and deep, and without an exception I can think of the killing blows were always self-inflicted: Micro-Channel Architecture, Word Perfect 5.0 for Windows, Unix-Ware, and on and on and on.
I watch this board closely to try to gauge perception. (I watch lots of other things too, because everything has some inherent bias, borg toon anyone?) I want to know where the industry is headed. In the past I've felt the pain of backing the wrong technology and after many years have come to appreciate such an error's effect on my families ability to do things they enjoy, like eat and sleep inside.
For the last several years the food on my table has come from a deep knowledge of many of Microsoft's products. At the end of the day, I really don't care what tools I used to create a new system. What I care about is that I can do what I love (design and build software) for someone who appreciates the effort enough to pay me a decent sum of money.
I view many of the arguments on this site with mild amusement (open vs. closed source) as the ravings of modern-day hippies or the very young. Unfortunately, I am constrained by certain requirements in my life and I doubt very much that my wife or my children would care about free-as-in-speech vs. free-as-in-beer, and as such care much more about the bottom-line than high-minded principals, no matter how appealing.
That said, I am starting to study and use Linux and other offerings of this community. Some of it is very impressive and some of it, I must say, is promising but primitive crap. I do not believe that the movement will overthrow Microsoft on its own merit. I do believe that Microsoft is creating enough incentive for the market to make this a commercially viable alternative.
The PS2's were awesome and reliable machines. They were probably worth the additional price. But, by the time IBM really tried to strong-arm the market, the IT buying community was pissed off enough that the platform's relative merits meant nothing. I believe that OS/2 was equally affected by this, although it's terrible setup procedure hurt it as well. Microsoft is today's IBM. I hope they get their heads out of their asses soon, but they'd better do it quickly.
"Microsoft has serious problems because they have a dichotomy in their strategy and thinking!" or so says the slashdotter...
Listen folks, if this is a problem, then the Open Source movement might as well quit while the quitting is good. If you can get N OSS developers in a room, you're guaranteed to have N completely different opinions on what should be done in terms of any software strategy: technical, marketing, or other. And why should it be any different? After all, projects are done ostensibly for fun and self-improvement. No one should be allowed to tell me what to do with my code! Multiply this logic by a million and you have a good handle on the swarming behavior of the Open Source community.
Besides, if I am to read the article correctly, the main problem with Microsoft is that they are making better products while they still haven't cleaned their act up in terms of being a "good corporate citizen."
This isn't really grounds for celebration. If anything, it should be a wake up call that Linux on the desktop is becoming less competetive by the day in terms of functionality and 'meeting the consumers needs.'
Shouldn't there be some corollary to Godwin's Law, but involving Dragonball instead of Nazis?
Here is my formulation: As the number of idiots posting in a thread increases, the chance of a Dragonball reference increases accordingly. In case of said event, the person who made the comment will have everything he has said or ever will say forever invalidated.
This latest anti-trust round has made it possible for the PC makers to ship dual boot systems. Hopefully all of the major PC vendors will have some backbone and start offering dual boot Windows and Linux on all of their machines. A shared partition would let you get at data files from both OS's.
Only a few people might initially try out Linux, but over time this would improve. Open Office, Linux games, a mess up or price increase by MS may all be reasons to switch. But having the OS on the hard disk is critical to making the switch easy.
Microsoft needs a villian to rally it's employee against. Linux is playing the part of the villian. Without a credible villian MS will break up into internal fiefdoms like it is doing.
Microsoft's managers by the standards by which people in that field judge success are superb.
What do I mean by that? If you judge Microsoft's management by the universal business scorecard - money - then no one can argue that they are doing a bad job.
From a technical viewpoint Microsoft's managers are clueless idiots, from an ethical standpoint they are amoral cretins who barely qualify as human; but from a business standpoint - the company has made a lot of money on their watch.
In reality Microsoft's management is a lot like a defensive lineman who gets a pass stuck in his face guard - then stumbles blindly into the end zone to score a game winning touchdown; they were in the right place at the right time - every thing else was pure dumb luck.
Of course, Microsoft's management believes that their brilliant business decisions are responsible for Microsoft's success; but then I have already written about their technical judgment.
I work at Microsoft Game Studios. Every full time engineer in my department runs Linux on at least one of their home computers but I've met project leads who don't even know what the GPL is. A lot of our staff come from companies that we've purchased. The difference between a native Micosofty and a bought one is staggering. The most comic example are the guys who work for Bungie. Bungie made Mac games for years and they all come to work in Mac schwag.
The current relative value of different sectors is largely irrelevent. The corporate view of a company with a diverse range of divisiuons sees each division in terms of two perpendicular components - Market share and growth of sector. Ideally we would like to have a large market share of a fast growing sector (so called Star businesses). The PVR market is a potentially fast growing sector, so they need to get their market share as high as possible.
A large market share of a slow growth industry is simply a cash cow. Time Warner own a large chunk of the media industry. The size of this chunk is unlikely to change in the near future, but it does provide them with a steady stream of revenue that they can invest in the fast moving technologies to maximise their own market share.
If the PVR market dies, then that's not too much of a problem. An expensive disappointment perhaps, but business is all about risks. It's no longer a threat to the exisiting business model, so they know they can invest the money in other potential growth areas. Businesses do not succeed by resting on their laurels.
This is a gross oversimplification, but the basic rules apply.
I tend to agree with the original poster, however I fail to see how differing ideas within a company would signal its decline.
Differing ideas are one thing, differing cultures are something else. Traditionally, Microsoft have had a reputation for being very adademic and meritocratic in their decision making. Ideas are exchanged and debated, and eventually the best one wins (in theory at least). That assumes that everyone is basically moving towards the same goal, and while they have their own ideas on how to get there, their egos aren't tied up in having their personal idea be the chosen one. What matters is the goal.
But what if some people aren't so much interested in the goal per se, as they are in building their own little empire on the way to the goal? An old-skool Microserf will fully expect to argue the case, then sit back, and let the idea be considered on its merits. They won't be able to cope with a senior manager who does not have the best interests of the organization as a whole in mind. That's what I mean by a culture clash.
Possibly one of their biggest strengths (other than their monopoly) would be differing ideas among upper management.
It was when the senior management was largely comprised of Microsoft lifers who joined in the early days of the company and had worked their way up. But it's very different when those people find themselves competing with professional managers brought in as lateral hires.
"The problem is that MS is trying to give different customers what they want in the same package. People want security, bam there you go, oh but wait we want flexibility, bam there you go, but oh wait we had to remove some of the security so you could be flexible. vice versa and repeat"
Ahh, the fun old philosophy that nothing can achieve perfect balance for everyone, applied to the extreme.
The problem with this argument is that Microsoft CAN put in TONS of features, more than they ever have. But it can still be secure. How? Defaults. Turn everything off by default, and offer to take the user on a "tour" of these options where s/he will be allowed to turn them on.
The problem is that not only do they produce software with holes, which is a declining habit of theirs, they now put in tons of 'features' such as the Windows Help Desk which are insecure by default.
---
"While ppl will argue linux gives you both, if you are a computer geek, this isn't a valid solution for the average home user."
Yes, Linux gives you both -- on most distros, services that are insecure and need to be admin'ed by default, are turned off. But there are plenty of them, if you want them. Plenty of choice and good defaults are what I love in a good OS/distro.
Regarding "a valid solution for the avg. home user", it actually is. The average home user chats on IM, emails, writes docs, listens to music and surfs the web. I won't argue points here, but many distros do this out of the box (RH 7.3), and they're as difficult to install as Windows.
Regarding the smaller group of "average users" who play games, do presentations, complex excel stuff, etc., Linux is not the solution, at least without the user learning to poke around. But, if you'll pay attention to the history of Linux, you'll notice that not only has this area come a long way in the last two years, it's almost there. Give it another year and I'll bet you can take RH's latest version, give it to an average computer user, and they'll be doing everyting out of the box.
But, I could be wrong.
~Dalcius
Rome wasn't burnt in a day.
Hruska couldn't be more accurate. In my past 5+ years as a contractor working mostly at Microsoft, I've definitely seen the internal character of the place becoming less geek-centered and more suit-centered. Recently there was a poster on the wall exhorting people to save the company money by remembering that the free beverages are for consumption at work only. When you have administrative people busying themselves with that type of "hall monitor" behavior, you are also going to see things like junk-computer disposal disguised as charity, advertising disguised as customer feedback, and lawyer-driven software design.
That isn't funny. The only reason that the USA patriot act passed was because of the Anthrax psyop directed at the lawmakers in Washington. Don't laugh at us, feel sorry for us. The people here are so complacent and blinded that the pResident could go on TV and take a shit on the constitution and it wouldn't even make the papers the next day.
It will probably happen in your country in a year or two, also. Won't be so funny then.
Reminds me of Dubyah.
I have come to the conclusion that wether Microsoft survives or not doesnt bother me a piss. One part of me would most gladly see the Borg go down in agony. The other part looks at his nice linux desktop wich does everything he did in windows and much better and feels a state of nirvana. As long as i have my linux and no one tries to destroy it i couldnt give less sh*t about windows. We need to stop looking at what Microsoft is doing and do our own stuff.
They are hurt if linux makes a success, we shouldnt care less if Microsoft do. Lets focus at linux and let Microsoft play in their own little pond by themselves.
HTTP/1.1 400
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
Microsoft's DRM empire will be a bust. The only way they could have succeeded would have been with the Hollings bill mandating their DRMOS as law. Hollings has lost his position as head of the commerce committee, and no longer can use that post as a platform from which to launch his bill.
;)
Without a legal mandate, DRM will fail due to customer rejection. Customers will not like DRM raking up charges on their credit card quietly like Microsoft believes it should. They will not like loosing all their licenses in a computer malfunction and having to obtain or buy new ones.
The next few years are going to be a bit messy, with Microsoft and the media sharks trying all sorts of stunts. But unless they can somehow hook into the "War on Terror", Microsoft won't be getting their kingdom, and they and the media sharks may not survive the wrath of their customers.
Windows: "Go talk to my friend, an 800 pound monopoly-abusing gorilla!"
Mac: "And here's my good buddy, the 66,000 ton Godzilla!"
Godzilla: Stomp!
Yes, communism is Evil. Everywhere it has been tried it has ended in millions of bodies in unmarked graves. Everywhere. Don't even start that crap about some wicked people getting in control and screwing up a good idea. It has to be that way, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Communism is based on the idea that one absolute dictator will decide what is best for everyone (the Seven Year Plan) and everyone else will selflessly put out a 100% effort to achieve the goal. When the reality that people won't put out much effort with no hope of a reward, the 'malcontents' start get shipped off to the deathcamps.
If the maximum leader actually responds to the wishes of the lead, he isn't a maximum leader anymore and the government drifts away from communism because 'the people' never actually want communism. They might SAY they want some of the trappings of it, but offer them the whole package and as soon as they figure out how badly they get screwed along with 'the evil rich' they want nothing to do with it. Then it's either popular rule or rule from the muzzle of a gun. Popular rule means slide towards a European style Welfare State Socialism with a stagnant economy or keep going towards a full Free Market. The other option is for starry eyed communism to turn into Stalinism, which is historically the more popular choice since those in power never want to give it up without a fight. After all, they have convinced themselves they are the most wise and enlightened leaders in the land and are most fit to rule.
Democrat delenda est
On the news here in NZ last night, I saw attempts at the same fear-mongering that goes on re: terrorism in the USA.
The only thing is, that tactic wont work in this country to make people give up their rights. Why? Because NZ'ers don't have the superiority complex that Usonians do. We don't harbour any illusions of being "the world police" or "the world-leading nation" or any such poppycock, and as such, we would not let our Government abuse us for the sake of stopping imaginary terrorists.
Looking at it from a terrorists point of view - what point would there be in terrorising NZ? It's not like we could go to the United Nations and yell "Hey! W! Cut your nosey world-policing shit out and behave yourselves so we'll stop getting bombed". NZ is a complete waste-of-time target for REAL terrorists, to the point where I'd suspect my own Government of bombing buildings before I'd suspect Al'Qaeda or Saddam or whoever the USA's Demon-of-the-week is.
I used to think I was at least somewhat in touch with what users wanted at my work and at my home. I thought I was responsive to their needs.
Then I sat down with a regular computer user. He asked why I had "Don't use this" underneath the "E" on my desktop (Crossover Office, Internet Explorer icon on Windows desktop). I explained that the browser was insecure due to some recent security exploits, and that I only had that particular browser installed so my wife would be able to do online ordering for one particular business she runs.
"So, you mean, you don't use the Internet?" he asked.
"No, we just don't use Internet Explorer here due to security problems." I responded.
"But when I click on the Internet, it still works," replied he.
I shortly thereafter realized, this kid thought the "e" on the desktop WAS THE INTERNET. He had no idea that it is a network of high-speed fibre circumnavigating the globe, carrying terabytes of information. He had no clue what a web browser or email reader was. He had no idea what a protocol was, or even the concept of security beyond it being what those guys in uniforms in the mall do.
This is the state of the average computer user. We either educate them, or dumb the computer down enough that they can use it. So I have to agree that it seems that only the "geekier" chunk of society even understands what a computer bug is, much less why we'd want few of them...
Matthew P. Barnson
I learn what I think when I read what I write
Oh yeah, that's that "Club of Rome" thing I remember from economics back in the 80's
Don't get me wrong
utter rubbish
The report was aired twice before Stossel was forced to retract the statements which were patently false because the group that supposedly did the tests kept complaining that the tests described had never been done.
The first actual study of the issue was completed in May and showed that organically grown produce contained a third as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown foods.
Stossel knew there was no study to support his ridiculous claims, but it meshed with his political beliefs and he didn't think anyone would call him on it.
More details about the real study are here. More about Stossel's junk science can be found here.
I think the very idea that someone in the mainstream has gotten the idea that we are anti-business/anti-profit is very BAD, as it constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the movement behind free software and the open source development model.
On the contrary it shows that they have a very good understanding of the movement behind free software.
Who in the mainstream is going to align themselves with us, if we give them the impression that we're anarchists and commies?
They are not. But if you want to shed that image you need to stop acting like Software Communists.
You're more or less making the same point I was making. NZ's voice would be ignored by the higher-ups in the US who perpetrate their atrocities abroad.
I don't type all this thinking it's going to somehow change US policy, I type all this to point out why it makes no sense to target NZ for terrorism. Some people point to the America's Cup (a fucking BOAT RACE) as a prime target for terrorism. This is mindlessness at it's most basic.
I don't blame the US population in general for the actions of the megalomaniacs in charge. It seems quite clear to me most of the thinkers in your country don't want to go to war with Iraq, for example.
I live for the day the Usonians revolt and the government over there makes a short 100-year-or-so return to the sort of thinking it used to display as a new, free country.
First, I disagree that Microsoft's biggest enemy is themselves. I think Microsoft's biggest enemy is Moor's Law, and computer power is outpacing people's general needs. This means that computer lifecycles are increasing, and Windows market size hence is likely to decrease. I think there are people in the sr. management who understand this, and I think there are many who don't. But the attempts to move into emerging embedded markets has been severely hampered by Linux and so you have a lot of people trying to figure out what to do.
.NET Development Environment and Framework (i.e. Microsoft). Here is where I think the culture split occurs. Many people at Microsoft see the major competitive threats to be Java and Linux because on some abstract level they reduce Windows' market share. The problem is you end up with two cultures-- one who wants to beat Linux by all means necessary and the other that wants to beat Java by all means necessary.
.NET framework be a Java killer and knows that it can only do that if Mono, Portable.NET etc. succeed. So they vocally support all third-party attempts at interoperability, etc. Blinded by their attempt to kill Java and hence dominate the intermediary language world with technologies that Microsoft initially developed (but would likely no longer control) they don't see that this would bring to Linux/FreeBSD/[favorite os] all the RAD tools that Windows now has. Hence the OS market is commoditized, and Windows falls to Linux ;)
.NET framework idea well enough to realize what it might do, but they try to reinvent Windows adding many truly advanced features (like 3d UI, RDBMS-based file-system, etc) that no one really needs and eat upway too much performance...
Enter Microsoft's Enemy #2--
These are mutually exclusive goals. The anti-Java camp wants to see the
The other camp is the one currently pressing for subscription licensing of Windows, Office, etc. They believe in the market power (i.e. monopoly) of Microsoft and believe that few people can turn to competing products successfully. Most fo them don't understand the
The real problem is that Bill has not tried to reconcile these camps, and this is a serius problem, but the root cause is from external economic factors.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP