Slashdot Mirror
Ballmer Sends Wakeup Call to Staff
Puneet writes "An MSNBC article outlines details of how the world's biggest software company seems to be facing a technology gap. Steve Ballmer, chief executive officer of Microsoft, sent a memo across the company basically saying that with no immediate breakthroughs in technology coming, and with the Linux computer operating system and a batch of other open-source programs biting at its heels, Microsoft will have to do a better job of persuading customers it has something they need.
. Microsoft must "improve business consistency" so that customers are not hit with unexpected - and unwanted - changes. Also covered by Forbes but in lesser detail."
To back up this new push to promote a more customer-friendly Microsoft, Ballmer promised that the company would âoeincrease our advertising budget significantly for all our audiences.â
This pretty much sums it up.
An equal headline and probably more accurate one would be "MS launches new media campaign to portray company as customer-friendly".
All marketing, no real changes.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
More than anything, Microsoft has really hurt itself through it's new licensing plan -- and this with a competitor who offers an initial software cost of zero. That defies market logic -- to raise your prices when faced by a seemingly lower cost competitor. It almost forces the hands of IT engineers (who already face much tighter budgets) to consider open source solutions instead of Microsoft when they need an implementation of, say, an extra file and print server to hold all of the new graphics files generated by the marketing department.
At the end of the day, it is money that makes the corporation go 'round. And, if I can offer my management and users a better solution that costs less money, it is in my absolute best interests to do so.
First he identifies a problem - Microsoft has no new and innovative ideas for improving their products.
Then he comes up with the perfect solution - "improve business consistency!" The best way we can serve our customers is by not introducing any new and innovative ideas to improve our products!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Knowing the "mess" they're in and fixing it has always been one of their strong suits. When they released Windows 3.x and found lukewarm support by WordPerfect and Lotus, they admitted it and took a course of action to correct it. When they realized they were too late in jumping on the Internet bandwagon, they admitted it and started development on a browser to compete with Netscape. Now, they realize that they are falling behind in the security and "features people need" area and will most certainly strive to correct the situation. So, don't just sit back, point your finger, and laugh; take a good look within the open source world and see what needs fixing.
This could be the announcement of a new dotcomboom :
:-)
The bigggest software company of the world just admits being stalled.
It's high time small development structures came with new things in order to convince the investors to empty their pockets.
Now, if we consider Microsoft's usual tendency to buy interesting startups, then the above-mentioned investors will for sure be there to re-sell them their shares.
Or, of course, I could be dreaming but I hope not : I have some nice new software concepts for sale
Trolling using another account since 2005.
The technically superior part is not neccessarily important to a company like MS.
They care about products that are driven by what consumers want. In the past they have dictated what consumers want or need, but now they just have to sit up and listen.
I know more people that do not care about computer security as much as they do bells and whistles. These are the people MS want.
I think that basing your model on purely technological mindset is not really the way to go - sure, technology drives the computer industry, however I believe we're moving to a more fundamental factor in choosing Information Technology:- Lifestyle.
This is what Apple has moved to as their model - sure they provide technological goodies, but the aim is improving lifestyle, not technology for the sake of technology/innovation.
Consider the strategy of providing Music/Movie/Image/Organiser products - Lifestyle products.
Consumers have been fed a steady diet of new gizmo's and gadgets but it takes many years for them to actually *GET* what they can do with them.
Bluetooth is such an example - been around for years, but only now am I using it (the technology) because I need to synchronise my Address Book and Calendar (Lifestyle).
I believe that the industry will gain momentum over the next few years by not plugging a particula technology but marketing Lifestyle Devices/Software using new technology in innovative ways...
-- Dan =)
When I first got into computers around 94-95ish, it seemed like once a week a new technology or use for current technology was being created...
....then once every couple of months... ...and now maybe once a year at best..
then once a month...
And when I think about it, it all seems to coincide with the increase in lawsuits against "patent violators", the DMCA, "intelectual property violations", etc etc. Basically, the big guys are stomping the little guy if he thinks outside the box, and it happens to present a challenge to their technology.
Perhaps Microsoft needs to wake up to this big tech killmachine that they have had a hand it making, and try to reverse some of the damage that it has done. Now people are afraid to issue security warnings for fear they might be arrested for breaking the DMCA...
insane...
I lost my concept of community when my community lost all concept of me.
The article says that Ballmer plans to "increase our advertising budget significantly for all our audiences". Does anyone else see that as treating the symptom rather than the disease? The point of the article was that Microsoft doesn't seem to have anything to persuade people to buy its products, so instead of INNOVATING, they're going to "persuade" people that they need Microsoft. The problem isn't that people don't need Microsoft, the problem is that Microsoft isn't creating anything new and exciting in the computer world... and increasing the advertising budget by all the money in Fort Knox isn't going to change that.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
The one thing that Microsoft Windows beats back Linux in every time is compatability... With Windows, it's DirectX all the way.
Well, or OpenGL for those little indie games like Quake III or Doom III.
Ballmer is well known for blowing a lot of hot air, so it's often hard to know What Exactly He's Really Saying.
My translation is that he's saying Microsoft is appearing to reach either an upper asymptote or a maximum (with decreases to follow) in terms of company growth, revenue, etc.
I'm inclined to believe this translation based on his recent failure in Munich to stave off a large scale Linux desktop deployment and on his large sale of MSFT stock "to diversify his portfolio".
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The only reason Linux isn't compatible with most hardware is because most hardware companies don't want to be bothered developing drivers for a less popular platform (*Cough* ATI). Theoretically, when Linux becomes a bit more mainstream, it will become nearly as supportive of hardware as Windows is. I agree about the ease of use argument, though. Until Linux becomes easier to install and use, it's not going to be as popular as Windows.
... and more draconian licensing schemes are making customers re-evaluate their need for Microsoft Products.
And that says it for a lot of people. Seriously, I would be using Windows right now if it wasn't for their licensing scheme.
And it's not because I don't want to pay. In fact, I have 10 Windows licenses sitting unused (came with my MSDN subscription). Of course, that's not totally true because sometimes I use them when I need to develop on that platform for a customer (I run it in VMware). However, I don't use Windows as my primary OS.
It's a sad state of affairs really. Windows works a lot better with my hardware (laptop, firewire, etc.) than Linux does but Microsoft scares me away. This is giving Linux plenty of time to catch up, and it will eventually.
The ratio of people to cake is too big
With a lot of corporate customers moved over to the newest Microsoft Licensing formula, Microsoft is feeling the pressure to put up with what they have promised. They have been putting very little in the pipe with regards to updates with their latest products.
Mind you, they have put out Windows 2003 server, but as far as new features, it lacks in that departement. There are still organizations who are just recently migrating over to Windows 2000 server.
So, to make up for the technology gap, they will market over the gap. Doesn't surprise me one bit.
No, that wouldn't work. Microsoft depends on high growth for stockholder returns, and partly to pay its salary bill. Operating systems and productivity software are a saturated market - they own it, and with flat PC sales, it's not expanding. Worse, they're about to have their lunch eaten by Linux.
They have to spread out, and hope that todays money-loser turns into tomorrows next big thing.
Second, drop product activation. No one likes being treated like a criminal.
Unfortunately enough people are that it makes sense to try and maximise profits by clamping down on it.
The real purpose of product activation is to stop friends and family from sharing copies. If Microsoft's software was lower in price, (see my first point) people would simply buy their own copy.
What price should it be?
Fourth, stop with those outrageous deals to stop Linux
Yeah, this one would be nice :) But I can understand why they do it, it's like a snowslide, all it takes is a few blasts and the right place and the whole thing starts sliding. They know this.
They also know timing is critical. Windows only has so long, eventually it will be a liability rather than an asset. Eventually it will be cut off from them as a revenue source and by that day, if they haven't diversified enough, it's game over. No more Redmond.
They have time to do that, but it's hard. Stuff like MSN, the Xbox etc shows they in this for the long haul, as well they might be. So they need to buy time, because they don't know how fast things will move once Linux becomnes truly viable.
Sixth, I could go on and on and on. But since my boss expects me to work for money, Iâ(TM)ll quit here and let others post some suggestions.
Heh, my boss too, so one last one - unfortunately being nice to their customers isn't going to turn Microsoft around, it's far too late for that. They have to leave Windows before it drags them down with it, and until they manage that it's a race against time.
Oh! You need not wait for the install to finish you can continue doing other things such as installing other packages.
Depending on which Linux version you are using it can be almost as simple. The last time I waited for an app to install was at a clients location on windows.
Windows has no advantage over Linux except for the limitation which it places on it's users. I'll use you own example to demonstarte; once you have chosen Direct X do not ever expect that it will run on anything but windows (and as long as M$ chosses to support it) but if you choose a standard there is always a possiblility of it running on all you future hardware.
Windows comes with a LOT of limitations and the only way you realise them is once you start using other products.....
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Apple may be marginalized, but they're the ones on the consumer end who keep building the bridges Microsoft has to walk across. No new technology coming forward? Apple built their own with the iPod. They were late to the game with iTunes, granted, but iPhoto, iMovie and iDVD are still leaps and bounds ahead of any competition in terms of ease-of-use.
The "digital hub" strategy they're embracing is working very well for Apple. The only problem, natch, is that digital camcorders (and camcorders and DVD burners) are still too expensive to be casually embraced by most consumers. But then, prices are getting lower all the time -- simple digital cameras under $100 are easy to come by, and used iPods can be found on eBay for as low as $100-$150. Apple knows that people are doing less and less with their personal computers but more and more with the other "computers" around them, and constantly works on ways to tie those peripherals to Apple's hardware and software.
What Microsoft ought to be throwing it's money towards, then, is building easy-to-use consumer software that consumers actually *want* to use, not because they're gimmicky but because they're easy to understand. Media Player is a good start. Their video editor needs much work, and integrating it with the ever-cheaper DVD burners and VideoCD writers could only help them.
Then let's try some new ideas, just to see if they take off. Skip the Tablet PC thing; build a cheap (like $50-$60) e-book reader that people can actually afford and will want to own, then get the magazine and newspaper publishers to sign on. Try to really integrate webcams and IM. A Flash-format animation creator for under $50 so people can make their own cartoons. They don't have to give this stuff away with the OS, if they make it cheap enough to buy separately. (I'm keen on that $50 price point, which is the most your average consumer will spend on non-profit-making software.)
Microsoft is, IMO, so bent on keeping the business markets that they've all but neglected their consumer market. Aside from some pretty colors, self-customizing menus and Apple-chasing software hacks, they've not done anything new for the home market since Windows 95 was released. It's good for them to spend time building tools that developers and managers want to have, but it helps their image immensely to add the stuff home users would want to have -- even if they don't make as much profit from it.
At one level Microsoft has so much cash in the bank that it could live off the hump for years and years and years. They identified the problem: lack of a recurring revenue stream, and the need to sell more OS/Office licences to create revenue.
There are two solutions for this problem:
1) Develop a strong services and solutions offering, where business will trust you with their IT and pay lots of money for good service
2) Invent a way to squeeze recurring revenue out of your installed user base without offering anything substantially more
IBM chose (1), Microsoft chose (2).
Consider the phases of IT: firstly there was the traditional IBM phase where by far the largest cost was hardware, even allowing for teams of people writing in-house software. This characterises the period up to, say, 1980, and by 1990 IBM was almost dead on its feet; secondly there was the phase where commercial packaged software was a major part of IT decision making, starting with putting Lotus 1-2-3 in front of decision makers, and continuing through the Windows/Office age. This phase was characterised by the PHB saying "I want 10,000 computers running Wordperfect and Lotus".
Now we are into the next phase, where both hardware and packaged software are commodities within a solution or service. This is why companies such as EDS, CSC and IBM (and smaller players in this market) matter more than Microsoft. If Ballmer thinks that some new technological gizmo will get people spending again then he's wrong: there may well be a lot of individual buyers for new toys, but neither the business desktop nor my mum need or want a new killer technology. They need, and already have, a working toolset to send email, browse the web (and use web enabled applications) and create documents. Essentially we have now commoditised the information rather than the software (yes, I know this process isn't complete, but it's under way).
Now the good bit: Microsoft has so much cash that it needn't deal with this issue for years yet. IBM got into deep doodoo before reinventing itself. Microsoft is showing the signs that it expects to spend several years yet digging the hole in the same place.
Dunstan
The last scintilla of doubt just rode out of town
MS has been trying to figure out a way to stop the upgrade cycle for some time now. They've been looking at software rental and time limited licensing.
In 1999(ish), customers wanted to keep Office 97. It did everything they needed.
Microsoft wanted people to buy new software. They crammed all the features they could into Office 2000, but aside from making Clippy easier to get rid of, people weren't compelled. It wasn't until Microsoft refused to sell Office 97 licenses that Office 2000 sales really picked up.
OpenOffice has a competitive edge here. As long as the Win32 api sticks, or Linux is ported to modern CPUs, you will always be able to put OpenOffice on a new machine.
So, Microsoft needs to be competitive (long term... short term OO is unnoticable). Microsoft needs revenue. Customers need to write, read and share information.
.Net offers them this ability, and their new licensing offers them this ability. If they supported fat client software with the tenaciousness of IBM (e.g. Office 97 will be supported until some nutty year like 2020 and the file format will always be supported), or if they went to that screwed up ASP model with .net, they can lock customers in to regular fees, but they can also offer continual improvements and pay-per-use features.
People hate the upgrade cycle. Where I work, we're only deploying Windows XP and Office XP because Microsoft will eventually drop support for 2000.
No, Microsoft doesn't create software.
.NET? Windows NT/XP/2000? XBox?
No? Who did they steal BOB from? Word? Excel? Visual Studio? Visual Basic?
I call BS. Sure, like virtually every other company in existance, Microsoft occassionally bought into a tech that was already seeded, and then enhanced it, rather than starting from scratch. There's nothing nefarious about that - that's just good business.
But to claim that they've created nothing new is pure ignorance.
Kevin.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
i think joe sixpack isn't the problem
all they do is using their computer for surfing web and writing letters
the problem is the user between geek and sixpack
he wants to do things himself say install a printer, software, install new graphic card drivers maybe even replace his graphic card
but he has no deeper knowledge of the system
for this user linux is to complex to do such tasks (in sufficient time)
it is the point where windows has the biggest advantage to linux
stop supporting microsoft with pirating their software!!!!!
Do I think M$ is going to just engage in marketing? No, I don't. M$ will move with the times - when they can't drive them. They blew off the Web then came back with a vengeance.
So, I expect that the bad of lame and FUD-filled marketing campaigns will be coupled with some attempts to make actual, serious improvements. I don't expect any of them to be that original, but I expect them.
M$, being on the top, doesn't have to try as hard to stay there or react as quickly as others. I'd say they know that.
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Here's the thing. With their "Trusted Computing" Platform, all the bugs have to be ironed out before shipping, otherwise the chain of trust is broken. After the first bug, it is no longer Trusted Computing, but Fairly Trustable Computing.
Stop the Slashdot effect! Don't read the articles!
"...companies have turned to Linux and other open-source software programs, seeing them as cheap but adequate alternatives."
I'd amend this to say companies find that Linux and Friends aren't just "cheap but adequate." Instead, we find on the server side that they are cheap, rock solid, effective, and simple. In my opinion, Microsoft does do many things well. But MS continues to believe that "featurization" is what companies want, and that corporate types will see additional features as being worth additional time, trouble, and money. What MS might finally be seeing is that more feature-laden, more trouble-prone, and more expensive is NOT what we're looking for. Open Source code should serve as a model for Microsoft, at least in the back office, because it's written by geeks, for geeks. And, obviously, it works.
It's only funny until someone gets hurt. Then, it's hilarious.
you have to wonder whether he thinks some of the changes are too extreme and possibly of little value to the user."
Or it could mean Microsoft's waiting for Apple to release its next version of OS X, so they can, um, compare features and come up with new "innovative" products. Yeah...
I like big butts and I cannot lie.
How many times has Microsoft been lambasted for getting a half-done product to market and then patching its worst parts? He's saying they're trying not to do that.
He's saying that.
How many times has Microsoft said one thing, but then...
Those who would give up liberty in exchange for security and DRM should switch to Microsoft Palladium!
It sounds like everything being asked for could be done with something like a customized Knoppix. As you say, a friendly set of utilities for lightly customizing the final disk would be nice. If the parent in question has a spare PC that meets a minimum set of requirements then chuck in a nice friendly "Permanent Install icon" on the desktop. That would sidestep the repartitioning issue pretty handily.
A less heavy handed approach would be something like those FOSS cds for Windows we heard about a few months ago. Put the Windows ports of some schoolwork relavent projects on some CDs and hand those out.
Well if they keep redesigning the GUI for each release of Windows, adding in more annoyances like Messenger (which they make hard to remove for the less IT literate people) then their future isn't looking too rosy.
With Linux you can upgrade to the latest kernel and stick with KDE2 if you want. You're getting the latest drivers, security and performance enhancements but you're maintaining a familiar front end.
In fact you can install various GUI systems on one machine if you want, giving users the choice of which one to use.
Now of course you can change back to the older style GUI in XP, however things are still slightly different even after you have done that.
"Trustworthy Computing" means that suppliers (primarily Microsoft) can trust it, not the owner or user.
Longhorn will break everything, which is a feature they'll have a real problem selling to end-users without an enormous helping of new value somewhere (and possibly even then). By which time, the Linus Torvalds World Domination Programme will have caught up with them. (-:
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
You seem to have a couple things confused. I could be mistaken, but it looks that way.
;)
Taking forever to choose a platform for graphics and sound isn't a product of compatibility, it's a product of choice. I know that's a foreign concept to a lot of computer users, so I'll explain. You see, in an efficient marketplace, there are generally several competitors, all who have their respective strengths and weaknesses. Sometimes, it will take a customer more than half a second(!!) to decide, based on these strengths and weaknesses, which is fine, because in that way, mulitple products(now, this is the important part now) can co-exist because not every customer has the same requirements. To put this in a less abstract way, look at your grocers juice aisle, at the orange juice. Odds are, there might be Sun Rype, Dole, Minute Maid and Sunkist, all in the same aisle. They don't stock them all because it's the idealistic thing to do, they do it because some people have different goals and different desires.(My personal favourite is Sun Rype, because the rest taste like orange peels).
As for the installer, last time I checked, Linux was not Red Hat. Mandrake, for instance, has an installation from scratch that puts the Windows 2k or XP installations to shame in terms of allowing the beginner to install the product without knowing a thing, yet allowing experts to delve into details.
I wouldn't really argue that Linux is technically superior in every way to Windows, as there are a few features which I think windows does better than the Linux platforms I've seen(and I doubt that will change until the 2.6 kernel is released and bundled into new distributions), but you haven't given an example otherwise. The lack of choice on the Windows platform and the fact that you don't think the installer is simple enough are not technical reasons Windows would be superior to Linux. They're pet peeves at best, and massive misinterpetations of what exactly "Linux" is at worst.
Great idea using the old "I'll probably get modded down for saying this" bluff. Gets 'em every time. Weakminded fools. Though I'll probably be modded to hell for saying that.
It's been a long time.
Admit that your security problems are a direct result of your insistance in violating the #1 rule of software design: YOU NEVER MIX CODE AND DATA TOGETHER. You have specifically engineered every product you sell to be scriptable. STOP IT!
For years Apple has had AppleScript, an extremely powerful scripting language. Almost every worthwhile Mac application is scriptable. In all the years that AppleScript has been around, how many times has this been exploited? Once, and it was a pretty poor job.
The problem is not the scriptability of Microsoft's products, it's just that they chose to make it a gee-whiz feature and get it out in the marketplace, instead of taking the time and doing it right.
~Philly
Well if they keep redesigning the GUI for each release of Windows, adding in more annoyances like Messenger (which they make hard to remove for the less IT literate people) then their future isn't looking too rosy.
:)
With Linux you can upgrade to the latest kernel and stick with KDE2 if you want. You're getting the latest drivers, security and performance enhancements but you're maintaining a familiar front end.
Um... What? On one hand you're saying that the "less IT literate people" find it too hard to remove things like messenger and then you're suggesting that these same people should move to Linux because they can use the same GUI even after a kernel upgrade?!
If these users can't figure out how to disable messenger (a check box), I doubt they're going to be able to figure out how to upgrade the kernel.
We will sell no WINE before its time either. Hell at the rate they are going, Linux will be running windows programs better than the present release of windows.
I think it is no small exaggeration that the folks at Samba understand CIFS better than the folks in Redmond do. It's only a matter of time before the executables are the same way.
About the only way Longhorn is going to sell big is by doing something completely different. About the only way it can be completely different is by ceasing to support what already exists. If it breaks everything that exists, you cease to have any advangtage over Linux. Indeed, since most Unix apps can be simply recompiled for Linux, you are at a disadvantage.
I think they are going to stretch Longhorn out as far as they can. Let the folks who bought Win2k and XP get a few useful years out of their systems, and then introduce this radically different and wholly incompadible new way of processing. And pray you can keep the customers locked in through licensing inertia.
If I was Bill and Steve, I'd be selling my shares of Microsoft and planning a quiet retirement in the Islands. This plan has NEVER worked. Anyone remember Atari? How about Commadore? Apple is about the only company I can think of that has pulled not one, but two major technological upheavals off successfully. (Depending on your definition of success I suppose.)
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Read this. Longhorn will not be backwards compatible. Windows Server 2003 is not compatible with Windows 2000, so what makes you think they wouldn't further break compatibility? As my employer has found out they are in the continual process of making customers re-write their applications to run on Windows. This continues their revenue stream. Why do customers put up with this? Past investment in Microsoft makes people reluctant to give up. Desktop monopoly is also a major factor.
Developers: We can use your help.
Yeah that $40billion is quite a bit. But if their market is stagnated, their sales flat, there will be no demand for their stock since it won't be a growth stock anymore. At some point they will have to start tapping that cash reserve to do stock buy backs in order to hold their stock up. Not to mention that a lot of people will jump ship if their stock incentive is no longer worthwhile. Having been in a dying company let me tell you that it is always better to be the first off the boat, if you're wrong you can always come back. Win win either way.
Customers will buy Longhorn for the same reason they've bought all other Windows systems. It will come on all new PC's, it'll break compatibility with older versions, and eventually, it'll get to be too much of a hassle NOT to upgrade.
So what else is new?
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
If WINE gets successfull, M$ can destroy it in 10 min. All they have to do is to issue a security warning and a patch to M$ office and win2k3 that would let office use a new undocumented system call. WINE would roll over and die.
Like all those SMB changes to kill Samba? But the Samba team just kept rolling with the punches.
The Wine team (and many curious Windows developers) are quite adept are uncovering Microsoft's "hidden" APIs. Your new undocumented system call would be discovered and reimplemented easily.
cpeterso