Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Forgotten Mistakes
seattlenerd writes "In light of all of the hype about how much cash Microsoft is sitting on, it's good to be reminded that they do fail. A lot. This piece in Seattle Weekly points out some of the many failures -- from ActiMates Barney to Microsoft at Work to pending disasters in smartphones and interactive TV (despite recent PR-worthy announcements). But like most litter, the failures are swept under the rug in the hopes people don't remember that many 'new' Microsoft ideas are recycled from its own history." Of course, like any big company, Microsoft is not a monolith.
I'm pretty sure they didn't.
...failed at just about everything before becoming president.
You can't innovate without failure (opens door for innovation comment trolls). The article discusses technologies that they DID help pioneer, not just the ones they usurped.
But seriously, everybody knows experimentation and failure cannot be avoided. Most businesses just don't have the luxury of failing with no penalty.
and 3 of them ask "What about Microsoft Bob?"
The article says:
"More than 100 products were launched in rapid succession over 18 months, from childhood creativity (Fine Artist) to a cartoony "social interface" to make Windows appear friendlier to the pathologically computer phobic (1995's Microsoft Bob, a much-maligned happy face with geek glasses)."
I know this can be misconstrued as karma whoring, but I think it's more of a Geraldo-style expose on why RTFAing is necessary.
That was one heck of a (multi-billion dollar) failure; and in their favor!
My failures have never amounted to much...
MS Bob was a bad idea not only programmatically, but also conceptually. A 'virtual office'? It defeated the idea of computing as an office aide, and more of an office replacement.
Truly an example of why coding to the lowest common denominator of users can be a bad idea.
Now, why would failures "be swept under the rug"? Failures are abandoned projects, never-finished products, non-sellers, etc... They are simply left behind, not hidden.
There's a famous cliche that says "If you never fail, you are not taking enough risks." As a business person and someone who has failed several times before getting it right, I can tell you the saying is true. If you dislike failure, then go into business.
In other words, what the hell is your point?
The nerve of Microsoft to want people to not think about their failures and only focus on success'. After all, so many other companies have been perfect in all their products. And who wants innovation anyway (yeah, I know, M$ doesn't really "innovate" anyway). Better to stay tried and true and realize that it's better to limp along with mediocrity than to go out on a limb and fail.
/.'ers need to go out and get a life and gain some perspective.
Actually, I think the topic is intersting, as in genuinly interesting to see the things that they've tried and failed at. Those things they tried and failed and tried and failed and eventually succeeded (with Windows being the most obvious example). And obviously some attempts were quite humerous, but to turn this into a "gee see how much M$ really sucks" is just lame and shows how much some
in the hopes people don't remember that many 'new' Microsoft ideas are recycled from its own history."
Microsoft's try-try-again philosophy and focused determination are why it is at the top of the heap of software companies and why they are sitting on the 45 billion in cash now.
This being Slashdot, people will say that the reason Microsoft is so big is because of its monopoly position, but that is a (rather silly) chicken and egg argument. They'd have no monopoly if they weren't big to begin with -- they certainly weren't a government granted monopoly like AT&T once was.
The first time I ever got to the Easter Egg in Excel:
"My God, it's full of stars."
And I am sure that Windows 2025 will periodically lock me out of my house and try to kill me with my robotic lawn mower.
Like all business they made mistakes when tyring something new. However on their core business they have provided a wide spread, realtivly easy to use concurrent platform with Office + Windows. If you look at all OSS office sweets etc they all at least try to read/write M$ Office as it is a standard. Not saying its a good one but its a standard
Bob in Marketing can send Maggie in Accounts a spreadsheet and be able to read it. Thats gotta count for something
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
What's the point of the original poster? Do ./ readers find Microsoft such a despicable entity that they need to post such articles to remind people that they also fail? May be it was meant as a joke, but still, very poor taste.
For those who hate them so much (they're a business, they are supposed to make money), don't you think one minute any other company in their shoes would have acted differently, including the envious Sun and over zealous Oracle.
The Gates foundation is today the biggest charitable contributer, funded by the founder himself. Sure, it's a tax relief for him, but he didn't have to do it to help researchers in financial terms in finding vaccin to the most common diseases affecting the 3rd world in the first place. Thats $10 bill available for worthy causes.
Instead, it's hotter nerdy news to point out the failures of Microsoft as a company. Since when did we become so negative about the good things that's happening in this world?
You mean Microsoft may actually be working to skew news coverage and public opinion towards the things they've been successful at? And away from technical and marketing blunders?
What an outrage! I'm going to write to my representatives right now and demand a new law that forces companies to educate consumers about both their strengths and weaknesses, and that requires them to spend an equal amount on publicizing past failures as they do on promoting new initiatives.
I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you. What a failure of the market! What an unconscionable series of dirty tricks from Microsoft! How dare they! Hey, does anyone know what the school assembly is about today?
Cheers
-b
I do actually have a copy of the Microsoft Wine Guide sitting on my desk.
I did a double-take when I saw it at the library.
(It's not on Microsoft's site anymore, but the first Google hit was a review of it).
char sig[120] = "\0"
Here is a recent interesting guerrillanews article.
"Let me let you in on a little secret about Bill and Melinda Gates so-called ?Foundation.? Gate?s demi-trillionaire status is based on a nasty little monopoly-protecting trade treaty called ?TRIPS? ? the Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights rules of the World Trade Organization. TRIPS gives Gates a hammerlock on computer operating systems worldwide, legally granting him a monopoly that the Robber Barons of yore could only dream of. But TRIPS, the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap market prices. "
And I mean that literally. When Windows first came out it was a piece of crap. But they have so much money that they can afford for a technology to do terribly for years until a market is built up, the technology gets better (like to version 3), and all the competitors burn through cash and fall by the wayside.
We laugh at stuff like Tablet PC, Microsoft Reader, XBox or WebTV, but look at some of the "sucesses" of Microsoft and you can realize they had several years of an early period where they sucked, too. Namely, Windows, Pocket PC, Internet Explorer. Just a few years ago, it was thought a foregone conclusion Netscape and Palm owned the market and Microsoft lost.
Let us not forget the iLoo, Microsoft's crappiest idea yet.
One tidbit of Microsoft trivia which seems to be left out everytime there's a discussion about Microsoft Bob. Who was the product manager? Melinda French. Where is she now and what's she doing? She's Mrs. Gates.
Yeah, it was a huge blunder for MS to do all the R&D for KDE and Gnome to copy and give away free.
Just like it was a huge bluder for UC to do tons of research on networking and implement a TCP stack for MS to take it and charge everyone for it?
Sure Maggie can read that spreadsheet... assuming she has the same or newer version of Excel... and that she has all the (virus friendly) macros turned on... and that she has the Toolpack Addins installed.
I used to do support for a large number of purely office users (business office managers, secretaries, etc). I was always fielding questions as to why they couldn't open one person's document or why another person couldn't open theirs. This was at a large public university, so funds weren't just growing on trees; therefore we couldn't just upgrade everytime MS did. Also, with every upgrade there are some tool/method/appearance changes; this means that Maggie has to relearn how to do her special tasks (not all of them, but some).
It just felt to me that with every Office upgrade, MS tried to do something dramatically different (as opposed to just fixing bugs or giving speed increases). And when you have a large number of users set in their ways (working nicely and efficiently), changing them on a regular basis is not a good idea.
IANAL, but I play one on
DOS and IE were initially products purchased from another company. Of the components that make up Office, I believe that PowerPoint was purchased from another company (and not sure, but want to say the same thing about Excel). WMP is given away for free (if you bought Windows). MSN takes in money, but I believe it is not profitable. Ditto for XBox. Visual Studio is probably profitable, but they don't sell a lot of copies relative to the market for Windows and Office.
If I were an investor, I would be concerned that the most successful software company in the world has so few successful products, and that even fewer of those were initially developed internally.
The problem with your comment is that that is the business model that both Sony and Nintendo follow. It's a successful model. It's just that you can't buy loyalty from gamers. They've had what, Halo? That's the only game I can think of for the XBox that wasn't multiplatform that I even remotely wanted to play. MS is trying to make the console more like it's PC's, with DirectX and all kinds of computer hardware. So it's virtually a PC. I don't want to play games on something I can do that much with. I will play games on a gaming machine, and do work on my PC. MS has failed to realize that this is what a lot of people want. Since this is going nowhere in many directions all at once, I figure that now would be a safe jumping off point...
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
"And this is my boy, Sherman. Speak, Sherman." "Hello." "Good boy."
Abe wrote his own speeches.
Abe started out poor and had to work for everything he got.
Abe worked hard to educate himself.
Abe was never saved again and again and again from repeated business failures by friends/supplicants to his family.
Abe was forced by circumstances into military action, designed to save the country.
Abe was elected President.
as long as there is /.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Microsoft completely missed the boat on the low-cost Intel server bandwagon. After 10 years of Windows NT technology (yeah, it's built into W2K and XP too), Microsoft has failed to gain even an appreciable share in the Intel server market.
Microsoft has been saying for years that Windows NT/2000/XP is an alternative to UNIX, and later Linux, but their attempt to penetrate the UNIX market has been an abject failure. I think Microsoft is slowly starting to realize that catchy phrases like "Enterprise Class Computing" and "Mission Critical" don't fool the UNIX crowd.
Granted, I'm not trying to troll, but it seems to me that UNIX and mainframe folks have a much different expectation of reliability and uptime than Microsoft, and Microsoft has been slow in realizing this. At this point, the reliability of WinXP is inconsequential; Microsoft has been so successful on the desktop that they will be forever known as a desktop vendor. When people think of Microsoft, they think of butterflies and games and multimedia - not exactly the images one wants to associate with their "mission critical server" vendor. This, combined with their hostile attitude toward UNIX and the open source philosophy practically gaurantees that Microsoft will never be accepted as anything more than a toy by the UNIX crowd.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Yes this IS a troll. UI design isnt about putting important stuff in order, it's about making important stuff easily accessible and putting unimportant stuff out of the way. Why put the minimze button on the left next to the menus when it will just lead to accedental minimizing. Also people dont think of it as looking at the end of the title bar, its just the top right. It takes just as much effort to click on something thats at the top left as it does to click something on the top right. Do you move your mouse to the top left and along the title bar and finally to the right to click minimize?
This is left as an exercise for the reader.
bollocks. xbox live has smashed projections and MS has the highest game-attach rate of any modern console.
Xbox is not a failure. KOTOR has been selling like hot cakes since its release last week. MS has come into an industry dominated by sony and already displaced nintendo in the US for the #2 spot. MS has the #1 online system for consoles after less than a year.
Sony is slowly recalling their previous PS3 hype and backpedalling on all their statements about PS3. Thats the penalty for cranking out hype way ahead of itme ot try and buy time to make something real. It worked to kill the dreamcast, but it wont work with xbox.
(see also: PS3 WONT have the Cell chip in it)
Xbox will probably not beat PS2 for this generation, but i do expect it to reach parity. PS3 vs XBox2 is a level playing field, IMO.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Good article up to the last paragraph. Microsoft should strive to be much more like IBM, but it has waited far to long to start. IBM has a huge patent portfolio which they have been a lot more judicious in enforcing than SCO for example. They are also better diversified into the "service" sector. Microsoft has a consulting division, but they are only geared toward helping to sell Microsoft solutions, they quickly show themselves to be nothing more than technical sales reps.
Microsoft has put it's name on mice and keyboards. Very clever, but they don't make anything. Behind IBM's outsourced hardware is a still viable manufacturing and fabrication operation (again, more fundamental research going on here). You might think of IBM as Microsoft, Dell, and Intel all rolled into one. Each of these companies can succeed or fail based on one or two key product lines. IBM became a true corporation a long time ago. Dell and Microsoft are still the product of individuals, with all the strengths and weaknesses of that approach.
They'd have no monopoly if they weren't big to begin with -- they certainly weren't a government granted monopoly like AT&T once was.
No, they were an IBM-granted monopoly.
The "chicken-and-egg" problem isn't a problem, because they got to be a monopoly by exploiting the hobbyist nature of the beginning of the personal computer revolution. Microsoft was there from the beginning; and from the beginning, they used other people's code (BASIC for the Altair, for example, which was ported from available sources; the only thing neat and original about that is the way in which it was ported, and Paul Allen was the one doing the heavy lifting).
Before the IBM PC (and their Charley Chaplin ads), the Apple ][ was making inroads into corporate culture, though mostly through the back door. Apple did not have much legitimacy in the corporate culture of the time. So, IBM decided (on a lark, essentially) to create a hobbyist computer of their own, only geared toward corporate culture.
Mr. Gates' mother was on the (Red Cross?) board of directors with one of the top execs of IBM. This connection was Microsoft's major break. As IBM did not take this project too seriously, they met with Bill Gates and Paul Allen, who sold them a CP/M-like operating system they had "developed" for the 8086. (In fact, they had done no such thing.)
Once they sold IBM on the idea, they scampered back to Seattle and purchased outright the proto-DOS from a small Seattle company. Selling price: $10k. The Seattle company knew nothing about the IBM deal. Mr. Gates screwed this company, instead of dealing fairly with them (which would have involved giving him or his company a small stake in all sales of DOS).
(At this point, a bunch of you are screaming, "But they made the deal! It was all fair!" To which I reply, no fucking way was it fair. It was exploitation, and preyed on ignorance, which is about as moral as taking sexual advantage of a mentally handicapped person. Businesses can make money without fucking over people at every possible opportunity.)
So, with IBM's legitimacy, and Microsoft's ownership of of MS-DOS and a deal to ship this DOS with every PC, Microsoft began its PC life with the monopoly on desktop operating systems.
When the first clones came out, Compaq should have also cloned the OS; ironically, though they weren't willing to pay royalties on the IBM BIOS, they were willing to pay for the OS.
Those in control of Microsoft have made very cunning deals. But, yes, they *did* start off in a monopoly position of a very small market, and grew as the market grew.
But, *completely* off-topic, let me pose this question: if Microsoft has proven it will not play fairly with other businesses (that Seattle company wasn't even a competitor at the time, but a potential partner), why should we expect them to play fairly with their customers if they don't have to?
Microsoft's try-try-again philosophy and focused determination are why it is at the top of the heap of software companies and why they are sitting on the 45 billion in cash now.
Hardly. Their willingness to fuck over anyone and everyone in pursuit of market dominance is the reason they are at the top of the software heap.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
UI design isnt about putting important stuff in order, it's about making important stuff easily accessible and putting unimportant stuff out of the way.
How about the crap that MS pulled by placing the minimize/maximize right next to the close button (whereas in previous UIs the close button had been on the left so that it would be nearly impossible to exit an app accidentally while trying to minimize)? I would hardly consider that an improvement in ordering and accessibility.
And it takes a monopoly to be able to survive such stunning blunders like missing the emergence of something as powerful as the internet.
Without MS monopolistic cash income stream they would have suffered serious blows screwing up like they have. That is why I wish that part of the settlement MS would have been prevented them from buying technology but force them to "innovate" from scratch and compete.
...went through several revisions. First was the Pink Screen Of Pain, then the Tangerine Screen Of Torture. It wasn't until several million dollars had been poured into Windows development that the Blue Screen Of Death finally became the norm.
I'm surprised nobody mentioned Microsoft OS/2.
So if you want to scroll down just to read line by line, then go back up, you have to fly your cursor back up to the top of the screen.
This lead to the innovation of the mouse wheel. Why cure a problem in software if you can sell hardware?
It's nice to know I'm not the only one with embarrassing stuff sitting in the Google Groups archive...
REDMOND, WASHINGTON, U.S.A., 1995 MAR 31 (NB) -- Microsoft Corp. (NASDAQ:MSFT) Chairman Bill gates has named this "Microsoft Bob Day." Bob is the nerdy looking guy with the black plastic-frame glasses who, according to Microsoft "gives new meaning" to the computer term "user friendly"
Today is Microsoft Bob Day because it is the first day the user interface software of that name will be available in retail outlets. Microsoft hopes every IBM-compatible user in the country will welcome Microsoft Bob into their home and/or office. Bob features animated personal guides that navigate users through Bob's eight applications.
Microsoft may see Bob as a "simpler" user interface, but retailers see it as a sales tool, with several mass market retailers featuring Bob promotions. Sears stores are offering consumers the opportunity to meet Bob via exclusive "technology makeovers." Through April 30, 1995, the national chain is offering a personal consultation to help assess your level of computer knowledge and experience. The consultation is designed to show that with Microsoft Bob's help just about anyone can be a "techno-whiz."
CompUSA is so enamored with Microsoft Bob it will offer two days -- April 29 and 30 -- of Bob demos and promotions in all its retail outlets. "Bob allows us to talk to an even broader mix of customers," said Larry Mondry, CompUSA executive vice president of merchandising.
The underlying philosophy of Microsoft Bob may be "simplicity of use," but it won't run on a simple PC. As a minimum you need Windows 3.1 or higher, a 486 or higher microprocessor, eight megabytes (MB) of memory, 30MB of available hard disk space, a Super VGA 256-color monitor, and a mouse of comparable pointing device. That eliminates many of the PCs in homes and small offices that have 4MB of memory, unless the owner is willing to upgrade. If you want Bob to send your electronic-mail or pay your bills online you will also need a modem. Microsoft also calls a sound card and speakers "recommended options."
Microsoft is banking heavily on Bob's ease of use. As a result there is no manual with the software. Each user can choose one of the animated helpers Bob provides, which include a dog, a cat, "Scuz" the teenager, a parrot, and a "friendly dragon."
Microsoft Bob's opening screen is a red front door with a brass door knocker and your personal animated helper to suggest, through pointing and text messages, where you should go. Interestingly, while the guy with the friendly smile and the heavy glasses is the namesake of the program, he doesn't actually appear in the software.
The eight functions Bob brings to your home or office are a letter writer, calendar, checkbook/financial management program, household manager for managing household information, address book, e-mail, a quiz game called GeoSafari, and a financial guide that provides financial information and tips. The various programs are integrated so you can write a letter and pull in the appropriate address from the address book, then send the letter electronically via e-mail.
Bob may be a gamble for Microsoft. The company hopes users will accept the cartoonish look-and-feel of the program intended to make computing easier, but it remains to be seen if experienced computer users will be attracted to the program.
When Bill Gates introduced Microsoft Bob in January at the Consumer Electronics Show he pointed out that Bob is for both new users and users who have a computer but don't make use of it because it requires too much in the way of learning skills and pouring through manuals. "Using Bob, people will learn faster and easier and even learn more about application features they would not otherwise become familiar with," said Gates.
Bob uses a relatively new user interface technique, called a
I remember the first (and last) time I saw MS Bob. It was running on a computer at CompUSA. Really annoying.. I asked the nearest sales guy what he thought of if. "Damned annoying. We can't get it to stop."
I uninstalled it.. He thanked me..
End of line..
"How about the crap that MS pulled by placing the minimize/maximize right next to the close button (whereas in previous UIs the close button had been on the left so that it would be nearly impossible to exit an app accidentally while trying to minimize)?"
;)
You mean like KDE does?
The problem I have with this argument is that there is no good place to put the close button. Put it in the upper left, and when somebody goes to file/open they could miss and close the app. Put it in the lower left and they could hit it when going for the scrollbar, same for lower right. Then there's the whole matter of where people resize from.
Actually, Apple did have a solution to this problem, but it's not as great as some people have made it out to be. If you open an app like IE, the titlebar is maximized to the top and your browser window is a child of that titlebar. If you switch to another app, then the titlebar is replaced with the bar of the new app. Result? Closing an app always means going to the upper left in the exact same spot.
Your problem is solved here, but a new one emerges: Closing the wrong app. You no longer have positional reference to specify which app you are closing. You could end up closing Photoshop while you really intended to kill IE. How would ya know without reading what the bar says?
To make a long story short, the problem you are describing has no easy solution. Nobody's solved it without creating a new nasty problem. You just have to rely on accuracy of the mouse pointer. And you know what? One has to be accurate with the mouse anyway. The same argument for clicking the wrong window box could be made for clicking on the wrong file to copy or clicking on the wrong menu choice. At some point, the input has to be accurate for the computer to work at all.
So no, I don't feel that MS has 'pulled any crap'. I don't feel that they've made a better solution than anybody else either.
"Derp de derp."
OS X's close and minimize (and zoom) buttons are all separated by several pixels, so you're much less likely to hit one when you mean to hit another. Windows, on the other hand, has no separation between the buttons, so if you miss the maximize button by one pixel, you close the window.
Consequently, I have accidently closed windows in Windows numerous times (even though I use Windows rarely), while I have essentially never done so in OS X (which I use all the time).
In my opinion, the penalty for failure at Microsoft is far too severe .
Um, there's an entire other button between the minimize and close buttons. If you're missing that badly perhaps you have other issues you need to work on
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)