Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Midlife Crisis

pillageplunder writes "This article from Businessweek covers the recent memo sent to all Microsoft employees by Steve Ballmer. Interesting tidbits through-out: how Microsoft will try to cut a Billion dollars in expenses, and its cost per employee is about $300K"

9 of 631 comments (clear)

  1. Pretty high cost by 777333ddd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Includes stock?

  2. process optimization by rnd() · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any business can benefit from optimizing its processes. Microsoft has been very good at making profits... it will be interesting to see if it will succeed at creating business processes that capture the imagination of its employees and make them feel like part of a well oiled machine.

    --

    Amazing magic tricks

  3. Microsoft's Solution is simple by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The article seems to imply that Microsoft needs to find a new and interesting way to innovate.

    Seems to me that Sun led the way back in the early 1990s when they developed Java. Take 1 really talented software engineer, and give him something to work on. Allow him to pick 5 to 10 other talented people, and sequester them from the rest of the company for 1 year.

    At Microsoft's level, they can probably afford to do this with 20 or 30 such groups in parallel working on the same or similar ideas.

    After a year, dump the projects that are not going well, and refocus those groups on other ideas. Innovation is rarely done by large commitees.

    --
    Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
  4. next big thing by happyfrogcow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    a key focus now for Ballmer is "process excellence," which seems unlikely to inspire Microsoftees to stay up all night creating the Next Big Thing.

    The Next Big Thing *is* process excellence and the goodies that come about through that, like secure software with minimal bugs. Ballmer atleast has that right. Now if he can have his developers find their idea of a Next Big Thing, while keeping true to the real Next Big Thing (process excellence) then you might see MS leave the doldrums of midlife crisis.

  5. Re:duh! by bigman2003 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the past 6 years I've worked on 2 projects that were halted, because the product we were creating was added in to Windows. It's hard to sell a product that duplicates what comes in the OS itself.

    In both cases, our primary competitors sold out to Microsoft. Afterward we all sat around like igits, thinking "why didn't we sell out sooner?"

    --
    No reason to lie.
  6. Microsoft's Turning Circle by MacDaffy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Microsoft's strength has always been embrace and extend. Its weakness comes in the decisions on whether to "exploit" or "extinguish." It has killed a legion of technologies/business/competitors whose contributions to the world of computing have come to nothing or have been FUBARed--just because Microsoft feared the competition.

    It has bowdlerized standards when it could for its own gain (e.g. Kerberos, SMB, etc.). Microsoft sees computing as a zero-sum game where it MUST win and everyone else must lose. Rather than compete by making itself look good (innovation, quality, service), it has been always willing to win by making others--including itself--look bad.

    Then comes Open Source--a game where they either play fair or they don't play at all. Now, Microsoft is stuck with having to REALLY innovate. Linux and Mac OS X are running rings around Redmond and Ballmer's only answer is to exhort the troops. That won't work.

    Microsoft needs to adopt open source, retool its operating system and--for once--put all that money toward excellence rather than bullying the market, ripping off innovators and/or buying ascendancy via restrictive contracts with manufacturers. If Apple announces Mac OS X for x86 or some other innovation comes along, the good ship Microsoft is going to have a BIG hole below its water line and not enough buckets to bail with.

    The history of personal computing is comprised of sea changes. Ballmer's memo acknowledges that. He remembers the position he was in ten years ago.

  7. MicroSoft Counts Options as an Expense by kallistiblue · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Or at least they did.
    That's one of the reason that MicroSoft doesn't pay any corporate tax.

    Alternative Fuel

    --
    Laugh at my ignorance while I learn Rails - a Real ne
  8. Re:The problem with Microsoft by dbarclay10 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Microsoft isn't a bad company. People here really do care about satisfying customers and making the best stuff in the world. I really hate the false accusations so many people make about this company. But I also have to say that this company has grown timid and too slow to act, and that is our real challenge.

    You work in a big company, so you're going to have to get used to it. Parts of your company engage in dirty, despicable "business" tactics to get on top, at which point they ignore the user base and move onto the next hill. These actions directly harm people. If you can't take that, then maybe you shouldn't be working for them.

    (P.S.: Next time an MS representative tries to go over my head [I'm head IT guy at a mid-sized company] by going directly to the executives who now *willingly* admit that they don't have the expertise necessary to make good IT decisions, we begin our full migration to Linux. The execs have told MS representatives twice already that they are *not* interested in buying some widget so they can get their business done, and when it comes to IT, I'm the guy. Of all the needlessly harmful and destructive things MS can do, marketing directly to executives by taking them out for ski-weekends and fancy lunches is the worst. You guys nearly ruined the company I work for because of these tactics, and we're not the only ones. If their last IT guy hadn't quit [he didn't have the skill required to get the executives on "his" - aka the company's - side], they'd be out of business by now. I'm not exaggerating, it's a genetics company and their entire revenue stream is based on their data warehouse. When your company finally gets their act in gear by making realistically decent products, *and* stop preying on professionals like myself by going over their head to make the sale, maybe you'll get a modicum of respect. Expect it to take at least a decade for it to become a healthy amount of respect.)

    --

    Barclay family motto:
    Aut agere aut mori.
    (Either action or death.)
  9. Re:The problem with Microsoft by dbarclay10 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Microsoft took their sales upstairs. Welcome to the world of sales, any good salesman will go to the person making decisions as far up as they can go. The sales tactics you outlined sure as hell are NOT limited to Microsoft, it's just that MS can afford the sort of potlach that selling to the top execs takes. As head IT guy, you have to wade in to some of those politics yourself, or at least get the CIO on your side. Ultimately either your execs respect your technical acumen, or they don't and it's time to find another shop.
    I would submit however, that "threatening" to move to Linux as a defensive move against a sales tactic does nothing to sell a Linux solution within your company.

    Read both of the rants in their entirety - most of what I'll say below I already said.

    First, just because selling to idiots is the "world of sales" doesn't make it right. Microsoft's products are either used or maintained by *professionals*. Maybe it doesn't matter when you're trying to sell a glass figurine, but it sure as hell matters when you're trying to sell surgical instruments. You can be damned sure that the executives in a hospital are made up largely of people who are medical experts, who used to be, or who know to delegate such decisions to the experts. In the case of IT, the products are no less important, and maybe MS could get away with selling crap to senior execs ten years ago, but those days are numbered.

    Second, I know these tactics aren't limited to Microsoft. Duh. In fact, the worst boondogle(sp?) I've seen in an IT rollout was using products from a vendor other than MS. I actually give them credit where credit is due here; their products may be sub-standard, but they're better than some of the *real* crap that people buy.

    Third, I don't like the word "politics". There's a negative connotation to that. As I said in my last rant, the last head IT guy at this company here wasn't able to communicate as effectively as MS' salespeople, to the point where the executives trusted the MS reps more than their own employee. He left, and now I'm here, and my first job (took at least three months) was getting the executives to realise the mistakes which had been made in the past, and getting the gears in motion on correcting them. It wasn't an easy job, so don't bother trying to tell me that it's hard ;) The last IT guy was decent, but not great. He had too much attitude.

    Lastly, I've already sold the "Linux solution" within my company. We're already using it extensively. After six months, two different MS representatives have been kicked out of executives' offices and told to talk to me. The executives have made it clear in no uncertain terms that if MS tries to take advantage of them again, MS will not be getting any new business from them. Right now we've got a good amount of Microsoft software, and we plan on upgrading them as time goes. If, however, MS tries its bullshit sales tactics again (trying to sell them high-margin software which MS *knows* is unsuitable for the task [or software they *should* know is unsuitable for the task]), we'll instead begin migration plans. Don't mistake a plan of action for a baseless threat. There's only so many times a merchant can knowingly perform actions which would be of great harm to the customer before the customer says "okay, enough of this, you guys just can't be trusted for even the most basic things."

    In short: don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs :)

    --

    Barclay family motto:
    Aut agere aut mori.
    (Either action or death.)