Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Under Attack - Part 2
bugbeak writes "Part 2 of BBC's report on Microsoft at its 'most vulnerable moment in history' is available. According to the article, there are six battles Microsoft must go through in order to stay afloat and win, ranging from 'sort out security' (#1) to 'get them young' (#3). The first part of the article series was also linked by Slashdot." From the article: "Already Microsoft is spending 30% to 35% of its research and development budget on security issues, [Gates] says. His promise: Longhorn, the next version of the Windows operating system, will make malicious software (malware) that gets onto computers without the users' knowledge 'a thing of the past'."
If MS diversified more
Diversified more??
Come on, MS is already in:
- Gaming
- TV
- Internet
- Computer
- Telephones
- Handhelds
And several others I do not know... they only need to have their own cereal!
If Microsoft concentrated in doing ONE thing (ok, two or three things) right, THEN he would not have all these problems.
Microsoft SHOULD specificaly work on Microsoft Windows AND Microsoft Office. Make them lot a hell better (For example, at least allowing to quickly change the pointer type when I am making a presentation, instead of showing the right-click menu); that way they will be seen better.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
Red-Herring: No-one, I repeat, No-one has ever successfully sued MS for damages after something went hugely wrong due to a bug in Windows. According to the Windows Terms of Use, damages are limited to what was paid for Windows.
Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
I once worked at Microsoft, so I will answer/reply to these as best as was my personal experience:
I found it to be muddled and lacking in direction. I gave Microsoft high grades for being rather horizontal, so you were never too far removed from important decision makers, but I found a certain neurosis in management because it always felt like there was a certain "fear factor".... i.e., fear of making a wrong move pissing off the wrong people... with whatever consequences... (for the record I wouldn't know what and if those consequences were)
The internal culture is/was as geeky as it gets. I found all around me to be highly intelligent but quite socially disconnected. The morale was generally high, but I wouldn't describe it as high because of realistic views but more from a certain hubris... e.g. (and borrowing from Lilly Tomlin) "We're Microsoft, We don't have to care!" This was right around the beginning of the big DOJ investigation, and the attitude was pretty much "let them come!.... we've done nothing wrong, we're Microsoft!"... I attribute much of this attitude as ripple effect from execs such as Ballmer.
Again I worked there long ago, but I didn't sense much strategic culture, just a "We'll do what it takes to conquer" attitude. I sat in some discussions which eventually led me to leave Microsoft because I didn't feel they played fair. I've posted and commented on this before.
I found Microsoft one of the most dynamic, challenging, and fun places I've ever worked. I enjoyed the high value placed on intellectual sparring. But I finally left because, in my opinion, their intellect wasn't tempered with any humility.
As to how and whether or not they've got what it takes to "win the battle", I'd say if they started out on a level playing field they have nothing over anyone and if they didn't or wouldn't drop the hubris, they would collapse and self-destruct from their own attitude.