Slashdot Mirror
How IBM Out-foxed Intel With The Xbox 360
xcaverx writes "Learning from failure is a hallmark of the technology business. Nick Baker, a 37-year-old system architect at Microsoft, knows that well. A British transplant at the software giant's Silicon Valley campus, he went from failed project to failed project in his career. He worked on such dogs as Apple Computer's defunct video card business, 3DO's failed game consoles, a chip startup that screwed up a deal with Nintendo, the never successful WebTV and Microsoft's canceled Ultimate TV satellite TV recorder.
But Baker finally has a hot seller with the Xbox 360, Microsoft's video game console launched worldwide last holiday season."
...the never successful WebTV... But Baker finally has a hot seller with the Xbox 360, Microsoft's video game console launched worldwide last holiday season."
Shouldn't we wait until the 360 has outsold WebTV before we make that declaration?
Generally, selling as much as you supply at asking price is considered a success.
Only people who count market share instead of dollars when judging success would call the Xbox anything but a failure.
only Linux monkeys would call the original XBox a failure.
I agree, if by "Linux monkeys" you mean "accountants and businessmen."
it helps when you are the only show in town. The jury is still out as to how far their sales will fall when the PS3 hits the shelves.
MS is in dire need of a Halo for the 360 to sell on, sure the games they have out now look 'ok' but there isn't anything out there that makes me say "WOW!"
... getting to market a year+ before your competition, selling your devices as quickly as you can produce them, considering that Microsoft is only on their second generation device whereas Sony is on their third (not to count portable devices) and Nintendo is on... uh... fifth? Microsoft is doing well. They cracked a market.
Learning from failure is easy. The tough part is learning from success. When a project succeeds, there's no pressure to make searching analyses of the reasons for success. The upper-level managers involved begin to think they're innately cool and have all the answers... the success of their product line proves it.
Think Netscape... think Digital Equipment Corporation (I date their decline from the day when a salesperson apologized for being slow to return a call but added "After all, we're a billion dollar corporation." Think Ashton-Tate. Think Quark...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Hard to say it wasn't a success.
That's like saying George Mason had a successful run in this year's NCAA basketball tournament. Yes, they posted a lot of wins that no one expected them to, but they still ended up with fewer points than Florida in their Final Four game. They failed to win the tournament.
Like Mason, Microsoft's Xbox division may be a success by some measures, but if they're in the red on the accounting ledgers, they're still a failure in some way.
Blame his management for his failures. He was probably subordinate to many in key decisions. I would praise his for going after such diverse and technically challenging projects as he has.
What's the alternative? He slept with the right people? Come on. Each of his "failures" has been really high profile for each of the company's he's worked with. I think it's shortsighted to simply blame him.
Networking. The top level executive pool is an exlusive club, but once you get in you're pretty much set for life, no matter how much of a screwup you are. The best way to get in is to be the son of an existing high level executive, although there are occasional chances for other people to squeeze in. It helps a lot to already be rich too.
I read the internet for the articles.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ incorrect. Microsoft went with IBM because Intel was not willing to design a chip and then have Microsoft own the IP on the chip. You do know that Microsoft owns ALL of the silicon IP for the Xbox 360, they didn't own squat on the original Xbox and thus were held to the wall on the prices of chips because they didn't own them. Also, maybe you should ask this "senior engineer" at Nvidia why they aren't doing the 360, it's for the SAME REASON, Nvidia wasn't willing to do all the design work and then not own anything. Has nothing to do with x86 vs not x86, thanks for playing. (incidently why in the world would a company with so much expertise not want to go with an x86-style chip, see above).
Nice to see the XBox doomsayers are still hanging around Slashdot.
All the 360 flames would be a lot more compelling if they weren't coming from people who already hate Microsoft. If Redmond came out with a motor that ran on water and gave the cars away for free, I would fully expect a series of comments about how the interior only comes in three colors and there are too few cup holders.
Slashdot should just refrain from posting anything about the 360 - this forum is so heavily biased against any Microsoft product that Slashdot readers will find any reason they can to pick it apart.
The irony is how worshipful XBox haters are towards the Playstation - a product of an equally evil corporation that also wants to take over the galaxy. But they're not after Linux at the moment, so I guess that makes Sony Ok.