Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Rumored To Lay Off Thousands Worldwide
nandemoari writes "It seems not even Microsoft is impervious to the effects of this increasingly painful recession. According to reports, the Redmond-based company is preparing to lay off about 17 per cent of its entire workforce in the coming months.
Despite its portfolio diversity — including operating systems, antivirus software, and video game consoles — Microsoft is clearly feeling the pressure applied by a tightening global economy. In fact, there seems to be a sense of emergency to the massive cuts (about 15,000 workers out of 90,000), which rumors suggest should be made official by January 15."
I have to ask...why? I thought Microsoft was massively profitable, even today. Surely they don't have to fire all these people to prevent losses?
If Microsoft is still profitable, despite the recession, then they are really using the economy as a 'cover' to do the layoffs they always wanted, anyways. A good chunk of Microsoft represents divisions that don't make money, and never have. They have all sorts of niche applications, research, online sites, game consoles, ect...none of which, as far as I know, have made them any money. All of Microsoft's dough comes from Windows and Office.
(before you say the Xbox division has made money, check your numbers : it never has made anywhere close to the money that was invested into it for each console. And, once a console is obsoleted, if you haven't made the money you spent to develop it back, you never will)
Microsoft is still massively profitable. This downsizing will only make them more profitable. Microsoft may not be the #1 player in 20 or even 10 years, but this event has little to do with that.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
You forgot hardware testing. Those guys have not seen any action for years.
Probably because, for Microsoft, this doesn't happen all the time. I can't remember the last time Microsoft laid off 15, 10, or even 5 percent of their workforce.
Here's the Dirty Secret: Around the nation there are profitable companies who have been operating "fat" for years, with bloated rosters of do-nothing personnel. You know this -- We all know this, we've bitched and moaned about it on this board and down at the local pub for years. The trouble was, it was just too difficult to fire anybody. In the litigation-happy workplace that was late 20th century America, a guy had to practically set fire to his cubicle with two secretaries tied to chairs inside it before he could be let go.
No More.
Now, all any large company has to do is mumble something about "recession" or "difficult times" and nobody -- employee, manager, or labor lawyer -- will blink twice.
So what are these people going to do? And how are they going to get jobs. Right away the market will be saturated and they will be sitting around.
Short term, work on free and open source software (FOSS) from home for free. This keeps their hands warm and gets their skills up to the new market.
Long term get employed to implement FOSS solutions for companies looking to avoid Microsoft costs.
Well that is what I see the better ones doing.
that they are acting like other companies?
No, other companies cut the bottom 10 to 20% of earners. Performance rarely has anything to do with it.
Despite its portfolio diversity -- including operating systems, antivirus software, and video game consoles
Those are all technology related. I would hardly call that a "diverse" set of assets.
When, as a software company, you abandon developers and decide that the people who actually use your software are not really your Customers you cannot do well.
Firing 15,000 people is easier than firing 1 person.
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Smart enough to know that if they want to eat, they have to work.
Following your logic far enough reveals that we're all guilty of murder.
If you were half as clever as you think you are, you'd be able to rationally sort reality from your own hatred of Microsoft. BTW, this is coming from the president of a Linux User Group.
Take a step back, get some perspective, and stop allowing yourself to be so emotionally involved with technology. It's fine to be passionate about a technology... up until the point where it replaces rational thought. After you cross that point, you lose respect, geek cred., and any chance to be taken seriously. There are plenty of brilliant people who will never impact the world because they lost all creditability. Don't be one of them.
If I mod you up, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with what you've said, sorry.
culling the bottom 10 or 20% of performers in order to improve the overall performance of the company.
If someone isn't doing a satisfactory job, they can be fired.
But no matter how many people you lay off, you'll always have someone in the lower 10 to 20 percentile. That's just the way statistics works.
There are a variety of reasons why culling the bottom performers seldom improves the performance of the company as a whole:
I've seen management buy into the "layoff the lowest performers" myth far too often to let it go. It is almost always the harbinger of deeper, structural problems within the company, which if left unaddressed, result in the financial collapse of the company. Laying off people - even the worst performers - almost never results in a more efficient company. If you can't fire them for cause, they're more than likely adding value, even if that value isn't being measured by a performance metric. Take that away, and you take away your ability to do business.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Please, spell out "people". You're not text messaging.
People are judged by perception. It's the responsibility of everyone to control the perception of themselves. Perception is reality. As a manager, I don't have the time to invest in the people who aren't willing to carry their weight. If it's an identifiable problem with the company or management that's causing a performance loss, then the employee probably should either say something about it or move on.
1. GM, back in its day, would have never have pushed out Windows upgrades after upgrades. GM in its prime basically kept the same tool and die in place for 20 years and didn't invest in improved engineering and manufacturing techniques. Microsoft has tried to avoid this. AS a rule, the quality of Microsoft products has improved over time. I remember having to set DIP switches to get Windows 3.1 to boot, or fiddle with config.sys and himem.sys to get DOS to start, and every instance of Windows I've had has had some issues coming down the pike. Vista, for me, has been rather famously stable and I dread leaving it for Windows XP when I have to.
2. Microsoft doesn't ignore the customer. They just have a lot of customers that don't care about security. Look at how many people complained about Vista's UAC dialogs, when, my Linux box has had the same thing for quite some time.
3. Microsoft's vision isn't at the top, its in the head of each of the product groups. There is a vision to Visual Studio and C#, even if a lot of us don't like it. There is a method to the madness of Office and there is certainly a vision to Windows.
That's not to say that Microsoft won't go GM on us. They always could, but, they at least see that they need to make changes to improve.
This is my sig.
IOW, you think that rather than judging somebody based on their work, they should do more asskissing to you. Yes?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
He gets to vote.
What's a shame? 15,000 Microsoft employees losing their jobs.
What's a crying shame? 75,000 continuing to work for Microsoft.
I don't work for Microsoft or much care for their products. But this is ridiculous example of idiotic MS bashing. I hope you find it funny when you are laid-off, that's 15000 people with families, during a depression. The fact that you have some imaginary grudge with MS does not change that.
Microsoft's fate will be the same as GM's.
Getting bailed out?
Let me restate what he said in more concrete terms, that you might have more trouble misinterpreting:
Consider the following possible "realities" for a problem developer who produces average code but never gets work done on time.
1) I claim to be a developer who spends hours in heavy mental design exercises and analysis before writing a line of code; hence, I am not done yet.
2) I claim to be a solid coder just who estimates poorly; hence, I am not done yet.
3) I procrastinate and get work done at the last minute; hence, I am not done yet.
4) I just don't care; hence, I am not done yet.
From a manager's perspective, the etiology just doesn't matter. I can't count on you, and it may not be worth my time to try and fix you. Maybe that doesn't make me the world's most gifted manager, but I have a job to do and you're not doing it, so your employment sucks for both of us.
The irony of your question is that the aforementioned problem developers all tend to kiss ass more than the other guys who are proudly getting their shit done!
There are no karma whores, only moderation johns