Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's Lost Decade
Kurt Eichenwald has written a lengthy article about Microsoft's slow decline over the past 10 years, cataloging their missteps and showing how consistent, poor decision-making from management crippled the tech titan in several important industries.
"By the dawn of the millennium, the hallways at Microsoft were no longer home to barefoot programmers in Hawaiian shirts working through nights and weekends toward a common goal of excellence; instead, life behind the thick corporate walls had become staid and brutish. Fiefdoms had taken root, and a mastery of internal politics emerged as key to career success. In those years Microsoft had stepped up its efforts to cripple competitors, but—because of a series of astonishingly foolish management decisions—the competitors being crippled were often co-workers at Microsoft, instead of other companies. Staffers were rewarded not just for doing well but for making sure that their colleagues failed. As a result, the company was consumed by an endless series of internal knife fights. Potential market-busting businesses—such as e-book and smartphone technology—were killed, derailed, or delayed amid bickering and power plays. That is the portrait of Microsoft depicted in interviews with dozens of current and former executives, as well as in thousands of pages of internal documents and legal records."
We discussed a teaser for this piece earlier in the month — the full article has all the unpleasant details.
The problem is Ballmer. Always has been.
Seems like XP and 7 did quite well.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It did a pretty good job of laying out why MS has failed to keep up with the leading edge of the industry, and why they will need radical cultural change to ever catch up. In particular, the article avoided overblown hystrionics, for example not claiming MS is dead, but pointing out that MS has become like IBM in how it operates.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
I stopped reading partway through - it read like a hit piece. Let's go ahead and ignore the success of Windows 7, XBOX 360, Office, SharePoint, Lync, etc just to make an outrageous claim in order to sell magazines. Is the internal culture of Microsoft bad? Maybe..but they're still churning out good software, and with the exception of a one-time write-down from a failed acquisition, they are still one of the most consistently profitable companies in the world. Like all large companies, they have had product failures, but if you're going to ignore the wins, why bother even writing the article?
MBAs can't run businesses. It's that simple. When Bill ran it, everything was great. When Steve took over, everything went downhill. The same happened in Apple: When Steve was in charge, Apple grew. When Steve was fired, downhill. When Steve was brought back, more growth. The same with HP. Moral: don't let MBAs run your company, it'll tank.
Don't stop where the ink does.
So doubling your revenues and net income is now considered a "lost decade"?
In any organization I've ever seen or worked for.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
You know right away the article is BS.
Because during the last 10 years many MS products have finally become as usable as they should have been 10 years ago.
Microsoft failed to conquer a number of new markets over that past decade. Social networking, tablets/smart phones, etc. -- Microsoft is just not winning, and their old strategies of monopoly abuse are not going to help them.
Palm trees and 8
Among others a reply from Frank Shaw (MSFT):
http://www.neowin.net/news/what-the-hell-is-microsofts-lost-decade
It did a pretty good job of laying out why MS has failed to keep up with the leading edge of the industry, and why they will need radical cultural change to ever catch up. In particular, the article avoided overblown hystrionics, for example not claiming MS is dead, but pointing out that MS has become like IBM in how it operates.
I haven't had time to read the whole article yet. However, if the summary is accurate (ha ha), it's certainly not the first time that MS's internal politicking and entrenched interests since the late 90s have been pinpointed as a major obstacle to innovation and their continued success in a changing market.
Some time back I commented on (and cherry-picked) a similar article, which wasn't new even then- it dated back to early 2010. Still very informative though.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Microsoft have always been about coming late to a party someone else started and then trying to steal the limelight. That's not always a bad thing (eg. cheap and nasty workstations and servers that were just good enough made a lot of things possible) and it has worked for them on many occasions, however recently they don't seem to have been able to dominate a niche that they've come into late.
Note that Apple have been doing that as well, mp3 players, smartphones and tablets were mature before they got involved but they managed to get up to speed quickly enough to dominate those markets
To sum up, I don't see the last decade as anything different with Microsoft in that area, and I recall articles about toxic office politics at Microsoft (and moreso Apple) well over a decade ago anyway.
You cant seriously call Xbox a success without using a fair bit of progressive counting. To date XBOX still a bit to go before all the investments are returned. And its still not anywhere near a market leader position. This while it has eaten up much of the PC gaming space, cannibalizing another MS business end.
Windows 7 is by no means a success since total share of Windows has fallen since its introduction, not risen. Only reason its a success is because of the monopoly. Without it, W7 would have failed utterly. Just look at how "well" WP7 is doing for reference of how things work out for MS without their monopoly benefits.
Sharepoint a success? Where? And Lync a success, in what reality? Outside the "Microsoft or nothing" sphere nobody knows about it even. And therein lies the real problem, the "MS or nothing" sphere is shrinking fast.
Microsofts only products they manage to make money off of is Office and Windows thanks to their monopoly. Everything else is complete and utter failure.
Windows and office are just the extensions of successes that date back to the 90s and before.
Sharepoint? Not much to write home about.
XBox is more interesting but still mainly something that leverages Microsoft's platform dominance with MS-DOS and derivatives.
So all in all you've basically got what boils down to MS-DOS and friends. Microsoft can only coast on that so long.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It's not a hit piece. It's just that Microsoft is not 'leader of the pack' anymore.
Microsoft is the new IBM.
And IBM is still profitable isn't it?
Btw, were are those 'outrageous' claims made in the article? It states that Microsoft is still making a reasonable profit, doesn't it?
Group think has set in such that slowly politics has created an environment where the top management do not hear dissenting voices, so somehow they can do no wrong.
It is natures great recycler.
Sharepoint? Not much to write home about.
I wouldn't say that. It *does* have that traditional Microsoft "catastrophically bad and yet my boss bought it" feel. Their OS and even things like Exchange kind of work nowadays.
The only thing about Windows 7 that can be counted as success is, it is not Vista.
They got what they deserved from that asinine move.
On Apple's OS:
'E-mails flew around Microsoft, expressing dismay about the quality of Tiger. To executives’ disbelief, it contained functional equivalents of Avalon and WinFS. “It was fucking amazing,” wrote Lenn Pryor, part of the Longhorn team. “It is like I just got a free pass to Longhorn land today.”'
"“It was a bloated mishmash of folks,” said Johann Garcia, a former Microsoft product manager who worked on the Bing project. “They had two or three times the number of people they needed. There were just so many layers of people.”"
etc etc.
You may not see it, but MS exces can see it, I can see it, WallStreet can see it. Yet you can't see it. Are you Ballmer?
>"Fiefdoms had taken root, and a mastery of internal politics emerged as key to career success. In those years Microsoft had stepped up its efforts to cripple competitors"
Welcome to life at a huge, fat monopoly. At least it seems like they hit an ace with UEFI, further stifling competition and removing consumer freedom and choice.
Looks like Apple is falling into the same trap in their niche markets where they were also a near monopoly (tablets/phones).... instead of opening up, offering product choices, lowering prices, they are spending all their effort trying to sue everyone into submission.
Microsoft's server revenue was $4.5b last quarter growing at 14% year over year. Yes sharepoint, SQL Server, Dynamics... are something to write home about.
My favourite part is how he states that iPhone brings in more revenue than all of MS's business as if this is not true for any other tech company out there. The fact that Apple are so successful does not mean that MS failed so badly and definitely does not mean that they are worse than everyone else in the industry. While Apple is obviously on top I wouldn't say that MS failed compared to Google or Facebook.
This while it has eaten up much of the PC gaming space, cannibalizing another MS business end.
Aside from the OS a machine runs, MS has precious little at stake when it comes to PC gaming. And I don't know of a single Xbox user who isn't using Windows and every one of them own PCs. MS lost nothing to the gaming crowd with the Xbox.
The Xbox lost $4 billion and came in a distant seccond.
The Xbox 360 has lost $3 billion, after a few quarters in the black the division is now in the red again, and the 360 is currently tied for second.
That's not what any rational person would call success.
What idiot modded this troll? It was right on point.
Windows and Office are cash cows, yes, but other than Ballmer's incompetence they're the biggest part of the problem-- everyone at Microsoft is afraid of doing something that might threaten Windows or Office. That's why Microsoft spent years trying to stuff bloated desktop Windows into tablets and phones-- and why they were made to like complete asses by Apple.
And XBox? Pfft. They bought their way into the video game market, plain and simple. IIRC they haven't yet reached the break-even point because of the billions they pissed away at the start. XBox is the last time you'll ever see them be able to pull that move, too. No more showing up late with a mediocre product and coming out on top only because they can outspend their competitors.
And Sharepoint is just another product designed to increase corporate IT inertia and maintain Windows' dominance on enterprise desktops.
~Philly
Xbox has been a huge success. 67 million units sold, 19 million kinects, Microsoft Games is highly profitable; enough so to offset the losses from Windows Phone 7 in their entertainment division. All that aside, Xbox is a huge success for one simple reason: They broke the console sales trend. In all previous consoles by year 4 sales begin to decline, sharply. The 360 is the first that accelerated sales (rather dramatically) in year 5.
This is the same phenomenon that destroys all large corporations slowly from the inside.
There may be one product, but different departments responsible for different parts of that product are given competing and incompatible goals by upper management, the theory being that this will create the cheapest, highest quality solution - when the exact opposite is true.
Exactly. The X-Box, like practically every other Microsoft product, is an all-or-nothing strategy to corner a market, THEN turn a profit. Only Windows and Office have succeeded at this.
I RTFA the whole article... but IMO, it has forgot one or two things....
M$ vs DOJ: If you have read daily technology news back in 90s, you might remember how narrowly M$ escaped from a major anti-trust case. Since then, M$ had to play nice with DOJ to avoid getting the worm can re-opened. So it is somewhat obvious M$ didn't work aggressively in taking over other markets in last decade. All the new players, they do not have to answer DOJ for any anti-trust violations. So... new players are very lucky when it comes to approaching new markets.. be it search, consumer media, social networking etc.
At the very heart of the DOJ case...M$ was accused of "locking-in" customers for their products. And now, fast forward to 2012... Apple is literally locking in consumers behind their gardened walls with a plethora of their own hardware and software, Google & FB literally collecting private details from its consumers. Playing the devil's advocate here, I wonder how come they are not scrutinised intensely ?
M$ massive hiring spree: Though I can't exactly remember the figures and fact, I believe M$'s staff count has gone up by few folds since the turn of the century. Though I am not sure what's the reason behind this; but I am pretty sure this is the real reason why wheels started getting off. More staff means more HR to handle them. My best guess for this 'staff head count inflation' is, having lot of cash in bank.
But my overall conclusion is... markets are wide open only for a brief period of time. One can concur that market only during that brief moment. Late comers will always have to play "do or die" battle before totally convert the market to their camp, or die an early shameful death. M$'s biggest issue it seems, not discovering wide open markets to concur like the rest.
Having said all that, during last decade, M$ consumer products have become more stable and secure than in 90s. That's something worth noting.
Also, I would like to see Steven Sinofsky to head the Redmond camp after Ballmer... looking at his track record, I believe he can stop this plunging boat from drowning.
p.s
I have to agree that 'management style' in M$ is somewhat deleterious. My software house has this ghastly 6-month review cycle despite being a SMB. In the most recent review, I was accused of not having any initiatives during work by the reviewing HR boss. My sad situation is, my technical boss disagrees with my initiatives. To avoid annoying him too much, and get the team working on one direction; I have learnt to suspend my ideas and just to be a "yes-boss" guy. But would the HR boss understand my situation fully? Personally, I put lot of hours in writing well-polished reliable code. In return, both my bosses are nit-picking on me. IMO, these reviews are good for "failing" employees.. but the rest, why bother.. just throw them free candy or coffee.
... for example not claiming MS is dead, but pointing out that MS has become like IBM in how it operates.
Heh - I was just telling my brother who works at Microsoft that they are the new IBM. I sort of meant it as a compliment. Big companies can rarely continue innovating and winning in new spaces, so you might as well hunker down in the trenches and set yourself up for the long haul.
"No matter where you go, there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
In times past Microsoft would find a nice add-in product for their software and then bundle a cloned version of it for free. Remember Stac Electronics? The disk compression Microsoft put in the next version of MSDOS was not better than Stac's, but it was free. Stac only won some money in a lawsuit, but was essentially destroyed. I think to this day developers are still mindful of this predilection. Now this same thing is happening to the cash cows of Microsoft: Windows and Office. Linux and LibreOffice are the nemesis of Microsoft's flagship products. Another product for the server world is Exchange. Exchange virtually forces the use of Outlook. No other Windows or Linux client can properly work with it. This is a strategy MS uses to delay the inevitable. Don't you think /. is read by MS employees? They can read the signs of the times. They just can't show their strategy to carry them through this. This lost decade is the decade of dealing with free alternatives. Microsoft is reaping what they have sown. You can't perpetuate the monopoly on Windows and Office alone anymore. I'll say it again:
It's hard to argue with free.
Oh, yeah! Wise guy, huh? Woob woob woob woob! Nyuk! Nyuk!
Until you look at how much Microsoft has spent.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
While xbox is a household name, profit wise it isn't stellar. It also has had an interesting effect of moving the attention of Windows game developers onto consoles. The problem being this actually seems to weaken MS lockin, migrating userbase from a mindset where microsoft unquestionably dominates the market to one where MS is just one of three big names. While this in the short term has boosted MS offering in the market, it also has made these studios get over their desktop fixation and get accustomed to supporting Sony and to some extent nintendo.
So far, not critical, but it does potentially pave the way for the big game companies to completely torpedo the desktop and xbox gaming market. At the same time as getting developers in the mindset of multi-platform support, it starts pushing it's first-party app store as well as a bizarre model for desktop usage. Between the improved view on multiplatform development and threatening digital distribution channels that particularly valve has become accustomed to it, they are paving the way for a company like Valve to completely undermine MS' desktop and console gaming market.
There are a large number of factors external to MS facilitating this scenario, but MS strategy has done it's part to explicitly fuel thisto some extent.
A very real scenario seems to be:
MS effectively forfeits the desktop market due to lack of interest on their part. It's a boring market where they cannot grow and today's business philosophy seems to dismiss sustainability without exponential growth (growth is always indicated as a percentage, the raw dollar values are de-emphasized). Companies are still using XP by and large, which might have been ok except MS is simultaneously pushing the market to develop software that doesn't work with XP, so XP usage might be characeterized as 'limping along' with increased difficulty over time. Between OSX and Linux (though the 'front and center' Linux DEs have also lost their way), some enterprises are seeing viable MS alternatives. On the homefront, erosion comes more easily, mostly at the hands of IOS, Android, and to a lesser extent OSX and Linux, share-wise (consumer desktop/laptop market is increasingly driven by 'enthusiasts' as the casual user base moves on to tablets and phones).
Casual game development on Android paves the way to support Ouya on the low end (XBLA competitor) and on the high end, Valve makes a go of it with a game console, a stronger, diverse name in gaming and digital distribution of games than MS. I see this as highly disruptive to Sony, Nintendo, and MS, but I don't think Valve would've had such an easy time of it if MS hadn't paved the way with xBox.
Phone/tablet is easy enough to see. MS has no appreciable share. To those saying 'but WP7 users always rave about it', that would be a natural consequence of a small user base. The only people there are naturally going to be fanboys. Just like WebOS had exceedingly high satisfaction among its very small userbase (I liked WebOS, but it really lacked a lot). IOS and Android seem to be carving up the market handily.
Basically, MS is screwed. They are trying to compete with google using Bing to dubious result. They are pushing Azure to comete with EC2 and are diluting their vision because it just isn't working. They are throwing their desktop market (the only market they securely held) under the bus to try to prop up metro which has been a market failure on phones today.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
The article's author seems to think that Microsoft should have conquered those new markets. But what about the opposite approach: don't even try to enter those markets. Why should a company always try to become bigger even in areas that are not its strength?
In particular, why should Microsoft be in the smart phone business? It's not like smart phones will replace PCs. They are behind Apple and Google in terms of features, mind share and available 3rd party applications; to succeed they must either do the same thing much better (like Apple with the iPod) or do something different to make their platform stand out. If they don't have the ideas for that, it's better in my opinion to stay out of the market altogether rather than make a "me too" product.
I believe the main reason for the popularity of X-Box is the insanity at Sony. Once Sega dropped out of the market it's like Sony forgot how to compete.
According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_game_consoles), Nintendo Wii sold more units than both Xbox and Xbox 360. While Xbox 360 outsold Sony Playstation 3 by a few million units, combined sales of all Playstation models are several times higher than sales of both Xbox models. So what makes you say that Microsoft is the number one console manufacturer?
Moreover, unlike sales of smartphones and tablets, sales of game consoles are stagnating already. So it's pointless to argue whether Microsoft, Nintendo or Sony is the No. 1 or coolest console manufacturer.
Actually a lot of people used to run Windows just to play games. A huge number. Most of those are now using consoles instead. Many of these now use no computer at all but a tablet or phone for what internet usage they have. I've had little problem moving people to Linux since when I ask them if they use the computer for gaming they almost always reply that they have a Wii or X-Box or Playstation for that (in some cases all three!)
Sharepoint is a success, it locks you into IE, Windows desktop, Windows server, IIS, SQL server, Exchange, Office, and probably a few products I have forgotten about.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Will they now share the IBM motto "Where technology goes to die"?
counting on next generation to be the generation to bring the money in by truckloads is progressive counting..
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Market cap is to company's real worth as photoshopped magazine covers are to original models' beauty: a somewhat good reference but not really that reliable.
That is very true, Apple's market cap remains substantially depressed compared to other companies.
In the decade that Microsoft simply continued to sell the same thing they always had, Apple herded the music market unwillingly to digital sales, totally took over portable music players, forced a massive shift in the smartphone market, and then to top it off proceeded to be the company that led the inevitable shift in the computing market to tablets despite Microsoft trying and failing to do sofor almost ten years.
I'd say the "lost decade" description for Microsoft is utterly apt, for all sorts of reasons... the way that Microsoft killed off better technologies as they rose against Microsoft for many years was a loss of around a decade of computer advancements for real people as Microsoft kept the status quo.
But just like keeping the lid shut on a pressure cooker, eventually something much blow - and Apple was the company that forced the issue.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The state of the competition is both the Wii (and DS) sold a fuckton more than the 360 and the PS3 is only like 3 million units behind it and that's after launching 1 year later, a significantly more expensive system, and a bunch of bad PR. A lot of people just don't want to be part of the xbox experience because it's expensive and offers nothing new.
If you go by share price, sure, Microsoft has been stagnant the last decade. Share price has little or nothing to do with the day to day operations of the business, though. The actual business is consistently posting record revenues and profits throughout most of this past decade. That is what matters.
However, as soon as you account for the fact that there was an incredible tech bubble that popped around.. a decade ago.. they have actually done pretty well growing into that massive valuation again. Furthermore they pay dividends now! Microsoft is a huge and mature company - not a high growth speculation at this point.
Secondly, they may have floundered around with Vista but I think everyone has to admit that Windows 7 was a nice recovery.
Microsoft continues to invest heavily in R&D and we can quibble about the results but I'll just say it is nice that a company is actually doing this at all!
In the past decade they have massively increased their server applications business, the Dynamics/NAV business, Sharepoint is a billion + a year business with nice lock in for Microsoft.. Xbox is a huge success --- sure there is a sunk cost in getting going that they may still be recovering from but Xbox Live is a solid revenue stream for Microsoft every month and the Xbox has become more and more a centerpiece for more than games.
Microsoft is not just a Windows / Office company any longer. Windows & Office is still the engine of Microsoft at the moment but the company has diversified and continues to do so..
That all being said, Microsoft is entering into a crucial time. They are bringing out all their major products new revisions in a 6 month span and they need them to all be solid. All these releases and the integration between them is crucial to get right or they will really run the risk of fading away.
Windows Phone 8, Windows 8, Surface, Server 2012 etc. all need to be strong and that is a big bite to chew with them all coming up shortly.. ambitious but risky.
A lot of people just don't want to be part of the xbox experience because it's expensive and offers nothing new.
Funny thing. After all these years, I was finally considering buying an XBox 360, because the indie games sounded appealing. Then I sat down with one for the first time in a while and experienced their new UI for the first time. Utterly disastrous. Where the hell did all the GAMES go, and how do I navigate past all the ads to get to them?!
So, yeah, I won't be buying a 360, ever.
An MBA degree program is not what you think. An MBA is not like other Master's Degrees where you become more of an expert in a particular field. An MBA makes you generally knowledgeable of all the parts of an organization, not just the one you are currently experienced in. An MBA is an add-on to whatever degree you already have. An MBA does not make you an accountant, it does not make you a manager, it does not make you an executive. It helps one become a better manager or executive because you now have an understanding of other fields beyond your own, you can understand other people's perspectives a little more.
... but that is not what they were trained to do. It is much like computer science where a person is trained to write well designed, reliable and maintainable code in school and then when they get a job they just slap together crap as fast as they can to generate the illusion of performance rather than create good products.
30% of my MBA class were engineers, they left with the same technical perspective they came in with. However they could now more effectively communicate their perspective with people from other fields and they could more effectively persuade these people because they had some understanding of the perspectives of their respective fields. These are good skills.
That said. In an MBA program you really are taught to do the "right" thing. Manage for the long term, have some flexibility with people (there is no one way of doing things, different people may be more efficient/productive taking different approaches), marketing and new product development is based on careful study of consumer wants and needs and projections are based on careful modeling of the market (I was shocked by the amount of advanced math we used, pleasantly surprised by the scientific and mathematical approach), etc. However an individual person may be taught these things but not put them into practice in the real world. MBAs may manage for the quarterly results, have one size fits all approaches, pull numbers out of the air
I'll buy that familiarity with the technology is a factor, but it's also about the thrill of technology as a motivator. Business types don't have it. Everybody knows what their SOLE motivation in life is ... How can we rake in the bucks and rip off the people?
Few engineers know the reality of business and MBAs - been there, done that, I am guilty - just as few business types understand the reality of engineering and other technical disciplines. When I eventually attended business school I thoroughly enjoyed it for two reasons. (1) Learning new and different things. (2) Laughing at myself, laughing at how ignorant and misinformed I had been about business, marketing, etc. Here's a clue: the professors in business school love Dilbert as much as any geek.
To avoid redundancy here is the reality of MBA degrees: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
The short story: Its just an add-on to your current degree and experience, it gives you an overview of all the pieces of a business/organization. They actually do teach you to do the "right thing", whether you do as you were taught is something else.
it makes it sound like microsoft was ever a company that made great innovate products.
in the 1990s it flourished becuase of a demand for computers and NO competition. They were probably more hated then than now. Their software was far less reliable then, than now.
They were far more overreaching in their rhetoric and legal prowess to cover up their inability to make good products then, than now. They were far more evil then than now.
They have competition now, and if they tried what they did then, now, they would be sink.
Agree - but this can be simplified. There's a rule.
Managers are of two types.
There are managers who believe that management itself is a profession that stands outside of any other profession or industry; that is, that a manager only manages people. It doesn't matter what those people do. Nor does it matter what the manager knows about the business he/she manages. A good manager will deliver goodness, regardless.
Then there are managers who believe that they'd best excel at the specifics of the industry they find themselves in. Because one should understand the 'why' of making decisions, outside of the people involved.
The first type are MBAs. The second type are filthy rich.
Funny, but wrong. I'm a somewhat recent MBA grad and we were definitely taught that understanding your product, your market, your industry, the economic forces that effect your industry, etc was critical. About 1/3 of my class were engineers and scientist.
To avoid redundancy see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
MBAs are taught finance.
Wrong. An MBA program is not about accounting and finance. An MBA program actually is an overview of all the pieces of a company/organization. Accounting and finance is just one piece. To avoid redundancy see: http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3010671&cid=40801865
Those are 80% margin... Where is all that money GOING? They should have had enough cash on hand to easily write down that $6b loss and had profit to spare.
People are starting to realize Microsoft is not MANAGED very well. Sure, they have buckets of money, but when you add up the metrics they are PISSING AWAY almost 50% of their GROSS margin on money-losing units. They have carefully shuffled their divisions so they each make 10-15% yearly but looking at even the public books they are hiding MASSIVE bleeding losses.
Add to that, that have run the CULTURE of the company into the ground. Micromanaging each unit under extreme "Decimation" principles. They are just coasting on their name to fill the mill with new grads. Average programmers with experience and some respect for themselves wont work there anymore. Their culture has more uncommon with game companies than Professional Business organizations they are trying to sell to.
Um, they STOPPED SELLING any alternatives? Any product can be a best seller when you just stop selling the others. That's a move right out of the *aa play book.
Said product is 80% PROFIT. Where's all that bacon? It also took SEVEN YEARS to properly replace their flagship product with something consumers actually would buy. SEVEN YEARS milking a cash cow! The issue is NOT the raw numbers, but how they went SO LONG without improving themselves.
Here's how the X-Box got fucked up -- Microsoft had this glorious Direct X, including 3D, for Windows.
"Hey! Let's build a console that uses it. Then PC game makers can push a button and basically generate binaries for it [b]and[/b] the PC!" Instant titles, titles, titles! That's what kills consoles, lack of titles!
And...nobody on the PC wants to play, on the PC, console-style titles. Just ask the Duke Nukem Forever or DC Universe Online devs.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
I'll admit, I originally started replying to this, but there is no way this guy is being genuine.
Sorry but it is wrong regarding MBAs, which is all I commented upon. MBAs are not taught "that a manager only manages people. It doesn't matter what those people do. Nor does it matter what the manager knows about the business he/she manages." They are taught quite the opposite. Whether they follow what they are taught is a different matter. Much like computer science majors are taught to write well designed, reliable and maintainable code but often do something else on the job.