Steve Ballmer Replaces Don Mattrick As Xbox One Chief

Edsj writes "While Don Mattrick leaves Microsoft to work at Zynga, Steve Ballmer announces that, from now on, he will be directly in charge of the Xbox One division as quoted: 'Don's directs will report to me and will continue to drive the day-to-day business as a team, particularly focused on shipping Xbox One this holiday.'"

Comments

Well,

[cheddarlump]

There goes the xbox.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

Ballmer post? Guess we'll be needing these:

Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

Quite the opposite I think.

If you look at what happened with the DRM fiasco, we had Don insulting his customers saying basically that DRM was for their own good but also importantly that it couldn't be removed, then within a couple of days you had it removed including detail of the implications that had on other systems and features which is not a mere couple of days work to evaluate properly.

I suspect what happened is that Sony did their unveil, Don refusing to admit he was wrong (because he hates consumers, and is an arrogant dick, hence why Zynga is perfect for him) carried on parroting the DRM line whilst his reports knew that this was a major problem, bypassed Don because he was a waste of space and went straight to Ballmer to say "Let us remove this or we're done", Ballmer gave permission, they sent to work on it and had a good week to do it whilst Don was still oblivious, or knew full well, but was trying to fight his corner internally. Either way he obviously lost eventually.

Hence why he has now gone, because he was basically undermined by those under him who knew far better than him what the customer wanted and what strategy was required not to completely destroy their product before it was even released.

This is also I suspect why they're not replacing him, because his reports probably knew better what made a good product than he did, hence why they may as well report directly to Ballmer and cut out the idiot in the middle.

Goodbye Don, you wont be missed, EA's most awful DRM regime period, overseeing Microsoft's worst XBox ideas, Zynga, you're an example of everything that's wrong with the games industry. It's nice to see you've finally ended up somewhere that deserves you and that you deserve to be at.

Re:Well,

[plover]

Ballmer post? Guess we'll be needing these:

Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers. Developers.

Don't forget: Chair! Chair!

Re:Well,

[UnknowingFool]

Or maybe Mattrick was a scapegoat and was doing what he was told to do. When he saw what was happening at MS, he looked for a way out. Either way this is another problem that happened on Ballmer's watch.

Re:Well,

[93 Escort Wagon]

There goes the xbox.

I realize my opinion on this isn't shared by everyone, but I have a strong suspicion ALL of the new consoles are going to have disappointing sales because gaming has largely moved on (hard-core gamers to PCs, casual gamers to Android/iOS phones and iPads). But, now, if XBox One doesn't do well, it will be seen as Ballmer's fault by many people - even if he had little to do with this particular failure.

Re:Well,

[JDG1980]

Cutting out underperforming middle management and flattening the hierarchy is not a new idea in business. It can work well, but it relies on the person at the top being competent, hardworking, and flexible. Suffice to say that the events of the past few years indicate Ballmer might not be up to the job.

Re:Well,

[PoliTech]

I thought it was: H1B's, H1B's, H1B's, H1B's, H1B's, H1B's, H1B's, H1B's, H1B's, H1B's ...

Re:Well,

[maroberts]

There goes the xbox.

As long as the Xbox isn't on a chair, it'll be fine.....

Re:Well,

[Xest]

It's hard to imagine Mattrick was a scapegoat given that he implicated himself by defending so rabidly the DRM policies in interviews to the extent of insulting customers. I very much doubt his orders were "Don, go make a dick of yourself in public".

I'm pretty sure he managed that all by himself.

Re:Well,

[TWiTfan]

I suspect the scene ended more along the lines of Ballmer throwing a chair at Mattrick and screaming "Get the fuck out and never come back, you piece of shit!"

Re:Well,

[h4rr4r]

Which would be great for microsoft. As much as I malign them, they really do deserve a better leader.

Re: Well,

[Therad]

or in the chair's flight path.

Re:Well,

[TWiTfan]

Or maybe Mattrick was a scapegoat and was doing what he was told to do.

That might be reasonable, if it weren't for the fact that Mattrick was in charge of the Xbox division and answered only to Steve Ballmer (who doesn't have a rep of micromanaging).

No, Mattrick's many mistakes were Mattrick's and no one else's.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

I don't think Ballmer is bad in every way, I think there are some teams he seems to have recognised know what they're on about and so he just leaves alone for the most part. Windows Server and SQL Server for example have just continued to get better.

I think Ballmer's flaw is that he has no vision, whilst Steve Jobs knew a good product when he saw one and knew when resources needed to be poured into it, and also knew when a product was a lost cause and knew when to axe it I don't think Ballmer is capable of that.

In other words I think Microsoft's product success (like Kinect) happen in spite of Ballmer, rather than because of the support of him, but it doesn't mean that impressive products can't get through and tried and tested products can't just continue to improve when he just leaves them alone. It's possible he'll just take a hands off approach with the XBox One now.

Or in other words I think Ballmer is a relatively passive leader, he doesn't have the drive to really fire up Microsoft and make it move, but he doesn't have the competence to axe bad ideas either. Microsoft nowadays strikes me as being somewhat in zombie mode with some departments coming up with good ideas and getting them through all by themselves without any help from leadership and other departments coming up with awful ideas (Windows 8 Metro) and pushing them through with no real leadership opposition either.

Still I may be wrong, there are people here who work at Microsoft, maybe they can give their thoughts and explain it even if anonymously.

Re:Well,

[Lonewolf666]

I think the move to PC (as far as it actually happened) was due to the current consoles being a bit outdated, they are far behind a high end PC in performance. The new console generation might be able to win some of the hard-core gamers back.

But I think you are right about the casuals.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

They should have videoed it and used it as the bootup animation for the XBox One.

Now that would win people back.

Re:Well,

[RogueyWon]

Yes, this feels like a case of emergency damage limitation. After a period in the mid-point of the current console cycle where things seemed to be going their way, Microsoft have had a fairly poor late cycle (unpopular 3rd-gen dashboard, a drought of major exclusives, overtaken by the PS3 in global installed-base stakes). This all culminated in a very difficult lead-up to E3 and an absolute disaster at E3 itself.

The company went in the wrong direction with always-online DRM and, arguably worse, didn't have a convincing story to tell on why it was going that direction in the first place. Admittedly, they probably got dumped on by some of their industry partners. In particular, EA claiming that they never wanted always-online DRM and denying that they had anything to do with its inclusion in the XBone was reminiscent of a small child frantically wiping cake-crumbs off his mouth while emphatically denying that he raided the fridge to steal the cake. But ultimately, whatever pressure there was on MS from publishers to go the always-online route, Sony recognised that it was a better long term strategy to side with the customers instead. MS's about-turn since E3 is welcome, but it hasn't helped the company's reputation.

And reptuation is probably what this is about. Not so much reputation with the general public, but reputation with shareholders. From its early days as a long-shot cash-hungry investment, the Xbox line has become a big part of MS's business. With the Windows side of the business not doing very much and with the company's attempts to get into the phone and tablet market not going very far, annual reports have shown that Xbox and Office are basically the two big growth areas in Microsoft.

On the day of E3 it looked like MS was about to commit suicide in one of those two areas. Shareholders will not have liked that. And while the general gaming public has welcomed MS's u-turn since then, shareholders will have liked it even less. Why? Because it smacks of confusion and a lack of a strategy. If MS had stood firm, then at least shareholders might have clung to the belief that the board knew what it was doing here and would be proved right in the long run. With a u-turn, it seems that the executive team has been making decisions that it doesn't even believe in itself.

So now, Ballmer (who, rather oddly, still enjoys a lot of shareholder confidence) steps in personally to provide reassurance that the company recognises it has a problem and is getting a strategy in place to fix it.

If the games industry in particular (and the tech sector in particular) had smarter and more in-touch shareholders, then a lot of executive teams would be getting very uncomfortable. However, there seems to be little chance of that happening any time soon.

Re:Well,

[UnknowingFool]

Probably. It'll be interesting to see what Ballmer does with Xbox or who he appoints to lead it. It was one of the few divisions that had any consumer appeal.

Re:Well,

[marciot]

I think you mean: Gamers, gamers, gamers!

Re:Well,

[ackthpt]

There goes the xbox.

Are you kidding?!?

Steve Ballmer's Chair-throwing Battledrome will be a massive hit!

Re:Well,

[xkpe]

You realize that the next both the XBone and the PS4 are outdated PCs, right?

Re:Well,

[rudy_wayne]

I think the move to PC (as far as it actually happened) was due to the current consoles being a bit outdated, they are far behind a high end PC in performance. The new console generation might be able to win some of the hard-core gamers back.

But I think you are right about the casuals.

The Xbox One uses an x86 CPU. In other words, it *IS* a PC. So why not just play games on a PC and not bother with the Xbox One?

Re:Well,

[XaXXon]

hard core gamers never left pc.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

I think you're right about DRM being put in originally somewhat at the behest of companies like EA. Microsoft has bagged itself a lot more exclusives and a lot more big names this time round at it's launch than Sony and I have no doubt that that was part of a deal on their DRM policy. Where that leaves them now with said deals I've no idea - it's also quite possible the companies themselves realised that if they forced Microsoft to keep the DRM as part of said deals that there'd be no installed console base to even sell their exclusive titles on in the first place. It's possible that they were part of the u-turn themselves if this were the case.

Re:Well,

[SerpentMage]

here is what I think happened. Don did the unveil and everybody saw the drm and thought woa... Though remember that Microsoft is only one of many who have doing this pain in the arse drm. Sony sensing a market opportunity decided on a 180 and said, "we are good and will do no DRM". Don't think Sony is the innocent party as Sony has shown often enough that they are friends of DRM. Sony just did a fake out and Microsoft had to follow suit.

Don seeing this 180 is thrown under the bus and he decides to seek his fortunes elswhere. What folks on Slashdot fail to realize is that no decision at Microsoft is made in isolation. There are ALWAYS teams and committees, etc that make these decisions. Personally I would have done the same thing.

Re:Well,

[SerpentMage]

Completely wrong IMO. Ballmer is a sales person plain and simple. He can sell anything to anybody. I agree he has no vision, and therein lies the problem. He takes ideas from others and tries to add them to Microsoft. Here are examples under Ballmer's watch:

1) Oh oh shiny toy called Java, must have -> .NET
2) Oh oh shiny toy called Flash, must have -> Silverlight
3) Oh oh shiny toy called Mobile, must have -> Windows 8
4) Oh oh shiny toy called Objective C, must have -> "refocusing on C++, and throwing .NET under the bus"
5) Oh oh shiny toy called Search Engine, must have -> Bing
6) Oh oh shiny toy called Online docs, must have -> Office 365
7) Oh oh shiny toy called JavaScript HTML, must have -> WinRT
8) Oh oh shiny toy called cloud computing (AWS), must have -> Azure

I know there are more, but Ballmer sees a shiny toy and like a pin the tail on the donkey game adds it to Microsoft products. Yet the problem is that it is second rate and people just don't use it. Microsoft has become a massive laggard in new ideas and new technologies. Granted they were not that innovative to begin with, but at least back then they did do something interesting things like Office (it used to be individual apps that did not work together), COM/OLE, or even Windows NT, and drivers. Ironically people don't give Microsoft credit for making the driver architecture work. Before Windows, drivers were a bleeding pain in the arse. Sure there were ideas on unifying, but Windows actually made it work effeciently.

Re:Well,

[phantomfive]

Microsoft nowadays strikes me as being somewhat in zombie mode with some departments coming up with good ideas and getting them through all by themselves without any help from leadership and other departments coming up with awful ideas (Windows 8 Metro) and pushing them through with no real leadership opposition either.

It takes a surprising amount of skill (luck?) to keep a company running like this. Think of HP, there are many ways this can go wrong.

I'm not sure why people remember the 'old days' of Microsoft so fondly.....that's the era that created Microsoft Bob, Windows ME, and Visual Basic.

Re:Well,

[UnknowingFool]

I think Ballmer's flaw is that he has no vision, whilst Steve Jobs knew a good product when he saw one and knew when resources needed to be poured into it, and also knew when a product was a lost cause and knew when to axe it I don't think Ballmer is capable of that.

Steve Jobs also used Apple products and always had a hand in design. While they could be little things that mattered (like iPod syncing upon attaching the cable) to more trivial items (lack of screws), everyone knew Jobs was in charge and he was an asshole when he didn't get his way. With Ballmer it doesn't seem he's involved at all with key decisions. Anyone who tried to use Win 8 on desktop would have seen that using a tablet interface on a desktop was bound to cause user rebellion.

Re:Well,

[UnknowingFool]

You would think that MS would have learned after the Zune squirting fiasco that DRM could harm a decent product by negating good features. Maybe MS doesn't have the backbone to stand up to the content companies.

Re:Well,

[Sir_Sri]

And lets face it, this is all happening relatively quickly, MS may not have someone lined up to take that job, and they can hire for it a month from now with a bunch of shiny new press about all the customer driven changes they've made before launch.

I seriously doubt Ballmer wants to actually deal with being the one in charge of the entertainment division on top of his actual job. Not for any reason other than he's likely got enough other work to do.

Re:Well,

[DragonTHC]

There goes the company.

Ballmer has been in charge of the company during some of it's worst screwups.

Xbox was really the last bastion of hope for MS to not be a total failure.

They are very good at putting the cart before the horse.

When Xbox goes down in flames due to inflexibility, They can no longer blame Mattrick.

I guess this is what the modern corporation doesn't understand. They fight against unionized workers every day, but fighting against unionized consumers is a losing prospect every time.

Re:Well,

[UnknowingFool]

Ask consumers what they think of Windows: At best they are neutral about it. Companies use it because they must. I wouldn't say consumers clamor for Windows; they get it when they buy a computer. Now Office probably has better appeal but most consumers don't use it other than at work.

Re:Well,

[elFarto the 2nd]

As this video explains, Don and Microsoft have likely known for a long time that he was going to Zynga, since the notice time for a job like his is longer than a few weeks. So his leaving was nothing to do with the XBox One stuff.

Re:Well,

[NFN_NLN]

It's hard to imagine Mattrick was a scapegoat given that he implicated himself by defending so rabidly the DRM policies in interviews to the extent of insulting customers. I very much doubt his orders were "Don, go make a dick of yourself in public".

I think we can all agree we've coined the new term: "scapedick" :)

scapegoat - In modern usage a scapegoat is an individual, group, or country singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame.
scapedick - An individual, group or country singled out for unmerited negative treatment or blame; then accepting the blame, and overly going along with the plan against them to the point of looking like a dick

Re:Well,

[F34nor]

Is addition he is a bully left over from the monopoly times and when he can't sell it it breaks knuckles. Neither approach seems to work for me these days. It is a shame all the VPs are at each other throats for his job instead of trying to make the company work.

Re:Well,

[zzottt]

this post is so full of win

Re:Well,

[Peristaltic]

Or in other words I think Ballmer is a relatively passive leader...

Christ, I'd hate to see the "active leader" version of Ballmer... How many chairs does he have to throw to qualify? Then again, maybe I'm confusing "Active" with "Aggressive".

Re:Well,

[interval1066]

... is an arrogant dick, hence why Zynga is perfect for him...

LOL!!! No doubt. Zynga was a hell pit according to an ex-zyngaite friend of mine.

Re:Well,

[jandrese]

Microsoft just can't seem to find a happy place with DRM. They saw the iPod and said "we can do that, only better because you'll be able to share the music!" That sounded great, but then the reality set in that they would have to implement some incredibly onerous DRM to appease the record labels who had just spent the last decade with brown pants after they saw how easy it was to share music digitally. This meant that even though the Zune technically had more features than an iPod, the DRM was also up and in your face constantly unlike the iPod, causing people to resent your product. The best DRM is the one you don't notice.

And then Apple removed DRM from the iTunes Music Store and it was game over.

This is also a case where Microsoft's strategy of always going second backfired. Normally it allows them to avoid risky maneuvers by letting other companies test the waters so Microsoft only jumps in once they're sure it is safe. However, this meant that a great many potential customers already had a ton of music in iTunes and didn't want to leave that behind just to use a product that was pretty much the same as the one they already had.

Re:Well,

[jandrese]

Either that or Don knew for some time that the DRM stuff was going to be a fiasco and was preparing his parachute for months.

Re: Well,

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah we've been hearing mobile is the platform to be on for nearly a decade and mobile gaming is still shit.

Re:Well,

[Mike Frett]

PC what? Linux, Windows, Mac etc? They're all PC's. If they move to Windows, they might as well stay with XBone, same crap. But I do share your opinion that all of the consoles will have lackluster sales. It's not 1990 anymore and the Kids don't sit in front of a T.V. all day watching Pamela Anderson's tits bounce on Baywatch.

Personally I'm tired of pounding the Nail into the board, if people don't care about the NSA or DRM, then I'm not gonna waste my time telling them about alternative Operating Systems that protect them from the baddies and keep their freedom intact. Ignorance deserves to be treated like a dunce and kept in slave chains whilst choking on sub-human bytes from a relic like Microsoft and their crony NSA overlords.

Re:Well,

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

Thsoe aren't the good old days of MS. The good days are when they made Basic for every possible PC. And licnesned DOS to anyone who wanted it. That was good software back in the day.

Re:Well,

[IANAAC]

Companies use it because they must.

Not really. Companies have a choice in what they use. That choice comes down to the cost and training involved in switching to something else, and it's usually too high for them to bother.

But there's no law stating that a company must use Windows. I wish people would quit spouting that it's a requirement, when all it comes down to is weighing the pros and cons of using either Windows or another operating system.

Re:Well,

[gl4ss]

I think you're right about DRM being put in originally somewhat at the behest of companies like EA. Microsoft has bagged itself a lot more exclusives and a lot more big names this time round at it's launch than Sony and I have no doubt that that was part of a deal on their DRM policy. Where that leaves them now with said deals I've no idea - it's also quite possible the companies themselves realised that if they forced Microsoft to keep the DRM as part of said deals that there'd be no installed console base to even sell their exclusive titles on in the first place. It's possible that they were part of the u-turn themselves if this were the case.

everybody thought that EA had everything to do with the plan. it was just too fucking obvious. EA announced just such a short time before xbox one announcements that they would drop first day dlc+online pass behavior, like they were a fucking saint. nobody bought that explanation though..

Re:Well,

[Chris Mattern]

If you look at what happened with the DRM fiasco, we had Don insulting his customers saying basically that DRM was for their own good but also importantly that it couldn't be removed, then within a couple of days you had it removed including detail of the implications that had on other systems and features which is not a mere couple of days work to evaluate properly.

And how would Ballmer have done it differently? He'd have refused to backtrack, which, as humiliating as it was, was the smartest thing Microsoft could have done at that point.

Re:Well,

[behrooz0az]

GOOGLE

FTFY

Re:Well,

[phantomfive]

DOS was crap, dude

Re:Well,

[scubamage]

Incorrect. The new Motorola SURFboards/Arris CM's use Intel x86 processors. I think it'd be a stretch to call a cable modem a PC.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

.NET, particularly at its launch, was a superior product compared to Java. As time has moved forward, the only thing keeping Java relevant has consistently been its community support. The majority of projects in Java require some sort of third party libraries or a bloated Java EE container, while a lot of .NET projects can get away with what exists in the framework (or the bloated ASP.NET, to be fair). It's no wonder that Google's Guava library is still far superior to the JDKs collections API(s) even as we approach the far off release of JDK 8, which is only now adding things that .NET (and many other languages/frameworks, now including C++11) already include.

I am not sure that Flash was a shiny toy by the time Silverlight appeared. Silverlight was so far ahead of Flash that I am disappointed that it did not replace it. Considering that Microsoft's own Xbox Music uses Flash and Netflix is moving to HTML5 + DRM, it appears that Silverlight is a dead technology. I think we all wish that Flash were joining it.

The refocus on WinRT and C++ were logical decisions based on the direction of the industry rather than a direct reflection on Objective C. WinRT actually unifies the different frameworks on Windows 8: HTML/JS, C++ and .NET. Most people have completely misinterpreted its purpose, which is to allow developers to pick the language or framework most suited for their project(s) while still getting first class support there. Previously, C++ always had the leg up because of native access to the Win32 API, which was only loosely exposed in the .NET Framework (although accessible via Interop). Refocusing on C++ is also quite logical because of the shift to mobile development; it enables developers to port existing code from other platforms and slap a new UI (using WinRT's APIs) on top of it with very little other changes. WinRT should eventually replace Win32, which, if the promise is kept, means that all frameworks and languages benefit.

Personally, I am actually quite happy that Microsoft is still pushing Bing to compete with Google because no one else was doing it. Looking at Google Maps, it was stale before Bing Maps started to actually beat it in a few areas. Office 365 is clearly a direct "me too" response to Google Docs, but I have honestly heard a lot of good things about it. I still use Google Docs (because it's free), but I have consistently hit walls in it where it is simply too limited.

With the Xbox One, Azure will prove to have been a smart investment because it gives them infrastructure that Sony simply cannot compete against for years--if truly ever. Ignoring that, I have heard good things about it, but I have never used it. I can only hope that they are pushing AWS in the same way that Bing pushes Google.

And, for what it's worth, I am a Java developer.

Re:Well,

[spire3661]

Whne Major Nelson was asking "ARE YOU AN ENGINEER", he wasnt defending the techical limitations, he was defending the strategic content partnerships. Basically MS went and told everyone with content "We have this great new box with a bunch of new technical ways to manipulate digital property for profit"

Re:Well,

[spire3661]

They really do. Stop trying to eat the whole pie and just put out some killer product.

Re:Well,

[drinkypoo]

DOS was crap, dude

It was a hell of a lot better for the desktop than CP/M.

Re:Well,

[gorzek]

In other words, Microsoft's problem over (at least) the past decade is that they're no longer a market leader. They no longer get to dictate which way the market goes. Used to be, whatever they put out the door--Windows, Office, etc.--people snapped it up and got on board. Now? Windows 8 sparked rebellion. Their mobile operating systems have been aborted and reborn so many times users are gun shy about giving them another try (to say nothing of how ultimately saturated the smartphone market is anyway.) And now they've managed to burn up much of the goodwill they built with the Xbox division by having such a disastrous showing at E3. Again, they were left following what a superior competitor put on the table, rather than anticipating what the market would want and offering it before anyone else did.

Admittedly, that's a very hard thing to do, but you'd think a company as large as MS, with so many talented people, and with such vast resources, could do a lot better than they have. But then vision and leadership come from the top. It's what made Apple work so well for so long. As noted elsewhere, Ballmer is not and never has been a visionary. I have no doubt he's a competent manager and salesman--he might even be great at those roles--but a CEO has to offer a clear, unifying vision to motivate everyone under him, and MS' vision has been so disjoint and erratic over the past decade or more as to be no vision at all. It's become a company of "me too"-ing.

Re:Well,

[Bigbutt]

Because developers have a consistent environment to write code to? Because then I can just drop the DVD into the machine and play?

I'm not generally a console type gamer. The only other console I've ever had was an Intellivision my brother gave me (assuming you don't count the Color Computer with various cartridges of course). I have an Xbox360 and bought it for one specific game (Rocksmith). Once Ubisoft released the PC game, I bought it and picked up the three intro DLC packs (another 50 tunes maybe). But I continued playing the Xbox360 vs the PC. In part because having to reboot my PC in order to successfully (most of the time) have the PC start Rocksmith without bailing. So it's a little annoying to have to muck with the PC in order to play Rocksmith when I can just hit the various power switches, hit the 'A' button, 'Start', 'A', 'A', and select a song to play. And when I'm done, bring it back to the Song listing (to save my place), and power it all off.

Sure, it's older tech but it just works (about 18 months of almost daily playing of Rocksmith; 1 to 2 hours per weekday, 6 to 8 hours per weekend) unlike the PC which constantly throws nVidia driver errors for the 6 month nVidia cards (I reverted to the 308 drivers from 320 I think and it's better) or AMD driver blue screen on boots for the older AMD cards.

[John]

Re:Well,

[OscarGunther]

I think they don't have a replacement yet, but will replace him eventually. Per TFA, Ballmer isn't the guy the board wants in front of gamers. It's standard operating procedure in cases such as these that the direct reports to a defenestrated department head report to *his* boss until a new department head is found. This also suggests to me that Mattrick was pushed (or jumped before he could be pushed) because of the massive black eye Microsoft suffered. As much as we all enjoy the chair jokes at his expense, I don't expect Ballmer to have direct responsibility for the gaming division for long.

Re:Well,

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI, azure definitely is not second rate. In fact it blows AWS out of the water.
~ very experienced cloud app developer

Re:Well,

[gorzek]

The next-gen consoles being offered by Sony and MS hardly touch what's available for high-end PCs today. They are a modest improvement over the 360 and PS3. They aren't going to win back people who've jumped ship to high-end PCs. The main reason they can't compete with PCs is cost. No one's going to pay $2000 for a console with high-end specs. Even a $500 price point is viewed as too expensive by a lot of people.

Re:Well,

[temcat]

You made may day sir. This is a very, very useful term.

Re:Well,

[OneAhead]

You might want to read GP and GGP again, slowly and carefully, Mr. Pot.

Re:Well,

[roc97007]

Reminds me of a song.

Re:Well,

[Tough Love]

I don't think Ballmer is bad in every way...

I agree, Ballmer is really good at destroying Microsoft and making it a miserable place to work. For that I admire and thank him.

Re:Well,

[Bitmanhome]

But a hell of a lot worse than Amiga DOS.

Re:Well,

[steelfood]

scapedick

That sounds painful.

Re:Well,

[steelfood]

back then they did do something interesting things

That's probably because all the real innovators they swiped from DEC for NT are no longer around or heavily involved in any new projects.

Re:Well,

[phantomfive]

Yes, well, CP/M isn't exactly winning awards, is it? Its primary virtue was being very small....

Re:Well,

[Grishnakh]

Exactly. This is great news!

Now we just need to get Baller to personally take over the Windows Phone division.

Re:Well,

[Anubis IV]

Microsoft has bagged itself a lot more exclusives and a lot more big names this time round at it's launch than Sony...

I've heard this line repeated a few times, and I believed it to be true as well when I heard the announcements about the DRM, since catering to third-party publishers was the only rational explanation I could come up with, but all of the evidence I've seen so far seems to indicate that Microsoft actually didn't manage to secure that many exclusives from third-party publishers. In fact, compared to Sony, they're nowhere close. For instance, sort the lists at the following links according to the "Exclusive" column:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Xbox_One_games
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PlayStation_4_games

At the time of this post, the numbers break down as:
XBO - 4 exclusives from publishers besides Microsoft (EA's Titanfall is the only major title of those)
PS4 - 25ish* exclusives from publishers besides Sony (including games from Atlus, Blizzard, Capcom, Digital Extremes, and Square-Enix)

If Microsoft bit the DRM bullet in order to win exclusives from third-party publishers, they have yet to show evidence that their plan bore any fruit. That said, they did manage to win a number of exclusives from third-party developers by publishing the games under their Microsoft Studios umbrella, but since they're publishing those themselves, they wouldn't have had any pressure from outside sources to introduce DRM of the sort they did, leaving me right back where I started: confused about what their motivation for the DRM was in the first place.

* The number has "ish" on it because there are 24 definite exclusives with 3 more that have publishers labeled as TBA.

Re:Well,

[Grishnakh]

Slashdot has decided that Ballmer is the physical incarnation of all that is evil and malicious in the computing world.

Don't be ridiculous. Ballmer is far too incompetent and too much of a buffoon to have such a reputation.

Re:Well,

[Zalbik]

True, but ask consumers what they think of any operating system: At best they are neutral about it.

This is the whole problem with linux on the desktop. Geeks expect people to want to us a computer, and to enjoy the sheer thrill of having that amount of technology under their control.

Regular users look at a computer as a necessary evil, with about as much control as they'd have riding an elephant. They don't care about the tech, they care about the result.

I believe as far as most customers are concerned, there are no good operating systems...there are just ones they are more familiar with and ones they are less familiar with.

It will be interesting though. The office, windows, and server product divisions really could be run by a magic 8-ball without much impact. Ballmer has shown little ability to get Microsoft to innovate successfully (windows phone, Office 365)...so it will be interesting to see what he does with a very consumer oriented product like the XBox.

Re:Well,

[drinkypoo]

Sure, I had an A500, and later a bunch of other Amigas. Too bad about Commode.

Re:Well,

[zkiwi34]

The only advantage .net has is the hooks/hacks into windows that it has. Java doesn't. Other than that .net is about as bloated as anything else that has been around for a while and that a critical mass of developers use.

Re:Well,

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

yeah, but it was the same crap on every box. that ran the same binary crap software on hardware made by different crap oems, driving the price down in the process.

Re:Well,

[mjwx]

Quite the opposite I think.

If you look at what happened with the DRM fiasco, we had Don insulting his customers saying basically that DRM was for their own good but also importantly that it couldn't be removed, then within a couple of days you had it removed including detail of the implications that had on other systems and features which is not a mere couple of days work to evaluate properly.

Sorry XBox fanboys, it hasn't been removed, it's simply been "deactivated".

The system is still there, lying dormant... like a virus.

And does anyone honestly think that this system wont be re-activated in the future, I have a bridge to sell you. It also gets you the "Bridge Buyer(TM)" achievement.

Goodbye Don

Don Mattrick was the fall guy, given a golden handshake and told it's not personal, its just business.

I wouldn't be surprised if Balmer ordered the DRM system in the first place, it's in line with Microsofts anti-piracy policies on other systems. If he didn't order it, he would have known about it and approved it from its inception at the very least.

But if the Xbox wasn't doomed before, it is now.

Re:Well,

[ShakaUVM]

And the worst part is they promote something heavily and then turn around and drop it later, leading to people not wanting to learn their new tech, since it'll probably go away soon enough. Like watching Fox TV shows.

Microsoft Research is actually doing a lot of really interesting, really cutting edge stuff. The trouble is, none of that stuff seems to be making it into their commercial offerings.

Re:Well,

[mjwx]

I don't think Ballmer is bad in every way, I think there are some teams he seems to have recognised know what they're on about and so he just leaves alone for the most part. Windows Server and SQL Server for example have just continued to get better.

Erm... You haven't used server 2012 have you... It's a usability nightmare.

I haven't had to use SQL2012 yet. I'm kind of scared to because MSSQL is one of the few MS products I'd recommend to people.

Steve Balmer has presided over the crappification of Microsoft. Starting from 2006, Server 2008 and SQL 2008 were started under Gate's leadership, the project we've seen come from Balmer are Windows 8, Server 2012, Windows Phone, all abysmal failures.

Re:Well,

[yuhong]

Personally, if you can't tell from my comments, my personal favorite is the MS OS/2 2.0 fiasco.

Re:Well,

[phantomfive]

Well, you're definitely matching your username........

Re:Well,

[bfandreas]

Now that I've finally seen his name next to his mug I recall that guy from E3 footage.
He was the infuriating git who was constantly smiling smugly while we tried to figure out what he actually was smug about.

Of course he had to defend the party line even tho behind the scenes MS was already preparing a 180 degree marketing turn. But the way he did it damaged him personally in such a way that he couldn't show his face to the gaming press ever again. Which kind of disqualifies him from filling a position as talking head.

When you look at it that way it makes perfect sense that he leaves the gaming industry and joins Zynga as CEO.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

Your analysis seems to be a little tainted with bias, writing off first party titles and including low quality indie games alongside full blown AAA titles (which are what sell consoles with only a few exceptions - e.g. Minecraft) seems to be the very definition of cherry picking statistics.

Also, those lists aren't correct anyway, there's a couple of announced XBox One exclusives missing and games like Diablo 3 haven't been announced as PS4 exclusives, they've just not had their XBox One versions announced yet, which is how it went with the current generation - for example, Diablo 3 was listed only for PS3 for ages but just in the last few weeks it turns out a 360 version is coming out at the same time.

So maybe I'll rephrase to clarify, if you compare the number of AAA titles announced and confirmed as exclusives for the XBox One then Microsoft is way ahead of Sony's announced and confirmed AAA exclusives for the PS4. Another point is the prominence with previously Sony oriented studios focussing heavily on the XBox One - Metal Gear Solid 5 for example was showcased far more prominently as an XBox One product despite it historically being a Sony exclusive series (apart from Rising) and Insomniac a previously Sony exclusive studio for the most part is now developing Sunset Overdrive as an XBox One exclusive.

This is why it seems like Microsoft has been quite successful in pulling more major studios onside than Sony has and as I say I'm pretty sure a lot of it was the DRM.

Microsoft also recently announced quite a few more exclusives to be announced before release too, whether Sony also has more to match it I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

Um, most of those things are not true:

"1) Oh oh shiny toy called Java, must have -> .NET"

Ballmer wasn't even in charge then. This was entirely under Bill's watch.

"2) Oh oh shiny toy called Flash, must have -> Silverlight"

Sure but you could similarly argue Flash was just a specialisation of a number of things that came before it like Java applets and ActiveX controls. It was also started under Bill's watch.

"3) Oh oh shiny toy called Mobile, must have -> Windows 8"

Agree with this one.

"4) Oh oh shiny toy called Objective C, must have -> "refocusing on C++, and throwing .NET under the bus"" .NET hasn't been thrown under a bus so this is just completely made up. There's been no refocus on C++ at all, it's always been supported and still is to the same degree, similarly .NET support hasn't decrease - the C# 5.0 language spec was just release, .NET 4.5 was release not so long ago and they're still busy working on .NET 5.0. Where is the evidence of a refocus on C++? Where is the evidence of reduced focus on .NET? As someone who works with C# .NET, C++ and Java (and used to work on some iOS dev) I'm yet to see any evidence of this point because there is none. Objective C is irrelevant to Microsoft.

"5) Oh oh shiny toy called Search Engine, must have -> Bing"

Microsoft tried and failed in the search market and tried and failed to buy Yahoo and such since before Google even existed so it hardly seems to be a "me too" thing and again was certainly going on well before Ballmer's watch. Microsoft have been trying and failing with their web strategy almost since the web began but their first real attempt that went anywhere was MSN Search in 1998.

"6) Oh oh shiny toy called Online docs, must have -> Office 365"

Somewhat true. I think this is more a natural evolution, Microsoft understood the concept of a thin client long before Office 365. It seems a bit of a stretch to call this a me too when it's more like a "no shit" idea.

"7) Oh oh shiny toy called JavaScript HTML, must have -> WinRT"

Don't know what you mean by this. I can only assume you mean that WinRT has bindings for Javascript and HTML5. I'm not sure why this is a me too thing. It's quite common for companies to support new bindings and API hooks for new technologies. It's just something you do if you want your tools to be used.

"8) Oh oh shiny toy called cloud computing (AWS), must have -> Azure"

Yes, kind of a me too to be fair, but it's more successful than you seem to realise.

But what I really don't get is that you started your argument out suggesting Ballmer is a salesman and can sell anything to anyone, right, so why have so many things like Windows 8, Zune and so forth flopped? That's not the work of a salesman who can sell anything to anybody. You seem to be defeating your own argument by claiming he can sell anything to anyone and then saying most of Microsoft's technologies are second rate and people don't use them. Which is it?

I'm not sure you know too much about Microsoft technologies and certainly not the history given that so many of the things you mention were either not me too, or were going on long before Ballmer took the helm, or just aren't true (refocussing on C++ and abandoning .NET being the most glaring falsehood).

Re:Well,

[Xest]

Not really, .NET is quite clean in a number of ways. Take Date/Time handling for example. .NET has a nice sensible unified API for this sort of thing whilst Java has a bunch of deprecated attempts that each replace the other and are all shit.

The language is better too, supports things like operator overloading, has helpful keywords that make common tasks easier (using, and lock for example) and more readable.

I don't know if you're actually a developer or just parroting opinion you'd like to be true, but as a C# and Java developer (I've spent roughly 3 solid months working with each this year alone) I can assure you that C# and .NET are both better and cleaner than Java and it's libraries. If you think otherwise, you've simply not had enough experience with both of them to have a valid opinion.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

Notice periods aren't fixed without question.

If Don wanted to go because he'd been undermined by Ballmer and/or by people under him and Microsoft wanted him out because he'd made the company look terrible at E3 then they'll have both been happy to throw the notice period out the window.

Similarly if Don had been given his notice and so went job hunting and got the Zynga job why would Microsoft make him serve his full notice period? They'd probably be happy to stop paying his wage and just let him go earlier than his notice period.

You can't use a notice period of any kind of evidence as the reasons for leaving because it's so arbitrary and the only time the fixed period comes into play is when either the employee or employer want it to be served in full. There's no reason why this would be true in this case.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

If Ballmer would've refused to backtrack and Don clearly did refuse to backtrack then who did? Those under them couldn't do it by themselves and as Ballmer is the only one above Don then it had to be Ballmer that ok'd the backtrack.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

It's a question of how many direct reports Don had, but if it was only 1, 2, or 3 then it's possible they will just become the faces gamers see more of without a middleman. It's possible that the folks that reported to Don are perfectly capable of running the show without someone sitting in between them and Ballmer and if it was them that demanded the backtrack on the DRM fiasco then they may be a far safer bet for Ballmer to keep under him than any middleman they recruit.

Re:Well,

[Xest]

Read your signature.

Realise that shouting "fanboys" is just the same as shouting hater.

Realise how dumb your whole post is as a result.

Remove your signature because it makes you look like a hypocrit.

The End.

(Talking about rational rebuttal whilst throwing out FUD, hyperbole, and nonsense, whilst declaring anyone that disagrees with you before they've even disagreed as a fanboy is the height of hypocrisy.)

Re:Well,

[Ash-Fox]

Because developers have a consistent environment to write code to?

And yet the last Resident Evil game ran at crap FPS on the original PS3 while GTA 4 often ran at crap FPS on the xbox 360.

Because then I can just drop the DVD into the machine and play?

Not always, see above.

I bought it and picked up the three intro DLC packs (another 50 tunes maybe). But I continued playing the Xbox360 vs the PC. In part because having to reboot my PC in order to successfully (most of the time) have the PC start Rocksmith without bailing. So it's a little annoying to have to muck with the PC in order to play Rocksmith when I can just hit the various power switches, hit the 'A' button, 'Start', 'A', 'A', and select a song to play. And when I'm done, bring it back to the Song listing (to save my place), and power it all off.

Devils may cry for the PC, runs on the machine at stunning fps with quality. On the PS3, capped at 30fps for HD. That's a game that was running 'well' on the console. At least if something is being crap on the PC, I can upgrade it.

Re:Well,

[Anubis IV]

I think there's been a misunderstanding, which is why you quite understandably think I'm making a biased argument. I'm not arguing about who has more/better exclusives (I agree with you: Microsoft does). I'm arguing against your idea that exclusives were the reason for DRM being on the console, and in that context, first-party published titles are irrelevant.

If the point of the DRM was to attract more exclusives, the only ones it could attract are the third-party published titles, since first-party titles are already locked in and are going to be on the platform regardless of DRM, hence why my analysis excluded them. Or, to look at it from the opposite side, only the third-party publishers could have been exerting influence on Microsoft to implement DRM by holding the threat of not coming to the platform over their heads (clearly first-parties can't do that), and yet there's no evidence that Microsoft managed to attract more of them by having DRM. Rather, they decided to attract third-party developers, but the way that they did that was by opening the Microsoft Studios checkbook and signing them on as first-party published titles, rather than through the use of DRM, hence why I ignored titles like Sunset Overdrive as being relevant to this discussion (clearly they're still relevant in broader contexts, such as when deciding which console to purchase).

Now, of course, there are other reasons why they implemented DRM (e.g. they simply wanted to boost sales overall, since they get a cut of it), but those are outside the scope of my commentary. And clearly first-party exclusives are relevant in more general contexts, but if we're specifically talking about the rationale behind their decision to add DRM, the first-party titles don't have any relevance, since they were going to be on the platform anyway.

Does it make sense now why I excluded first party titles? Hopefully I've made my point a bit more clearly. Sorry for the confusion.

Re:Well,

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

I think we can all agree on that.

Re:Well,

[drsquare]

People buy Windows and Office out of obligation, rather than because they like it, they have to be compatible with everyone else using Windows and Office.

The Xbox is one of Microsoft's only successful products that consumers buy with a free choice.

Re:Well,

[drsquare]

The percentage of people with a PC significantly more powerful than the new consoles is so small as to be not worth mentioning. The biggest PC games generally have pretty low system requirements anyway, you don't need dual Titans to play Dota 2 or WoW.

Re:Well,

[HornWumpus]

They say: 'Sparkly...'

Re:Well,

[Xest]

Okay sure yeah I see where you're coming from, though it does beg the question no as to whether some of those Microsoft published titles are Microsoft published because of the DRM no?

I think it would only make sense to exclude those companies that are owned by Microsoft rather than all those that publish through Microsoft. Same for Sony of course.

Re:Well,

[Anubis IV]

I did think of the question you raised (and it's definitely one that needs to be considered), but I couldn't think of any way that it ended up mattering. If we start with your question, the next one we have to deal with is: if DRM is attractive to developers, do they have any way to exert influence on Microsoft to implement it? The answer is basically "not really", from what I can tell. Any pressure developers could have exerted would obviously have been prior to their signing on with Microsoft Studios, but at that point they have very little ability to exert pressure, since their only other option would be to get into bed with a third-party publisher who may very well put them on XBO anyway. And all of that is assuming that DRM is attractive to them in the first place, which I'm not convinced is a foregone conclusion, though I'm willing to cede it for the sake of argument.

If there is a valid case for DRM being a determining factor in getting those developers on the platform, then I definitely agree that we shouldn't be excluding third-party developers when we consider exclusives in this context. If there isn't, then my previous exclusion of them makes sense.

So, at this point, I guess I'm curious if you can present a case on that point, not because I'm trying to be antagonistic, but simply because I'm having trouble imagining it myself.

Re:Well,

[aethelrick]

.NET is essentially a windows only toolkit (yes I know about Mono). If you want to write enterprise systems to run on *NIX boxes then Java is the go-to language because their is no vendor lock-in and pretty much every tool you will ever need already exists. I use both C# and Java comercially on a daily basis, I find them equally productive for the tasks they are best suited to. They both have their quirks, neither is perfect. My opinion differs from yours as "I do think otherwise" but I have had plenty of real world experience with both. I would advocate .NET for windows application development, whereas Java is most at home in server-side systems. Horses for courses!

Re:Well,

[aethelrick]

yup indeedy, this is why I steered my career towards C, Java, C++ because the knowledge I gain doesn't get thrown out every two years. The road behind us is littered with the dried husks of yesterdays "new technologies" by MS. And regardless of what people say about Java being dead/over/clunky/obsolete I make a good salary writing new systems in it every day for serious business people that don't want to work with anything else because most of them have been burned trying to keep up with MS "innovation" before.

I have this weird dream...

[monzie]

... where everytime I push any button on the controller... ... Ballmer jumps up on stage and says "GAMERS".... .... press it n number of times...

and he goes...

'GAMERS GAMERS GAMERS GAMERS GAMERS .....

Ballmer to the rescue!

[meowgoesthecat]

...somewhere, the Sony executives just let out a chuckle.

Re:Ballmer to the rescue!

[ducomputergeek]

Why? I'm really debating this coming generation of consoles. I'm partial to the PS4 because it's BSD based and I'm still a BSD geek at heart and at the moment the only title I'd miss are the future Halo installments and frankly Halo 4 just didn't seem like "Halo" to me. I don't know why, it's just sat collecting dust most of these past 6 months.

But I wouldn't put it past Sony to launch a patch this time next year that included some kind of "DRM". Hell if they removed OtherOS I don't put it past them to have an "Add DRM" patch.

I've tried BF3 on the PC when it was $5 the other day to compare it to the console versions, which I know multiplayer on console was seriously gimped. And I discovered why I stopped playing WSAD pc games: they hurt my wrist after a couple hours. I guess I'll have to look into an Xbox style controller for the PC if I elect to go that route.

I don't play many games. Last 2 years the regulars have been BF3 and then Battlestar Galactica Online or Star Trek Online. And both of those have seen seriously diminished playing times because of my wrist as well as the boredom of the grinds.

The game I'm looking forward too is Star Citizen presuming it's going to be in the cockpit space combat simulation that I can play with a joystick.

Re:Ballmer to the rescue!

[scubamage]

To be honest, after having an XBox 360 and being very disappointed because 80% of the non-sports games are FPS's, I couldn't see much incentive for an XBox One even BEFORE the whole DRM/NSA Spying thing. In fact, the saving grace for the console was the Mass Effect trilogy, which I could have gotten on Playstation. At least PS4 has the full back catalog behind it with a ton of great RPG's, puzzle games, adventure games, etc. Plus, the fiancee wants one so she can play Kingdom Hearts 3. I just can't stomach playing FPS's on a console - it's an abysmal experience for me. It's really heartbreaking to see that the release lineup for both consoles is so sports/FPS heavy. MS is definitely worse off there, though.

Re:Ballmer to the rescue!

[bluefoxlucid]

I know. Getting XBox One out by the Fourth of July? Hilarity. WHY?

D'oh!

[jones_supa]

Makes my recent comment look kind of funny...

Re:D'oh!

[jones_supa]

Sure. My original silly comment reads "Let me guess that most of Slashdotters didn't even know that there was a person called Don Mattrick at Microsoft and thought that all the games division big decisions were once again made by Steve Ballmer only."

Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

A major reorg of MS is imminent, hence Ballmer doesn't want to reveal the real head yet and asked them to report to him for the time being. Tired of Slashdot's misleading and biased headlines and summary.

Re:Reorg

[sribe]

A major reorg of MS is imminent, hence Ballmer doesn't want to reveal the real head yet and asked them to report to him for the time being. Tired of Slashdot's misleading and biased headlines and summary.

What, exactly, is misleading about it???

MS, according to you, is in such a state of disarray that Ballmer cannot reveal the real head of Xbox, but instead has to step in temporarily??? And we expect that pending reorg to accomplish what, exactly???

Re:Reorg

[Bearhouse]

Well, it's actually quite factual, (if rather breathless, but what do you expect from a headline - deadpan?), Balmer is indeed taking direct charge.
Probably while he works out who the replacement should be; quite sensible.
This late in the game, Balmer will probably do little more than supervise the implementation of the existing plan.

Hard to see how this is amazing news, through possibly good for venting a little more MS hate, which will probably drag in the same anti-Sony crowd, as usual. *sigh*

Re:Reorg

[Ukab the Great]

That's certainly something that a sane, logical, and rational human being who puts the well-being of his company ahead of management politics would do.

Child posts are free to add the punchline.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

You have absolutely no clue how big reorganizations are handled in big companies. First everything is done in secret as much as possible with the fewest people knowing. Then each person is called to the CEOs Office and informed about the reorg. Things do leak, but revealing rumors and the CEOs hand early causes damage. Do things any differently(letting people know from the media or other employees) and it's going to cause a lot of bad blood and bad morale on top of those caused by the decisions themselves. The process is the same in almost all organizations including Google, so I don't know what you're foaming at the mouth for.

MS, according to you, is in such a state of disarray that Ballmer cannot reveal the real head of Xbox, but instead has to step in temporarily??? And we expect that pending reorg to accomplish what, exactly???

This reorg is just not just about switching heads, it about reorganizations the divisions themselves. There may not be a Xbox division at all and instead may be merged into a new hardware division along with Surface etc.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

So you're whining the summary is misleading because they didn't entirely invent what was happening like you did? Get real, jackass.

It was misleading because the summary and headline intentionally left off and totally ignored the following line from the article so that it could have a better chance of getting posted on Slashdot.

There’s every chance this is a temporary solution until Microsoft completes its wider management restructuring.

Re:Reorg

[X0563511]

I expect the headline to be short, accurate, and noninflammatory.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

RTFA.

It was misleading because the summary and headline intentionally left off and totally ignored the following line from the article so that it could have a better chance of getting posted on Slashdot.

There’s every chance this is a temporary solution until Microsoft completes its wider management restructuring.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

That's certainly something that a sane, logical, and rational human being who puts the well-being of his company ahead of management politics would do.

Child posts are free to add the punchline.

Post misleading flamebait stories on Slashdot to get more ad clicks and revenue?

Oh wait... you weren't talking about Timothy and Slashdot/Dice Holdings?

Re:Reorg

[Stuarticus]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the meaning of the word "headline", especially in relation to /. articles.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

A major reorg of MS is imminent,

While it's likely a good guess, as the end of major development cycle often brings big changes and most CEO's don't tend to collect direct reports, claiming that a reorg 'is imminent' is misleading and likely biased in itself. Are you afraid of competition?

Please RTFA or buy a fucking clue. I am so tired of stupid Slashdot stories and commeters who only get their Microsoft news from Slashdot and don't even RTFA. This is turning into something worse than reddit, same with the Secure Boot and Vista DRM FUD that was spread on here.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/23/4457082/microsoft-reorg-expected-by-july-1st-rumor

http://bgr.com/2013/06/24/microsoft-reorganization-2013-windows/

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/2/4486278/don-mattrick-microsoft-exit-major-reorg-rumor

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Microsoft-reorganization-may-lead-to-unified-Windows-department-finally_id44442

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=microsoft+reorganization&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

>claiming that a reorg 'is imminent' is misleading and likely biased in itself. Are you afraid of competition?

If that is misleading and biased, then what you said is just plain dumb and shows how Slashdot has declined into a sad circlejerk of deluded 14 year olds railing against M$ after reading made up stories to gather karma points. Point out a fact that's not anti-MS or is anti-Apple or anti-Google and get overrated mods for days. Last one out turn the lights off.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

If that is misleading and biased, then what you said is just plain dumb and shows how Slashdot has declined into a sad circlejerk of deluded 14 year olds railing against M$ after reading made up stories to gather karma points. Point out a fact that's not anti-MS or is anti-Apple or anti-Google and get overrated mods for days. Last one out turn the lights off.

I don't see how "reorg coming in July" automatically equates to "head of Xbox will leave company and be replaced with Ballmer". A re-org might have had Don Mattrick stay head of Xbox but moved under another department and exec. Nothing in your links hints about what happened. Now Mattrick and other execs might be leaving in droves due to Ballmer axing under-performing execs but so far Mattrick is the only one.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

RTFA.

It was misleading because the summary and headline intentionally left off and totally ignored the following line from the article so that it could have a better chance of getting posted on Slashdot.

There’s every chance this is a temporary solution until Microsoft completes its wider management restructuring.

So... what you're trying to do is deflect a bluntly stated fact by desperately clinging to speculation by TFA's writer? Funny, around these parts it's generally the other way around, where we use facts to shut down rampant, baseless speculation, but if that's the way you like to see it, I guess we can't stop you.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/6/23/4457082/microsoft-reorg-expected-by-july-1st-rumor

http://bgr.com/2013/06/24/microsoft-reorganization-2013-windows/

http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/2/4486278/don-mattrick-microsoft-exit-major-reorg-rumor

http://www.phonearena.com/news/Microsoft-reorganization-may-lead-to-unified-Windows-department-finally_id44442

http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=microsoft+reorganization&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&channel=suggest

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

I don't see how "reorg coming in July" automatically equates to "head of Xbox will leave company and be replaced with Ballmer". A re-org might have had Don Mattrick stay head of Xbox but moved under another department and exec. Nothing in your links hints about what happened. Now Mattrick and other execs might be leaving in droves due to Ballmer axing under-performing execs but so far Mattrick is the only one.

The most likely explanation based on the facts we know is the following:

Re-org is imminent, and Mattrick left due to reason X. Ballmer takes over for now because the reorg is already imminent and he doesn't want to reveal it yet since it will all come out in a few days. So he tells the Xbox team, report to me and concentrate on getting ready for the Xbox holiday release and hopes to avoid people getting complacent over their work on Xbox One, even if for a few days. All this could be true regardless of reason X. You're getting needlessly caught up with reason X which has nothing to do with whether Ballmer will lead the Xbox One release into the holiday season. There might not be an Xbox division even, there's rumors of a new hardware division which includes Surface.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Re-org is imminent, and Mattrick left due to reason X. Ballmer takes over for now because the reorg is already imminent and he doesn't want to reveal it yet since it will all come out in a few days. So he tells the Xbox team, report to me and concentrate on getting ready for the Xbox holiday release and hopes to avoid people getting complacent over their work on Xbox One, even if for a few days.

Yes but why didn't Ballmer just say this? Also why even mention the holidays in a few months if everyone knows that a re-org is coming in the next few days. Or better yet, have Mattrick stay until the re-org is announced in a few days. My reading on this is that it was quite sudden inside MS. That would be the most logical explanation to me. Otherwise, the message would have been different: "Re-org is happening. Mattrick is leaving early but another exec will take over shortly."

All this could be true regardless of reason X. You're getting needlessly caught up with reason X which has nothing to do with whether Ballmer will lead the Xbox One release into the holiday season. There might not be an Xbox division even, there's rumors of a new hardware division which includes Surface.

I didn't caught up in reason X. It seemed to be very sudden to most people even with a re-org about to happen. Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.

Re:Reorg

[Svartalf]

Middle? How about some executive sandblasting... The middle management only gets to screw up as long as the executives LET them. If you contemplate long and hard, all the issues there stem not from the people executing things- but from the people supposedly there to provide direction and vision to all of it.

Re:Reorg

[lgw]

I expect the headline to be short, accurate, and noninflammatory

Have you ever actually read a newspaper?

Re:Reorg

[scubamage]

Having survived several reorgs, this is absolutely correct. Also, never go into the HR contractor/reorg consultant's office when they aren't there. You learn scary and sad things.

Re:Reorg

[Chris Mattern]

I expect the headline to be short, accurate, and noninflammatory.

You must be tremendously disappointed with all print media news everywhere.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Because plans may and can change, and plans are best announced with changes themselves.

What the hell? You are the only that keeps insisting that this was all a part of the re-org yet "plans change". That makes absolutely no sense. There are two scenarios here: 1) Mattrick was on his way out and MS knew it for a while. Yet MS did not have a replacement for him despite doing a re-org and Ballmer will have to lead the division because no one in all of MS can do this but Ballmer. 2) Mattrick's exit was sudden and Ballmer doesn't have a replacement for him yet.

The holidays are mentioned to keep the Xbox team focused on the big goal of getting ready for the big holiday season instead of corporate gossip/speculation about new bosses.

If there is going to be a re-org in a "few days" , there will be new bosses for all parts of MS anyways. And if there is a new boss in a few days, there won't be speculation for the holidays, will there? That makes no sense.

Zynga might have wanted Mattrick to join them post-haste since they are in dire need of makeover after their last earnings and Mattrick also wanted to leave early. How can Ballmer keep Mattrick?

This is a country with at-will employment, you can't be forced to work at a company against your will. That explains the suddenness.

First, at-will employment only applies when there is no contract:

At-will employment is a doctrine of American law that defines an employment relationship in which either party can immediately terminate the relationship at any time with or without any advance warning, and with no subsequent liability, provided there was no express contract for a definite term governing the employment relationship and that the employer does not belong to a collective bargaining group (i.e., has not recognized a union)

Second, you do understand that top level executives often sign contracts which companies can dictate terms like term of employment. Often the exec and the employer agree on when they can leave; however, it can get contentious if there is no agreement. In this case, it points more that the exit was unexpected but MS let him go.

We're traveling in circles here, I tell you so many reasons that this is most likely a temporary state, and you keep going back as if you didn't even read my post. Anyway, there are most likely existing heads internally who will now directly report to Ballmer. At my workplace, the VP of IT was laid off last year and since then the three directors in IT directly report to the CEO inspite of CEO not having any IT experience and we are none the worse for it.

I'm not discussing "temporary state"; I'm talking planned vs unplanned. The re-org was planned. Everyone it thinking this exit was unplanned. Second, in your case, your company lost a level. Xbox is at least two levels down if the rumors are true. CEO --> VP Hardware -->Head of Xbox.

Re:Reorg

[X0563511]

Oh, I never get what I want! :)

Re:Reorg

[X0563511]

Nope. The most useful thing they have ever done for me is serve as kindling.

By the time I began to care about what was going on in the world, the internet was already well on it's way to murdering newspaper.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

What the hell? You are the only that keeps insisting that this was all a part of the re-org yet "plans change". That makes absolutely no sense. There are two scenarios here: 1) Mattrick was on his way out and MS knew it for a while. Yet MS did not have a replacement for him despite doing a re-org and Ballmer will have to lead the division because no one in all of MS can do this but Ballmer. 2) Mattrick's exit was sudden and Ballmer doesn't have a replacement for him yet.

Option 3) Mattrick's exit was sudden and Ballmer has a replacement in mind, but since the huge reorg is going be announced in a few days and he does not want to hint or reveal the big changes which even add and remove divisions like hardware, software, services just yet because everything is not ready yet, tells the team to report to him for now while telling them to continue to concentrate on getting things ready in time for the big holiday so that people have someone to report to in the interim instead of a void.

Read my other comment and the first reply to it. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929159&cid=44166085

If there is going to be a re-org in a "few days" , there will be new bosses for all parts of MS anyways. And if there is a new boss in a few days, there won't be speculation for the holidays, will there? That makes no sense.

I was referring to speculation now,in the coming few days, while working for the big holiday release, not speculation during the holidays. They to prepare for the Xbox One release from now itself, not just at the last minute while releasing it. It's a new unreleased product. Reread what I said.

For the nth time, the reason behind mentioning the holiday season is to focus the team on what they have been working hard since years for, and implying that regardless of new bosses and loss of an old boss, the gratification of releasing the Xbox One during the holidays is important. It wasn't to imply that Ballmer will be head of Xbox at release time in November. Even the FA says the same thing. If you think there is something like that somewhere, either reference it or tell me what make you deduce it.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Or Ballmer can have them report to the head of Entertainment and Devices Division in the meantime which is the most logical thing seeing as Ballmer has no background in gaming or devices while waiting for the re-org. This person will most likely have more knowledge and expertise than Ballmer. Or appoint someone under Mattrick to be temporary in charge until the re-org.

For the nth time, the reason behind mentioning the holiday season is to focus the team on what they have been working hard since years for, and implying that regardless of new bosses and loss of an old boss, the gratification of releasing the Xbox One during the holidays is important. It wasn't to imply that Ballmer will be head of Xbox at release time in November. Even the FA says the same thing. If you think there is something like that somewhere, either reference it or tell me what make you deduce it.

When will there be a new head? In a week? In two months? If there is a new chief in a week, why bother even taking over? Wouldn't the most prudent thing to have someone take over for Mattrick temporarily. If that person is head of Xbox later so be it. If that person was only temporary until re-org so be it. I don't see any advantage to Ballmer taking over.

Re:Reorg

[Grieviant]

You'll have to excuse recoiledsnake. He's been singing the praises of the XBone's grand vision and customer appeal for weeks, so MS's recent policy reversal coupled with the head of the division getting shit-canned was a heavy blow. Around E3 he was making an endless stream of posts pumping the XBone which rose almost immediately to +4 or +5, and then eventually fell back down to troll status. Clearly this indicates an anti-MS conspiracy on slashdot.

Why exactly he cares so deeply that people acknowledge Ballmer's new role as temporary is beyond me. It's not like anyone is going to give a flying fuck what suit eventually settles into this position.

Re:Reorg

[AdamHaun]

Or Ballmer can have them report to the head of Entertainment and Devices Division in the meantime

That group doesn't seem to exist anymore.

which is the most logical thing seeing as Ballmer has no background in gaming or devices while waiting for the re-org. This person will most likely have more knowledge and expertise than Ballmer. Or appoint someone under Mattrick to be temporary in charge until the re-org.

Do you work at a large company? I do, and I can confirm that recoiledsnake is correctly describing how things work, at least in my experience. When a manager leaves without an immediate replacement it's common for the their manager to take over the group temporarily. (They are, after all, probably more familiar with it than anyone else in the company.) Getting a new manager up to speed takes time, and if it's temporary that's a big waste. Likewise, when you've got a critical deadline it's a bad idea to distract key team members by suddenly giving them another job.

Re-orgs are often decided on months in advance but not announced until much later, and the announcements are often delayed. The new person might still be getting up to speed. Particularly at the senior management level (which is visible to investors), it's important to have a clear idea of who's in charge.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

XBone? Are you a 14 year old that can't even type a couple of words?

Why exactly he cares so deeply that people acknowledge Ballmer's new role as temporary is beyond me. It's not like anyone is going to give a flying fuck what suit eventually settles into this position.

I like it that you pick on me but not UnknowingFool (who is making endless streams of arguments).

I do agree with you though, but it's funny to see Slashdot commenters getting worked up over that very issue. If you're not, then why did you read this story and the comments and cared enough to post about it?

Also I like that you noticed how pointing out facts on Slashdot and going against the circlejerk of hate can get you troll mods.

You seem to be a subscriber, I suspect you might be behind the first post troll that inhabits this place! :)

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Also forgot to mention that UnknowingFool is a huge Apple fan that even supports Apple's anti developer abuses, see this thread. No wonder he likes to hate on Ballmer.

  http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3865737&cid=44009005

Re:Reorg

[nadaou]

While I agree with your other points the fluff up about Secure Boot is certainly not FUD. It's a looming problem which is deep and serious. Competitors are being forced into a position where a hostile entity is both becoming a sole supplier and a serious barrier to entry into the market place at the same time. Yes the door is still open for x86, but for how long? What happens with Intel's new low power chips and x86 tablets start becoming mainstream in the next couple of years? You really think that policy will stand still? And even now have you tried to install a new-release Linux on a new Windows 8 laptop as dual boot? It has become an tricky task even for a pro who knows what they are doing and knows what needs to be done.

It's the end of the first golden age of the PC, and you'd be crazy not to expect Microsoft to go down swinging with everything they've got. The PC market is going to get a lot uglier before it gets better. The big question is how much Taiwan needs to toe the Microsoft line. I'm guessing in the coming years not so much anymore. The marketplace moves more quickly than any one corporation.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

I've worked at many companies. It's not common for a manager two levels up or higher to take over when someone leaves. Ballet is CEO. Why he is taking over Xbox is beyond me. That's like the CEO of Intel taking over Atom development.

The point that the poster responding above stated was while there is a re-org planned, Mattrick leaving didn't seem to be planned. Some people don't think that bodes well for Xbox.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Have you considered the possibility that you know as much as anyone else (which is nothing) but offer nothing but rampant speculation yourself? Yet you had a hissy fit when you felt others speculated. Unlike you I don't claim to know anything.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

What distorted sense of reality do you have where Apple not giving MS an exception and treating them like every other developer is anti-developer abuse. Oh right, because it's MS and you think they deserve special treatment. That explains everything.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

I like it that you pick on me but not UnknowingFool (who is making endless streams of arguments).

I only pointed out when you made irrational and nonsensical arguments and red herrings. For example your at-will employment argument doesn't really hold water.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

I largely agree with you on some points but not the others, but you're are expressing an opinion and an argument which I am okay with as it's the basis for a reasonable discussion to follow.

In my post about "Secure Boot FUD", I was referring to the misinformation being spread in articles and modded up comments at the time which included comments stating:

1) That Microsoft bans OEMs from adding other keys in addition to it's own on PCs
2) That it mandates that Secure Boot must not be able to be turned off on PCs
3) That Windows 8 won't boot without Secure Boot enabled.
4) That it doesn't stop some of the most harmful and difficult-to-detect viruses
5) That there are no boot sector viruses now which Secure Boot prevents so it's not needed
etc. etc.

And then other people keep believing and repeating these things constantly and modding down people who argue the opposite.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Here's an example of an App maker who you think feels "entitled" to the app store.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/26/apple-bans-android-magazine-app/

I am sure you think it's fine for Apple to reject that app or any other app just because....and because $$$

I don't. That's the difference between us.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Re-read your own posts, they're full of arm-chair original speculation from you, coming from your mindset of "MS sux, Ballmer sux, Apple rules, Jobs rules" philosophy.

Mine in speculation based on news and analysis, especially what's known to Microsoft watchers in the press from insiders. For example, please read the two news articles that came out only a few hours ago:

http://www.zdnet.com/whats-behind-microsofts-pending-reorg-7000017629/

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/microsoft-ceo-said-to-give-bates-mergers-role-in-revamp.html

Now go back and read this entire thread.

The problem here is that you probably follow Apple more and thus know more than me about the latest Apple inside news, but I read Microsoft centric bloggers and watch their podcasts, thus I will in general tend to know more about this stuff than you do.

Coloring all "speculation" the same as if some unsourced Microsoft hater comments on Slashdot are equivalent to Bloomberg's or Mary Jo Foley's sources(who has a ~100% track record on MS news leaks btw, see below) is just plain foolishness.

http://tracour.net/author/Mary%20Jo%20Foley

Getting most of your MS news from misleading Slashdot summaries and headlines makes you ignorant.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Apple rejected an app. We don't know why. What does that have anything to do whether with your silly stance that MS should get an exception about pricing. MS wanted Apple to change their cut; Apple said no. This delayed the Office app release. Yet you want to say Apple is to blame for that. You know that if I wanted MS to give me a larger cut of a WP8 app revenue, it's not developer abuse if they say no. It's not their fault that I spent weeks trying to negotiating instead of finishing development. If you replaced Apple with Microsoft or Google, it's the same silly argument. It's only because it is MS that you feel somehow there's injustice.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

We don't know why. .

Oh, we do know why. It's right there in the article. Since you seem to be blind to it, here it is again, in bold, so it may help you see it.

"So what's the problem?" Dixon asked, knowing full well what the problem was.

"You know... your magazine," replied the Apple rep, who identified himself only as Richard. "It's just about Android.... we can't have that in our App Store."

Do you think Apple has the legal right to do that?

Do they have any moral obligation not to?

Do you object to it personally?

Do you think every company should go to all legal lengths to hurt their competitors?

If you were the boss of Apple would you have changed that response?

Why or why not?

I yearn for the good old days where you didn't need to pay a 30% toll and get past arbitrary and changing whims of a multinational corporation to develop and sell apps and had the choice of retail sales or selling from your own website. And yes that applies to other companies as well. However, Apple made it acceptable to the general public though, and Android(so strike Google from your silly argument) the biggest alternative allows alternative app stores and sideloading as an option to both users and devs.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Wow you fail at reading comprehension. Mine are clearly labeled as speculation. I didn't throw a hissy fit when others speculate unlike you:

Please RTFA or buy a fucking clue. I am so tired of stupid Slashdot stories and commeters who only get their Microsoft news from Slashdot and don't even RTFA.

You speculate all you want but if you ate going to rant about others doing the same isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

Again the re-org was planned. No one here disputes that. That is a dead point. What was talked about was whether Mattrick leaving was sudden or not. It seems to me and others that it was sudden. My contention is that I don't know if this bodes well for Xbox.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Ah yes, pick on the one thing I didn't reply to because I was otherwise busy and tired of your totally ignorant nitpicking.

No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore. Non-compete contracts can prevent working for other companies, but are enforceable in a few states only and only very narrowly and courts usually side with the employee. There can be monetary punishment in the contract(which Zynga can pay Mattrick to buy out).

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Wow you fail at reading comprehension. Mine are clearly labeled as speculation. I didn't throw a hissy fit when others speculate unlike you:

Please RTFA or buy a fucking clue. I am so tired of stupid Slashdot stories and commeters who only get their Microsoft news from Slashdot and don't even RTFA.

You speculate all you want but if you ate going to rant about others doing the same isn't that the pot calling the kettle black?

You fail at reading comprehension while quoting me out of context and accusing me of it. I will label some questions and request you answer them.

Here's the AC comment I was replying to, with the relevant part bolded:

While it's likely a good guess, as the end of major development cycle often brings big changes and most CEO's don't tend to collect direct reports, claiming that a reorg 'is imminent' is misleading and likely biased in itself. Are you afraid of competition?

How is "claiming a reorg is imminent misleading and biased" when I have shown multiple reliable sources stating it and you yourself agree with it? That AC obviously got his news(or lack of it) from this story and the misleading summary. Q1 Agree?

Again the re-org was planned. No one here disputes that. That is a dead point.

The AC comment I was replying to disputed that. Read it again, slowly, take your time and read it word by word.

AC comment I was replying to:

While it's likely a good guess, as the end of major development cycle often brings big changes and most CEO's don't tend to collect direct reports, claiming that a reorg 'is imminent' is misleading and likely biased in itself. Are you afraid of competition?

It was not a dead point when I replied to it and gave my source links showing reorg was coming. Q2 Agreed?

If so why do you think the AC didn't know about it?

Bingo! It's the misleading headline and summary which failed to talk about the reorg although the article alluded to it. Q3 Agreed?

Q4: Do you agree with the AC comment and would you mod it up or down if you had mod points?

What was talked about was whether Mattrick leaving was sudden or not. It seems to me and others that it was sudden. My contention is that I don't know if this bodes well for Xbox.

Of course it was sudden to us and likely was sudden to MS as well, I don't dispute that.

Headline: Steve Ballmer Replaces Don Mattrick As Xbox One Chief
Summary:

"While Don Mattrick leaves Microsoft to work at Zynga, Steve Ballmer announces that, from now on, he will be directly in charge of the Xbox One division as quoted: 'Don's directs will report to me and will continue to drive the day-to-day business as a team, particularly focused on shipping Xbox One this holiday.'"

That makes it sound as if Ballmer has just woken up one morning and decided he wants to head the Xbox team through the holiday release, while reality is much more nuanced. Q5 Agree?

I have given the source links from reliable sources for my so called speculation while you and the AC never gave one reference. When and where did you come to know about the re-org? From my posts or elsewhere?

My dispute with the summary and your posts was the implication and unfounded speculation that Ballmer will head the Xbox unit into the holiday season(read your own posts about the holiday season).

I dispute your contention that it's bad for Xbox because there are a number of scenarios where it might not be bad, for example, Mattrick wanted to be head of the entire hardware division, but Ballmer had other plans so he left. Also Mattrick might have been responsible for the E3 PR fiasco. Re-read the ZDNet Mary Jo Foley article again, it says people who don't get their desired role usually leave. Again, I don't know for sure about this like i do about the reorg , but I think it's way too early to for your contention.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Oh, we do know why. It's right there in the article. Since you seem to be blind to it, here it is again, in bold, so it may help you see it.

And you believe everything you read on the Internet? Or do you believe merely what you want to believe. An App was rejected. The developer says one thing: Apple doesn't say anything about it. What we have is the developer quoting someone from Apple. Not a letter. Not an email. A quote and we don't know if that was the entire conversation.

Do you think Apple has the legal right to do that?

You do understand the concept of "ownership" right? It's Apple's store. They can legally sell or not sell an app. Now can you show that it was somehow discrimination in some way other than they didn't like this one app? No.

Do they have any moral obligation not to?

Morality is a red herring and irrelevant to this conversation. Morally some people like the Amish believe we shouldn't be using machines like computers at all.

Do you object to it personally?

I don't like it but I only have one side saying it was because it was Android. Maybe the magazine violated some other rule but didn't bother to tell us. Maybe they offered subscriptions in a way they are not supposed to according the rules. We don't know, do we?

Do you think every company should go to all legal lengths to hurt their competitors?

Please tell me how Apple telling MS that they have to follow the same rules as everyone else is going out all lengths to hurt a competitor. That's not remotely close. If Apple made special rules for MS, that would be going out all lengths. Oh since it's MS, they deserve special treatment according to you, right?

I yearn for the good old days where you didn't need to pay a 30% toll and get past arbitrary and changing whims of a multinational corporation to develop and sell apps and had the choice of retail sales or selling from your own website. And yes that applies to other companies as well. However, Apple made it acceptable to the general public though, and Android(so strike Google from your silly argument) the biggest alternative allows alternative app stores and sideloading as an option to both users and devs.

What in world do you live where you get everything for free? When Palm was the biggest name in mobile apps, you had to pay sometimes up to 45% in some stores and the processing fees to get your app. Of course you could host your own site, build your own store, and handle everything yourself. And let me tell you that if you think that was less than 30% your memory was distorted. You don't have that choice with iOS. Get over it.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore. Non-compete contracts can prevent working for other companies, but are enforceable in a few states only and only very narrowly and courts usually side with the employee. There can be monetary punishment in the contract(which Zynga can pay Mattrick to buy out).

Do you have idea of what an employment contract is? From this post, you have some rather distorted ideas of the world. It is not slavery. If I sign an employment contract for a year, it means, I can't find another job or leave that job for a year. There will be penalties and mostly it will be monetary. For example a sports contract. If a baseball player signs with a team, they can't play for another team for a certain amount of time. Non-compete contracts are entirely different. They affect what you can do after you leave. Please learn the differences.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Apple's abuses in the app store(search for iPhone application graveyard or look at the UI prototyping app that was banned) are so well known that the story was very believable. Thats why the competitor I was referring to was Android, not MS.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

I never said an employment contract is slavery. I said no contract can force an employee to show up for work and actually do work(like it happened in the old times). What happens if you go to work but don't do any work? You can be fired without pay, for example, but you won't face criminal charges or arrest, maybe financial ones based on contract Re-read my post, especially the first and last sentences. I did say there can be monetary punishment(which you repeat like a parrot in your reply as if you're stating something new).

In spite of you bolding "after", non-compete contract can and do cover while being employed.

From http://www.fklaborlaw.com/faqs/employment-law-covenant-compete.html

A covenant not to compete, which is also known as a non-competition agreement or a non-compete, is a promise by an employee not to compete with his or her employer for a specified time in a particular place. A covenant not to compete may be a clause in an employment agreement or a separate contract standing by itself.

Agreements that prevent employees from competing against their employer while still employed are upheld in every state. Most states also provide employers with a remedy to recover profits lost as a result of the "faithless employee" who breaches a fiduciary duty owed to the employer by competing against it, while employed, whether or not the employee had agreed not to compete against the employer.

This is an example of a typical ignorant post full of bluster and over confidence from you while not doing basic research.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Wow you really are desperate for anything. First of all, what does any of this have to do with the link you provided which was specifically about MS and Apple and the subscription rules for Office? This topic is ancillary to the one in the link. Second, yes Apple bans apps. Sometimes the reasons are not clear. Sometimes the reasons are clear but people don't like them.

As for iPhone application graveyard, do you even read what you refer to? From iPhone application graveyard:

The Graveyard has served its purpose. . . . The iPhone App Store today is more open and more free than it originally was. The rules are now available to App Store developers, and several apps that Apple previously either rejected or “pocket rejected”, most prominently Google Voice, are now available in the Store.

So Apple wasn't clear about rejections and may not have been consistent with its policies. So what? You want to contribute that to malice, go ahead. I would think that in having to curate hundreds of thousands of applications, there are bound to be problems.

Third, if Apple's aim was to quash the competition, don't you think that Apple wouldn't let their competitors in the app store at all? Google, Amazon, Dell, and Adobe have multiple apps in the App Store right and some of them compete directly with Apple products. So Apple clearly has no issues with some of their competitors even when they offer competing applications. I even remember CEO Tim Cook endorsing Google's Map app during the botched Apple Maps launch. Doesn't sound like a company intent at going out all lengths to hurt their competitors, does it?

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

I never said an employment contract is slavery.

Do you read your own posts? Just scroll above.

No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore.

You are the one who mentioned slavery not me.

I said no contract can force an employee to show up for work and actually do work(like it happened in the old times).

If you sign an employment contract you are bound by the terms of the contract. Most contracts like the ones that an executive will sign are for terms of service. You can't just get another job before your contract is up. If you want to leave early you have to work it out with your employer. But you can't ignore the provisions of the contract because you want. No one will force you to show up however there are consequences if you don't fulfill the terms of contract like your employer blacklisting you. Some companies won't hire someone who doesn't abide by contracts.

For the sake of argument, Mattrick wanted to leave but his contract is not up but he doesn't want to work anymore. MS can execute parts of the contract that deal with early termination. For example, they might take away any stock options granted. They may ask him to buy out his contract. However it is up to the contract and what MS wants to do. They can simply not pay him until the contract is up. If they do this, Mattrick may have to remain unemployed for that time period. My speculation is that Mattrick bought out his contract.

You can be fired without pay, for example, but you won't face criminal charges or arrest, maybe financial ones based on contract Re-read my post, especially the first and last sentences. I did say there can be monetary punishment(which you repeat like a parrot in your reply as if you're stating something new).

When did I mention anything about criminal charges or arrest? You seem to like bringing irrelevant things to a conversation that have no bearing on it. You are the one who mentioned slavery or did you forget?

In spite of you bolding "after", non-compete contract can and do cover while being employed.

Let me explain this to in clear language: Employment contracts cover employment and mostly they deal with terms of service. They may or may not contain non-compete provisions. Non-compete agreements, however, can be an entirely separate agreement. In my example, professional sports players do not have normally have non-compete agreements in their contracts as they move from team to team after their contracts end. They do however have to complete the provisions of the contract while the contract is still active. On the other hand, some employers do have non-compete agreements which prevents an employee from going to a competitor after they leave but the employee is not signed to a term of service. The legality of non-competes varies from state to state; however, terms of service are generally enforceable.

Also what does non-compete agreements have to do with anything in this topic at all? It's another irrelevant topic that you brought up.

This is an example of a typical ignorant post full of bluster and over confidence from you while not doing basic research.

You keep bringing up irrelevant topics that have nothing to do with the topic at hand. As for research, please.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Apple made those changes because developers protested. If everyone was like you or listened to you when you say "You're not entitled to anything beyond what Apple deigns to give you so just shut up and stop complaining" then those few changes would have never happened. So there's nothing wrong with demanding or complaining about the 30% cut or in-app purchase requirements that, for example, the Microsoft stores don't have. You just want people to be happy and roll over.

So Apple wasn't clear about rejections and may not have been consistent with its policies. So what? You want to contribute that to malice, go ahead. I would think that in having to curate hundreds of thousands of applications, there are bound to be problems.

I only care that the situation is fixed. A UI prototyping app was banned in multiple months even after the developer went high up the Apple exec chain. A coding app is prevented from sharing code. http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/Talk/discussion/348/apple-notified-us-of-violations-re-downloadable-code/p1

And we're not allowed to complain?

>I even remember CEO Tim Cook endorsing Google's Map app during the botched Apple Maps launch.

That was because people were getting into dangerous situations with Apple Maps. Apple didn't want to be culpable and get blame for that so they were basically forced to suggest competitors.

Wrong directions can have very bad real life situations, unlike say, a broken RSS reader app.

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/26/137646147/the-gps-a-fatally-misleading-travel-companion

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Ok I will switch to the format of my other reply on the other thread which seems to finally have gotten into your head since you haven't even replied to it yet.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3929159&cid=44180905

I said this

No employment contract in the US can force anyone to show up to the office and do work. Slavery is not legal anymore.

An "employment contract" that forces people to show up at work and actually do work against their wishes(under threat of arrest, criminal charges or physical punishment) is what slavery is. Q1 Agreed?

The thread came out like this.

I effectively said "Employment is at the will of the employee. MS cannot force him to work if he does not want to."

You came out with: "First, at-will employment only applies when there is no contract:"

Second, you do understand that top level executives often sign contracts which companies can dictate terms like term of employment. Often the exec and the employer agree on when they can leave; however, it can get contentious if there is no agreement. In this case, it points more that the exit was unexpected but MS let him go.

Did MS even have an option to not let him go? You bring up non-compete, but they're not enforceable in many states. Look at Steven Sinofsky's agreement where they had to pay him a ton to keep him out of competitors' hands. http://www.theverge.com/2013/7/3/4491560/steven-sinofsky-microsoft-retirement-agreement-deal-shares-nda

Why would they waste so much money if noncompete agreements were workable? Microsoft's lawyers known way more than you about this stuff. Q2 Agree?

I effectively said "No contract can force people to work against their will since slavery is no longer legal. The only way out is monetary punishment which Zynga likely bought out."

And guess what? I was right.

http://microsoft-news.com/don-mattrick-to-make-over-50-million-at-zynga/

Also what does non-compete agreements have to do with anything in this topic at all? It's another irrelevant topic that you brought up.

No, you bought this up by saying this upthread:

Or better yet, have Mattrick stay until the re-org is announced in a few days.

I brought up contracts etc. to counter that point
And now you argue against yourself and agree with me and don't even remember that you started this line of argument. Nice 360.
Q3 agree?
Also, another quote from you:

What the hell? You are the only that keeps insisting that this was all a part of the re-org yet "plans change". That makes absolutely no sense.

From a news report the next day http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/microsoft-ceo-said-to-give-bates-mergers-role-in-revamp.html

The restructuring isn’t finalized and Ballmer may still shuffle roles around up until it’s officially announced, the people said. Xbox head Don Mattrick had been a contender for the hardware post before left the company to become CEO of Zynga Inc. (ZNGA), a move announced July 1.

See how it makes sense? Q4 Agree?

Look, I understand you're not a MS watcher and you probably follow a lot of iNews, and that's good for you and I don't think that's a bad thing in itself at all. People have different interests and they should. But you come off trying to argue from a position of ignorance trying to show MS in bad light with flimsy and broken logic while lacking real information that is out there if you really wanted to grab it instead of

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Ok I will switch to the format of my other reply on the other thread which seems to finally have gotten into your head since you haven't even replied to it yet.

You have so many pointless and irrelevant points, it's hard to keep up with them.

An "employment contract" that forces people to show up at work and actually do work against their wishes(under threat of arrest, criminal charges or physical punishment) is what slavery is. Q1 Agreed?

Do you have an idea of an employment contract in the real world? If you follow professional sports, you can easily see one in effect. A player doesn't want to play for the team and doesn't want to show up for mandatory practices and wants out of the contract. What happens to the player? Do they get lashed? No. They suffer fines and if they refuse to work for long enough, the totality of the fines could be hefty. Also the player is less likely to sign with another team because teams don't like working with players who refuse to fulfill contracts. This slavery scenario is a product of your imagination that you keep bringing up.

I effectively said "Employment is at the will of the employee. MS cannot force him to work if he does not want to."

Um. No. You don't remember what you post do you? Read above: "This is a country with at-will employment, you can't be forced to work at a company against your will. That explains the suddenness." The first thing misstated which I corrected is that the situation is not at-will if there is a contract in place. There is an employment contract in place for executives.

Did MS even have an option to not let him go?

MS can refuse to release and not have him do anything vital for the company. Execs can be assigned to dead projects until their contract is up at which point it is not renewed. But MS can enforce their contract if they wished. At the same time, there might be early termination provisions that give Mattrick a way out. See professional sports.

You bring up non-compete, but they're not enforceable in many states.

Hello? Please read carefully: I NEVER brought up non-compete until you did. You keep bringing it up and I keep telling you employment contracts are not necessarily the same thing as non-competes agreements. They are related but not the same. As an analogy, child support agreements are not the same as divorce agreements. They can exist separately as the parents may not be married.

Why would they waste so much money if noncompete agreements were workable? Microsoft's lawyers known way more than you about this stuff. Q2 Agree?

Again this has nothing to do with non-competes. There is nothing to agree as you keep bringing up something that is not relevant here.

And guess what? I was right.

Um no. You seem to be having conversations with someone in your head other than me. Of course you are always right in your head. Reality is another matter.

And now you argue against yourself and agree with me and don't even remember that you started this line of argument. Nice 360. Q3 agree?

You are the one who doesn't seem to recollect what you wrote. Please scroll above and re-read.

No, you bought this up by saying this upthread: Or better yet, have Mattrick stay until the re-org is announced in a few days.

Do you see the word "non-compete" anywhere in that statement? No. Matrrick wanted to leave but he has an employment contract. When he tells MS he wants to leave, the two can negotiate as to when he will go if they agree to part ways.

Most likely there is a buyout clause that he invoked; however, not all execs have the money to buyout their contracts. If he does not, MS doesn't have to let him go until the contract expires. From what it appears, Zynga pai

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Apple made those changes because developers protested.

Again what you linked have to do with this statement: "Also forgot to mention that UnknowingFool is a huge Apple fan that even supports Apple's anti developer abuses, see this thread. No wonder he likes to hate on Ballmer." It seems to me that you were misleading people as to what I said.

If everyone was like you or listened to you when you say "You're not entitled to anything beyond what Apple deigns to give you so just shut up and stop complaining" then those few changes would have never happened.

Again, misleading and misunderstanding the entire point. Your complaints were that MS deserved special treatment because Office wasn't a fart app. I said that no, they don't because (1) it's their store and as long as they don't discriminate in any particular way I don't have an issue with it and (2) they are treating MS no differently than any other developer.

So there's nothing wrong with demanding or complaining about the 30% cut or in-app purchase requirements that, for example, the Microsoft stores don't have.

You can complain all you want but you seem to think it's a great injustice that Apple has rules they won't bend for MS. If you don't like Apple's policies, you don't have to develop for them. You are not entitled to an App store of your design. If you want to design your own device and store, go ahead. If you want to develop for MS or Android, go ahead.

I only care that the situation is fixed. A UI prototyping app was banned in multiple months even after the developer went high up the Apple exec chain. A coding app is prevented from sharing code. http://twolivesleft.com/Codea/Talk/discussion/348/apple-notified-us-of-violations-re-downloadable-code/p1 [twolivesleft.com]

I don't know the situation but reading the emails it seems that there are certain features that Apple is not clear/comfortable with. This hardly rises to the level of "anti-developer abuse" that you ranted on.

That was because people were getting into dangerous situations with Apple Maps. Apple didn't want to be culpable and get blame for that so they were basically forced to suggest competitors.

What? Apple screwed up the launch. Maps was not ready. They apologized for it and they pointed the public to a competitor. If they didn't want culpability they can put in a disclaimer just like Google does for their walking maps.

And what does this have anything to do with "anti-developer abuse" again? Oh, right. Nothing.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

Sigh. Do you read anything you link? You are linking to an article that is speculating on the re-org. They are rumors until MS actually announces it:

You seem to lack the basic knowledge that when Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post say "According to people familiar with the matter" they're pretty much 100% right.

For example, see how WSJ got news of the iPad before it was launched. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703580904574638630584151614.html

Equating these professional organizations' sources to the same level as "rumors" by users on Apple fan forums or Slashdot does not make any sense. How many times do I have to prove that all rumors and speculation are not the same and the source and their track record matters a lot? This basically shows your willingness to argue for the sake of disagreeing rather than argue any facts and shows that debating with you is a complete waste of time.

Those Windows sites don't speculate? Since when? Perhaps you need to read more carefully.

Again, all speculation is not the same. See some of Mary Jo Foley's track record in this link which I provide again.

http://tracour.net/author/Mary%20Jo%20Foley

All you have brought is speculation unless you work at MS and have first hand knowledge. I suspect if you work for MS, you won't disclose it.

No, I don't work for MS, if I did, I would declare it, why hide it? There's nothing wrong with working for MS, as you seem to think. My speculation is from informed sources with a stellar track record and a lot of big revelations under their belt while you seem to have no clue about MS watchers who work in the press. Again, you're trying to color all speculation the same, it's not.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

You seem to lack the basic knowledge that when Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post say "According to people familiar with the matter" they're pretty much 100% right.

You believe everything you read on the internet about Apple? Were you born yesterday? First of all, "according to people familiar with the matter" is not 100%. The person in question may not have all the relevant facts. It is also possible that things have changed since your link was posted that the source was not aware. Second according to your link, WSJ predicted iPad in March. It didn't come out until April: How is that "100% right"? Third so even if the WSJ got one prediction right, that means every other website gets 100% right about everything else?

If we are staying on just the topic of Apple, how many years did we hear about the iPhone mini? Or that Apple is switching all their computers to ARM? The iPhone 5 was supposed to be tear-drop shaped. The newest is that Apple iTV was supposed to be announced Q1 2013. Some of these predictions were posted by the big and the small sites. These have failed to happen.

Again, all speculation is not the same. See some of Mary Jo Foley's track record in this link which I provide again.

I fail to see Mary Jo's speculating on the possible personnel changes. She does however have thoughts on why MS is doing it as well as likely structural changes. She however is not giving specifics because she doesn't have solid facts herself.

No, I don't work for MS, if I did, I would declare it, why hide it?

Because that would explain your obvious bias. However if you did work for MS, your speculation might be more reliable.

There's nothing wrong with working for MS, as you seem to think. My speculation is from informed sources with a stellar track record and a lot of big revelations under their belt while you seem to have no clue about MS watchers who work in the press.

So you admit everything you have is speculation?

Again, you're trying to color all speculation the same, it's not.

Speculation is still speculation. Some speculation may be more grounded in likelihood but it still is speculation. With the large reorg that is imminent, it is possible that not every exec has left. Some of the exits like Mattrick might be unexpected so MS is working through it all. This situation is a lot more fluid than Apple releasing a product because that takes a lot more long term planning. Some of the sites that have predicted Apple products have a better track record because they track supply chain information. However they are not always right. The iPhone 5 was not tear-drop shaped even though there were supposed orders of new cases.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

You believe everything you read on the internet about Apple? Were you born yesterday? First of all, "according to people familiar with the matter" is not 100%.

Oh god, what the heck? Do you even understand English?

How in the hell is "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" the same as "the internet" ? Do you have sudden amnesia that hits you just after you read my post and before you write a reply? I specifically said that speculation by organizations like that are "NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECULATION ON THE INTERNET".

Do you even read what you yourself quoted from my post???

You seem to lack the basic knowledge that when Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post say "According to people familiar with the matter" they're pretty much 100% right.

How can you even claim that that equates to "believing everything you read on the internet" ? Are you dumb or just acting so?

How many news sites and blogs are on the internet? Hundreds of thousands?

How many news sites and blogs are in the list "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" I count 4.

I feel that I am debating with someone who can't read.

Again you color all speculation the same.

"The sun will rise tomorrow". Is that speculation or fact? Is it at the same level of speculation as Apple will release iPhone 6 tomorrow? Don't you agree that there's different levels of speculation based on probability, track record etc.?

There's informed speculation and there's uninformed speculation.

Second according to your link, WSJ predicted iPad in March. It didn't come out until April: How is that "100% right"?

Oh yes, ignore everything that the WSJ got right and pick on one thing(March could've been the internal plan at Apple in Jan). Also ignore that I said "it's pretty much 100% right". The link was an example about how WSJ had access to real information as opposed to the rest of the internet.

I see you still fail to read the news which broke around 30 mins before your post. Here's your new head of Xbox, Ballmer is not taking over till the holiday season like you were insinuating.

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/news/Press/2013/Jul13/07-11OneMicrosoft.aspx

Will you admit you were wrong in your posts below?

Also why even mention the holidays in a few months if everyone knows that a re-org is coming in the next few days.

Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.

If you don't agree that your posts and basically this whole Slashdot article and most of the comments on here are bunk after the news that broke today, you're morally and ethically bankrupt.

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Oh god, what the heck? Do you even understand English?

Do you understand that humans lack omnipotence? Someone who is "familiar with the matter" may not actually be familiar with it at all or was given incorrect information themselves. Unless the source was Ballmer himself, take everything with a grain of salt.

How in the hell is "Bloomberg, WSJ, NYT, Washington Post" the same as "the internet" ? Do you have sudden amnesia that hits you just after you read my post and before you write a reply? I specifically said that speculation by organizations like that are "NOT THE SAME AS THE SPECULATION ON THE INTERNET".

And all news organizations are 100% right all the time? Since when in the history of news has this been correct? For example in crime reporting: Sources familiar with the matter say suspect A will be arrested shortly. And then it doesn't happen. With the WSJ and Bloomberg, they word articles so that it is clear that they are passing on information from a source. But not every source is reliable all the time (sometimes for reasons outside of the their control.).

How can you even claim that that equates to "believing everything you read on the internet" ? Are you dumb or just acting so?

As someone who worked in journalism, I know that doesn't mean it is 100% correct and you should not bet your house on it. This is what you fail to understand.

Oh yes, ignore everything that the WSJ got right and pick on one thing(March could've been the internal plan at Apple in Jan). Also ignore that I said "it's pretty much 100% right". The link was an example about how WSJ had access to real information as opposed to the rest of the internet.

What is "100% right"? If you don't get it 100% right, it isn't 100% is it? So WSJ predicted the iPad. If you weren't following news at the time, SO WAS EVERYONE ELSE. It was most likely that iPad was going to come out. But if Apple didn't release it, don't be surprised. Everyone was saying the iTV was coming out Q1 2013. It didn't happen.

I see you still fail to read the news which broke around 30 mins before your post. Here's your new head of Xbox, Ballmer is not taking over till the holiday season like you were insinuating.

Wow, your failure at reading comprehensions is astounding. Julie Larson-Greene is the new head of Devices and Studio Engineering. She is in charge of the entire group which includes Xbox. Ballmer has not named who will lead Xbox specifically. For now, that person still is Ballmer as far as the public knows. Xbox will likely require a dedicated person just like Windows Phone will likely require a dedicated person. These persons have not been named publicly yet.

If you don't agree that your posts and basically this whole Slashdot article and most of the comments on here are bunk after the news that broke today, you're morally and ethically bankrupt.

Back to insults I see. You've built all of these posts on speculation and misinformation and seem rather irritated when someone calls you out on your BS. By the way, is an employment contract the same as a non-compete agreement? All it takes is a google search but you spent countless posts arguing from ignorance.

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

And all news organizations are 100% right all the time? Since when in the history of news has this been correct? For example in crime reporting: Sources familiar with the matter say suspect A will be arrested shortly. And then it doesn't happen.

Not all. I just quoted four. How you can extrapolate that to all when I specifically said they are not to be trusted as much as reliable ones?

For example in crime reporting: Sources familiar with the matter say suspect A will be arrested shortly. And then it doesn't happen.

The difference should be obvious if you have any background in journalism. It is that reputable organizations like the ones I have listed vet their sources and don't post everything from every anonymous email or tip they get. They spend a minimum time and effort to make sure their reputation stays intact. You can add Reuters and AP to the list I quoted. Most other news organizations just print anything regardless of the reliability of their sources.

So WSJ predicted the iPad. If you weren't following news at the time, SO WAS EVERYONE ELSE

Maybe, but the WSJ article gave the rumors legitimacy and confirmed a lot of things. That article was widely quoted and reported in the media at the time. Why would it be if everyone else was onto the story? In fact in some cases the companies themselves leak things to the big news orgs to generate hype.

Everyone was saying the iTV was coming out Q1 2013. It didn't happen.

Everyone? Care to reference a couple from WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters, AP, Washington Post, NYT that say "from our sources"? Or are you making up things as you go ?

Wow, your failure at reading comprehensions is astounding. Julie Larson-Greene is the new head of Devices and Studio Engineering. She is in charge of the entire group which includes Xbox. Ballmer has not named who will lead Xbox specifically. For now, that person still is Ballmer as far as the public knows.

That made me laugh, you're clutching at straws here. The whole point of the reorg is to have new divisions and heads. Ballmer need not name the head of every small subdivision. Is there even a Xbox division anymore?

This whole Slashdot article is a misleading non-story not worthy of even being posted and only designed to rile up ignorant people who get their MS news only from here or other similar forums and who don't even know about the reorg.

By the way, is an employment contract the same as a non-compete agreement?

Not this again, I got tired of it because you were not willing to concede the point after losing it. In one post you claimed Microsoft had a option not to let go of Mattrick. I replied no they cannot. After a couple of posts you changed your tune saying that Microsoft can't prevent him from leaving if he pays his way out. I am tired of arguing this again and again.

Back to insults I see. You've built all of these posts on speculation and misinformation and seem rather irritated when someone calls you out on your BS.

Did you read your own posts that I quoted? Here they are:

Also why even mention the holidays in a few months if everyone knows that a re-org is coming in the next few days.

Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular.

I am totally vindicated in all my points. All my so called speculation and misinformation turned to be actually true because it was based on reliable sources who delivered yet again, while your speculation about Ballmer leading Xbox into the holiday season turned to be total junk. Yet you accuse me of speculation and misinformation?

For example read my post, the reply to your first post in this thread:

Re:Reorg

[UnknowingFool]

Not all. I just quoted four. How you can extrapolate that to all when I specifically said they are not to be trusted as much as reliable ones?

How can you extrapolate that if your sources are right this time, they are always right? And they were not always right. One source said the re-org would happen July 1. That wasn't entirely correct.

The difference should be obvious if you have any background in journalism. It is that reputable organizations like the ones I have listed vet their sources and don't post everything from every anonymous email or tip they get. They spend a minimum time and effort to make sure their reputation stays intact. You can add Reuters and AP to the list I quoted. Most other news organizations just print anything regardless of the reliability of their sources.

Again, you are assuming the source was given all the correct information. The source isn't lying to the reporter but the information they were given may not have been correct. That's why reputable news organization specifically word their articles as coming from a source.

Everyone? Care to reference a couple from WSJ, Bloomberg, Reuters, AP, Washington Post, NYT that say "from our sources"? Or are you making up things as you go ?

WSJ: Apple Moves Closer to Making TV Set
New York Times: What’s Really Next for Apple in Television
Business Insider: Apple Could Announce New TV This December, Says Top Apple Analyst

Satisfied or do you need more?

That made me laugh, you're clutching at straws here. The whole point of the reorg is to have new divisions and heads. Ballmer need not name the head of every small subdivision. Is there even a Xbox division anymore?

That's as idiotic as saying Apple doesn't need someone in charge of iPhones. GE doesn't need anyone in charge of jet engines. Larson-Greene will oversee everything involving Xbox, Windows Phone, Surface, third party developers, and studios. She's never going to eat or sleep again right?

Not this again, I got tired of it because you were not willing to concede the point after losing it. In one post you claimed Microsoft had a option not to let go of Mattrick. I replied no they cannot. After a couple of posts you changed your tune saying that Microsoft can't prevent him from leaving if he pays his way out. I am tired of arguing this again and again.

Since you can't or won't bother to look it up: Wikipedia

A contract of employment usually defined to mean the same as a "contract of service".[2] A contract of service has historically been distinguished from a "contract for services", the expression altered to imply the dividing line between a person who is "employed" and someone who is "self-employed". The purpose of the dividing line is to attribute rights to some kinds of people who work for others. This could be the right to a minimum wage, holiday pay, sick leave, fair dismissal, a written statement of the contract, the right to organize in a union, and so on. The assumption is that genuinely self-employed people should be able to look after their own affairs, and therefore work they do for others should not carry with it an obligation to look after these rights.

or About.com

An employment contract is a written legal document that lays out binding terms and conditions of employment between an employee and an employer. . .

Re:Reorg

[recoiledsnake]

WSJ: Apple Moves Closer to Making TV Set [wsj.com]
New York Times: What’s Really Next for Apple in Television [nytimes.com]
Business Insider: Apple Could Announce New TV This December, Says Top Apple Analyst [businessinsider.com]

I asked for a couple of references that show rumors about a 1Q 2013 Apple TV release, and I get a WSJ link that references sources at Foxconn, some idle speculation from NYT blogs (which is not the same as NYT btw and is extremely unreliable like the blogs on Forbes, Business Insider etc., thought you would know that) and some speculation from Gene Munster? Wow that's quite a low.

And my broken watch is right twice a day. Doesn't change the fact that it is still broken.

Keep telling yourself that. I had no doubts about how things played out, unlike you and the Slashdot story trying to spread FUD about Ballmer leading the Xbox into the holiday division.

Again, quote me the "speculation and misinformation and BS" in my post to which you started replying.

The most likely explanation based on the facts we know is the following:

Re-org is imminent, and Mattrick left due to reason X. Ballmer takes over for now because the reorg is already imminent and he doesn't want to reveal it yet since it will all come out in a few days. So he tells the Xbox team, report to me and concentrate on getting ready for the Xbox holiday release and hopes to avoid people getting complacent over their work on Xbox One, even if for a few days. All this could be true regardless of reason X. You're getting needlessly caught up with reason X which has nothing to do with whether Ballmer will lead the Xbox One release into the holiday season. There might not be an Xbox division even, there's rumors of a new hardware division which includes Surface.

Again, reason X and employment contracts are just a red herring to this article and your post. The crux is that you and the Slashdot story were insinuating that Ballmer is going to lead the Xbox team long term while it was pretty much a given that he was not.

If you want to read some baseless speculation, misinformation and BS read your posts:

Also I don't know about you but how is Ballmer is really qualified to lead the Xbox team? I mean he doesn't have much experience with that division or familiarity with the subject area in particular. ...
If there is going to be a re-org in a "few days" , there will be new bosses for all parts of MS anyways. And if there is a new boss in a few days, there won't be speculation for the holidays, will there? That makes no sense.

Well, that seals it...

[sensationull]

What little chance it had left it has now lost, tell us Steve, how much more boxy are you going to make it, how many more user hostile features are you going to add, what useful features can be stripped out and replaced by junk. By the time it launches it will be able to search for your keys in 30 different languages, tell you are about to have a heart attack, that you are due for a prostate check and that you have 50 new marketing emails from facebook. The one thing it won't be able to do is play games.

Re:Well, that seals it...

[JWW]

I find myself imagining that about two years ago there must have been a big internal meeting at Microsoft, and Ballmer must have been up on stage yelling ... "RECTANGLES RECTANGLES RECTANGLES!!!!".

Re:Well, that seals it...

[BitZtream]

My god, that joke is so ridiculously tired. Its been freaking YEARS, come up with some new material. Its not funny.

Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[realmolo]

He's a moron. He doesn't understand the business AT ALL. Plus, he's obnoxious as hell.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[wowsignal]

He's a moron. He doesn't understand the business AT ALL. Plus, he's obnoxious as hell.

Yeah, I've been wondering about that for years. In any other company he would be long gone. I won't touch their stock until he's shown the door.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[Zimluura]

here are some possibilities:

a) they're scared they won't make it out of the room, though if the board organized they would probably be able to overpower him with only minor casualties.

b) his net worth of 15.2billion (not sure how much is ms stock) they could be scared of what happens afterward.

c) the ms board is as out of touch with the market as ballmer is, and don't think something is wrong.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[AHuxley]

These optical splitters — too accurate for MS people. Only NSA contractors are so precise.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[Archangel Michael]

I actually picture it more like this ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrXfh4hENKs&safe=active

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[headhot]

Ha, then your not a good investor. If you think Ballmer has screwed up MS, and any one could do a better job, one would expect their stock to rise once he is kicked to the curb, making this the good time to buy the stock low.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[lister king of smeg]

The stockholders tried to fire him but he and Bill Gates own most of the stock, he and Bill are best of friends and Bill still dominates the board so the board can't and/or won't kick him out either.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[UnknowingFool]

The company still makes lots of profit even though the stock has not been a great performer. Now you could argue that MS would have been the same with a Magic 8 ball at the helm, but unless they catch him sexual harassing interns or something, it's unlikely he's going any time soon based on performance alone. Second, I think the problem is that Ballmer only understands business; he doesn't understand products or designs. Lastly Ballmer does not seem to be a person who shakes up things like he should. MS has become the bureaucracy that they laughed at IBM for becoming. It has grown into a collection of fiefdoms with no one person leading the larger efforts.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[Tridus]

The stock has moved around within a given range without really growing out of it for what, ten years now?

Besides, this short term thinking is what makes companies fail in the long run. Ballmer's job has been to grow into new markets. The company did that with the Xbox 360 (and then tried to piss it all away with the Xbox One), but hasn't exactly been tearing up the phone or tablet spaces.

The board should be asking "is this the right guy to grow the company in 5 years?" and not "is this the right guy to meet expectations for Q2?"

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[h4rr4r]

Unless you think they have not hit bottom yet. If it takes another decade you probably don't want to buy in now.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[X0563511]

&safe=active? Really? Why is that on there still?

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[gallondr00nk]

He's a moron. He doesn't understand the business AT ALL. Plus, he's obnoxious as hell.

He doesn't really have to be at that level, all he has to do is be an alpha male, leader of the pack. Look at the developers thing on Youtube and you can see it perfectly clearly. He bounces around and screams and veins are popping out on his head like he wants to kick the shit out of something. It's the angry red faced jock mentality that got him to where he is, it wasn't despite it.

Often company directors don't get to where they are by being exceptionally capable or understanding their business, but because they're wired to be willing to bully and cajole and throw as much shit as is necessary to advance their careers.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[ctusch]

Sound a lot like politicians. It's a sad fact that the skills you need to get to a position of power are not the ones you need when you are there.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[phantomfive]

I'd have to guess he's not fired because he's not a moron, he understands the business much better than you, and well, he is obnoxious, I'll grant you that.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[Viewsonic]

Compared to Apple?

No, it is not.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[Patch86]

If you think it's a good idea to invest in a company which is demonstrating zero governance oversight and an inability to deal with incompetent board members, just because they might go up again if they ever sort all their problems out, then I highly suggest that you don't go near the stock market ever again. That'd be like betting on the team at the bottom of the league on the assumption that they've got to start winning some time...

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[Peter Simpson]

He's a moron. He doesn't understand the business AT ALL. Plus, he's obnoxious as hell.

Normally, I would object to ad hominem attacks. But you're right. And, he may be obnoxious, but he's way richer than you or any of us. So, I guess that proves you can be wrong, clueless and obnoxious, but still make pantloads of money. TANJ.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[gtall]

I doubt Ballmer is worse than was Al "Chainsaw" Dunlap, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_J._Dunlap. He's the fellow that destroyed Sunbeam among others. From the wiki page:

"In 2005, the business magazine Fast Company included Dunlap in the article 'Is Your Boss a Psychopath', noting he "might score impressively on the Corporate Psychopathy checklist." [13] The magazine's editor. John A. Byrne, noted: "In all my years of reporting, I had never come across an executive as manipulative, ruthless, and destructive as Al Dunlap. Until the Securities and Exchange Commission barred him from ever serving as an officer of a public corporation, Dunlap sucked the very life and soul out of companies and people. He stole dignity, purpose, and sense out of organizations and replaced those ideals with fear and intimidation." "

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[recoiledsnake]

The stock has moved around within a given range without really growing out of it for what, ten years now?

First, you need to account for dividends over the years.
Second, the stock went up 20% in the past few months.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[scubamage]

If you think Ballmer is an idiot and is steering things downward but will eventually be replaced, you should start buying now, and buy periodically over the next couple years. Dollar cost averaging, my friend.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[mjwx]

The board hasn't fired Balmer because Balmer has stacked the board with his allies.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[Archangel Michael]

I work at a school district ... CIPA requirements and all that.

Re:Why hasn't the board fired Ballmer?

[X0563511]

I meant you could have trimmed that off as you posted it :P

But I've seen far worse, so whatever!

Xbox division employees better be careful

[JDG1980]

Look out for flying chairs!

First new XBox One game? Chair Launcher

[kannibal_klown]

The world is invaded by aliens, the country is in shambles...

There's only one weapon that can save you now: the might CHAIR

Throw chairs at your enemies and defend your planet. Customize and purchase new chairs: from the basic metal folding chair to the antique wingback

Coming to a store near you in 2014

... and in other news...

[kootch]

Joe replaced Bob as the manager at the local frozen yogurt stand.

Deja vu?

[Kwpolska]

Steven Sinofsky, the moron responsible for Windows 8, left Microsoft a very short while after releasing Windows 8. We have a quite similar scenario here, save for the quit happening a bit earlier, but still after shit hit the fan.

Re:Deja vu?

[Waccoon]

Wasn't he the same moron responsible for Windows 7?

Ballmer? RIP, XBox!

[zarmanto]

The subject line pretty much says it all. The only real question here is, how long will it take him to well-and-truly trash the XBox division, such that it's no longer recoverable?

How bad is MS

[Anonymous Coward]

How bad is it at Microsoft if one willingly leaves to work at Zynga?

Re:How bad is MS

[gtirloni]

Good point. The fact that he is leaving doesn't surprise me. The fact that he accept a job at Zynga instead of staying at home sure sounds crazy.

Re:How bad is MS

[BitZtream]

This is in no way a bad reflection on Microsoft, and is an entirely bad reflection on Mattrick. It just illustrates that he's a complete scumbag.

Going to work at Zynga as the CEO is not going to be a 'shitty' job. He's in charge, not one of the grunts stealing games from others and working 90 hour weeks.

It makes it clear that even Microsoft has some sort of moral standards, Mattrick isn't capable of living up to even those low standards, so he had to go run some other absolutely shitty company into the ground. Should be easy considering it was already well on its way before he became CEO.

The title is misleading

[Skiron]

It should be eXboss

Re:NSA backdoors in closed source closed standard?

[c0lo]

has been revealed to be an NSA intercept trap? (See the 'Chess leak')

Google asked me if I did mean "Cheese leek". What should I answer?

Great Game

[deboli]

I know, I know it's old but I'm still hoping for a good chair throwing game!

Submarine Analogy

[guttentag]

Imagine a nuclear submarine. You have a power plant with a seemingly limitless supply of fuel compared to conventional designs, which grants you the ability to operate at high speed underwater for long periods of time with only occasional needs to surface for air. However, it only works because you have a thick layer of shielding that protects the crew from direct exposure to the power source. Now consider the kind of energy Ballmer radiates. Technically, he is in slow decline, but he has a half life of about 20 years. A division president would have acted the shielding between Ballmerizing radiation and the crew. Without that shield, how long will the crew survive?

What I don't get

[korbulon]

Is that once you've reached the upper echelons of management in any major corporation you have job security for the rest of your life. There seems to be no fuck-up too big, no verbal slip too ridiculous, to relegate you to indefinite unemployment. On the contrary demonstrated incompetence appears to have no bearing on future job prospects. It's more like a game of musical chairs chairs chairs...

"CHAIR!"

Re:NSA backdoors in closed source closed standard?

[BitZtream]

I love when people post ignorant comparisons to 1984 ... which you clearly utterly missed the point.

We are nothing like 1984. 1984 reflects a society that willingly wanted the conditions told in the book to occur. That is no way the case in modern society, regardless of how your feeble thought process wants to pervert it. No one in modern society wants to be spied on.

Get some reading comprehension skills, or more likely, go actually read the book rather than spouting shit like you've read it and know what its about.

Probably an improvement

[Tridus]

Believe it or not, I actually think this is better.

Let's be honest here, the reveal and everything since has been a fiasco. Mattrick was the guy in charge, and he blew it in "they'll teach this in business schools" fashion. They made a lot of mistakes with the Xbox One, Sony took their lunch money, and pre-orders have been disappointing.

Ballmer can't really do worse, though I don't expect he'll do a ton better. So much damage has already been done to the brand name that trying to sell it as the most expensive system on the market isn't going to fly. People don't hear the name "Xbox One" and think "worth a premium price". They hear it and think "that's the thing my friends on Facebook said sucked, why would I pay more for that?"

Ballmer might also be open to the drastic step necessary to right the ship - make a version without the Kinect and charge $100 less for it. Pricing problem solved, and early adopter core gamers don't give a rats ass about Kinect anyway.

Re:Probably an improvement

[lord_mike]

You're not going to get optional Kinect. Kinect is so integrated into the Xbox One, it can't be separated from the unit. I suspect the entire menu system of the new XBox will require Kinect to navigate it effectively, and subtle motion controls (using hand waves, finger movements, etc.) while seated will become core to the Xbox gaming experience. The thing can measure your heart rate for cripe's sake! I have a hard time imagining features like that not being utilized heavily by game developers or Microsoft itself. I've never understood the hostility to Kinect. Yes, there is a legitimate privacy issue with the Kinect 2, but hatred of the controller significantly predates those privacy concerns. It's a very cool technology. Why so many people hate it so much?

Re:Probably an improvement

[Tridus]

Because it sucks at gaming.

Find me a game aimed at core gamers that uses Kinect in any significant way and isn't worse for it. There isn't one. There is games like Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor, which flat out didn't work half the time because Kinect can't pick up subtle movements reliably.

Then there's the space requirements, the "no kids running in front of it while I'm playing" requirements, and the other realities that get in the way.

It's a cool piece of tech. It's lousy as a control scheme.

Re:Did anyone else misread that as:

[TWiTfan]

Hey, it's not fair to compare Don Mattrick to a dot matrix printer! At least the printer can still serve a useful purpose.

thank goodness

[FudRucker]

glad my Sony Playstation still works good, with Monkeyboy Ballmer at the wheel XBox is sure to blunder, it was Ballmer that was in charge of WinME and Vista and they both flopped just like XBox will again

Warm

[james.louvau]

Yeah, I've got the warm 'n fuzzies now ...

Re:NSA backdoors in closed source closed standard?

[CanHasDIY]

We are nothing like 1984. 1984 reflects a society that willingly wanted the conditions told in the book to occur. That is no way the case in modern society, regardless of how your feeble thought process wants to pervert it. No one in modern society wants to be spied on.

Dear lord, but do I wish that were true...

In reality, there's actually a fair contingent of the populace who will not only bow to the governments every whim on the dubious claim of "safety," but will demand you hit your knees as well, with equal fervor.

You don't see this because you insulate yourself from them, partially by posting here on Slashdot; I implore you, go check out the comment sections on Yahoo, MSNBC, or Fox News for any of the stories about Ed Snowden. You will not like (and may have trouble believing) what you see.

One Less Deck Chair on the Titanic

[BoRegardless]

Seems like when the Captain takes over for the fired manager of the engine room, that the Captain has given up his command of the mega-ship.

Microsoft seems headed toward a Titanic split where the board separates the company into individual smaller companies and, of course, all new CEOs of those new public companies.

Putting Ballmer in charge ...

[sfarber53]

of a product that looks like it might fail is always a good idea. That way there is a clear reason for failure when it occurs.

Re:Did anyone else misread that as:

[rkhalloran]

Dot Matrix would NEVER get involved with the XBONE and still looks better than some MS suit...

Re:First new XBox One game? Chair Launcher

[Dracos]

I envision an inversion of XBill, where Ballmer must throw chairs at Linuses trying to install Linux on networked machines.

Ballmer Kong

[Junior J. Junior III]

I don't know why everyone is so down on Ballmer in this story. I think he's perfect. For years, Nintendo have made a ton of money off of a great big monkey. Now, Microsoft are finally competing on equal terms.

Instead of advertising geek.com...

[Seumas]

You know, instead of advertising geek.com all over this submission, you could have just linked directly to microsoft's webpage with the Ballmer letter.

a complete misunderstanding

[nimbius]

"Don's directs will report to me and will continue to drive the day-to-day business as a team, particularly focused on shipping Xbox One this holiday.""

Dear Steve,
Theres been a terrible mistake. You are the new "Chief Xichang box associate, Dock 1," you know, for the Xichang factory in China. Dons still on for the "Chief Xbox One" roll, its just we need you down there to help with shipping this christmas. Sorry about the mixup.

Regards,

MSFT Board of Directors.

LIFE POINTS! LIFE POINTS! LIFE POINTS!

[swschrad]

just what the world needs, another old grey fat billionnaire trying to figure out how to blast the monsters in front of a crowd, and lasting 10 seconds.

Re:NSA backdoors in closed source closed standard?

[Dishwasha]

Although the tide has finally turned more recently since 9/11, check out these surveys and you might change your opinion that "no one" wants to be spied on.

Publishers, publishers, publishers

[tepples]

How so? I thought it was publishers, publishers, publishers. Microsoft confirmed that it allows only publishers of disc games to offer download games. Developers of download games have to go through an established disc game publisher in order to get their products onto Xbox Live Marketplace, and Microsoft Studios doesn't have a lot of slots open.

Re:Publishers, publishers, publishers

[RaceProUK]

Microsoft confirmed that it allows only publishers of disc games to offer download games.

On Xbox One. That limitation doesn't apply to Xbox 360.

Re:Publishers, publishers, publishers

[tepples]

I was going by claims posted by tlhIngan and edwdig. Are you referring to Xbox Live Indie Games, which requires rewriting the whole game line-by-line in C# (native code and Emit are verboten) and which Microsoft has deprecated anyway according to UnknowingFool and samzenpus?

Re:Publishers, publishers, publishers

[RaceProUK]

Obviously :P Didn't know XNA (which can be used by any .NET language, not just C#) had been deprecated, but I think it'll be like Silverlight - nothing new, but alive nonetheless.

Political move

[backwardsposter]

Now all of that bad PR will definitely turn around.

Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[tepples]

Consoles have the advantage of knowing exactly what make and model of GPU you're dealing with. For example, if you know what texture compression formats will be supported, you don't have to recompress textures at runtime or include textures compressed in all formats on the disc. Nor do you have to include three different implementations of every shader, one optimized for NVIDIA's strengths, one optimized for AMD's strengths, and one fallback for Intel. (Remember when AMD destroyed NV at Bitcoin mining?)

Re:Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[spire3661]

Its a meh advantage at best, an advantage which will wane now that intel is pumping out serviceable GPUs.

Re:Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[tepples]

Even so, consoles still have the advantage of being bundled with a gamepad and traditionally being connected to a larger monitor.

Re:Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[spire3661]

We will be seeing 'console-syle' Haswell NUCs very soon. I agree that a console is always going to be smoother, but MOSTLY because its a one vendor source. A good example is Steam Big Picture mode. IN theory its great, hook up computer to TV, use a 10 foot interface with a controller. In practice its awful because Steam cant stop Ubisoft from making their own launcher for Uplay that requires a mouse to navigate. Its incredibly frustrating because by default you cant have the joystick act as a mouse so either you have to bolt on some kind of mouse device to your controller or live with a kb/mouse in your living room.

Re:Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[HornWumpus]

Coming with a shitty controller is not an advantage.

Having games prevent you from using a good controller is a disadvantage.

Re:Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[tepples]

Having games prevent you from using a good controller is a disadvantage.

Having games prevent me from plugging in and using multiple controllers is also a disadvantage, especially if I've built a gaming PC for the living room so that the kids and their house guests can play together.

Re:Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[HornWumpus]

FYI PC games will let you use crap controllers. You will have your ass handed to you though.

Understandable for kids who's gaming skills are all on crap controllers. Not getting their ass handed to them will keep them on consoles. Some will learn.

Re:Knowing exactly what make and model of GPU

[tepples]

So how should one use more than one non-crap controller with the living room PC? Or are you talking about buying a separate gaming PC and a separate copy of each game for each kid and for each of their house guests?

One console or four gaming PCs?

[tepples]

For one thing, a PC doesn't ship with a gamepad, and a mouse isn't ideal for every game genre. For another, PCs tend to be connected to far smaller monitors than consoles. Though you've been able to plug in four gamepads since 1999 when USB became popular, it's hard to fit four players' bodies around the 17" monitor in a typical laptop, and most gamers who own a PC don't think to run VGA, DVI, or HDMI out to the big HDTV in the living room. This encourages developers to design games under the assumption that four players means four gaming PCs and four copies of the game. Not all households with more than one gamer can afford this.

I predict

[fyngyrz]

...a series of chair throwing games. Rumor has it that Mad Catz is looking into the design of a special controller with new partner IKEA.

Re:I predict

[mjwx]

...a series of chair throwing games.

A game of throwns?

Pre-4Q 2012 iPT won't get gamepads

[tepples]

Mobile will be the platform to be on once all iPod touch devices made before October 2012 are replaced with new ones. Not all game genres work well on a touch screen alone, especially games that involve making a character hop across platforms on a scrolling map rather than pointing and clicking on things. Apple has recognized this and will include game controller support in iOS 7, but iOS 7 won't run on the fourth-generation iPod touch, and the fifth-generation iPod touch didn't ship until the fourth quarter of last year.

Re:Pre-4Q 2012 iPT won't get gamepads

[thetoadwarrior]

Yeah because carrying an ipad / ipod and a game controller around is less awkward than having a nice compact 3DS.

Re:Pre-4Q 2012 iPT won't get gamepads

[tepples]

On iOS, anybody with a game and $1250 can get it ported and published. How hard is it to get a game published on a Nintendo 3DS?

Re:Pre-4Q 2012 iPT won't get gamepads

[thetoadwarrior]

I don't know but it can't be that bad given indies are doing it. Go ahead and ask this guy: http://devbertil.blogspot.co.uk/ and I would suggest getting his game Gunman Clive. It'll control better on the 3DS than iOS so I'd suggest that version.

Re:NSA backdoors in closed source closed standard?

[Hatta]

1984 reflects a society that willingly wanted the conditions told in the book to occur. That is no way the case in modern society

What world do you live in? By far the vast majority of the populace wants this to happen. They elected Obama knowing he was in favor of immunity for telcos that illegally tapped our phones in 2008. At every step the public has supported security theatre, e.g. 2 out of 3 Americans think the TSA is doing a good job. By far the popular sentiment is "If you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to fear".

You don't want this to happen. I don't want this to happen. But the vast majority of our countrymen are cowards who are too damn stupid to figure out what they need to be afraid of.

Re:Did anyone else misread that as:

[Chris Mattern]

Well, he was closely involved with Bob.

Placing my bets.

[idbeholda]

Getting rid of the DRM was a good move on MS's part. Period. Consumers generally do not want DRM. The mindset is that once you've purchased something in-market, it's yours. End of discussion. The debacle was a learning experience, and if they aren't willing to listen to their customers, then the shareholders will stop listening with their wallets. It's amazing how money works, isn't it?

With MS pulling plugs on financially unviable products, like WindowsXP, they realize that there will always be diehard fans of a particular operating system or product. At this point in time, anyone with a torrent client and a burner can get a fully cracked copy of XP, no serials needed, bloatware stripped from the OS, hacked to shreds to maximize system performance and reduce system overhead. Microsoft doesn't even sell XP anymore. I still use XP, but I also have linux installed. If XP somehow shits itself, I can manually fix it through linux with a hex editor. Yeah, I'm that moron. The only reason I haven't switched to 7/8 is because neither of them have given me a really compelling reason to switch.

What's going to happen most likely, is that each division will be renamed in reflection of a particular market niche, and each new division will focus solely on the hardware of that product. With many of its services is the cloud, Windows 8+ will become the new unified environment for each platform. It won't matter which platform you use, you can still access all of your data from each different device.

Re:Placing my bets.

[SuiteSisterMary]

They should have left it in, and made it optional. "Family and Friends sharing is currently disabled. To enable this functionality, you and the people you share with must both enable the feature, which will involve your XBone checking in via Internet every 24 hours, or disabling your shared games until the checkin can occur."

DRM?

[DarthVain]

Consider Zynga's business strategy is essentially:

1) Ripoff another companies's game
2) ???
3) PROFIT!!!

I can't see how Don't views on DRM will be widely embraced in a place that respects IP even less than your typical pirate. At least a pirate is usually just using personally, and not for financial gain!

Kinect?

[Hamsterdan]

Does that mean it will now detect chair throwing?

That's Don Mattrick

[Trogre]

Not Dot Matrix, as I had initially read it.

C++/CLI and IronPython fail in .NET CF

[tepples]

XNA (which can be used by any .NET language, not just C#)

All .NET languages work in XNA on Windows, but not all .NET languages work in XNA on Xbox 360 because XNA on Xbox 360 uses a subset of called the .NET Compact Framework. According to this answer, the .NET Compact Framework lacks the libraries needed to run C++/CLI, and it also lacks the Reflection.Emit library needed to run DLR languages such as IronPython. Besides, any non-trivial C++ program ported from another platform will end up using unsafe features because the syntax for standard C++ differs from the syntax for the safe subset of C++/CLI (Wikipedia; MSDN), and XNA on Xbox 360 will not load an assembly that uses unsafe features.

Re:NSA backdoors in closed source closed standard?

[david_thornley]

Huh? In 1984, the Party ruled by fear. There's no evidence that anybody wanted to be spied on, but the spy devices were everywhere, and trying to evade them could get you into trouble. You may be thinking of Brave New World, in which the population was conditioned to be happy in their roles (with sex and drugs pushed heavily). Current US society is sort of in between, although not nearly as far down either path.

Re:NSA backdoors in closed source closed standard?

[Bucky24]

They elected Obama knowing he was in favor of immunity for telcos that illegally tapped our phones in 2008.

I find it hard to believe that the majority of the voting population knew (or cared even if they did know) about this.

This was determined by...

[MBraynard]

seeing which MS exec could throw an Xbone the furthest.