Microsoft Needs a Catch-Up Artist

The New York Times says that what Microsoft needs now isn't just a CEO, but a catch-up artist, to regain the footing that it had a few years ago as the biggest name in software. There's a lot of catching up, too: An anonymous reader reminds us that a year ago, Vanity Fair gave a scathing review of Steve Ballmer's performance:"Once upon a time, Microsoft dominated the tech industry; indeed, it was the wealthiest corporation in the world. But since 2000, as Apple, Google, and Facebook whizzed by, it has fallen flat in every arena it entered: e-books, music, search, social networking, etc., etc. Talking to former and current Microsoft executives, Kurt Eichenwald finds the fingers pointing at C.E.O. Steve Ballmer, Bill Gates's successor, as the man who led them astray."

Comments

Licensing, Lack of Options, Screwing business also

[Anonymous Coward]

A few key points MS needs to digest:

1) They completely neutered their Small Business Server selection, and now to get anything remotely comparable you're looking at a cost-per-core set up. I recently ran into this setting up a medical practice. In the past I had used SBS with the premium add-on to get access to SQL Server Standard for certain software packages. Of course, I can still get licenses for it, but if their business model is moving in that direction, I'm moving away from using their product. I'm finding that certain flavors of Ubuntu are much more suited to what my clients need, and at a price you can't beat. (Zentyal for those that are curious).

2) Get rid of the MS/Windows Tax. Force OEMs to hand out CoAs so that their customers can re-install the OS if need be, rather than using restore media. It's complete BS that customers of big PC manufacturers can't re-install the same (albeit blank) OS that came on a PC they just bought, rather we're forced to go through an uninstall bloat/crap-ware from PC's individually. I don't care what agreements are in place already, shoving this crap down our throat won't help business.

3) Stop screwing IT businesses all over. This is more of a general comment, but killing Technet is a good example of things you really shouldn't do.

The article missed one main thing

[the_B0fh]

Microsoft never produced anything for the user. If there were any benefits, it was a by product. Microsoft tried to please the producers.

Apple did it the other way round. Apple made things for the end users. True, they had very specific ideas of what the end users can and cannot do, but ultimately, the UI, the way to do things, the way things are done, are all planned and implemented with the end user in mind.

6 weeks before the original iphone launched, Jobs said - no plastic screen, use gorilla glass - why? Because your keys in your pocket would scratch the screen. How many other executives would stop production to do that?

So what they're saying is

[Spy Handler]

MS should hire Elon Musk as CEO?

Re:Didn't he just keep up the status quo?

[deviated_prevert]

I agree with your assessment. One huge problem was and is how they approached communication dev environments. The huge security issues with activeX dependent routines and how "explorer" could become a dangerous interface. We had tonnes of poorly written code using microsoft's development enviroments. Heck every other few weeks there are still "critical security updates for .net framwork".

By creating boat loads of dumb software writers that churned out code for XP that depended upon insecure networking interfaces they have done little more than create a huge resentment in the industry. It is still the case today that most large firms have to run large amounts of legacy activeX code on their intranet in "XP" mode that requires routines that would hose them if they were exposed to the internet.

XP was a great system for locking in customers and the huge problem it created was the fact that getting out of the trap of relying upon insecure software it created is too expensive for a large number of companies. Banks and many institutions still run XP terminals for this very reason, their internal software routines are all based upon core code that is not at all suited for a secure OS like Windows 7 that actually has sensible limited user privilege settings.

Microsoft screwed up their big hit operating system XP's UAC so badly that a culture of writing core routines without consideration of UAC became the norm. Then when things screwed up the IT guys and gals had to run out and sell the bosses on add on security controls from someone other than Microsoft. This is why the snake oil sales of security software exploded in the first place.

Vista tried to fix this problem but focused on Palladium. Windows 7 got multi-user privilege going properly to a certain extent but still relies upon .net code that can and does leave holes in because those who code for it are largely ignorant of how to secure things. Secure Computing or Palladium does not at all address these problems and the move to so called "trusted computing" has backfired on Microsoft. Most savvy IT managers know this and tell their bosses that moving past XP will not actually gain any real security benefits because of legacy activeX and .net code. The lack of sensible security methods in the first place within the windows networking code base has created a whale floundering on the beach.

Microsoft's core business is ripe for the picking and I would not at all be surprised if we do not see some company or group of companies gang up and beat them up. A joint venture between hardware and software companies could do it. Who knows just maybe IBM will get it's revenge by releasing a killer db, office suite, server combo that can run old XP code sand boxed faster than a windows server. LOL

Just maybe Ballmer's legacy will be the complete ruin of the once stellar bunch of corporate software raiders that Microsoft was. Problem is they have run out of ideas and truly innovative companies to usurp. We are currently at a technology bubble interface. The only advances will be things like HP's low power Moonshot servers. Unless something really shocking like Microsoft merging with Intel and actually starting to produce real physical product they are really in trouble this time around.

There will be huge mergers soon in the tech industry, one that might shock everybody might be IBM an HP. Or the complete purchase of Dell by Microsoft, or as stated a merger between Microsoft and Intel. INTERESTING TIMES AHEAD and there will be blood on the floor of the stock exchange to be certain.