Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Reorganization
Kelly McNeill
writes "I wouldn't have believed it if I didnt see it
for myself.... but it seems that today, Microsoft beat the
DOJ to the punch by splitting themselves up! "
My favorite bit:''This new structure is part of the reinvention of Microsoft,'' from Ballmer.
It's great for resumes. Now the Second Assistant Drone for Embracing and Extension moves up to VP of Drones for Embracing and Extending, Knowledge Group.
What else can M$ offer employees these days? Stock options?
Gates and Ballmer were just on CNBC blathering away about how this reorganization is 'good for consumers'...*big sigh*. As a sidenote, Bill and Steve were both wearing the same color shirt and seem to have the same speaking mannerisms. Gates' little smirk is infuriating as well. I really do hope they are broken up into separate companies in some manner - the blathering is getting tiresome.
Sorry, no division occured.
They just put VP's as the head of existing departments(which together manage different parts of all products listed).
A lot of people keep saying that Ms is preparing to be roken up into tiny pieces. I'm not sure that is the case. Reorgs happen all the time. MS had one of the worst structures of all time. and the 19 states' lawyers want Windows auctioned of to two or three other companies, probably IBM, Intel and Compaq would be the 3.
It's a reorganization, not a break-up. Can't you people read?!
When I read the Slashdot headline to this story, my heart skipped a beat, until I figured out that you meant REORGANIZATION, not break up. We have all known this was coming for a long time.
Please, please, please be more careful about these things. This makes Slashdot look like some sort of two bit high school newspaper. "The media" are watching Slashdot now. Don't throw away any credibility you worked so hard for.
Incompetent programmers result in errors that prevent software from working properly. If Microsoft had put in a devilish bug system, a good programmer probably would have figured out how to bypass it, and the beta testers would have noticed it during software testing.
Blaming the OS for discriminating against software is merely a weak excuse at best, unless it can be rigorously proven otherwise.
if microsoft did get forcibly broken up, they would just communicate, and mysteriously still benefit each other as though they were one company...
No this is the result of a stock split. It's actually worth substantially more per share than it was on Friday.
" Replace the Windows networking with SAMBA, replace the 'display server' with X (that would be hard) and get the manufacturers to make X drivers, (maybe easier if they're getting a better Windows) add window managers/toolkits) that replace the Windows widget set, (themeable look and feel across all apps) replace the scheduler, etc., etc. After a while you might have a decent operating system, but I'd rather improve the other ones we have currently. "
X is a piece of sh*t. The windows GUI blows X out of the water for it's used for, single user non networked GUI...what 99% of the users need from it. X doesn't even have antialiased fonts for gods sake (without nonstandard additions), while the windows gui has had them since the early 90's...
I'm not saying that the windows GUI is great, but if you want a new GUI protocol don't use 15 year old technology unless it rocks...and X doesn't rock.
I suffer with X because it works *now*. But it's not _THE_ gui protocol for all time.
It is rare that the OS would take an active part in preventing software from running correctly. Software that doesn't run correctly, is always the result of programmer error, unless it can be rigorously proven otherwise. Programmers who can't spend the time to write structured, organized code and to manually debug it (ie, step through every possible execution path in a debugger. (believe me, it's very enlightening sometimes:)) write shitty code, whether it be for Windows, Linux, *BSD, *nix.
Programmers who have spent the time to step through their program and to repetitively identify the source of their crash to be a system call that is not behaving properly, have the right to blame the operating system. (Either way, you should use a debugger and step through all of your code.)
Like Kernighan says, beginning programmers blame the compiler, the libraries, and the operating system first. Good programmers blame themselves first.
Unless they are required to make and keep their API, file formats and protocols open, nothing will change.
X is not a GUI.
Terrific. Now you may understand how us Macintosh users feel when Microsoft foists their crufty user interface model on us.
If you ask me, they broke up because of JFK's plans to invade Redmond. Theyre scattering like cockroaches.
http://propaganda.themes.org
Yeah, SO really does suck. Crashes after every paragrah and is bloated like Hell.
But try http://koffice.kde.org/
I think that software will be THE killerapp!
Not to mention that it would be patently illegal
to, as you say, "Open Source" somebody.
Apple Corp. would be either be dead or owned by Sun or AOL or IBM if they didn't successfully beg Microsoft to "foist" Office 98 upon the Mac.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
X is just a display subsystem. Think of it as a driver, not a GUI. If you're going to bitch and moan, at least get your terminology straight.
I wonder when *that* will crash...
Microsoft is not breaking up ; see "Breakup Not Acceptable". .
The real solution is not to break them up or to force them to make source code public domain. The solution is to force them to unbundle their products and charge consistent prices to all resellers. Resellers would not be forced to bundle Office or Explorer if they knew they could still get Windows Operating Systems for the same price as anybody else. Furthermore; Microsoft should not be allowed to pay resellers for carrying "free" Microsoft products like Explorer.
The result would be obvious: Microsoft would have to compete fairly.
I am concerned that Microsoft's huge stockpile of cash from their monopoly positions will still permit them to leverage their way into any market they want to be in. I'm not sure if it is doable; but it would be nice to see "seperate accounts" set up for different Microsoft Products: each product would have to sink or swim on it's own without cross subsidization from other Microsoft profit centers.
Giving their competitors guaranteed access to "shelf-space", something which Microsoft's marketing practices has denied them in the past, should be a fundamental part of any Judicial Decree or settlement with the DOJ.
just so you know.
looks like it isn't a hoax after all.
This is the exact and obvious reason for the reorganization; it's a kind of gerrymandering to prevent their power base from being broken up. Hopefully, this will backfire and the DOJ will actually be forced to go after M$ licensing abuses, rather than let a red herring breakup order die in appeal 5 years from now. -Power Usee
Yeah, easier to split them up along lines that Microsoft has drawn. Does anybody think it's a serious possibility that MS is creating divisions within themselves in the hope that, if the DOJ were to do a breakup, they would break them up along those lines? It would seem to be advantageous to Microsoft to be able to dictate the lines of division. Am I just being paranoid?
Is it just me, or does Ballmer REALLY sound and act like Bullwinkle? I listened to him telling some goofy stories about how Microsoft discovered everything on the Nreds 2.01 video tape from Public TV, and he sounded and acted like Bullwinkle. I kept waiting for him to rip off his sleeves, and try to pull a rabit out of a hat. :)
The most valuble company in the world? The _Fortune_500_ lists the most valuble company as General Motors, with Microsoft at 137.
Hmm...I don't think the anouncement of a re-org matters all that much to shareholders. I would think the 100% return just since the DOJ case started is reason enough to hold on to the stock or reason enough to sell it for that matter.
/. the MSFT stock price? Oh, wait that involves money, which means you really have to believe the FUD you're spreading. I guess my investment is safe for now...
Honestly...all you slashdotters who are so sure MSFT stock is going to crash any minute now should short the stock. Microsoft is going down right? So why not cash in on their demise?
Hey...why not
What is the issue?
I had a quick look on segfault.org and I could see that something was going down, but what?
But just like everything else I've taken the time to submit, it seems to have fallen on deaf ears. I also find it strange that no one seems to have anything to comment on what you are suggesting may be occuring!
I would say that if "...a different licensing standard for Windows, perhaps even an Open Source..." is one of the settlement options on the table, it would sure make Bill uncomfortable to think you knew about it!
D. Jeff Dionne
Jason now wears 5 masks instead of one. The Hydra now has 5 heads instead of just one. Jim Jones now offers 5 flavors of Kool-Aid instead of just Grape.
Get the picture??
Visit http://www.os2hq.com/ for more details on M.S. and Linux.
Note how the re-organisation is into vertical
units - so if the DOJ ever tries to split them,
the evil empire can go on to dominate the
consumer OS world.
Was it *really* the death star ? The recipients
of the letter refuse to talk... so death star
seems to be selected as most likely candidate,
but that seems only a guess.
But what if it is Granny Smith or Helium or
some other entity trying to get into bed with Tux ?
A nice T-shirt friendly set of images
of the Gandhi Quote can be found at
http://jade.cs.uct.ac.za/~etian/
looks like it may be the evil empire.
a pointer on userfriendly points at a supporters page at http://Perl2000.com/Webmaster/Support/
with nice little gray ribbons and stuff.
Exactly. I don't know who posted the part on the first page of slashdot.org, but they obviously don't understand what the DOJ wanted. This is totally different. This isn't news worthy for slashdot even. This is not a splitting of a company.
90% of world economy is held back by monpolistic microsoft practices!. I wish you Microsoft trolls would stick to www.microsoft.com
You can worship your God better over there.
PS: My Linux cost me $45 bucks and kicks your $250 windows' ass.
Ain't going to mean squat until they're forced to split legally & financially.
A real breakup would have been into the following areas: Applications, Development Applications (VB, VC, etc), and Operating Systems - with NO communications between the three - so that hooks, etc couldn't be passed between them to make things easy for the MS Companies. Seperate CEO's for each - each one a COMPLETELY seperate corporate entity.
And make them all have open source (just wanted to throw that one in - unlikely though it is that it will come true)!
If the Open Source model suggests that software is changing from a product based to a service based industry, this would be the direction to go. However, this is pure poison to the MS product leveraged monopoly model. If you think the MS development staff was stressed before by demands of marketoids, what do you think will happen to them when four different marketoid masters start demanding incompatable and mutually-exclusive features in the same OS core. (Of course, that is basically what they have been doing for the past few years, but without the burden of four distinct, organized power bases.)
....
God help the MS programmers
Still the same monopoly ...
1.Development
2.Production
3.Enterprise
4.Retail
5.Internet
These layers already existed.
(And are normal within most big companies)
To make a split that would ensure competition is easy:
1. OS
2. Applications
AAARRRGGGHHH!!!! Why do we need 50+ replies telling us that this is not a breakup, just a reorg? Please guys and gals, before you bitch about mis-information and repeat information, please read the thread to see if your comments have already been expressed by others.
Microsoft is reorganizing so that the DOJ case cannot easily carve them up by product.
I'm amazed that few people seem to consider this as a motivation.
Here is a twist no one has brought up yet. With this division, Microsoft divides itself up into 6 distinct divisions. They are:
1) Business and Enterprise division
2) Consumer Windows division
3) Business productivity group
4) Developer group
5) Consumer and commerce group
6) Home and Retail Products division
Presumably, Windows 95/98 fall into #2, and Windows NT/2K falls into #1. Office may fall into either #6 or #3.
But, anyway. With these lines, Microsoft may have finally figured out that they are going to get tagged as a monopoly. Maybe what they could be thinking is that, "Ok, we're busted, but how about we limit the damage?" How do they do that - they settle for being branded a monopoly in the desktop arena - Consumer Windows - only. As a settlement, they agree to spin off the Consumer Windows division into a seperate company that is only chartered with making Consumer versions of Windows.
But, what they won't say, is that in a couple years, Windows NT/2K will compete directly with that newly spun off company. As in, I expect they are trying to limit damage and pull a fast one by spinning off stuff which is already slated for pasture. Hopefully, the DOJ doesn't buy it...
Microsoft is simply re-organizing their structure, it is not a split up of Microsoft. This isn't anything like what happened to the Bell telephone companies, so will not affect their monopoly status.
Even though, I'm sure they would like the average person to believe this is a split up of their company, hopefully nobody begins to beleive that nonsense....
Brandon
The real question is, would having the DOJ split them up make any difference at all?
:)
I mean, tell me now, is there really going to be any difference between Microsoft The Corporation and Microsoft The Conglomerate?
The only way to truly cripple MS would be to open source them, or just disband them. Of course, even if Open Sourcing (TM) them was a good idea (I have no idea if it would really be good in the first place), that still doesn't mean the DOJ would have any idea how to go about it. Hell, no one has ever had an Open Source company that big, I'm sure *no one* really knows how to go about it.
Maybe the only good solution is to bomb Redmond.
WWJD? JWRTFM!!!
That'd be funny if the DOJ came in and split up their new divisions.
by your figures they are up $4! Come on, if any stock dropped that amount the stock exchange would be crashing.
Note that nearly 2/3 of the rise in the NASAQ is fueled by MS, Intel, Dell, Cisco (and a couple of others). Heard this last Friday driving home - so if MS fell to such an extent their would be real panic selling.
I hope your post was in jest.
Anyone think this "break-up" of Microsoft will lead to perhaps Office 2000 and IE 5 for Linux/FreeBSD? If your answer is no then this reorganisation means ZIP. It really seems that the only way Office and IE (and other MS products) will get ported to anything other than Windows is if the DOJ breaks them up. Too bad for them.
On the other hand I really don't desire those products running on Linux anyway. StarOffice (bloated but functional...and free), WP8, and KOffice all have more than adaquate functionality.
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Posted by The ULTIMATE Crippler:
Boy I wish people would read articles before opening their mouths, especially the people who submit the articles as well as the editorial staff at Slashdot.
This is just about a reorg. Not a big deal. Probably has nothing to do with DOJ either. This is not the formation of "Baby Bills". Microsoft is still one big ugly corporation.
Posted by $koal:
No matter what happens, Microsoft will never be beat! Even if the DOJ does come up with some insane idea of how to "break up" Microsoft, it won't make any difference. They control the market because they offer the best products, not because Gates is an evil, sneaky, (fill in your own derogatory terms). Regardless of their size, they will continue to dominate both their current markets and any new ones they decide to enter (satellite, telecom., etc.)!
Posted by Mike@ABC:
Can't help you with story submissions. Gotta ask Taco about that one.
As for the Open Source thing, I know squat. As far as anybody knows, Microsoft is unwilling to let people see and play with their source code. But the state attorneys general and others have made noises about it, so I figured it would be fun to ask Gates himself. I wanted to follow-up with more general Open Source/Linux questions, but as I said...I got cut off.
Posted by lmalave:
C'mon folks, it's pretty basic - Microsoft is reorganizing themselves by "customer" as opposed to by "products" in order to make it more difficult to break up Microsoft into Baby Bills!!. I'm surprised more people haven't caught on to this transparent motive, even in a forum like Slashdot.
Posted by Mike@ABC:
A word on reorgs. They're divvying themselves up along product lines, rather than the convoluted way the company was structured before. The profits still go to the same place, the same people are still in charge They're just hoping that by doing things this way, they'll be a little more nimble in the market place.
FYI...I was on the conference call. Asked Gates if he would be willing to adopt a different licensing standard for Windows, perhaps even an Open Source standard. I got about 15 seconds of uncomfortable silence, followed by: "I don't think it's appropriate to talk about any aspects of this settlement discussion right now." Got cut off before I could follow up.
Take it for what it's worth. No idea what to make of that. Anyone care to engage in rampant speculation?
The problem with this reorg is that all the monopolistic aspects of MS are still existent and able to flourish. Simply because there are consumer oriented groups now does not mean that the apps group will not utilize proprietary OS calls to make their office suite unbeatable to competition.
.dll calls, no OS integration advantages. An even playing field where the best PRODUCT wins, not the best CONNECTED product team.
The DoJ's plan would split MS up so that each 'group' functions as a separate company and licenses the technology from the other. These same licenses would be available to their competitors.
MS would licenses the same Win32 codebase to develop Office that Corel would license to develop WP Office. No hidden
(This is for you Rob! On topic, not flamebait, and hopefully not moderated down! *grin*)
If you can read this message, your threshold is too low.
This story has appeared at least three times /. over the past month or two. Microsoft
here on
is simply reorganizing it's internal departments
-- no big deal.
A rose by any other name is still a shark
infested corporate behemoth Orwellian nuisance.
Having worked in a largish corporate environment, reorgs like this don't surprise me aytall. When I worked for a rather prominent aerospace corp, it seemed like vp's were coming out of the damn walls every other week. Mostly driven by internal politics, boredom, and a vague uneasiness that appears in large corps that if stuff like this isn't done on a regular basis, then "We're not moving forward!" starts getting whispered in the executive crappers.
"shop smart:shop s-mart" ash
It would be just like running WINE on *BSD, or any UNIX: the Windows apps don't work or crash, and the underlying OS (and hopefully X too) doesn't care.
It'd be just like UNIX is now, with more apps and less productivity. Like Windows, but with less bluescreens and rebooting. And still better than NT.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Maybe Bill is afraid that Windows source will be released under a freer license, but I don't see what he has to worry about.
I'm sure that source is so ugly after years of unseen development kludges to meet deadlines and have backwards compatibility to DOS and the 8086, and also use features of the 386 to both get around these limitations and simulate them...
well, that's ugly already, to say nothing of their closed widgets and silly delays and animations, shoddy networking, etc, etc.
Maybe it would make porting Windows Apps to UNIX easier, maybe we could create a (probably less-free) version of WINE with that source code, and just run the apps on UNIX, but I wouldn't want to build an OS with that code.
Replace the Windows networking with SAMBA, replace the 'display server' with X (that would be hard) and get the manufacturers to make X drivers, (maybe easier if they're getting a better Windows) add window managers/toolkits) that replace the Windows widget set, (themeable look and feel across all apps) replace the scheduler, etc., etc. After a while you might have a decent operating system, but I'd rather improve the other ones we have currently.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
They did a really bad job of porting it, I've tried IE4 and IE5beta under Solaris. I will admit that since I'm not root on those boxes, I haven't applied all the kernel patches they see as necessary, but I don't think a *browser* should require kernel patches when nothing else does.
Basically I don't know what Mainwin was smoking when they built those libraries. IE is slower and bigger than Netscape ever was under UNIX, and IE 3.0 for Win 3.1 flies on my Linux box. I'd like to compare IE 4.0 for Solaris and IE 4.0 emulated under WINE on Solaris x86. Heck, IE is faster under SoftWindows 4.0 on SPARC Solaris than it is "natively" on SPARC.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Just incase you still don't get it, MS isn't breaking up. They're just reorganizing, which in simple terms means they're shuffling a few papers, moving a couple desks around, handing out new titles, and passing out a few more million dollar bonuses. This is nothing more than a public showing in an attempt to trick the public. It's still business as usual up in Redmond.
And so um, this changes WHAT exactly? That's right, nothing. Yawn.
Good time to buy though. ;>
Interesting that for the last three years of the DOJ trial, 90% of the world economy has continued to depend on Microsoft just as it always has. Interesting how the renamed divisions and three years of hot air in Washington aren't causing massive uninstallations of Windows around the world. So far the price of an operating system is still $250, not exactly a closeout now that those divisions have different names.
But in organizing along these bogus lines, they just hope to make it harder for the DOJ to do a REAL restructuring along the lines of consumer (Win9X), commercial (NT) office packages and internet packages. The only real thing they separated is the MSN group, the Edsel of MicroSoft...
This is news that matters to this nerd. I have to work with Micros~1 products and licensing on a regular basis, and I'm often frustrated both by their shady practices and their shoddy goods. Of course, I can't speak for Rob, but I support Linux over Microsoft because:
I see myself more as a convenience zealot rather than a Linux zealot. Of course, you're free to think what you want...
That's not true. They make nice mice. (Although not enough buttons.)
--
The way I read the announcements that I've seen, this simply creates business unit to focus on specific customer groups. The products seem to span units. In addition, app and OS code still cohabitate.
For instance, which group owns NTW? I how about NTS? What about SQL Server? Exchange? Bet their's overlap. I'm not saying there *shouldn't* be, but they seem to be implying that this is some fundamental change to their way of doing business. It isn't.
I fail to see the significance of all this , except for the fact that it makes great business sence from M$ POV. For the record, I don't believe that the govt. should be sticking their nose in much of this whole mess. Let 'em live or die by their own merrits. If they suck bad enough, and we rock on, we'll 'win', for a given definition of 'win'. Granted, we'll need to fight the PR machine every step of the way. So be it.
--
"First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Is this simply so you can tell IT that they don't have to standardize on NT since you can run all the apps you need on linux?
From what I've seen IE tends to go into CPU suck mode on Solaris...
-- Are you an EFF member yet?
Now if they were to, say, announce a Linux version of IE or Office, or otherwise show that the reorg has affected their "Windows Über Alles" strategy in the slightest, then I'd pay attention. Until then, whatever.
--
Jake
the division of M$ happens every once with adjustments that occur as a result of management reacting. This is to be expected. Remember the M$ turn-around wrt the web in '95?
t ml )
... The lawyers may also ask that Microsoft make the Windows source code available to its competitors, a move the report states would render Microsoft "impotent"...
/. before, but theres a lot of bull going around that needs to be seen to be beleived.) Re-organisation of M$ simply re-focuses the company wrt the market. sell-offs or re-organisations wont stop the monopoly..anyone remember ibm?
Check out the url here from my local rag, (the age, http://www.it.fairfax.com.au/breaking/922692164.h
which outlines the selloff of M$ windows code or worst case M$ open source.... (I know this has been on
peterrenshaw ~ Another Scrappy Startup
Umm... the stockprice changed due to a split. Essentially, each $180 share from Friday is now two shared worth $92 each or $184 total.
Why would the MS Office group want to write Office for Linux? They have programmers down the hall who are intimately aware of Windows's kernel, the number of users who run Windows is exponentially higher than those who run Linux, and would any real Linux user pay money for software? I run Linux. I like Linux. I like free software. I like Office too, but let's be realistic, there's no reason why it will be or should be ported to Linux, or redesigned for Linux. Just my two cents... :)
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
I'm with you. In the meetings with DOJ last week and the week before, I'm sure something along the lines of "Split yourselves up, or we'll do it for you." was said. MS, being the back-stabbing-savvy company that it is, has done it "Their Way". I'm sure we'll hear later that when forced to divide, they'll try it along these lines that are drawn.
Ken
maybe B.G. said to himself: "let's split ourselves as we want it before somebody elste split us as we do not want it"
hany
Of course I do. It'll make 'em WORSE, but it'll change 'em...! (Notice that Allchin has all windows development!)
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Obviously it's only a re-org, but we are not the
target audience for these 'big announcements'.
The target audience is the shareholders. The people who desperately want everything to be OK at microsoft so that they can keep collecting nice dividend checks. These are the people who will read this, assume the problem is solved and that the DOJ will be happy now, and not sell off all of their stock. And of course its 'big news' because Microsoft is paying top dollar for it to be published as big news.
However, I don't think the DOJ will fall for it. They're going to be after blood. MS was way to disrespectful in the courtroom to not get a full out beating.
Personally, I think splitting them into smaller companies where all deals and intercompany communication is publicly posted is a good idea for the community and the shareholder. All of the mini-MS companies will continue to grow and be profitable so nobody gets too screwed, but the ability to form collusions will be decreased. That's the only solution I've heard so far that I would have real faith in.
"Senior vice president Jim Allchin will oversee both the business enterprise division and the consumer Windows division."
Seems to me they are trying to avoid the inevitable. If I were presiding over a breakup, the first thing I would seperate would be all apps (Office, Internet Explorer, IIS, Developers Studio, etc...) from the Operating system (file Explorer, Control Panel, all object handling stuff, drivers, basic networking code, etc...) Microsofts new companies should be forced to communicate only public api's and info. Any exclusive info shared between the baby Bill's should be treated as an attempt to usurp the judge's ruling.
What they are doing is moving ineffectual components under different names. New sub companies like MSN(failing miserably), Devlopers group(some tolken power lost to seperation there),and the games, input devices and reference products division(Extra junk compared to the rest, kinda like seperating the floor mopper department and calling it a major revamp), and what the heck is the business productivity group(are they assigned to personally kiss Bill's butt?)
I can't be sure, no one who does not work high up in Microsoft can, but this seems like another PR stunt. I'd also be interested to see what would happen if Bill was convicted of some kind of criminal charge and forced to sell some percentage of the stock that left him.... say under fourty percent. It would reveal a great deal about the compatance of current stockholders. (snicker) ;)
Novel theory: Modern Man evolved from psychopath
Can't remember who said it, but they were trustworthy. Anyway, I read that MS does have a team of programmers working on porting Office to Linux. Watch out... here they come!
(did I hit submit before?... hmmm...)
-Philip
-ComStar
You do know what a stock split is, and you are just being sarcastic... right?
STFU about slashdot bias.
I hope they aren't thinking that this will make a difference. If it does - if it influences the DOJ in any way - I will be sick.
the article, btw, does not hint that this is micros~1 strategy, but it is obvious that SteveB~1 is shooting for that.
support gun control: take guns from cops
I think they are permuting the company to make it harder to do a "baby bells" split on them, or less harmful if it hapens along existing boundaries.
If you did all of these things (SAMBA, X, themes,
etc.) wouldn't you just have *NIX again? In that
case, yes, you would have a decent OS.
Someone said "those who don't learn from UNIX are
doomed to re-invent it, badly." Or something to
that effect.
No idea why on earth the "news" page thought this was big news. And no idea why Rob posted this again, either. With all due respect, CmdrTaco, don't you or your trained mammals check stories first? Especially stories that sound too good to be true?
All they've done is shuffled people between projects, appointed some new token VPs. Likely the most noticable effect will be a delay in Windows 2000 since now all the programmers that WERE doing bug fixing on it are now in the department designing "Office Bob 2000."
Will this mean that any of the "groups" won't have privileged access to code, etc? No. They're still MS, and that won't change.
--- http://foo.ca
This may provide an easy cutting line for the DOJ. If MS does get broken up, these new dividing lines would make the actual split very convenient for all involved. I wonder if this could have been intentional...
-- Minds are like parachutes... they work best when open.
SO isn't that bad. It doesn't crash on me as
often as it does on your system. On the other
hand it does crash when I try to open a file
without extension. It is not cabable to load
it as text for some weird reason.
Unless they fix moronic bugs like this Word
Perfect is going to bury them.
As for Office on winblows, ever heard of the
blue screen of death? virus?
This story has showed once a month for several months.
As far as I can tell, they will still be one company, they are not splitting up, AT&T style, into different companies.
The move may be designed to make it look as though MS is fixing its anti-trust problems, but I hope that the DOJ and the courts will not be confused
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
There is a devilish bug system, as anyone who has had the misfortune of doing extensive work with the Win32 API can tell you. Undocumented calls are numerous. There have been quite a few times when I dumped a list of called functions from a DLL, found one with a promising name, and then failed to find any documentation for it. For example, when dealing with kernel mode device drivers & the registry, there are a few f(x)'s missing from MSDN.
You are not paranoid, IMO. Micros~1 can not
survive without the advantage of the OS. What
they are doing is eliminating a OS division and
spreading the OS technology throughout the new
divisions. That way a split up gives all Micros~1
applications the likelyhood to survive ALL
competition.
The DOJ had better not fall for this and they
had better not pull a 1994 'type' of agreement.
Locutus
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I think the only way to stop evil at it's root is to held any software company accountable for it's work. Let's say, when you buy a car, if you die in a crash due to faulty equipment, than car company will have to pay.
How many of us ever read a software license? One of the main points in it NOT whether sourse is open or not, the main point is that NO GUARANTEES GIVEN! Simply, the makes of product disclaims everything. We pay hefty sums to the MS and alike for products without any quality guarantee.
I think DOJ and legislators in particular should make it illegal to sell software without guarantees. So, we will have situation where makes of poor software will not be able to exploit monopolistic status, they will have to pay $$$ for each and every bug, crash etc.
One may object: the software fundamentally is so complicated, that one can't guarantee anything. Well, I would only point out to few well known examples of solid software such as Linux, where proof-of-consept has been demosntrated, and if some software company can't back it's own work than get the hell out of this business.
This approach is perfectly inline with the principles of freedom and entrepreneurship.
Comments are welcome.
AtW,
http://www.investigatio.com
alexc
Join Majestic-12 Distributed Search Engine
*sigh* Read the article. It's a reorganization, not a breakup. This has been talked about for at least a month. It's still one big friendly Microsoft.
If the DOJ wins (or at the very least settles with favorable terms to them) as seems likely and hence forces the split of Microsoft, then this new layout will most likely be how the Baby Bills will work out (oy! Baby Bills!). Microsoft is just restructuring themselves on their terms rather than the DOJ's terms. I'd be scared to let the DOJ carve up Microsoft (witness the AT&T fiasco - stupid, stupid, stupid clueless government). It seems like a smart business move...
I think the biggest thing about Microsoft is that they have grown too big too quickly. They have been trying to be everyone's everything (three letters: IBM around the 1960s). This is a crucial mistake. Microsoft needs to refocus the company (either by their own volition or by the DOJs prodding). If Microsoft kept trying to beat everyone to smitherines instead of developing excellent products (as they are capable of doing), eventually some company is going to outwit them and bring them to their knees (again see IBM vs. Microsoft circa mid-1980s).
Hate to say it, but if the Office group is split from the OS group, what is to prevent them from developing Office for Linux (as has been speculated)?? Nothing - as a new company whose sole purpose is Office would have no allegience to Windows. They would be forced to choose the best operating system. Innovation is key (damn I'm sounding like Bill Gates here - nooooo). Is the best OS Linux? Maybe it is, but that is something that the marketplace must and will decide...
Office on Linux would probably be a good thing - the majority of the known computer-literate world currently uses Office and those of us who want to work with colleagues who use Office need true Office compatibility. SO sucks - crashes more often than Windows. WP can't do everything (not including font issues out the wazoo). What's left? Applix? Come on... Gobe on BeOS is close, but it can't read Office files (yet).
If it isn't Office, what will be the killer app for Linux on the client side?
My $.02, Justin
Mu. P.S. The address you see is real. =)
Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss.
We won't be fooled again.
A corporate reorganization has nothing to do with splitting themselves up. They're just reorganizing divisions and who reports to whom, not forming separate companies.
Is it just me or have we seen this same story on Slashdot before? It seems to me that this was posted just a few weeks ago . . . oh yeah! By CmdrTaco on 3/12 (back then it was just 4 divisions -- my, how times have changed). Despite the many knee-jerk reactions that this (and every) Microsoft story produces trupmeting the incipient end of the Windows Age, this isn't new news -- Ballmer was basically assigned the job of restructuring Microsoft almost a year ago, and he announced a working plan then which was essentially the blueprint for the new structure.
This isn't even a marketing ploy, as some have suggested, nor is it a desperate attempt to appease the DoJ or shareholders. It is, actually, a sign that Microsoft is actually aware that, as as many serious market analysts and Anonymous Cowards have stated, they are becoming more hidebound and reactive, and that the pace of software innovation has slowed.
The old corporate structure was implemented when MS was riding high on the newly released Windows 95, NT 4.0, and Office 95 (there has been one small restructuring since then, but the basic framework remained intact). Technological innovation in Redmond was proceding apace (most Slashdotters might not like that principle or quality of that innovation, but no one can deny that it was profitable!). The company organized itself to be very market centered, to encourage adoption of their products versus WfW, Macintosh, Netware, Lotus, and (to a smaller extent) Unix. The mantra was "standardize on 32-bit Windows software! Everything is better and it works together!" Legions of MCSEs and MCSDs were dispatched to make this come true, little dollar signs dangling in front of their faces like carrots. And, for a while, it was basically true -- running Office on 95 with an NT server was better, or at least cooler, than running Word Perfect and 1-2-3 on DOS/WfW with Netware 3.12.
Since then, however, innovation from MS has slowed to a halt. The last major product to be released was IE 4.0. Office 97 had some impressive improvements versus 95, but Office 2000 will be bascially the same as the last release with some internet features and customizable toolbars. Windows 98 is indistinguishable from 95 with IE. And NT 5, which was supposed to be done A WHOLE YEAR AGO is so deep in the design stage that people are still debating which kernel the consumer version will be using! Meanwhile Novell is going gangbusters with NDS, Corel and Lotus are gaining market share versus Office, and there's that "little free operating system that could" making major inroads, annoyingly even in the once-pure NT offices.
This reorganization is a maneuver to help kick-start productivity and bring Win32 to the next level. An increasing number of users and managers (and Slashdot posters) have begun to write-off products from Redmond as hopelessly mired in their own success -- concluding that Microsoft has coded itself into a corner and will not be able make the leap of perfomance and stablilty that enterprise systems of the future will require without breaking everything that they have done in the past. That may be true, in which case this truely does mark the beginning of the end for Bill and Co. But don't count the richest software company in the world out just yet; they cetainly have the capital, and this move proves that they have the will, to make every attempt to maintain their hegemony.
This is a particularly interesting parallel because this division most likely was the beginning of the real decline and fall for GM.
Since they centralized design and assembly instead of having it in the car lines, they managed to homogenize their line, resulting in the dullest cars on the planet short of the Trabant.
Bad move. Admittedly, it did make the corporation more efficient, in building cars nobody wanted to buy.
D
----
Looks like the flaming might actually start to simmer down now. Amen!
--
I feel, as someone else on /. has said before, that MS is preparing for the worst. If it were to get broken up (I think it will), these divisions will act as natural breaking points. So instead of just letting the DOJ cut anywhere, MS is saying "please cut along the dotted lines"
\forall code \in C, \frac{\Delta readability(code)}{\Delta t} < 0
In my experience, when Microsoft ports a product to a non-Windows OS, the result is a complex, windows-esque monstrosity. If they'd deliver the functionality of a good MS app (stipulating the existence of one) without forcing the windows look and feel down the user's throats, they'd be doing the computing world a favor.
But they won't.
Micro$oft has not broken up. I would expect by changing their internal organization they have made it look like they have beat the DOJ to the punch. I would guess this is just a ploy to make it look like MS is taking actions to make themselves a kinder gentler company. Niether is true.
Companies reorganize all the time. I have worked for two seperate companies that have reorged. The difference with Micro$oft is that they have made a big deal about it.
If nothing else, MS might be organizing themself in such a matter to make a breakup harder to do.
I don't think the DOJ will blink at this activity, but the media probably will eat it up.
If you haven't read it then you should. As humorous as it is, sometimes it is dead-on accurate. I wish I had it here at work so that I could quote it directly, but to summarize:
To be an effictive manager you should move your department or reorganize every four or five months. This will simulate activity without actually doing anything that might later be considered a failure. In fact, it will be impossible to be considered a success and according to Dogbert, success is bad too.
When a manager succeeds then their name will be fresh in their boss's mind. This is dangerous because when it comes time to downsize the managers name will be the first one their boss thinks of.
I think they are following the handbook to the letter...
Edu. sig-line: Choose rhymes with lose. Chose rhymes with goes. Loose rhymes with goose.
Comparing? THEN use THAN.
This isn't going to change anything. Microsoft will still be able to use their monopolies to hold and gain market share in other markets. While they might be reshuffling the deck, the fact of the matter is that Bill Gates is still the dealer. Nothing meaningful is going to change unless equity interests are split up along with that.
Only when the director of the applications portion of the company is furthering share holder interests by maximizing THEIR market share will we benefit. Right now that is not so. It would not benefit MS to make a full blown Office 2000 on alternative operating systems. Doing so would do long term damage to the Microsoft monopoly. It would sacrifice long term health, in pursuit of short term benefits. It would marginalize MS operating systems relative to the competition. Making MS operating systems more replaceable, thus hurting their bottom line. Linux and Macintosh would grow faster.
Has anyone taken a look at Micros~1 stock price today? It seems they took a severe backlash, from trading as high as $180 last Friday to $92 today.
Is this the beginning of their ultimate downfall?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
I'm aware of the differences between a 'breakup' and a 'reorganization', but I have a question.
Though the press has been invariably calling it an anti-trust suit, I think 'anti-monopoly' fits the situation better. Microsoft isn't a trust (group of companies working closely together to (most commonly) drive prices up and prevent an open market), its a single company (corporation, whatever). However, if they DO break up (willingly or by force), it seems to me they would fail to learn (judging from their current track record) and we'd just be hearing about anti-trust suits instead of anti-monopoly suits 6 months to a year from now. I could be wrong, but it seems they'd work together as much as possible even if they were diced into seperate companies... I'd hate to see a world where PC's aren't sold unless they are bundled with MS#1 Windows 2000 (tm), MS#5 Internet Explorer (tm), MS#3 Office (tm) and MS#2 Visual Studio 2000 (tm).
--
Paranoid
Paranoid
Bwaahahahahaa.
In the early 1970's (if I recall correctly) General Motors was also facing anti-trust pressure from the gonvernment. It was proposed that the various car divisions (such as Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac, etc.) be split off into separate companies. GM's response to this was to reorganize away from separate car divisions into divisions that designed cars, divisions that built cars, etc. This made the company much harder to divide up. Since the DOJ must be the most pressing "threat" to the Microsoft at this time, I'm sure that this is an important goal of the plan.
My computer. My way. Linux
--
Howard Roark, Architect
Howard Roark, Architect
I believe in a Man's right to exist for his own sake.
If we look at the DoJ case against the Microsoft Corp, we realize it's against Microsoft Corp. If this is truly a re-org where they seperate into different companies, that still act as one large company, is the DoJ going to file antitrust suits against all 5?
This is news worthy, and I still fail to understand why you people insist on saying otherwise.
It's news. It's a software company. Nerds make software. It's news for nerds.
Can't be much simpler than that. I was personally interested at this, probably a lot of other people were too, and I think that this was the whole reason why Rob is setting up the filtering systems. Turn off M$ stories if you don't like it.
Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
Not true, look at the breakup of AT&T in the 80's, the little subunits instantly tried to start to kill each other....would have been even more interesting if most of them actually competed with each other, as they do now...
Its a big deal because slashdot is anti-Microsoft. As a matter of fact, anything that portrays Microsoft or Bill Gates in a negative light is considered newsworthy. Get used to seeing these articles, even though its clearly NOT "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" to anyone except a *nix zealot like Rob.
This move is simply a re-organization of their existing structure. Nothing more, and nothing to get excited about. In fact, unless you work for MS,you probably won't be affected by it at all.
If you go to Microsoft download page you can get IE for Solaris.
Not that you would want it. But if Microsoft wanted to could they not just port the solaris IE to Linux and other unix's.
Ps I have not used IE for solaris so i do not know how bad or good it is.
--
Joshua Curtis
Lancaster Co. Linux Users Group
This isn't a split up... A split up would be the company no longer having committee meetings between the 5 divisions and not being allowed to share source with each other. Any DOJ member who believes that MS is actually doing something good here is foolish in my mind. This is nothing more than a way for MS to try to get the heat off their backs, and at that, a poor attempt. Come on, gates... you can do better than that... we all know what a weasel you are!
As commented upon above, this does bear relevance to the antitrust trial. M$ used to be organized by product divisions. Product divisions can be rationally spun off into new companies. M$ is now organized into arbitrary cross-application divisions. Now, for example, the Office group can't be broken off, because the Office group doesn't exist at a high level. So, as braman posted in "Why it's a big deal", M$ is doing an end-run around the DOJ.
--
Make mine methylphenidate.
All those law problems that they have a putting them in bad light in the public's eyes. I think this is a trick to make the public look at Microsoft from a different angle.
Still, I don't think that this will help them in any way!!
Does anybody actually beleive this will change the way M$ does business?
I don't.
"Ballmer also announced the formation of a 14-member team led by Gates and himself that will meet monthly to discuss the company's goals, replacing a smaller executive committee."
SB: I'd like to cal this meeting to order. Let's begin.
BG: Our number one goal at this point in time is world domination. Another Time cover, too.
SB: Great, see you all next month.
Seriously, isn't this old news? I could swear I read a story about this a couple weeks ago, and, at that time, I felt that I had read a similar story a week or two earlier.
At least this reorg will make it easier for the DOC to split 'em up!
--Andrew Grossman
grossdog@dartmouth.edu
Minor nitpick:
Microsoft, like most high tech companies, does not pay a dividend to shareholders. Modern investors generally prefer that extra cash be used in stock buy-backs, so as to have a similar effect on the total value, only taxed as capital gains, not income. (Intel pays a tiny token dividend for the sake of "income" mutual funds that only invest in stocks with dividends.)
Disclosure: I own stock in Microsoft, though I recently wiped my DOS partition off of my primary computer. The only user-friendly bug-free product that Microsoft makes is its stock.
Organizations reorganize all the time. It's just a matter of selecting what portions of the company each VP is in charge of. Sometimes it involves consolidations and layoffs (though probably not in this case).
However, with the pending anti-trust case, this reorganization is viewed in a different light, and with good reason. The impression that many people have is that Microsoft is defining a logical partitioning of the company in preparation for a court-ordered breakup. The idea is that if the court orders such a move, it would likely try to split the company along pre-existing boundaries within the company. Microsoft just changed those boundaries.
So unless the court decides that two aspects of a single Microsoft division must be split up, any split will probably be done along the lines that Microsoft has just laid out.
I didn't follow exactly the translation between various products and divisions. Where would each of the following go:
:) I guess that shoots down my idea that the court might break up the company along the lines Microsoft has just drawn.
Windows 98
Internet Explorer
Office
Windows NT
Hardware (keyboards, mice, speakers, etc.)
I would think that Win98 and Internet Explorer would be the same division, since they are the same product.
I am replying to the first intelligent comment I saw on this division...
zeb...
A lot of comments here seem to be jumping the gun on where DOJ might go if they win the suit. (Which certainly looks likely given Microsoft's pathetic witnesses.)
When I last checked, the DOJ had given no hints as to what they wanted to do to reduce Microsoft's ability to employ anti-competitive practises. Many commentators have suggested it is unlikely that Microsoft would be broken up into smaller divisions. This would do little to damage their OS monopoly, although it might reduce their ability to bundle IE with everything. It's nevertheless a little extreme given the scope of the case, which pertains only to the browser welding issue.
Similar suits have usually resulted in MS being ordered to cease doing whatever is causing offense. (For instance, Sun's Java suit)
While extreme action cannot be ruled out, we're dreaming if we think that Microsoft will be split up.
In Windows 2.11 (or was it 3.0? hmm...), if Win detected the presence of DR-DOS, it would refuse to run. And stories of undocumented API calls in Win are rampant.
And remember: You type `win' because you win with Windows!
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Unless, of course, your real name is Howard Roark; in that case, I've made half an ass of myself. The unattributed quote still bothers me.
Mike
--
Mike
--
"Wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?"
Here's what Infoworld has to say on the matter:
"To say you're suddenly reorganizing around customer-focused units is one thing, but if you look behind the curtain it's still Jim Allchin over Windows 2000 and Windows 98," said Dwight Davis, a Kirkland, Wash.-based analyst at Summit Strategies. "It's not quite that dramatic reorg in my mind. There's some realignment, but there's still really the same product groups."
Never forget that MS got where they are today because they are MASTERS of marketing and PR. At least most of the time they are masters.
--
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Michael Dillon - E-mail: michael@memra.com
Check the website for my Internet
Just because they've "split up" doesn't mean they don't talk to one another and still make everything so goddamn proprietary. it doesn't change a thing, it's still the same as before, i simply think a ban on windows would solve the problem :), i only wish it could become a reality, in the meantime, MacOS X and Linux have to do
When does the thought of the m$ split make me think of Ministry of Truth, Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Love, etc...?
You're thinking with too much of a product orientation. There is no reason why two divisions can't sell the exact same products. Chances are, there will be a central organization called "Development Resources" or something similar that will provide software to any one or more of the six divisions you listed above. There will also probably be a central support organization. The coding organization will be a cost center while the six marketing branches will be profit centers.
All this does is allow Microsoft to better tailor their marketing mix to different market segments.
It's a reorganization along five arbitrary boundaries, it's been on slashdot 2-3 times already. Sigh. It really dosen't change things, folks :) - Chad, pondering what Windows 98 would be like if it was built on top of *BSD instead of DOS... :)
i hope that those nanosofts are not gonna grow even bigger than microsoft is today - like tha baby-bells grew bigger than at&t was before the trial.
those nanosofts will not be independent corporations - they will work together.
but now no anti-cartell-trial can stop em.
-- To bloody go where no man has gone before.
They aren't splitting into five different companies, which is what the DOJ wants, they are in five new _divisions_. They still control 95% of computer user's lives.
It _will_ make it easier for them to split into five companies if that's what happens. "Oh look, we're already in five divisions... just make them companies! how conveniant!"
``Software is going to play a far broader role in our lives than we can even imagine today,'' he said. ``When we took stock of our ability to meet these future opportunities, it became clear that we were organized to meet today's needs but not those of the next decade.''
:-)
Yup, the Melissa virus shows how ready they are to meet today's needs
This isn't a split of Microsoft. Microsoft remains the monolithic, monopolistic power it's always been -- it just has different internal groups now.
This might be important news to Microsoft stockholders, but it's hardly radar-worthy for the larger computing community.
It seems to me that M$ is splitting into 4 support divisions, and one development division. That bears no relevance to the whole anti-trust thing, except so M$ can say, "Hey, we already restructured once, don't make us do it again." Yet another M$ delay tactic, unless I'm reading it wrong.
This still doesn't prevent the corrupted weaselish hidden bug system they use to prevent competitors s/w from running correctly.
But I'm well into my m$ phaseout anyway, so the bowel movements in Redmond have a lessening impact on me on a daily basis.
You too can phase out windoze with SAMBA
Microsoft is creating fake end-user divisions to prevent the government from dividing it up along it's software divisions. This way, there is no internal dividing line along the lines that I and many others would like to see them go to the block with. Now there is no OS division or Office division or Internet division. All these basic software areas are spread among several "home" "small office" "corporate" and "back office" type divisions. Just the way they said that IE was part of windows, they will now claim that windows, office, etc. are *all* integral to each division.
This is not Microsoft dividing itself up, but it is beating the DOJ to the punch. This is a very smart way to fight a hacking up of the company.
This action does not divide the company. It's still Microsoft, regardless of what they want to call the different departments.
I tried IE4 for HP-UX last year. It used a proprietary widget set that looked almost like the Windows GUI. It created a .microsoft directory in my home directory, containing a registry, of all things. Basically, they did the bare minimum to get it running under Unix. It didn't behave like I'd expect a Unix browser to behave.
To add insult to injury, it was one of the slowest pieces of software I've ever had the misfortune to use. It was like swimming in thick treacle.
the biggest problem with this re-organization plan and for that matter pretty much all of the "splitting" plans is that the split companies aren't really competing against each other. isn't that the whole point?
so, now there's an office group. what's to stop bill gates (or any other high exec) from telling to office group to only produce versions for windows? it's not as if the office group has any new incentive to try and come out with the best product that they didn't have already.
anti-trust is all about creating competition. re-organization does nothing to create competition. let's hope the DOJ realizes this.
Don't make me laugh, M$. Is this supposed to make the "Chineese Wall" even stronger now? This is probably what MS offered as their "deal" to the Justice Dept., and was refused. Microsoft will never change unless forced (and even then, the fine print of the deal should be heavily scrutinized).
It sounds to me like a ploy to appease the shareholders and/or the DOJ (You don't need to break us up, we're already separate divisions now. We had this planned all along...). If they don't change their method of operation as a business, it's worthless. If the different 'divisions' still share and program to undocumented APIs, and cross bundle apps, I can't see there will have been much (any?) improvement.
Exactly, what major organization *doesn't* sluff its execs around every 12-18 months? ( i know Mine does)
Now, if they had announced they were splitting into different companies, *that* would be news.
The average age of the heads of the new divisions is 41, pretty impressive for the most valuable company in the world.
This is not the greatest sig in the world, this is just a tribute.
I suppose it depends on your perspective.
Does anybody really think this re-org will satisfy the DOJ? I feel justified in saying, of course it won't, and it shouldn't.
More rhetorical questions: Does anybody think Microsoft is giving up the biggest ace card with the re-org, that is, the Microsoft monopoly? Once again, nope.
5 news divisions or one big Microsloth, either way, Gates and the boys are still going to have all the internal communication between OS and application development, as well as all their restrictive licensing clout.
We will probably see more overtures by Microsoft before the DOJ case comes back to court, all designed to allow Microsoft to say "Look! We don't need gov't intervention. We're a friendly, responsible corporation! Gosh darn it, you gotta love us!".
The fact is, as another reader pointed out, no company, especially Microsoft, is going to voluntarily give up their competitive advantages, whatever they may be. It's going to take legal intervention to put an end to the illegal monopolist practices of MS.
The re-org IS no news, and it's actually good as long as people realize it as the manipulative "vapourware" that it is.
If the financial reports contain divisional breakdowns it will be interesting. The divisions are closely linked to particular products so there may be an answer to the great Windows margin question. Questions might also be asked about the pofitability of msn for example.
The real reason of the restructuring is to fight a possible breakup in the 'remedy' phase of the trial, and -of course-, during appeal. If you take a look at the new structure, one thing is obvious almost at first sight: it's a 'horizontal' cut. Each and every new division has 'parts of the Windows franchise'. There are no divisions called 'Windows client' or 'Windows server'. This is engineered to make it much harder to split up Microsoft based on antitrust violations done by former, 'vertical' divisions. The DOJ has to 'unmangle' this new structure before suggesting remedies, this is both tough and slow. But for Linux the more imporant aspect of the new structure is that it creates confusion and slowdown within Microsoft as well.
--Coke
There are several posts claiming this is some ploy to make it harder for the DOJ to break up the company. People theorize that aligning on customer boundaries rather than product boundaries makes it harder to break up Microsoft.
Poppycock.
If anything, reorganizing around customer boundaries makes it EASIER to break up the company. It means Microsoft drew the dotted lines that say "cut here".
All the "Baby Bill" proposals involve splitting up Windows among several companies, to spread it around. This reorganization implicitly allows at least 3 versions of Windows, each focused at a different customer segment.
The problem with the break up proposals, usually inspired by the Standard Oil breakup, is that they usually just result in a larger number of vertical monopolies.
Just a top-level reorg. Same Evil Empire. Same One Company controlling Windows, the Browser, and all of the most popular apps. This changes nothing.
No sig.
Last Friday, Microsoft shares split 2 for 1. That means there are over 2^32 shares of Microsoft and caused a 32 bit overflow on the NASDAQ display:
http://206.204.24.3/snimages/nasdaqerr or.gif
Don
Of course they would still communicate! Like any modern techno-savvy company, they would make use of modern business tools like "the paperless office"(tm), "e-mail"(tm), and "the internet"(tm)! :-)
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
By breaking up along product lines Microsoft is preparing a case for the eventual breakup of the company. This reorganization sets the stage for the argument that the business should be broken up along the new divisional boundaries to minimize impact to the daily operations of the business.
In a subtle way Microsoft can prepare for the Government mandated breakup of the company and prepare a breakup strategy that does the least damage to the business if the divisions end up as separate companies.
These distinctions that they have made are logical and would probably be the ones mandated by the Government anyway, but now they are hoping to gain a little say in how it will happen.
Make no mistake, this is Microsoft getting ready for the breakup of the company.
Microsoft delay tactics are fine with me. Considering that companies appear to be willing to actually _say_ the word "Linux" so far as the company is in court, time is on our side. Every delay tactic, every broken negotiation round, every round of appeals keeps Microsoft from being able to punish the infidels.
Me, I can't see a useful verdict out of this short of the "Baby Bill" one, and I don't see that happening. The current court action is providing the _unintended_ side effect of forcing Microsoft to play nice for awhile. This allows companies to start making Linux announcements with little fear of retribution. And that eats away at the "But nothing runs on Linux" argument.
--The basis of all love is respect
As has been stated many times, this article is incredibly misleading. A reorg is not a split. If I want fake news, I'll go to segfault.org.
C'mon slashdot, get back to your older, better standards of what's worth reporting... unreliable news is worse than no news at all.
So...now Microsoft has gone from one main monopoly, to 5 smaller powerhouses.....if you ask me, this is better for Microsoft...I think that they will ultimatly make more money from it..but on the other side, it could also help promote more competition. I think this is a good step all around.
Brian
Splitting it up doesn't necessarily mean any changes... It'll still be the same old Bill Gatus Borgus calling the shots.
http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990329/bfu.html
Luckly for me, I was able to read the second article, posted at 3:27 @ http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990329/2a.html for the latest article.
The letter:
segfault and userfriendly both received emails purporting to come from a legal entity representing the death star - the contents asking that any humour about the evil empire should cease immediately. debate hereabouts wondered at the legality of the message, as it was merely e- and not paper. The Letter is, presumably, the paper.
thinks about a breakup of Microsoft: http://biz.yahoo.com/rf/990329/2a.html
To what aspect of Microsoft's deficient user interface model does your silly statement pertain?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, write technology blogs.