..and when the universe dies a heat death? Anything is possible tomorrow, Secure Boot doesn't mean that suddenly 100% of the numerous PC makers will one day suddenly ban user root keys and make their devices harder to fix in case of issues.
Given that you're in full control of the keys, Secure Boot is more like a ADT alarm system controlled lock you put in your home than a handcuff. By default, MS is trusted, but you can make it untrusted and prevent Windows from ever booting even by accident if you so wish.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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-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:
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.
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.
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.
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!:)
Perhaps the E&D head is going to be fired soon. Appointing someone else is going to tip people off. Or maybe they're trying to hire Andy Rubin or RMS or timothy for being the head.
Have you considered the possibility that Ballmer and the upper management might just know much more about the situation than me and 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. 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.
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.
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."
Because plans may and can change, and plans are best announced with changes themselves. 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. 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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
>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.
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?
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.
Slashdot Mirror
..and when the universe dies a heat death? Anything is possible tomorrow, Secure Boot doesn't mean that suddenly 100% of the numerous PC makers will one day suddenly ban user root keys and make their devices harder to fix in case of issues.
Gah, what's it about secure boot that seems to confuse so many people?
Currently there are zero vendors that lock out users from the signing keys since being Windows Certified needs user control of keys.
The parent posts point is that if such a vendor shows up, vote with your wallet and feet and get a computer from another vendor.
How is secure boot about lock-in when you can turn it off with a mouse click?
How is it Microsoft's fault that the FOSS community is unable to come up a signing organization that OEMs are willing to add?
Given that you're in full control of the keys, Secure Boot is more like a ADT alarm system controlled lock you put in your home than a handcuff. By default, MS is trusted, but you can make it untrusted and prevent Windows from ever booting even by accident if you so wish.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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-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.
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.
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.
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
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! :)
Perhaps the E&D head is going to be fired soon. Appointing someone else is going to tip people off. Or maybe they're trying to hire Andy Rubin or RMS or timothy for being the head.
Have you considered the possibility that Ballmer and the upper management might just know much more about the situation than me and 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. 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.
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.
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."
Because plans may and can change, and plans are best announced with changes themselves. 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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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
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.
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?
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.