Microsoft FY08Q3 Results
FY08Q3: favorite post-analysis sites for the results:
The last report was a knock-out and the stock responded accordingly and shot up.
Ends up Microsoft leadership had a plan to address that issue: attempt to acquire Yahoo. Amidst a world of puzzled financial faces mumbling "wtf?" we started our ill advised adventure to consume Yahoo, whether they wanted it or not. The stock responded accordingly and tanked.
I expect today will be another solid quarter, but the Ill Advised Adventure Monkey is riding our back and I expect a good bit of the analyst probing will be around Yahoo (wondering if we'd be dumb enough to raise our bid), and perhaps reviewing the upcoming money-making product stream, plus what a non-Microsoft + Yahoo future looks like (one word: shiny).
Mr. Ballmer engaged in some good bluster Wednesday, saying that Microsoft could just walk away from the deal. Please, please, walk on by. I haven't talked to every employee at Microsoft, of course, but everyone that I've talked to believes this is a bad idea. And that's not hand wringing.
Overall: the results are in and... ouch. Various reactions:
(1) MSFTExtremeMakeover: MSFTextrememakeover Q3 FY08 Earnings - which firsts starts off w/ MSFTExtremeMakeover considering packing the whole blogging gig up - go over and have productive participation if you want to express your encouragement for the blog to continue. A snippet on the initial analysis:
Again looking quickly, Client sucked. And it seems to be not just the technology guarantee impact but also anemic OEM growth. The .ppt brags about the same 140M Vista licenses sold that we've been hearing about for a while now. So clearly there's been no acceleration wrt installed base upgrades either. Surprise! Not. MBD was also weak. I haven't delved further to figure out why. Servers put in a strong showing as per usual. Kudos to that group at least. And finally E&D managed to eke out a paper profit (as long as you ignore intra-group transfers and the convenient "Corporate-level activity" bucket).
(2) Mr. Joe Wilcox: Microsoft Watch - Corporate - Microsoft Q3 2008 by the Numbers - as always a nice breakdown.
(3) Mr. Todd Bishop:
Microsoft Strategy solid even without Yahoo, which roles up a response from Mr. Liddell that you can only hope allows us to walk on by Yahoo (or at least not raise the offer price):
As outlined in our recent letter to the Yahoo board, unless we make progress with Yahoo towards an agreement by this weekend, we will reconsider our alternatives. We will provide updates as appropriate next week. These alternatives clearly include taking an offer to Yahoo shareholders or to withdraw our proposal and focus on other opportunities, both organic and inorganic.
Notes Microsoft's profits exceed estimates - snippet regarding Xbox / Entertainment and Devices making money instead of being one huge money sink:
Does the operating profit mean that the company is no longer losing money on the Xbox 360 hardware?
Colleen Healy, Microsoft's general manager of investor relations, didn't answer that question directly when I asked this afternoon. However, she said, "What I can confirm for you is we're making really good progress on that cost curve."
(4) WSJ: Business Technology Vista Drags on Microsoft - snippet:
If we dig a little deeper there’s evidence to suggest that Microsoft has a Vista problem.
(5) Scotch it! Two to close on, including best use of the word "scotch" I've seen in a while:
- Microsoft results disappoint Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
- Microsoft issues final threat to scotch Yahoo deal Financial News - Yahoo! Finance
179 comments:
Please, Steve, walk on by. You are not good at this.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2008-04-23-ballmer_N.htm
"Roll says he was surprised to find that Ballmer stood out among the worst dealmakers.
"
What's striking to me is that most Microsoft employees I've talked to in Redmond are negative about the deal. By contrast, in the Valley, most of the people I talk to -- Microsoft employees and others -- think it would be a very good deal for Microsoft.
I wonder why things look so different in the Redmond reality-distortion field?
jon
MSFTextreme is thinking about packing it in! Do not let that happen! Show some love to extreme!
"walk away from the deal. Please, please, walk on by. "
modest are we not? are you trying to take the credit for what Steve says now days? =)
I believe Microsoft wants Yahoo for a very important reason: to turn it into a Silverlight portal. So don't expect this deal to be terminated. It won't. Silverlight is too important to Microsoft, and purchasing a well-known portal to showcase it (or to push it onto as many machines as possible if you prefer) is the strategy of the day. Watch for it.
what a POS shit, not only did it give back recent gains, but also the GOOG bonus
put this freakin dog to sleep already
Looks like we might have a few days of interesting news, so I'm loosening up the moderation to let the comments flow more quickly.
I will scrub the comments and delete anything offensive / dumb, along with any follow-ups.
Mini.
I dont see any value in Silverlighting Yahoo. Yahoo is a has-been. The only strategy I can see with them is trying to buy eyeball share, but thats a loser.
The money would be far better spent in programs to ensure that the message of Silverlight is heard far and wide by developers. Google can keep indexing and monetizing sites, but if the majority of the sites they're indexing and monetizing are running MSFT technology, that is a big win.
Trying to compete with them in the portal and online ad game is a distraction (and an EXPENSIVE distraction) that doesnt make sense.
Something like Live Mesh proves that MSFT can still get in front of the curve and generate excitement. Investment in modernizing and transforming the existing franchises, REINVENTING THE DISMAL LICENSING MODELS, and fixing the horrible corporate image problems makes a hell of a lot more sense than spending countless billions on a dog.
Forgot to add to the above... There is a chance Yahoo (if they were smart) would be looking at Moonlight anyway.
There is some genuinely cool technology in there. Devs who arent purely ideological (and Ive met with more than a few) may find that they *choose* to utilize that platform (without having to be bought by MSFT)
I am sick and tired of these Microsoft results...everytime I wait, like a naive idiot, for the quaterly earnings to come out and beat the street. Every single time it is disappointing and share price goes down. I so looking forward to dumping all my stocks and go join Google or Amazon or some startup...
I am also surprised at how much in the doldrums we are. I fully expected a great earnings report based on how much biz we do overseas and was stunned to see us fall 5% in afterhours after a good runup. It is truly maddening to see such poor progress.
I'm still waiting for when Steve and company manage to give us some good news for once. I think they don't want to.
I'm still waiting for when Steve and company manage to give us some good news for once. I think they don't want to.
Of course they don't want to -- do you have ANY IDEA how many people would cash out and bail if the stock ever went to 40???
"I'm still waiting for when Steve and company manage to give us some good news for once. I think they don't want to."
Of course they don't want to -- do you have ANY IDEA how many people would cash out and bail if the stock ever went to 40???
Yeah, a whole lot of dead weight senior managers, old-timers and partners... none of the people who actually do the work have enough stock to care one way or the other these days. ;-)
To Anonymous 6:04 PM re Anonymous 12:45 PM, money will be spent far and wide spreading the Silverlight message to developers. This is not an either or deal. Both will be done (Silverlighting Yahoo and as many other sites as possible, as well as spending a lot of money spreading the Silverlight message). As for Yahoo being a has-been, obviously this is not the belief of upper-management.
Remember the comment from Craig Mundie: We hope to do to Google what was done to Netscape. That should be considered a statement of strategy. Go back and study the process used against Netscape. The same will be used against Google.
This involves building exclusive features into Windows, and using various tactics to convince providers to switch to the Microsoft technology. These include special pricing for those that drop flash, coercive incentives (deal with us now or it'll be more expensive later), and special alignments (remember the deal with AOL).
Thus it makes a great deal of sense to Silverlight Yahoo. What is needed is an incentive to have it installed on as many systems as possible. Once that is done, the Silverlight backend technology will surely run best on Windows Server, and various features will be Windows Server only. This can be used as a lever to increase Windows Server usage, not to mention the increase in revenues from developer systems that must be Windows to run the development tools. Since Silverlight is a Microsoft-developed technology, Microsoft will always be ahead of the game with any new features.
Also note how Silverlight only supports WMA and VC-1/WMV7-9. Those are owned technologies. And note how Linux is only supported through a deal with Novell, and to be sure that won't be an open source effort. That can be used to help marginalize Linux on the desktop, since it throws up a barrier to using it. And of course, the Silverlight front end will work best on Vista.
No, I believe the strategy is very clear. Again, go back and study the Netscape strategy. It's in the open for all to see, since various internal memos were required to be made public.
There's even more to say about this (for example, I haven't even mentioned Yahoo Video or WPF and how they tie into all this). However, this is enough for now.
I think a major point behind the Microhoo deal has been missed. This isn't about Microsoft and Yahoo together trying to take down Google. This is about placing Microsoft technology in key arenas. If "directed" market forces cause Google to use Microsoft technology, then Microsoft revenue increases.
Put another way, if two opposing sides purchase weapons from the same supplier, the supplier is the one who wins the war. The key is "arranging" for the players to purchase from the same supplier. Various strategies can be used to "help" that happen. Silverlight is key to one of those strategies.
Keep that in mind.
Right... thats the problem... Upper management is wrong.
I mean have you not noticed that the majority of analysts think this is a bad deal?
I maintain that Silverlighting Yahoo has no value. The reason for this is that YAHOO has no value.
They have shrunk down to a 20% share since Googles inception. Their share will keep shrinking whether MSFT buys them or not.
They are *not* going to win in search and website monetization.
The problem is that the MSFT execs THINK they will b/c they're in a panic.
The Netscape analogy is an incredibly bad one. AMAZINGLY bad. Google is an ad agency that monetizes web pages in a way that satisfies (for the most part) the largest number of advertisers.
They also have, arguably, the #1 brand and incredibly strong word of mouth b/c they did an excellent job building mindshare and their corporate image. This solidifies their already solid ad products by ensuring that the eyeballs WILL come to those sites via Google.
They have a 60% share now. Yahoo sucks. Everything they have done to try to catch Google has failed and has sucked.
They are SLIGHTLY more successful than MSN when it comes to being a has been.
Netscape was the maiden voyage of an HTML browser. MSFT locked in proprietary tech that was compelling to devs in a FREE bundled product.
There is no analogy here. There is no product. There is simply brand, and monetization of websites.
MSFT isnt going to offer a "better deal" to Google advertisers and certainly isnt going to somehow catch up with 60% share (and growing) with something as commodity as search (which is FREE and drives the eyeballs).
To nail the coffin shut, post consent decree, there will be no more BS like ensuring that IE only points to live.com, etc.
To nail it shut even tighter, Firefox gains on IE DAILY as the browser of choice.
This is a new game. Sticking to old paradigms (be they for strategy, or for analogy) just shows that you dont know how to play it (even if you are CM)
I'm still waiting for when Steve and company manage to give us some good news for once.
Sure! They are just waiting find a few more incompetent windbags and promote them and hope for a miracle in 09.
Does anyone have any idea when the Xbox will "really" make a profit?
Eg..actually make money above development costs and cost to manufacture?
>Silverlight is too important to Microsoft, and purchasing a well-known portal to showcase it (or to push it onto as many machines as possible if you prefer) is the strategy of the day. Watch for it.
I'm really interested in the speculation that MSFT would spend $44 billion to spread Silverlight.
What kind of math do you use to justify that deal AND can I have some of what you're smoking? :)
>By contrast, in the Valley, most of the people I talk to -- Microsoft employees and others -- think it would be a very good deal for Microsoft.
Most MSFT employees in the valley work in online services while most of those in Redmond don't. That should answer the question.
This involves building exclusive features into Windows, and using various tactics to convince providers to switch to the Microsoft technology. These include special pricing for those that drop flash, coercive incentives (deal with us now or it'll be more expensive later), and special alignments (remember the deal with AOL).
Thus it makes a great deal of sense to Silverlight Yahoo. What is needed is an incentive to have it installed on as many systems as possible. Once that is done, the Silverlight backend technology will surely run best on Windows Server, and various features will be Windows Server only. This can be used as a lever to increase Windows Server usage, not to mention the increase in revenues from developer systems that must be Windows to run the development tools. Since Silverlight is a Microsoft-developed technology, Microsoft will always be ahead of the game with any new features.
Also note how Silverlight only supports WMA and VC-1/WMV7-9. Those are owned technologies. And note how Linux is only supported through a deal with Novell, and to be sure that won't be an open source effort. That can be used to help marginalize Linux on the desktop, since it throws up a barrier to using it. And of course, the Silverlight front end will work best on Vista.
All of the above sounds absolutely horrible to me. In fact, this three-paragraph passage is valuable in that it distills every single element of the Microsoft philosophy that I find most loathsome, dangerous and repellant into a succinct statement.
Every sentence above is about "software as RISK boardgame"; about leveraging maneuvers trumping innovation; about acquisitive, mafia-style gamesmanship overruling egalitarian values; about the blind desire to "win" obliterating even the slightest intention to focus on making good products. The entire statement is chilling in its disregard for customers, competitors, and, really, anything except ensuring that Microsoft grow into every market like a fungus overrunning a petri dish, for no reason except that its business philosophy is based on nothing but this omnivorous desire.
Congratulations; you've figured out a scheme to force Silverlight "to be installed on as many systems as possible," independent of whether anyone wants this, or whether it's good for anyone, or whether the natural market forces (independent of OS or browser leverage) tend this way. Competition in the conventional sense is not just short circuited but is actually obliterated as an idea; you're clearly not even interested in the concept of the best or most product winning a market. And you don't seem to have any idea that there's anything wrong with this, or that it connects directly to the company's corrosive public image. Amazing.
Analysts. Have you noticed how they have been predicting the death of Apple for years?
The purchase of Yahoo is not for the sole purpose of showcasing Silverlight. Certainly that is a part of a larger vision. For its part, however, by ensuring that front end technology is installed on systems, it encourages the adoption of the back end technology.
Yahoo certainly has lost some value, but it is still used by many as their Web portal, and not just for search. Yahoo, unlike Google, provides a well-organized display of services. These are ripe as sub-portals for new technology, and provide a ready location for new services.
However, continuing, consider Yahoo Video. Would it not be logical to extend that to support Silverlight streaming? It is not difficult to ensure the video is in the proper format for Silverlight. These videos are indexed by other search engines, including Google, thus helping to ensure the technology is propagated, even to those using other search engines.
Furthermore, because of Yahoo's established presence, it is logical to use it to introduce commercial video, including that requiring DRM. This will provide new revenue streams.
This is just a simple example of how Yahoo can be used to propagate new front and back end technology, with the intent of generating more revenue.
Yahoo is insufficient of course as a sole provider for this strategy. Additional alliances are required. That is clearly part of the larger vision.
Here's an idea. Make advertising on the web a free enterprise. If your company uses Silverlight technologies/WPF on your website, MSFT will give you free advertising over the entire Yahoo ad network - millions of eyeballs in exchange for a technical tit-for-tat.
Take that google.
To the question on why Microsoft employees in the valley like the Yahoo deal:
Most of us work either in the TV division or MSN -- both of which are complete f-ing disasters. Microsoft should have lit off a neutron bomb here a long time ago -- but that would require management skills.
I work in the TV division (completely fucked up with evil and corrupt management and 11 YEARS of red ink), and I for one will be shifting to a Yahoo group on day 1 after the acquisition.
I know that at least 10 of my work friends have the same plan. It is our escape plan if something in the valley doesn't look more interesting first.
Therefore, we like the deal.
As for nailed coffins, indeed the game has changed. The current battle being discussed is not for the desktop. Rather, it is the server space. And note that Silverlight works with Firefox and Safari.
By growing in the server space it helps ensure continued revenue. The heart of Microsoft's business is the Enterprise, and the heart of the Enterprise is IT. By engulfing more of the server space, the IT departments will help ensure the continued use of Windows on the desktop, since IT tends to loath diversity because that increases costs. And users tend to use at home what is used at work.
So consider what strategies are necessary to help increase Windows Server net share. Silverlight is one (important) part. Live Mesh is another.
From what I gathered from reading the mini-msft blog, Kevin Turner the COO is one of the biggest proponent of the deal. Before Microsoft he was an executive at Wal-Mart. That goes on to prove that you can take a man out of Wal-Mart but you can not take Wal-Mart out of a man.
Then there is Microsoft CFO Chris Liddel, who is very vociferous about this deal. If this deal is done then obviously it would be highlight of his career. Not only will he make 100s of million $ but his name would also be sealed in the annals of financial history as the architect of the biggest tech acquisition.
From the other side we have Bill Miller, a large shareholder of Yahoo!. I had a lot of respect for him plainly because he beat the S&P 500 index so consistently. But the way he has acted in Yahoo! deal, I have lost most of that respect. When Microsoft made the offer to Yahoo! not only his Yahoo! stocks were worth a lot more but he also started accumulating more of them. He then made a statement
"Yahoo! should accept the offer and Microsoft should raise the bid". And why should it be done one may ask Mr Miller. Plainly so that he could make money and gain some of the respect back that he lost in last 2 years of performing well below the market.
When Microsoft threatened to lower the offer, Bill Miller threatened Microsoft by offering to support Jerry Yang.
Microsoft leadership is now having second thoughts about Yahoo! deal. The enthusiasm they had when microsoft stock was 35 and Yahoo! was at 19 has waned when Microsoft and Yahoo stocks are trading at about the same levels. They are now threating to walk away from the deal. I would be ecstatic if they make good on these threats. The biggest reason is no longer to regain the substantial loss I had on my net worth because of this folly but to see the reaction of Bill Miller who stock piled Yahoo at 29 in anticipation of getting 40$ per stock
Analysts. Have you noticed how they have been predicting the death of Apple for years?
Not since ten years ago.
> All of the above sounds absolutely
> horrible to me.
[about how MSFT is going to force Silverlight onto everybody].
I think, (to quote Theo deRaadt) that the original post is either delusional or outright f*cking stupid.
Things like this don't work anymore. As someone else pointed out, this a game of the 90s.
Do you think anybody will care about a site that doesn't work in the iPhone?
Come June/July, the 3G iPhone with Exchange-Support will be out and people who currently use BBs and WMs will happily throw them away - not by the truck-load, but by the freight wagon.
If a site doesn't work on the iPhone, it doesn't exist.
I guess Apple would install Silverlight on the iPhone - for a "small" monthly fee of 1 or 2 dollars. Per iPhone. Probably.
You guys should work on something that doesn't need a plugin in IE and is standards-based, so it works on any browser.
Congratulations; you've figured out a scheme to force Silverlight "to be installed on as many systems as possible," independent of whether anyone wants this
+1
No kidding. Microsoft wants web developers to learn a new language and software stack and wants end users to install a new runtime... why? Because it's "strategic" for Microsoft? No thanks.
blah blah blah blah... snip
The entire statement is chilling in its disregard for customers, competitors, and, really, anything except ensuring that Microsoft grow into every market like a fungus overrunning a petri dish, for no reason except that its business philosophy is based on nothing but this omnivorous desire.
blah blah blah blah... snip
Buddy... You've just described all human enterprise. Just because you live in some delusional fantasy world where only companies you have decided to despise (Microsoft and a few others I can probably guess) doesn't change that reality.
Google does this in a HUGE way. Apple does it in an even MORE insidious way because they convince people that they are somehow working "for the good of humanity".
Even the OSS "movement" is exactly the same. They are social change radicals almost universally who feel that commercial enterprise should be virally erradicated and only the standards and platforms they feel are "good" should be allowed to exist.
Think I'm exaggerating? If so, you're either in denial or full of shit. I've viewed that side from the inside for a long time (as long as I've been on the proprietary side).
All people have a self-interest driven agenda. That you can ONLY see this in MSFT really just kills your credibility.
Now go ahead and list 5000 examples of why MSFT IS evil and Apple, Google and the "OSS community" ARE good.
Every fanatic can always list plenty of "evidence" to counter basic, common sense, reality.
I'm another believer that MSFT should just give away web advertising. MSFT is losing here anyway, and Google uses its profitable areas to finance attacks on MSFT revenue streams (e.g. Office). Instead of trying and failing to win the online ad market, MSFT could try to suck the value out. Better to do so while MSFT is still bigger than Google; who knows how long that will last...
Whoa. Its obvious by that non-answer answer that MS is STILL taking a loss on Xbox hardware after 2.5 years and a year headstart on the competition?
Giving away advertising as a way to beat Google is about the silliest thing I've ever heard.
After spending $0 on advertising with us, they've still got their entire advertising budget to spend on advertising with Google.
Advertising isn't some limited resource where you just need one ad and are done with it -- advertisers wants as much coverage as they can possibly get, and are limited only by their budget.
The "free" solution just results in more money going to Google. Which is the exact opposite of what you want to do ...
Buddy... You've just described all human enterprise. Just because you live in some delusional fantasy world where only companies you have decided to despise (Microsoft and a few others I can probably guess) [missing subordinate clause]doesn't change that reality.
Respectfully, I have not just described "all human enterprise." I did not invent the characterization of Microsoft as a company intent on growing its market share solely by leveraging its existing footprint of locked-in users. Even if you believe that the Justice Department's browser-war monopoly-abuse ruling was "wrong" (which is an argument with a scope larger than this blog can accomodate) you can't deny that Microsoft's intentions re: Netscape, QuickTime, and now Silverlight follow the same systemic pattern; it's Microsoft's methodologies for market growth (stated out here) and not its idealism or lack thereof that I'm attacking.
Of course Apple, Google, etc. attempt to lock consumers into a platform. Nobody disputes that. But Microsoft has created a business ethic where locking in consumers is the main armature of its business model, supplanting all attempts at winning over customer loyalty. You may dislike my tone (and that's fine), but I'm not making up the growing customer dissatisfaction with Microsoft products or the clearly evidenced trends away from WIndows once customers are presented with legitimately viable alternatives.
Nearly every Mac customer (and purchaser of Apple's shrinkwrapped OS updates, for example) bought those products because they preferred them. Nearly every Windows customer switched from NT4 to XP because they had to. Release every company's lock-in mechanisms, and Apple customers stay where they are, while Microsoft's customers running away.
This isn't my opinion; it's demographic reality. If you can't see the difference (or still think I'm simply describing a "delusional fantasy world"), I cant help you.
Liddel and KT can't spell online. They are most likely not behind Yahoo deal. Likely folks are Yusuf Mehdi, Hank Vigil and KJ. The former two of course are on several million a year pay packages to help dream up these deals....
>>Analysts. Have you noticed how they have been >>predicting the death of Apple for years?
>Not since ten years ago.
Actually, predicting the death of Apple -- even if you exclude Rob Enderle, who plays in the master's division now -- is still a thriving sport:
http://www.macobserver.com/appledeathknell/
Microsof't Silverlight strategy starts with the NBC 2008 olympics website which, thanks to the insane lid the IOC keeps on any and all materials will require silverlight to access any web content.
I don't understand why this "own the codec" strategy is such a big deal, it's pretty much failed for web video, online music, hd disc content, etc. And even in areas where it is popular or successful Microsoft's tools aren't the best encoders anyway. Where's the puside to any of this against the billions of dollars they've spent?
>Giving away advertising as a way to beat Google is about the silliest thing I've ever heard.
+1
That's as ridiculous as arguing that the best way for MSNBC to beat CNN and Fox News is to give away on-air advertising for free.
NewsFlash: The media business isn't the same as the proprietary shrinkwrapped software business.
From the last thread: I works in adcenter group. Our technology is better than google and yahoo. The profit is sales problem. Our is high performance team. High performance needs high reward.
Ha. I work(s) in adCenter too. Our technology is poor and getting poorer. Let's hope the s**tcan the lot of it and go with Atlas. At least their technology could make money. Secret weapon: please ask T.N. to join Google.
India is 1Billion dollar business. It is expected to surpass US market by 2025. It is the same in China. China government ask for jobs in China. Microsoft is investing for the future by hiring people at high levels in India/China.
China is on a collision course between fascism and capitalism. Either the gentrification will result in a violent backlash; or, the rising fascism will produce a Fourth Reich (well, 5th, since 4 is unlucky in Chinese). Microsoft is wise not to put data centers in China; no customer data can be expropriated by government thugs.
Google was available for $9 billion in 2004, before the IPO. Our leadership decided against it. How much are we bidding for Yahoo again?
Google does this in a HUGE way. Apple does it in an even MORE insidious way because they convince people that they are somehow working "for the good of humanity".
Even the OSS "movement" is exactly the same. They are social change radicals almost universally who feel that commercial enterprise should be virally erradicated and only the standards and platforms they feel are "good" should be allowed to exist.
Think I'm exaggerating? If so, you're either in denial or full of shit. I've viewed that side from the inside for a long time (as long as I've been on the proprietary side).
All people have a self-interest driven agenda. That you can ONLY see this in MSFT really just kills your credibility.
Just have to say that,
for someone that claims
Linux people are "radicals", you sure sound like a nutcase.
Feeling threatened,
are we? Good!
As of the silverlight lock in scenario i don't much believe in that this would work. You need something to convince webdevelopers and users that Silverlight is superior to Flash, Java, HTML or whatever you try to compete with.
What does Silverlight have specifically that makes it better than flash and other alternatives? I don't know much about the technical merits of Silverlight, but at first glance it looks like a flash wannabe integrated with .net?
You suggest that developers that allready have invested in tools for flash and java development to switch to a (as of speaking) more or less non existent platform technology and pay up for new tools and make sites that looks just like the usual flash sites? Because the examples sites i've looked at that use Silverlight looks exactly like regular flash sites. Please post links that shows me why i should switch to silverlight (other than to please MSFT).
Along your thoughts though, I believe more in MS Dynamics which seems to use the same lock in strategy that you propse for Silverlight. Yes, MSFT has some colaboration with SAP right now, but when the time is right they probably s***w them over.
Sometimes i think MSFT sees customers not as companies that use MSFT software to run a business, but as companies that run a business so they can use MSFT software.
>So consider what strategies are necessary to help increase Windows Server net share. Silverlight is one (important) part. Live Mesh is another.
You know what, the kicker will be Red Dog. This dog will bite Google.
>I don't know much about the >technical merits of Silverlight, >but at first glance it looks like >a flash wannabe integrated >with .net?
Not being a designer I can't speak to the designer comparisons between Silverlight and Flash. But from a framework/library perspective a better analogy would be that Flash's ActionScript and associated libraries are attempting to masquerade as a real programming language. Unfortunately Adobe can't get away from the legacy of previous AS incarnations, so you end up with a bastardized patchwork quilt of pseudo-scripting with a bunch of incrementally glommed on functions. Silverlight on the other hand started from the full .NET Framework and slimmed itself down the core libraries that make sense for use in Internet applications - and it does so on Mac and Windows. Its one heck of a powerful programming engine that is finally available cross-platform and in a relatively small package.
>You suggest that developers that >already have invested in tools >for flash and java development to >switch to a (as of speaking) more >or less non existent platform >technology and pay up for new >tools and make sites that looks >just like the usual flash sites?
The kicker here is the number of developers (or in many cases designers that cross-trained over to development) using Flash is relatively small compared to the overall number of HTML/Javascript/AJAX coders. Yes Flash has momentum since its been here for years. But there are lots and lots of non-Flash developers who will be deciding what technologies to use for RIAs. Also if you take a look at the kind of code that Flash "developers" create, it makes one want to break out the Parmesan cheese due to all the spaghetti flying around.
e&d made money due to media center. $N for every copy of windows with MC goes to E&D.
This is so typical Microsoft. People are talking about how Silverlight is superior from a technical perspective, while at the same time taking digs at the people who develop in alternative technologies.
News flash: Flash has a lock on the market, and Silverlight ain't gonna overtake. If Ballmer's spending $44bil to increase Silverlight adoption he's even dumber than we think. If that's possible.
With the change in rules on internal transfers from requiring "permission to interview" to "must notify before interview" does it say how much notification is necessary? Also, does the current manager receive automated notification from the Career site when an underling submits a resume for another position, or just once the new hiring manager has HR spin up the process?
I guess what I'm wondering is if my current manager will hear about me applying for another position as soon as I apply, or closer to the date of the interview loop?
Will Q4 be any better? Rumor is that conferences, training, and other extras have been cancelled for the field in Q4 because it's shaping up to be really tough.
Someone said:
This involves building exclusive features into Windows, and using various tactics to convince providers to switch to the Microsoft technology. These include special pricing for those that drop flash, coercive incentives (deal with us now or it'll be more expensive later), and special alignments (remember the deal with AOL).
Isn't this the same behavior that got Microsoft into loads of trouble with accusations of "abuse of monopoly power" a few years ago with Internet Explorer?
I guess what I'm wondering is if my current manager will hear about me applying for another position as soon as I apply, or closer to the date of the interview loop?
Your current manager won't know about it until you tell them. Your first goal is to set up informational interviews with those groups that you find interesting. Be sure and tell the hiring manager that it is not okay to contact your current management at this point. If you like what you hear in the informational, ask the hiring manager if you can do an informal interview. This is an interview that "doesn't count." Some managers will do this, some won't. The reason you'd want to do this is that if you blow the interview for some reason, your current management won't know that you're interviewing, and if you nail the interview then the new group will be chomping at the bit to get you and the formal interview process will be that much easier (e.g., probably fewer people on the formal loop).
Frankly the way it's done now isn't much better than the "asking for permission" method (in fact, I don't see any difference - others disagree). I really never understood the "asking for permission" to interview (or the new and improved "informing your management") policy anyway - I don't have to inform them to interview at Google so why should I have to inform anyone that I'm interviewing across the hall? It's a stupid policy.
You sound like you haven't been through this before so I would also suggest that before you interview internally you interview externally. You might get a better offer. Even if you decide to stay, it'll make for a good warm-up.
I anticipated that the next OS cycle/ release would be when MS would have to pull out all the stops to convince the market that Windows is still relevant. I'll admit that I was one cycle off--for Vista has been a complete disaster and confirms that this spectacularly successful company--the most successful software company the world has seen to date--is well into the beginning of its end. But, alas, it had to happen. Billg knew this and timed his exit pretty well (though he was off by one cycle as well). I'll bet I'm not far off in speculating that billg has said on more than one occasion (behind the closed doors of the Board room in bldg 34), "Vista is a complete piece of s**t."
SVP/CVP heads have rolled, rightly so. That takes out the cancer and it's a good start, but that actually doesn't put the right strategy in place for the company. Now leadership/new leadership has to articulate the vision, strategy, execution plan and give marching orders. What's the leadership say?
"Software + services" is an interim strategy. Leverage MS' key assets to get a foothold into services. Client software on the desktop/ laptop ain't disappearing tomorrow, but it is a question of "when" not "if."
Yahoo! really is the company's only chance to remain relevant. Don't get me wrong, Y! will not instantaneously transform M$FT/Y! into fighting shape; instead, closing the deal is a NECESSARY CONDITION for MS to have a chance at a successful future in online services. Both M$FT and Y! know this, except M$FT will not and cannot publicly emphasize this and Y! cannot convince anyone that they can extract a higher price b/c of this.
- agent mulder lives
Will Q4 be any better? Rumor is that conferences, training, and other extras have been cancelled for the field in Q4 because it's shaping up to be really tough.
From the TAMs and other field folks I've talked to, all those things were cancelled. But the impression I got was that the 'why' was a little different than you mentioned. They seemed to imply that they're likely going to be hitting their numbers for Q4, but that their numbers were so badly missed in Q1-Q3 for utilization by customers that even exceeding them in Q4 will likely keep the execs in Services from hitting their committments come end-of-year, so gravity is taking hold and stuff is rolling down hill.
Dare writes:
> Most MSFT employees in the valley work in online services while most of those in Redmond don't. That should answer the question.
Good point, in two ways:
1) most MSFT employees in the valley know more about the online services realities [because it relates to their job] than most MSFT employees in Redmond
2) if this deal goes through, it dramatically strengthens online services in any political battles
anonymous@12:04 a.m.:
> I for one will be shifting to a Yahoo group on day 1 after the acquisition.
That too: an acquisition creates a lot more opportunities for Microsoft's Valley-based employees than it does for Redmond-based employees.
I also wonder how much of it is the prospect of a major flow of power out of Redmond, which potentially reinforces not just online services but other areas where a Redmond-centric view is too limited ... a very threatening thing to Redmond-area employees, even if it's a good thing for Microsoft.
As for Silverlight ... sure, if the acquisition goes through it'll be a great chance for Microsoft to have some showpiece Silverlight apps and they will probably jump at the chance to "encourage" (cough) everybody to download it. In addition to the portal, Yahoo! Messenger, Mail, Answers, and flickr, aren't has-beens. Especially when combined with Microsoft's legacy strengths of MSN Messenger, Hotmail -- and the photo stuff -- really do provide a chance to outflank Google in the areas that people spend more time in than search.
And Microsoft does value "owning the platform" highly (even though I agree that it's questionable in this case).
That said I'm with Dare: unless I'm missing something, that's the kind of thing that justifies a $100M purchase, not $44B. Is there enough of what you're smoking for me, too?
anonymous@7:38:
> money will be spent far and wide spreading the Silverlight message to developers. This is not an either or deal
Agreed.
> Remember the comment from Craig Mundie: We hope to do to Google what was done to Netscape.
Hopefully without the lawsuits.
> That should be considered a statement of strategy.
Hopefully not. Since day 1, Google's been very conscious of not being Netscaped; they're well-prepared for this.
Just have to say that,
for someone that claims
Linux people are "radicals", you sure sound like a nutcase.
Feeling threatened,
are we? Good!
Just telling it like it is. If you think that sounds like a "nutcase" argument, then I feel even worse for you.
I dont have a dog in this race. I've done MPE, HP-UX, Linux, Solaris, Windows, Mac OS, OSX and more in my career.
What I do understand well is human nature so I am by no means naive enough to think that there is ONE big bad wolf and that it lives in Redmond.
Your little snide remark "feeling threatened? Good!" actually PERFECTLY illustrates what I'm talking about by the radical element of the OSS movement. This weird personalization of what, at the end of the day, amounts to technology and business. Nobody shot your dog, yet if you hang in OSS circles, you'd think you were attending a Second International meeting circa 1905.
Hm. So we're thinking about paying $44 billion so that end users will install Silverlight on their machines?
I fondly remember the times when end users paid us to install our software instead.
All I can say is that MSFT's 'ace in the hole' is its huge cash reserves. If the Yahoo deal goes ahead and eats up over 40 billion dollars on what is basically a single Ballmer gamble (and we all know how good Ballmer's gambles usually are), then MSFT is finished.
If I were a MSFT shareholder, I would be lobbying the rest of the shareholders to replace the current bunch of idiots on the board of management as soon as possible, in a last-minute attempt to save the company.
Most MSFT employees in the valley work in online services while most of those in Redmond don't.
Can't say I noticed any such support in MSN in Redmond. The people I've talked to are skeptical for the same reasons everybody else is. In some cases, I suspect it's also because they secretly fear for their jobs.
Sadly, Live Search, the underperforming money pit that bled MSN dry, is actually needed in the merger so they won't be punished for their sins. There is no justice in this world.
>If the Yahoo deal goes ahead and eats up over 40 billion dollars on what is basically a single Ballmer gamble (and we all know how good Ballmer's gambles usually are), then MSFT is finished.
MSFT has only 26 billion in cash. It is taking debt to finance Yahoo deal.
It is taking debt to finance Yahoo deal.
Really? Microsoft's going into debt? Throwing away the cash surplus that everyone cites as the single arrow in its quiver?
Yeah! Way to go, Ballmer! When your canoe enters the rapids, throw away the paddle!
Instead of buying Yahoo, shouldn't we fix our own products first? For example, my team evaluated Dynamics CRM. All I can say is that in spite of all the marketing hype, product quality is very low. Workflows don't work the way they are supposed to, the platform doesn't return the right data, etc. I asked some folks working in that team why and it looks like there are issues with the management team and their best people leaving. With the Yahoo thing, maybe they will get their act together (since they also are a Live product now)? That might be one benefit!
>Really? Microsoft's going into debt? Throwing away the cash surplus that everyone cites as the single arrow in its quiver?
It is 50% cash + 50% stock. MSFT is going to the debt market to keep some reserve on the balance sheet. The M&A group wants more tuck in buys.
Two words. Walk away.
Let the price drop precipitously, let Yang get sued by his shareholders, and then potentially revisit the deal at a lower amount.
The reality is that the original offer was generous, and Yahoo is worth less now than it was then (staff exits that have occured already, poison pill retention policies, etc.)
Seriously, let Yang feel some pain for doing something that is clearly not in the interest of the shareholders.
As a shareholder of both companies, I'll be happy to join a class action suit against the Yahoo management team.
> All people have a self-interest
> driven agenda. That you can ONLY
> see this in MSFT really just
> kills your credibility.
Thats not the point. Most people do not have an agenda driven only by self-interest.
> Now go ahead and list 5000
> examples of why MSFT IS evil and
> Apple, Google and the "OSS
> community" ARE good.
Define "OSS community". The noisy slashdot posting crowd is irrelevant. The programmers who actually write and contribute OSS code ARE good. Just like any volunteer labor by definition, because they donate their work for the good of everyone. Whether it is a viable business model for software is another story.
Apple is not "good" in the same way. They are just as self-interest driven as MSFT is, only less successfully until recently.
GOOG's management appear to be making a sincere effort to do more than just maximize corporate profits. Whether that is sustainable under investor pressure is to be seen.
Please get some perspective.
Kevin Turner is pressing the field too hard. I heard it from almost every field person I have talked to in the last 60 days.
You can't squeeze a lemon infinitely.
GOOG's management appear to be making a sincere effort to do more than just maximize corporate profits.
Yeah, because targeted advertising is the very heart of altruism.
*snicker*
I've heard some wacky shit here, but this might just take the cake.
Yeah, because targeted advertising is the very heart of altruism.
I think as informed members of this industry we can probably all list examples of company X being "good" AND examples of the same company being "evil" according to our own varied ideologies.
Ultimately I think a more objective way to measure a company's goodness vs. evilness is customer satisfaction.
Yes, Google sells targeted ads, but they can only do so because they offer many products that delight many customers. Apple also delights its many customers, even if iPods don't have replaceable batteries, or whatever your beef with Apple is.
Microsoft's customer satisfaction rating, at least according to ACSI is bad and has been dropping. I think this is as good a sign as any that a big company is "evil." Personally I can understand why customer satisfaction is terrible. I use a lot of Microsoft software and not a week goes by when I don't want to kick Steve Ballmer out of sheer frustration with that software. Example: just today I couldn't use Hotmail for a service because it was simply blocking their emails. (Not moving them to a 'spam' folder. Completely blocking.) I had to switch to using my Gmail account, which worked great, as it always does. This kind of situation seems to play out fairly often.
> Yeah, because targeted
> advertising is the very heart of
> altruism.
As I said to the other poster: get some perspective.
http://www.news.com/Spending-Googles-money-on-conscientious-causes/2008-13840_3-6220596.html
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20080117_googleorg.html
http://www.google.com/intl/en/corporate/green/energy/index.html
http://www.google.org/
You would have to have truly warped sense of cynicism to think that all of these are secretly designed to make profits or generate PR.
Note these are not Larry Page's efforts but Google Corporation's.
Bill Gates personal philanthropy is of course a supreme example of altruism but that has got nothing to do with Microsoft Corporation.
Example: just today I couldn't use Hotmail for a service because it was simply blocking their emails.
If you're still using hotmail, it only means that you're not very bright.
If you're still using hotmail, it only means that you're not very bright.
I use Hotmail as a spam bucket and Gmail as my real email. Like you imply, it's common knowledge that Hotmail is a dramatically inferior product. It's slow, it's full of ads, it has no POP3 or IMAP support, and they seem to have forgotten to make a way to navigate between "pages" in their new "web 2.0" UI. But even given its overall crappyness, I expect a very basic level of functionality from it, like not completely blocking emails, and it can't even do that.
I'm surprised there are people who don't "get" the ABM, ./ crowd. All you have to do is look at Hotmail. Like an earlier poster said, all we expect of the Windows Mobile team at this point is to copy the iPhone and that won't happen. All we've expected of the Hotmail team since 2004 is for them to copy Gmail and they haven't been able to do that either.
Bill Gates personal philanthropy is of course a supreme example of altruism but that has got nothing to do with Microsoft Corporation.
Dude, do you have *any friggin' clue* how much Microsoft as a corporation does for global causes?
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/tc/
carbon-climate-feature.mspx
and
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/tc/
exec-comm.mspx
...for one example among hundreds. Microsoft wrote the damn book on this stuff under Bill's guidance. Why on earth would you think you could separate Bill's philanthropy from Microsoft? HE BUILT THE COMPANY.
Honest to pete. Some of you people... blind Google sycophants willing to prostitute your common sense and reason for a company that makes money spamming people with advertising, while griping incessantly about Microsoft's rapacious appetites. It's enough to drive a reasonable person to drink.
Microsoft is a bloated, out of touch behemoth -- no sane person would argue with you. But Microsoft pioneered a whole lot of corporate giving and global responsibility traditions that paved the way for companies like Google to do what they're now doing, and Microsoft spends millions and millions each year on philanthropic and humanitarian pursuits.
I suggest you get some perspective. :P
Microsoft is a bloated, out of touch behemoth -- no sane person would argue with you. But Microsoft pioneered a whole lot of corporate giving and global responsibility traditions that paved the way for companies like Google to do what they're now doing, and Microsoft spends millions and millions each year on philanthropic and humanitarian pursuits.
So what if Microsoft is a poorly run company that ignores shareholder value, at least they still know how give money away.
Now that's really tell'n 'em.
So what if Microsoft is a poorly run company that ignores shareholder value, at least they still know how give money away.
Now that's really tell'n 'em.
Actually, yeah it is really tell'n 'em. At the end of the day, I feel a lot better working for a company past its prime that knows how to give money away, than a has-been company that doesn't give a rat's ass about the world we live in.
Duh.
> Dude, do you have *any friggin'
> clue* how much Microsoft as a
> corporation does for global
> causes?
I don't know how much. Why don't you enlighten me?
As far as I know GOOG is completely unique in committing to donate at least 1% of its assets every year. But I guess it makes me a sycophant to give any credit to GOOG or even to suggest that maybe some people might partly be motivated by things other than self-interest and that there might be differences between different people and organizations.
> Why on earth would you think you
> could separate Bill's
> philanthropy from Microsoft? HE
> BUILT THE COMPANY.
Bill Gates chose to explicitly separate his business activities from his philanthropy. Why don't you ask him?
> Honest to pete. Some of you
> people... blind Google sycophants
> willing to prostitute your common
> sense and reason for a company
> that makes money spamming people
> with advertising, while griping
> incessantly about Microsoft's
> rapacious appetites. It's enough
> to drive a reasonable person to
> drink.
Care to point out where I said anything about MSFT's "rapacious appetites". You are clearly incapable of changing your opinion no matter how many facts you are presented with. So ok I give up. You are right. Every person and corporation in the world is only driven by self-interest. Happy now?
As far as I know GOOG is completely unique in committing to donate at least 1% of its assets every year. But I guess it makes me a sycophant to give any credit to GOOG or even to suggest that maybe some people might partly be motivated by things other than self-interest and that there might be differences between different people and organizations.
Don't spin the conversation: you suggested that Google was significantly more concerned with giving back than Microsoft, and that simply isn't true. Of all the things Microsoft may or may not be, it is most certainly one of the foremost globally responsible companies with a long and easily-accessible history of contributing to a wide range of humanitarian causes.
And Google is too, and so everybody wins.
> Of all the things Microsoft may
> or may not be, it is most
> certainly one of the foremost
> globally responsible companies
> with a long and easily-accessible
> history of contributing to a wide
> range of humanitarian causes.
>
> And Google is too, and so
> everybody wins.
Fair enough. I can agree with that.
The main point I was trying to make is that simplistic and sweeping generalizations like "everyone is self-interest driven" or "all AAPL or GOOG fans are sycophants" or "MSFT does not care about its customers" or "the OSS community are a bunch of lunatics" are all simply wrong and such arguments do not advance the discussion.
As a member of the Silverlight team, I'd like to address a couple of misstatements made here and offer one observation:
First, my observation: I am amazed at how much of this thread has focused on Silverlight & the theory that this is driving the purchase of Yahoo (rather than the more obvious theory that it's to compete with Google). $44 billion is a ridiculous amount of money to spend to get broad deployment of a free client runtime. There are much better and cheaper ways to do this (e.g. providing NBC with the client technology improvements that they need to build a world-class video experience for the Beijing Olympics).
"Microsof't Silverlight strategy starts with the NBC 2008 olympics website which, thanks to the insane lid the IOC keeps on any and all materials will require silverlight to access any web content."
This isn't true. The NBC Beijing Olympics site will make all content available through Windows Media Player as well.
"Also note how Silverlight only supports WMA and VC-1/WMV7-9. Those are owned technologies. And note how Linux is only supported through a deal with Novell, and to be sure that won't be an open source effort. That can be used to help marginalize Linux on the desktop, since it throws up a barrier to using it. And of course, the Silverlight front end will work best on Vista."
The first sentence is mostly true, but we support playback of MP3s as well. We are evaluating customer feedback on the need to support additional video and audio codecs, but have not made any public commitments to do so.
re: VC-1: VC-1 is a standardized format (Microsoft does not control it) & can be licensed by third parties. Ben Waggoner is the expert on the subject and put together a couple of great posts that explain VC-1 & the relationship to our implementation of it:
http://www.microsoft.com/expression/news-press/newsletter/2008-04/Article02.aspx
http://www.streamingmedia.com/article.asp?id=9625
re: Linux - we are providing Novell / Moonlight with the libraries that they need to play back VC-1 encoded content. Outside of that, the project is completely open sourced as far as I know. Miguel De Icaza explains some of the details on his blog: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2008/Apr-17.html.
"No kidding. Microsoft wants web developers to learn a new language and software stack and wants end users to install a new runtime... why? Because it's "strategic" for Microsoft? No thanks."
We are simply working to give customers a better set of tools so that they can build a better set of experiences. We are also trying to make sure that they are able to leverage their existing skills as much as possible. .NET developers are asking for a lightweight, cross-platform runtime. AJAX developers are asking for richer graphics, better development / debugging tools, and consistency across platforms. Developers and designers are asking for a better way to be able to work together.
In Silverlight, a .NET developer can write a component in Silverlight and expose hooks that can be called via javascript. A designer can easily build the user interface for that component via Expression Blend, including a flexible skinning model. A web site author can plug that component into a web site and debug it running on OS X using Visual Studio on another machine. A Linux user running Moonlight can go and view that application, including VC-1 encoded movies.
Web developers and designers are free to keep their existing AJAX skills and take advantage of the UI capabilities of Silverlight (e.g. a drop-in video player). They can mix and match Silverlight and HTML to provide the experience that they want. In some cases, they are actually mixing older components built in Flash with newer components built in Silverlight, using AJAX to talk to the back end server.
- Tom T.
Microsoft Silverlight
>> Silverlight only supports WMA and VC-1/WMV7-9
> We are evaluating customer feedback on the need to support additional video and audio codecs
evaluating feedback, huh? how about the fact that roughly 99.99% of all non-flash video on the internet is in anything BUT the mentioned codecs? is there that much to evaluate?
> re: Linux - we are providing Novell / Moonlight with the libraries that they need to play back VC-1 encoded content. Outside of that, the project is completely open sourced as far as I know.