tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post114049754444747455..comments2024-03-18T12:52:48.117-07:00Comments on Mini-Microsoft: Microsoft Campus Expansion... foo!Who da'Punkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comBlogger151125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1145080753805796672006-04-14T22:59:00.000-07:002006-04-14T22:59:00.000-07:00Wow, that is SPOT ON accurate. I went through the ...Wow, that is SPOT ON accurate. I went through the same nonsense. I too, started to look outside of MS, which is a shame because we work so damn hard to get into this company. Luckily, after several rounds of 1:1's with Senior Management, they saw that "No" was not an acceptable answer. My advice is to do exactly what is posted in this comment, and remember that you might have to work as hard to transfer as you did to get into the company, but like getting into MS, the transfer will hopefully be as rewarding.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1144816731435439992006-04-11T21:38:00.000-07:002006-04-11T21:38:00.000-07:00I wanted to also comment on the internal transfer ...I wanted to also comment on the internal transfer process as well. Currently I am going through all the pains that are stated here about this process, and having to go through this right now, I am seriously also considering just leaving MS and find another job outside if things don't pan out here.<BR/><BR/>A short summary here so people don't get bored reading:<BR/><BR/>1) I did a few informationals, a lot of groups out there are sympathetic to the pains of internal transfers, and surprisingly they all offerred to informally interview me so that I know for sure I would get a hire before I ask for permission to interview.<BR/>2) I decided to go through an informal loop with one of the group, I passed the loop, and so I told my manager I want to get the 'official' permission to interview<BR/>3) Denied! Here starts the game that your current manager will play with you if they do not want you to leave:<BR/><BR/>a) They will immediately use the 'you are critical to the project' excuse. This is their first line of defense to keep you. <BR/>b) Note that all of your discussions will not be in writing of any kind, what they tell you will always be verbally spoken, but not written down<BR/>c) Some of the things I have been told by my manager are 'You need to be accountable and stay in the team until it ships', 'I have been good to you on this team and why are you leaving now' etc. etc.<BR/>d) Other upper management people may join in again and try various things to get you to stay.<BR/>e) At some point, your manager will most likely start a conversation alone the line of 'I need you to do XXXX before I can give you permission to interview'. <BR/>f) the XXXX part is either lots of things they want you to finish up that is never ending, or they will ask you to come up with a 'transition plan' first for them to review before they will let you leave.<BR/><BR/>etc. etc.<BR/><BR/>I finally got fed up and went and talked to my HR generalist about this. So, even though it's not very well documented in the hrweb:<BR/><BR/>1) You should not be asked to do a 'transition plan' BEFORE you are given permission to interview, this is something that happens AFTER you actually have a job offer!<BR/>2) The above mentioned tactics are aimed at stalling your time to leave and they are trying to scare and coerce you into staying. <BR/>3) The reason why none of them are written down or through email is because they are all bad hr practices.<BR/>4) If you are determined to leave, stick to that, and work with HR and your would-be new manager on resolving this situation<BR/>5) To keep you in the current group, your manager has to prove that you are 'critical' to shipping the product - this means, if you leave the product your group is trying to ship will fall apart. In MS there is hardly anyone who will fit that description in any group. No matter how important you think you are.<BR/><BR/>Some things you can do to safeguard yourself:<BR/><BR/>1) Ask for 'definite' dates - be precise and cut thru the ambiguity - what date will you definitely give me permission to interview? etc.<BR/>2) Keep everything in writing - even if all the discussions you are having with your managers are verbal, send follow up summaries in emails - and add a line to ask them to reply in email if they do not agree with any of the points.<BR/>3) if your manager is using the 'critical path' argument, you need to be careful. You do not want to 'disprove' him/her about how critical you are (else you will get dinged in the next review if you transition during midyear), but you also need to get yourself out of this argument. Try to say that you are 'critical' for a period of time, but you can transition your work to others in this time so after that you are no longer critical and can move on.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, I think I nearly have my situation resolved, but it is SURELY painful, and if it does not work out, I am not staying in this group, I am just going to leave MS anyways. There are a lot of HR things wrong in this company, this has got to be the #1 issue.<BR/><BR/>I just wanted to post this so that others who are considering changing groups in MS knows what they may be going up against, and have some defense against it. Hope some of you will find this useful.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141920940376689982006-03-09T08:15:00.000-08:002006-03-09T08:15:00.000-08:00"Re: Internal Hiring. When I was a manager, I gave...<I>"Re: Internal Hiring. When I was a manager, I gave a key team member permission to interview four months after joining my team. He had reached a crisis of confidence, and wasn't sure the job he'd come into with me was the right fit."</I><BR/><BR/>Please clone yourself a dozen or so times and insert yourself all over Server&Tools. They need more managers with your kind of confidence. I no longer have a personal stake in that, as I'm at MSN now, but some friends are still back there.<BR/><BR/>In STB, my manager repeatedly refused me permission to interview after I signed on to an entry level position that had been originally shopped to me as an advanced one suitable for someone with 14 years of dev work on his resume. What I found when I arrived was an endless amount of dev gruntwork to the tune of 60 hour weeks, that was boring perf statistic coding which offered someone of my level no learning opportunities. If a dev org could be said to have an "accounting clerk" type job, I was in it. No surprise, I wanted out. No surprise, my manager knew it'd be hard to find anyone else to do this thankless work, and said no.<BR/><BR/>Reasons cited over the course of my 3 month quest to free myself of these shackles and move on to opportunity at MSN:<BR/>1. You haven't done your year yet. My reply: you misrepresented the position to me. Their reply: tough, you should have asked more questions during the interview process.<BR/>2. We're short of staff. My reply: I understand, but those other positions have been vacant since before I got here and as far as I know you haven't interviewed anyone. Their reply: tough, we can't help it. My reply: please don't make your ability to hire, MY problem. There aren't enough entry level L60 devs willing to take your unexciting jobs; you surely see that by now; one solution would be to recognize that this isn't the most exciting work or the best for a person's career and pay an L63 salary to someone willing to do it for a year.<BR/>3. (after TWO employees transferred to other jobs, and one left the company to get out of this dysfunctional group, dropping it to less than 50% staffing). We're short of staff. My reply: But you let THOSE devs leave. Their reply: They've been in their jobs for more than a year. My reply: So new hire retention is not a priority in this group? Their reply: Obviously not. (They basically dared me to leave.)<BR/>4. It's not the right time for the business, to let you leave now. My reply: I understand, and that is why I have committed all along to getting feature X through RI before I transfer. Their reply: No, we can't let you interview at all. (Loop back to short of staff).<BR/>5. We said you could leave when it's the right time for the business, and it still isn't. My reply, having given 4 months of my career to this den of no hope, after being tipped off by the grapevine: Then I guess someone will be accountable to BobMu for a diversity hire turning in their badge and leaving Microsoft, which I will be doing next week unless you let me interview this week. Their reply, after checking with management: GRRR GRRRR GRRRR go do your damn informational.<BR/><BR/>And yes, I got 3.0'd on my review, which occurred in the middle of that, despite working harder to succeed and churning out more lines of code than anyone else on my team. Within 12 months of changing groups: 4.5 review score in new group, gold star award, 2-level promotion by a division that recognized Server&Tools had hired me in at an inappropriate level. AND, perhaps most important, I go to work every day and feel challenged, which is the reason I joined MSFT.<BR/><BR/>If I hadn't wanted so strongly to join MSN, MSFT would have lost a great IC with the managerial conduct detailed above. Of all of it, I find the managerial attitude that my being surprised by a low-level grunt work position was MY fault for not asking enough questions about the job, most disgusting. I did ask questions, and was repeatedly told that the position offered much opportunity for technical growth; what was I to do, tell the manager in the interview, "I don't believe you"? Their use of this as an excuse comes across as, "HA HA, we fooled you, now we have you, and if you want to stay at Microsoft, you are stuck here, HA HA." The use of this kind of tactic to retain a skilled IC in a position far below his capabilities is just hideous.<BR/><BR/>I'd almost be happier if it was just a diversity issue, but it wasn't, because the people who left were male and female, caucasian and not. That entire team was screwed up by poor management.<BR/><BR/>When did things begin to get unscrewed there? When the lead was promoted to group manager, and someone more qualified to lead a team was put in his place. Yes, the Microsoft answer to managerial incompetence: reward them by moving them up to middle management where they'll do less to earn their (higher) salary and have less opportunity to directly harm the teams doing the work.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141510568571170692006-03-04T14:16:00.000-08:002006-03-04T14:16:00.000-08:00Hi Mini, I'd like to suggest you to make a post ab...Hi Mini, I'd like to suggest you to make a post about how MS deals with internal vendors. I used to part a team of vendors managed by a FTE that does the same work an FTE does but without having whatever MS can possible give (career perspectives, bonus, be able to feel part of team, etc). What’s you point of view in the magic to reduce head count using vendors to make KPI looks better.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141220348684942812006-03-01T05:39:00.000-08:002006-03-01T05:39:00.000-08:00Took unix, which is the best known os and took 100...<I>Took unix, which is the best known os and took 1000 apple engineers and wrote the gui on it.</I><BR/><BR/>That's an oversimplification, and basically untrue: I doubt you're actually employed in software.<BR/><BR/>You have to remember that one of the great things about Mac OS 8+ was HFS, and that was expanded on, and built into HFS+. HFS+ is the main thing which differentiates OS X from being simply a 'desktop UNIX system' (drag and drop software intallation, anyone? Most experienced Windows users have run RegEdit, so oftem, they've forgotten what the phrase 'drag and drop' even means).<BR/><BR/>What Apple also did was come up with things like hot-zoning, and high speed swap space... All the kinds of things Vista <B>was</B> going to ship with, but now <B>isn't</B>. All the things which actually makes OS X so fast to work with, and so quick to boot up.<BR/><BR/>Most OS X users actually switch the eye candy off, after a short while of using it. What will Vista users be left with, that's <B>actually new</B>, after the eye candy has been turned off?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141110885139113352006-02-27T23:14:00.000-08:002006-02-27T23:14:00.000-08:00To get back to the topic - expansion - should MSFT...To get back to the topic - expansion - should MSFT get bigger or smaller?<BR/><BR/>My answer is - either get smaller or get better mid-level management. <BR/><BR/>MSFT has never had good management, because we've always expected front-line grunts to figure it all out without leaning on management for help. It works great for small groups. It doesn't work for WinDiv.<BR/><BR/>Because of this philosophy, we've created an entire company full of incompetent middle managmeent (incompetent even by normal expecations for middle management). They don't know how to manage because they never had to - the superstars working for them made it all come out okay. Promotions to management didn't have to be based on leadership talent - DevMgrs/GMPs/PUMs/GMs were irrelevant to team success. The 4.0 ICs made or broke the project.<BR/><BR/>Now the company is too big for even the best leaf-nodes to hold it together, but 90% of our management isn't able to pitch in and start earning it's keep. Adding bodies will just make it worse. Gasoline onto the fire. <BR/><BR/>Either we get smaller quick, or get new managmeent quick. Or crash and burn.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141110356016247612006-02-27T23:05:00.000-08:002006-02-27T23:05:00.000-08:00Constructive critics anonymous:In the spirit of re...Constructive critics anonymous:<BR/><BR/>In the spirit of really slimming down, why not get constructive and start talking about where the real "synergies" exist in our markets (sorry, it is the only word I could think of). How about a list of the top ten investment areas for FY07. In another post maybe we could explore which projects should be killed: <BR/><BR/>In no particular order here are 5 suggestions to kick it off:<BR/><BR/>1. Netdocs was almost a good idea. Brian stepped on toes and pissed off the office franchise but he was on to something. Live hosted services on the web displayed in a rich and dynamic interface (AJAX?) Maybe it was just a bit before its time. Lets make Live really cool<BR/><BR/>2. Voice.net was sort of thinking about maybe doing something like Skype. Lets get a real team on the real time opportunity. <BR/><BR/>3. XBOX is cool. Lets double or tripple down while Sony is screwing around with cell chips.<BR/><BR/>4. Commerce is happening on the web. Really happening. Biztalk or something like it could be run as a hosted platform for B2B and B2C services. Think "AmaBay". <BR/><BR/>5. A complete P2P and RSS media publishing infrastructure. Client ships in Live. Lets make it run on other platforms... all of them..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141109528059873032006-02-27T22:52:00.000-08:002006-02-27T22:52:00.000-08:00That Fuc kedGoogle site had this totally hilarious...That Fuc kedGoogle site had this totally hilarious comment:<BR/><BR/>Thousands of Ph.Ds and what does Google announce? A GeoCities ripoff called "Google Pages". <BR/><BR/>Just wanted to point it out since I had quite a laugh over that one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141103384226729232006-02-27T21:09:00.000-08:002006-02-27T21:09:00.000-08:00The Nog, I am not even going to refer to your emai...The Nog, I am not even going to refer to your email because I got it where you are stuck. You have not got why some actions are perfectly legal for small players to take but illegal for a big players. For an example, if you have manufacter an OS with 2% market share then you are allowed to have whatever pricing system you want. You could tell your buyers that if they do not buy xyz then you will give then 50% discount and so on. As I said this is already done in retail industry so Microsoft did not invent anything new. The problem was Microsoft had a huge market share.<BR/><BR/>The theory of capitalism (Nash equilibirum) requires that there is a perfect competition in the market. It remains valid until there is no player with more than 50% market share. As soon as there is a player with more than 50% market share then these theory breaks down. For an example, the market share is high because one thing is well done. The manufacturer of that thing could force other not-so-well-done things on consumers. People who could produce these other not-so-well-done things better than the monopolistic manufacturer in question do not have fair chance to compete in. Think like that if Ford has 20% market share then Ford is allowed to have their own exclusive standards of the tire size. But if Ford has 80% market share then Ford is not allowed to do so. Because that will push out tire manufacturers out of business or will not new entrants in the tire manufacturing. I hope you could see the flaw in the logic that a tire manufacturer could enter the market by first designing its own car.<BR/><BR/>So as a theoretical rule, if a company has more than 50% market share then the company should act as if it is more than one company. The other competitors should have all the competition choices as if this single company with 50% market share is like 50 companies with 1% market share. Surely in practice 50% is replaced by 70-80% and the governments do not demand perfect competition either. Further there are all kinds of subjective and political judgements.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141100205233829572006-02-27T20:16:00.000-08:002006-02-27T20:16:00.000-08:00I own an iPod nano and I fail to see how Apple "ha...I own an iPod nano and I fail to see how Apple "harmed" me. See, there are two choices in this world:<BR/><BR/>1. Shitty, poorly designed players from third parties + Microsoft software<BR/>2. Well designed, well thought out players from Apple + Apple software<BR/><BR/>You don't notice Microsoft software because it comes bundled. Just like you don't notice iTunes requirement on the Mac because it also comes bundled there. But if you want to "play for sure" your music on the Mac, you're SOL.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141098663990210262006-02-27T19:51:00.000-08:002006-02-27T19:51:00.000-08:00No shit, Sherlock. You forgot that you'd have to r...<I>No shit, Sherlock. You forgot that you'd have to restart Green Card process if you change jobs, though, which currently takes about 5 years to go through. Even after you get the green card you can't leave immediately because there's a chance that USCIS will revoke your green card for "fraud". They assume that if your employer sponsored your GC, you'll forever work for that employer. A year or so after getting the GC is the safe time for throwing in the towel, which many H1Bs do.</I><BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/foreign/" REL="nofollow">Foreign Labor Certification</A> is also a period of time that locks an employee into working for a particular employer.<BR/><BR/>The current backlog is 18 months.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141095714766968652006-02-27T19:01:00.000-08:002006-02-27T19:01:00.000-08:00The Nog wrote: Your opinion is your opinion, but t...The Nog wrote: Your opinion is your opinion, but there's just no comparison between C:\> and a bitmap-based GUI desktop, now the common standard of today. <BR/><BR/><BR/>My response: I was comparing windows, mac (pre-unix) and solaris. Not DOS and Mac. I do not know anybody,not even diehard mac users, who would argue the crappiness of pre-unix mac.<BR/><BR/>The Nog wrote: I don't know what you're referring to with regards to Steve Jobs throwing away the Mac when he took charge of the company <BR/><BR/>My response: I read an interview of Steve Jobs in a flight few years back. He said: the mac was not the best possible operating system so the first thing he did after rejoining the company is to throw away the whole code based. Took unix, which is the best known os and took 1000 apple engineers and wrote the gui on it. That's pretty much the new mac os is. He further said, he went to Adobe for Photo-shop but they decline to have a mac version. So they decided to implement the new ilife pacage. He said they went to Bill Gates for office on new mac and for his surprise Bill Gates too no time to support the new mac. He gave the huge credit to Bill gates for this support. I do not exactly remember which magazine the interview had. But if you are a steve jobs follower you may be able to find it. But one thing you may verify that this enture mac os is totally different code base then the last century's mac os.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141076322666271352006-02-27T13:38:00.000-08:002006-02-27T13:38:00.000-08:00In summary - Apple is among the most close company...<I>In summary - Apple is among the most close company which harms consumers by not giving them proper choices. They justify this by their own arrogant behavior that Apple anyways does the best then why do we need another company anyways? Such arrogant behavior is already punished in one case by open markets and there is no reason why open market won't do the same. </I><BR/><BR/>Hopefully <A HREF="http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060224-6256.html" REL="nofollow">this</A> isn't just an off-remark.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141065138257025002006-02-27T10:32:00.000-08:002006-02-27T10:32:00.000-08:00"Wikipedia quote: After the market saw a flood of ..."Wikipedia quote: After the market saw a flood of IBM PC clones in the mid-1980s, Microsoft used its new position, which it gained in part due to a contract from IBM, to dominate the home computer operating system market with MS-DOS.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Thekhalif wrote: This clearly says IBM contracted MS to provide DOS. I may not know everything but I know MS. I worked there for five years and shipped 5 OS'."<BR/><BR/>Thekhalif your argument is like following. I have a very inovative idea so when I build a company around it, it will be massively successful. Because my innovative idea puts me in a different world. Not true. Even after being in a new position, it requires a lot of hardwork, talent and luck to win so comprhensively. Different companies gain different market position for their past success. Unless you claim that Microsoft was in the favorable position by unfair means (like BillG uncle was IBM CEO) your argument does not hold. Wikipedia reflected this by saying "partly". <BR/><BR/>You could make your argument work, if you demonstrate that Microsoft somehow unfairly prevented others to enable their OSes to run on IBM clones. Many other companies voluntarily chose not to run their OSes on IBM clone. May be they underestimated the potential of a computer. They may have estimated that a computer is going to be an equipment for big businesses and therefore the price-point is not important. May be Microsoft vision was right, a pc on every desktop, and therefore Microsoft realized that a cheap PC is important even if it is a bit inferior than ideal.<BR/><BR/>Thekhalif, you may have the knowledge of Microsoft history. But you have to spend your brain cycles to analyze them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141026252778839682006-02-26T23:44:00.000-08:002006-02-26T23:44:00.000-08:00"But iTunes only works with iPod, and iPod only co..."But iTunes only works with iPod, and iPod only comes from Apple. It's just one player and software interface among hundreds of others that you're free to choose from. If you don't like iTunes and iPod tied together, don't buy it."<BR/><BR/>The Nog, I am not going to make Mini's blog more crowded on this but would try to point out the inconsitency in your above argument in as few words as possible. My argument is if windows was an abuse of monopoly then far worse is iPod+iTune. You are only stuck on one point that windows have the unfair licensing deal with OEMs because the price they pay is not only of using the Windows but also of not using other OSes. This is not in itself unfair if Windows did not have a huge market share. For an example costco have the same strategy. The supplier gives a price quote not only for selling costco its own product but also for costco not selling a competitors product. Shelf space on many retailers are sold on this basis too. I am not saying that this is okay for Windows to do. This may have been a monopolistic abuse. I am saying that this model stil had more flexibility than Apple+Mac. Because Apple+Mac was not even giving this small opportunity to OEM altogether. In case if Apple+Mac had gotten 95%+ market share it would have been in much bigger troube anti-trust trouble than Microsoft.<BR/><BR/>Keeping aside this point, DoJ, EU and South Korea punsihed Microsoft for two things. First, unnecessary bundling which raised the entry point for competing products unless they are on altogether different platform. Second, how Microsoft products interact with each other must be documented and licensed to others so that a company which is capable of designing just one logical component can do so.<BR/><BR/>Both these are currently true with iPod+iTune. You have to argue on these two points i.e., what is the difference between iPod+iTune and Windows on these two points. You are saying is that if some hardware company wants to create a different hardware for iTune than iPod then it can do for other minnows music sellers. Well, this was true in case of windows too. If you wanted to design some product for computers you could have designed for other minnows OSes. iPod+iTune combination raises the entry bar for other companies in a way which is not necessary for Apple to run its business. And that's the only place where governments are needed to interfere in an open market. The digital player market has three natural components.<BR/><BR/>1. DRM.<BR/>2. Music seller.<BR/>3. Hardware.<BR/><BR/>Unless there is a necessary need to bundle these three components together, it is an abusive monopoly. The Nog you have to argue here. You have to argue why this bundling is technologically necessary. Playforsure has shown that it is not. The argument that Playforsure market share is small is not valid because it is only a technological demonstration and it does not effect the experience of users who voluntarily choose Apples iTune and Apples iPod. You could also recall that Microsoft also tried to use the same argument. <BR/><BR/>As such whatever Microsoft did, whatever Apple is doing with iTune+ipod is not unlawful or illegal. But it becomes anti-competitive if a company with more than x% of market share does it. Practically this x is subjective but in principle this x is 51%. At that point goverments are needed to restore competition in the market. My claim is, because iPod+iTune market share is enough to call it a monopoly, unless Apple demonstrate why this bundling of three components is necessary, or else why unbundling these three components decrease the experience for those who voluntary choose Apple's solution, Apple's bundling of iPod+iTune is a monopoly.<BR/><BR/>Your arguments that customer could choose a entirely different vertical solution is not valid because customer may like one thing of Apple and another from another manufacturer. Or your argument that other companies entering the market can enter on a different vertical solution is not valid because the market share of any other vertical solution is less than 20%. Further, this argument is based on the goodness of the other vertical solution not on the intrinsic flexibility of iTune+iPod. Suppose Microsoft did the same with Playforsure instead of licensing it. How would Sandisk, Yahoo and others would enter the market? <BR/><BR/>In summary - Apple is among the most close company which harms consumers by not giving them proper choices. They justify this by their own arrogant behavior that Apple anyways does the best then why do we need another company anyways? Such arrogant behavior is already punished in one case by open markets and there is no reason why open market won't do the same.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141025792182416012006-02-26T23:36:00.000-08:002006-02-26T23:36:00.000-08:00>> An alien may change H-1B employers without affe...>> An alien may change H-1B employers without affecting status, <BR/>>> but the new H-1B employer must file a new Form I-129 petition for <BR/>>> the alien before he or she begins working for the new employer.<BR/><BR/>No shit, Sherlock. You forgot that you'd have to restart Green Card process if you change jobs, though, which currently takes about 5 years to go through. Even after you get the green card you can't leave immediately because there's a chance that USCIS will revoke your green card for "fraud". They assume that if your employer sponsored your GC, you'll forever work for that employer. A year or so after getting the GC is the safe time for throwing in the towel, which many H1Bs do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141021848972618812006-02-26T22:30:00.000-08:002006-02-26T22:30:00.000-08:00"These days it is possible for someone on an H-1B ..."These days it is possible for someone on an H-1B to change employers."<BR/><BR/>The problem is the use of the H1B as a stopgap measure to work around the slow-as-snails immigration system. Companies have to pretend they need temporary employees on H1B because they cannot get greencards processed in a timely fashion (6 months - 1 year). Note that we are not talking about increased immigration levels; in recent years it has not been possible to even use up all of the available greencard numbers. <BR/><BR/>The indentured servitude part comes in a few years after applying for a greencard. If you applied 3/4/5 years ago and now want to change jobs, you have to start all over again losing those many years you've already spent waiting in the queue.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141019737822796542006-02-26T21:55:00.000-08:002006-02-26T21:55:00.000-08:00Here's a Google hater blog for those Microsoft emp...<I>Here's a Google hater blog for those Microsoft employees who think Google isn't getting their fair share of critism.</I><BR/><BR/>Looks like someone who has no idea about what is happening is making a lot of noise to get other losers like him listen to him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1141009174688039522006-02-26T18:59:00.000-08:002006-02-26T18:59:00.000-08:00The main issue here is that H1B coupled with "perm...<I>The main issue here is that H1B coupled with "permission to interview" pretty much means indentured servitude. You can't leave the company (gotta leave the country in 10 days in this case) and you can't leave your group unless you get permission. So H1Bs are convenient. Some of them are pretty darn smart, too.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>These days it is possible for someone on an H-1B to change employers.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://uscis.gov/graphics/howdoi/h1b.htm" REL="nofollow">H-1B Frequently Asked Questions</A><BR/><BR/><B><I>"An alien may change H-1B employers without affecting status, but the new H-1B employer must file a new Form I-129 petition for the alien before he or she begins working for the new employer."</I></B>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1140992026084461842006-02-26T14:13:00.000-08:002006-02-26T14:13:00.000-08:00Here's a Google hater blog for those Microsoft emp...Here's a Google hater blog for those Microsoft employees who think Google isn't getting their fair share of critism.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.fuckedgoogle.com/fuckedgoogle/" REL="nofollow">Please God, Just One More Bubble!</A><BR/><BR/><I>In the latest issue of Time magazine out this weekend, Eric Schmidt was quoted as saying:<BR/><BR/>"The company isn't run for the long-term value of our shareholders but for the long-term value of our end users."</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1140991156858863662006-02-26T13:59:00.000-08:002006-02-26T13:59:00.000-08:00However, I'm not sure how does it relate to my poi...<I>However, I'm not sure how does it relate to my point. Your argument proves MS expands with acquisitions, instead of innovation. But regardless of the origin of some of its products, MS developed some popular applications and propelled them into ubiquity. IMHO, that encourages adoption.</I><BR/><BR/>I think we basically disagree on whose applications contributed more to the adoption of Windows.<BR/><BR/>In my opinion, it was ISV applications that contributed more to the adoption of Windows which in many cases existed years before an equivalent Microsoft product and were directly incorporated into Microsoft products in many cases.<BR/><BR/>UNIX comes bundled with a lot of applications too but it was too expensive at the time, and its applications were too complicated for your average business user.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1140990142428025302006-02-26T13:42:00.000-08:002006-02-26T13:42:00.000-08:00I got the battery warning when I was writing that ...I got the battery warning when I was writing that Microsoft give what customers want and what price point in version 3.0. I wanted to give the following two solid examples.<BR/><BR/>1. Xbox 360 vs PS3. It is clear that PS3 will be technologicaly superior to 360 whenever it will launch. PS3 is bundling two next generation technologies. Next generation gaming console (better graphics) and a next generation DVD player. It is going to cost $300 extra to make it. First, I like to point out that Toshiba next generation DVD player which is going to be launched in March is starting with $500 and likely to be in the ballpark of $300 by the time PS3 launch. So for a PS3 cost, one could have a next generation gaming console (360) plus a next generation dvd player. Sony has two choices to mitigate this extra $300 dollars cost of PS3. One, it transfers the cost to consumers. In that case, Sony is causing market inefficiency by pushing both the products to a person who wants only one (say next generation gaming console). Two, Sony itself bear the loss of extra $300. In that case, basically sony is giving away the next generation dvd functionality for free (cross-subsidization). If sony wants to give away its next generaion dvd technology for free then a better choice would be to give it for free where it will impact the most. That is in the current Sony DVD players, give the blue-ray capabilities for free. Bottom line - Xbox 360 is giving what consumer wants at this point at the right price point. It is easy to create a superior product if extra $300 are spent to create it. But is it the right economic decision?<BR/><BR/>2. Virtualearth is an example of where Microsoft technologically leaped ahead of its competitor. At the moment virtualearth is far superior than google-maps (comparison with googleearth is unfair because it is a 10MB plus download). This superiority is in terms of functionality, quality of images, ease of use, maps update speed, accuracy of pinpointing addresses and the accuracy of driving direction and local searches.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1140989086120017212006-02-26T13:24:00.000-08:002006-02-26T13:24:00.000-08:00Wow, 130 comments so far. I have to admit, I climb...Wow, 130 comments so far. I have to admit, I climbed into the backseat on this post and pretty much tried seeing what it would perhaps be like to go back to an unmoderated state.<BR/><BR/>Mixed.<BR/><BR/>Some really good discussions, though some pretty friggin' off-topic. A little bit of non-iq venom. Some Anything But Microsoft / trolling slipping in.<BR/><BR/>I'm going to adjust the bar for the remainder of this post's life until the new post staggers forward. And I'll continue to expirement w/ the nearly unmoderated, but I acknowledge the desire to reduce the outright trolling comments and, for the frequent commenters out there, the need to encourage them to express their deep skills of expressions within their own space.<BR/><BR/>Mini.Who da'Punkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1140988299477387612006-02-26T13:11:00.000-08:002006-02-26T13:11:00.000-08:00There are other market segements Microsoft is tryi...<I>There are other market segements Microsoft is trying to convert them into platforms...So we need a macro-microsoft not mini-microsoft.</I><BR/><BR/>I generally with this. My heart and gut are with mini. My idea is to strip it down, remove unneeded part, make it simpler, make it work better. But in reality Microsoft now makes a product for almost every letter of the alphabet. There must be over 10,000 individual product SKUs (variants.) Microsoft is placing long term platform bets in area where they have moderate expertise and they are necessarily backing these bets with staff and budget. Its not such a crazy idea. If a customer owns two or three core Microsoft products and we tell them that they can license some add-ons for a reasonable fee - and the add ons will play well with the core products - then the customer would be crazy to not at least consider it. Granted, if I were a customer starting a new business right now I would be building my business on the most stripped linux platform I could get away with, but all that the giant Fortune 1000 customers are thinking is: 'We just want it to work - we'll pay whatever we need to ...' <BR/><BR/>And I think that's why Microsoft is expanding ...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1140987597371123362006-02-26T12:59:00.000-08:002006-02-26T12:59:00.000-08:00Khalif, do you ever find another job after MS? I d...<I> Khalif, do you ever find another job after MS? I doubt it, since it seems like you have lots of time on your hands. If only you'd spent that time on your own blog</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>I use this blog for my own reasons. You probably wouldn't understand what's on my blog.Christian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16847810167041864292noreply@blogger.com