tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post112916703817471932..comments2024-03-18T12:52:48.117-07:00Comments on Mini-Microsoft: Where do we go from here?Who da'Punkhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comBlogger52125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129243306418840272005-10-13T15:41:00.000-07:002005-10-13T15:41:00.000-07:00Okay, I'm hitting the big [Pause] button.No more c...<B>Okay, I'm hitting the big [Pause] button.</B><BR/><BR/>No more comments for a while. Like what <A HREF="http://scobleizer.wordpress.com/" REL="nofollow">Scoble</A> ran into on <A HREF="http://channel9.msdn.com/" REL="nofollow">Channel 9</A>, I'm tired of people crapping all over this space with random comments of dubious content. I've been pretty liberal on allowing anonymous comments in the hope that some real gems would come through. The gem supply seems to be running low.<BR/><BR/>The noise is more than I'm interested in being the host to. I will spend random moments blowing away all comments that are below my own personal bar. Should I ever turn comments on again, I'll blow away crap-comments as soon as I can.Who da'Punkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18205453956191063442noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129242184781174272005-10-13T15:23:00.000-07:002005-10-13T15:23:00.000-07:00"But I guess shedding some $250B+ in market cap si..."But I guess shedding some $250B+ in market cap since 00 is just a flesh wound and everyone with concerns including the market generally are just missing the obvious."<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you were saying the same thing a year ago, five years ago, ten years ago, 15 years ago... just like all the other fanatics who hate MS. Good, keep saying it. Microsoft laughs all the way to the bank.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129241806436162442005-10-13T15:16:00.000-07:002005-10-13T15:16:00.000-07:00"I'm pretty sure that its more like 80%, but dont ..."I'm pretty sure that its more like 80%, but dont worry, you're only off by a factor of 10."<BR/><BR/>It's more like 90%, so I'm off by 8% (and closer than your wishful thinking).<BR/><BR/>"Microsoft Windows eventually came to dominate the world personal computer market with a market share estimated to be still around 90% for desktop personal computers."<BR/><BR/>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_WindowsAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129239739867813942005-10-13T14:42:00.000-07:002005-10-13T14:42:00.000-07:00"All the management experience I have tells me tha..."All the management experience I have tells me that a person cannot effectively manage more than five people."<BR/><BR/>I call BS ('I challenge your assumptions'). How exactly do you spend those 10%/direct of your time? I suspect you are not accounting very well for time/direct or you are micromanaging.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129238679250903192005-10-13T14:24:00.000-07:002005-10-13T14:24:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129238371016570732005-10-13T14:19:00.000-07:002005-10-13T14:19:00.000-07:00"In other words, there's a problem with the busine..."In other words, there's a problem with the business because people aren't upgrading to Windows XP and Office 2003. While I can understand why you believe your other comments, the implication here is simply absurd."<BR/><BR/>Of course there's a problem when half your customers haven't adopted your new product even after 5 years of them being out in the market. I'm not suggesting that this alone is the source of MSFT's problem but pretty obviously, it's a major problem.<BR/><BR/>"Microsoft does have a problem with growth, but to me that is a result of the MSN and Home divisions sucking. Fortunately, it has an enormous amount of cash which it can use to move into new markets when they appear. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with how nimble it's competitors are. Red Hat/Novell/Sun/Oracle, nimble? Give me a break."<BR/><BR/>All of MSFT's emerging bets are sucking which only exascerbates the overall growth problem now that Windows and Office are barely growing at all. And yes, MSFT has enourmous amounts of cash which unfortunately they routinely substitute for intelligence. Ergo, Xbox or even your favorite whip MSN. Redhat is growing far faster than MSFT and releasing OS revs about 2X as fast. Novell/SUN/Oracle/ agree not too impressive - although even ORCL didn't take 5 years to update its core database. But let's talk about SalesForce.com, GOOG, AAPL, YHOO, Symbian, Firefox, Apache. All out growing, all out-executing MSFT.<BR/><BR/>"Every couple of years someone proclaims that Microsoft is dead. Folks like you line up as pallbearers, walk the casket to the burial site, gently lower the casket into the ground and breathe a sign of relief that the evil empire is dead. Then you look like an idiot when the casket is opened to reveal that there is no body inside."<BR/><BR/>And every year lately MSFT management proclaims that growth and emerging unit success are "just around the corner" and meanwhile growth slows to a crawl, web sites such as this emerge with all sorts of employee concerns and the stock is within a breath of its 52-week low an flat with 1998. But I guess shedding some $250B+ in market cap since 00 is just a flesh wound and everyone with concerns including the market generally are just missing the obvious. Right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129237834234252182005-10-13T14:10:00.001-07:002005-10-13T14:10:00.001-07:00"But why is Google running its servers on OSS, and..."But why is Google running its servers on OSS, and not Windows?<BR/><BR/>Why is Cisco not using CE or XPe on their routers?"<BR/><BR/>This isn't all that an important of a question. Why are 98% of the people looking at Google's website using Windows?<BR/><BR/>Google makes $.05 or $.10 per person in advertising. Microsoft makes at least $90.00 per person (I'm just guessing though) for pretty much all those same people.<BR/><BR/>Why is Palm putting Windows Mobile (it's competitor's) on it's Treo line? Microsoft started behind Palm and now they are using Microsoft's software, why didn't you bring that up?<BR/><BR/>You seem to be focused on the small picture, the big picture actually looks really good for MS.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129237186927160402005-10-13T13:59:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:59:00.000-07:00"It would be and thank god I didn't say it - try r..."It would be and thank god I didn't say it - try reading."<BR/><BR/>Yeah, that is what you said. You said:<BR/><BR/>"And hey, what % of installed customers are actually running Windows XP and Office 2003? Was that 50% after 5 years for XP and perhaps half that for Office 2003?"<BR/><BR/>In other words, there's a problem with the business because people aren't upgrading to Windows XP and Office 2003. While I can understand why you believe your other comments, the implication here is simply absurd. Try reading what you wrote.<BR/><BR/>Microsoft does have a problem with growth, but to me that is a result of the MSN and Home divisions sucking. Fortunately, it has an enormous amount of cash which it can use to move into new markets when they appear. It certainly doesn't have anything to do with how nimble it's competitors are. Red Hat/Novell/Sun/Oracle, nimble? Give me a break.<BR/><BR/>Every couple of years someone proclaims that Microsoft is dead. Folks like you line up as pallbearers, walk the casket to the burial site, gently lower the casket into the ground and breathe a sign of relief that the evil empire is dead. Then you look like an idiot when the casket is opened to reveal that there is no body inside.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129236961607340282005-10-13T13:56:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:56:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129236191293941132005-10-13T13:43:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:43:00.000-07:00"Google seems to be making money on all open-sourc..."Google seems to be making money on all open-source platforms.<BR/><BR/>Cisco uses open source firmware in all their routers."<BR/><BR/>This is a pretty lame comparison. For one thing, neither creates packaged software and licenses it with new desktops. Secondly, Google doesn't "make money with Open Source", it runs it's servers on open source. It makes money from advertising. Cisco similarly doesn't "make money with Open Source". It could create it's firmware on any platform and still make money. Oh, and Microsoft's profits are more than twice what both of these companies produce.<BR/><BR/>Let's look at two of Microsoft's nearest open source competitors for the OS -<BR/><BR/>Novell (SUSE, and everything else they offer) - $750,240,000<BR/><BR/>Red Hat - Gross Profit $158,590,000<BR/><BR/>Microsoft - Gross Profit $33,590,000,000<BR/><BR/>Note the extra three zeros at the end. Wow, it's nearest competitor has profits that equal less than 3% of it's profits. I'm really impressed by how much open source is making them money.<BR/><BR/>What about Office software? How much has Sun made with StarOffice? How much money has Open Office made (they certainly haven't dented Microsoft's revenue at all)?<BR/><BR/>If anything is a huge non-performer on Wall Street, it's Open Source software.<BR/><BR/>"And where is microsoft with commodity proces software, that never needs to be upgraded?"<BR/><BR/>The problem is not that the software never needs to be upgraded, it doesn't. What needs to be upgraded is the equipment it runs on. With processor speed and hard drive space doubling every few years that's quite a few upgrades. When people get new systems, they get licenses for new software.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129235672715616412005-10-13T13:34:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:34:00.000-07:00An OS will not be mature until it effectively remo...An OS will not be mature until it effectively removes the hierarchical filesystem, because, hierarchical filesystems suck ass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129234728652200052005-10-13T13:18:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:18:00.000-07:00"One word: Why? Do you really think there are many..."One word: Why? Do you really think there are many people who are going to buy a new version of Word because it can do that?"<BR/><BR/>No, but I do think that if Office addresses a bigger part of org costs (ie travel via video-conferencing, telephone vs VOIP, etc) then the overall value prop increases. And at ~$200/user every 5 years, you don't have to do much to make it a wise corporate investment. On the other hand, if you do little and increasingly look similar to no/low cost alternatives, then you shouldn't be surprised that you'll increasingly come under price pressure. <BR/><BR/>As far as OS's being mature, I reject that completely as well. Ask the average user whether they think that current OS's are everything they should be. Most imo will answer no, far from it. A lot more work can and should be done to expose even existing capabilities. Office 12, for example, appears to be a good start in that direction on the app side. Hopefully Vista will be as well on the OS side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129234384937085492005-10-13T13:13:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:13:00.000-07:00The cash cows are going to have almost-as-good equ...<I>The cash cows are going to have almost-as-good equivalents that are effectively free. This is big trouble.</I><BR/><BR/>If you read Clayton Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma", you will find that you just described how Disruptive Technologies take out large, profitable companies.<BR/><BR/>They create a "good enough" solution at a price point significantly lower than the big companies product, and watch as the big company restreats upmarket, eventually ceding all ground to the Disruptive Tech.<BR/><BR/>Open Source has passed the "good enough" threshold for many applications already, and is approaching that in other applications rapidly.<BR/><BR/>Again, credit where credit is due: MSFT was once the disruptive technology, and beat out DEC by forcing commoditization of Hardware.<BR/><BR/>Its a cycle.<BR/><BR/><I>I feel sorry that MS is just hoarding a lot of talent and wasting it...</I><BR/><BR/>if microsoft hoards the talent, the talent cant compete with microsoft, microsoft has been known to do exactly this, if not to benefit from smart people, to make sure that they are working for you instead of a competitor.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129234152962018882005-10-13T13:09:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:09:00.000-07:00"Name an OS which is making more money than Window..."Name an OS which is making more money than Windows? Name an Office suite which is making 1/10th of Office?"<BR/><BR/>None, but what do you think MSFT's current valuation is based on? What matters for the latter is the growth trajectory - and we both know how that's going.<BR/><BR/>"OSS is actually a huge mess right now."<BR/><BR/>And it can continue being a mess - that doesn't mean it won't continue to negatively impact MSFT's growth and margins and/or that service company's won't use that free platform to challenge MSFT.<BR/><BR/>"The idea that the company is failing if people don't upgrade everytime an OS or Office version comes out is absolutely absurd"<BR/><BR/>It would be and thank god I didn't say it - try reading. MSFT is failing because its not developing innovative, compelling products in sufficient number and its current structure isn't allowing it to keep up to more nimble competitors. As a result, its overall growth is anemic.<BR/><BR/>"Sorry, not everyone upgrades their system every five years, that's not a problem for Microsoft."<BR/><BR/>Actually, the "good enough" factor is probably MSFT's single biggest problem and is largely responsible for growth slowing to 8% last year and 6% in Q1. Not everyone upgrades their systems every five years, but when less than half do and new growth markets appear challenging, MSFT had better find the combo of products/marketing to turn that around - unless of course you want a stock price that goes with 6% growth which, despite even MSFT's dismal stock performance, is a lot lower than here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129233630078094682005-10-13T13:00:00.000-07:002005-10-13T13:00:00.000-07:00"I just left, so I'm helping towards your goal of ..."I just left, so I'm helping towards your goal of a (slightly) smaller...."<BR/><BR/>Wow! exactly my story...and that is why I left..not that my coding abilities were not good..they were excellent..I did grt informationals from a couple of groups for dev positions...but I eventually decided MS is not for me and went to a smaller and more dynamic company. And I agree with you that people were nice...I definitely did not expect the friendly gestures from my team and managers once they new I had decided to leave..and atleast they seemed to be making an effort to understand why there is no excitement in working at MS anymore..I feel sorry that MS is just hoarding a lot of talent and wasting it...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129232975705896672005-10-13T12:49:00.000-07:002005-10-13T12:49:00.000-07:00"Office growth currently sucks not because the mar..."Office growth currently sucks not because the market is saturated but because many customers see little/no value in upgrading. That's clearly a failure on MSFT's part to either build a sufficiently compelling product and/or market it effectively - not some law of large numbers."<BR/><BR/>Well, no, it's not necessarily a failure on Microsoft's part. I mean, someone talked about adding live video to a Word document. One word: Why? Do you really think there are many people who are going to buy a new version of Word because it can do that?<BR/><BR/>Stronger: Do you really think there are many compelling features left for Word? For Office? I mean, really, for at least 90% of users, Office already does everything they need/want it to do, and more besides.<BR/><BR/>The problem isn't necessarily because Microsoft is failing to have vision or to market well. The problem is that the product is mature. Sure, live video is a sexy feature, but it isn't anything I actually care about having in Word.<BR/><BR/>The upshot is that both the OS and Office are becoming mature technologies. There aren't that many important features that aren't already in there. It's getting harder and harder to make people care. It's just where you are in the market, it's not a corporate failure.<BR/><BR/>But it is a big corporate problem. Mature products have low margins. OSS is getting all the features anybody cares about. The cash cows are going to have almost-as-good equivalents that are effectively free. This is big trouble.<BR/><BR/>MSSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129232715095574782005-10-13T12:45:00.000-07:002005-10-13T12:45:00.000-07:00OSS is actually a huge mess right now.oh.... reall...<I> OSS is actually a huge mess right now.</I><BR/><BR/>oh.... really?<BR/><BR/>Google seems to be making money on all open-source platforms.<BR/><BR/>Cisco uses open source firmware in all their routers.<BR/><BR/>And, there are others.<BR/><BR/>So, it seems that some companies can and do make money using open source software.<BR/><BR/>They dont make money explicitly selling operating systems; a concept that is purely BillG's creation, and giving credit where credit is due, he did a damn good job of creating that business.<BR/><BR/>Open Source is commoditizing operating systems, and eventually all generalized computing applications.<BR/><BR/>The price for commodity products asymptotically approaches the marginal cost of production. <BR/><BR/>What is the marginal cost to produce a copy of software? Very, very close to ZERO.<BR/><BR/>So, what will happen to the cost of commodity software? the price of software will go towards zero.<BR/><BR/>As for the car analogy: Funny thing about physical goods, they eventually wear out and need replacement. So, Toyota et.al. will alwyas have a future market for cars.<BR/><BR/>Software does not wear out; you will never find a case of an if statement rubbing against a for loop, and causing objects to grind to a halt. <BR/><BR/>Why would you ever need to buy another copy of office, if the one that you're running works perfectly fine, and will run forever? You wouldnt, and neither would I.<BR/><BR/>And where is microsoft with commodity proces software, that never needs to be upgraded?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129229195384554392005-10-13T11:46:00.000-07:002005-10-13T11:46:00.000-07:00You need a vacation, maybe even a multi-month leav...<I>You need a vacation, maybe even a multi-month leave of absense. That said, let me rant on the horrible, horrible term "Individual Contributor".<BR/><BR/>It is demeaning. It is infantilizing. One is either "management", or a nine-syllable babble-speak creature known as "in-di-vi-du-al con-tri-bu-tor".</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>Finally someone who agrees that that is a very bad term. I'd rather be a team memebr.Christian H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16847810167041864292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129229039324026922005-10-13T11:43:00.000-07:002005-10-13T11:43:00.000-07:00"Windows and Office can't even compete well agains..."Windows and Office can't even compete well against their own previous versions and last time I checked, both were getting their asses kicked by OSS especially in the developing world."<BR/><BR/>Name an OS which is making more money than Windows? Name an Office suite which is making 1/10th of Office? OSS is actually a huge mess right now. Some of the companies out there have realized that they can't make money by selling support so they're trying desperately to make OSS software proprietary without pissing everyone off. If you think infighting is bad here, ask a Debian or Ubuntu user what they think about Red Hat. None of them makes money, none of them are user friendly at all and basically done so far is take away UNIX market share. Microsoft has actually grown taken market share consistently and made money from it's server line.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the company is failing if people don't upgrade everytime an OS or Office version comes out is absolutely absurd. That's like saying Toyota is a failure because I don't get a new Prius every year when the newest "version" comes out. It's a long term game about what percentage of the market any of your products have, because eventually those customers will upgrade their systems. You say this as if it's Microsoft's fault that my Grandmother hasn't bought a new computer since 1998. Sorry, not everyone upgrades their system every five years, that's not a problem for Microsoft.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129227877446974092005-10-13T11:24:00.000-07:002005-10-13T11:24:00.000-07:00"You can be big, or you can be lean, but it's almo..."You can be big, or you can be lean, but it's almost impossible to be both. You can have agility, or you can have everything integrated. You can't have both."<BR/><BR/>To use a football analogy, MSFT isn't going to be a running back again but it could turn itself into a linebacker vs the current nose guard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129227623427153492005-10-13T11:20:00.000-07:002005-10-13T11:20:00.000-07:00"I cannot fathom the logic of any mgr having less ..."I cannot fathom the logic of any mgr having less than 5 reports. MSFT should be aiming for more like 7-10:1 minimum."<BR/><BR/>I think this is totally wrong. All the management experience I have tells me that a person cannot effectively manage more than five people.<BR/><BR/>Let me say that again, with emphasis, A person cannot <I>effectively</I> manage more than five people.<BR/><BR/>In order to be an effective manager, you have to be spending time each and every week with your reports. Even the very best of them. I'm not talking about 1:1s, although that's one part of it. But think of all the time spent in coordination, making sure the information that you receive filters down to the correct people. This is the part of the job that makes people refer to managers as "overhead" -- a necessary evil that doesn't really contribute to the end result.<BR/><BR/>My rule of thumb is, each report eats up about 10% of your time. So if you had eight reports, you would be spending 80% of your time <I>doing nothing but being management overhead</I>. Four days out of five spent just shuffling information around. Which means, very little time to do the "real" work of a manager, i.e. strategic thinking and planning.<BR/><BR/>Managers, however, are not allowed to slough off their planning work. The end result is that the management portion is generally short-changed.<BR/><BR/>The higher level your reports, the easier they become to manage (and thus the more reports you can have). But before I left MS I was a third-level manager, and even though I only had very experienced, dedicated people reporting to me, they still required a lot of managing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129227582031602112005-10-13T11:19:00.000-07:002005-10-13T11:19:00.000-07:00"The Office problem is that it has such a market s..."The Office problem is that it has such a market share that there is not a room for any additional growth (simply, when you have almost 90% market share, where you can grow?)."<BR/><BR/>Totally disagree. GE has proven again and again that when you think you've saturated your current market, you don't give up and settle in to play defense. Instead, you analyze the market and in most cases, will find that what you're actually addressing is really just one part of a much broader market. When you expand your focus to include that broader definition, magically, you don't have 90% share and have plenty of room to grow. BI, VOIP, video-conferencing, Speech-enabled, etc are just a few examples of where MSFT can grow Office (and to be fair, some work is happening there albeit at a snail's pace). <BR/>Additionally, with most customers still on Office XP and previous, the market saturation argument just doesn't fly even if you don't believe in the "expand the market definition" strategy above. Office growth currently sucks not because the market is saturated but because many customers see little/no value in upgrading. That's clearly a failure on MSFT's part to either build a sufficiently compelling product and/or market it effectively - not some law of large numbers. Mgt likes to ignore this fact and reference "tough comps" while patting themselves on the back and compensating themselves like Kings. What a crock. The installed base of PCs is 50%+ greater than 5 years ago. So all it would take is decent success of a new compelling Office within the installed base to drive major % Office revenue growth. But of course that takes a willingess to understand customers needs and actually deliver compelling products. Finally, take the HP Laserjet example. HP dominated the market for Laserjets. When inkjet technology came about (much of it HP dveloped) there was major resistance to promote inkjets over Lasers because the latter had higher margins. Luckily, cooler heads prevailed and HP became a leader in inkjets as well. Along the way, they discovered that even though margins on inkjets were much lesser, the more freqent consumable needs were a gold mine. Translation for MSFT? Maybe there's a whole market for Office as a service that could be monetized via something other than license revenue? After all, with folks upgrading Office on avg once/5 years, perhaps an ad-supported Office service could actually generate more money over a 5 year period that a one-of license. Of course, if you start off with the premise that you can't grow, then you won't bother exploring these or [hopefully] better options...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129226388534692352005-10-13T10:59:00.000-07:002005-10-13T10:59:00.000-07:00Lots of good comments, several of which I want to ...Lots of good comments, several of which I want to reply to.<BR/><BR/>The third poster down: You are the poster boy for arrogance. So anybody with a complaint is incompetent. Anybody who thinks the review system is a joke doesn't have the talent it takes to actually work at Microsoft. Wow. And THEN you have the gall to ask people to answer your question? You've got a lot to learn about human nature, pal. Most people who know the answer will be tempted to answer you with a middle finger due to your attitude. And then, for a parting shot, you tell people to grow up? Grow up yourself. Learn that people who disagree with you aren't necessarily wrong and/or stupid. Get over yourself enough to respect others a bit.<BR/><BR/>"Unless Gates changes his mind and gives up his life-time ambition, things are only going to get worse."<BR/><BR/>This is my perception also. Bill Gates has to win. Having won yesterday isn't good enough - he has to win today. I think it shows that he is fundamentally insecure, which seems really odd, but he sure acts that way. And Microsoft's corporate culture is in many ways a reflection of Bill's insecurity. You can't fix the culture without either fixing Gates or getting rid of him. And then you can start to fix the rest of the organization...<BR/><BR/>"Let's change the nomenclature to "managers" and "producers"."<BR/><BR/>This whole comment is one of the most insightful things I have read in a long time. And as a "producer", I like the implicit slam on management - but the slam is a bit unfair. Good management is incredibly valuable. But self-absorbed, incompetent management contributes nothing but inertia.<BR/><BR/>"Can you localize your app effectively to sell it all over the world? Does it have useful documentation: help, sdks, troubleshooting guides, case studies, tutorials?" And a lot more along those lines...<BR/><BR/>Yeah. Here's the thing: All those functions got added for a reason. But all those functions slow things down. You can be big, or you can be lean, but it's almost impossible to be both. You can have agility, or you can have everything integrated. You can't have both. And if you have two teams that have to integrate their stuff, you have to have somebody controlling/managing the interface between the teams. It adds management, and it slows down both teams.<BR/><BR/>But it's possible to do it better. Microsoft needs to realize that it isn't a small company any more, and needs to organize like a well-run big company. Seems to me that it's on Steve Ballmer to do that, and he isn't, or he isn't up to the job.<BR/><BR/>MSSAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129225935482603582005-10-13T10:52:00.000-07:002005-10-13T10:52:00.000-07:00"Windows and Office make money. MSN makes a bunch ..."Windows and Office make money. MSN makes a bunch of talentless hacks employed when they don't deserve to be. The whole division is a big no hire."<BR/><BR/>They make money largely because of their past, not because of current execution which is pathetic at best. 5 years for an OS release? Are you kidding me? Another 12 mths for the first semi-innovative version of Office in what - 7 years? And hey, what % of installed customers are actually running Windows XP and Office 2003? Was that 50% after 5 years for XP and perhaps half that for Office 2003? How impressive. NOT. Windows and Office can't even compete well against their own previous versions and last time I checked, both were getting their asses kicked by OSS especially in the developing world. <BR/><BR/>Bottom line, MSN is a chronically underperforming division in a broadly underperforming company. Pointing out the former w/o addressing the latter (or worse, suggesting it isn't true) doesn't solve anything. Pop quiz, which do you think is hurting the stock more - MSN's continued laggardly performance or the delays and development fuckups that have characterized Vista? MSFT needs to get its overall house in order not waste cycles sniping between siblings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7555958.post-1129225616002701022005-10-13T10:46:00.000-07:002005-10-13T10:46:00.000-07:00'Of how about Office which is barely growing at al...'Of how about Office which is barely growing at all because for 5+ years they've been shipping marginal upgrades that have steadily eroded the percieved value of an upgrade? Oh, and he got a $20M stock bonus too.'<BR/><BR/>The Office problem is that it has such a market share that there is not a room for any additional growth (simply, when you have almost 90% market share, where you can grow?).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com