2 possibilities 1) less command and control 2) more command and control 1) less command and control Fund a whole bunch of branch new products to be built by p

2 possibilities 1) less command and control 2) more command and control 1) less command and control Fund a whole bunch of branch new products to be built by people not currently employed by MS. Start ups essentially although they may or may not be 100% owned by MS. Make sure they are all separated from the rest of the company by an impermeable barrier featuring a moat, crocodiles and boiling oil. Let them work on whatever they think is best without concern for where it fits into MS's broader strategy. Some of them will be profitable. Some won't and will have to be shut down. Some will compete with the rest of MS. Some will compete with each other. So be it. That just increases the odds that one of MS's many arms will be successful. Kind of like a VC firm but they don't necessarily need to be separate companies. 2) more command and control MS has so much going on that it must be impossible to keep track of everything. Shut down "me to" or otherwise failed products. Concentrate on a smaller set of things and do them better. Whittle down the product offerings to a small set of strategically aligned products which can be carefully managed. Be more like Apple I suppose.