4 ms·

Perception is interesting here. I have worked with startups in Silicon Valley since 1984 and remember the ever-increasing dismay throughout the period extending

by grellas 17y ago

Perception is interesting here. I have worked with startups in Silicon Valley since 1984 and remember the ever-increasing dismay throughout the period extending right up to the early-to-mid-90s of the "UNIX guys" (that is how I saw them) as they were almost ready to explode watching Microsoft apparently taking over first the consumer desktop and then the enterprise with what they saw as crappy products relative to the far more robust systems they worked with and developed. All they could do was shake their heads in dismay and bemoan the fact that consumers and enterprise customers could be so forced to conform to the lowest common denominator that DOS/Windows and their progeny begat - all the while complaining of Bill Gates's "evil empire." I mention this only to emphasize, for those who are younger, how all-pervasive this dispirited mindset was back then. Of course, this all changed with the Internet and the rest is history. I think this piece reflects that mindset perfectly: Microsoft sucks? Of course, it always has! I don't even know that this is fair characterization of what Microsoft did or did not achieve back in the day (I am not a techie guy) but I do know that it was how Microsoft was overwhelmingly perceived by many of the tech-savvy people even as it was crushing all competitors.

mixmax 17y ago
it's also interesting to note that Microsoft, a company that many software experts agree makes inferior products, is also a huge market leader. This hints at something a lot of technically minded people oversee: Sales and marketing is what drives a company. Microsoft is probably the most savvy tech company out there when it comes to sales. Yes, they are stuffing things down people's throat, abusing their monopoly, and generally being a nuisance. But it works, and it works well. This steve Ballmer quote sums it up pretty well "well, we've been accused of a lot of things, but not being able to make money isn't one of them"
- Retric 17y ago
  Microsoft excels at a vary specific type of marketing. While they suck at the traditional approaches, (Jerry Seinfeld / Bill Gates etc) they are willing to spend insane amounts of money so they can leverage what works. Buying Halo / Bungie sacrificing all that cross platform money so they could "buy" hype. Buying Hotmail for far more than it was ever going to be worth so they could change the backend to use MS server. The problem for MS is they don't know how to scale back to less profitable industries. Edit: It could be argued that MS simply understands the value of creating a monopoly and is willing to spend to create new ones. They seem to make money selling MS branded mice without those tactics just fine, but I don't know how profitable that is.
- shabda 17y ago
  I was searching for the quote, well, we've been accused of a lot of things, but not being able to make money isn't one of them And all I can find is this HN ref. When did Ballmer say that?
  - mixmax 17y ago
    If memory seves me correctly it was in revenge of the nerds.
- jimbokun 17y ago
  This was true for a long time, but I think a case can be made that today Apple sells better than Microsoft. Of course, Apple sells to consumers, Microsoft to businesses. Again, for a long time it looked like selling to business was the better market to be in, but now it is not as clear.
troystribling 17y ago
The hold Microsoft, Oracle (Sun) have over enterprise software comes from marketing. An entire generation of programmers has been trained and certified to use and develop with their products and knows of nothing more. These programmers careers are so dependent on identification with these companies that they defend them with a surprising close minded intensity.
- patio11 17y ago
  The hold Microsoft, Oracle (Sun) have over enterprise software comes from marketing. You say that like it is a bad thing. Let's hypothetically say you can duplicate all of the Excel macros and VB apps which, ahem, run the world with a sufficient quantity of (e.g.) Perl scripts. That doesn't by itself help anybody -- you still have to teach them "Hey guys, Perl: it solves boring business problems in addition to enabling golf games." Microsoft has done an awful, awful lot of teaching over the years.
  - troystribling 17y ago
    Microsoft et. al have very effectively used training and certification as a marketing tool. I guess I do see it as a bad thing because I have to deal with it and this came through in my comment. A decade or two ago these companies did provide the best solutions available to some problems faced by companies but I do not think this is the case any longer. Most of their products have become free or inexpensive commodities and professionals trained by these companies have become more of an obstacle to be worked around than an asset.

by grellas 17y ago

mixmax 17y ago

it's also interesting to note that Microsoft, a company that many software experts agree makes inferior products, is also a huge market leader. This hints at something a lot of technically minded people oversee: Sales and marketing is what drives a company. Microsoft is probably the most savvy tech company out there when it comes to sales. Yes, they are stuffing things down people's throat, abusing their monopoly, and generally being a nuisance. But it works, and it works well. This steve Ballmer quote sums it up pretty well "well, we've been accused of a lot of things, but not being able to make money isn't one of them"

Retric 17y ago
Microsoft excels at a vary specific type of marketing. While they suck at the traditional approaches, (Jerry Seinfeld / Bill Gates etc) they are willing to spend insane amounts of money so they can leverage what works. Buying Halo / Bungie sacrificing all that cross platform money so they could "buy" hype. Buying Hotmail for far more than it was ever going to be worth so they could change the backend to use MS server. The problem for MS is they don't know how to scale back to less profitable industries. Edit: It could be argued that MS simply understands the value of creating a monopoly and is willing to spend to create new ones. They seem to make money selling MS branded mice without those tactics just fine, but I don't know how profitable that is.
shabda 17y ago
I was searching for the quote, well, we've been accused of a lot of things, but not being able to make money isn't one of them And all I can find is this HN ref. When did Ballmer say that?
- mixmax 17y ago
  If memory seves me correctly it was in revenge of the nerds.
jimbokun 17y ago
This was true for a long time, but I think a case can be made that today Apple sells better than Microsoft. Of course, Apple sells to consumers, Microsoft to businesses. Again, for a long time it looked like selling to business was the better market to be in, but now it is not as clear.

troystribling 17y ago

The hold Microsoft, Oracle (Sun) have over enterprise software comes from marketing. An entire generation of programmers has been trained and certified to use and develop with their products and knows of nothing more. These programmers careers are so dependent on identification with these companies that they defend them with a surprising close minded intensity.

patio11 17y ago
The hold Microsoft, Oracle (Sun) have over enterprise software comes from marketing. You say that like it is a bad thing. Let's hypothetically say you can duplicate all of the Excel macros and VB apps which, ahem, run the world with a sufficient quantity of (e.g.) Perl scripts. That doesn't by itself help anybody -- you still have to teach them "Hey guys, Perl: it solves boring business problems in addition to enabling golf games." Microsoft has done an awful, awful lot of teaching over the years.
- troystribling 17y ago
  Microsoft et. al have very effectively used training and certification as a marketing tool. I guess I do see it as a bad thing because I have to deal with it and this came through in my comment. A decade or two ago these companies did provide the best solutions available to some problems faced by companies but I do not think this is the case any longer. Most of their products have become free or inexpensive commodities and professionals trained by these companies have become more of an obstacle to be worked around than an asset.