7 ms·

Who Fatally Wounded Microsoft? It Was Bill Gates.

62 points by mikecane 17y ago

SpacemanSpiff 17y ago
I wouldn't call Apple's process of developing the iphone and ipad "starting over" software wise though. As far as I know, the OS of both of these devices is based on OS X which of course can be traced back to Nextstep. I believe Microsoft did exactly the same thing with win NT; I've seen "embedded" systems running it. I would say what held back Microsoft's mobile devices in the past was UI and usability, which Apple seems to have well under control.
cantastoria 17y ago
Meh... I think this is part of the story but not the real reason. If I remember correctly, most handset makers resisted Windows CE out of fear of becoming "just another bunch of box makers" for Microsoft. I think that's why you saw such an embrace of Symbian (or pretty much anything that wasn't Windows). It may be hard to believe now but there was a time when everyone was terrified of Microsoft.
- gte910h 17y ago
  I actually thought it was that CE required more expensive chips to do the same thing.
ryanelkins 17y ago
I don't know that I would call this a fatal wound. In hindsight it may prove to have been a costly mistake but last I looked Microsoft was still around.
- tbgvi 17y ago
  Not fatal but it opened the door for everyone else. If everyone was happy with the new Windows Mobile proposed in this article and it had widespread adoption, would Apple have developed the iPhone? They might have, but it wouldn't have been such a slam dunk.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    They can still do a slam dunk ... the mobile market is big-enough for everyone to fit in. Anyway, why in the world would anyone use Windows CE when there isn't a market for third-party apps on WinCE? What incentive does it offer for mobile manufacturers? Pocket Word? That's what Apple (and also Palm and Nokia) did right ... delivered their own software, their own hardware, created a market for third-parties, delivered a decent design (personally I don't think it's revolutionary. it irritates me actually). Hopefully Google/Microsoft learns from this. More competition is better for everybody.
    - ams6110 17y ago
      Absolutely. They "almost missed the web" but then went on to have the dominant browser for over a decade. The history of Microsoft has been to let other people innovate. They did not invent the PC, the GUI, email, the web, the browser, spreadsheets, word processing or anything else that they now dominate the market in.
      - stcredzero 17y ago
        They "almost missed the web" but then went on to have the dominant browser for over a decade Leveraging the desktop OS monopoly to do so. Do you think they can pull an analogous move again?
tbgvi 17y ago
So this is what happens when you decide to hold the line, rather than scrapping something that's not working for the next iteration. 11 years and counting on this one...
jacquesm 17y ago
> How is it that Apple is set to revolutionize all of computing within a few weeks with its iPad? Can we cut down on the hype a bit, please? Whether the ipad is fad, fashion or revolutionary remains to be seen. Apples track record of late is very impressive but this is extrapolation without any basis in fact.
- stcredzero 17y ago
  A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary. The only question is whether Apple will succeed. Microsoft already tried this same revolutionary move with tablet computing and failed. (Because they were trying to drag along Windows. I can see this as I Write this reply on a Windows slate PC.) From the comments: The idea of shackling an old business to a new business rings true in so many industries right now. Watching media companies try to get the web to pay for operating a printing press, for example. Apple is in danger of falling into this same trap as advancing tech enables form factors that change how people use computers. Their closed strategy could be a serious anchor as such new form factors blossom into a "Cambrian explosion" of unexpected new uses. The difference between a Jailbroken iPhone and a shackled one is stark. (I can have say app in the background. I use this to make Google Voice calls over Skype on Bluetooth. My normal cell calls are 10¢ a minute Prepaid.) Someone smart could leverage a more open platform correctly and seriously wound Apple. Lucky for Apple, the telecoms are 10x more shackled than they. But that will only save them in the short term.
  - Goronmon 17y ago
    A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary. Are they?
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    > A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary. I've seen the ipad referred to as a large iphone that you can't make voice calls with, and I can't really fault that description. Which general notions about computing embodied in the ipad are the ones that you consider 'revolutionary' ? The fact that your jailbroken iphone can do a whole bunch of stuff the 'regular' issue ones can't is actually a strong point against apple being 'revolutionary' in this sense.
larsberg 17y ago
Was Kodesh new to Microsoft at the time? The culture there is a "prove it works first, ask for approval once you've worked everything through in detail and need a Big Change" one. I would have expected any reasonable manager to just spin up a small team to fully mock up a few devices in concert with a couple of clients and present those up the chain. I personally would have nixed him on this as well. It's quite easy to say, "we should scrap this and build something else" and another entirely to provide sufficient evidence that you're capable of doing so. If, for example, this guy wasn't able to deliver but was given a charter based on his random memo, Microsoft wouldn't be in third right now. They would be completely out of the game. Even readers of this site who hate Microsoft have probably experienced it: most bad managers step into a new position and immediately talk about how the old thing needs to be thrown out and a new one built, naturally at great time and expense (and hiring a few of his old "Architect" buddies) but with amazing benefits down the line. How does that story usually end when you say "ok"?
- pvg 17y ago
  Was Kodesh new to Microsoft at the time? He'd been at Microsoft for nearly 10 years. Also he was a VP. I don't think he made his proposal because he was somehow unaware of Microsoft culture or operating procedures.
- jeroen 17y ago
  According to his LinkedIn profile, Kodesh started working at MS in 1990. An MS press release says Kodesh was promoted to "vice president of consumer appliances" in august 1998 and he wrote his memo in september 1999.
raganwald 17y ago
Very telling: > Gates rejected the suggestions. “It’s very disappointing you feel that way,” he told Kodesh. “We don’t have time to start from scratch.” 1. "I'm disappointed you feel this way:" This is a direct criticism of Kodesh's personal feelings and an attack on his loyalty of the party line. This would have been so much better had Gates written "I can understand your enthusiasm for starting over, however..." 2. The old, old story: "If you don't have time to do it right, where will you find the time to do it over?" And indeed they did end up doing it over with Zune, having frittered years away with CE.
- yesbabyyes 17y ago
  I share your reaction on Gates' response. I also think it sounds typical Bill Gates. They did not only start over with Zune, they've been going right and left, what with constant name changes, the Danger acquisition which was a huge failure, the Pink project, to arrive at WinMo 7 which is still dangerously close to vaporware, and it's now March, 2010. BilL Gates dropping the ball on handhelds/cellphones is in the neighborhood of him and MS almost missing out on the Web in the 90s.
- ams6110 17y ago
  1. Better for whom? Kodesh's feelings? WGAS? The guy was probably making 6, maybe 7 figures. He can handle the truth.
  - raganwald 17y ago
    His salary is irrelevant. The point is that Gates criticized Kodesh for having ideas that Gates didn't like. That is a very different matter from criticizing Kodesh's ideas themselves. The message is clear: Think what we tell you to think or leave. Now you ask, better for whom? And I suggest, Better for Microsoft. It's possible to encourage people to explore different directions without pursuing them all. Gates could have ixnayed the message without ixnaying the messenger, and I hope that I am able to do that when it's my turn to deal with someone suggesting I scrap everything I've worked hard to build.
ErrantX 17y ago
Why has Microsoft found itself in third place, behind Apple and now Google, in the mobile segment of computing? Because it's not an area they've ever been interested in. Just because Mobile is the latest and greatest area of tech development doesn't mean everyone will stop using PC's tomorrow (and more importantly - that corporates will stop using PC's tomorrow) So Microsoft got serious about "mobile" later than Apple - but it's always been a half hearted attempt. It seems as lot like MS wanting a finger in all the markets - "just in case".
- rimantas 17y ago
  So Microsoft scrabbled to jump on the mobile bandwagon much later Uhm. MS released Pocket PC in 2000, Windows mobile in 2003. Apple announced iPhone in 2007. Google aquired Anodroid, Inc. in 2005, Open Handset Alliance was announced also in 2007. So no matter how you count MS jumped mobile bandwagon earlier.
  - ErrantX 17y ago
    Well I was sort of jumping on the same theory as the blog post. i.e. Windows Mobile was a passing thought - and it is only recently their trying to make more serious inroads. (I clarified my original comment)
    - ricree 17y ago
      That didn't really seem to be what the article was getting at. Windows Mobile was a serious push to try and establish itself in that area. It just turned out to be a flawed one, and the main thrust of the article was that at least some people recognized it at the time but were shot down by the head of the company.
      - ErrantX 17y ago
        I disagree it was a serious attempt. Or at least a heartfelt one. Mobile was somewhere for windows to expand into.
jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
If 255 billion is fatally wounded, someone please shoot me. I understand they have their problems. Windows 7 is doing well. Bing has been growing. Mobile they're actually doing something with now. XBox division is wiping the floor with PS3. I think it's the long term stuff that worries me about MSFT. ie- windows and office will one day disappear. what are their plans for then? Maybe they'll just evolve?
- potatolicious 17y ago
  I think the most major issue is managerial - the Xbox division from what I've heard has managed to conquer many of the serious management issues that plague the rest of MS (particularly the "main" teams, Windows and Office). MS is infamous for having a thick, thick layer of middle management that has proven to be detrimental to innovation and productivity. I think MS's long-term success hinges on being able to determine the managerial how and why of the successful, innovative teams at MS (Bing, Xbox, etc) and transferring that to the rest of the company.
  - jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
    Too much middle management. Like 7 layers worth. Microsoft needs to cut fat.
    - wisty 17y ago
      Downmodded why? I. M. Wright's “Hard Code” (published by Microsoft no less) pretty much makes this claim. Apparently they used to laugh at GM's layers of management, and now they have a similar number.
      - potatolicious 17y ago
        I work in Seattle, and know a number of Microsofties, and this is a pretty reliable consensus too even for people who are still there. The org tree is very, very deep and this causes a lot of problems - especially as a company ages and people go from enthusiastic risk takers to CYA corporate types.
ghshephard 17y ago
Well, to be fair, It's not clear that Microsoft would have come up with the Zune interface on their own without a number of companies such as Apple, showing how successful such a platform can be. It's easy to say "Create a simple, consumer oriented, touchscreen device" - it's entirely a different thing to implement. I've been using, and hating, the Windows Touch Screen Kiosks for over 10 years, frequently at Movie Theaters. Someone has taken a Desktop OS, and just ported it to a touch screen, rather than starting over from scratch, and saying "What should a touch screen OS look like" (Hint, it doesn't have a mouse pointer) Also, note that Microsoft _did_ try and start over with a "simple, icon oriented, technology free" user environment - Microsoft Bob was that technology attempt. It was just a failure. Perhaps the lesson to be learned about Bob, was that it's important to fail more quickly, so you can tack and take on a new approach. The goal was admirable (eliminate the technology interfering with the user doing their job) - Just didn't have the right team/processing/hardware at the time. This may be contentious to a less informed audience, but in Many ways, the goals embodied in Microsoft Bob are represented in the iPad.
- mikecane 17y ago
  Your reference to BOB sent me researching: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob
roc 17y ago
"To Kodesh, Microsoft’s initiatives were driven by the dictates of the company’s technology, rather than the wishes of consumers." That's the simplest summary, really. The bureaucracy problems feed into this, but you don't need much more. When you're designing to please people who won't be using the system, at the expense of those who will, nothing else is going to matter. You will fail.
sriramk 17y ago
I'm getting a bit tired of all this revisionist history from several years ago (this anecdote seems to be 13 years old). Especially on places which don't understand how the inside of MSFT works (and has evolved over time). Also, I'm willing to bet that BillG had a lot more to say than just those 2 sentences.
donaldc 17y ago
Bill Gates' original vision was "a computer on every desk, running Microsoft software". Once he more or less reached this goal, around the mid-90's, of course Microsoft stagnated. I'd say that Bill's real failure was to not accept this fact and return as dividends or stock buybacks the tremendous amount of money that Microsoft was generating.
wedesoft 17y ago
10 years ago mobile phones where just microcontrollers with LCDs and Symbian OS on it. Users couldn't even install J2ME software on it. In terms of openness Google Android and Nokia Maemo are now the best mobile operating systems (albeit still not fully open yet). Talking about fataly wounded: iPhone is maybe the last phone which cannot run Java software in our days.

62 points by mikecane 17y ago

I wouldn't call Apple's process of developing the iphone and ipad "starting over" software wise though. As far as I know, the OS of both of these devices is based on OS X which of course can be traced back to Nextstep. I believe Microsoft did exactly the same thing with win NT; I've seen "embedded" systems running it. I would say what held back Microsoft's mobile devices in the past was UI and usability, which Apple seems to have well under control.

cantastoria 17y ago

Meh... I think this is part of the story but not the real reason. If I remember correctly, most handset makers resisted Windows CE out of fear of becoming "just another bunch of box makers" for Microsoft. I think that's why you saw such an embrace of Symbian (or pretty much anything that wasn't Windows). It may be hard to believe now but there was a time when everyone was terrified of Microsoft.

gte910h 17y ago
I actually thought it was that CE required more expensive chips to do the same thing.

ryanelkins 17y ago

I don't know that I would call this a fatal wound. In hindsight it may prove to have been a costly mistake but last I looked Microsoft was still around.

tbgvi 17y ago
Not fatal but it opened the door for everyone else. If everyone was happy with the new Windows Mobile proposed in this article and it had widespread adoption, would Apple have developed the iPhone? They might have, but it wouldn't have been such a slam dunk.
- bad_user 17y ago
  They can still do a slam dunk ... the mobile market is big-enough for everyone to fit in. Anyway, why in the world would anyone use Windows CE when there isn't a market for third-party apps on WinCE? What incentive does it offer for mobile manufacturers? Pocket Word? That's what Apple (and also Palm and Nokia) did right ... delivered their own software, their own hardware, created a market for third-parties, delivered a decent design (personally I don't think it's revolutionary. it irritates me actually). Hopefully Google/Microsoft learns from this. More competition is better for everybody.
  - ams6110 17y ago
    Absolutely. They "almost missed the web" but then went on to have the dominant browser for over a decade. The history of Microsoft has been to let other people innovate. They did not invent the PC, the GUI, email, the web, the browser, spreadsheets, word processing or anything else that they now dominate the market in.
    - stcredzero 17y ago
      They "almost missed the web" but then went on to have the dominant browser for over a decade Leveraging the desktop OS monopoly to do so. Do you think they can pull an analogous move again?

tbgvi 17y ago

So this is what happens when you decide to hold the line, rather than scrapping something that's not working for the next iteration. 11 years and counting on this one...

jacquesm 17y ago

> How is it that Apple is set to revolutionize all of computing within a few weeks with its iPad? Can we cut down on the hype a bit, please? Whether the ipad is fad, fashion or revolutionary remains to be seen. Apples track record of late is very impressive but this is extrapolation without any basis in fact.

stcredzero 17y ago
A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary. The only question is whether Apple will succeed. Microsoft already tried this same revolutionary move with tablet computing and failed. (Because they were trying to drag along Windows. I can see this as I Write this reply on a Windows slate PC.) From the comments: The idea of shackling an old business to a new business rings true in so many industries right now. Watching media companies try to get the web to pay for operating a printing press, for example. Apple is in danger of falling into this same trap as advancing tech enables form factors that change how people use computers. Their closed strategy could be a serious anchor as such new form factors blossom into a "Cambrian explosion" of unexpected new uses. The difference between a Jailbroken iPhone and a shackled one is stark. (I can have say app in the background. I use this to make Google Voice calls over Skype on Bluetooth. My normal cell calls are 10¢ a minute Prepaid.) Someone smart could leverage a more open platform correctly and seriously wound Apple. Lucky for Apple, the telecoms are 10x more shackled than they. But that will only save them in the short term.
- Goronmon 17y ago
  A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary. Are they?
- jacquesm 17y ago
  > A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are revolutionary. I've seen the ipad referred to as a large iphone that you can't make voice calls with, and I can't really fault that description. Which general notions about computing embodied in the ipad are the ones that you consider 'revolutionary' ? The fact that your jailbroken iphone can do a whole bunch of stuff the 'regular' issue ones can't is actually a strong point against apple being 'revolutionary' in this sense.

larsberg 17y ago

Was Kodesh new to Microsoft at the time? The culture there is a "prove it works first, ask for approval once you've worked everything through in detail and need a Big Change" one. I would have expected any reasonable manager to just spin up a small team to fully mock up a few devices in concert with a couple of clients and present those up the chain. I personally would have nixed him on this as well. It's quite easy to say, "we should scrap this and build something else" and another entirely to provide sufficient evidence that you're capable of doing so. If, for example, this guy wasn't able to deliver but was given a charter based on his random memo, Microsoft wouldn't be in third right now. They would be completely out of the game. Even readers of this site who hate Microsoft have probably experienced it: most bad managers step into a new position and immediately talk about how the old thing needs to be thrown out and a new one built, naturally at great time and expense (and hiring a few of his old "Architect" buddies) but with amazing benefits down the line. How does that story usually end when you say "ok"?

pvg 17y ago
Was Kodesh new to Microsoft at the time? He'd been at Microsoft for nearly 10 years. Also he was a VP. I don't think he made his proposal because he was somehow unaware of Microsoft culture or operating procedures.
jeroen 17y ago
According to his LinkedIn profile, Kodesh started working at MS in 1990. An MS press release says Kodesh was promoted to "vice president of consumer appliances" in august 1998 and he wrote his memo in september 1999.

raganwald 17y ago

Very telling: > Gates rejected the suggestions. “It’s very disappointing you feel that way,” he told Kodesh. “We don’t have time to start from scratch.” 1. "I'm disappointed you feel this way:" This is a direct criticism of Kodesh's personal feelings and an attack on his loyalty of the party line. This would have been so much better had Gates written "I can understand your enthusiasm for starting over, however..." 2. The old, old story: "If you don't have time to do it right, where will you find the time to do it over?" And indeed they did end up doing it over with Zune, having frittered years away with CE.

yesbabyyes 17y ago
I share your reaction on Gates' response. I also think it sounds typical Bill Gates. They did not only start over with Zune, they've been going right and left, what with constant name changes, the Danger acquisition which was a huge failure, the Pink project, to arrive at WinMo 7 which is still dangerously close to vaporware, and it's now March, 2010. BilL Gates dropping the ball on handhelds/cellphones is in the neighborhood of him and MS almost missing out on the Web in the 90s.
ams6110 17y ago
1. Better for whom? Kodesh's feelings? WGAS? The guy was probably making 6, maybe 7 figures. He can handle the truth.
- raganwald 17y ago
  His salary is irrelevant. The point is that Gates criticized Kodesh for having ideas that Gates didn't like. That is a very different matter from criticizing Kodesh's ideas themselves. The message is clear: Think what we tell you to think or leave. Now you ask, better for whom? And I suggest, Better for Microsoft. It's possible to encourage people to explore different directions without pursuing them all. Gates could have ixnayed the message without ixnaying the messenger, and I hope that I am able to do that when it's my turn to deal with someone suggesting I scrap everything I've worked hard to build.

ErrantX 17y ago

Why has Microsoft found itself in third place, behind Apple and now Google, in the mobile segment of computing? Because it's not an area they've ever been interested in. Just because Mobile is the latest and greatest area of tech development doesn't mean everyone will stop using PC's tomorrow (and more importantly - that corporates will stop using PC's tomorrow) So Microsoft got serious about "mobile" later than Apple - but it's always been a half hearted attempt. It seems as lot like MS wanting a finger in all the markets - "just in case".

rimantas 17y ago
So Microsoft scrabbled to jump on the mobile bandwagon much later Uhm. MS released Pocket PC in 2000, Windows mobile in 2003. Apple announced iPhone in 2007. Google aquired Anodroid, Inc. in 2005, Open Handset Alliance was announced also in 2007. So no matter how you count MS jumped mobile bandwagon earlier.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Well I was sort of jumping on the same theory as the blog post. i.e. Windows Mobile was a passing thought - and it is only recently their trying to make more serious inroads. (I clarified my original comment)
  - ricree 17y ago
    That didn't really seem to be what the article was getting at. Windows Mobile was a serious push to try and establish itself in that area. It just turned out to be a flawed one, and the main thrust of the article was that at least some people recognized it at the time but were shot down by the head of the company.
    - ErrantX 17y ago
      I disagree it was a serious attempt. Or at least a heartfelt one. Mobile was somewhere for windows to expand into.

jasonlbaptiste 17y ago

If 255 billion is fatally wounded, someone please shoot me. I understand they have their problems. Windows 7 is doing well. Bing has been growing. Mobile they're actually doing something with now. XBox division is wiping the floor with PS3. I think it's the long term stuff that worries me about MSFT. ie- windows and office will one day disappear. what are their plans for then? Maybe they'll just evolve?

potatolicious 17y ago
I think the most major issue is managerial - the Xbox division from what I've heard has managed to conquer many of the serious management issues that plague the rest of MS (particularly the "main" teams, Windows and Office). MS is infamous for having a thick, thick layer of middle management that has proven to be detrimental to innovation and productivity. I think MS's long-term success hinges on being able to determine the managerial how and why of the successful, innovative teams at MS (Bing, Xbox, etc) and transferring that to the rest of the company.
- jasonlbaptiste 17y ago
  Too much middle management. Like 7 layers worth. Microsoft needs to cut fat.
  - wisty 17y ago
    Downmodded why? I. M. Wright's “Hard Code” (published by Microsoft no less) pretty much makes this claim. Apparently they used to laugh at GM's layers of management, and now they have a similar number.
    - potatolicious 17y ago
      I work in Seattle, and know a number of Microsofties, and this is a pretty reliable consensus too even for people who are still there. The org tree is very, very deep and this causes a lot of problems - especially as a company ages and people go from enthusiastic risk takers to CYA corporate types.

ghshephard 17y ago

Well, to be fair, It's not clear that Microsoft would have come up with the Zune interface on their own without a number of companies such as Apple, showing how successful such a platform can be. It's easy to say "Create a simple, consumer oriented, touchscreen device" - it's entirely a different thing to implement. I've been using, and hating, the Windows Touch Screen Kiosks for over 10 years, frequently at Movie Theaters. Someone has taken a Desktop OS, and just ported it to a touch screen, rather than starting over from scratch, and saying "What should a touch screen OS look like" (Hint, it doesn't have a mouse pointer) Also, note that Microsoft _did_ try and start over with a "simple, icon oriented, technology free" user environment - Microsoft Bob was that technology attempt. It was just a failure. Perhaps the lesson to be learned about Bob, was that it's important to fail more quickly, so you can tack and take on a new approach. The goal was admirable (eliminate the technology interfering with the user doing their job) - Just didn't have the right team/processing/hardware at the time. This may be contentious to a less informed audience, but in Many ways, the goals embodied in Microsoft Bob are represented in the iPad.

mikecane 17y ago
Your reference to BOB sent me researching: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob

roc 17y ago

"To Kodesh, Microsoft’s initiatives were driven by the dictates of the company’s technology, rather than the wishes of consumers." That's the simplest summary, really. The bureaucracy problems feed into this, but you don't need much more. When you're designing to please people who won't be using the system, at the expense of those who will, nothing else is going to matter. You will fail.

sriramk 17y ago

I'm getting a bit tired of all this revisionist history from several years ago (this anecdote seems to be 13 years old). Especially on places which don't understand how the inside of MSFT works (and has evolved over time). Also, I'm willing to bet that BillG had a lot more to say than just those 2 sentences.

donaldc 17y ago

Bill Gates' original vision was "a computer on every desk, running Microsoft software". Once he more or less reached this goal, around the mid-90's, of course Microsoft stagnated. I'd say that Bill's real failure was to not accept this fact and return as dividends or stock buybacks the tremendous amount of money that Microsoft was generating.

wedesoft 17y ago

10 years ago mobile phones where just microcontrollers with LCDs and Symbian OS on it. Users couldn't even install J2ME software on it. In terms of openness Google Android and Nokia Maemo are now the best mobile operating systems (albeit still not fully open yet). Talking about fataly wounded: iPhone is maybe the last phone which cannot run Java software in our days.