4 ms·

> It's not like Nadella fired every one and started afresh. He announced huge layoffs (18,000 people) almost as soon as he took over. A lot of Nokia people, bu

by jonknee 10y ago

> It's not like Nadella fired every one and started afresh. He announced huge layoffs (18,000 people) almost as soon as he took over. A lot of Nokia people, but also 5,500 people not related to mobile and 1,400 of them at HQ. A year later he made another huge cut of 7,800 people.

simonh 10y ago
More evidence for d--b's point. Firing 18k people at Microsoft's scale isn't even close to burning it down and starting from scratch. It's also not something a newly minted CEO would be able to get past the board on such short notice. It must have been planned in advance. Whatever you say about Balmer, someone at MSFT knew how to flawlessly execute a masterful transition plan. I though Apple did a good job, but MSFT nailed it.
- piaste 10y ago
  > Firing 18k people at Microsoft's scale isn't even close to burning it down and starting from scratch. Eh... According to Wikipedia, MS had 114k employees total as of mid-2016. Given that, I'd say a 18k layoff definitely counts as a big deal.
  - rugdobe 10y ago
    majority of this layoff was the hardware guys from Nokia acquisition.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    It was certainly treated as such locally in Seattle.
  - mbesto 10y ago
    > It's not like Nadella fired every one and started afresh.
    - paulddraper 10y ago
      Um, okay. You are correct that he did not fire every single employee (besides himself) and then hire everyone that currently works at MS.
    - acchow 10y ago
      HN is frustratingly pedantic sometimes. "It's not like Nadella fired every one and started afresh." is a colloquialism. d--b was basically saying "it's not like Nadella did a major overhaul. With which jonknee disagrees, citing a layoff of 18,000. To which simonh claims is not a major overhaul since Microsoft is nebulously enormous. To which piaste disagrees, as 18k was actually 15.7% of the company. You can all continue to debate whether or not 15.7% is a major overhaul, whether the actual people they fired were significant, etc... But you quoting a colloquialism and asking us all to take it literally is not helpful to the discussion, or the culture of HN.
      - mbesto 10y ago
        > HN is frustratingly pedantic sometimes. I don't disagree, but the parent was being just as pedantic as I was. Perhaps my snark was an attempt to end the petty discussion (apparently, improperly so). Read these two statements in the context of the discussion: > burning it down and starting from scratch. > started afresh 15.7% is a major overhaul, but IMO in no way insinuates "burning something down" or "starting afresh". Do you think either of those statements is consistent with a 15% cut in workforce? PS - 12,500 of those 18,000 came from Nokia[0]. > with 12,500 of those coming out of the streamlining of Microsoft’s acquired Nokia assets. [0] - https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/17/microsoft-to-cut-workforce-by-18000-this-year-moving-now-to-cut-first-13000/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/17/microsoft-to-cut-workforce...
- nitrogen 10y ago
  Reminds me of this old story (there are many variations): http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Prepare_3_Envelopes.html http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Prepare_3_Envelopes....
d--b 10y ago
Don't get me wrong, Microsoft did change course. It was a tanking bloated juggernaut, and the change from pre-Nadella days has been drastic. But what I am saying is that the change had started at least 3 or 4 years before Nadella became CEO. The article is all about how the guy changed everything so quickly while in fact this was already happening. What's possible though is that the big guys at Microsoft planned to give the job to Nadella a while ago, and that Nadella, under Ballmer, did actually take all the decisions that took Microsoft in the right direction.
- taneq 10y ago
  So what you're really saying here is, the article took the PR bait.

by jonknee 10y ago

simonh 10y ago

More evidence for d--b's point. Firing 18k people at Microsoft's scale isn't even close to burning it down and starting from scratch. It's also not something a newly minted CEO would be able to get past the board on such short notice. It must have been planned in advance. Whatever you say about Balmer, someone at MSFT knew how to flawlessly execute a masterful transition plan. I though Apple did a good job, but MSFT nailed it.

piaste 10y ago
> Firing 18k people at Microsoft's scale isn't even close to burning it down and starting from scratch. Eh... According to Wikipedia, MS had 114k employees total as of mid-2016. Given that, I'd say a 18k layoff definitely counts as a big deal.
- rugdobe 10y ago
  majority of this layoff was the hardware guys from Nokia acquisition.
- jonknee 10y ago
  It was certainly treated as such locally in Seattle.
- mbesto 10y ago
  > It's not like Nadella fired every one and started afresh.
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    Um, okay. You are correct that he did not fire every single employee (besides himself) and then hire everyone that currently works at MS.
  - acchow 10y ago
    HN is frustratingly pedantic sometimes. "It's not like Nadella fired every one and started afresh." is a colloquialism. d--b was basically saying "it's not like Nadella did a major overhaul. With which jonknee disagrees, citing a layoff of 18,000. To which simonh claims is not a major overhaul since Microsoft is nebulously enormous. To which piaste disagrees, as 18k was actually 15.7% of the company. You can all continue to debate whether or not 15.7% is a major overhaul, whether the actual people they fired were significant, etc... But you quoting a colloquialism and asking us all to take it literally is not helpful to the discussion, or the culture of HN.
    - mbesto 10y ago
      > HN is frustratingly pedantic sometimes. I don't disagree, but the parent was being just as pedantic as I was. Perhaps my snark was an attempt to end the petty discussion (apparently, improperly so). Read these two statements in the context of the discussion: > burning it down and starting from scratch. > started afresh 15.7% is a major overhaul, but IMO in no way insinuates "burning something down" or "starting afresh". Do you think either of those statements is consistent with a 15% cut in workforce? PS - 12,500 of those 18,000 came from Nokia[0]. > with 12,500 of those coming out of the streamlining of Microsoft’s acquired Nokia assets. [0] - https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/17/microsoft-to-cut-workforce-by-18000-this-year-moving-now-to-cut-first-13000/ https://techcrunch.com/2014/07/17/microsoft-to-cut-workforce...
nitrogen 10y ago
Reminds me of this old story (there are many variations): http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Prepare_3_Envelopes.html http://www.design.caltech.edu/erik/Misc/Prepare_3_Envelopes....

d--b 10y ago

Don't get me wrong, Microsoft did change course. It was a tanking bloated juggernaut, and the change from pre-Nadella days has been drastic. But what I am saying is that the change had started at least 3 or 4 years before Nadella became CEO. The article is all about how the guy changed everything so quickly while in fact this was already happening. What's possible though is that the big guys at Microsoft planned to give the job to Nadella a while ago, and that Nadella, under Ballmer, did actually take all the decisions that took Microsoft in the right direction.

taneq 10y ago
So what you're really saying here is, the article took the PR bait.