3 ms·

If he did send out stuff like this often and nobody gave a damn then that's really discouraging. There go my "if I ran Microsoft" fantasies. /sigh I've always

If he did send out stuff like this often and nobody gave a damn then that's really discouraging. There go my "if I ran Microsoft" fantasies. /sigh I've always imagined one of the reasons Apple products are so polished is because Steve rides people like this all day long until they stop sucking.

muhfuhkuh 16y ago
Too big + too many smart and creative people = impossible to manage without being a complete dictator Google is running into this. Their track record of late is spotty at best, and it's because their culture is too wild-west and "throw on wall, see if stick" style. As much as geniuses are really good at solving problems plaguing modern society, they are really bad at focussing. They need leaders that understand them, like John Lasseter at Pixar. Alternatively, they need equally-genius benevolent dictators like Linus Torvalds (Linux, Git) to keep them in check. Failing that, they need supremely smart, pile-driving, and obliquely techie-cum-marketing obsessed leaders like Jobs at Apple. Gates + Ballmer = those things above, but you really need one voice, not two. I think Google is having the same trouble having Sergey and Larry's style squaring almost diametrically against Eric Schmidt's.
mgrouchy 16y ago
In my mind (if we are having fantasies/visions about what happens at these companies) Steve jobs wouldn't write an email, he would walk down to these guys or get someone else to get them, pull them into a conference room, yell at them, threaten to fire them and maybe break some shit.
jshen 16y ago
riding people isn't the solution, the problem is usually structural. Take any product and there are 5 to 10 teams involved in it's development and they all push their own little pet ideas. Rarely is there ever a single leader with a single vision that is also involved in the day to day development and decision making. Instead the person that should do this does what you suggest, they swing in every once in a while, complain complain complain, then switch focus to some other project for a bit, while never taking to time to solve the real problem. well, that's my sad experience from a couple of big companies.
- ultrasaurus 16y ago
  That's true, not a lot of that is Movie Maker's fault, the website team (bad search, slow loads) and the windows update team (maybe, or maybe the teams submitting the updates) were 95% of the fault. That and none of this involved 'big ticket' teams, movie maker makes $0, so they get squeezed out at meetings.
- Jkeg 16y ago
  Well yes. Microsoft is often said to have problems with teams competing internally (pointlessly), or just not working together. However, that's a management choice that can come from the top. If there's one thing a "Chief Software Architect" should do, it's make sure all software teams are in the habit of communicating and collaborating whenever possible. It doesn't seam like that happened here.
  - jshen 16y ago
    I think the right thing to do is recognize the extremely high cost of communication and collaboration and weigh that against the benefit. Almost every manager I've known assumes that the cost of communication or collaboration is near zero while the cost of development is extremely high. Often, the cost of duplication development effort is lower than the cost of adding another communication and collaboration channel.

muhfuhkuh 16y ago

Too big + too many smart and creative people = impossible to manage without being a complete dictator Google is running into this. Their track record of late is spotty at best, and it's because their culture is too wild-west and "throw on wall, see if stick" style. As much as geniuses are really good at solving problems plaguing modern society, they are really bad at focussing. They need leaders that understand them, like John Lasseter at Pixar. Alternatively, they need equally-genius benevolent dictators like Linus Torvalds (Linux, Git) to keep them in check. Failing that, they need supremely smart, pile-driving, and obliquely techie-cum-marketing obsessed leaders like Jobs at Apple. Gates + Ballmer = those things above, but you really need one voice, not two. I think Google is having the same trouble having Sergey and Larry's style squaring almost diametrically against Eric Schmidt's.

mgrouchy 16y ago

In my mind (if we are having fantasies/visions about what happens at these companies) Steve jobs wouldn't write an email, he would walk down to these guys or get someone else to get them, pull them into a conference room, yell at them, threaten to fire them and maybe break some shit.

jshen 16y ago

riding people isn't the solution, the problem is usually structural. Take any product and there are 5 to 10 teams involved in it's development and they all push their own little pet ideas. Rarely is there ever a single leader with a single vision that is also involved in the day to day development and decision making. Instead the person that should do this does what you suggest, they swing in every once in a while, complain complain complain, then switch focus to some other project for a bit, while never taking to time to solve the real problem. well, that's my sad experience from a couple of big companies.

ultrasaurus 16y ago
That's true, not a lot of that is Movie Maker's fault, the website team (bad search, slow loads) and the windows update team (maybe, or maybe the teams submitting the updates) were 95% of the fault. That and none of this involved 'big ticket' teams, movie maker makes $0, so they get squeezed out at meetings.
Jkeg 16y ago
Well yes. Microsoft is often said to have problems with teams competing internally (pointlessly), or just not working together. However, that's a management choice that can come from the top. If there's one thing a "Chief Software Architect" should do, it's make sure all software teams are in the habit of communicating and collaborating whenever possible. It doesn't seam like that happened here.
- jshen 16y ago
  I think the right thing to do is recognize the extremely high cost of communication and collaboration and weigh that against the benefit. Almost every manager I've known assumes that the cost of communication or collaboration is near zero while the cost of development is extremely high. Often, the cost of duplication development effort is lower than the cost of adding another communication and collaboration channel.