4 ms·

Everything I've ever read about Microsoft's problems always point the finger at crippling management problems. Each department is out for themselves, not for th

Everything I've ever read about Microsoft's problems always point the finger at crippling management problems. Each department is out for themselves, not for the good of the company as a whole (see the Kin/WP7 debacle), and yet many departments have says and vetos on those of another (there's a good piece about the Windows Start Menu shutdown behavior somewhere... it indicated all sorts of problems with the kernel team telling the UI team what to do). As soon as the inmates aren't running the asylum, Microsoft does much better. The Entertainment and Devices division and MS has pretty much full autonomy, and they come up with a very popular console line and a unique motion gesture system within two generations, they take a chance on the Zune (particularly the second generation UI... although the Zune didn't sell in the end, they put up a good effort). Microsoft Research does great stuff, and is also completely autonomous. Ray Ozzie was supposed to move Microsoft away from monolithic development, but it requires a full rebuild of Microsoft's structure, which I can only assume Ballmer is stalling.

jfb 16y ago
From friends on the inside, it sounds like a nightmarish political situation, with powerful, long-established, and hugely profitable nearly-autonomous fiefdoms at continual war with one another. There are excellent people there, and excellent technologies, and a cripplingly awful corporate culture.
- jdoliner 16y ago
  So do they just figure they'll ride the gravy train until it completely breaks down? Do they acknowledge this is a problem or do they just think it's fine?
  - jfb 16y ago
    Probably depends on where in management you happen to be. If you're in charge of, say, Office, and the huge profits that that makes, why change what you're doing? Why exert the effort to integrate your product better, or take a short term hit to profitability in the interest of a larger goal? It reads from the outside like a real incentive mismatch problem. At the level of the people who do the work, I think there's great awareness of the fuckedupedness, but that's matched by their total lack of ability to change things. Honestly, I don't really know, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft incapable of stopping their slide into irrelevance.
    - Lewisham 16y ago
      That's the sort of managerial problems that can only be solved from the top down. Shake-ups, reshufflings, and some good old fashioned ass-kicking can begin turning the ship around. A lot of Apple enthusiasts like to say "Apple's excellence isn't just Steve Jobs," but I think in the case of Microsoft, one can reasonably say "Microsoft's brokenness is just Steve Ballmer." I think he's almost completely blind to pretty much everything that's happening in his company, and the tech world at large. I'm not really sure what value the board think he adds. I guess something to do with sales and marketing, given his background, but it's not like Microsoft's image is doing all that well either. One other MS subdivision I forgot to mention that are doing well is Bing. They're doing some great work. I'm not sure who they report to, and what their level of autonomy is.

jfb 16y ago

From friends on the inside, it sounds like a nightmarish political situation, with powerful, long-established, and hugely profitable nearly-autonomous fiefdoms at continual war with one another. There are excellent people there, and excellent technologies, and a cripplingly awful corporate culture.

jdoliner 16y ago
So do they just figure they'll ride the gravy train until it completely breaks down? Do they acknowledge this is a problem or do they just think it's fine?
- jfb 16y ago
  Probably depends on where in management you happen to be. If you're in charge of, say, Office, and the huge profits that that makes, why change what you're doing? Why exert the effort to integrate your product better, or take a short term hit to profitability in the interest of a larger goal? It reads from the outside like a real incentive mismatch problem. At the level of the people who do the work, I think there's great awareness of the fuckedupedness, but that's matched by their total lack of ability to change things. Honestly, I don't really know, but I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft incapable of stopping their slide into irrelevance.
  - Lewisham 16y ago
    That's the sort of managerial problems that can only be solved from the top down. Shake-ups, reshufflings, and some good old fashioned ass-kicking can begin turning the ship around. A lot of Apple enthusiasts like to say "Apple's excellence isn't just Steve Jobs," but I think in the case of Microsoft, one can reasonably say "Microsoft's brokenness is just Steve Ballmer." I think he's almost completely blind to pretty much everything that's happening in his company, and the tech world at large. I'm not really sure what value the board think he adds. I guess something to do with sales and marketing, given his background, but it's not like Microsoft's image is doing all that well either. One other MS subdivision I forgot to mention that are doing well is Bing. They're doing some great work. I'm not sure who they report to, and what their level of autonomy is.