4 ms·
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?
by 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 agoProbably 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 agoThat'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.