16 ms·

Ray Ozzie leaving post as Microsoft's chief software architect

133 points by Flemlord 16y ago

mixmax 16y ago
Ray Ozzie is the CEO Microsoft should have had instead of Ballmer. He actually understands tech, and is a visionary. Ballmer could just as easily have sold used cars, and doesn't have the deep knowledge and vision of software that's essential to running a company like Microsoft. This is a bad day for MS.
- bradleyland 16y ago
  I remember watching the Ballmer/Ozzie interview at this year's All Things D conference, and wondering how the two of them even work at the same company. The contrast between the way they talked about Microsoft's products, and technology in general, was a really startling juxtaposition.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  Ray Ozzie is not CEO material, imo, personality wise, that's why he didn't take the position (I'm sure he could have had it). Ballmer is CEO material certainly, but not good CEO material. MS is in a bad place currently top-level management-wise.
  - nickelplate 16y ago
    I think Ballmer is not CEO material for a tech company. However he may be good COO material.
    - bbatsell 16y ago
      Has Ballmer demonstrated a particular adeptness with numbers or the nuts and bolts of operating a massive corporation? We know he's not a product visionary, but from my seat he's really a mid-level salesman who is the epitome of the Peter Principle.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - hop 16y ago
    In the same sense, would you say Bill G was prototypical CEO material? No, but look what he built. Ozzie is awkward too, but he founded and sold two software companies for a fortune. Zuckerberg is introverted and awkward too, but look what he has built. The notion that a CEO, especially in tech, should be a business degree toting, people-person, non-technical CEO like Ballmer is wrong.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      I don't care about prototypes, I'm just talking about results. Bill Gates was an atypical CEO, but he had a combination of business, technical, and personal acumen that worked effectively together. Neither Ozzie nor, so far as history has judged, Ballmer have anywhere near that same level of capability. At best they appear to do no better than J. Average non-tech savvy CEOs. In a world filled with folks like Larry Ellison, Eric Schmidt, and Steve Jobs that level of skill is a recipe for getting your ass handed to you in the market.
  - credo 16y ago
    Over the past decade, Microsoft's problem (imo as a former employee) is that they tried to do too many things and grew too fast at a time when they were not able to attract the best employees. This creates a situation for the (hiring) quality bar to go down and for politicians to thrive.
    - InclinedPlane 16y ago
      I think most of MS's biggest problems are symptoms of its size. MS has had empire-itis from the beginning. From their original mission statement, through their huge acquisitions, through their refusal to spin off substantial portions of their company, their approach to competition, etc, etc. If they had been organized differently or if they had been split up into different corporations as a group they'd probably be better off today. Not least because each group would have the freedom to make the choices they need to (free of the MS overarching strategy straight-jacket) and they'd have the motivation to build truly great and disruptive things, rather than the relying on the usual strategy of getting it sorta-kinda right on the nth try through sheer brute force (read: massive investment from Windows/Office profits of the past). P.S. Also a former MS employee, for what it's worth.
- sandGorgon 16y ago
  Did you guys ever read the "architecture astronauts" article that Joel Spolsky wrote ? It's pretty much about Ozzie and it aint flattering. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html
hello_moto 16y ago
Maybe it's time for Sinofsky to take his shot being the CSA of MS?
- checoivan 16y ago
  That'll be cool, but the mail says: "The CSA role was unique and I won’t refill the role after Ray’s departure".
  - keithwarren 16y ago
    That assumes Ballmer will be around long enough to enforce said policy.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    This makes sense, the CSA role was, in theory, a major check on Ballmer's power. Though in practice Ozzie didn't execute in the role very well.
karzeem 16y ago
I know it's fashionable to beat up on Ballmer's buzzword-filled, meaning-deficient prose, but man, the guy sure doesn't make it hard for people.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
keithwarren 16y ago
As a shareholder I hereby nominate both Steve Sinofsky and Scott Guthrie to the role of Chief Software Architect. Either would make me happy.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  Scott Guthrie would be great for the role. He's one of the few people I've met that is actually an exceptionally good developer, understands vision, and has strong leadership skills. I have heard the knock that he is a bit "empire" focused. But moving him to CSA would force him to view the company as his empire rather than an org.
  - portman 16y ago
    he is a bit "empire" focused What does that mean? I've only ever heard stories about his legendary niceness, and that makes him sound political and, um, not-nice.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      I should be clear, I've also heard he is very nice and the guy that you want to work for. But I've also heard that he's not afraid of replicating another groups work if he doesn't like how its done. Of course this is all second and third hand, and maybe "empire" was the wrong term. But my point was that with all of MS under him, he would push to consolidate redundant projects, rather than taking them head-on.
      - commandar 16y ago
        >But my point was that with all of MS under him, he would push to consolidate redundant projects, rather than taking them head-on. Which is something Microsoft desperately needs, IMO. Just look at their mobile division -- WM6.x, WP7, and the Kin were projects that should have drawn from Microsoft's strengths and just went totally disparate directions. In the Kin's case, Microsoft spent hundreds of millions of dollars acquiring Danger Inc only to totally squander the Sidekick brand, drive off many of the developers from the acquisition, and then ultimately ditch the entire project shortly after launch. Then you have things like how they're only just now trying to integrate Zune into their handset strategy after they've all but killed that brand, as well. Microsoft has just struck me as an incredibly schizophrenic company for some time now. They tend to develop multiple overlapping technologies that really ought to be approached as a single platform, but at the same time try to shoehorn their existing technologies into places where they just aren't going to work. Frankly, what Microsoft desperately needs is somebody that can step in, say "this is going to be the Microsoft Way of handling X" and get the company on the war path. Microsoft owns so many genuinely great technologies that it's almost heartbreaking to see the way they perpetually fail to come up with any real, cohesive way of bringing it all together.
sunjain 16y ago
Ballmer should have been gone instead of Ray. I will not be surprised if Bill comes back(aka like what Jobs did when he came back to Apple). Granted Microsoft may not be in as bad a shape as Apple was when Jobs came back and Gates is no Jobs, but I am sure with Ballmer incharge for few more years, it might get that bad.
- seldo 16y ago
  Very unlikely, I think. Jobs was forced out and felt he had a lot to prove. Gates left voluntarily as the richest man in the world. There's very little chance of him coming back.
  - cubicle67 16y ago
    Yes, Gates has nothing to gain by returning, but an awful lot to lose
    - slantyyz 16y ago
      With all the philanthropy he's involved in, I would say the developing world would have a lot to lose also.
      - larrywright 16y ago
        I have little respect for the company he created, but a lot of respect for what he's doing with his money.
        commandar 16y ago
        A friend of mine recently opined that "I never imagined I'd live in a world where Bill Gates is practically a walking saint and Steve Jobs has become The Man."
        brudgers 16y ago
        Microsoft Unlimited Potential program http://www.microsoft.com/About/corporatecitizenship/en-us/about/unlimited-potential/ http://www.microsoft.com/About/corporatecitizenship/en-us/ab... Microsoft offers volume discounts for charities and Education. http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-industries.aspx#tab=4 http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-ind... http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-industries.aspx#tab=2 http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-ind...
city41 16y ago
Perhaps I'm just naive/ignorant, but I can't tell if this is a positive progression for Ozzie? Ballmer mentions Ozzie's retirement, is Ozzie just transitioning out of the workforce? Or did MS decide Ozzie's leadership is no longer positive for the company? The article does say "His leadership not particularly well-respected among employees in the trenches"
- contextfree 16y ago
  My impression is that there's never been a particularly good relationship between the product groups at Microsoft and the more long-term focused researchy groups (not necessarily limited to MS Research proper?). A lot of "employees in the trenches" of the product groups seem to perceive the researchy guys as useless, impractical, a waste of money, etc. Ozzie's concrete responsibility at MSFT, so far as I can tell, was running a bunch of medium-term focused groups to try and bridge that divide. They seem to have been generally regarded as unsuccessful in that respect so it's not too surprising that he would eventually quit/be pushed out/whatever.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  > I can't tell if this is a positive progression for Ozzie leaving a sinking boat for one that floats is usually regarded as a good move...
protomyth 16y ago
There is an old Gillmor Gang podcast that has an interesting conversation as to what the panel thinks Ray Ozzie would bring to Microsoft. It looks like it all turned to ashes though.
uptown 16y ago
"the CSA role was unique and I won’t refill the role after Ray’s departure." Seems like a position that would still prove useful in a company with so many interconnected moving parts.
aseem 16y ago
As Microsoft CSA, Ozzie had to live up to the legacy of Gates while steering the direction of hundreds of product groups. This is certainly no simple task. Ultimately, he was doomed to fail. His job was to advocate the right technologies at the right time. Yet MS rarely makes the right choices in this area. Technology decisions are made by political GMs who want to hold on to their empires. They are made by VPs who don't want to sacrifice short term profits for a longer term vision. Steve Jobs made an excellent point at the D conference this year about how Apple tries to pick technologies that are in their "Spring". These are technologies that are on their way up. Certainly Steve has the luxury of not worrying as much about backwards compatibility, etc. But he certainly has the courage of his convictions to pick a path that's best for his company and customers. I don't think Ray had that kind of fortitude, and unfortunately, I don't think he had that kind of power. Ultimately, the CEO needs to push the technological vision of Microsoft. Leaving it to mid-level managers will only result in further mediocrity.
- jimbokun 16y ago
  "His job was to advocate the right technologies at the right time. Yet MS rarely makes the right choices in this area. Technology decisions are made by political GMs who want to hold on to their empires." So he had much responsibility and little authority, always a combination that guarantees failure.
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    Agreed, I never really saw him as much more than a figurehead. In many ways, Microsoft is such an immovable beast, you can't expect many people outside of a Bill Gates to have the gravitas to make things happen.
  - allwein 16y ago
    >always a combination that guarantees failure. Well, not always. I'm actually reading a book on the subject right now called "Results Without Authority" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814473431?ie=UTF8&tag=keysofgeni-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814473431?ie=UTF8&tag=...
- 16y ago
Uhhrrr 16y ago
Is it relevant to mention that Ozzie was/is one of joelonsoftware's canonical examples of "Architecture Astronauts" (that is, someone whose idea of minimum viable product is every app sharing everything)? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html
- lukestevens 16y ago
  Yes, particularly this post: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html But Windows Live Mesh is not just a way to synchronize files. That's just the sample app. It's a whole goddamned architecture, with an API and developer tools and in insane diagram showing all the nifty layers of acronyms, and it seems like the chief astronauts at Microsoft literally expect this to be their gigantic platform in the sky which will take over when Windows becomes irrelevant on the desktop. And synchronizing files is supposed to be, like, the equivalent of Microsoft Write on Windows 1.0. It's Groove, rewritten from scratch, one more time. Ray Ozzie just can't stop rewriting this damn app, again and again and again, and taking 5-7 years each time. And the fact that customers never asked for this feature and none of the earlier versions really took off as huge platforms doesn't stop him.
mjfern 16y ago
Given Ray Ozzie was the mastermind behind Windows Azure (launched in 2010), Microsoft's cloud computing offering that competes with Amazon's Web Services and Google's App Engine (and Google Docs), this can't be a good sign. In fact, this is a further indication of Microsoft's struggles in each key market that represents the future of computing: cloud computing, thin devices, and online media. First consider cloud computing, with Windows Azure. I found it difficult to find any concrete data on how Azure is performing in the market, but I suspect it’s not performing well. Put simply, it’s hard to imagine that Microsoft is aggressively developing or marketing Azure, since cloud computing offerings directly threaten Microsoft’s revenues and profitability in the PC market, especially its Windows and Office products. Next, consider Microsoft’s performance in thin devices, especially smartphones, video game consoles, and portable media players. With a current global market share of just 4.7% (Gartner, 2010), Microsoft is behind every other major mobile OS developer, including Symbian, Android, iOS, and Blackberry. In video game consoles, the Xbox 360 is trailing far behind the Nintendo Wii in market share, despite the fact that the Wii is using older generation technology (VGChartz, 2010). The Zune portable media player has a paltry 2% market share, compared to the iPod’s 70% (NPD, 2010). And Microsoft hasn’t revealed a clear strategy to compete in important and emerging thin device categories, such as tablets and connected televisions. Moving on to online media, consider Microsoft’s performance in search or in online music or video. According to comScore (2010) Google has a 66.1% share of the search market, compared to 11.2% for Microsoft. And while Google generated $23.65 billion in revenues and $6.5 billion in income from search related advertising in 2009, Bing generated just $2.2 billion, with a $2.35 billion operating loss in its most recent fiscal year. Meanwhile, Microsoft is well behind Google and Apple in the online music and video markets (e.g., Microsoft’s Zune marketplace versus Apple’s iTunes or Google’s YouTube versus Bing video). In closing, Microsoft’s financial performance since its initial public offering in 1986 has been nothing short of phenomenal. But if Microsoft wants to remain a leader in the future of computing, it must quickly and aggressively shift its focus and investments away from desktops and packaged applications to a combination of cloud computing, thin devices, and cloud computing. Given a bulk of Microsoft’s financial performance ($4.5 billion in quarterly profits!) and its core capabilities rest with Windows and Office, I am pessimistic that it has the interest or ability to make this fundamental transition. I just posted this to my blog and submitted the post to HN. If you enjoyed the read, I'd appreciate an upvote (the article title is "Is Microsoft in trouble?"). Thanks!
maguay 16y ago
Does anyone else find it to be odd timing for this move? Ozzie just started blogging again on the 14th (http://ozzie.net/2010/10/14/hello/ http://ozzie.net/2010/10/14/hello/), and here 4 days later it's announced that he's leaving Microsoft. Maybe that's why he was trying to build his own unique audience again...
- xtho 16y ago
  He blogged about cleaning up his (home) office.
brisance 16y ago
The timing of this release couldn't have been any worse; Apple reports yet another record-breaking quarter on the exact same day this gets airtime. Ballmer must be trying really hard to destroy MSFT shareholder value.
mattiask 16y ago
The problem with Microsoft and leadership is the same as in every big company. To truly do something different and innovative you need a benevolent dictator that can put down their feet and say "I don't care what you think, we're doing this and it's going to be great". You need both the political power within the company to get things done and have the visionary skills to know what needs to be done. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both obviously has/had this to some degree and could coax, bully and motivate people to see their way. Radical change needs radical leaders. Ray Ozzie is a great technical visionary but he probably wasn't enough of a dictator to accomplish the radical changes Microsoft needs to stay lean and current. If you could put Ray's technical acumen into Steve's bullying body you would have the perfect CEO :)
darrenkopp 16y ago
Could anyone tell me what exactly Ray Ozzie has done since bill gates left? I honestly can't think of anything, but I don't think that is true. I just think he's been a bit more low key. Everything MS is coming out with has Ballmer's face on it.
- contextfree 16y ago
  My understanding is that the projects he was most directly associated with have been Windows Azure, Live Mesh, and (some of?) the various "Labs" groups - Live Labs, FUSE Labs - which have released a variety of smaller projects.

133 points by Flemlord 16y ago

Ray Ozzie is the CEO Microsoft should have had instead of Ballmer. He actually understands tech, and is a visionary. Ballmer could just as easily have sold used cars, and doesn't have the deep knowledge and vision of software that's essential to running a company like Microsoft. This is a bad day for MS.

bradleyland 16y ago
I remember watching the Ballmer/Ozzie interview at this year's All Things D conference, and wondering how the two of them even work at the same company. The contrast between the way they talked about Microsoft's products, and technology in general, was a really startling juxtaposition.
InclinedPlane 16y ago
Ray Ozzie is not CEO material, imo, personality wise, that's why he didn't take the position (I'm sure he could have had it). Ballmer is CEO material certainly, but not good CEO material. MS is in a bad place currently top-level management-wise.
- nickelplate 16y ago
  I think Ballmer is not CEO material for a tech company. However he may be good COO material.
  - bbatsell 16y ago
    Has Ballmer demonstrated a particular adeptness with numbers or the nuts and bolts of operating a massive corporation? We know he's not a product visionary, but from my seat he's really a mid-level salesman who is the epitome of the Peter Principle.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- hop 16y ago
  In the same sense, would you say Bill G was prototypical CEO material? No, but look what he built. Ozzie is awkward too, but he founded and sold two software companies for a fortune. Zuckerberg is introverted and awkward too, but look what he has built. The notion that a CEO, especially in tech, should be a business degree toting, people-person, non-technical CEO like Ballmer is wrong.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    I don't care about prototypes, I'm just talking about results. Bill Gates was an atypical CEO, but he had a combination of business, technical, and personal acumen that worked effectively together. Neither Ozzie nor, so far as history has judged, Ballmer have anywhere near that same level of capability. At best they appear to do no better than J. Average non-tech savvy CEOs. In a world filled with folks like Larry Ellison, Eric Schmidt, and Steve Jobs that level of skill is a recipe for getting your ass handed to you in the market.
- credo 16y ago
  Over the past decade, Microsoft's problem (imo as a former employee) is that they tried to do too many things and grew too fast at a time when they were not able to attract the best employees. This creates a situation for the (hiring) quality bar to go down and for politicians to thrive.
  - InclinedPlane 16y ago
    I think most of MS's biggest problems are symptoms of its size. MS has had empire-itis from the beginning. From their original mission statement, through their huge acquisitions, through their refusal to spin off substantial portions of their company, their approach to competition, etc, etc. If they had been organized differently or if they had been split up into different corporations as a group they'd probably be better off today. Not least because each group would have the freedom to make the choices they need to (free of the MS overarching strategy straight-jacket) and they'd have the motivation to build truly great and disruptive things, rather than the relying on the usual strategy of getting it sorta-kinda right on the nth try through sheer brute force (read: massive investment from Windows/Office profits of the past). P.S. Also a former MS employee, for what it's worth.
sandGorgon 16y ago
Did you guys ever read the "architecture astronauts" article that Joel Spolsky wrote ? It's pretty much about Ozzie and it aint flattering. http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html

hello_moto 16y ago

Maybe it's time for Sinofsky to take his shot being the CSA of MS?

checoivan 16y ago
That'll be cool, but the mail says: "The CSA role was unique and I won’t refill the role after Ray’s departure".
- keithwarren 16y ago
  That assumes Ballmer will be around long enough to enforce said policy.
- InclinedPlane 16y ago
  This makes sense, the CSA role was, in theory, a major check on Ballmer's power. Though in practice Ozzie didn't execute in the role very well.

karzeem 16y ago

I know it's fashionable to beat up on Ballmer's buzzword-filled, meaning-deficient prose, but man, the guy sure doesn't make it hard for people.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

keithwarren 16y ago

As a shareholder I hereby nominate both Steve Sinofsky and Scott Guthrie to the role of Chief Software Architect. Either would make me happy.

kenjackson 16y ago
Scott Guthrie would be great for the role. He's one of the few people I've met that is actually an exceptionally good developer, understands vision, and has strong leadership skills. I have heard the knock that he is a bit "empire" focused. But moving him to CSA would force him to view the company as his empire rather than an org.
- portman 16y ago
  he is a bit "empire" focused What does that mean? I've only ever heard stories about his legendary niceness, and that makes him sound political and, um, not-nice.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    I should be clear, I've also heard he is very nice and the guy that you want to work for. But I've also heard that he's not afraid of replicating another groups work if he doesn't like how its done. Of course this is all second and third hand, and maybe "empire" was the wrong term. But my point was that with all of MS under him, he would push to consolidate redundant projects, rather than taking them head-on.
    - commandar 16y ago
      >But my point was that with all of MS under him, he would push to consolidate redundant projects, rather than taking them head-on. Which is something Microsoft desperately needs, IMO. Just look at their mobile division -- WM6.x, WP7, and the Kin were projects that should have drawn from Microsoft's strengths and just went totally disparate directions. In the Kin's case, Microsoft spent hundreds of millions of dollars acquiring Danger Inc only to totally squander the Sidekick brand, drive off many of the developers from the acquisition, and then ultimately ditch the entire project shortly after launch. Then you have things like how they're only just now trying to integrate Zune into their handset strategy after they've all but killed that brand, as well. Microsoft has just struck me as an incredibly schizophrenic company for some time now. They tend to develop multiple overlapping technologies that really ought to be approached as a single platform, but at the same time try to shoehorn their existing technologies into places where they just aren't going to work. Frankly, what Microsoft desperately needs is somebody that can step in, say "this is going to be the Microsoft Way of handling X" and get the company on the war path. Microsoft owns so many genuinely great technologies that it's almost heartbreaking to see the way they perpetually fail to come up with any real, cohesive way of bringing it all together.

sunjain 16y ago

Ballmer should have been gone instead of Ray. I will not be surprised if Bill comes back(aka like what Jobs did when he came back to Apple). Granted Microsoft may not be in as bad a shape as Apple was when Jobs came back and Gates is no Jobs, but I am sure with Ballmer incharge for few more years, it might get that bad.

seldo 16y ago
Very unlikely, I think. Jobs was forced out and felt he had a lot to prove. Gates left voluntarily as the richest man in the world. There's very little chance of him coming back.
- cubicle67 16y ago
  Yes, Gates has nothing to gain by returning, but an awful lot to lose
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    With all the philanthropy he's involved in, I would say the developing world would have a lot to lose also.
    - larrywright 16y ago
      I have little respect for the company he created, but a lot of respect for what he's doing with his money.
      - commandar 16y ago
        A friend of mine recently opined that "I never imagined I'd live in a world where Bill Gates is practically a walking saint and Steve Jobs has become The Man."
      - brudgers 16y ago
        Microsoft Unlimited Potential program http://www.microsoft.com/About/corporatecitizenship/en-us/about/unlimited-potential/ http://www.microsoft.com/About/corporatecitizenship/en-us/ab... Microsoft offers volume discounts for charities and Education. http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-industries.aspx#tab=4 http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-ind... http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-industries.aspx#tab=2 http://www.microsoft.com/licensing/licensing-options/for-ind...

city41 16y ago

Perhaps I'm just naive/ignorant, but I can't tell if this is a positive progression for Ozzie? Ballmer mentions Ozzie's retirement, is Ozzie just transitioning out of the workforce? Or did MS decide Ozzie's leadership is no longer positive for the company? The article does say "His leadership not particularly well-respected among employees in the trenches"

contextfree 16y ago
My impression is that there's never been a particularly good relationship between the product groups at Microsoft and the more long-term focused researchy groups (not necessarily limited to MS Research proper?). A lot of "employees in the trenches" of the product groups seem to perceive the researchy guys as useless, impractical, a waste of money, etc. Ozzie's concrete responsibility at MSFT, so far as I can tell, was running a bunch of medium-term focused groups to try and bridge that divide. They seem to have been generally regarded as unsuccessful in that respect so it's not too surprising that he would eventually quit/be pushed out/whatever.
rbanffy 16y ago
> I can't tell if this is a positive progression for Ozzie leaving a sinking boat for one that floats is usually regarded as a good move...

protomyth 16y ago

There is an old Gillmor Gang podcast that has an interesting conversation as to what the panel thinks Ray Ozzie would bring to Microsoft. It looks like it all turned to ashes though.

uptown 16y ago

"the CSA role was unique and I won’t refill the role after Ray’s departure." Seems like a position that would still prove useful in a company with so many interconnected moving parts.

aseem 16y ago

As Microsoft CSA, Ozzie had to live up to the legacy of Gates while steering the direction of hundreds of product groups. This is certainly no simple task. Ultimately, he was doomed to fail. His job was to advocate the right technologies at the right time. Yet MS rarely makes the right choices in this area. Technology decisions are made by political GMs who want to hold on to their empires. They are made by VPs who don't want to sacrifice short term profits for a longer term vision. Steve Jobs made an excellent point at the D conference this year about how Apple tries to pick technologies that are in their "Spring". These are technologies that are on their way up. Certainly Steve has the luxury of not worrying as much about backwards compatibility, etc. But he certainly has the courage of his convictions to pick a path that's best for his company and customers. I don't think Ray had that kind of fortitude, and unfortunately, I don't think he had that kind of power. Ultimately, the CEO needs to push the technological vision of Microsoft. Leaving it to mid-level managers will only result in further mediocrity.

jimbokun 16y ago
"His job was to advocate the right technologies at the right time. Yet MS rarely makes the right choices in this area. Technology decisions are made by political GMs who want to hold on to their empires." So he had much responsibility and little authority, always a combination that guarantees failure.
- slantyyz 16y ago
  Agreed, I never really saw him as much more than a figurehead. In many ways, Microsoft is such an immovable beast, you can't expect many people outside of a Bill Gates to have the gravitas to make things happen.
- allwein 16y ago
  >always a combination that guarantees failure. Well, not always. I'm actually reading a book on the subject right now called "Results Without Authority" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814473431?ie=UTF8&tag=keysofgeni-20 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0814473431?ie=UTF8&tag=...
16y ago

Uhhrrr 16y ago

Is it relevant to mention that Ozzie was/is one of joelonsoftware's canonical examples of "Architecture Astronauts" (that is, someone whose idea of minimum viable product is every app sharing everything)? http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000018.html

lukestevens 16y ago
Yes, particularly this post: http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/05/01.html But Windows Live Mesh is not just a way to synchronize files. That's just the sample app. It's a whole goddamned architecture, with an API and developer tools and in insane diagram showing all the nifty layers of acronyms, and it seems like the chief astronauts at Microsoft literally expect this to be their gigantic platform in the sky which will take over when Windows becomes irrelevant on the desktop. And synchronizing files is supposed to be, like, the equivalent of Microsoft Write on Windows 1.0. It's Groove, rewritten from scratch, one more time. Ray Ozzie just can't stop rewriting this damn app, again and again and again, and taking 5-7 years each time. And the fact that customers never asked for this feature and none of the earlier versions really took off as huge platforms doesn't stop him.

mjfern 16y ago

Given Ray Ozzie was the mastermind behind Windows Azure (launched in 2010), Microsoft's cloud computing offering that competes with Amazon's Web Services and Google's App Engine (and Google Docs), this can't be a good sign. In fact, this is a further indication of Microsoft's struggles in each key market that represents the future of computing: cloud computing, thin devices, and online media. First consider cloud computing, with Windows Azure. I found it difficult to find any concrete data on how Azure is performing in the market, but I suspect it’s not performing well. Put simply, it’s hard to imagine that Microsoft is aggressively developing or marketing Azure, since cloud computing offerings directly threaten Microsoft’s revenues and profitability in the PC market, especially its Windows and Office products. Next, consider Microsoft’s performance in thin devices, especially smartphones, video game consoles, and portable media players. With a current global market share of just 4.7% (Gartner, 2010), Microsoft is behind every other major mobile OS developer, including Symbian, Android, iOS, and Blackberry. In video game consoles, the Xbox 360 is trailing far behind the Nintendo Wii in market share, despite the fact that the Wii is using older generation technology (VGChartz, 2010). The Zune portable media player has a paltry 2% market share, compared to the iPod’s 70% (NPD, 2010). And Microsoft hasn’t revealed a clear strategy to compete in important and emerging thin device categories, such as tablets and connected televisions. Moving on to online media, consider Microsoft’s performance in search or in online music or video. According to comScore (2010) Google has a 66.1% share of the search market, compared to 11.2% for Microsoft. And while Google generated $23.65 billion in revenues and $6.5 billion in income from search related advertising in 2009, Bing generated just $2.2 billion, with a $2.35 billion operating loss in its most recent fiscal year. Meanwhile, Microsoft is well behind Google and Apple in the online music and video markets (e.g., Microsoft’s Zune marketplace versus Apple’s iTunes or Google’s YouTube versus Bing video). In closing, Microsoft’s financial performance since its initial public offering in 1986 has been nothing short of phenomenal. But if Microsoft wants to remain a leader in the future of computing, it must quickly and aggressively shift its focus and investments away from desktops and packaged applications to a combination of cloud computing, thin devices, and cloud computing. Given a bulk of Microsoft’s financial performance ($4.5 billion in quarterly profits!) and its core capabilities rest with Windows and Office, I am pessimistic that it has the interest or ability to make this fundamental transition. I just posted this to my blog and submitted the post to HN. If you enjoyed the read, I'd appreciate an upvote (the article title is "Is Microsoft in trouble?"). Thanks!

maguay 16y ago

Does anyone else find it to be odd timing for this move? Ozzie just started blogging again on the 14th (http://ozzie.net/2010/10/14/hello/ http://ozzie.net/2010/10/14/hello/), and here 4 days later it's announced that he's leaving Microsoft. Maybe that's why he was trying to build his own unique audience again...

xtho 16y ago
He blogged about cleaning up his (home) office.

brisance 16y ago

The timing of this release couldn't have been any worse; Apple reports yet another record-breaking quarter on the exact same day this gets airtime. Ballmer must be trying really hard to destroy MSFT shareholder value.

mattiask 16y ago

The problem with Microsoft and leadership is the same as in every big company. To truly do something different and innovative you need a benevolent dictator that can put down their feet and say "I don't care what you think, we're doing this and it's going to be great". You need both the political power within the company to get things done and have the visionary skills to know what needs to be done. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates both obviously has/had this to some degree and could coax, bully and motivate people to see their way. Radical change needs radical leaders. Ray Ozzie is a great technical visionary but he probably wasn't enough of a dictator to accomplish the radical changes Microsoft needs to stay lean and current. If you could put Ray's technical acumen into Steve's bullying body you would have the perfect CEO :)

darrenkopp 16y ago

Could anyone tell me what exactly Ray Ozzie has done since bill gates left? I honestly can't think of anything, but I don't think that is true. I just think he's been a bit more low key. Everything MS is coming out with has Ballmer's face on it.

contextfree 16y ago
My understanding is that the projects he was most directly associated with have been Windows Azure, Live Mesh, and (some of?) the various "Labs" groups - Live Labs, FUSE Labs - which have released a variety of smaller projects.