5 ms·

They started changing for the better as soon as they got rid of Ballmer in my opinion. He was toxic for the company and for the industry as a whole. It's taken

They started changing for the better as soon as they got rid of Ballmer in my opinion. He was toxic for the company and for the industry as a whole. It's taken a few years, but I don't think there's much of the "old" MS left anymore in terms of business practices and ethics.

Isamu 8y ago
Not just getting rid of Ballmer, but promoting Nadella to the job. That pick was the turning point.
- DonHopkins 8y ago
  Interesting... I don't know much about him. Wikipedia mentions briefly that he worked at Sun. What did he do there, for how long, with whom, and how did that influence his time at Microsoft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella
  - Isamu 8y ago
    I haven't read it but apparently he published an autobiographical book last year: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30835567-hit-refresh https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30835567-hit-refresh https://medium.com/@xaviergeerinck/my-key-take-aways-from-reading-satya-nadellas-book-hit-refresh-6c2f07893d5c https://medium.com/@xaviergeerinck/my-key-take-aways-from-re...
    - fernandotakai 8y ago
      i would also recommend his interview with freakonomics podcast http://freakonomics.com/podcast/satya-nadella/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/satya-nadella/
    - DonHopkins 8y ago
      That's a great article by Xavier Geerinck. The part about leaders generating energy is interesting. I wonder what he thought about Scott McNealy's attempts at generating energy by trying to make Microsoft out to be the great enemy of humanity that Sun was going to vanquish, which I though fell flat because you should never let yourself be defined simply in terms of opposition to someone else. When Sun Microsystems fell apart into several different companies, he even named one of them "SunSoft" in opposition to "Microsoft". You've got to have something of your own to be energetic about, without needing an enemy to fight against. For so many years, Java was first and foremost simply a weapon in Sun's arsenal for their much bigger purpose, the raging war against Microsoft. They actually weaponized a programming language, and that was a higher priority than any other consideration. They wasted all that energy they generated around Java in a war overseas, instead of building infrastructure at home.
mistersquid 8y ago
That's a great observation and reminder, thank you. I agree Ballmer's strategic actions were problematic for the larger technological ecosystem and only benefited Microsoft in shortsighted ways though they did establish Microsoft as the most important technology company in the world for nearly 10 years (1995 - 2005). It's been 4 years since Ballmer left Microsoft and it's taken some time for new management to effect change. Microsoft is a much more interesting, cooperative, and innovative company as a result. EDIT: Change "Ballmer" to "Ballmer's" and number agreement.
munchbunny 8y ago
(Disclaimer: MS employee) Yes and no. Credit to Satya Nadella, the culture really is changing towards openness and collaboration. However, Microsoft has a lot of "lifers," and you don't just roll back two decades of the old Microsoft in a couple years. At the high level/PR level, I think the business practices and ethics are improving, but it'll take many years and possibly a good number of retirements (because the industry is actually old enough for that now) for the mindset change to propagate throughout management.

Isamu 8y ago

Not just getting rid of Ballmer, but promoting Nadella to the job. That pick was the turning point.

DonHopkins 8y ago
Interesting... I don't know much about him. Wikipedia mentions briefly that he worked at Sun. What did he do there, for how long, with whom, and how did that influence his time at Microsoft? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella
- Isamu 8y ago
  I haven't read it but apparently he published an autobiographical book last year: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30835567-hit-refresh https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/30835567-hit-refresh https://medium.com/@xaviergeerinck/my-key-take-aways-from-reading-satya-nadellas-book-hit-refresh-6c2f07893d5c https://medium.com/@xaviergeerinck/my-key-take-aways-from-re...
  - fernandotakai 8y ago
    i would also recommend his interview with freakonomics podcast http://freakonomics.com/podcast/satya-nadella/ http://freakonomics.com/podcast/satya-nadella/
  - DonHopkins 8y ago
    That's a great article by Xavier Geerinck. The part about leaders generating energy is interesting. I wonder what he thought about Scott McNealy's attempts at generating energy by trying to make Microsoft out to be the great enemy of humanity that Sun was going to vanquish, which I though fell flat because you should never let yourself be defined simply in terms of opposition to someone else. When Sun Microsystems fell apart into several different companies, he even named one of them "SunSoft" in opposition to "Microsoft". You've got to have something of your own to be energetic about, without needing an enemy to fight against. For so many years, Java was first and foremost simply a weapon in Sun's arsenal for their much bigger purpose, the raging war against Microsoft. They actually weaponized a programming language, and that was a higher priority than any other consideration. They wasted all that energy they generated around Java in a war overseas, instead of building infrastructure at home.

mistersquid 8y ago

That's a great observation and reminder, thank you. I agree Ballmer's strategic actions were problematic for the larger technological ecosystem and only benefited Microsoft in shortsighted ways though they did establish Microsoft as the most important technology company in the world for nearly 10 years (1995 - 2005). It's been 4 years since Ballmer left Microsoft and it's taken some time for new management to effect change. Microsoft is a much more interesting, cooperative, and innovative company as a result. EDIT: Change "Ballmer" to "Ballmer's" and number agreement.

munchbunny 8y ago

(Disclaimer: MS employee) Yes and no. Credit to Satya Nadella, the culture really is changing towards openness and collaboration. However, Microsoft has a lot of "lifers," and you don't just roll back two decades of the old Microsoft in a couple years. At the high level/PR level, I think the business practices and ethics are improving, but it'll take many years and possibly a good number of retirements (because the industry is actually old enough for that now) for the mindset change to propagate throughout management.