7 ms·

Microsoft CTO on the future of software engineering [audio]

97 points by chmaynard 8y ago

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
eismcc 8y ago
Keep in mind, Kevin Scott has made most of his career around ads: AdMob, Google, LinkedIn and now Microsoft.
- williamaadams 8y ago
  Ive worked for Kevin during his tenure at MS. Ads have not been the focus, so I'm not sure the innuendo means much.
  - eismcc 8y ago
    It’s just the facts. I worked with him at LinkedIn, so I know his history.
- Voloskaya 8y ago
  If you think Microsoft's business is mostly centered around ads, you missed a thing or two.
  - eismcc 8y ago
    Aware of that. Spent 7 years there. It’s just additional context of the speaker.
renholder 8y ago
>But online ads and the technology that makes them work have played a considerable part in the development of almost every aspect of what we’ve come to enjoy as the free and open internet of today. Online ads and free and open internet are not synonymous and I really wish that people would stop trying to equate them as such. The pervasive advertising systems that are running today (e.g.: Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc.) aren't running to make the internet free and open but to squeeze out more profit margins for their respective shareholders and nothing more. Were online ads the cause of the move from dial-up to "high-speed" internet? I'd argue it was actually pictures, graphics, movies, etc. and the desire to be able to consume those at a reasonable rate that caused the move from dial-up to "high-speed" internet. How did advertising play a role in the development of that portion of the free and open internet? (Genuinely asking, in case I'm missing something here.)
- richardwhiuk 8y ago
  In what world was either dial-up, or high-speed internet free? You have to pay for a connection. If you don't want to pay for the content, it needs to be funded in some manner - donations or ads - we haven't found any other business models.
  - Valmar 8y ago
    Online ads are a very invasive business model that only penalizes the end-user, and rarely benefits them. Especially when ads are often nasty vectors for malware.
    - manigandham 8y ago
      Rarely benefits them? What about 95% of the content on the internet that ads pay for? Malware isn't advertising and security is an issue in any industry and sector.
      - renholder 8y ago
        >What about 95% of the content on the internet that ads pay for? This is such a pedestrian argument, as if advertising pays for the content to be made and then hosted - when the truth of the matter is that someone else pays for the content to be created (and hosted) and that cost is recouped (with additional profit added on top), after the fact by advertising. For example, advertising companies are not paying for YouTube content creators to create their content and then for it to be hosted on YouTube. Advertising companies seek those with the largest audience (typically, that requires having made content a priori, yeah?) and then make partnerships with those people and, then, those people may make videos pushing those products. WSJ, since this is predominantly an American board, doesn't have advertisers paying their reporters', photographers', editors', etc. salaries. Advertisers are not paying for the content to be created or to be hosted. All of that is done by WSJ, who then recoups the costs via advertising, yeah? So, the only point at which "95% of the content on the internet that ads pay for" is true, is (predominantly) after the content has been made and hosted and is only true over time (e.g.: not with immediate effect). >Malware isn't advertising You have that backwards from the OC's comment: Advertising networks have been used to push malware. >...and security is an issue in any industry and sector. This comes across as a whataboutism, "So? Other industries have security problems, too!" and, whilst true, largely ignores the fact that those other industries (mostly at large) weren't leveraged as attack vectors to spread malware. (I'm assuming your meaning of "industry" infers the meaning of "commercial industry", that generates revenue in exchange for a product or service, which would ignore the obvious things like P2P and the like.)
revskill 8y ago
Ads is fine. Nothing bad with it. All TV programs show ads everyday. It's the policy that matters. If all website enforces a policy that requires user permission to show it, then it's good to go.
- type0 8y ago
  > Ads is fine. Nothing bad with it. All TV programs show ads everyday. The difference is that TV is one way stream, sadly for the web more and more it's becoming the same brain-dead medium these days. > If all website enforces a policy that requires user permission to show it, you mean browsers right, but why would they do it, both google and microsft are advertising companies.
  - sokoloff 8y ago
    “TV” is evolving to be less and less one-way with the advent of DVRs and streaming services that can, at least technically, track user engagement with ads and even offer customized ads.
- mattsouth 8y ago
  Well not all TV programs. The BBC in the uk is one exception to this rule.
  - cm2187 8y ago
    ...paid by taxes.
pts_ 8y ago
Transcript please? Or is the future of SWE voice operated (God forbid)?
iblaine 8y ago
Sanjay said one of the reasons he hired Kevin is because he wanted another hard core engineer in upper management at Microsoft. MSFT has historically allowed business decisions to trump technical decisions and Keven adds balance. /former LinkedIn employee
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

97 points by chmaynard 8y ago

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

eismcc 8y ago

Keep in mind, Kevin Scott has made most of his career around ads: AdMob, Google, LinkedIn and now Microsoft.

williamaadams 8y ago
Ive worked for Kevin during his tenure at MS. Ads have not been the focus, so I'm not sure the innuendo means much.
- eismcc 8y ago
  It’s just the facts. I worked with him at LinkedIn, so I know his history.
Voloskaya 8y ago
If you think Microsoft's business is mostly centered around ads, you missed a thing or two.
- eismcc 8y ago
  Aware of that. Spent 7 years there. It’s just additional context of the speaker.

renholder 8y ago

>But online ads and the technology that makes them work have played a considerable part in the development of almost every aspect of what we’ve come to enjoy as the free and open internet of today. Online ads and free and open internet are not synonymous and I really wish that people would stop trying to equate them as such. The pervasive advertising systems that are running today (e.g.: Facebook, Google, LinkedIn, etc.) aren't running to make the internet free and open but to squeeze out more profit margins for their respective shareholders and nothing more. Were online ads the cause of the move from dial-up to "high-speed" internet? I'd argue it was actually pictures, graphics, movies, etc. and the desire to be able to consume those at a reasonable rate that caused the move from dial-up to "high-speed" internet. How did advertising play a role in the development of that portion of the free and open internet? (Genuinely asking, in case I'm missing something here.)

richardwhiuk 8y ago
In what world was either dial-up, or high-speed internet free? You have to pay for a connection. If you don't want to pay for the content, it needs to be funded in some manner - donations or ads - we haven't found any other business models.
- Valmar 8y ago
  Online ads are a very invasive business model that only penalizes the end-user, and rarely benefits them. Especially when ads are often nasty vectors for malware.
  - manigandham 8y ago
    Rarely benefits them? What about 95% of the content on the internet that ads pay for? Malware isn't advertising and security is an issue in any industry and sector.
    - renholder 8y ago
      >What about 95% of the content on the internet that ads pay for? This is such a pedestrian argument, as if advertising pays for the content to be made and then hosted - when the truth of the matter is that someone else pays for the content to be created (and hosted) and that cost is recouped (with additional profit added on top), after the fact by advertising. For example, advertising companies are not paying for YouTube content creators to create their content and then for it to be hosted on YouTube. Advertising companies seek those with the largest audience (typically, that requires having made content a priori, yeah?) and then make partnerships with those people and, then, those people may make videos pushing those products. WSJ, since this is predominantly an American board, doesn't have advertisers paying their reporters', photographers', editors', etc. salaries. Advertisers are not paying for the content to be created or to be hosted. All of that is done by WSJ, who then recoups the costs via advertising, yeah? So, the only point at which "95% of the content on the internet that ads pay for" is true, is (predominantly) after the content has been made and hosted and is only true over time (e.g.: not with immediate effect). >Malware isn't advertising You have that backwards from the OC's comment: Advertising networks have been used to push malware. >...and security is an issue in any industry and sector. This comes across as a whataboutism, "So? Other industries have security problems, too!" and, whilst true, largely ignores the fact that those other industries (mostly at large) weren't leveraged as attack vectors to spread malware. (I'm assuming your meaning of "industry" infers the meaning of "commercial industry", that generates revenue in exchange for a product or service, which would ignore the obvious things like P2P and the like.)

revskill 8y ago

Ads is fine. Nothing bad with it. All TV programs show ads everyday. It's the policy that matters. If all website enforces a policy that requires user permission to show it, then it's good to go.

type0 8y ago
> Ads is fine. Nothing bad with it. All TV programs show ads everyday. The difference is that TV is one way stream, sadly for the web more and more it's becoming the same brain-dead medium these days. > If all website enforces a policy that requires user permission to show it, you mean browsers right, but why would they do it, both google and microsft are advertising companies.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  “TV” is evolving to be less and less one-way with the advent of DVRs and streaming services that can, at least technically, track user engagement with ads and even offer customized ads.
mattsouth 8y ago
Well not all TV programs. The BBC in the uk is one exception to this rule.
- cm2187 8y ago
  ...paid by taxes.

pts_ 8y ago

Transcript please? Or is the future of SWE voice operated (God forbid)?

iblaine 8y ago

Sanjay said one of the reasons he hired Kevin is because he wanted another hard core engineer in upper management at Microsoft. MSFT has historically allowed business decisions to trump technical decisions and Keven adds balance. /former LinkedIn employee

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]