Sure, but this covers a lot of territory. Executing well on a new paradigm for a 30 year old suite, maintaining compatibility, etc. These are really hard, and

Sure, but this covers a lot of territory. Executing well on a new paradigm for a 30 year old suite, maintaining compatibility, etc. These are really hard, and MSFT's speciality. Office became office originally for maintaining meticulous compatibility with its predecessor, Lotus. It's incredibly tedious, frustrating work. Takes a ton of perseverance. Google docs came out of the gate to oohs and ahs. It was slick. Cool, innovative features like real-time collaboration worked well. MSFT's start was much clunkier, and expectations were already high. It took years before it wasn't an embarrassment. Even then, office 365 was never cool, not even now. These two companies are at opposite ends of the spectrum. Google likes paradigms, impressive launches. Then, they expect that the paradigm, being better, will just win. Everyone will adapt to their new way. They don't have the belly for years of kludgy, schleppy work while everyone makes fun of them. Google cloud was a great example of this. It was early. It solved the problems that needed solving, in theory... especially the sexy ones. Everyone just needed to abandon everything they had been doing and come over to the New Way. This is the exact opposite mentality to the one that maintains badly thought out feature of excel from 1996, itself design to clumsily support Lotus notes features from 1985. A million boring details, technical debt and nothing sexy. Where there's muck there's brass.