3 ms·

Microsoft's services are so fragmented, any attempt to consolidate them is welcomed. It would be nice if they also worked on a consistent UI throughout all thei

Microsoft's services are so fragmented, any attempt to consolidate them is welcomed. It would be nice if they also worked on a consistent UI throughout all their properties. It feels like they outsource divisions to other companies with no UI specifications included. The only unifying element is the Microsoft name in the URL. http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/default.aspx http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us http://www.microsoft.com/visualstudio/en-us http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ http://www.microsoft.com/bizspark/ And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products because Apple manages to do a good job. http://www.apple.com/ http://www.apple.com/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ http://www.apple.com/iphone/ http://www.apple.com/iwork/ http://www.apple.com/iwork/ https://developer.apple.com/ https://developer.apple.com/

brudgers 15y ago
>"And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products because Apple manages to do a good job." I have a theory about Microsoft's web presence and the diversity of presentation styles and plethora of discontinuous information channels associated with it. My impression is that it is as if Microsoft management is trying to herd cats. And perhaps it is. Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate model than something drawing some features from academia's "share what you have learned from pursuing your interests" model. Google has been somewhere between the two - people have had time to pursue their interests but sharing work product has had more management control (though far less management control than Apple). What I suspect Microsoft is trying to do internally, is to rely on its new design aesthetic to be preferred on its merits rather than implemented by fiat. Not so much because there is a high percentage of employees with fuck you money any longer, but because doing so is consistent with the corporate culture developed at a time when their were. At least that's my theory.
- r00fus 15y ago
  > Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate... That's not the problem - the solution to that has been known for years - stock options/grants and bonuses tied to corporate performance. The problem is that Microsoft continued to grow rich by stagnating. The company got so good at milking it's cash cows, everything else had to be tied to those. Furthermore, there was no vision at the top for over a decade. Ballmer may be many things but visionary is not one that most people would agree with. Vision is what allows you to see the iceberg looming in the distance, or the opening into a golden opportunity if you steer properly.

brudgers 15y ago

>"And you can't say it's because they're a large company with many products because Apple manages to do a good job." I have a theory about Microsoft's web presence and the diversity of presentation styles and plethora of discontinuous information channels associated with it. My impression is that it is as if Microsoft management is trying to herd cats. And perhaps it is. Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate model than something drawing some features from academia's "share what you have learned from pursuing your interests" model. Google has been somewhere between the two - people have had time to pursue their interests but sharing work product has had more management control (though far less management control than Apple). What I suspect Microsoft is trying to do internally, is to rely on its new design aesthetic to be preferred on its merits rather than implemented by fiat. Not so much because there is a high percentage of employees with fuck you money any longer, but because doing so is consistent with the corporate culture developed at a time when their were. At least that's my theory.

r00fus 15y ago
> Unlike Apple, Microsoft made a lot of it's employees rich (probably more than any other company, ever). When your critical talent has fuck you money, a top down "implement the leader's vision" management style is probably less appropriate... That's not the problem - the solution to that has been known for years - stock options/grants and bonuses tied to corporate performance. The problem is that Microsoft continued to grow rich by stagnating. The company got so good at milking it's cash cows, everything else had to be tied to those. Furthermore, there was no vision at the top for over a decade. Ballmer may be many things but visionary is not one that most people would agree with. Vision is what allows you to see the iceberg looming in the distance, or the opening into a golden opportunity if you steer properly.