4 ms·

A week after Microsoft announces their new version of Surface Hub https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/surface-it-pro-blog/surface-hub-3-bridging-workforce-c

by cush 3y ago

A week after Microsoft announces their new version of Surface Hub https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/surface-it-pro-blog/surface-hub-3-bridging-workforce-collaboration-with-microsoft/ba-p/1669718 https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/surface-it-pro-blog/s...

crazygringo 3y ago
That's so strange. I wonder what makes this product category seem like a good investment for Microsoft but not for Google? Since it occupies the same functional role in the office suite. Not to mention Google had the additional market of schools where it integrated seamlessly with Chromebooks. It's very hard to understand why they'd be going in such different directions.
- jeroenhd 3y ago
  Microsoft tends to go longer term than Google. Even with smartphones they have multi-year support cycles laid out before devices hit the stores. Google hardware is developed and sold like as if it was software. If an idea doesn't work, shut it down and migrate to something that may do the trick. I suspect the fast turnover rate of Google employees to have something to do with it as well; after five years, most people working on a product will have left the company.
- hotnfresh 3y ago
  Outside looking in, Google seems nearly entirely unable to get people to work on things that aren’t new and shiny. Maintenance and polish get little or no attention, and half-assed when they give them any attention at all. Even Android suffers from this, though it’s big enough it trundles on regardless—the parts that get attention are things that can be treated as launches (UI overhauls and such—which usually are only half-baked as far as the developer-facing side, and don’t see much improvement after launch) Microsoft has the organizational ability to get their workers to give a shit about maintenance and polish, and take it seriously. They have plenty of trouble of their own (I am far from a MS fan) but they don’t suffer that particular pathology—they’re not consistently perfect at it, certainly, but they’re also not consistently totally unable to do it, as Google seem to be. [edit] to head off nitpicks, google does show an ability to focus on one big area, of course: ads/search. Though, ask anyone who uses their ad platform and I expect you’ll get a pile of complaints about shit that absolutely should not be as broken as it is. The parts that get ongoing attention are service reliability and anything that makes the revenue line measurable go up-and-right the instant it’s enabled.

by cush 3y ago

crazygringo 3y ago

That's so strange. I wonder what makes this product category seem like a good investment for Microsoft but not for Google? Since it occupies the same functional role in the office suite. Not to mention Google had the additional market of schools where it integrated seamlessly with Chromebooks. It's very hard to understand why they'd be going in such different directions.

jeroenhd 3y ago
Microsoft tends to go longer term than Google. Even with smartphones they have multi-year support cycles laid out before devices hit the stores. Google hardware is developed and sold like as if it was software. If an idea doesn't work, shut it down and migrate to something that may do the trick. I suspect the fast turnover rate of Google employees to have something to do with it as well; after five years, most people working on a product will have left the company.
hotnfresh 3y ago
Outside looking in, Google seems nearly entirely unable to get people to work on things that aren’t new and shiny. Maintenance and polish get little or no attention, and half-assed when they give them any attention at all. Even Android suffers from this, though it’s big enough it trundles on regardless—the parts that get attention are things that can be treated as launches (UI overhauls and such—which usually are only half-baked as far as the developer-facing side, and don’t see much improvement after launch) Microsoft has the organizational ability to get their workers to give a shit about maintenance and polish, and take it seriously. They have plenty of trouble of their own (I am far from a MS fan) but they don’t suffer that particular pathology—they’re not consistently perfect at it, certainly, but they’re also not consistently totally unable to do it, as Google seem to be. [edit] to head off nitpicks, google does show an ability to focus on one big area, of course: ads/search. Though, ask anyone who uses their ad platform and I expect you’ll get a pile of complaints about shit that absolutely should not be as broken as it is. The parts that get ongoing attention are service reliability and anything that makes the revenue line measurable go up-and-right the instant it’s enabled.