5 ms·

I'll agree there's a strange blind-spot in much tech reporting on Microsoft. It consistently misses Microsoft's stable, mature and solidly profitable B2B busin

by roc 14y ago

I'll agree there's a strange blind-spot in much tech reporting on Microsoft. It consistently misses Microsoft's stable, mature and solidly profitable B2B business. Even if worse came to worst, they could sail off into that land IBM pioneered, remaining happily profitable for decades to come. But at the same time, Ballmer has made some horrible blunders. The XBox was nearly strangled by their obsession with beating Sony out of the gate with the 360. The Zune was a disaster. The years of utter denial regarding WinCE vs the iPhone and Android. Groove. Danger. Skype. The complete lack of a functional ecosystem between their own first-party products. [1] The critically successful Windows Phone being artificially hobbled by bureaucratic concerns [2]. Mismanaging the entire tablet sector for years, only to show up three years late with a confusing compromise... In short, nothing but their B2B business (and you can lump much of their Windows licensing money in as part of that) has been run well. [1] XBox Live vs Games for Windows Live, XBox Media Functions vs Windows Media Center, Zune vs XBox Marketplace (and don't get me started on the mess that they created when they tried to finally centralize media under the "Zune" service brand...) [2] The name is absurd. Why not "Metro"? Why didn't they just put it on a tablet and call it a day? Why are they finally delivering a Metro-ish tablet, but under a different architecture and name and with some obtuse desktop metaphor lurking under the covers?

brudgers 14y ago
>"Skype." Microsoft owns it. They could build a worldwide phone network on top of it. They even have a hardware partner with deep penetration in the developing world. And they're shipping: http://blogs.skype.com/en/2012/04/skype_for_windows_phone_has_ar.html http://blogs.skype.com/en/2012/04/skype_for_windows_phone_ha...
- roc 14y ago
  They may yet blow everyone's doors off with first-class integration of Skype. But given their position in the marketplace, and carrier's dislike of anything that pushes them toward being dumb pipes any faster, color me pessimistic. They could also seriously upend the market with a skype-only no-phone-plan, PMP/phone that runs off wifi and/or prepaid data. That could justify the price of the Skype purchase as well. And I'm just as pessimistic about that. I'm not saying they won't ever do anything with it. But they paid a pretty penny and thus far don't seem to have any coherent plan.
  - untog 14y ago
    I'm pretty sure they have confirmed that Skype will have deep integration in WP8. And look at BBM, iMessage, Google Voice... the carriers may not like these things, but so far they've been unable to stop them.
    - roc 14y ago
      RIM and Apple have gotten away with what they have because customers did/will ask for them by name. Microsoft is not in the same place.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    Thinking about Skype in terms of carriers is analogous to thinking about IE in terms of Compuserve and AOL.
    - roc 14y ago
      If Compuserve and AOL had a veto over what browsers people could use, yes, that would be a decent analogue. It's not that Microsoft needs carrier approval in a technical way. But they absolutely need to be on the carriers' good side in a business sense. If Microsoft is pushing products that will erode carrier profit margin, the carrier stores are not going to push Microsoft's phones. And Microsoft has had little luck to date selling phones without their help.
      - brudgers 14y ago
        Carriers don't have veto power over Skype. If they did, nobody would be using it. Instead it is a worldwide success. The US model of carrier subsidies for mobile phones is not only limited in its geographic scope, it is exceedingly vulnerable to disruption for the same reasons that cable and traditional phone companies carry internet traffic for a flat fee.
josefresco 14y ago
The 360, despite it's initial problems is a resounding success for MS. To include it in a list of blunders would be a mistake.
- roc 14y ago
  Saying there were obvious, preventable mistakes is different than saying the entire product is a blunder. The early release was a mistake. A mistake that cost them billions of dollars and did nothing to help them measurably "win" against Sony. [1] The nonsense being grafted onto XBox Live and the dashboard in general is also a mistake. [2] The 360 is an overall success despite those things. [1] The 360 succeeded largely on the strength of XBox Live and Sony's shooting themselves in the foot over-engineering --and thus overpricing-- the PS3. [2] Allowing publishers to erode the experience. Muddying up the formerly-clean media experience with largely nonsensical divisions of functionality is a mistake.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    There is a counter argument in the book "The Race for a New Game Machine" that makes the case that the early release was a key factor in passing the PS3. If next XBox holds on, it will be money well spent.
    - roc 14y ago
      I'll certainly take a look at that, but I remain unconvinced thus far. The PS3 was demonstrably price-bound for its entire first few years on the market. The existence of the 360 or its early lead just didn't seem to matter. And the "needed to launch first" position has a habit of entirely writing off any negative effect of having poisoned gamers against MS Hardware quality. (Which to that point had a spotless reputation.)
sixothree 14y ago
Microsoft is terrible at naming things. I blame most of Bing's failure on the name, not the actual product itself.
- untog 14y ago
  What makes "Google" a better name than "Bing", if you ignore the success now associated with it?
  - sixothree 14y ago
    I didn't say Google was a better name but here goes. Bing is physically difficult to speak. And as every fourth grader who has taken math knows, Google actually means something. Bing doesn't mean anything; it doesn't even evoke any thought or emotion.
    - brudgers 14y ago
      "Google" doesn't mean anything outside the name of the company and the services it provides. "Googol" is the mathematical term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol
- adnam 14y ago
  Yeah, "Bing" is the sound a microwave makes after you've been waiting for a minute.
- chc 14y ago
  It's doing better as Bing than it was under either of its old names.
- roc 14y ago
  At least they didn't name it "Microsoft Live Search, Internet Edition 2010"

by roc 14y ago

brudgers 14y ago

>"Skype." Microsoft owns it. They could build a worldwide phone network on top of it. They even have a hardware partner with deep penetration in the developing world. And they're shipping: http://blogs.skype.com/en/2012/04/skype_for_windows_phone_has_ar.html http://blogs.skype.com/en/2012/04/skype_for_windows_phone_ha...

roc 14y ago
They may yet blow everyone's doors off with first-class integration of Skype. But given their position in the marketplace, and carrier's dislike of anything that pushes them toward being dumb pipes any faster, color me pessimistic. They could also seriously upend the market with a skype-only no-phone-plan, PMP/phone that runs off wifi and/or prepaid data. That could justify the price of the Skype purchase as well. And I'm just as pessimistic about that. I'm not saying they won't ever do anything with it. But they paid a pretty penny and thus far don't seem to have any coherent plan.
- untog 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure they have confirmed that Skype will have deep integration in WP8. And look at BBM, iMessage, Google Voice... the carriers may not like these things, but so far they've been unable to stop them.
  - roc 14y ago
    RIM and Apple have gotten away with what they have because customers did/will ask for them by name. Microsoft is not in the same place.
- brudgers 14y ago
  Thinking about Skype in terms of carriers is analogous to thinking about IE in terms of Compuserve and AOL.
  - roc 14y ago
    If Compuserve and AOL had a veto over what browsers people could use, yes, that would be a decent analogue. It's not that Microsoft needs carrier approval in a technical way. But they absolutely need to be on the carriers' good side in a business sense. If Microsoft is pushing products that will erode carrier profit margin, the carrier stores are not going to push Microsoft's phones. And Microsoft has had little luck to date selling phones without their help.
    - brudgers 14y ago
      Carriers don't have veto power over Skype. If they did, nobody would be using it. Instead it is a worldwide success. The US model of carrier subsidies for mobile phones is not only limited in its geographic scope, it is exceedingly vulnerable to disruption for the same reasons that cable and traditional phone companies carry internet traffic for a flat fee.

josefresco 14y ago

The 360, despite it's initial problems is a resounding success for MS. To include it in a list of blunders would be a mistake.

roc 14y ago
Saying there were obvious, preventable mistakes is different than saying the entire product is a blunder. The early release was a mistake. A mistake that cost them billions of dollars and did nothing to help them measurably "win" against Sony. [1] The nonsense being grafted onto XBox Live and the dashboard in general is also a mistake. [2] The 360 is an overall success despite those things. [1] The 360 succeeded largely on the strength of XBox Live and Sony's shooting themselves in the foot over-engineering --and thus overpricing-- the PS3. [2] Allowing publishers to erode the experience. Muddying up the formerly-clean media experience with largely nonsensical divisions of functionality is a mistake.
- protomyth 14y ago
  There is a counter argument in the book "The Race for a New Game Machine" that makes the case that the early release was a key factor in passing the PS3. If next XBox holds on, it will be money well spent.
  - roc 14y ago
    I'll certainly take a look at that, but I remain unconvinced thus far. The PS3 was demonstrably price-bound for its entire first few years on the market. The existence of the 360 or its early lead just didn't seem to matter. And the "needed to launch first" position has a habit of entirely writing off any negative effect of having poisoned gamers against MS Hardware quality. (Which to that point had a spotless reputation.)

sixothree 14y ago

Microsoft is terrible at naming things. I blame most of Bing's failure on the name, not the actual product itself.

untog 14y ago
What makes "Google" a better name than "Bing", if you ignore the success now associated with it?
- sixothree 14y ago
  I didn't say Google was a better name but here goes. Bing is physically difficult to speak. And as every fourth grader who has taken math knows, Google actually means something. Bing doesn't mean anything; it doesn't even evoke any thought or emotion.
  - brudgers 14y ago
    "Google" doesn't mean anything outside the name of the company and the services it provides. "Googol" is the mathematical term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol
adnam 14y ago
Yeah, "Bing" is the sound a microwave makes after you've been waiting for a minute.
chc 14y ago
It's doing better as Bing than it was under either of its old names.
roc 14y ago
At least they didn't name it "Microsoft Live Search, Internet Edition 2010"