4 ms·

It's not Microsoft employees who make these calls, but the Microsoft organization itself. Organizations make decisions that nobody by themselves would want to

It's not Microsoft employees who make these calls, but the Microsoft organization itself. Organizations make decisions that nobody by themselves would want to make. The larger an organization gets, the more true this becomes. Think of them like meta organisms, or schooling fish.

readthenotes1 1y ago
That sounds about as reasonable as "the devil made me do it" excuse.
- flohofwoe 1y ago
  It totally makes sense though. Win11 mainly seems to be a career advancement vehicle for Microsoft's anonymous middle management caste. I bet that if you point at a single bad feature in Win11 it will be very hard to find a single person who would take responsibility. For good features it will be "I made the decision!", for bad features it will be weasel words like "we heard our users loud and clear" or "we modernized" or "we streamlined", etc... basically as if the bad feature was caused by some external force or by a committee decision.
- IsTom 1y ago
  Everyone in a big org has their own incentives and they don't match with what makes a better product. People are looking out for themselves and there's no accountability for the end result. Checkboxes get checked and that's all that matters.
- SirFatty 1y ago
  That is a good analogy though.
Voultapher 1y ago
Slow AI. They are terraforming our planet into a less habitable one, making many people miserable and turn useful things into abominations. One usually can't point at a single person deciding that it should be so, but at the end that's what's the output is. The paperclip machine is here and it's optimizing for GDP growth.
0x000xca0xfe 1y ago
Wrong, there is always somebody responsible. It may not be an explicit decision but somebody let it happen. I've personally witnessed this at work and for lack of better terms call it "leadership by weakness". Initiatives to change a situation will be either ignored or actively undermined by lack of support from the one in charge. Outsiders get the impression that "it just happened this way" or "things just are like this" but it really was a conscious decision by leadership. As an employee I found it insulting because of course our customers blamed us developers.
- lupusreal 1y ago
  You may be able to pinpoint a few people who signed off on the decision, but it's rarely a decision they would have made outside of the context of the organization. The organization provides the incentives, shapes the data used in the decision process, and determines the set of decisions which can be made. For instance, an executive may sign off on a feature after viewing data that says its a good idea, but the data was prepared by another part of the organization which is trying to advance their own agenda. And for-profit organizations being as they are, options which don't increase or even decrease profit are essentially off the table, unavailable for real consideration, so the person signing off on the feature already had their options winnowed down by the organization itself.
  - 0x000xca0xfe 1y ago
    > The organization provides the incentives, shapes the data used in the decision process, [...] Exactly! And who sets those incentives? Imagine if Satya Nadella was an avid Windows power user that thinks having a vertical tab bar is the best invention since sliced bread. Would he really fuzz around with StartAllBack etc.? Because "it just is like this now"? Or would he be able to influence the Windows team to simply implement it? Of course he could. He just doesn't care about vertical tab bars. As a side note, I see the blaming of bad situations on "for-profit organizations" as if management had no other choices just because somebody made a spreadsheet as an easy excuse for them to not stand behind their decisions. If this "profit-uber-alles" theory was true executives would reduce their compensation to minimum wage. It clearly is more complicated.

readthenotes1 1y ago

That sounds about as reasonable as "the devil made me do it" excuse.

flohofwoe 1y ago
It totally makes sense though. Win11 mainly seems to be a career advancement vehicle for Microsoft's anonymous middle management caste. I bet that if you point at a single bad feature in Win11 it will be very hard to find a single person who would take responsibility. For good features it will be "I made the decision!", for bad features it will be weasel words like "we heard our users loud and clear" or "we modernized" or "we streamlined", etc... basically as if the bad feature was caused by some external force or by a committee decision.
IsTom 1y ago
Everyone in a big org has their own incentives and they don't match with what makes a better product. People are looking out for themselves and there's no accountability for the end result. Checkboxes get checked and that's all that matters.
SirFatty 1y ago
That is a good analogy though.

Voultapher 1y ago

Slow AI. They are terraforming our planet into a less habitable one, making many people miserable and turn useful things into abominations. One usually can't point at a single person deciding that it should be so, but at the end that's what's the output is. The paperclip machine is here and it's optimizing for GDP growth.

0x000xca0xfe 1y ago

Wrong, there is always somebody responsible. It may not be an explicit decision but somebody let it happen. I've personally witnessed this at work and for lack of better terms call it "leadership by weakness". Initiatives to change a situation will be either ignored or actively undermined by lack of support from the one in charge. Outsiders get the impression that "it just happened this way" or "things just are like this" but it really was a conscious decision by leadership. As an employee I found it insulting because of course our customers blamed us developers.

lupusreal 1y ago
You may be able to pinpoint a few people who signed off on the decision, but it's rarely a decision they would have made outside of the context of the organization. The organization provides the incentives, shapes the data used in the decision process, and determines the set of decisions which can be made. For instance, an executive may sign off on a feature after viewing data that says its a good idea, but the data was prepared by another part of the organization which is trying to advance their own agenda. And for-profit organizations being as they are, options which don't increase or even decrease profit are essentially off the table, unavailable for real consideration, so the person signing off on the feature already had their options winnowed down by the organization itself.
- 0x000xca0xfe 1y ago
  > The organization provides the incentives, shapes the data used in the decision process, [...] Exactly! And who sets those incentives? Imagine if Satya Nadella was an avid Windows power user that thinks having a vertical tab bar is the best invention since sliced bread. Would he really fuzz around with StartAllBack etc.? Because "it just is like this now"? Or would he be able to influence the Windows team to simply implement it? Of course he could. He just doesn't care about vertical tab bars. As a side note, I see the blaming of bad situations on "for-profit organizations" as if management had no other choices just because somebody made a spreadsheet as an easy excuse for them to not stand behind their decisions. If this "profit-uber-alles" theory was true executives would reduce their compensation to minimum wage. It clearly is more complicated.