23 ms·

I almost choked when I read Microsoft's new mission statement: "our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services for individuals and busines

by cs702 13y ago

I almost choked when I read Microsoft's new mission statement: "our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most." In other words, Ballmer wants the company to "focus" on being everything to everyone! Not a good sign for the business. -- PS. Compare Ballmer's long, complicated memo to Google's mission statement: "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." (Source: http://www.google.com/about/company/ http://www.google.com/about/company/ )

Metrop0218 13y ago
This isn't an agile startup here, it's one of the world's largest software companies. I think aiming to do a lot isn't a big stretch.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  It's not a mission statement though, or a goal. "We're a company that does stuff for customers." Yeah, not helpful in the least.
- smacktoward 13y ago
  Microsoft has always had big ambitions. Its original mission statement, first articulated all the way back in the late '70s, was "a computer in every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software." (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/gat0int-1 http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/gat0int-1) Which was pretty audacious when the state of the art in personal computing was machines like the MITS Altair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800). Bill Gates: It's very hard to recall how crazy and wild that was, you know, "on every desk and in every home." At the time, you have people who are very smart saying, "Why would somebody need a computer?" Not saying this new statement is audacious (it feels kind of anodyne to me), just that "hidebound behemoth" isn't the only gene in their DNA.
  - prewett 13y ago
    The original statement was pretty clear and short. This new one takes a lot of words and it's not at all clear to me what they are aiming for. What, exactly, does "empower" look like when it's implemented? Exactly which are the activities that people value the most? (Actually, has anyone thought about whether those activities even require a computer?) This isn't ambitious, it's meaningless. Not a good sign for corporate excellence.
- dbla 13y ago
  Presumably this email was meant to help change behavior within Microsoft. To give people a guide for how to do their job better. If I were a Microsoft employee I wouldn't know what to make of that quote. It doesn't speak to anything you would deal with directly in the day to day.
  - Metrop0218 13y ago
    Fair enough, it is definitely vague.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- onedev 13y ago
  Aiming to do a lot of things and being mediocre at all of them isn't that inspiring. It basically sums up Microsoft in the past couple of years. What they need is real focus, and it seems they still haven't learned.
- jimbokun 13y ago
  It's not "aiming" at anything.
stdbrouw 13y ago
Another way of interpreting this would be "Microsoft wants to get out of your way, it wants to be a (ubiquitous) platform so you can focus on what you're actually trying to do rather than on your OS or your device." Doesn't sound that awful to me.
- kordless 13y ago
  I think its a general enough statement you can say whatever you want about it and it would make some sense. That said, it's seriously lacking intent. Being everything to all people, all wrapped up in a single 'strategy' isn't necessarily going to solve the problems related to designing and building great software.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- JonFish85 13y ago
  ...says the company who brought you the UAC popups :)
  - marshray 13y ago
    Do you prefer sudo or just to login as root directly?
  - Aldo_MX 13y ago
    TBH I don't perceive UAC popups as "something intrusive", they could be better, but they do their work fine: to stop non-tech savvy users from screwing up the PC.
    - archangel_one 13y ago
      No, they don't save the non-tech savvy users. They click "yes, I want to see the dancing bunnies" every time they see a UAC popup. They do make it reasonably pleasant to run Windows as a non-admin user though, and not the impossibility that was in XP.
jgeerts 13y ago
They send out a signal saying that they want to change, that takes some guts to do so for such a big company. I'm just curious about what actions will follow these words without any prejudice.
jccooper 13y ago
I think the important thing is what's missing: "software". Apparently, Microsoft, the world's biggest software company, is no longer interested in software. I wouldn't call this a great idea, considering "core competencies" and how well their products in the "devices and services" divisions are faring, but it is, at least, forward-looking.
- jmduke 13y ago
  I think there's a universal shift from 'software' to 'services.' Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Word: they want to sell you the best method of composition. Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Powerpoint: they want to sell you the ability to make the best presentations. And so on.
  - archangel_one 13y ago
    I don't think they care about that. The reason they're shifting is that they don't want to sell you Word once, then fail to persuade you to upgrade to the next version; they want to sell it over and over which brings a more stable and guaranteed revenue stream.
    - jmduke 13y ago
      Definitely. "Service" implies something you pay for on a monthly basis. "Software" implies something that comes in a box with a CD key.
      - sqqqrly 13y ago
        My software does not come in a box, nor have keys.
- dredmorbius 13y ago
  Interesting. More specifically, the company built on shrinkwrap and preloads is facing a world where neither is generally accepted. This leaves business and government markets, as well as gaming, and possibly services / online platforms with advertising-based revenue. Meantime, Microsoft still have to support their legacy. Even some of the EOL products, which, despite best efforts, still live in places which have the power to command fixes.
tallanvor 13y ago
Huh? A strategy is not the same thing as a mission statement. Microsoft's mission statement is "to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential." http://www.microsoft.com/about/en/us/default.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/en/us/default.aspx
- blankenship 13y ago
  ...by doing what, specifically?
  - freehunter 13y ago
    It's a mission statement, not a strategy.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
    - Sammi 13y ago
      Is this a recursive algorithm?
      - foobarbazqux 13y ago
        It was, but the stack overflowed.
        contingencies 13y ago
        The stack of OS upgrades? Or the stack of critical software updates? Or the stack of windows on the unmanageable, broken-metaphor 'powered' desktop? Or the stack of useless Microsoft 'powered' devices now in landfill? So many stacks. So little time.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Well those aren't actually stacks but a kind of unordered heap called a pile.
jahewson 13y ago
I couldn't get over this masterpiece: We will allocate resources and build devices and services that provide compelling, integrated experiences across the many screens in our lives, with maximum return to shareholders.
- Metrop0218 13y ago
  Can you elaborate over what you find so wrong with that?
  - adamnemecek 13y ago
    Probably the "with maximum return to shareholders" part.
    - rpedroso 13y ago
      To elaborate further, the point of this memo isn't to alert the shareholders of Microsoft's organizational changes, it's about easing this transition with a motivational message about innovation and what not. Even if the corporation's main aim is to benefit its shareholders, that unnecessary line is going to come across as alienating to employees, who probably care very little about how these changes will affect wealthy shareholders.
      - Metrop0218 13y ago
        Ah yes, I see now. I definitely agree with you then. That line will most likely not sit well with employees that don't give a damn about the shareholders and would rather just create amazing products.
        onedev 13y ago
        I'm curious what amazing products Microsoft is working on.
        13y ago
MichaelMoser123 13y ago
> "our strategy will focus on creating ... bla bla bla. I parse this as follows: PC sales are declining and selling Windows & Office licenses is not going to make it; now the option is either to focus on - Windows Server and cloud services OR - copying Apple; go for closed gadgets/tracking devices with a processor Copying Apple is a bad choice, very crowded space here / everybody wants to make an IPhone. In the end this means bad news for Windows Server, however who cares ... see "PC sales see 'longest decline' in history" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23251285 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23251285 (On the other hand modern laptops nowadays look like tables, they have a touchscreen and detachable keyboards; there is some convergence here, so it is all very confusing)
- Silhouette 13y ago
  PC sales are declining and selling Windows & Office licenses is not going to make it This is the part I don't understand about the new spin from MS. Sales cycles are obviously extending, but how many offices in the universe don't run on PCs? Surely Microsoft are still making a lot of money selling business software, and in several fields their software remains dominant. There is plenty they could do to improve that business software and/or to adapt it to different ways of working, driving more sales based on genuine added value, but they don't seem to have much interest in doing so. That seems bizarre to me.
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    It's not sufficient that the market still exists, but it is no longer growing much and is beginning to show signs of shrinkage. Ya, you can still make money there, but less and less overtime. Good to get on top of these things and find other cash pandas.
    - Silhouette 13y ago
      Finding new/growing markets is all very sensible, but prioritising doing so at the expense of an existing and much larger market seems an odd choice unless you're really sure you're onto a winner.
buro9 13y ago
A better strategy for Microsoft today would be to become to tech what Disney is to family entertainment. For their mission statement to be: "We want to be a significant part of everyone's technology experience". Now that would be audacious... to re-gain some of what they've lost to Apple and Android, to be there within entertainment, automotive, health and government. They already are in a lot of those places, but this statement would be a strong signal that they are going to fight every front.
stonemetal 13y ago
focus on creating a family of devices and services It is interesting in that the focus has moved away from software of any kind to devices and services. It is a bold move towards a post OS, Office, post COTS software Microsoft. But you are right it is about as generic as it gets, change two or three words and it could equally be describing a car company.
- SkyMarshal 13y ago
  "family of devices and services" also implies walled garden. Not that MS hasn't always been about that, but it's clear they're doubling down on it.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    Not that MS hasn't always been about that, but it's clear they're doubling down on it. They might as well play by the same rules as their competitors. It's unfortunate for consumers, and I hope that in the long run market forces and/or regulation will open things up again. However, for the immediate future, if your major competitors are running closed worlds and you're the only guys running an open one, there's only one direction that customers can move in.
ww520 13y ago
All these discussion remind me how much time people wasted on mission statement.
OGC 13y ago
Why the hell are people arguing about a tautology? That statement is so incredibly vague, it could mean anything.
md224 13y ago
Is it weird that Google's mission statement doesn't describe their primary revenue stream? I suppose they could say that they're making information universally accessible and useful to individuals as well as advertisers. But I don't know, their mission statement makes them sound like the best library ever. Not an advertising company.
- wensing 13y ago
  No, not weird. A mission statement is a "calling" that can be fulfilled through a variety of business models.
- snowwrestler 13y ago
  It's becoming an bigger and bigger stretch to wrap that mission statement around what Google does. Reader was a great tool for organizing information--they killed it. Cell phone hardware has very little to do with organizing information, but they spent $12 billion on Motorola.
  - ryanhuff 13y ago
    I dont see an issue with investing in mobile. The cell phone is (mostly) a new distribution channel; a means of reaching consumers. It was critical that Google have unfettered access to its users, although these days mobile is increasingly a producer of information to be collected and organized.
  - cloudwalking 13y ago
    Cell phone hardware is the "make [information] universally accessible" part.
- Someone 13y ago
  Apparently, they see advertising as a means to an end. At least, that is what one can deduce from comparing their mission statement with their activities. Google Search, Google Scholar, Google Books and Google Maps are what they want to do to collect the information, and they think they need mobile phones and self-driving cars to make it universally accessible (that, or that is on the fringe. A mission statement has to ride between being too vague and only barely describing parts of the business)
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
nwombosi 13y ago
empower That's such an overused word in marketing language. Everybody wants to "empower users", "empower people", "empower customers", "empower clients". What does that even mean anymore? Are we the downtrodden and unwashed without their "family of devices"? Marketing language in itself is something that really grates my nerves, but "empower" is the worst.
swombat 13y ago
That is a fantastic example of "Bad Strategy". It's fluffy, it doesn't mean anything, there's no tangible policy that can be derived from the grand statement, and it doesn't say "no" to anything. For more discussion of that, and ways to do strategy better, I highly recommend "Good Strategy, Bad Strategy".
flyinRyan 13y ago
The problem with Ballmer has always been that the man has literally no vision. I saw him speak once and have questions afterwards. He was actually a very good speaker but when the questions came the whole thing fell apart. Someone asked him to tell us his future direction for MS and his answer was some vague sci-fi nonsense. Who does a talk, allows questions and doesn't realize this question will be asked? Or maybe he did and thought what he described was some kind of vision. The difference is, if you had asked Steve Jobs what his vision was he would have told you things that you would realize he could achieve and probably have some idea of the steps. What Ballmer said was completely generic and there was no reason to imagine MS needed to be involved in any of it. Worse, there wasn't really a compelling argument to even have what he was talking about (some kind of shitty voice recognition software that sends anything I say to the person I referred to by first name. And this I should trust to the inventors of the blue screen? Right).

by cs702 13y ago

Metrop0218 13y ago

This isn't an agile startup here, it's one of the world's largest software companies. I think aiming to do a lot isn't a big stretch.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
It's not a mission statement though, or a goal. "We're a company that does stuff for customers." Yeah, not helpful in the least.
smacktoward 13y ago
Microsoft has always had big ambitions. Its original mission statement, first articulated all the way back in the late '70s, was "a computer in every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software." (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/gat0int-1 http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/gat0int-1) Which was pretty audacious when the state of the art in personal computing was machines like the MITS Altair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800). Bill Gates: It's very hard to recall how crazy and wild that was, you know, "on every desk and in every home." At the time, you have people who are very smart saying, "Why would somebody need a computer?" Not saying this new statement is audacious (it feels kind of anodyne to me), just that "hidebound behemoth" isn't the only gene in their DNA.
- prewett 13y ago
  The original statement was pretty clear and short. This new one takes a lot of words and it's not at all clear to me what they are aiming for. What, exactly, does "empower" look like when it's implemented? Exactly which are the activities that people value the most? (Actually, has anyone thought about whether those activities even require a computer?) This isn't ambitious, it's meaningless. Not a good sign for corporate excellence.
dbla 13y ago
Presumably this email was meant to help change behavior within Microsoft. To give people a guide for how to do their job better. If I were a Microsoft employee I wouldn't know what to make of that quote. It doesn't speak to anything you would deal with directly in the day to day.
- Metrop0218 13y ago
  Fair enough, it is definitely vague.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
onedev 13y ago
Aiming to do a lot of things and being mediocre at all of them isn't that inspiring. It basically sums up Microsoft in the past couple of years. What they need is real focus, and it seems they still haven't learned.
jimbokun 13y ago
It's not "aiming" at anything.

stdbrouw 13y ago

Another way of interpreting this would be "Microsoft wants to get out of your way, it wants to be a (ubiquitous) platform so you can focus on what you're actually trying to do rather than on your OS or your device." Doesn't sound that awful to me.

kordless 13y ago
I think its a general enough statement you can say whatever you want about it and it would make some sense. That said, it's seriously lacking intent. Being everything to all people, all wrapped up in a single 'strategy' isn't necessarily going to solve the problems related to designing and building great software.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
JonFish85 13y ago
...says the company who brought you the UAC popups :)
- marshray 13y ago
  Do you prefer sudo or just to login as root directly?
- Aldo_MX 13y ago
  TBH I don't perceive UAC popups as "something intrusive", they could be better, but they do their work fine: to stop non-tech savvy users from screwing up the PC.
  - archangel_one 13y ago
    No, they don't save the non-tech savvy users. They click "yes, I want to see the dancing bunnies" every time they see a UAC popup. They do make it reasonably pleasant to run Windows as a non-admin user though, and not the impossibility that was in XP.

jgeerts 13y ago

They send out a signal saying that they want to change, that takes some guts to do so for such a big company. I'm just curious about what actions will follow these words without any prejudice.

jccooper 13y ago

I think the important thing is what's missing: "software". Apparently, Microsoft, the world's biggest software company, is no longer interested in software. I wouldn't call this a great idea, considering "core competencies" and how well their products in the "devices and services" divisions are faring, but it is, at least, forward-looking.

jmduke 13y ago
I think there's a universal shift from 'software' to 'services.' Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Word: they want to sell you the best method of composition. Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Powerpoint: they want to sell you the ability to make the best presentations. And so on.
- archangel_one 13y ago
  I don't think they care about that. The reason they're shifting is that they don't want to sell you Word once, then fail to persuade you to upgrade to the next version; they want to sell it over and over which brings a more stable and guaranteed revenue stream.
  - jmduke 13y ago
    Definitely. "Service" implies something you pay for on a monthly basis. "Software" implies something that comes in a box with a CD key.
    - sqqqrly 13y ago
      My software does not come in a box, nor have keys.
dredmorbius 13y ago
Interesting. More specifically, the company built on shrinkwrap and preloads is facing a world where neither is generally accepted. This leaves business and government markets, as well as gaming, and possibly services / online platforms with advertising-based revenue. Meantime, Microsoft still have to support their legacy. Even some of the EOL products, which, despite best efforts, still live in places which have the power to command fixes.

tallanvor 13y ago

Huh? A strategy is not the same thing as a mission statement. Microsoft's mission statement is "to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential." http://www.microsoft.com/about/en/us/default.aspx http://www.microsoft.com/about/en/us/default.aspx

blankenship 13y ago
...by doing what, specifically?
- freehunter 13y ago
  It's a mission statement, not a strategy.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - Sammi 13y ago
    Is this a recursive algorithm?
    - foobarbazqux 13y ago
      It was, but the stack overflowed.
      - contingencies 13y ago
        The stack of OS upgrades? Or the stack of critical software updates? Or the stack of windows on the unmanageable, broken-metaphor 'powered' desktop? Or the stack of useless Microsoft 'powered' devices now in landfill? So many stacks. So little time.
        foobarbazqux 13y ago
        Well those aren't actually stacks but a kind of unordered heap called a pile.

jahewson 13y ago

I couldn't get over this masterpiece: We will allocate resources and build devices and services that provide compelling, integrated experiences across the many screens in our lives, with maximum return to shareholders.

Metrop0218 13y ago
Can you elaborate over what you find so wrong with that?
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  Probably the "with maximum return to shareholders" part.
  - rpedroso 13y ago
    To elaborate further, the point of this memo isn't to alert the shareholders of Microsoft's organizational changes, it's about easing this transition with a motivational message about innovation and what not. Even if the corporation's main aim is to benefit its shareholders, that unnecessary line is going to come across as alienating to employees, who probably care very little about how these changes will affect wealthy shareholders.
    - Metrop0218 13y ago
      Ah yes, I see now. I definitely agree with you then. That line will most likely not sit well with employees that don't give a damn about the shareholders and would rather just create amazing products.
      - onedev 13y ago
        I'm curious what amazing products Microsoft is working on.
        13y ago

MichaelMoser123 13y ago

> "our strategy will focus on creating ... bla bla bla. I parse this as follows: PC sales are declining and selling Windows & Office licenses is not going to make it; now the option is either to focus on - Windows Server and cloud services OR - copying Apple; go for closed gadgets/tracking devices with a processor Copying Apple is a bad choice, very crowded space here / everybody wants to make an IPhone. In the end this means bad news for Windows Server, however who cares ... see "PC sales see 'longest decline' in history" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23251285 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23251285 (On the other hand modern laptops nowadays look like tables, they have a touchscreen and detachable keyboards; there is some convergence here, so it is all very confusing)

Silhouette 13y ago
PC sales are declining and selling Windows & Office licenses is not going to make it This is the part I don't understand about the new spin from MS. Sales cycles are obviously extending, but how many offices in the universe don't run on PCs? Surely Microsoft are still making a lot of money selling business software, and in several fields their software remains dominant. There is plenty they could do to improve that business software and/or to adapt it to different ways of working, driving more sales based on genuine added value, but they don't seem to have much interest in doing so. That seems bizarre to me.
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  It's not sufficient that the market still exists, but it is no longer growing much and is beginning to show signs of shrinkage. Ya, you can still make money there, but less and less overtime. Good to get on top of these things and find other cash pandas.
  - Silhouette 13y ago
    Finding new/growing markets is all very sensible, but prioritising doing so at the expense of an existing and much larger market seems an odd choice unless you're really sure you're onto a winner.

buro9 13y ago

A better strategy for Microsoft today would be to become to tech what Disney is to family entertainment. For their mission statement to be: "We want to be a significant part of everyone's technology experience". Now that would be audacious... to re-gain some of what they've lost to Apple and Android, to be there within entertainment, automotive, health and government. They already are in a lot of those places, but this statement would be a strong signal that they are going to fight every front.

stonemetal 13y ago

focus on creating a family of devices and services It is interesting in that the focus has moved away from software of any kind to devices and services. It is a bold move towards a post OS, Office, post COTS software Microsoft. But you are right it is about as generic as it gets, change two or three words and it could equally be describing a car company.

SkyMarshal 13y ago
"family of devices and services" also implies walled garden. Not that MS hasn't always been about that, but it's clear they're doubling down on it.
- Silhouette 13y ago
  Not that MS hasn't always been about that, but it's clear they're doubling down on it. They might as well play by the same rules as their competitors. It's unfortunate for consumers, and I hope that in the long run market forces and/or regulation will open things up again. However, for the immediate future, if your major competitors are running closed worlds and you're the only guys running an open one, there's only one direction that customers can move in.

ww520 13y ago

All these discussion remind me how much time people wasted on mission statement.

OGC 13y ago

Why the hell are people arguing about a tautology? That statement is so incredibly vague, it could mean anything.

md224 13y ago

Is it weird that Google's mission statement doesn't describe their primary revenue stream? I suppose they could say that they're making information universally accessible and useful to individuals as well as advertisers. But I don't know, their mission statement makes them sound like the best library ever. Not an advertising company.

wensing 13y ago
No, not weird. A mission statement is a "calling" that can be fulfilled through a variety of business models.
snowwrestler 13y ago
It's becoming an bigger and bigger stretch to wrap that mission statement around what Google does. Reader was a great tool for organizing information--they killed it. Cell phone hardware has very little to do with organizing information, but they spent $12 billion on Motorola.
- ryanhuff 13y ago
  I dont see an issue with investing in mobile. The cell phone is (mostly) a new distribution channel; a means of reaching consumers. It was critical that Google have unfettered access to its users, although these days mobile is increasingly a producer of information to be collected and organized.
- cloudwalking 13y ago
  Cell phone hardware is the "make [information] universally accessible" part.
Someone 13y ago
Apparently, they see advertising as a means to an end. At least, that is what one can deduce from comparing their mission statement with their activities. Google Search, Google Scholar, Google Books and Google Maps are what they want to do to collect the information, and they think they need mobile phones and self-driving cars to make it universally accessible (that, or that is on the fringe. A mission statement has to ride between being too vague and only barely describing parts of the business)

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

nwombosi 13y ago

empower That's such an overused word in marketing language. Everybody wants to "empower users", "empower people", "empower customers", "empower clients". What does that even mean anymore? Are we the downtrodden and unwashed without their "family of devices"? Marketing language in itself is something that really grates my nerves, but "empower" is the worst.

swombat 13y ago

That is a fantastic example of "Bad Strategy". It's fluffy, it doesn't mean anything, there's no tangible policy that can be derived from the grand statement, and it doesn't say "no" to anything. For more discussion of that, and ways to do strategy better, I highly recommend "Good Strategy, Bad Strategy".

flyinRyan 13y ago

The problem with Ballmer has always been that the man has literally no vision. I saw him speak once and have questions afterwards. He was actually a very good speaker but when the questions came the whole thing fell apart. Someone asked him to tell us his future direction for MS and his answer was some vague sci-fi nonsense. Who does a talk, allows questions and doesn't realize this question will be asked? Or maybe he did and thought what he described was some kind of vision. The difference is, if you had asked Steve Jobs what his vision was he would have told you things that you would realize he could achieve and probably have some idea of the steps. What Ballmer said was completely generic and there was no reason to imagine MS needed to be involved in any of it. Worse, there wasn't really a compelling argument to even have what he was talking about (some kind of shitty voice recognition software that sends anything I say to the person I referred to by first name. And this I should trust to the inventors of the blue screen? Right).