13 ms·
And for missing search. And for missing social. And for insulting OEMs. And for his failed Windows Vista launch, and Windows 7, and Windows 8. For one man, he
by eykanal 13y ago
And for missing search. And for missing social. And for insulting OEMs. And for his failed Windows Vista launch, and Windows 7, and Windows 8.
For one man, he sure has a lot of failures on his plate.
- fauigerzigerk 13y agoSo has Steve Jobs missed social and search as well? No. All companies need not do the exact same thing. Missing mobile is relevant because it is eating into Microsoft's PC revenues, but social and search is a whole new business that Microsoft didn't need to get involved in at all. In my view, Ballmer's mistake is to not go after Oracle and SAP much more than chasing Apple and Google.
- film42 13y agoMicrosoft saw social and search and thought, "we must create our own!" While apple saw social and search, and said, "that's not our market, let's have google handle that for us." Edit: Apple did acquire ping, but that was social music, which is a bit different. They also introduced siri, which simply plugged in to preexisting search services (Google in iOS 6, Bing in iOS7) so it really is agnostic on that front.
- JulieCompt 13y agoApple tried social and search* with Ping and Siri. It flopped. But nobody holds it against Jobs
- publicfig 13y agoDid Siri flop?
- tuananh 13y agoyes it did. I tried Google Now the other day. It blew my mind. Google Now understands every single words I said (Asian accent); As for Siri, 50% is kinda optimistic.
- selter01 13y agoIs that what determines a flop, though? Siri is definitely known, and added value to the iphone and the apple brand overall. While I use Google Now and think it is superior, I'm not sure if performance would be enough to label Siri as a flop. Bing on the other hand, not so much.
- tuananh 13y agoProbably the differences are only noticeable for non-native English speakers like me only. It's way too good that it makes me feel Siri is such a failure. Native speakers might not see a huge difference though.
- hnal943 13y agoI am a native English speaker and Siri constantly misunderstands me. Siri has become a punchline and certainly does not have the usual Apple Cool Factor.
- untog 13y agoIt's probably still to early to tell. But I don't see how anyone can dispute that Google Now is basically what Siri tried to do, but significantly better. I'm yet to see Apple's response to that.
- leetrout 13y agoI'm sure I'm in the minority but I don't consider ping a social network (nor do I Twitter, honestly). And that's just me. Twitter is so much more communication focused in my book where things like FB anf G+ have been more frivolous. I never thought of Siri as search. To me it was more about interfacing with your device.
- jasonlotito 13y agoPing?
- acoleman616 13y agoExactly.
- ant512 13y agoI think that's one of Microsoft's main failings. "Google are making baked beans? Why aren't we in the baked bean market? Let's make beans!" "What? Now Facebook are making Facebook Soda? We need to make Microsoft Soda!" Every time a tech company produces something new MS have to muscle in on the market, despite having a) no prior experience, b) no aptitude, c) existing products that could use their attention.
- 001sky 13y agowindows, Xbox and Explorer from the 90's...all mimic plays
- leetrout 13y agoIt does feel like MS just shows up like that. Azure did (and does) give that impression; Zune, as well. And Surface tablets are also a clear response to the iPad (whether MS ever had anything in R&D previously or not, they certainly didn't ship). But I think Google is much more prone to jump in to a market with force, they just seem to execute "better" (I leave that open to interpretation). FB comes out and MS buys in whereas Google makes their own social network. Apple makes the iPhone and Google makes Android. Only much later (as the ship has already left port) does Microsoft come in with Windows Phone (I'm only considering 7 & 8). Somewhat related, I feel like MS and Dell were on target with the Axim from a product idea standpoint but Apple really capitalized on combining the functionality of a phone and forward thinking hardware and software design with iOS devices.
- smacktoward 13y agoThat's because that has been Microsoft's strategy from the beginning: let someone else take the risk of proving whether a market for something exists, and then, if it does, get in there quick with their own offering. They got into the PC OS business with MS-DOS after the Apple II; into the GUI business with Windows after the Mac; into the word-processor business with Word after WordPerfect; into the browser business with IE after Netscape, etc. This is an established enough business strategy there's a name for it: "fast follower." (See http://www.businessinsider.com/youre-better-off-being-a-fast-follower-than-an-originator-2010-10 http://www.businessinsider.com/youre-better-off-being-a-fast...).
- leaffig 13y agoWhat social property did Microsoft push heavily like Google does G+? Also MS was into search before Google was.
- logicallee 13y ago>So has Steve Jobs missed social and search as well? Yes, but at least for the past two years Jobs has had a really good excuse.
- zanny 13y agoWhat about Bing? Microsoft didn't get into social because that is entirely outside their market. The limit of it seemed to be something like msn messenger, which had business use cases as much as social ones. I mean, its not like MS didn't try the search thing, but search is something Google will own until they fuck it up, not from anyone entering to compete with them, because free & good enough are hard to break. Albeit, Google has been doing a good job fucking up their search in the last several years.
- hvs 13y agoWindows 7 was hardly a failure.
- LarryMade2 13y agoI think the bad pat about windows 7 is that they put out Windows 8 way too quickly. There are a lot of people that would be OK with being dragged into upgrading if Windows 7 was an easily available option. Bu now, MS is pushing manufacturers into pre-installing 8, which is NOT a good transition path from XP as Windows 7 was.
- localhost 13y agoWindows 8 shipped 3 years after Windows 7. That's a very typical upgrade cycle.
- tuananh 13y agoPeople get used to "Windows XP's style" upgrade cycle, I guess.
- jaredmcateer 13y agoThe problem was that it was a complete pivot on an operating system people finally saw as the true successor to Windows XP. It's what Vista should have been, a nice polished and professional OS that generally was out of your face, yet extremely useful. Then there was windows 8, not horrible, there were some under the hood improvements but the horrible hybrid metro/desktop interaction alienated the desktop market and no clear incentive to upgrade.
- ams6110 13y agoThe bad part about every Windows since Windows 2000 is that it didn't really offer any new value. A bit more bling in the GUI, yes, and security, yes, but fundamentally Windows 2000 is just as good as Windows 7 from a productivity standpoint. So a lot of people saw that, and decided to just stay with XP until they are forced to do something different.
- 13y ago
- venomsnake 13y agoHow exactly Windows 7 was failure?
- altcognito 13y agoNope, he screwed up even bigger than that. As recently 2005, IE's browser share was well into the 90's. Now, it's hovering roughly 40% depending on whose stats you trust. This on the desktop, to say nothing of mobile which would make the comparison between years even worse. This is after Microsoft recognized that the web was their big challenge, after the so called Tidal Wave memo.
- Pxtl 13y agoHe allowed IE6 to languish while the competition was growing. To me, Ballmer is symbolic of Microsoft-with-ADD. They ignore things until they become urgent, and then shovel money into the furnace until victory comes. Look at Windows Phone - microsoft had a mobile offering when iOS came on the scene, but took years to move on with WP7. Desktops languished on IE6 for far, far too long. And Vista's long death-march process and lackluster result is another point.
- harigov 13y agoIt's a business decision - web makes all the OS platforms equal. It is against Microsoft's interests to do that. They wanted to keep the status quo as long as possible.
- potatolicious 13y agoI'm no fan of Ballmer, but I think "insulting OEMs" is one of the good things he did. The OEMs carry a great deal of blame for the collapse of Windows. While Apple was shipping beautiful metal enclosures with great convenient features like MagSafe and magnetic latches, OEMs like Dell were shitting all over the Windows brand with plasticky (and still expensive!), heavy, unreliable, loud-as-shit laptops with terrible screens. The same thing happened with WinPhone. MSFT spent a lot of time developing an honestly pretty decent OS, only to have its launch lineup filled with unimaginative, plasticky bullshit phones from Samsung and LG. I for one think Microsoft's messy divorce from OEMs is a great thing, my only disappointment was that they didn't throw the OEMs under the bus at supersonic speed.
- axelf 13y agonot to mention loading up the OS with a ton of crapware and free trials.
- braker 13y agoThis is honestly the worst of it IMO. Apple does have better hardware, yes, but the difference in speed out of the box is stunning when bloatware is involved. Microsoft didn't have a chance to keep up with OSX.
- corresation 13y agoApple does have better hardware, yes, but the difference in speed out of the box is stunning when bloatware is involved Aside from the odd "Apple has better hardware" bit (they use the same binned devices that other OEMs like Dell do, so not sure where that comes from), you've benchmarked this purported speed difference? Because most of the crapware that companies like Dell, HP, and others put on, while irritating, consumes exactly 0% of processor or I/O time, and has zero impact on performance of the device, beyond the hysterical, easily-convinced responses of the placebo effect. The vast majority is nothing more than trials. It's irritating, and wastes users time if you want to clean up your desktop and app lists, but the commonly stated impact is just not at all supported. And then there's the issue of what exactly is crapware and what isn't. Buy a pure Windows device and you'll be pestered endlessly for Skydrive, Hotmail, Bing, photo backups, Xbox coupling, active your Office trial, etc (just as if you buy an xbox 360 and then pay for the privilege of using it online, in return you get ads and sponsored placements on your dashboard). Apple is predominately a hardware vendor that has made enormous bank on that (pivoting their MP3 player market into a smartphone market into a tablet market into a bonafide desktop market). Microsoft is predominately a software vendor. Everyone told Microsoft that they should mirror Apple: it got them a billion dollar+ write down so far, and offended all of their prior allies to start grouping behind alternatives. This "Microsoft should be like Apple" plan isn't really paying dividends.
- runjake 13y ago> For one man, he sure has a lot of failures on his plate. As do all successful people. If success were easy, everyone would be doing it. For all the ways I disagree with Ballmer, this seems like a poor choice to point out.
- epo 13y agoOK, name his successes. How has Microsoft improved on his watch? Failures are acceptable if there is ultimate success, what is Ballmer's success? Retiring rich? (Most of which was accomplished on Gate's stewardship.) Perhaps his name could become a unit for excess inventory. The "Ballmer", 500 cubic metres of unsold goods. EDIT: or perhaps the name of a new airplane seat, "The Ballmer" the only chair to fly in!
- untog 13y agoDid MS miss social? They are a huge investor in Facebook.
- Aaronontheweb 13y agoFailed Windows 7 launch? What the hell are you smoking? Has a lot of failures on his plate for one man? Please hand this comment an award for middlebrow remark of the year. Let's put Steve Ballmer's accomplishments in perspective: Have you tripled a multi-billion dollar company's revenue over ten years? Did you launch the Xbox? Did you launch Windows Phone (10% marketshare in 3 years)? Did you launch Bing (growing faster than the search market)? Did you grow .NET into the most widely adopted application development platform in the world? Did you grow the Windows Server business out of nothing compared to where it was 15 years ago? Did you turn Visual Studio into the gold standard for IDEs? Didn't think so. Ballmer will be remembered for one great mistake, and that's denying Microsoft's culture and employees a strong technical visionary over the course of his tenure. Ballmer is a COO, kind of like the guy running Apple these days - neither Ballmer nor Tim Cook have a strong ability to anticipate changes in the way technology is consumed compared to their predecessors. And this is largely what's responsible for Microsoft's big whiffs - they missed the mark multiple times on the consumerization of technology. People are already starting to grumble many of the same criticisms of Tim Cook's innovation that they did about Steve Ballmer, and who can blame them? Over the past three years all Apple has shipped are the same products they had before but with different screen sizes. However, that doesn't mean that Tim Cook won't be successful in growing Apple's business, nor does it mean that Steve Ballmer was a failure. As an ex-Microsoftie, I could not be happier to see Steve go. The company needs a technical visionary in order to stop having to play from behind every time there's a change in the market. But to call Steve a failure is utter nonsense and requires overlooking all of the successes that he and Microsoft had during his tenure.