5 ms·

I think the problems started when they hit their monopoly phase and Windows became a cash cow. It probably looked at that point like they had "won" and all the

I think the problems started when they hit their monopoly phase and Windows became a cash cow. It probably looked at that point like they had "won" and all they had to do was keep the upgrade chain going. Don't need to innovate; that would rock the boat and risk the cow.

Florin_Andrei 13y ago
That's an awfully early point in time. Lady Diana was definitely alive back then.
- hkmurakami 13y ago
  It's taken oldtime winners like Xerox and Kodak decades to wither away and die too.
Jare 13y ago
Strictly speaking, a monopoly / cash cow phase creates a context in which bad practices will not kill your company and are not removed by natural selection. It allows these bad practices to survive and thrive, but it does not create the practices themselves. I think the distinction is important, because removing the cash cow will not fix the problems, but instead let these problems run the company into the ground. RIM is probably a perfect example of this process, and Microsoft is not, which gives credibility to the idea that, for all its failings, Microsoft has in fact been able to embrace a number of innovations and new markets (Xbox, Azure, enterprise...).
- joe_the_user 13y ago
  Interestingly, some classic monopolies, like the old AT&T and Xerox, innovated tremendously but would fail to capitalize on those innovations (Bell Labs & Unix, Xerox and the Mouse/Menu/etc GUI).
  - nostrademons 13y ago
    I think this is the more common failure mode - a lot of innovative work happens at big companies, but those innovations never make it to market because commercializing a product requires a large investment in, well, finding customers, and the innovators at big companies are not empowered to do this. There is still a ton of innovative research work coming out of Microsoft, Intel, and even IBM, but typically instead of being commercialized and profited from, it languishes until the company shuts down the research lab and the scientists involved get jobs elsewhere.
  - hga 13y ago
    The original AT&T was an official government monopoly so the very existence of Bell Labs was in part a tax it payed to avoid problems. As I recall it also wasn't allowed to do things like sell UNIX(TM) for serious money prior to the United States v. AT&T 1982 consent decree ... which I notice is the same year UNIX System III was released. Xerox, though ... well, a good book on that is Fumbling the Future: http://www.amazon.com/Fumbling-Future-Invented-Personal-Computer/dp/1583482660/ http://www.amazon.com/Fumbling-Future-Invented-Personal-Comp... ... which is still in print after it's 1988 debut. That isn't even an example of disruptive innovations almost never happening in established companies, Xerox just wasn't doing that sort of thing to begin with. Well, they bought Scientific Data Systems at the top in 1969 and fumbled that by the middle of the '70s....
jmspring 13y ago
Per the article - fostering a system that allows for taking big risks and possibly failing, but showing a track record over time of succeeding is much more beneficial to a company than yearly or half yearly cycles producing a number that has to fit a curve starting with comparing you against the peers in your group. Projects, life circumstances, and many other factors can have a one time effect. Also, yes, Windows and Office are cash cows. MSFT is a company of 90k+ people, they aren't all working on the cash cows. There are individuals trying to create new products, enter new markets, etc. It is a complicated ecosystem. I'm pretty sure it was new HR and HR policies along with Bill relinquishing control that spurred a change in dynamics.

Florin_Andrei 13y ago

That's an awfully early point in time. Lady Diana was definitely alive back then.

hkmurakami 13y ago
It's taken oldtime winners like Xerox and Kodak decades to wither away and die too.

Jare 13y ago

Strictly speaking, a monopoly / cash cow phase creates a context in which bad practices will not kill your company and are not removed by natural selection. It allows these bad practices to survive and thrive, but it does not create the practices themselves. I think the distinction is important, because removing the cash cow will not fix the problems, but instead let these problems run the company into the ground. RIM is probably a perfect example of this process, and Microsoft is not, which gives credibility to the idea that, for all its failings, Microsoft has in fact been able to embrace a number of innovations and new markets (Xbox, Azure, enterprise...).

joe_the_user 13y ago
Interestingly, some classic monopolies, like the old AT&T and Xerox, innovated tremendously but would fail to capitalize on those innovations (Bell Labs & Unix, Xerox and the Mouse/Menu/etc GUI).
- nostrademons 13y ago
  I think this is the more common failure mode - a lot of innovative work happens at big companies, but those innovations never make it to market because commercializing a product requires a large investment in, well, finding customers, and the innovators at big companies are not empowered to do this. There is still a ton of innovative research work coming out of Microsoft, Intel, and even IBM, but typically instead of being commercialized and profited from, it languishes until the company shuts down the research lab and the scientists involved get jobs elsewhere.
- hga 13y ago
  The original AT&T was an official government monopoly so the very existence of Bell Labs was in part a tax it payed to avoid problems. As I recall it also wasn't allowed to do things like sell UNIX(TM) for serious money prior to the United States v. AT&T 1982 consent decree ... which I notice is the same year UNIX System III was released. Xerox, though ... well, a good book on that is Fumbling the Future: http://www.amazon.com/Fumbling-Future-Invented-Personal-Computer/dp/1583482660/ http://www.amazon.com/Fumbling-Future-Invented-Personal-Comp... ... which is still in print after it's 1988 debut. That isn't even an example of disruptive innovations almost never happening in established companies, Xerox just wasn't doing that sort of thing to begin with. Well, they bought Scientific Data Systems at the top in 1969 and fumbled that by the middle of the '70s....

jmspring 13y ago

Per the article - fostering a system that allows for taking big risks and possibly failing, but showing a track record over time of succeeding is much more beneficial to a company than yearly or half yearly cycles producing a number that has to fit a curve starting with comparing you against the peers in your group. Projects, life circumstances, and many other factors can have a one time effect. Also, yes, Windows and Office are cash cows. MSFT is a company of 90k+ people, they aren't all working on the cash cows. There are individuals trying to create new products, enter new markets, etc. It is a complicated ecosystem. I'm pretty sure it was new HR and HR policies along with Bill relinquishing control that spurred a change in dynamics.