Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Satya Nadella Appointed Microsoft CEO as Bill Gates Shifts from Chairman to 'Technology Advisor'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Amazing, ain't it? If it were up to me, everyone would have zero margin for error when it comes to their associations in the business world. If they make even one mistake, they'd be branded as bozos for life.
----------
Holy crap. All three of them wear glasses!
Compaq used to be one hell of a company. Before they merged with HP they had some of the best windows servers and workstations on the market. After the merge, HP rebranded all of compaq's good hardware and turned them into a cheap mass produced desktop brand.
On another note i am happy to see other people here being happy for Microsoft on what seems to be a decent decision for both Gates and the new CEO. It shows that were not all a bunch of Apple fan boys and can appreciate it when another company does something right.
'Appleinsider', which deals with a company that doesn't exist in a vacuum.
Let go of it.
Yeah, I know. Back in the late 90's, they were excellent little computers. Symantec used to be a fairly decent company, too. Outside of Norton, they might still be for all I know.
The point is, contrary to what that one poster was trying to imply, you can't judge someone's skills and experiences solely upon their previous associations.
Welp
Welp. We shall see. Apple and Google are going to keep giving away their OS and their Productivity Software. I don't know how many more years McSFT is going to be able to get ordinary people to pay for Windows or Office. Companies will keep paying, but the folks they hire from college will not come to work with any PC or Office experience. And they won't be using those products at home. So there will be more and more pressure to not use the products at work.
It all seems pretty inevitable that that part of McSFT is going to seriously contract its revenues in the next few years.
Welp. We shall see. Apple and Google are going to keep giving away their OS and their Productivity Software. I don't know how many more years McSFT is going to be able to get ordinary people to pay for Windows or Office. Companies will keep paying, but the folks they hire from college will not come to work with any PC or Office experience. And they won't be using those products at home. So there will be more and more pressure to not use the products at work.
It all seems pretty inevitable that that part of McSFT is going to seriously contract its revenues in the next few years.
Cursed with the position of Microsoft CEO...
They're still trying to fix that surface thing.
Surface's problem is its public perception and price. Remember how much people hated Vista? When they called it Windows 7 people suddenly loved it.
What's wrong with Microsoft being a cloud/enterprise company? Why do some consider them a failure because consumer electronics isn't their strong suit? Microsoft should split off their hardware stuff into a separate company and let. Nadella run the enterprise and cloud stuff.
I don't know if it still is, but for awhile there, iCloud was hosted using MS' Azure backend.
IBM has gone through many changes, since they started as an adding machine company. That's why they are doing well. Even though they haven't always moved quickly enough, they have adapted.
You have just illustrated the big difference between Apple and Microsoft. Nobody gives Apple permission to release products that drain them financially, then "maybe" start to makes some money. Apple is expected to release products that make a profit right off the blocks. So yes, Microsoft is having a hard time keeping themselves out front. This is what I am saying, in addition to this move not being a sign that they will position themselves any better.
This is a variation on the argument that slow is just Microsoft's way, and slow is good enough. The fact is, everybody wants their company to go screaming out of the gate with new products. Microsoft's culture doesn't cultivate the kind of innovative thinking required to come screaming out of a gate. They are more about plodding.
I've always thought that Microsoft was one of the world's corporate tragedies. They had (and even still do have) the world by the technological short and curlies, but they could never find a way to leverage that power beyond exploiting what they already do to the maximum degree. With all those resources they should be able to do truly great things, but they've always been satisfied (and rewarded) by mediocrity. One of the largest tech companies the world has ever known is hopelessly mediocre. Isn't that tragic? I think so.
For what it's worth:
http://www.cultofmac.com/100594/icloud-is-built-on-the-backs-of-windows-azure-and-amazon/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/02/icloud_runs_on_microsoft_azure_and_amazon/
http://gizmodo.com/5811962/is-microsoft-azure-powering-apples-icloud
http://venturebeat.com/2011/09/03/icloud-azure-amazon/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/09/02/icloud_runs_on_microsoft_azure_and_amazon/
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/is-apple-really-using-windows-azure-to-power-icloud/9687
This.
Although there is always the chance that mr. Nadella has a dormant surprise vision that he has kept quiet until now.
I wouldn't say they don't cultivate the type of mindset required to be truly innovative, because they do...to a point. Their R&D division is among the best in the industry, and at any given moment, they're probably working on 30 world changing concepts and ideas that would collectively melt our brains were we to see them in action.
But there's a disconnect between their research and executive branches that keeps us all from seeing these great ideas in action in a timely manner. Moreso than any other company, they're well prepared for the future, but they tend to play it safe and let everyone else dip their toes into a brand new market before committing to it themselves.
I'd go into more detail, but I'm running short on time here. I'll agree with you that it is kinda tragic. They have the means and the people to potentially be a better Apple than Apple, but their tendency to play it safe gives everyone the impression that they're more the workhorse of the industry rather than one of the big movers and shakers.
Everyones! The Xbox is a copy of Sonys PlayStation, its Kinect sensor was just to counter Nintendos WiiMote and Xbox Live wants to be Netflix. Virtually everything Microsoft does, down to the smallest product feature, can be traced back to some other company having success with something and Microsoft wanting to get in on that market. Some program called WordPerfect is becoming famous, surely the next year version one of Microsoft Word. Its always been like that. Maybe Microsofts only original idea, without a proven concept to copy from, was the Tablet-PC and they couldn't make it work.
Build on, as in not facing the consumer directly. There are lots of big companies like Cisco and Oracle, on which the Internet is build upon and no end-user needs to know about them. Microsoft is going from ubiquitous with Windows to behind the scenes infrastructure with Azure.
And the Playstation was a copy of the NES, and the NES was a copy of the Atari 2600, and the 2600 was a copy of the Fairchild Channel F.
Do you not see how the whole who copied who argument is tired and pointless? Everyone copies from everyone. The most tragic thing about it is that the true originators, the prime mover of the long line of copies to come, they're usually relatively unknown, or have long since gone out of business.
What you need to understand is that everything is iterative. A line of small improvements upon a basic idea. Apple didn't invent the GUI, but they added their own touch to it. MS didn't invent the office suite, but they added their own touches to it. That's the way of the world. Everyone copies everyone, but ultimately has to add their own improvements to it, because direct clones rarely ever sell well.
Not so much mediocre IMHO. I'd use the word "conservative". Microsoft's conservative nature is due in part to its umbilical ties (and reliance) to the suit-and-tie corporate American culture.
Businesses (as corporate customers) do not always embrace the initial products of more maverick companies like Apple or Google. But they do find safety and assurance in the long-term, play-it-safe, plodding, and strategic modus operandi of a company like Microsoft.
Where Microsoft fails is when they try too hard to be some maverick-hipster company in the image of Google or Apple. It's just not in Microsoft's DNA.