What Microsoft’s revival can teach other tech companies | Hacker News Reader

What Microsoft’s revival can teach other tech companies

economist.com

41 pointslxm32 comments

I learned that you can change your public image to suit your current needs in whatever way you want and people will soon forget the past.

Soon, Microsoft will have always been a big supporter of open source in the minds of most people.

Why does it matter what they were? They have changed their public image (and, in point of fact, their actions) and they are being rewarded for it.

We should reward companies which make positive changes and condemn those which make hostile ones. Hanging onto the image of how they used to behave will only slow down the positive feedback loop.

I concur. Microsoft is now an important and helpful part of the open source ecosystem. For the most part, they've been generous and engaging with the community. Also, the commercial products seem to be living in harmony with their open source counterparts.

We're living in a future better than most of us could have imagined twenty years ago. We should embrace it.

It works the other way too. Many people still believe in Google’s abandoned motto; but that motto has been dead for quite some time.

Yes, there's basically no integrity. Only the appearance of it. A company isn't this way or that way they just do whatever is most promising in that moment.

This is 100% correct. Too many otherwise rational people make emotional decisions, like trusting Google and thinking that Apple hardware is still the most reliable.

A company isn't a person.

What percentage of current Microsoft employees were there 15 years ago? Very few, I suspect.

In this case "forgetting the past" is perfectly fine if you're making decisions about how to interact with Microsoft now.

It doesn't make any sense to judge current employees and leadership by mistakes made by an entirely different set of people as far back as a couple of decades ago.

If Microsoft is a supporter of open source now, then let's just embrace that and be grateful for it. What's the use in dwelling on a past that no longer matters?

The problem is that MS did quite a lot to try and discredit open source when Linux was in its infancy.

This is a bit like breaking someone's knee, and then handing them a cane to hobble on, and then patting yourself on the back for being a major supporter of the person with the broken knee.

>>What percentage of current Microsoft employees were there 15 years ago? Very few, I suspect.

Are you sure about this? I personally know plenty of folks who used to talk about the "cancer of open-source", who are still there and now happily counting the money in their bank accounts. Are you imagining that these folks decided to just "up and leave" once Microsoft started supporting this so-called "cancer"?

Curious do you apply the same logic to for instance Google? The majority of people that once did good and wanted "no evil" have left the company since 2000s. Will Google now forever remain that no evil company in your eyes?

I think companies change, especially over the course of 20 years and if the change is positive, why not support it?

>>Curious do you apply the same logic to for instance Google?

Yes. The entire big tech policy is basically a no-holds-barred power grab at the moment, which is definitely not "no evil".

>>if the change is positive, why not support it?

You are supposing something did change. But anyone who has actually been acquainted with any of the folks at these companies knows that this is not true. There isn't any "standing behind the courage of your convictions" going on here. It is just "let's do what is best for the bottom line, and then make up a story which suits our recent views". Generally, this is just what politicians do. So I suppose we can now group politicians and MS Employees together into the same weasel group.

E.g. Even as MSFT was supposedly going through an embrace of open source, they were showing perma-nag popups inside Windows 7 to get everyone to upgrade (against their wish) to Windows 10. "Don't like it? Too bad. You don't have a choice in this matter". Now this is all fine - a company can do whatever it wants with its product yada yada - but then simultaneously people were talking about this "new Microsoft". Same goes with Microsoft's attempts to get a $5 tax on every Android which was sold.

So yeah, in my view, nothing's actually changed.

Sorry, but this so called Microsoft revival under Nadella is pure marketing, not in the least bit technical. Under Ballmer (and Gates before him), Microsoft were a super ambitious company that tried to be the best at everything it did, and they made an effort to recruit the best programmers. Under Nadella, Microsoft completely lacks any ambition, and almost all of their best programmers have left for Google, Facebook or Amazon. They are now officially the new IBM. Not in the least bit exciting or something to emulate.

They've written zero lines of code since Nadella's arrival?

They're writing code obviously, but they are happy hiring mediocre programmers these days for their boring, mediocre products. They pay far lower than Google, Facebook and Amazon do. They make zero effort to recruit the brightest minds in the industry.

Even if these things are true (and you have no way of knowing they are, you're clearly just guessing), your original assertion "Sorry, but this so called Microsoft revival under Nadella is pure marketing, not in the least bit technical" is false.

How does that follow? If what I say is true (and it is, just talk to software engineers who work at these big companies they'll tell you the same), then it means Microsoft have done nothing under Nadella that's ambitious or challenging from a technical point of view. They have made no new products or improved existing ones that warrants calling it a revival. All they have done is better PR.

"They make zero effort to recruit the brightest minds in the industry." is true? Could you explain in detail how you know this to be true?

Sure. Making an effort to recruit the brightest minds means first of all paying them like your competitors are paying. Giving them similar perks. Giving them challenging things to work on. Giving them good promotion paths within the company. Making the company engineering-driven rather than middle-manager driven. Google and Facebook do all of them. Microsoft currently do none.

Also, you haven't addressed why you think even if my assertion is true how Microsoft's so called revival having nothing to do with tech isn't true.

> Making an effort to recruit the brightest minds means first of all paying them like your competitors are paying. Giving them similar perks.

Are compensation and perks the only factor in attracting talent? Are they a prerequisite? Are you able to substantiate this belief with facts?

> Giving them challenging things to work on.

Can you substantiate your claim that no one at Microsoft has interesting things to work on lately? Can you at least link to some anecdotal stories with a bit of substance to them?

> Giving them good promotion paths within the company. Making the company engineering-driven rather than middle-manager driven. Google and Facebook do all of them. Microsoft currently do none.

Again, do you have any evidence other than your opinion?

> Also, you haven't addressed why you think even if my assertion is true how Microsoft's so called revival having nothing to do with tech isn't true.

Azure. Their revenue increasingly comes from Azure. It is new. It is technology.

[Citation needed]

To my knowledge Microsoft pays well - maybe not like Facebook, but on the other hand employees have a life and can focus on family, whichbin return reflects the Nadella version of Microsoft.

I recommend reading "Hit refresh" from Nadella. Fascinating book that teaches a lot about being humble and grateful.

I don't doubt that Nadella is humble, and so is Microsoft under him. But my point is they're not in the least bit ambitious technically. They are not trying to make any product that's the best in the world. The old Microsoft, and the current Google/Facebook/Amazon all have that ambition.

Odd that this is gaining tracking at the same time that they are under fire for banning GitHub accounts.

Tl;dr 1. Don’t f* over your customers and partners. 2. Don’t build what _you_ want and expect that everyone will use.

I had read “Hit Refresh” a while ago and Nadella does talk a lot about empathy. It felt a bit woozy at that time but my experience as a PM is really beginning to show me the importance of listening to your customers.

Something which Azure has taught me is that people will eat shit from Microsoft by the spoonful and pay them for it.

Don't say this on Reddit you'll be met with that azure is the best cloud out of the three major ones.

Bunch of amateurs.

You, sir, are very arrogant.

Although I somwwhat agree with your assessment about Reddit users, your comment (on HN) doesn't put you in a very good position either. Your comment reeks of arrogance.

You should have been more elaborate and less arrogant.

That's because MS is the new IBM, and as a saying goes it means that you can't be fired for buying MS.

As if that’s a bad thing. If you were a CTO in the early 70s and decided to buy mainframe systems from IBM, you could still buy compatible systems today from the same vendor. Their competitors - not so much.

Care to explain how Azure is worse than AWS? All of my experience is with AWS so I’m not in any position to defend Azure, but a random statement doesn’t exactly lead to a substantive conversation.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Reply on news.ycombinator.com