Hacker News Reader

Comment by gavinlynch | Hacker News Reader

They used this as the point for why Microsoft has fallen behind. The former developer says, "I was too concerned with appeasing my manager's when I should have been concerned with being a better engineer."

But really? Is that why Microsoft has fallen by the wayside (realtively)? Because they don't have good enough engineers?

I disagree. I think they have a wealth of talented engineers.

What they need(ed) are people with vision, a deep understanding of the future of consumer electronics and computing, and a way to execute on that vision. They need to deliver short, medium and long-term products that feed their vision. They need to show people the future of the industry instead of lagging behind it.

Engineering is a crucial component in that, but it's only part of the story IMHO.

View on HN

I disagree. I think they have a wealth of talented engineers. What they need(ed) are people with vision

Vision doesn't happen in a vacuum. It happens within the wider cultural context of the organisation. A technical lead, a project lead, a manager - they are all affected by the environment they are in. If you spend all your time fighting politics and trying to shore up demoralised engineers, you are not going to waste your time dreaming about ponies and rainbows.

If you want an analogy, you can take the world's greatest general, but if you drop him in a WW-I trench, he is just cannon fodder.

"If you spend all your time fighting politics and trying to shore up demoralised engineers, you are not going to waste your time dreaming about ponies and rainbows."

I think that's a fair point. Good reply.

I have to agree.

The article started with stack ranking, but clearly there were much bigger issues looming.

>“He didn’t like the user interface, because it didn’t look like Windows,” a programmer involved in the project recalls... “Windows was the god—everything had to work with Windows,” Stone tells Eichenwald. “Ideas about mobile computing with a user experience that was cleaner than with a P.C. were deemed unimportant by a few powerful people in that division, and they managed to kill the effort.”

They could have been years ahead on phones, tablets, and e-readers. But instead they had a culture that tried to shoehorn a standard Windows experience into every device (I imagine for marketing reasons). They are only now getting over it a decade later, though it's probably more accurate to say they have the same philosophy but in reverse: shoehorn a mobile experience into the desktop in Windows 8.

What difference does it make if you have the greatest engineers in the world but management is blocking them at every turn?

"shoehorn a mobile experience into the desktop in Windows 8."

I actually laughed out loud when I read that--it's true!

"I disagree. I think they have a wealth of talented engineers."

That statement is false in many ways. As a developer, you keep seeing substandard products from Microsoft. Have you looked at the architecture of SharePoint? compare SqlServer CE to SQLite, not to mention the horrible tutorials and source code which Microsoft keeps putting out.

C#/.NET is an excellent platform/language but Microsoft keeps putting out horrible sub standard code/tutorials

Have you seen the sales of SharePoint?

Engineers always think that companies are engineering driven, when in fact mostly they are sales driven. If SharePoint sells well, then its not substandard, even if you don't like its architecture.

Sales? I thought it was just a free add on?

Your first two paragraphs are not mutually exclusive. My former employer had a wealth of talented engineers who were overridden or ignored on key architecture decisions, either by semi-technical upper management or customers. Things had to be done a certain way because X wants them done that way, and by the time the bad decisions get highlighted the technical debt is too high for management to justify changing direction, and the program is forced to limp along with the crap they have.

My impression of Microsoft (entirely from the outside) is that they have this same problem.

In a large company, the technical documentation may be scrubbed by non-engineers.

It's a mix. I've seen some brilliant engineers here but I've seen a lot of so-so employees collecting pay checks. What I do think is very real issue and more so than the stack ranking is that we are incredibly date sensitive here and cost sensitive. I often feel, in my personal opinion, that improvements or changes that could make us better off 13 months down the road are culled or punted because the upfront cost is too high or because set commitments for an upcoming timeline.

What is the point of having all those billions in cash on hand, and an R & D budget exceeding the market cap of many DJIA participants, if you're going to penny pinch where it counts? http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=msft What timeline is so important (short term) if you lose the future, period?

Look at Sharepoint's history. It's a Frankenstein of a bunch of acquired products. None of the built in services were enterprise ready last I checked (e.g. an alarm that doesn't always fire, a file upload service that doesn't always upload, etc., etc.).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com