Bill Gates tries to install MovieMaker (2003)
techemails.com
techemails.com
This feels like an email that should have been blasted to the entire company. Top-down, empower employees to think of a more unified experience. Then again, all of the external jokes about Microsoft indicate that every department is fighting for their lives against the others, so that kind of kumbaya togetherness was never going to happen.
made me irate. It was very clear! Read the issues and be accountable for fixing them?
Sadly, even though most of these philosophies have been discredited over the long term (stack ranking can be fine if you do actually need to do layoffs, so long as you realized there are exceptions to the rule), other bad management practices have also taken over. We're now squarely in the depths of all the worst aspects of "product driven" development, where nebulous metrics are measured for success (such as the bad VSCode decision to append copilot in commit messages, which makes it look like copilot is more heavily used than it is).
When people compete internally on Microsoft, what are they competing on if everybody works in a different horizontal?
Instantly reminded me of this especially apt comic:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyJfRwHWYAI0_yt?format=jpg
[1] Also available here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/6jw33z/int...
1. Leader escalates issue to his team 2. The team scrambles to come up with a solution 3. No one wants to take ownership. #NotMyProblem 4. weeks or months are spent on 'developing a plan' 5. nothinghappens.jpg
It results in the equivalent of treating an infection with Tylenol rather than antibiotics. The exact symptom reported by a "Leader" will usually get fixed, but in a more of a "KPI hacking" rather than a fundamental fix to the problem. I have seen a "Leader" point to the staggering number of support tickets as a problem then have teams make it incredibility difficult to open a support ticket. The number of support tickets plummets and the first report to instruct their team to do so gets rewarded and all other teams follow suit. Have a leader point to complexity of the sign up process, and have teams "simplify" the signup process by just taking an email to create the account, then make the experience of doing anything post sign up a broken mess because you forgot to go into settings and filling up all the required details. Or have a leader complain about the install process like in this example, and have teams just bundle massive dependencies or make wide horrific modifications to the users machine to "simplify" the install process. Now suddenly installing a video editing software also modifies your default video player, your HDR or scaling settings, your audio device setup, and your keyboard layout (because why not?)
Standard psychology says they should be highly sensitive to status loss, but it almost seems the opposite.
Existing in a large org over the long term becomes a game of survival. It's very much similar to the "dark forest" or the Eye of Sauron. Your number one goal as an IC is to complete the tasks directly assigned to you by a supervisor and avoid at all costs any kind of "hey you" assignments that have zero upside and plenty of possibility for downside. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where individual initiative mattered and was rewarded, but it doesn't. It becomes "why haven't you delivered XYZ", and the vague ephemeral reasoning of "well A, B and C for team D needed fixing" is not an excuse, and now you can't pay your mortgage anymore.
How much money does movie maker bring Microsoft? Now which executive would want to prioritize movie maker so much that they would directionally alter the company to fix this? Consider the issue that the execs had was fixing all the issues involved a huge number of teams.
Discredit to Bill here but I honestly think he was the only one who had the power to fix this. A Jobs-like figure is the only person with the organizational power and freedom to drive details like this to completion. Anyone else would end up in a power struggle
Large companies are why large companies are large (in IT/OT at least)
So nothing got done.
So the temperature on the issue went up.
So management whose failure was their own could only think of engaging more managers and processes….
Never ended.
I work at small companies now, less money but I enjoy it more. I just fix things and everyone is happy.
The only thing that can prevent it is a flat organization but one that has enough structure so an unofficial hierarchy can't form. And making that work is hard.
I’ve been in this situation in a small company as well. The owner wasn’t managing the company and there was no other manager. So the owner would express his frustration in an all hands meeting “I don’t like x” or “we’re going to do y from now on” but he would not assign the task to anyone, or give ownership. He would come up with some insane new goal but no plan, no equipment, and no one person who’s in charge of making sure the required resources, time and responsibility is assigned. So nothing would change, a month later there would be another meeting, with a middle aged man having a tantrum about why did no one do anything!? Why is no one listening to me?
You might be thinking it’s a good opportunity to accept some responsibility, it might get you a promotion or be a good learning opportunity. Yeah I tried that for a while, if you succeed, congratulations, you now have one new task for which you’re responsible for without any extra compensation or benefit. If you fail? Well guess who’s getting the blame..,
If you provided leadership in your case then I think it’s different
I think the thing that really made it horrible is like I said. The boss would say x needs to happen but would not think through the details, buy the equipment, allocate the time or human resources. Someone still had to work out how to do those things and who was going to do what.
In the end if there are enough incentives(usually money) people would work on those.
Agreed. Even at companies known for having a great culture and being "different from the rest", the Game of Thrones politics is still there - it's just more hidden and polite. I was a senior exec in the biggest BU at just such an F100 valley tech giant for >10 yrs (one level from the CEO). The company actually did have a nicer environment than its peers, no 360 reviews, no 'up or out' mandates, and a vibe genuinely a cut above.
While the net effect was more pleasant day to day and teams were insulated a few more levels down than most places, the brawling over headcount, budget and revenue attribution was simply practiced far more artfully. Sadly, I think it's just endemic to the breed of "large public corp" and while the best may be better, none are immune.
They are arguing about not wanting to take ownership because they know the organizational structure is going to be an impediment. The problems Bill describes could not have been solved by Microsoft without a massive internal restructuring. We know this because Microsoft's UX is still abysmal.
Nobody wants to have the inevitable failure hung around their necks by "owning" something that depends on the cooperation and coordination of departments that don't report to them.
And with the exception of John Martin's reply (which recognizes that there are deeper problems they should think about, but seems resigned to the fact that that won't happen) the focus is pretty much entirely: "let's fix the exact issues Bill Gates ran into trying to download this one product we produce" (out of many hundreds/thousands) rather than "let's fix the root causes that caused us to arrive in this place to begin with".
I haven't worked at any companies as large and siloed as Microsoft, but I'd assume this is pretty common for them, at least if they don't have a Steve Jobs-like tyrant who both has all the power and is singularly product focused.
I think one of the strengths of Apple during the Jobs days was that Jobs actually sometimes seemed to use the products himself and gave feedback. When I look at the blatant bugs MacOS and iOS had in the last years, I also think that the current Apple big shots never use their stuff or they would have noticed.
Or they do and they don't think it's worth their time and energy to get them fixed. I think they just don't care about their products, unlike Jobs.
The crazy thing is that it's more likely that most people in Apple are using their own products, versus any of the Android phone manufacturers or within Google, where it's likely a few of them would be using the Apple ecosystem instead.
Many of them are definitely dogfooding it, but it's possible that there are communication or empowerment issues.
But since a few years it goes up and down daily by 100 GB or more. Sometimes I have 350 GB, sometimes I have 100 GB. I think it has to do with Time Machine snapshots and purgeable space (whatever that means) but it's totally useless now. I can't tell for sure if I can copy 250 GB to my disk or not. It may fail now but work 2 hours later. How come nobody notices such a fundamental thing not working? Somehow the dogfooding doesn't seem to work. Or maybe the Apple people all have 8 TB disks so they don't care.
https://eclecticlight.co/2025/02/28/friday-magic-how-to-make...
Yeah, I wonder what's going on within the macOS division, but then again Liquid glAss is a thing.
In a twisted kind of way, the replies were reasonable and logical. They're not dumb, they can see it was crap. No one org can actually own this fix, so in that kind of situation it realistically requires someone like Bill to choose someone to drive it, and demand updates to ensure that everyone gets aligned. Telling his execs, especially in a company so notoriously political and "empire" oriented as it was, isn't going to work.
I actually liked that in Amazon, Jeff Bezos used to send out the infamous "question mark" emails on such a regular basis that they built an exec commitee specifically for the purposes of driving direct action on problems. Didn't matter where you were, or what you were working on, if that question mark email came you dropped everything to work on it.
This is how learned helplessness looks like when you’re a high level executive.
Must be nice being so useless, yet getting paid so much.
Though I guess these people must have been good at politicking to rise so high.
This goes right back to the leadership failure on Bill's part. If your company is structurally incapable of producing good products (which Microsoft assuredly is and still was) then it's on you as the CEO to implement the correct structures.
That's literally the purpose of upper management: you create the conditions for success to happen.
Doesn't need to be that large, I worked for a company that ~4500 employees with about 1000 at HQ, that entire email chain looks exactly like what would ensue every time someone at the C-level flagged an issue.
I suspect the reason is much the same, no one wants to be in the hot seat to fix a problem they have no faith they can fix so everyone plays hot potato with the flaming sack of shit until it bursts and lands on someone.
> Fish begins to stink at the head, not the tail. (13th Century Persian Proverb)
Once bad culture gets to your company, it doesn’t matter the size.
If the big boss is frustrated by the UX, they might send an angry email or even yell at you in person. If your division doesn't meet its sales projection for the quarter, you might get fired.
If BillG had wanted a company that made good user experiences, he'd have hired (and fired) for that. Sending a pissy email is what you do when you're annoyed but don't actually care enough to do anything about it.
> Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.
This is so true, and not only under Windows. Install any modern program under any modern OS and have a look at the filesystem, it's a flaming mess. Nowadays the only solution "smart people" have found is to install a complete system, complete with libraries and frameworks, for each program.
I miss the days of simple executables.
Every day I drop 1k lines of Python code and replace with go. Will be fully go soon!
One of my "santa's not real" moments of computing was realizing how much static and dynamic libraries fucking suck. This cannot be overstated, and is illustrated perfectly by the heroic efforts of software vendors to get away from them.
Okay, a few functions like fopen are fine - but even those are syscall wrappers IRL. But every OS seems to have concluded, that in the place of API calls, one should rather have streams of text (UNIX) or binary messages (Windows, also a bunch of Linux desktop stuff, like Wayland), or File I/O.
Basically a major motivation behind JIT langauges (C#/.NET certainly) was an effort to get away from dynamically linked libraries,
Even DOS didn't really have libraries, you had peripherals mapped to memory at certain addresses, and a set of interrupts, and that was it.
These single file Go and Rust programs read and write stdio and/or network, which is a reasonable solution to a lot of problems, but certainly not all of them, especially in the interactive space.
And linked libraries are interfaces mapped into memory at certain names. I think that's an awesome improvement.
Did I just dream up loading a mouse driver and MSCDEX in DOS?
https://bonkersworld.net/img/2011-06-27_organizational_chart...
Of course, I'm being naive here, as I've seen too many companies fail to achieve such basic ownership. So, curious what I have missed. Of if the ownership is not a clean DAG, well, it goes back to Gates, as he was responsible for both the org charts and the company culture.
You can still see symptoms of this today. MS will (or at least would) spin up new domains rather than just update microsoft.com, or create newthing.microsoft.com, since both of those require talking to whomever is responsible for the main domain. Even if that person exists, knowing who they are in an org like MS is already a big ask when it's organised the way it is. Meanwhile, buying a new domain likely takes less than an hour, even if you include billing and such.
It's a fundamental, cultural and systemic lack of concern for those issues.
An 'afterthought' that should be 'integral'.
That Gates did not realize that means it's 100% on him.
1000% actually.
He was struggling with the language of design and usability in 2003, not even realizing even the implications of what he was seeing (because it would require total rethink).
Like a cars coming out of the factory with missing parts ... blame it on the guy on the line?
No. Something is deeply wrong.
I really like Gates - but it's beyond shocking how these cultures work and how myopic they are.
I worked for a Fortune 50 - and it's pretty amazing to watch how an army of actually smart people with 'one eye' can be so competent many ways, but blind in others.
I don't like to put Jobs on a pedestal but obviously this is something he understood (even then with gaping holes).
I use the Mini every day, but only via a tty window.
They made certain design decisions a long time ago around a lot of things and that's one of them.
They 'conscientiously' designed the UX - which is great - it generally makes it better, but the problem is, when you make a mistake, the mistake is more ingrained.
We all know of 'Arrogant Engineers' thinking their 'Algorithm is more important than anything' - that 'save' thing is a design conceit, heavily instituted into the culture. The designers would look at you like an infidel for suggesting you know something they don't back in the day. Or even today.
I'm basically certain that Jobs himself will have defended that feature 1000 times over the years.
It's probably kept up like a religious ritual, a point of 'differentiation' and 'we're better here'.
Which is very different than a lack of operational rigour, it's where part of the system is overbearing.
"It's just the way we do it here" will be the justification for the next 100 years on that. And changing things that are ingrained is also very heard and risky. It's like changing the constitution, it's pulling a thread on the sweater.
There are quite a lot of weird 'Apple Way' things, most good, many bad.
And it shows.
He had bad ideas too but was much better at holding the line on good UI (unless the bad idea was his). We haven’t had that in a long time.
File > Save doesn't make sense because you would be saving your iMovie project. You're trying to export the final video from the project, not save it.
The problem was using a far too complex tool to do a simple job (and not understanding how the tool works). You can trim a video in Quicktime or Photos which directly manipulates the file.
"Export" means "save this working file in one of many formats, including possibly other formats that are first-class in third-party apps but not this app"
you try to justify it in a logical way, but you fail to realize that this is inherently subjective
I’m not sure why you see this as evidence BillG didn’t understand that to be his job.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yvh5k1RWER4
It describes the culture of both companies at that time very clearly.
I think the difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Steve was a "product" CEO. He would bot only send that email, but in addition he would somehow oversee/sypervise those changes ALL the way until he was satisfied.
(Typing this with a hot lap thanks to Windows update. The agony. Debian solved that 20-30 years ago.)
If you think this is not missing the forest for the trees, please explain.
The degree of overthinking going on in this thread…
It's actually funny that you're thinking they are 'lower level staff' because that's how it seems by their reaction, but those are literally top Execs.
That's really how these orgs often work.
'Dear Leader Is Angry' will set the whole org into a tizzy.
I've seen this countless times - 'XXX said it', and the littlest thing will get moved.
Often - this is good, it means the org is responsive to the direction of the founder, but it's 'abused' all the time. I think leaders forget their responsibility and truly believe that 'their whims' are essential.
25% of the US are looking at the insane things POTUS is putting out and believing there's some kind of 5D chess magic, when it's actually -5D - aka extraordinary bad leadership. That's the 'power of power'.
'Self Awareness' is probably the #1 superpower of a leader, because nobody is going to keep them in check.
The point is this was not a round robin reply all buckpassing exercise with BillG and the senior corporate leaders still on the reply list. This is a specific downstream chain of email.
I’m not sure I understand what people here think the right thing to do is when the company founder emails a bunch of senior execs telling them they seem to have let things all go to crap.
The email is a 'rant'.
It's a 'list of broken stuff'.
It's not:
1) identifying underlying first principles of design or UX that have been broken
2) not identifying which parts of the system may have resulted in the negative outcome
3) not reference for either operational or cultural that were braoched or need to be address
4) not at all cognizant of systemic concern at all.
5) didn't allocate responsibility, hint at how to organized a response, what structural issues need to be in place.
It's actually a really bad an embarrassing lack of leadership.
It's basically 'user rant' - not what one would expect from a leader.
He 'made a list of complaints and threw them onto the org.' - who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.
'Dear Leader, doesn't like how the picture frames are set in the office! Fire the picture framers, everyone get out your rulers and fix the picture frames'.
This is really common and it happens because people have this magical belief that the 'founder' or 'ceo' has 'special powers and insight' and then issues roll down hill among sycophants and yes men, trying to appease.
A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this', hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught, an attempt for accountability in certain areas (divide the concern), a requirement to convene on this issues and make sure everyone understands what's important. Especially and including the fact that anyone responsible for a product actually has to 'use it' aka dogfooding or else etc etc..
He’s may not have been the CEO… but he was the boss of the CEO and represented all the individual owners of the company.
The bear is sticky with honey, and people jump.
It is helpful for me to understand corporate dynamics and how they actually work (or as supposed to) instead of a simplified version from outside. My brother is a CEO of a big company so I get to hear it from his side. Doesn't mean I'm right, I'm not the CEO.
[edit: softened the language] [another edit]
Actually he isn't the CEO anymore. Private equity purchased the company years ago and he was made CEO from outside but in the industry. Eventually the PE people wanted to cut everything to make the company look good for a purchaser so that means high earners in the company have to go (this is a highly technical company with PhDs and researchers, etc).
But guess what? Those are the people that make the company special among other things. They demanded he fire some top people. He wouldn't because it would destroy the company's value. So they fired him and put in one of their lackeys to do the slaughter. They kept him on in a different role that I won't say because I don't want to reveal too much. Flash forward the company has not sold and is likely to have lost 50% of its value. I admire him but since they were going to be fired anyway shouldn't he have sucked it up and got a better price for the company? The PE people were total jackasses so working for them another day was poison in his veins.
He could have either sent it to Ballmer, or, framed it better.
It's still not good to dump a rant on a company like that.
It is absolutely a user rant, but it's entirely appropriate for a leader to call out "this is not okay; this is a garbage experience".
> who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.
That was the intent. "Fix this." This was an email to a bunch of execs who are capable of driving the actual fixes. If Gates needs to hand hold them through this then they need to be replaced.
> A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this'
This is vacuous corporate speak, the kind of message you send to shareholders to soothe them. This is not leadership.
> hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught...
Again, if Gates needs to do this then everyone on the To line is dead weight.
1) sending the org into a reactive frenzy on the minor issue when the structural issue is the problem - is bad. He's also pointing them at the symptom and not the cause.
2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
Gates failed to institute 'design and usability' as a fundamental aspect of the product and operational culture.
The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing.
3) "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job.
I don’t see an actual “reactive frenzy” here. I see that Gates started a conversation with the execs he believes are responsible for fixing this mess.
And again, these are execs being paid millions. They do not need to be coddled. You are acting as if Gates sent this to a bunch of junior engineers.
> ‘taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
It’s absolutely vacuous to say 'I take responsibility for this' when you are telling a group of people they need to fix their shit.
Any CVP/EVP who fails at a job and then hears someone above them take responsibility for the failure knows they are about to be out of a job.
> The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing.
If by underling you mean “highly paid executives” then sure. At some point people have to take responsibility for their jobs. This wasn’t a failure of some individual engineers. It was a collective failure of a group of executives to deliver a good experience.
> "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job
It’s literally not. That’s not what CEOs of large corporations do and Gates wasn’t even CEO at this time. He was in an advisory role. His job was literally to give feedback.
I think the point here might be that what created this mess in the first place is the structure of the organisation, not the execs that are temporarily embodying it. It's actually quite clear from the follow-ups, there is nobody who can claim responsibility even for the website, never mind any vision or philosophy spanning multiple media and products.
Maybe Gates simply wasn't in the position of doing anything else at that time, or maybe his rant was a clever way to expose this exact problem. But it's pretty obvious that "will someone fix the website" doesn't sound like someone analysing and addressing the root cause of the issue. (However, it's also perfectly possible that this email is just a small part of a bigger conversation at different levels- inform the responsible and patch the immediate issue while more high level analysis and planning takes place elsewhere, informally).
A leader should be able to send candid communication to other leaders. A culture where execs are unable to communicate candidly to their peers or other high-level leaders is a toxic one. It would be absurd to insist that every communication needs to be candy coated and framed in terms of “I take responsibility, so here’s a path forward, and I’ll handhold everyone through it.”
"Hey gang - I know I'm not Dear Leader anymore - and - I don't want to get in the way of your new Dear Leader, but I want to share with you a bad experience I had with this product.
A, B, C, D. E .. was really bad.
After thinking about it - I think much of this lays at my feet. In the Golden Era of MS we didn't think much about design, or 'Whole Product'. I have to take responsibility for that.
But these kinds of outcomes are really bad, and this has to be nipped in the bud now - and in the future.
I suggest this probably happened because Product and R&D criss-crossed here, the Release Managers and Product Marketing dropped a lot in between.
That there was a ball dropped here must be the responsibility at the VP/Executive level at very least, for not ensuring smooth handoff.
Furthermore - that this experience could be so bad means we have to rethink and extend our integration testing all the way to 'end user experience'.
Finally, I think you'll need to engender a culture of design right from the start - that's going to take 2-4 years and a different kind of thinking, that is not a fire that can be put out, or a process to be fixed. I'll have to lave that on the lap of the new Dear Leader.
Keep up the great work.
- BG"
That's how to write a 'candid' note.
It borderline infantilizing and buries the message under a bunch of saccharine. I can practically see the fake smile plastered across the face of the manager saying this. I would be insulted if my manager sent a message like this to the team.
Your version also took away literally all of the concrete detail, turning into a generic “it’s bad” that isn’t an actionable. It sounds like you sent it through an LLM.
I would also imagine that there are a lot of other emails flying around that are discussing the general pattern of concern while this is more of a drive-by honest review of a specific experience. This is the kind of blunt feedback that execs do not usually get about their products and probably need more of. This kind of blunt feedback from a respected leader can’t be waived away the way anecdotes from individual customers can.
“How do you do, fellow kids?”
> After thinking about it
Just say the thing.
> kinds of outcomes
What outcomes specifically?
> nipped in the bud
“stop”
> I suggest this probably happened because
“I think”
> ball dropped
“failure”
> must be the responsibility at the VP/Executive
What does this mean? Fire the VPs who failed to do their jobs? Say what you mean.
> ensuring smooth handoff
“doing their jobs”
> rethink and extend
“fix”
> engender a culture of design
This is a meaningless phrase.
> different kind of thinking
What kind of thinking?
> or a process to be fixed
Processes are how things get done! If programmers push garbage into the list of installed applications, that’s a process failure. If a product team makes a download available but it can’t be found on the main web site’s list of downloads, that’s a process failure. When things get done wrong it’s definitionally a process failure. Process also doesn’t flow from culture, they each exert influence on the other. Bad process will lead to bad culture as much as bad culture will lead to bad process.
I will reiterate what a sibling commenter already said: Nothing about this mealy mouthed corporate jargon liberally drizzled in passive voice comes across as candid. Effective communication does not look like this. Effective communication is assertive. It offers direct actionable advice, or asks direct questions which result in actionable answers.
It feels like it was written by 'Dwight Schrute'.
---> First - the notes about language are completely glib.
It's perfectly acceptable for someone to use personal tone.
"> After thinking about it
Just say the thing."
"> nipped in the bud
“stop”"
... would be ridiculous feedback to give anyone.
It's perfectly acceptable for any writer to have some personalized inflection in their prose.
There's no misunderstanding or lost context.
The fact that you would even try to pick apart language at level is just weird.
---> Second - "Nothing about this mealy mouthed corporate jargon"
There is nothing 'mealy mouthed' about that prose, and there is no 'corporate jargon' in the note.
None.
The writer in that scenario mean exactly what they said - with some allowance for personal inflection.
That's it.
---> Third - "> engender a culture of design
This is a meaningless phrase."
No - it's not a 'meaningless phrase' - it means exactly that, in so many words.
Obviously, I'm not going to write full follow up paragraph on that in HN, the implication is direct.
---> Fourth - and most importantly - you entirely missed the point by trying to nitpick on arbitrary language someone wrote crudely on a HN comment.
The 'point' is to illustrate in quick and rough terms how one could be 'candid' with the feedback about a broken feature - and to also to frame it responsibly, to direct some feedback and as to where the responsibility might lie and where the process might have broken down, and then to more broadly indicate strategic concerns over culture, because there clearly is, particularly around 'user centric concners'.
Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.
You're getting caught up literally in prose and notions of 'process' which is besides the point. This is not about 'process' - it's about a leader framing feedback.
And FYI it was Satya that finally did 'change the culture' (although on different terms) to generally widespread acclaim.
Rather than continue to dismiss the feedback, you should digest it and potentially learn something from it. Or not. It’s your choice.
> Gates barfed some 'things that were broken' - instead of providing any contextualization at all - it was totally absent anything a leader would nominally provide.
And yet you, simply by reading the email Gates sent, were able to confidently ascertain that the culture itself was failing here. You give too little credit to the recipients of this email when you imply that they can’t make the same assessment.
Your point could be made by simply adding the following at the very top of the original email: “Besides fixing the specific issues in this flow, we should consider how it got this bad in the first place and make changes to prevent it from happening again. I’ll support you and provide whatever you need.”
Done. Let the people who are responsible figure it out. They’re smart and capable, no need to baby them. You’ve made clear that you see it and it’s not acceptable, but you also understand that to drive through bigger changes, you’ll need to back them up and chip in when they need you.
Totally false.
It's literally the opposite of vacuous to take responsibility for his failure to set up the culture and system wherein this kind of stuff would not happen - while at the same time starting a fire so that the work is done.
Allocating responsibility is one of the most important actions.
-----> he both 'started a conversation' and ... it's a frenzy.
Agreed - it's totally legit that he brought up the issue, and it doesn't have to be perfectly presented ... but that email chain is almost purely reactionary.
That is not people seeking root cause.
It's not people recognizing underlying systems.
It's a reactionary executive gaggle.
This is a 'put out the fire' type reactionary stuff.
The shocking thing to most people, would be how much of the world is actually run this way.
I concede that it's not horrible in and of itself - and sometimes a fire must be lit, but this is a frenzy. Not deliberative.
----> If by underling you mean “highly paid executives” then sure.
By 'underling' I mean anyone under him. The executives in this thread are acting like underlings.
> This is a 'put out the fire' type reactionary stuff.
After the fire fighting comes the postmortem where the systemic issues should be discussed. A fire is a great way to spur both short and long term action.
> By 'underling' I mean anyone under him.
I don’t know how you reconcile “accountability” with the idea that the a leader cannot expect members of the team to deliver. Is Gates the only person who has any accountability expected here?
Each of the letters in CEO stand for a word with specific meaning, and when you put them together they tell you where the buck stops. It’s not a job for people who can’t take responsibility for their fuckups.
This is trying to be pithy but it’s not. Every leader from the CEO down has responsibility for their area of control and influence.
> It’s not a job for people who can’t take responsibility for their fuckups.
Neither is EVP or any other title that ends in “VP”.
The CEO ultimately owned The fact that installing movie maker was a shit show, but so did everyone in a position of leadership that contributed to that. Accountability does not mean everyone gets to point at the CEO and say “ultimately it’s their fault” as if that absolves them.
Tbh it seems like you're autistic and simply don't understand how such a "o take responsibility" message really looks like and what effect it'd have.
As others have pointed out, it's all in the follow-through, and there was no follow-through.
This is immensely more "ownership"/initiative than the vast majority of middle managers at any tech company would willingly take to solve a minor UX/CUJ failure, that's surely literally why he started the email thread and including the ones he did, to model that behavior for the the other middle management bozos and to try to instill a culture of caring about their work/whether it actually accomplishes the intended goals.
? The CEO doesn't do the work, they assume and allocate responsibility.
It's 100% 'on Gates' because he failed to engender the right culture and process for creating the necessary outcomes.
"And do you think the guys on the line are the ones on this email thread?"
Yes, the execs on this thread should be (and probably are) 'on the line' - that's how that works, and it's why they are so reactive .. and finger-pointing.
The fact they are all finger pointing is a really bad sign.
But he was very effective CEO because he knew technology, but business competition was more important to him. He was brutal against competition using all dirty tricks you could come out with.
That’s how great products die or become a nightmare. Every team keeps on passing the ball to other team and nothing gets fixed or done or improved.
When something is on fire, pass the buck to other people and stand around saying “that thing is on fire… wouldn’t it be great if someone called the fire brigade? I have the number here. One of you guys, give them a call.”
Microsoft's moat continues to be in the number of enterprise contracts that have already been signed.
It's easy for someone to get access to Copilot Copilot because their large company already has an Azure billing agreement set up somewhere.
What else is there that _needs_ windows?
And then, presumably, their downstream supply chains and integration tooling and yadda yadda.
Every time I am in a railway station it seems that digital signage runs on Windows, because the digital signs are always throwing errors.
None of this stuff needs windows but most of the time I guess no one is going to switch away because they are all so embedded, and it requires work and a bunch of people to make a decision.
Maybe the Windows execs were just modelling how they hoped corporate culture would look in their perfect customer.
Which is why it’s nice when the Swiss and French and so on ditch Windows for more open alternatives.
Or are there still groups of Microsoft employees saying “I saw a fire extinguisher in Bob’s office the other day. He was using it as footrest. I told Magda to warn him about the health and safety but she said it was Julian’s job… and the guy who pays for them to be filled and tested left three years ago and no one replaced him, so it probably doesn’t work anyway.”
And we all know Microsoft caters hard to enterprise and Apple almost seems to give them the middle finger on purpose. So all those big companies only buy MS.
Add in the giant base of existing software, especially line of business/custom stuff, and MS is safe for a long time, no matter how bad they are.
Survivorship bias is a thing no? Microsoft succeeded despite their organizational flaws. Microsoft produced an insanely backwards-compatible[1] OS despite flawed overall strategy and lack of decisive leadership. Doesn't mean everyone should take a leaf out of their book.
I personally believe there are organizations in a Mr. Burns-type equilibrium[2]. Maybe, like Mr Burns, they are in that perfect but fragile state of dysfunction which somehow makes them deliver, for some definition of "deliver". Maybe they have a core team that keeps the whole thing going against the odds. Either way, I wouldn't call any of these organizations resilient.
It made me cringe about three emails post-Bill because I recognized exactly what was happening. My first job was in a company past its glory days and couldn't adapt to the mobile-firstness of the smartphone era. They, too, had "product devs" whose sole job, as far as I could tell, was to forward emails to and from the right department/partner. It was even more egregious than MS---most of the emails forwarded were just "Hi sysads. The request below from engineering is authorized." or "Hi Engineering, see reply from $PARTNER below".
The company died a relatively quick death, spurned on by the Conglomerate Mothership. Thankfully I recognized the signs and jumped ship as soon as they were on borrowed time.
[1] I wouldn't know personally as I daily drive Linux but that _was_ the conceit of why you'd choose Windows. I won't be surprised if this one solid invariant that Windows could offer has changed lately.
Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. Dilbert made real.
The book is simply: acquire monopoly, wield power ruthlessly to keep it. Everything else is orthogonal.
I would not call this success. I would not want to emulate this.
If it wasn’t for corpo contracts, Microsoft would be long dead.
I think accountability would involve trying to understand how it got that bad, and figuring out a new process for preventing it from happening again. Though I'm sure that never happened.
In my humble opinion, some of the blame has to land on Bill himself as he has the full power and agency to build a style of management in his company that would've prevented this from happening. Instead he just scolded a bunch of senior execs who usually find a way to just delegate some work to tuck away any visible issues and go on with their merry lives.
Stopped halfway through thinking "Damn, this Mike Beckerman is a piece of work. Doesn't understand English grammar let alone software development."
Looked him up...
>Michael Beckerman is an American lobbyist who is vice president at TikTok.
Not surprising at all.
And it get worse from there. This is funny as hell. Billg eating his own shit.
Windows philosophy: don't get sued by AT&T
> Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable?
It’s insane how much runway a monopoly can buy you.
Situation: there are 14 competing and incompatible ways to obtain Windows software (owned by 23 different teams)
Ridiculous! We'll come up with a single unified interface
(After 3 years of development and delays) Situation: there are 18 competing and incompatible ways to obtain Windows software (owned by 31 different teams)The issue was determined to be a documentation issue and was assigned to that group to add a knowledge base article with additional information.
At the top level most people are not designed to get shit done. They are accountable for only reporting. So, even if you want to get things done finding the team or person from that point high is impossible as they are not designed for that.
But as I write this I realized that even that wouldn’t work...as they will create a committee and hire an consulting agency whose exec was in the same sorority as them. And the consulting agency will recommend teams to be laid off. And then the same exec will come in pitching the board to buy a startup which has a great team and apparently was invested by a VC who went to same class of Wharton of that exec.
I’d be ducking away from an issue that had just got someone fired.
Tangent: The irony in Microsoft making a product called ‘Teams’. It works about as well as their teamwork.
https://www.techemails.com/p/mark-zuckerberg-peter-thiel-mil...
Consider the following example, read this letter while paying close attention: https://xcancel.com/PierrePoilievre/status/18835154856582268...
Notice how often the keyword repeats. It is not repeated to communicate information, but to communicate affective state.
If you don't understand how it works, imagine the above letter instead said "Trump", and read it again.
Don't focus on what the letter says, instead on how it feels. Actually go and read it again, start to finish. Don't read past this line until you did.
Do you see how each time the keyword repeats, it affects your emotional state just a bit more? Can you start to feel it?
I'm assuming you hate Trump, but if you don't, just pretend you do. Then read the same letter one more time, imagine it said "Trump" instead and that the Republicans, which you really hate, just got re-elected. Do read it one more time.
You must understand that the keyword is repeated for affective impression.
Now read the letter again, one last time, slowly. Pay attention to the keyword, and how you feel each time it repeats. Imagine it said really "Trump", and that you really hate him, and what he did to your government.
The keyword does repeat, but there is no redundancy. It is repeated for affective impression. It only feels surreal because you are emotionally disinvested.
If you actually read the letter over and over, and really imagine how it feels, as if it were of deep concern to you, then you will understand. You seem smart, so I'm sure you will understand.
The keyword is repeated for affective impression.
So for everything wrong with Musk there are at least some people who like him, amazingly.
Zuck has no one.
For better or worse. Right. It is incredible that one can list those five words and say that with a straight face.
> While our company has a special role in the lives of this generation, this is likely particularly important for how I show up because I am the most well-known person of my generation.
My god these people… I didn’t even know you could be that self-absorbed. It’s jarring.
(and particularly not unsubstantive+indignant ones, which are the worst for the kind of discussion we're trying for)
Amusing watching all the executives try to push responsibility on each other and stay out the spotlist or, if unavoidable, take ownership of the smallest possible part of the problem, and then convene committees (that largely caused the mess) to solve the mess.
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41421018 - Sept 2024 (38 comments)
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker (2003) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34397436 - Jan 2023 (64 comments)
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34396958 - Jan 2023 (46 comments)
Bill Gates Tries to Install Movie Maker - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34392126 - Jan 2023 (1 comment)
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker (2003) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34391649 - Jan 2023 (2 comments)
p.s. Reposts are fine after a year or so; links to past threads are just to satisfy extra-curious readers!
Once they started passing the blame, almost immediately, I would expect the first thing to be a new email from Gates saying “Bob, you’re doing this, Frank, you’re doing that, no excuses, get it done.”
Nope. Nothing like that.
His role was pretty much the biggest shareholder having direct access to some of the company's top executives.
>So I gave up and sent mail to Amir saying - where is this Moviemaker download? Does it exist?
>So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated
The people in that thread need a good Linus Torvalds style rant about their incompetence and several of them should just have been fired.
The justification of abuse is just that - the desire to be abusive, and trying to make it okay by pretending it's necessary. Some people see this behavior and like it, because they too would like to be abusive or see people abused. But it has nothing to do with productivity. It's emotional diarrhea.
https://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-bg.htm
https://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-j.htm
HN has never found it very interesting though:
After researching a bit, the story actually is from 1977, I found a PDF from the magazine and it does mention him, even though he wasn't famous except for those tech enthusiast circles. Maybe the story is embellished a bit, but at least it wasn't made up in internet times.
I abandoned Windows almost entirely for macOS and server Linux before 11 was forced onto everyone.
Docs are a mess with contradictory information, coordination between teams is a mess, azure UI is a mess. My support agent that was assisting on my PAID support went on vacation with no one to take over the case, and month after, after I asked for any sort of timeline (you have to actually nudge them, otherwise they won't ever communicate), I was told they couldn't fix the issue on their end and I have to create a new account, because my account was stuck in some sort of limbo where they can't see the state of it and their engineering couldn't figure it out.
The process I went through reminds me very much of Bill's internal thinking here.
(Startups that act like startups. Which means neither mimicking nor tolerating big-corporate style dysfunction. Otherwise, you have the worst of both worlds: soul-sucking big-corporate culture and difficulty executing, without the big-corporate paycheck and sometimes resume prestige boost.)
I wondered how anyone successfully filed for unemployment a few years ago when I had to. But many seem to do it successfully.
I tell my wife that I pay too much attention to the details and have a low tolerance for poor work. I wish I didn’t notice though as it seems like a nice life!
The fact he did is probably responsible for a lot of issues with Windows installing and problems. Normalizing a reboot as a common thing.
I also suspect the fact he keeps re-iterating that the download was fast is because the teams have been using slow internet as an excuse for code speed problems.
Microsoft always built dysfunctional software. They were never good at this. Hotmail was an unusable product, it was so painful to use it and Gmail took over the entire market in a year. Nobody ever said: "oh, I miss X about Hotmail"
Windows products were also same. They were so easy to break, you'd need to format the disk and re-install once a month, otherwise it'd keep breaking all the time.
Hotmail was a 1997 acquisition:
Coaching as in: reminding people that this matters and encouraging them to care outside the strict lines of their task/scope.
Testing as in: who's capable of hearing it, taking it to heart, and driving the necessary change. And who's not.
Not evident in this thread but interesting how it impacted BillG's overall perspective on the people on the field and the impact of it on their careers with him.
Platform usability has gone completely out the window (no pun truly) like I wish the product managers responsible for this should do instead.
Perhaps the only real solution is that software developers are treated like realtors, name and face or gtfo.
I find this single sentence not only awkward but frustratingly annoying. Bills frustration is beyond reasonable.
Bill was in charge of MS at the time, he should not only have known how Windows works at this level (Dave Cutler on NT anyone?), he should have been able to figure this out.
Installing Movie Maker was easy back then and it is still easy now (on XP).
No, he wasn't anymore.
So even Bill Gates believed Windows wasn't usable in 2003. Yikes.
That "r" from "Moviemaker" pushed to the end of "and buy the Digital Plus pack" displays the universally shared experience of writing something, then deciding to come back to add something else and fucking up the first sentence.
I've been there too, Bill.
That does not sound like something Bill Gates would say…
Because he doesn’t talk like this in public? I promise you no big executives talk the same in public as they do internally.
in the whole email thread - no one owns up to fix it - they're just passing the hot potato around.
26 years later - windows is still a mess.
Actually motherboard manufacturers are just as bad.
Some god awful user hostile interface. Never just a direct link.
Still, the archive was complete and you'd end up getting what you went there for, so still infinitely better than the average experience today.
> Doesn't Windows update know some key to talk to Windows?
> Then I did the scan. This took quite some time and I was told it was critical for me to download 17megs of stuff.
> This is after I was told we were doing delta patches to things but instead just to get 6 things that are labeled in the SCARIEST possible way I had to download 17meg.
> So I did the download. That part was fast. Then it wanted to do an install. This took 6 minutes and the machine was so slow I couldn't use it for anything else during this time.
> What the heck is going on during those 6 minutes? That is crazy. This is after the download was finished.
> Then it told me to reboot my machine. Why should I do that? I reboot every night - why should I reboot at that time?
> So I did the reboot because it INSISTED on it. Of course that meant completely getting rid of all my Outlook state.
It's amazing that Bill Gates experienced this 23 years ago, and yet nothing changed, at all.
And that's exactly how I felt trying to reinstall Windows 10/11 on a new motherboard recently.
Once a ticket is successfully opened, you'll realize that the support guy in India can't get the email answers you've sent them, and they'll close the ticket you've spent day to open. And you'll feel both powerless and speechless.
1. Bill Gates is doing the "Internal Disruptor" CEO style
2. Everyone is reacting in a way Bill Gates expects them to react
3. The results of his disruptor style is that Windows is absolutely further unbearable and horrendous, as seen today own the line.
Make no mistake: "Internal Disruptor" CEOs kill their own products and people from the inside, rather than competing or building good products outside.
Microsoft can no longer engineer a software product, it simply cannot build anything innovative. It can certainly buy other companies and use what they have built. But even then they will over time ruin the product.
If you put together an amazing team, in the same building, with the goal of getting Windows under control, then you would at least have a chance of succeeding. You would have a whole new set of problems though and that’s where you would need an amazing manager that had the final say on every decision. A trusted team that could be left alone to succeed.
“No, you do it”
“Get Bill to do it.”
----
Favorite part is Gates' opinion of the entire Windows project:
"Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up."
They also know it's shit, they're just gaslighting you.
Bills typo-filled rant followed by his minions passive-aggressively trying to pass the problem down.
it's reminds me of those Dilbert strips.
LOL.