Hacker News Reader

Comment by cs702 | Hacker News Reader

I almost choked when I read Microsoft's new mission statement: "our strategy will focus on creating a family of devices and services for individuals and businesses that empower people around the globe at home, at work and on the go, for the activities they value most."

In other words, Ballmer wants the company to "focus" on being everything to everyone!

Not a good sign for the business.

PS. Compare Ballmer's long, complicated memo to Google's mission statement: "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful." (Source: http://www.google.com/about/company/ )

View on HN

Huh? A strategy is not the same thing as a mission statement. Microsoft's mission statement is "to help people and businesses throughout the world realize their full potential."

http://www.microsoft.com/about/en/us/default.aspx

...by doing what, specifically?

It's a mission statement, not a strategy.

Is this a recursive algorithm?

It was, but the stack overflowed.

The stack of OS upgrades? Or the stack of critical software updates? Or the stack of windows on the unmanageable, broken-metaphor 'powered' desktop? Or the stack of useless Microsoft 'powered' devices now in landfill? So many stacks. So little time.

Well those aren't actually stacks but a kind of unordered heap called a pile.

That's still extremely vague. Much more than Google's.

Google's statement, "to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful," doesn't describe any of their plans to achieve that goal either.

Providing synergy.

That is one thing Microsoft has always done do well.

The multiple products they offer have always provided high levels of seamless integration.

This isn't an agile startup here, it's one of the world's largest software companies. I think aiming to do a lot isn't a big stretch.

It's not a mission statement though, or a goal.

"We're a company that does stuff for customers."

Yeah, not helpful in the least.

Microsoft has always had big ambitions. Its original mission statement, first articulated all the way back in the late '70s, was "a computer in every desk and in every home, running Microsoft software." (http://www.achievement.org/autodoc/page/gat0int-1) Which was pretty audacious when the state of the art in personal computing was machines like the MITS Altair (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altair_8800).

Bill Gates:

It's very hard to recall how crazy and wild that was, you know, "on every desk and in every home." At the time, you have people who are very smart saying, "Why would somebody need a computer?"

Not saying this new statement is audacious (it feels kind of anodyne to me), just that "hidebound behemoth" isn't the only gene in their DNA.

The original statement was pretty clear and short. This new one takes a lot of words and it's not at all clear to me what they are aiming for. What, exactly, does "empower" look like when it's implemented? Exactly which are the activities that people value the most? (Actually, has anyone thought about whether those activities even require a computer?)

This isn't ambitious, it's meaningless. Not a good sign for corporate excellence.

Presumably this email was meant to help change behavior within Microsoft. To give people a guide for how to do their job better. If I were a Microsoft employee I wouldn't know what to make of that quote. It doesn't speak to anything you would deal with directly in the day to day.

Fair enough, it is definitely vague.

Aiming to do a lot of things and being mediocre at all of them isn't that inspiring. It basically sums up Microsoft in the past couple of years.

What they need is real focus, and it seems they still haven't learned.

It's not "aiming" at anything.

I couldn't get over this masterpiece:

We will allocate resources and build devices and services that provide compelling, integrated experiences across the many screens in our lives, with maximum return to shareholders.

Can you elaborate over what you find so wrong with that?

Probably the "with maximum return to shareholders" part.

To elaborate further, the point of this memo isn't to alert the shareholders of Microsoft's organizational changes, it's about easing this transition with a motivational message about innovation and what not.

Even if the corporation's main aim is to benefit its shareholders, that unnecessary line is going to come across as alienating to employees, who probably care very little about how these changes will affect wealthy shareholders.

Ah yes, I see now. I definitely agree with you then. That line will most likely not sit well with employees that don't give a damn about the shareholders and would rather just create amazing products.

I'm curious what amazing products Microsoft is working on.

The new Kinect, were it not locked into the new Xbox and used for creepy advertising-related purposes, would be an amazing product.

After the NSA revelations, the absolute last thing I plan to do is install a high-resolution, always online camera from Microsoft (or any major US corporation for that matter) in my living room.

No doubt. I am, however, interested in using depth-sensing technology for less nefarious, non-cloud-based means (see my profile). I like the technology, but I strongly dislike what Microsoft might do and is doing with it.

There is already sign-up opened for new Kinect for Windows:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/kinectforwindowsdev/newdevkit...

From all accounts their Office 365 and Azure platforms are doing well.

The say more than 50% of the Fortune 500 are now using Azure:

http://www.neowin.net/news/windows-azure-now-used-by-over-50...

These are fairly radical changes as they are getting off the desktop platform amd moving straight into the cloud.

I dunno, I work in the cloud space, largely with fortune 500 companies, and I don't know of any off the top of my head that are investing in Azure.

That doesn't mean the article isn't technically accurate, of course, but I'd suspect that MSFT is being very generous with their definition of "using" and counting any pilot project in some engineering team as "using" - in which case I'm sure that most of the fortune 500 have someone somewhere playing with Azure.

But that's not the same as using from the standpoint that we typically think about it.

Most Microsoft employees are Microsoft shareholders, so we have an interest in higher stock prices also.

How's that felt over the past decade?

I've only been in for 5+ years, and I don't look at my stock so closely, it has traveled a bit up and down, nothing to think much about.

The way American/Chinese taxes work, actually, I'm annoyed to get stock at all as compensation and wish it would just come in as salary.

If they are really interested in creating amazing products evidently they're working for the wrong company.

I wouldn't say stupid things like this. I work in Windows Phone and I have a lot of faith in our product (and judging by reactions to the 1020 and our customer sat ratings, it looks like I'm not alone). The Xbox One is exciting, and Windows 8+ has definitely opened a new chapter for the company.

If you have something stupid to say, keep it to yourself.

Too bad you don't take your own advice. You would have saved yourself the embarrassment.

It's a very odd phrase to stick at the end there. To make sense of it I think you have to link the end to the start:

We will allocate resources ... with maximum return to shareholders

You have to imagine the meeting where they discussed this and someone thought that this sentence was going to sound to investors like a giant money pit. So in true committee style, they voted for a camel and stuck this odd phrase on the end to satisfy that person.

> Can you elaborate over what you find so wrong with that? reply?

I would, if I could find any content in it. Still searching...

One could play some serious buzzword bingo with the line, and it's not the most elegantly written statement I've ever seen. Still, I take it to mean "we're trying to integrate our devices and our experiences."

In other words, Ballmer realizes MS is a heavily siloed company, and that developing in silos is proving counterproductive to any serious attempt at cross-screen UX and platform integration.

How much of that is true, and how much of that is the spin being given to a cost-cutting reorg, is up for debate.

I think the important thing is what's missing: "software".

Apparently, Microsoft, the world's biggest software company, is no longer interested in software.

I wouldn't call this a great idea, considering "core competencies" and how well their products in the "devices and services" divisions are faring, but it is, at least, forward-looking.

I think there's a universal shift from 'software' to 'services.'

Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Word: they want to sell you the best method of composition. Microsoft doesn't want to sell you Powerpoint: they want to sell you the ability to make the best presentations. And so on.

I don't think they care about that. The reason they're shifting is that they don't want to sell you Word once, then fail to persuade you to upgrade to the next version; they want to sell it over and over which brings a more stable and guaranteed revenue stream.

Definitely. "Service" implies something you pay for on a monthly basis. "Software" implies something that comes in a box with a CD key.

My software does not come in a box, nor have keys.

Interesting. More specifically, the company built on shrinkwrap and preloads is facing a world where neither is generally accepted.

This leaves business and government markets, as well as gaming, and possibly services / online platforms with advertising-based revenue.

Meantime, Microsoft still have to support their legacy. Even some of the EOL products, which, despite best efforts, still live in places which have the power to command fixes.

Microsoft has always wanted to become its competitors. The reference to devices sounds to me like they would rather be Apple or Sony. Services probably signifies their wish to be Amazon or some other company that makes its entire living on the internet. Just because there is no real competition in the PC OS and productivity software markets doesn't mean there's nothing there worth hanging on to. They don't sound very interested in the industry they created and still dominate. Whoever they would rather be, there's a good chance their fate is tied up with software, for better or worse, so it benefits them nothing to prematurely write it off for dead. Expending so much energy in coveting what Apple and Google have leads to missteps like Metro.

That is a fantastic example of "Bad Strategy". It's fluffy, it doesn't mean anything, there's no tangible policy that can be derived from the grand statement, and it doesn't say "no" to anything.

For more discussion of that, and ways to do strategy better, I highly recommend "Good Strategy, Bad Strategy".

Is it weird that Google's mission statement doesn't describe their primary revenue stream? I suppose they could say that they're making information universally accessible and useful to individuals as well as advertisers. But I don't know, their mission statement makes them sound like the best library ever. Not an advertising company.

No, not weird. A mission statement is a "calling" that can be fulfilled through a variety of business models.

It's becoming an bigger and bigger stretch to wrap that mission statement around what Google does. Reader was a great tool for organizing information--they killed it. Cell phone hardware has very little to do with organizing information, but they spent $12 billion on Motorola.

I dont see an issue with investing in mobile. The cell phone is (mostly) a new distribution channel; a means of reaching consumers. It was critical that Google have unfettered access to its users, although these days mobile is increasingly a producer of information to be collected and organized.

Cell phone hardware is the "make [information] universally accessible" part.

Apparently, they see advertising as a means to an end. At least, that is what one can deduce from comparing their mission statement with their activities.

Google Search, Google Scholar, Google Books and Google Maps are what they want to do to collect the information, and they think they need mobile phones and self-driving cars to make it universally accessible (that, or that is on the fringe. A mission statement has to ride between being too vague and only barely describing parts of the business)

You dont understand what is the purpose statement for. Its not to describe how you make money, its to explain what your company raison d'etre is.

Because it's not like what you do, you become, or anything.

focus on creating a family of devices and services

It is interesting in that the focus has moved away from software of any kind to devices and services. It is a bold move towards a post OS, Office, post COTS software Microsoft. But you are right it is about as generic as it gets, change two or three words and it could equally be describing a car company.

"family of devices and services" also implies walled garden. Not that MS hasn't always been about that, but it's clear they're doubling down on it.

Not that MS hasn't always been about that, but it's clear they're doubling down on it.

They might as well play by the same rules as their competitors.

It's unfortunate for consumers, and I hope that in the long run market forces and/or regulation will open things up again. However, for the immediate future, if your major competitors are running closed worlds and you're the only guys running an open one, there's only one direction that customers can move in.

Another way of interpreting this would be "Microsoft wants to get out of your way, it wants to be a (ubiquitous) platform so you can focus on what you're actually trying to do rather than on your OS or your device." Doesn't sound that awful to me.

I think its a general enough statement you can say whatever you want about it and it would make some sense.

That said, it's seriously lacking intent. Being everything to all people, all wrapped up in a single 'strategy' isn't necessarily going to solve the problems related to designing and building great software.

...says the company who brought you the UAC popups :)

Do you prefer sudo or just to login as root directly?

TBH I don't perceive UAC popups as "something intrusive", they could be better, but they do their work fine: to stop non-tech savvy users from screwing up the PC.

No, they don't save the non-tech savvy users. They click "yes, I want to see the dancing bunnies" every time they see a UAC popup.

They do make it reasonably pleasant to run Windows as a non-admin user though, and not the impossibility that was in XP.

They can't click "yes, I want to see the dancing bunnies" when you are the system administrator ;).

sudo chmod -R 777 /

Unobtrusiveness FTW!

I call this "The MS-DOS Security Model".

A better strategy for Microsoft today would be to become to tech what Disney is to family entertainment.

For their mission statement to be: "We want to be a significant part of everyone's technology experience".

Now that would be audacious... to re-gain some of what they've lost to Apple and Android, to be there within entertainment, automotive, health and government.

They already are in a lot of those places, but this statement would be a strong signal that they are going to fight every front.

> "our strategy will focus on creating ... bla bla bla.

I parse this as follows: PC sales are declining and selling Windows & Office licenses is not going to make it; now the option is either to focus on - Windows Server and cloud services OR - copying Apple; go for closed gadgets/tracking devices with a processor

Copying Apple is a bad choice, very crowded space here / everybody wants to make an IPhone.

In the end this means bad news for Windows Server, however who cares ...

see "PC sales see 'longest decline' in history" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23251285

(On the other hand modern laptops nowadays look like tables, they have a touchscreen and detachable keyboards; there is some convergence here, so it is all very confusing)

PC sales are declining and selling Windows & Office licenses is not going to make it

This is the part I don't understand about the new spin from MS. Sales cycles are obviously extending, but how many offices in the universe don't run on PCs? Surely Microsoft are still making a lot of money selling business software, and in several fields their software remains dominant. There is plenty they could do to improve that business software and/or to adapt it to different ways of working, driving more sales based on genuine added value, but they don't seem to have much interest in doing so. That seems bizarre to me.

It's not sufficient that the market still exists, but it is no longer growing much and is beginning to show signs of shrinkage. Ya, you can still make money there, but less and less overtime. Good to get on top of these things and find other cash pandas.

Finding new/growing markets is all very sensible, but prioritising doing so at the expense of an existing and much larger market seems an odd choice unless you're really sure you're onto a winner.

If your old market is tanking, you don't have much choice. PCs still provide income for Microsoft, but there are few or no opportunities for investment oriented around growth, and Microsoft ultimately wants to be seen as a still growing company and not as HP. So given that MS makes money on PCs, but can't grow this or invest in any interesting way, it makes total sense that their attention would drift elsewhere to markets where they can grow profit.

We aren't very far apart here. The PC market exists, MS will still make money on it, but the future is somewhere else and we need to be there, especially since we can leverage and invest the money we still make from the PC market today.

They send out a signal saying that they want to change, that takes some guts to do so for such a big company.

I'm just curious about what actions will follow these words without any prejudice.

The problem with Ballmer has always been that the man has literally no vision. I saw him speak once and have questions afterwards. He was actually a very good speaker but when the questions came the whole thing fell apart. Someone asked him to tell us his future direction for MS and his answer was some vague sci-fi nonsense.

Who does a talk, allows questions and doesn't realize this question will be asked? Or maybe he did and thought what he described was some kind of vision. The difference is, if you had asked Steve Jobs what his vision was he would have told you things that you would realize he could achieve and probably have some idea of the steps. What Ballmer said was completely generic and there was no reason to imagine MS needed to be involved in any of it. Worse, there wasn't really a compelling argument to even have what he was talking about (some kind of shitty voice recognition software that sends anything I say to the person I referred to by first name. And this I should trust to the inventors of the blue screen? Right).

empower

That's such an overused word in marketing language. Everybody wants to "empower users", "empower people", "empower customers", "empower clients". What does that even mean anymore? Are we the downtrodden and unwashed without their "family of devices"? Marketing language in itself is something that really grates my nerves, but "empower" is the worst.

All these discussion remind me how much time people wasted on mission statement.

Why the hell are people arguing about a tautology? That statement is so incredibly vague, it could mean anything.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com