Hacker News Reader

"most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. "

That's why you look for a CEO that isn't most people. The CEO isn't a service award you hand out to the general who won the most battles 30 years ago.

Well, I used it in a casual way for making it seem like an obvious decision - the perception having been part of my opinion.

Please allow me to correct myself - Most people wouldn't have taken the bet nor have the insight to do so. Steve Ballmer or maybe Steve Sinofsky or someone did. And they are not most people.

It's a billion dollar strategy. Not easy to make.

>It's a billion dollar strategy. Not easy to make.

Well, since it was lost, it was quite easy.

And it's not their first billion dollar down the drain strategy.

The problem with Microsoft (since it's inception) is a complete lack of originality. The company is based upon intellectual theft and dominant business strategies. It worked for years and years but the ecosystem has evolved now.

Microsoft has been chasing Apple since they released the Zune with some vague hope of success. The sad thing is there are a number of exceedingly talented individuals working at the company, it just sounds like innovation was strangled by corporate culture years ago (if it ever existed there).

I saw my first Microsoft store a month ago. It looked exactly like the Apple Store I just came out of - except the tables had a different shade, and there was nothing comparable to the XBox360+Kinect station in the Apple store.

They've been copying "things that work" for so long, and up until a few years ago, it just worked. And now that it doesn't, it seems that they have no idea what to do.

You actually bring up the one exception that I failed to mention. The XBox was a pretty idea by Microsoft and it's implementation was fantastic (it's revenues a drop in the bucket compared to other departments but still). Kinect, while a blatant response to the Nintendo Wii's accelerometers has opened up some very interesting possibilities that were previously only limited to academic level research...

In that regard I think that the XBox team is probably the only well-ran unit in the firm.

I'll disagree here.

The first XBox was basically a PC with an exact spec. The 360 was plagued by RRODs. I know 5 people who own XBox 360, and every single one of them was either on the 2nd or 3rd console due to malfunction.

The Kinect was not developed at Microsoft - the camera and original skeletal modeling is from PrimeSense (although later MS took over the software part, at least). It was a marketing response to the Wii, true - but it's a third party product they bought.

"Only limited to academic level research"? I had a chance to play with the commercial ZCam almost two years before the Kinect came out; And ZCam wasn't the first product.

> In that regard I think that the XBox team is probably the only well-ran unit in the firm.

Have they turned a profit yet? I suppose they have by now, but they went through at least 4BN in funding before they did (if they have indeed). It might be well-run, but without real evidence I can't assume that.

It's hard for me to see Microsoft's whole mobile strategy as anything other than a massive debacle (other than the Metro UI itself).

First WP 7 doesn't get upgraded to WP 8. Then you get a third OS for tablets. Then all they can come up with as a value proposition over iOS/Googdroid/AmazonDroid is Excel and a keyboard that makes a satisfying click.

MS certainly wasn't in the best position but they have many thigns they could take advantage of: huge cash stream, relationships with developers, relationships with OEMs, relationships in retail, relationships with corporate buyers, X-box live, Skype, Bing, etc. Despite all that they've managed to have little in the way of apps, installed base, mindshare, etc to show for the last 5 years in mobile. If this was all part of their master plan they need to be taken out back and shot in the dead of night.

So you make decision after decision based on what the company needs, instead of what the user needs, and this is where you end up.

I agree with the other comment: Ballmer isn't paid nine gazillion bucks to do what "everybody else" would do in his place.

If all the decisions were based on users, the company will never be able to define the future. I think we clearly see that in product failures/criticisms - even the new Xbox backlash for MSFT. Consumers are fickle. They never like drastic changes. And consumers always choose near term interests than long term benefits.

I don't understand why HN Users need to single out MSFT/Steve Ballmer as making mistakes all the time. They have made mistakes but my point is - RT wasn't one of them. It's cool to analyze strategies without associated fanboyisms/ individual hatred.

If all the decisions were based on users, the company will never be able to define the future. I think we clearly see that in product failures/criticisms - even the new Xbox backlash for MSFT. Consumers are fickle. They never like drastic changes.

Would you have said all of this about Apple around the time of the iPhone launch?

No because that entire user base transitioned to an entirely new OS where ALL the old software didn't run natively just a few years earlier.

I don't follow you. I was talking about the iPhone, not the Mac.

One thing users want is battery life. If you can't match Apple, don't release.

Although battery life is something you only notice or care about when you've bought the product.

Figures on boxes will never match your actual usage so are meaningless.

Actually ....

What you said is true for almost all products - however, figures on Apple's boxes actually tend to match common usage, and have since at least 2007 when I started paying attention.

I agree with everything you say ! I am no fanboi, I use whatever works for me best, I own an iPod touch (for the music), the galaxy s4 (running touchwhiz flavor of jelly bean v4.2.2) , own the xbox360 and a win 8 desktop PC, New Lumia phones and win 8 pro tablets have impressed me.I think the new xbox and how surface pro and rt have seen Microsoft going for those 3 segments and almost inevitably converging to a single os that runs them all !

I wouldn't be surprised if windows 9 or 10 perhaps would have you writing code once and deploy them to your new xbox, new PC, new surface, new Lumia and new smartwatch and who knows maybe even some sort of kinectified glass you wear all the time, Imagine the big win for hitting so many screen sizes with one codebase.

Microsoft and everybody else has been waiting for years for Intel to reduce the power consumption of x86, so long that ARM has caught up from an CPU appropriate for mobile devices to an serious competitor to the dominant platform.

Intel has done everything they can to "prove" that their chips are ready, but they've done the same thing before. They partnered with Nokia and rebuilt their system for internet tablets into a general purpose system for mobile devices (including netbooks), then automotive systems. They released a chip for smart TVs and set-top boxes, then abandoned the entire line, leaving devices without firmware updates in certain devices (like Boxee). They've gone to great lengths to target smartphones and smaller tablets where the larger footprint would be a serious downside.

I will admit that intel has finally delivered a chip that is competitive with ARM on smartphones and smaller tablets.

I will agree with another commenter (either here or on the other story) that it is too early for the RT to be introduced as a product category. But I also believe that Microsoft has to succeed in getting a Windows product on ARM based on the NT kernel if they want to maintain their long-term dominance in personal computing, particularly for businesses.

They may have the wrong idea with trying to build a media consumption tablet built around applications in the same device as they have with Windows RT. I would suggest they take the opportunity with the 8.1 upgrade to support arbitrary compiled Windows applications, starting with Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox. (Both would likely be ported if that was possible.) That they embrace developers using Visual Studio 2012 to build applications on the device, not just for the device. I would suggest that they use Microsoft Installer (MSI) to hide the fact that the applications are compiled for ARM, call them "Universal Windows Applications" if they must.

I considered the Surface RT before getting my Samsung Chromebook (ARM) and went for the latter of both price and lack of support for Windows (Win32) applications on the RT.

Their is no 'RT' strategy to speak of. Microsoft decided to use a desktop operating system in tablet devices instead of using a mobile os like everyone else.

So instead of having to make a single adjustment for applications(larger screen) microsoft built an entirely new interface and APIs to support that interface. New applications built for that interface are designed to replace traditional desktop applications and work well a variety of screensizes and both with and without touch input. The motivation behind this decision was to leverage windows' market penetration to build momentum for their mobile strategy. This isn't so much a strategy as an overwhelming desire to always leverage windows when entering a new market segment. It is a crutch that makes true innovation impossible.

The problem is that this 'strategy' is impossible. There is no such thing as a magical toolkit that can do what Microsoft wants. Instead, you have massive consumer confusion and applications that don't work well on non-touchscreen devices. Now Microsoft has to support new 'Modern/Metro' applications going forward on Windows for the foreseeable future. It takes resources away from the traditional desktop experience.

Imagine if Microsoft had simply taken Windows Phone and adapted it to a larger screen size. It would have used the same API and provided a considerably better experience for consumers(without any confusion) at virtually new development cost or adoption of a new toolkit/application experience for the desktop. The only thing microsoft would have lost was the ability to run mobile applications on the desktop. A dubious benefit to say the least.

RT was an interesting strategy and most people in Steve Ballmer's shoes would have taken the same bet. I strongly disagree as I know many other people did as well.

Daring or repeating history? Windows NT was ported to a host of platforms -- DEC Alpha, MIPS, PowerPC, and Itanium. None have gained substantial traction.

Had they been daring, the desktop would have been removed. Instead, Metro feels like a reincarnation of Apple's At Ease.

RT could have had a chance, but beyond the crayon colors, I believe the root cause was the bland, simple Metro interface. The textures, shadows and other elements of iOS 1 - 6 are engaging in a way that the flat interface is not. Side-by-side I'm always more compelled to pick up my iOS 6 phone over the iOS 7 phone. Or the flat-before-it-was-cool Blackberry.

When I visit a museum, people spend less time at simple modern art pieces. When I turn on pop radio, heavy layered beats dominate.

I might have bought an RT tablet if didn't feel like the Ikea of tablets.