Ask HN: What should Microsoft do to get its mojo back?
15 comments
Don't be so obsessed with what Google and Apple are doing. Stop entering markets that they have defined. Instead of focusing on crushing the competition and stealing market share, focus on creating a new market according to your own vision, where there are no other players.
2 possibilities 1) less command and control 2) more command and control
1) less command and control
Fund a whole bunch of branch new products to be built by people not currently employed by MS. Start ups essentially although they may or may not be 100% owned by MS.
Make sure they are all separated from the rest of the company by an impermeable barrier featuring a moat, crocodiles and boiling oil.
Let them work on whatever they think is best without concern for where it fits into MS's broader strategy.
Some of them will be profitable. Some won't and will have to be shut down. Some will compete with the rest of MS. Some will compete with each other. So be it. That just increases the odds that one of MS's many arms will be successful.
Kind of like a VC firm but they don't necessarily need to be separate companies.
2) more command and control MS has so much going on that it must be impossible to keep track of everything. Shut down "me to" or otherwise failed products. Concentrate on a smaller set of things and do them better.
Whittle down the product offerings to a small set of strategically aligned products which can be carefully managed.
Be more like Apple I suppose.
1) less command and control
Fund a whole bunch of branch new products to be built by people not currently employed by MS. Start ups essentially although they may or may not be 100% owned by MS.
Make sure they are all separated from the rest of the company by an impermeable barrier featuring a moat, crocodiles and boiling oil.
Let them work on whatever they think is best without concern for where it fits into MS's broader strategy.
Some of them will be profitable. Some won't and will have to be shut down. Some will compete with the rest of MS. Some will compete with each other. So be it. That just increases the odds that one of MS's many arms will be successful.
Kind of like a VC firm but they don't necessarily need to be separate companies.
2) more command and control MS has so much going on that it must be impossible to keep track of everything. Shut down "me to" or otherwise failed products. Concentrate on a smaller set of things and do them better.
Whittle down the product offerings to a small set of strategically aligned products which can be carefully managed.
Be more like Apple I suppose.
- Push out a system patch (and a Silverlight update for those who don't download patches) that causes IE6 to post a warning bar at the top of every page it visits, with a link that they should upgrade because the IE6 browser is no longer patched. Also, pay a sum to Adobe to cause the latest Adobe Reader Plugin to issue this same warning.
- Get out of the browser business. It costs you too much money and gives you too little in return. Let everyone use all the other browsers like Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, and others. But if you plan to stay in it, then switch to the Webkit engine and please by all means support CSS3 just as good as Chrome does.
- Push for open audio, video, and vector animation standards in HTML5, moving with the pack instead of against it, and don't even bother whether Adobe or Apple are on board with those plans.
- Remember the years when Apple was going through the transition from the old OS to the new OS based on BSD UNIX? They had an arrangement where you could run old apps as well as new apps. Microsoft should do something similar, but with Novell Suse Linux.
- Take MS Office back to the old interface before the funky menubars, and slim down the interface a good bit so that there aren't so many menu items by default.
- Simplify the registry or eliminate it altogether. It's a mess. Linux guys love .conf files.
- In the new Linux-based OS, once you lock in where settings are located, quit changing them dramatically because it angers people.
- Give Steve Ballmer a golden parachute.
- Merge the company with Novell. And if not that, then rename it so that it kind of helps with the new image.
- Push for the elimination of software patent laws that you introduced in the first place. But, since that takes a long time to achieve, do the IBM approach for now. That approach is to gobble up a bunch of software patents, but do not sue people who infringe. In fact, legally protect those who infringe, who are also challenged in court, because it generates more business for you, instead.
- Get out of the browser business. It costs you too much money and gives you too little in return. Let everyone use all the other browsers like Firefox, Safari, Opera, Chrome, and others. But if you plan to stay in it, then switch to the Webkit engine and please by all means support CSS3 just as good as Chrome does.
- Push for open audio, video, and vector animation standards in HTML5, moving with the pack instead of against it, and don't even bother whether Adobe or Apple are on board with those plans.
- Remember the years when Apple was going through the transition from the old OS to the new OS based on BSD UNIX? They had an arrangement where you could run old apps as well as new apps. Microsoft should do something similar, but with Novell Suse Linux.
- Take MS Office back to the old interface before the funky menubars, and slim down the interface a good bit so that there aren't so many menu items by default.
- Simplify the registry or eliminate it altogether. It's a mess. Linux guys love .conf files.
- In the new Linux-based OS, once you lock in where settings are located, quit changing them dramatically because it angers people.
- Give Steve Ballmer a golden parachute.
- Merge the company with Novell. And if not that, then rename it so that it kind of helps with the new image.
- Push for the elimination of software patent laws that you introduced in the first place. But, since that takes a long time to achieve, do the IBM approach for now. That approach is to gobble up a bunch of software patents, but do not sue people who infringe. In fact, legally protect those who infringe, who are also challenged in court, because it generates more business for you, instead.
The MS Office tool bar gets a lot of flack. But it's not aimed at you or I. My mum can use it. Nuff said.
Many corporate customers (lots of money) have legacy applications that require IE6. Cluttering the browser more would not be helpful and would garner more ill will.
Backing out of the browser market and letting Apple/Google/Mozilla "win" would again be counter productive. IE8 is a good browser. Yes, its behind the others in many ways, but give them some more time. They had to build up from IE6, and I think they have begun to close the gaps quite quickly.
I agree with open video and audio being a good direction.
Merge with Linux? Why in the world would they do that?
I don't have experience with the registry, so I can't comment here, but again, a linux style replacement is not going to be in MS's best interests.
Ignoring the Linux part, yes, standardization is going to be key for them moving forward, and I think they have made some big steps with that in Vista => Windows 7.
Why?
I don't see how renaming possibly the biggest name in computing ("Microsoft") would help them in any way.
Backing out of the browser market and letting Apple/Google/Mozilla "win" would again be counter productive. IE8 is a good browser. Yes, its behind the others in many ways, but give them some more time. They had to build up from IE6, and I think they have begun to close the gaps quite quickly.
I agree with open video and audio being a good direction.
Merge with Linux? Why in the world would they do that?
I don't have experience with the registry, so I can't comment here, but again, a linux style replacement is not going to be in MS's best interests.
Ignoring the Linux part, yes, standardization is going to be key for them moving forward, and I think they have made some big steps with that in Vista => Windows 7.
Why?
I don't see how renaming possibly the biggest name in computing ("Microsoft") would help them in any way.
Slight problem with #1: Internet Explorer 6, due to being part of Windows XP, is supported through 2014. It IS still patched, and will continue to be for another 4 years.
A very specific suggestion:
Push the Zune. With WiFi, HD decoding & output and significantly increased storage size, they could turn it from a pure iPod competitor to a significantly better SlingBox/iPod combo. If I walk into a friend's house and have it recognise the network, it should instantly start serving files over wifi, which any pc (Windows Media Center or XBOX, if you're looking for the tie-in) could play. If I want to charge it as it plays, or play particularly high-bandwidth content over a weak network, or output pre-decoded stuff, plug it in directly and stream it that way.
As it stands, it can 'only' play 720p. Also, at 16/32 gb options and with current transfer speeds onto the device, the zune can't really achieve this. With 64/128 it starts to be possible, and Wireless N might help for streaming via wifi. Perhaps USB 3.0 will help load it with content faster?
They need to milk the early adopter crowd as well, to win back mindshare the Zune has completely failed to grab from the iPod due to being such a "me too" project. This means working with all file formats at the very least, and arrangements with Hulu, Netflix, Spotify - if they don't already have them - would be good moves too.
Push the Zune. With WiFi, HD decoding & output and significantly increased storage size, they could turn it from a pure iPod competitor to a significantly better SlingBox/iPod combo. If I walk into a friend's house and have it recognise the network, it should instantly start serving files over wifi, which any pc (Windows Media Center or XBOX, if you're looking for the tie-in) could play. If I want to charge it as it plays, or play particularly high-bandwidth content over a weak network, or output pre-decoded stuff, plug it in directly and stream it that way.
As it stands, it can 'only' play 720p. Also, at 16/32 gb options and with current transfer speeds onto the device, the zune can't really achieve this. With 64/128 it starts to be possible, and Wireless N might help for streaming via wifi. Perhaps USB 3.0 will help load it with content faster?
They need to milk the early adopter crowd as well, to win back mindshare the Zune has completely failed to grab from the iPod due to being such a "me too" project. This means working with all file formats at the very least, and arrangements with Hulu, Netflix, Spotify - if they don't already have them - would be good moves too.
McDonalds does not own Chipotle, they sold their entire stake in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipotle_Mexican_Grill
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chipotle_Mexican_Grill
ah, thanks for the clarification. was still a pretty good strategy on their part i thought...
Swap out the CEO. Ballmer has kept things even keeled and done a great job releasing Windows 7, why not go out on a high note and put in somebody that represents the future, not the past?
Steven Sinofsky needs to be named the next CEO of MS soon. Not only because Sinofsky is a key reason for the success of Windows, but also because he is tech orientated.
Every tech company which has abandoned tech oriented management has stagnated. For instance Apple after Jobs, maybe McNealy and Joy leaving Sun.
When management becomes business oriented they look to maintain market position. They look to maintain current products at the cost of developing internal competitors. A tech orientation looks to innovate and create new markets.
A business orientation looks at Vista and says it is good enough to maintain X% of the market, a tech orientation is embarrassed by its quality and lack of polish. A tech orientation would have given time to fix those belimishes that drives it to grow to X+Y% of the market.
In real terms, a business orientation wants to move Windows onto the phone, a tech orientation wants to create a new OS/API for mobile devices. A business orientation sees introducing a low power tablet as a threat to desktop dominance, a tech orientation sees the possibility of a entirely new market.
Maybe the difference is that a business orientation asks, "Is this good enough to make money" and a tech orientation asks "Is this the best we can do?" Microsoft needs to continually ask the second question. After that, all else will follow.
Every tech company which has abandoned tech oriented management has stagnated. For instance Apple after Jobs, maybe McNealy and Joy leaving Sun.
When management becomes business oriented they look to maintain market position. They look to maintain current products at the cost of developing internal competitors. A tech orientation looks to innovate and create new markets.
A business orientation looks at Vista and says it is good enough to maintain X% of the market, a tech orientation is embarrassed by its quality and lack of polish. A tech orientation would have given time to fix those belimishes that drives it to grow to X+Y% of the market.
In real terms, a business orientation wants to move Windows onto the phone, a tech orientation wants to create a new OS/API for mobile devices. A business orientation sees introducing a low power tablet as a threat to desktop dominance, a tech orientation sees the possibility of a entirely new market.
Maybe the difference is that a business orientation asks, "Is this good enough to make money" and a tech orientation asks "Is this the best we can do?" Microsoft needs to continually ask the second question. After that, all else will follow.
Not sure he'd be leaving on a high note. He does need to go though. He was never a visionary - he's always just been a good salesman like Larry Ellison. These guys win by shoving their products down the customer's throat. In the long run they always lose however. It takes vision to run a company. He obviously has none.
is ellison really not a visionary?
That's what is wrong with MS: they lack vision. They need to focus on a compelling vision. All else comes from that.
Release that delicious, delicious looking courier tablet.
my worthless suggestion:
i don't think the "old-schoolers" will ever respect the "kids" (actually they don't seem to be that young) in the r&d labs until they get their own credit in the "street" (market) - so things like integrating with windows/office/etc will always be hard if the managers think the direction goes against their interests, so..
.. put all the "edgy" projects into a special branch of the organization that depends only on the 'man' and:
- give them full freedom to pursue the markets they see fit (this means they can go against established products etc)
- let them adopt their own internal processes and tools (ye, that means macs and linux and ipods)
- give them their own name if you don't want them initially associated with the microsoft brand
- after proven success, start merging with the rest of the organization in a selective way (throwing away old processes that don't really work anymore, promoting the new guys into top positions, yada yada yada)
i don't think the "old-schoolers" will ever respect the "kids" (actually they don't seem to be that young) in the r&d labs until they get their own credit in the "street" (market) - so things like integrating with windows/office/etc will always be hard if the managers think the direction goes against their interests, so..
.. put all the "edgy" projects into a special branch of the organization that depends only on the 'man' and:
- give them full freedom to pursue the markets they see fit (this means they can go against established products etc)
- let them adopt their own internal processes and tools (ye, that means macs and linux and ipods)
- give them their own name if you don't want them initially associated with the microsoft brand
- after proven success, start merging with the rest of the organization in a selective way (throwing away old processes that don't really work anymore, promoting the new guys into top positions, yada yada yada)
This implies they had some mojo to begin with.
I'm no Microsoft apologist by any means but come on, they rule the business world; they had to do something right to get there. Any company in the world would kill to have their products have 90%+ market share.
I'm not a Microsoft apologist either, but they did plenty right to get where they are. Read Accidental Empires by (almost Dr.) Mark Stephens.
Microsoft got to where they are because Bill Gates was one of the first people, perhaps the first, to see that there was going to be a large and enduring market for personal computing software and he had the ability to make MS a force in that market. PCs were a disruptive technology that (effectively) killed mainframes and minicomputers and created many new uses for computers.
Even if MS do everything wrong they are still going to be a large and profitable company for many years to come. Their software is a de facto standard in too many places now for that to change in a hurry.
Their business is now in a mature phase. That means that while profits are huge growth has declined. They should be using that war chest to fund new tech. Ballmer seems to be quite smart but I don't know if he's a visionary. Perhaps he should stick to milking the cash cow and ask Gates back to recommend where MS should invest.
Microsoft got to where they are because Bill Gates was one of the first people, perhaps the first, to see that there was going to be a large and enduring market for personal computing software and he had the ability to make MS a force in that market. PCs were a disruptive technology that (effectively) killed mainframes and minicomputers and created many new uses for computers.
Even if MS do everything wrong they are still going to be a large and profitable company for many years to come. Their software is a de facto standard in too many places now for that to change in a hurry.
Their business is now in a mature phase. That means that while profits are huge growth has declined. They should be using that war chest to fund new tech. Ballmer seems to be quite smart but I don't know if he's a visionary. Perhaps he should stick to milking the cash cow and ask Gates back to recommend where MS should invest.
Many tech companies succeed by maximizing their highs, making the most of their successes. This takes a substantial amount of risk, especially in the tech industry, but it's a very sensible business model that applies across several industries. Microsoft is unusual in that its pattern for success is not in maximizing highs (few MS products are considered best in class, let alone examples of exemplary execution and design) but rather in turning around and avoiding failures.
MS was headed for a crisis in the early 90s because their 16-bit consumer OS (Win 3.1/DOS) was a technological dead-end while their 32-bit next gen OS (Win NT) was not suitable for consumers due to excessive hardware requirements (namely a 4mb per process overhead for every 16-bit app, or a $150 premium for each 16-bit app running simultaneously). Instead, MS pursued an unusual hybrid approach (windows 95) that allowed a significant amount of the benefits of a 32-bit pre-emptive multi-tasking OS with more reasonable hardware requirements than OS/2 or NT. A solution that lasted another 6 years before finally being supplanted by their fully 32-bit Windows XP consumer OS. Similarly, MS recovered from the underwhelming Vista release with Windows 7. They turned around their shameful Live search efforts with Bing. They avoided disaster with the v1 XBOX, which was a reasonably popular system but a serious financial debacle, by halting production and putting out the XBOX 360, resulting in runaway popularity and financial success.
This ability to make such dramatic saving rolls against failure is a defining characteristic for MS. There are a few other tech companies that have shown some degree of this capability (Intel and Apple, for example) but it is far more characteristic of MS (and far more responsible for their success). In an industry with a rich history of fast rising superstars that later flare out in catastrophic failure (Sun, Excite, geocities, myspace, Digital Research, Netscape, DEC, countless more) MS's three decade history of turning potential catastrophes into successes is at the core of what makes the company tick. It may not be as glamorous as other companies who reach Olympian heights of excellence, trail-blaze new markets, or revolutionize old ones but it's been an enormously successful strategy for MS.
Perhaps MS has lost the mojo and the guts to make these sorts of major saving moves any more (from my time at MS I fear this may be becoming true). Perhaps this sort of strategy is no longer relevant in an era of even faster technological change. Only time will tell.
MS was headed for a crisis in the early 90s because their 16-bit consumer OS (Win 3.1/DOS) was a technological dead-end while their 32-bit next gen OS (Win NT) was not suitable for consumers due to excessive hardware requirements (namely a 4mb per process overhead for every 16-bit app, or a $150 premium for each 16-bit app running simultaneously). Instead, MS pursued an unusual hybrid approach (windows 95) that allowed a significant amount of the benefits of a 32-bit pre-emptive multi-tasking OS with more reasonable hardware requirements than OS/2 or NT. A solution that lasted another 6 years before finally being supplanted by their fully 32-bit Windows XP consumer OS. Similarly, MS recovered from the underwhelming Vista release with Windows 7. They turned around their shameful Live search efforts with Bing. They avoided disaster with the v1 XBOX, which was a reasonably popular system but a serious financial debacle, by halting production and putting out the XBOX 360, resulting in runaway popularity and financial success.
This ability to make such dramatic saving rolls against failure is a defining characteristic for MS. There are a few other tech companies that have shown some degree of this capability (Intel and Apple, for example) but it is far more characteristic of MS (and far more responsible for their success). In an industry with a rich history of fast rising superstars that later flare out in catastrophic failure (Sun, Excite, geocities, myspace, Digital Research, Netscape, DEC, countless more) MS's three decade history of turning potential catastrophes into successes is at the core of what makes the company tick. It may not be as glamorous as other companies who reach Olympian heights of excellence, trail-blaze new markets, or revolutionize old ones but it's been an enormously successful strategy for MS.
Perhaps MS has lost the mojo and the guts to make these sorts of major saving moves any more (from my time at MS I fear this may be becoming true). Perhaps this sort of strategy is no longer relevant in an era of even faster technological change. Only time will tell.
Xbox overall is still at least $5 Billion away from being profitable, possibly twice that.
What does Microsoft need to do to get back it's Mojo? Split itself into multiple seperate companies that actually need to compete in the free market and that can no longer consider wasting Billions on faulty hardware, losing a format war and missing explosive market growth opportunities as "success".
What does Microsoft need to do to get back it's Mojo? Split itself into multiple seperate companies that actually need to compete in the free market and that can no longer consider wasting Billions on faulty hardware, losing a format war and missing explosive market growth opportunities as "success".
'dramatic saving rolls' - heh, I liked that.
The problem with making those rolls, maybe, is that MS is now disinclined to strike out in a new direction?
Protecting the fortress from the plunderers (Sun, Netscape, Novell, etc) has turned out to be so profitable that they've forgotten how to rape and pillage (Lotus, IBM, Digital Research, etc).
The problem with making those rolls, maybe, is that MS is now disinclined to strike out in a new direction?
Protecting the fortress from the plunderers (Sun, Netscape, Novell, etc) has turned out to be so profitable that they've forgotten how to rape and pillage (Lotus, IBM, Digital Research, etc).
They should have split into 3 separate companies as was suggested (and ordered?) a long time ago. Now's too late.
I'd really be interested in seeing MS continue to develop out Microsoft Robotics, don't know if it makes the most business sense though.
hmmm Bill Gates return? jus like Jobs return to Apple.
as for mobile product, i want Surface technology in WinMo.
Surface uses giant infrared cameras and a projector for display (the medium has to be permeable to IR, so traditional screens don't work). You couldn't put that technology on a WinMo device. Their mobile division is basically dead in the water and I don't foresee any rescue.
I don't remember any time when Microsoft was "cool" or had "mojo", and I've been doing work since '88 at least. People who joined the scene in the mid '90s or later often think Microsoft is great -- because they don't know any better.
Microsoft is the McDonalds of software. Does McDonalds have a mojo? Did they ever?
Microsoft is the McDonalds of software. Does McDonalds have a mojo? Did they ever?
step zero: Fire Steve Ballmer
Microsoft's sole, yet-painful solution: a hard-reboot across the board resulting in "Winux".
That's an interesting point. Their OSes, while fairly widely used, are weird relative to just about every other OS in existence.
The sole supplier of anything even close to it is a commercial entity. Getting software that wasn't written for it to run there is a pain. Moving software away from it is also a pain (but it's at least to their advantage).
The sole supplier of anything even close to it is a commercial entity. Getting software that wasn't written for it to run there is a pain. Moving software away from it is also a pain (but it's at least to their advantage).
1) Streamline the product line. Get out of the markets where you've just gotten in from being panicked. This largely means the content businesses and probably music. Stop being so fucking insecure about businesses where arch rivals are doing well and identify markets to get in to where you already have a natural advantage. This probably means other business markets vs. consumer. Bing seems to be doing pretty well but it should just be a hobby. Just going through your main nav on Microsoft.com shows you're spread WAY too thin. There's over 100 products on there.
2) Redo your website and come up with a consistent look and feel for everything. Your branding totally needs to change to give people a new vibe about the company. For the amount of money you spend on marketing, your website sucks. Fire whoever is in charge of it and start over using some boutique firms in New York or S.V.
3) If you can't outright cut projects/products, spin them off and give them their own identity. McDonalds owns Chipotle but you wouldn't know it from Chipotle stores, their focus on organic meat, etc. Given the polarization of your brand, this could work well in other areas.
4) Invest in some yCombinator/TechStars type incubators and create a more well known pipeline to the startup community.
5) You generated a ton of bad karma by keeping IE6 around for 8 or 9 years. Seems silly, but you lose a lot of cool points and generate a ton of frustration among the developer community you're trying to woo. Make sure future versions of IE rock, maybe even go to a webkit rendering engine instead of what you've got now.
6) Flatten the organization, introduce some perks not even Google has and publicize the hell out of them. Encourage more employees to blog and be open about the culture there and the good aspects of working there. Make Microsoft a cool place to work again.
7) Put up a pirate flag a la Apple in the eighties or some other rebel move for show. You need to look like you have an edge to put your competitors on notice that you're still the 800 lb gorilla in the room and you intend on kicking some ass once again.