Is it too late for Microsoft?(wired.com)
wired.com
Is it too late for Microsoft?
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/microsoft-new-company/
7 comments
I think that the larger problem is not "too late" so much as the trap of success. Let's assume that corporate growth can be modelled on a sigmoid curve, with small companies growing exponentially and large companies growing asymtotically in mature markets. There are a couple of really big problems that large companies necessarily face:
1. Real, disruptive innovation is never worth it. Not only do you have the issue that exponential growth in small units will not contribute to exponential growth to the business as a whole but if you disrupt your support structure, you lose on the whole. So, large companies have to be conservative and only acquire disruptive players when they reach a certain size. However this furthers the problem because at that point those players will not continue exponential growth for very long.
2. Large companies are far more reliant on streams of income and partner supports that are subject to disruption than small companies. This again makes it harder to pivot.
3. Large companies have much more inertia than small ones, making pivoting even harder.
I don't know if it is "too late" for Microsoft because I don't know what "too late" means. Too late for what? Too late to do what? The company is large and changing remarkably rapidly these days (though I saw the beginnings of change starting when I worked there a decade ago).
But the future will certainly be painful for Microsoft. Everyone knows this, even everyone who I know that still works at Microsoft. Is it too late for them to survive? Certainly not. But success on the scale of Microsoft in our market is too often a dead end, and getting out of that dead end is never pleasant.
1. Real, disruptive innovation is never worth it. Not only do you have the issue that exponential growth in small units will not contribute to exponential growth to the business as a whole but if you disrupt your support structure, you lose on the whole. So, large companies have to be conservative and only acquire disruptive players when they reach a certain size. However this furthers the problem because at that point those players will not continue exponential growth for very long.
2. Large companies are far more reliant on streams of income and partner supports that are subject to disruption than small companies. This again makes it harder to pivot.
3. Large companies have much more inertia than small ones, making pivoting even harder.
I don't know if it is "too late" for Microsoft because I don't know what "too late" means. Too late for what? Too late to do what? The company is large and changing remarkably rapidly these days (though I saw the beginnings of change starting when I worked there a decade ago).
But the future will certainly be painful for Microsoft. Everyone knows this, even everyone who I know that still works at Microsoft. Is it too late for them to survive? Certainly not. But success on the scale of Microsoft in our market is too often a dead end, and getting out of that dead end is never pleasant.
There's no way Microsoft could have created Office for the iPad since Satya Nadella took over as CEO; same goes for a lot mentioned here. I bet he'll be great for the company, however we can't give him credit for everything.
Several news stories claimed it was ready and that its release was being blocked for political/strategic reasons, so he could well be responsible or, at least symbolic of, the change in politics/strategy.
Classic transition/change-management launch-the-new-guy technique.
Yes especially since this was not a coup.
You are 100% right, those changes described in the article take months if not years of planing and hard work. I hate to give Ballmer a credit, but it's all his doing. We are yet to see Satya in action .
It's impossible that it was created after Satya Nadella took over. But at least he has the good sense not to can the project.
Surely Satya can't be given full credit, but he was not exactly an outsider before he was elected the CEO.Some if not most of the new stuff could very well be because of his direct/in-direct push, especially around open sourcing numerous dev stuff.
It is hard to imagine anything is too late for a company that made over 20 billion profit last year. Even if Windows has done worse aren't Office sales increasing on OS X for example. Microsoft is a company that sells Office first and foremost.
No, that's actually quite easy to imagine. MS reputation is severely ruined by years of crooked behavior (which still continues into the present really). They are now seen as a dangerous thug which can not be trusted. To change that perception they'll have to work really hard. So these new developments are steps in the right direction but they are way not sufficient yet.
I think that Microsoft realise this and they will be going out of their way over the next few years to be on really good behavior.
Two different thoughts:
First, It'll take me a while before trusting MS again (people often forget or don't know the depth of what the anti trust case revealed). But I can't even _start_ to consider it as they continue to be a part of the patent-problem. (I'd say a big part, but big or small, it's old MS as usual as far as I'm concerned).
Second, when I was closer to MS, it really felt like there was company wide blindness. I'm not sure that's gone yet. I especially look at Xbox and Azure and I can't believe the cheerleading that's going into these massive money losing projects. Azure in particular..there was a Gartner report that showed Microsoft spending 5x more than Amazon yet having relatively no market share. It's like Bing all over again. Absolutely and totally disillusioned. (the report could have been wrong I guess).
First, It'll take me a while before trusting MS again (people often forget or don't know the depth of what the anti trust case revealed). But I can't even _start_ to consider it as they continue to be a part of the patent-problem. (I'd say a big part, but big or small, it's old MS as usual as far as I'm concerned).
Second, when I was closer to MS, it really felt like there was company wide blindness. I'm not sure that's gone yet. I especially look at Xbox and Azure and I can't believe the cheerleading that's going into these massive money losing projects. Azure in particular..there was a Gartner report that showed Microsoft spending 5x more than Amazon yet having relatively no market share. It's like Bing all over again. Absolutely and totally disillusioned. (the report could have been wrong I guess).
Besides patents problem, MS is still into lock-in and sabotaging open standards where possible. Until that behavior ceases, all these new developments won't even start looking sincere.
Let's wait and see. From the recent events like MS fighting to revert uncopyrightability of APIs, or trying to sabotage patent reform which would cut software patents, it doesn't look like they seriously want to change. But may be more things are coming.
The high tech industry moves fast, and the giants fall fast.
RIM had $3.4bn net income on $20bn revenue in 2011. Now they are hemorrhaging.
RIM had $3.4bn net income on $20bn revenue in 2011. Now they are hemorrhaging.
Microsoft has a large client base that does not move fast. Even if all the consumers goes the way of the interwebs, Microsoft is making huge amounts of money from enterprises that have no easy migration paths. I certainly can't imagine a measurable number of their enterprise customers ditching them in three years.
Microsoft is a company suffering from the innovator's dilemma. Releasing Office on iPad was a good first step. I however believe that they will ultimately marginalize themselves in the consumer markets (if they haven't already, for example look at the Windows Phone share, Surface RT issues, etc). They will likely remain a formidable force in the enterprise market for years to come.
So this is not exactly news, is it.
It's just the ramblings of a blogger, based on a bunch of hypotheticals and old info (i.e. again "not news").
Which part of this "editorial" is actionable here? Should Microsoft have thought "hey, if it's too late we better just give up"?
Does it mean you should abandon all Microsoft products because it's "too late"? Office is still a good product, and becoming better, and available on more platforms. There are challengers, but Office is keeping up.
What exactly does "it's too late" mean anyway? Too late for what? Is Microsoft about to go bankrupt? No. Is it too late for it to be 1995 again? Who cares?
It's just the ramblings of a blogger, based on a bunch of hypotheticals and old info (i.e. again "not news").
Which part of this "editorial" is actionable here? Should Microsoft have thought "hey, if it's too late we better just give up"?
Does it mean you should abandon all Microsoft products because it's "too late"? Office is still a good product, and becoming better, and available on more platforms. There are challengers, but Office is keeping up.
What exactly does "it's too late" mean anyway? Too late for what? Is Microsoft about to go bankrupt? No. Is it too late for it to be 1995 again? Who cares?
I guess, Microsoft's final stage will be either like an exploding supernova (like Sun, the company) where it will emit a lot of open source software in the wild and die, or like a red giant (like IBM) where it will focus on business customers and get more of them.
Do you think Linux is the last ever OS (or kernel) that will ever be?
Sure windows and you and I and everyone will die one day..including. Linux...and Apple..and everything.
Personally, I'm looking forward to an OS based on rust myself. It seems like the language with the right mix of features that will prompt systems developers to re-invent lots of the base pieces of operating systems.
They are still making boat loads of cash, they are still making things people want and do use, and they are making a lot of exciting changes. No, it is not too late for Microsoft.