7 ms·

Why Microsoft’s reorganization closes the books on an era of computing

47 points by titlex 13y ago

rbanffy 13y ago
"The new Microsoft is no longer the enabler of technology delivered to consumers with help from Intel, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and other partners. The new Microsoft has realized that it’s going to need to do it all itself" This changes a lot
- kvb 13y ago
  It would change a lot if it were true. I find it hard to believe that Microsoft plans to build the expertise necessary to abandon Intel, though. And though they're making inroads into building their own hardware, I don't think they're in any position to abandon their OEMs yet, either.
  - lttlrck 13y ago
    Abandon is too strong. Microsoft depends on PC OEMs for most hardware innovation (for Intel that includes Ultrabook). Microsoft could become more proactive and lead, it has the talent and the desire; it is already doing it with Phone and Surface.
    - yulaow 13y ago
      Let's look at the surface rt (also if it has a really low market share in the tablet worldwide market), it has destroyed the others wrt-tablet. Look at microsoftnok... ehm, nokia. They are pratically a branch of microsoft and infact they have discouraged other competitors to join the windows phone ecosystem. It means that, if microsoft starts to make its own hw also for the pcs market, there will be a big problem for other manufacturers to stay in the same market. Apple may live in a world where it is they only manufacturer for the hw in which runs his sw because they have create the first recognized brand in the world and they are like the "cool people of tecnology", but microsoft can try it? Looking at the actual marketshare of wp8 and surface RT or PRo, i think nope.
      - geon 13y ago
        Their first iteration of Surface was weak. Win8 is really rough around he edges, and the hardware was awkward in some areas. But they have strong points too, and the next version will probably be better. They are still experimenting, trying to figure out exactly they want to do. Market share right now means nothing.
    - 3825 13y ago
      Intel has known for a while that it has to take the lead in designing and marketing (the Ultrabook is an excellent example) if they are to stay relevant. I'd say Microsoft is in a similar position. I wouldn't want Intel to think I am to be dependant. The Surface RT line makes a statement. A weak one but it is nonetheless a statement.
      - williadc 13y ago
        Even still, they relied on nVidia to design their SoC. I don't see any rumblings of Microsoft starting up a silicon design shop.
  - artsrc 13y ago
    Microsoft has created a non-intel living room device, the X-Box. Dropping support for the OEM's in the Phone and PC space would be an interesting move, which I think they could carry off quite quickly. I don't think they are headed in that direction myself.
- pjmlp 13y ago
  This might mean a return to the 80-90's where the vendors were responsible for an uniform hardware + software experience and no crapware was being installed on the systems.
igravious 13y ago
Do you know what I'd love to see? Somebody building gorgeous Linux laptops and desktops. As in Apple-gorgeous. With all the drivers working fine and dandy. With awesome specs, with half-yearly updates or even rolling updates. I thought Canonical might do it but they seem intent on partnering with hardware vendors. Why is this not doable? I think there is System 76 but they are not drool- and lust-worthy and I don't now why. It must be possible. Android shows that it can be done for a certain class of devices, why is it not possible in the laptop and desktop space? All you'd want is say 5% of the dwindling PC market to make an absolute bundle. Oh yeah, the Microsoft reorg. Yay, go Ballmer, yay!
- agent123 13y ago
  Isn't that the chromebook pixel?
  - igravious 13y ago
    Bit of a song and dance getting a full featured OS (like Debian) onto it to make it developer ready. Unless you are suggesting always using the Pixel for remote development.
  - binarycrusader 13y ago
    Not as long as the Chromebook Pixel is shipping with ChromeOS instead of a full GNU/Linux distribution. But it seems like a nice reseller opportunity if Google would allow it.
- yulaow 13y ago
  dell tried something similar with the xps13 developer edition
  - igravious 13y ago
    Which is a very nice piece of kit by all accounts. The article is wrong by the way. It says, "has not articulated a unique and compelling vision for the future of computing since Apple’s iPhone rocked it to its core in 2007" Yes, the iPhone was a big deal but Linux is and has always been a far bigger deal. Microsoft can out-spend and out-compete anyone on their own turf. They cannot do this with Linux as Android shows. This really does seem to signal that Microsoft may have to become a lot more like Apple in the hardware/software integration stakes. If you think of the very log view (30 years) there is no way any company can build and maintain a monopoly in any one sector indefinitely. What other company has ever been able to do that? The PC market is dwindling. And eventually there will be a third player and then a fourth player. Eventually Microsoft is going to have to port Office to Linux.
zw123456 13y ago
I have been in this business a very long time (ahem, over 35yrs) and the one thing I have observed over the years is that it seems like there is a cyclical nature to they way tech companies go up and down. There was a time when everyone thought Apple would rule the world with the Mac, it was so much better than DOS, and then MS came roaring back with windows, then people thought Apple was down for the count and they came roaring back with the the Ipod and Iphone. Sure some companies drift into obscurity and go out of business while new ones come on the scene (eg. Google) but the really good ones figure out a way to become relevant again (e.g. IBM, Watson etc.). It will be interesting to see if MS is able to do the same. I hope so, we still need some big companies like that that are willing to invest huge sums of money on research, it cannot all be done with start ups.
- pedalpete 13y ago
  That's an interesting perspective, but I have to question how much value Microsoft research alone has added versus the many start-ups that Microsoft has worked with in bringing new technology to market. Microsoft didn't invent the Kinect, it was developed by PrimeSense and brought to market by Microsoft (if I've got that right). As the cost of much of the large technology plays comes down, and it can be done easier, I think we'll continue to see large companies continue to rely on start-ups to provide the initial impetus of ingenuity. I suspect it has always been that way. Don't forget Microsoft was a start-up which took advantage of IBM's scale to build their market advantage.
  - kabdib 13y ago
    The Kinect is a depth camera. Nothing new there. PrimeSense had one that was a lot cheaper than existing ones, and Microsoft bought it. It was primarily the cost of the device that had PS in the running. The skeletal tracking was totally Microsoft's stuff; in fact, it was an utter surprise to PrimeSense when it was announced (that was fun -- they had no idea what we were really doing with the camera until very late in the game). So: PrimeSense: Depth camera. Microsoft: EVERYTHING else (from the firmware and the drivers on up, including a /bunch/ of manufacturability stuff that PS had little experience in).
coldcode 13y ago
They can survive for a long time still but in the end they will be just another dinosaur. Apple was lucky, Steve came back and had ideas that changed the world in many ways and at the exact right time in history. I was at Apple a year before he came back and left thinking it was doomed. MS is still a strong company with a lot of money, but they have nothing that will change the world and their own future. The future belongs to those who can invent it but revolutions are hard to come by. What do they have that will give them a massive advantage over everyone else? Nothing I can see.
- kvb 13y ago
  You don't think having by far the biggest and best research organization is a competitive advantage?
  - mikeash 13y ago
    Not if the rest of the company is unable to turn the results of that research into products that aren't just another vehicle for shoving Office down people's throats.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    IBM's size wasn't enough to stop Microsoft's uprising. I doubt Microsoft's size is enough to stop the next Bill Gates.
- lotso 13y ago
  The combination of PCs, tablets, phones, search, consumer services, living room entertainment, a compelling software and server stack, and the best R&D in the world gives them the potential to do things other companies can't do. Microsoft is incredibly well suited to compete in the future. Although it is easy to dismiss Microsoft due to their stumbling in the consumer market in the past couple years, you have to realize this is going to be a decades long battle for Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Out of those 4 companies, I'd say Apple is the one who needs to diversify their profits and rapidly improve their ability to create services.
  - 13y ago
shmerl 13y ago
Too little, too late. Windows is going to linger for quite a long time still just because of the massive market penetration, but it's getting obsolete.
flatfilefan 13y ago
So in effect ms has enacted the screw over Nokia plan just now?

47 points by titlex 13y ago

"The new Microsoft is no longer the enabler of technology delivered to consumers with help from Intel, Dell, HP, Lenovo, and other partners. The new Microsoft has realized that it’s going to need to do it all itself" This changes a lot

kvb 13y ago
It would change a lot if it were true. I find it hard to believe that Microsoft plans to build the expertise necessary to abandon Intel, though. And though they're making inroads into building their own hardware, I don't think they're in any position to abandon their OEMs yet, either.
- lttlrck 13y ago
  Abandon is too strong. Microsoft depends on PC OEMs for most hardware innovation (for Intel that includes Ultrabook). Microsoft could become more proactive and lead, it has the talent and the desire; it is already doing it with Phone and Surface.
  - yulaow 13y ago
    Let's look at the surface rt (also if it has a really low market share in the tablet worldwide market), it has destroyed the others wrt-tablet. Look at microsoftnok... ehm, nokia. They are pratically a branch of microsoft and infact they have discouraged other competitors to join the windows phone ecosystem. It means that, if microsoft starts to make its own hw also for the pcs market, there will be a big problem for other manufacturers to stay in the same market. Apple may live in a world where it is they only manufacturer for the hw in which runs his sw because they have create the first recognized brand in the world and they are like the "cool people of tecnology", but microsoft can try it? Looking at the actual marketshare of wp8 and surface RT or PRo, i think nope.
    - geon 13y ago
      Their first iteration of Surface was weak. Win8 is really rough around he edges, and the hardware was awkward in some areas. But they have strong points too, and the next version will probably be better. They are still experimenting, trying to figure out exactly they want to do. Market share right now means nothing.
  - 3825 13y ago
    Intel has known for a while that it has to take the lead in designing and marketing (the Ultrabook is an excellent example) if they are to stay relevant. I'd say Microsoft is in a similar position. I wouldn't want Intel to think I am to be dependant. The Surface RT line makes a statement. A weak one but it is nonetheless a statement.
    - williadc 13y ago
      Even still, they relied on nVidia to design their SoC. I don't see any rumblings of Microsoft starting up a silicon design shop.
- artsrc 13y ago
  Microsoft has created a non-intel living room device, the X-Box. Dropping support for the OEM's in the Phone and PC space would be an interesting move, which I think they could carry off quite quickly. I don't think they are headed in that direction myself.
pjmlp 13y ago
This might mean a return to the 80-90's where the vendors were responsible for an uniform hardware + software experience and no crapware was being installed on the systems.

igravious 13y ago

Do you know what I'd love to see? Somebody building gorgeous Linux laptops and desktops. As in Apple-gorgeous. With all the drivers working fine and dandy. With awesome specs, with half-yearly updates or even rolling updates. I thought Canonical might do it but they seem intent on partnering with hardware vendors. Why is this not doable? I think there is System 76 but they are not drool- and lust-worthy and I don't now why. It must be possible. Android shows that it can be done for a certain class of devices, why is it not possible in the laptop and desktop space? All you'd want is say 5% of the dwindling PC market to make an absolute bundle. Oh yeah, the Microsoft reorg. Yay, go Ballmer, yay!

agent123 13y ago
Isn't that the chromebook pixel?
- igravious 13y ago
  Bit of a song and dance getting a full featured OS (like Debian) onto it to make it developer ready. Unless you are suggesting always using the Pixel for remote development.
- binarycrusader 13y ago
  Not as long as the Chromebook Pixel is shipping with ChromeOS instead of a full GNU/Linux distribution. But it seems like a nice reseller opportunity if Google would allow it.
yulaow 13y ago
dell tried something similar with the xps13 developer edition
- igravious 13y ago
  Which is a very nice piece of kit by all accounts. The article is wrong by the way. It says, "has not articulated a unique and compelling vision for the future of computing since Apple’s iPhone rocked it to its core in 2007" Yes, the iPhone was a big deal but Linux is and has always been a far bigger deal. Microsoft can out-spend and out-compete anyone on their own turf. They cannot do this with Linux as Android shows. This really does seem to signal that Microsoft may have to become a lot more like Apple in the hardware/software integration stakes. If you think of the very log view (30 years) there is no way any company can build and maintain a monopoly in any one sector indefinitely. What other company has ever been able to do that? The PC market is dwindling. And eventually there will be a third player and then a fourth player. Eventually Microsoft is going to have to port Office to Linux.

zw123456 13y ago

I have been in this business a very long time (ahem, over 35yrs) and the one thing I have observed over the years is that it seems like there is a cyclical nature to they way tech companies go up and down. There was a time when everyone thought Apple would rule the world with the Mac, it was so much better than DOS, and then MS came roaring back with windows, then people thought Apple was down for the count and they came roaring back with the the Ipod and Iphone. Sure some companies drift into obscurity and go out of business while new ones come on the scene (eg. Google) but the really good ones figure out a way to become relevant again (e.g. IBM, Watson etc.). It will be interesting to see if MS is able to do the same. I hope so, we still need some big companies like that that are willing to invest huge sums of money on research, it cannot all be done with start ups.

pedalpete 13y ago
That's an interesting perspective, but I have to question how much value Microsoft research alone has added versus the many start-ups that Microsoft has worked with in bringing new technology to market. Microsoft didn't invent the Kinect, it was developed by PrimeSense and brought to market by Microsoft (if I've got that right). As the cost of much of the large technology plays comes down, and it can be done easier, I think we'll continue to see large companies continue to rely on start-ups to provide the initial impetus of ingenuity. I suspect it has always been that way. Don't forget Microsoft was a start-up which took advantage of IBM's scale to build their market advantage.
- kabdib 13y ago
  The Kinect is a depth camera. Nothing new there. PrimeSense had one that was a lot cheaper than existing ones, and Microsoft bought it. It was primarily the cost of the device that had PS in the running. The skeletal tracking was totally Microsoft's stuff; in fact, it was an utter surprise to PrimeSense when it was announced (that was fun -- they had no idea what we were really doing with the camera until very late in the game). So: PrimeSense: Depth camera. Microsoft: EVERYTHING else (from the firmware and the drivers on up, including a /bunch/ of manufacturability stuff that PS had little experience in).

coldcode 13y ago

They can survive for a long time still but in the end they will be just another dinosaur. Apple was lucky, Steve came back and had ideas that changed the world in many ways and at the exact right time in history. I was at Apple a year before he came back and left thinking it was doomed. MS is still a strong company with a lot of money, but they have nothing that will change the world and their own future. The future belongs to those who can invent it but revolutions are hard to come by. What do they have that will give them a massive advantage over everyone else? Nothing I can see.

kvb 13y ago
You don't think having by far the biggest and best research organization is a competitive advantage?
- mikeash 13y ago
  Not if the rest of the company is unable to turn the results of that research into products that aren't just another vehicle for shoving Office down people's throats.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  IBM's size wasn't enough to stop Microsoft's uprising. I doubt Microsoft's size is enough to stop the next Bill Gates.
lotso 13y ago
The combination of PCs, tablets, phones, search, consumer services, living room entertainment, a compelling software and server stack, and the best R&D in the world gives them the potential to do things other companies can't do. Microsoft is incredibly well suited to compete in the future. Although it is easy to dismiss Microsoft due to their stumbling in the consumer market in the past couple years, you have to realize this is going to be a decades long battle for Apple, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Out of those 4 companies, I'd say Apple is the one who needs to diversify their profits and rapidly improve their ability to create services.
- 13y ago

shmerl 13y ago

Too little, too late. Windows is going to linger for quite a long time still just because of the massive market penetration, but it's getting obsolete.

flatfilefan 13y ago

So in effect ms has enacted the screw over Nokia plan just now?