**** Brass on Microsoft

[JDShu]

To those of you who haven't read it, the former VP (I didn't know he was until just now) of Microsoft wrote a critique of Microsoft's poor innovation efforts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html

Basically, he says that Microsoft is fails at innovating due to its messed up corporate culture.

However, I think that he missed one of the basic points. Microsoft has no incentive to risk investing in something new and innovative. He talks about riskiness of hardware products a bit, but he says it only made sense back in the 1970s. I disagree - I think that Microsoft is still displaying sound business sense in playing copycat. The Zune is moderately successful, and the 360 is gaining popularity... possibly more so than the PS3 in Japan. New startups will go all in with innovation, but we can't expect big companies like Microsoft to do it.

[Sporkman]

**** Brass is an awesome name!

[JDShu]

LOL I agree.

[mickie.kext]

New startups will go all in with innovation, but we can't expect big companies like Microsoft to do it.

And that is the reason why extra-large companies are bad for industry. It is better to have 20 companies with 20k or so workers, all competing and overlapping each other, than to have 2 or 3 100k-man companies (like Intel and Microsoft) who hold monopolies in their respective markets.

[phrostbyte]

Not only do I think Microsoft is failing at innovating, their business model brings an entire creative industry (Dell, HP, Acer, etc..) down with them with their one-size-fits-all Soviet-styled OS. It's disgusting to see what happened to a once creative industry turned into beige-box pushers.

Despite Apple's DRM/proprietary nonsense, at least they show what an independent computer company can do. That I can respect.

[JDShu]

And that is the reason why extra-large companies are bad for industry. It is better to have 20 companies with 20k or so workers, all competing and overlapping each other, than to have 2 or 3 100k-man companies (like Intel and Microsoft) who hold monopolies in their respective markets.

Certainly, in the vast majority of markets, more firms can only be a good thing. In the case of Microsoft though, its a bit more complicated because there are real benefits to having single OS. Ideally of course, something open source like Linux would be perfect as the OS that everybody uses, but since that isn't happening.. it is not a totally bad thing that Windows is as dominant as it is.

[JDShu]

Not only do I think Microsoft is failing at innovating, their business model brings an entire creative industry (Dell, HP, Acer, etc..) down with them with their one-size-fits-all Soviet-styled OS. It's disgusting to see what happened to a once creative industry turned into beige-box pushers.

Despite Apple's DRM/proprietary nonsense, at least they show what an independent computer company can do. That I can respect.

I think you could have a good point that Microsoft is stifling innovation, though could you elaborate a bit on how it does this? I'm not that clear on what they do outside of patents... which everyone uses.

[thatguruguy]

Certainly, in the vast majority of markets, more firms can only be a good thing. In the case of Microsoft though, its a bit more complicated because there are real benefits to having single OS. Ideally of course, something open source like Linux would be perfect as the OS that everybody uses, but since that isn't happening.. it is not a totally bad thing that Windows is as dominant as it is.

^^^^ this. If Microsoft hadn't negotiated with IBM to retain the right license MS-DOS to IBM's competitors in the desktop market (which at the time didn't really exist), we probably wouldn't have had the microcomputer revolution we did. In order to have interoperability, everyone would not only be using the same OS, they'd be using the same computers (namely, IBMs). Thanks, Microsoft!

[MacJack]

**** Brass is an awesome name!


lol how unfortunate.

[almufadado]

This article bring light to the shady business that went on for many time with the operating system and their office. New features in Windows OS happen not to appear in the office suite and in some stages even incompatibilities, which was very strange at times.

Innovation in Windows must be a at baby steps because of the need to be retro-compatible. People and companies can just re-buy both software and hardware in a blink of an eye, it requires big investments, so things go slow.

I also agree companies like Microsoft are too big, because money do not buy all; doesn't buy ingenuity, freedom to progress and most of all when many rubber band tied together, keep pushing in their own direction, at some point something has to give.

[JDShu]

^^^^ this. If Microsoft hadn't negotiated with IBM to retain the right license MS-DOS to IBM's competitors in the desktop market (which at the time didn't really exist), we probably wouldn't have had the microcomputer revolution we did. In order to have interoperability, everyone would not only be using the same OS, they'd be using the same computers (namely, IBMs). Thanks, Microsoft!

Agreed. Perhaps the most logical solution, from a policy perspective, would be to break Microsoft up into separate companies for Windows, Office, etc. Its probably impossible, but that seems like the ideal solution.

[phrostbyte]

I think you could have a good point that Microsoft is stifling innovation, though could you elaborate a bit on how it does this? I'm not that clear on what they do outside of patents... which everyone uses.

By creating a dependency culture in the computer industry. Dell/HP/Gateway/Acer/Lenovo are all computer companies but they do not design fundamental parts of a computing experience. That is mostly Microsoft. That's why Apple [rightfully?] groups them all as one entity, "PC". The reason Apple can do what it does and basically leapfrogged of all them in a short period of time is because they are an independent computer company. This ability is inherent by not reselling Microsoft's fruit loops.

[Frak]

Agreed. Perhaps the most logical solution, from a policy perspective, would be to break Microsoft up into separate companies for Windows, Office, etc. Its probably impossible, but that seems like the ideal solution.
That would be pretty neat.

This company makes Windows.
This company makes Office.
This company manages XBox, and has a joint contract with
This company who manages DirectX.

This company is head of Visual Studio, and
This company manages the Zune.
This company manages the Server, and
This company manages Azure.

Poor poem right thar.

[witeshark17]

M$, what a wonder! :-({|=:lolflag:

[JDShu]

That would be pretty neat.

This company makes Windows.
This company makes Office.
This company manages XBox, and has a joint contract with
This company who manages DirectX.

This company is head of Visual Studio, and
This company manages the Zune.
This company manages the Server, and
This company manages Azure.

Poor poem right thar.

:lolflag:

My idea sounds a lot less crazy when you put it like that.

[alexfish]

Agreed. Perhaps the most logical solution, from a policy perspective, would be to break Microsoft up into separate companies for Windows, Office, etc. Its probably impossible, but that seems like the ideal solution.

Without Brass
Hope they end up Brassic


"Brassic" Taken from the Latin word "Brassicus" meaning to be poor/financially c*nted. "hey old chap im f*cking brassic buy me a pint!"

[JDShu]

By creating a dependency culture in the computer industry. Dell/HP/Gateway/Acer/Lenovo are all computer companies but they do not design fundamental parts of a computing experience. That is mostly Microsoft. That's why Apple [rightfully?] groups them all as one entity, "PC". The reason Apple can do what it does and basically leapfrogged of all them in a short period of time is because they are an independent computer company. This ability is inherent by not reselling Microsoft's fruit loops.

Hmm, but this goes back to having more software companies innovating to compete vs the benefit of having a standard OS. Perhaps if Dell/HP/... made their own OS we would have more to choose from and there would be more innovation, but it could cause difficulties if the people of the world were using many different OSs. In addition, it can be argued that Apple is not competing entirely with these companies as it does not make low end computers. (cream skimming).

[MLColejr]

Windows in the business world is really what standardized the computer industry. and while this is one of few things we can thank Bill Gates for, it did all modern computer users a favor by making popular the microcomputer that all of us are using to type these msgs. All other OSs , while more stable and richer in use than Windows they strived to be as user friendly as Windows was and born from that was modern Linux distros which are much easier to install and much more user friendly than they were 10 years ago when i first became interested in linux. So I say Microsoft has done its job as an innovator and is slowing down now, it will run out of steam and a new monster will take its place soon enough

[JDShu]

Nah, Microsoft standardized the computing industry by winning the market... but it didn't really matter who won as long as it got standardized. (Well whether OS standardization was really such a good thing is debatable too) I believe that Microsoft is also not the first company that made an easy to use operating system.

As for another monster taking its place (talking about desktop OSs now)... not necessarily. I think Microsoft can keep the market if it can play copycat effectively. Apple targets a different market. Linux is really the only threat - if it is at all. And as open source software, its not a monster, at least in the business sense.

[alexfish]

Windows in the business world is really what standardized the computer industry. and while this is one of few things we can thank Bill Gates for, it did all modern computer users a favor by making popular the microcomputer that all of us are using to type these msgs. All other OSs , while more stable and richer in use than Windows they strived to be as user friendly as Windows was and born from that was modern Linux distros which are much easier to install and much more user friendly than they were 10 years ago when i first became interested in linux. So I say Microsoft has done its job as an innovator and is slowing down now, it will run out of steam and a new monster will take its place soon enough


Windows in the business world is really what standardized the computer industry


They have standardized 0:


So I say Microsoft has done its job as an innovator and is slowing down now


they have never been an innovator


Microsoft's policies have nearly stagnated the computer industry to the point of no return ; Look at all the law suites


Microsoft's policies have stagnated innovation ; how many people really know how a computer works ; how many people can get a computer to do what they want it to do; and by that I mean What can 0's and 1's can do

[MLColejr]

Very good points JD

[Sporkman]

Hmm, but this goes back to having more software companies innovating to compete vs the benefit of having a standard OS. Perhaps if Dell/HP/... made their own OS we would have more to choose from and there would be more innovation, but it could cause difficulties if the people of the world were using many different OSs.

That's the way it was at first - Radio Shack computers had TRS-DOS, Zenith computers had HDOS, etc.

[thatguruguy]

By creating a dependency culture in the computer industry. Dell/HP/Gateway/Acer/Lenovo are all computer companies but they do not design fundamental parts of a computing experience. That is mostly Microsoft. That's why Apple [rightfully?] groups them all as one entity, "PC". The reason Apple can do what it does and basically leapfrogged of all them in a short period of time is because they are an independent computer company. This ability is inherent by not reselling Microsoft's fruit loops.

... waitaminnit. Dell, Gateway, Acer and Lenovo have been around longer than Apple? WHO KNEW?

[phrostbyte]

Hmm, but this goes back to having more software companies innovating to compete vs the benefit of having a standard OS. Perhaps if Dell/HP/... made their own OS we would have more to choose from and there would be more innovation, but it could cause difficulties if the people of the world were using many different OSs. In addition, it can be argued that Apple is not competing entirely with these companies as it does not make low end computers. (cream skimming).

Apple doesn't make low end computers, because they don't have to. See, when you selling something more then a bog standard "PC", you can compete on things other then price. You think Dell/HP/Gateway don't want the $1000+ market? They would love to make sane margins on every computer they sell.

[phrostbyte]

... waitaminnit. Dell, Gateway, Acer and Lenovo have been around longer than Apple? WHO KNEW?

Apple grew close to 100 fold in the past 10 years. They are currently the second large technology company, barely behind Microsoft in market capitalization, and ahead of Microsoft in net assets. The only company in the world that could even come close to that level of growth in such a short period of time is Google.

[thatguruguy]

Apple grew close to 100 fold in the past 10 years. They are currently the second large technology company, barely behind Microsoft in market capitalization, and ahead of Microsoft in net assets. The only company in the world that could even come close to that level of growth in such a short period of time is Google.

and that's been through the sale of desktop computers? Are you sure about that?

[phrostbyte]

and that's been through the sale of desktop computers? Are you sure about that?

None of it would be possible if Apple was bundling MS technology. The reason they are successful is because they designed products FROM THE GROUND UP. OS and all. HP/Dell need to learn how to do this too if they are to ever catch up to Apple's success.

[thatguruguy]

Again, are you stating that apple's growth has been through the sale of personal computers?

[phrostbyte]

Again, are you stating that apple's growth has been through the sale of personal computers?

Personal computers is a large component of it.

[thatguruguy]

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/04/16/101536-gartner_1Q09_us_trend_500.png

Wrong.

[thatguruguy]

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/04/16/101536-gartner_1Q09_us.png

[thatguruguy]

Apple has made money because it came out with the iPod and the iPhone.

Not because it is a world beater on the desktop.

Moreover, there is a pretty good argument to be made that if Microsoft Office hadn't been ported to OSX, apple on the desktop would be dead in the water. Thanks, Microsoft!

[phrostbyte]

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/04/16/101536-gartner_1Q09_us.png

Shipments is meaningless, you might as well compare # of Toshiba computers shipped to # of Fruit Loops cereal sold. The point of a company is to make money, and this is where Apple beats all the competition.

[thatguruguy]

... because iPods and iPhones are profitable.

Are you saying their profit margin is due to computer sales?

[phrostbyte]

... because iPods and iPhones are profitable.

Are you saying their profit margin is due to computer sales?

Yes, I am saying their computer sales have a lot to do with it.

[SuperSonic4]

http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/04/16/101536-gartner_1Q09_us_trend_500.png

Wrong.


http://images.macrumors.com/article/2009/04/16/101536-gartner_1Q09_us.png

Who'd have thought that cheap brands would do better than expensive brands in a global recession :lolflag:

[thatguruguy]

Do you actually rely upon any facts at all, or do you just make stuff up, and then change your argument when confronted with the truth. Wait. I know the answer to that one.

Here's what you stated earlier:


By creating a dependency culture in the computer industry. Dell/HP/Gateway/Acer/Lenovo are all computer companies but they do not design fundamental parts of a computing experience. That is mostly Microsoft. That's why Apple [rightfully?] groups them all as one entity, "PC". The reason Apple can do what it does and basically leapfrogged of all them in a short period of time is because they are an independent computer company. This ability is inherent by not reselling Microsoft's fruit loops.

Considering that Dell, HP and Acer still sell a LOT more computers than apple, how do you get that apple "leapfrogged" them?

[phrostbyte]

Do you actually rely upon any facts at all, or do you just make stuff up, and then change your argument when confronted with the truth. Wait. I know the answer to that one.

Here's what you stated earlier:



Considering that Dell, HP and Acer still sell a LOT more computers than apple, how do you get that apple "leapfrogged" them?

You are the one changing the argument. As an investor, I could care less how many garbage computers some random OEM sells. Especially if they aren't making all that much money selling them.

I do care about how much revenue and profit a company is making, as well as it's net assets and market capitalization. These are meaningful things when comparing the success of a business venture. You seem to have extreme difficulty understanding this.

[thatguruguy]

... I get that apple is successful because of the iPod and iPhone.

[phrostbyte]

... I get that apple is successful because of the iPod and iPhone.

Which run Apple operating systems, NOT Microsoft stuff. I don't see why you even bother to make this irrelevant distinction. If Apple went with WinMo you honestly think iPhone would be pwning everything?

[thatguruguy]

I think that if either one of them were incompatible with windows, neither of them would sell. Do you think either of them would be successful if they WEREN'T compatible with windows?

[LightB]

The Zune is moderately successful,

What does this even mean? 2 people use it?


and the 360 is gaining popularity... possibly more so than the PS3 in Japan.

LOL And possibly I'm the Queen of England.

Gotta love these TE threads.

[JDShu]

LOL And possibly I'm the Queen of England.


My bad, haven't looked up the stats in a while. A year ago, 360s were outselling PS3s in Japan. However, the 360 does currently outsell PS3s in the US and probably worldwide. As for the Zune, its not a failure and not a huge success. People will buy it and it keeps Microsoft in the market. My point on Microsoft's success as a copycat still stands.

[LightB]

My bad, haven't looked up the stats in a while. A year ago, 360s were outselling PS3s in Japan. However, the 360 does currently outsell PS3s in the US and probably worldwide.

You really love your "probably"s don't you? No, it doesn't for certain outsell in the world.


As for the Zune, its not a failure and not a huge success.

It is a failure which only causes losses for mikerowesoft. Same for xbox.

Please take your TE elsewhere.

[Maheriano]

The reason the Playstation was built better is because it got funding much earlier and Sony was working with Nintendo at the time, a corporation that has had over a decade of market knowledge already. Nintendo was planning a CD addon release for the Super Nintendo along with Sony and Philips but later scrapped the project. These other 2 companies didn't want to waste their efforts and research and design money so they produced their own competing consoles. The Philips CDI and the Sony Playstation. That's how Philips got licensing to release 3 (******) Zelda games for their CDI console.

So they had a lot of things going for them that Microsoft didn't. Especially their link with Nintendo.

[phrostbyte]

I think that if either one of them were incompatible with windows, neither of them would sell. Do you think either of them would be successful if they WEREN'T compatible with windows?

Yes but what does this have to do with ninjas in hockey masks? :roll:

[thatguruguy]

Yes but what does this have to do with ninjas in hockey masks? :roll:

Nothing. It has everything to do with your argument, however. Let's sum up.

1.You argued that apple has "leapfrogged" other computer makers (including but not limited to Dell, HP and Acer) because they've rejected microsoft.
2. I pointed out that in terms of desktop sales, they still lag behind Dell, HP and Acer in PC sales.
3. You then changed your argument to "what matters is profitability."
4. I pointed out that a good deal of apple's profitability comes from the sale of iPods and iPhones.
5. After more nonsense on your part, I point out that sales of iPods and iPhones wouldn't be possible if not for the fact that those devices are compatible with MS Windows. Which, incidentally, destroys your argument about how apple "leapfrogged" its competitors by rejecting Windows. I didn't even get into the fact that those devices are not compatible with Linux (at least, not the latest generation ones).
6. You then try to re-direct with nonsense about "ninjas in hockey masks" to try to avoid the fact that your argument, as always, is an epic failure.

I won't even go into how ridiculous it is that you are acting as a proponent of Apple, a company which has traditionally been the most closed of all the "closed shop" software developers.

But hey, keep up the mediocre work.

[koshatnik]

. New startups will go all in with innovation, but we can't expect big companies like Microsoft to do it.

Yeah? Tell that to Honda. Their R&D department is so huge its spread across 3 contintents.

[BuffaloX]

Not only do I think Microsoft is failing at innovating, their business model brings an entire creative industry (Dell, HP, Acer, etc..) down with them with their one-size-fits-all Soviet-styled OS. It's disgusting to see what happened to a once creative industry turned into beige-box pushers.

Despite Apple's DRM/proprietary nonsense, at least they show what an independent computer company can do. That I can respect.

I couldn't agree more.


Certainly, in the vast majority of markets, more firms can only be a good thing. In the case of Microsoft though, its a bit more complicated because there are real benefits to having single OS. Ideally of course, something open source like Linux would be perfect as the OS that everybody uses, but since that isn't happening.. it is not a totally bad thing that Windows is as dominant as it is.

There are very few benefits to having only a single OS, like there would be very few benefits in having only one car engine.

There are benefits in having interoperability through open standards.

[BuffaloX]

Nothing. It has everything to do with your argument, however. Let's sum up.

1.You argued that apple has "leapfrogged" other computer makers (including but not limited to Dell, HP and Acer) because they've rejected microsoft.
2. I pointed out that in terms of desktop sales, they still lag behind Dell, HP and Acer in PC sales.
3. You then changed your argument to "what matters is profitability."
4. I pointed out that a good deal of apple's profitability comes from the sale of iPods and iPhones.
5. After more nonsense on your part, I point out that sales of iPods and iPhones wouldn't be possible if not for the fact that those devices are compatible with MS Windows. Which, incidentally, destroys your argument about how apple "leapfrogged" its competitors by rejecting Windows. I didn't even get into the fact that those devices are not compatible with Linux (at least, not the latest generation ones).
6. You then try to re-direct with nonsense about "ninjas in hockey masks" to try to avoid the fact that your argument, as always, is an epic failure.

I won't even go into how ridiculous it is that you are acting as a proponent of Apple, a company which has traditionally been the most closed of all the "closed shop" software developers.

But hey, keep up the mediocre work.

I have to disagree on all counts.

1: Apple leapfrogged them all, this is a fact. Apple was down to less than 2% market share, and wasn't even sure to survive.
Jobs turned it all around based on concepts that were possible because they control their own infrastructure 100% both software and hardware.
Apple went from nowhere to everywhere, from not profitable to most profitable, and it was all based on Desktop/Laptop systems, iPods and iPhones came later.

2: Probably depends on how you do the numbers. I believe HP is number one at the moment, if you count number of systems sold. But that does not change the validity of the original statement.

3: No it wasn't really changed, Apple did extremely well both in regard to numbers sold and profitability, compared to everybody else in the industry.

4: Completely irrelevant. Apple still has the highest profit margins in the PC industry.

5: I think most people here get the importance of interoperability, but still iPod has nothing to do with this.

6: Probably because you completely derail the argument. Like Dell Acer and HP being older than Apple??? Nobody ever stated that, you misinterpret something, and find the misinterpretation about as stupid as it in fact is.
(Maybe HP really is older, but again completely irrelevant.)

(7) Yes Apple is more closed than Microsoft, and that sucks. This was not the argument either, the argument was that Apple was able to turn around faster, because they are technologically more independent and innovative than the PC business in general.

[phrostbyte]

I have to disagree on all counts.

1: Apple leapfrogged them all, this is a fact. Apple was down to less than 2% market share, and wasn't even sure to survive.
Jobs turned it all around based on concepts that were possible because they control their own infrastructure 100% both software and hardware.
Apple went from nowhere to everywhere, from not profitable to most profitable, and it was all based on Desktop/Laptop systems, iPods and iPhones came later.

2: Probably depends on how you do the numbers. I believe HP is number one at the moment, if you count number of systems sold. But that does not change the validity of the original statement.

3: No it wasn't really changed, Apple did extremely well both in regard to numbers sold and profitability, compared to everybody else in the industry.

4: Completely irrelevant. Apple still has the highest profit margins in the PC industry.

5: I think most people here get the importance of interoperability, but still iPod has nothing to do with this.

6: Probably because you completely derail the argument. Like Dell Acer and HP being older than Apple??? Nobody ever stated that, you misinterpret something, and find the misinterpretation about as stupid as it in fact is.
(Maybe HP really is older, but again completely irrelevant.)

(7) Yes Apple is more closed than Microsoft, and that sucks. This was not the argument either, the argument was that Apple was able to turn around faster, because they are technologically more independent and innovative than the PC business in general.

++

I can't really add anything to this. :D

[Blacklightbulb]

Imho this happens in all businesses where some work to maximize profit while other work to maximize advancement in the related field. Then again I don't agree either that Apple is brining some new advancements. Google yes but Apple, really? Apple decorate stuff and "socialize" technology gadgets.

[Frak]

4: Completely irrelevant. Apple still has the highest profit margins in the PC industry.

That's per unit. Nearly all of Apple's profits come from the iPod/iPhone line.

As for the person who said the Xbox was a failure, ARE YOU LIVING UNDER A ROCK?

[yester64]

To those of you who haven't read it, the former VP (I didn't know he was until just now) of Microsoft wrote a critique of Microsoft's poor innovation efforts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/opinion/04brass.html

Basically, he says that Microsoft is fails at innovating due to its messed up corporate culture.

However, I think that he missed one of the basic points. Microsoft has no incentive to risk investing in something new and innovative. He talks about riskiness of hardware products a bit, but he says it only made sense back in the 1970s. I disagree - I think that Microsoft is still displaying sound business sense in playing copycat. The Zune is moderately successful, and the 360 is gaining popularity... possibly more so than the PS3 in Japan. New startups will go all in with innovation, but we can't expect big companies like Microsoft to do it.

Well, it is like always. Business do not innovate if they do not have too. Milking the system (or the consumer) is the business model. It works all the time.
I can't say anything about the zune, besides that it is quite ugly. Designprices is not what they will can claim.
Xbox is a nice piece, but it is tightly integrated with windows. That is good and bad. Depending on how you see that.
I am actually still surprised that MS was so successful with the membership fees. A truly bold move, but paid off.
And with everything MS touches, it is lesser innovation rather evolution what you get.