Read the whole thing and all I saw was zero accountability, zero ownership and zero consequences.

That’s how great products die or become a nightmare. Every team keeps on passing the ball to other team and nothing gets fixed or done or improved.

▲

saaaaaam 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But it didn’t. And Microsoft is worth $3.5 trillion. So maybe actually everyone should take a leaf out of the Microsoft book.

When something is on fire, pass the buck to other people and stand around saying “that thing is on fire… wouldn’t it be great if someone called the fire brigade? I have the number here. One of you guys, give them a call.”

▲

relaxing 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Windows MovieMaker remained a nightmare and did indeed die.

The book is simply: acquire monopoly, wield power ruthlessly to keep it. Everything else is orthogonal.

▲

rawgabbit 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

That says more about the US software industry than anything else. You “win” by being hostile to consumers while you lawyer up and bribe the powers that be.

	▲	ValentineC 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		I read this somewhere else in HN (possibly in one of the Azure threads): Microsoft's moat is in closing enterprise agreements.

▲

MBCook 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It’s the only OS available for most computers. Sort no one cares about Linux or a BSD. Normal people only know Linux and Mac and you can’t get MacOS with your non-Mac.

And we all know Microsoft caters hard to enterprise and Apple almost seems to give them the middle finger on purpose. So all those big companies only buy MS.

Add in the giant base of existing software, especially line of business/custom stuff, and MS is safe for a long time, no matter how bad they are.

▲

JsonDemWitOster 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

<fighter-planes-with-bulletholes.jpg>

Survivorship bias is a thing no? Microsoft succeeded despite their organizational flaws. Microsoft produced an insanely backwards-compatible[1] OS despite flawed overall strategy and lack of decisive leadership. Doesn't mean everyone should take a leaf out of their book.

I personally believe there are organizations in a Mr. Burns-type equilibrium[2]. Maybe, like Mr Burns, they are in that perfect but fragile state of dysfunction which somehow makes them deliver, for some definition of "deliver". Maybe they have a core team that keeps the whole thing going against the odds. Either way, I wouldn't call any of these organizations resilient.

It made me cringe about three emails post-Bill because I recognized exactly what was happening. My first job was in a company past its glory days and couldn't adapt to the mobile-firstness of the smartphone era. They, too, had "product devs" whose sole job, as far as I could tell, was to forward emails to and from the right department/partner. It was even more egregious than MS---most of the emails forwarded were just "Hi sysads. The request below from engineering is authorized." or "Hi Engineering, see reply from $PARTNER below".

The company died a relatively quick death, spurned on by the Conglomerate Mothership. Thankfully I recognized the signs and jumped ship as soon as they were on borrowed time.

[1] I wouldn't know personally as I daily drive Linux but that _was_ the conceit of why you'd choose Windows. I won't be surprised if this one solid invariant that Windows could offer has changed lately.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qgMKq2aOeEg

	▲	saaaaaam 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I personally believe there are organizations in a Mr. Burns-type equilibrium[2]. Maybe, like Mr Burns, they are in that perfect but fragile state of dysfunction which somehow makes them deliver, for some definition of "deliver". Maybe they have a core team that keeps the whole thing going against the odds. Either way, I wouldn't call any of these organizations resilient. Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. Dilbert made real.

▲

Dansvidania 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

they pivoted a few times since then in terms of what their core product is, though :D

▲

rolandog 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Indeed... Their core product seems to be being an unavoidable blackhole of money where they are taxing all of society by virtue of inserting themselves into our lives by having acquired or squashed other competitors

▲

Dansvidania 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I agree, but I think their hold on the monopoly is starting to erode, what with the gaming on linux momentum and all.

What else is there that _needs_ windows?

	▲	saaaaaam 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		A bunch of things like Nuclear submarines (which I think still run on Windows NT?) and gas turbines and things I think. And then, presumably, their downstream supply chains and integration tooling and yadda yadda. Every time I am in a railway station it seems that digital signage runs on Windows, because the digital signs are always throwing errors. None of this stuff needs windows but most of the time I guess no one is going to switch away because they are all so embedded, and it requires work and a bunch of people to make a decision. Maybe the Windows execs were just modelling how they hoped corporate culture would look in their perfect customer. Which is why it’s nice when the Swiss and French and so on ditch Windows for more open alternatives.

▲

saaaaaam 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But did they get any better at putting out fires by committee?

Or are there still groups of Microsoft employees saying “I saw a fire extinguisher in Bob’s office the other day. He was using it as footrest. I told Magda to warn him about the health and safety but she said it was Julian’s job… and the guy who pays for them to be filled and tested left three years ago and no one replaced him, so it probably doesn’t work anyway.”

▲

cush 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Those bits are in a completely different set of emails

▲

jameshart 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Really? You’ve got this guy Dave Fester on there saying he was going to own the website issues and was coordinating everything to do with how the products surfaced on the web. That seemed like pretty clear accountability and ownership to me. What do you want? Some more performative mea culpas?

	▲	alternatex 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Point wasn't about fixing the exact issues, the point was how it even got that bad. Of course the easiest route to comprehending the complaint by Bill is to immediately fix the specified issues, making Bill a simple QA instead of concerned leader. I think accountability would involve trying to understand how it got that bad, and figuring out a new process for preventing it from happening again. Though I'm sure that never happened. In my humble opinion, some of the blame has to land on Bill himself as he has the full power and agency to build a style of management in his company that would've prevented this from happening. Instead he just scolded a bunch of senior execs who usually find a way to just delegate some work to tuck away any visible issues and go on with their merry lives.

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]