Einhorn Calls on Microsoft to Fire Ballmer

[ERICOPOLY]

Look, I have no quarrels with MSFT for having put IE on Windows.  That made sense to me, and I disagree with the EU's forbidding Microsoft to put IE into Windows.  

 

It was Google pushing them to do it:

 

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/02/reuters_us_google_microsoft

 

This is why I just see Google as a culture of hypocrites.  Just compete.  Make a better product and shut up (I wish I could just be dictator).

 

Firefox had huge share in 2009, and growing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20091208190055!Web_browser_usage_share.svg

 

Google's frustration is that they wanted instant share.  So they have this disingenuous argument that the browser market isn't competitive, despite IE's share clearly declining rapidly even though it's preinstalled!

 

And yet you argue that Google is just making the internet easier to use?  Hah!  Right.  An OS without a web browser REALLY makes it easier to use, right?  Yah sure, because IE is so hard to use.

 

Google is not a culture of hypocrites.  Many if not most of the people who work there believe in doing the right thing, and there are a lot policies and positions that Google takes at a higher level that the people there really disagree with, based on discussions I've had with Googlers.  Internal debates are encouraged.

 

I disagree with Google piling on against MSFT in the EU.  But Google has started to do stuff like that in order to fight against the dirty tactics used by evil Microsofties who will justify anything as long as it lines their pocketbooks (tit for tat hybperbole, okay?).

 

IE may not be hard to use, but it is stuck in the past and keeps the Web from being what it could be.  MSFT has no incentive to innovate to the fullest extent with regards to IE because of the competitive threat that the Web poses as an alternative  platform.  

 

So, yeah, I absolutely think that Google is making the Internet easier to use.  It's disingenuous to argue otherwise, and only a Microsoftie would attempt to make that argument because of their blind rage towards Google.

 

I do find it interesting hearing your viewpoints on this, as most of this took place before your time.  I think it was shaped on rhetoric, the idealism of cliches like "write once run anywhere".  

 

I believe you are under the impression that Java was a suitable client side technology.  You also seem to imply that Internet Explorer stood in the way of the web being based on standards.

 

What you probably aren't aware of (not being an engineer) is that Netscape was not based on standards.  Look up the "layer" element for an example of this.  The IE team had to play catchup with Netscape, and because important websites rendered in Netscape in a given way we had to emulate their behavior.  This occasionally required deliberately copying their bugs so the pages would lay out the same.  Later, after Netscape had passed, some of the criticism heaped on the IE browser was rooted in some of those compatability hacks!  Ironic, worth a laugh but not much else.

 

EDIT:  It is also difficult to fix one of the compliance bugs when a major customer had written a complicated application based on earlier Internet Explorer.  Do you just fix the bug and break the customer's code?  No, you don't, which is why a later version of the browser (IE7 or IE8) had an option of loading the webpage using the IE6 rendering engine.  Other browsers just fix bugs and break customers -- Microsoft owes a good deal of bloatware to customer care.  Apple will need to learn about this if they ever intend to be the defacto corporate desktop technology.

 

Here is your browser based on web standards "Netscape 4" (or do you agree that was just a bunch of hot air?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_element

 

And you probably don't just take my word on it, so here is an example of what they would try to rush to market after two more iterations:

http://oreilly.com/news/flanagan_1100.html

 

You can be certain that earlier versions were far worse, but this says it all about version 6:

I'm writing to express my dismay at the number of standards-compliance bugs that remain in the Navigator 6.0 code base, and at the end of this article I'm requesting that like-minded developers register their comments and sign their names in protest.

 

 

[txlaw]

Look, I have no quarrels with MSFT for having put IE on Windows.  That made sense to me, and I disagree with the EU's forbidding Microsoft to put IE into Windows.  

 

It was Google pushing them to do it:

 

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2009/02/reuters_us_google_microsoft

 

This is why I just see Google as a culture of hypocrites.  Just compete.  Make a better product and shut up (I wish I could just be dictator).

 

Firefox had huge share in 2009, and growing:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/0/04/20091208190055!Web_browser_usage_share.svg

 

Google's frustration is that they wanted instant share.  So they have this disingenuous argument that the browser market isn't competitive, despite IE's share clearly declining rapidly even though it's preinstalled!

 

And yet you argue that Google is just making the internet easier to use?  Hah!  Right.  An OS without a web browser REALLY makes it easier to use, right?  Yah sure, because IE is so hard to use.

 

Google is not a culture of hypocrites.  Many if not most of the people who work there believe in doing the right thing, and there are a lot policies and positions that Google takes at a higher level that the people there really disagree with, based on discussions I've had with Googlers.  Internal debates are encouraged.

 

I disagree with Google piling on against MSFT in the EU.  But Google has started to do stuff like that in order to fight against the dirty tactics used by evil Microsofties who will justify anything as long as it lines their pocketbooks (tit for tat hybperbole, okay?).

 

IE may not be hard to use, but it is stuck in the past and keeps the Web from being what it could be.  MSFT has no incentive to innovate to the fullest extent with regards to IE because of the competitive threat that the Web poses as an alternative  platform.  

 

So, yeah, I absolutely think that Google is making the Internet easier to use.  It's disingenuous to argue otherwise, and only a Microsoftie would attempt to make that argument because of their blind rage towards Google.

 

I do find it interesting hearing your viewpoints on this, as most of this took place before your time.  I think it was shaped on rhetoric, the idealism of cliches like "write once run anywhere". 

 

I believe you are under the impression that Java was a suitable client side technology.  You also seem to imply that Internet Explorer stood in the way of the web being based on standards.

 

What you probably aren't aware of (not being an engineer) is that Netscape was not based on standards.  Look up the "layer" element for an example of this.  The IE team had to play catchup with Netscape, and because important websites rendered in Netscape in a given way we had to emulate their behavior.  This occasionally required deliberately copying their bugs so the pages would lay out the same.  Later, after Netscape had passed, some of the criticism heaped on the IE browser was rooted in some of those compatability hacks!  Ironic, worth a laugh but not much else.

 

Here is your browser based on web standards "Netscape 4" (or do you agree that was just a bunch of hot air?):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_element

 

 

No, I'm not under that impression. 

 

Whether Java was or was not actually destined to become a suitable client side technology is irrelevant.  Microsoft's actions, in totality, were intended to prevent alternative platforms from emerging to challenge the Windows OS, and they crossed the line in some instances.

 

MSFT should have just competed on the merits back in the day because they probably would have won anyway until the Web developed further.  I used Netscape back then, by the way, but perhaps I would have used IE more had I been working in an office during the browser wars.

 

Additionally, I am a lawyer, but I also have an engineering degree, so I can't help but be insulted by your jerky comments about how I'm not aware of this or that.  I also don't care for your accusation that I or people I know who have the same viewpoint are hypocrites.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

No, I'm not under that impression.  

 

Well, I've already seen you post on how Microsoft killed Java's promise of "write once, run anywhere".  If it's not your impression then where did that come from?

 

And you wrote the following (I'm adding emphasis to the key section):

 

Oh, and if you're Netscape, you better use our proprietary APIs or we're going to dominate you by making sure that all businesses have to rely on IE because we know that once business start developing websites for IE, it will be more difficult for future businesses to ignore IE and all the other MSFT standards that are tied to IE.

 

The reason why I brought up the LAYER element, is that once a website was authored for these Netscape specific features it would only look good in Netscape!

 

So they were certainly playing the same game.  It's just how the game was played.  However you clearly implied that "if you were Netscape", as if they were being harmed!  They were throwing web standards bombs too!  It was just all out war.

 

MSFT should have just competed on the merits back in the day because they probably would have won anyway until the Web developed further.  

 

Fully agree.  The sad thing is that "they" completely overreacted (it was probably only a few key executives at the top).

 

Additionally, I am a lawyer, but I also have an engineering degree, so I can't help but be insulted by your jerky comments about how I'm not aware of this or that.  

 

Well you play the "they're evil" part so well I just figured you were 100% lawyer.  Apologies.

 

I also don't care for your accusation that I or people I know who have the same viewpoint are hypocrites.

 

Relax, it's playful teasing based on the "do not evil" mantra.  Google make it their culture, but then they utilize government resources to prosecute disingenuous arguments.  That's not a benefit to society, it's taking advantage of public resources to gain an edge over a competitor.  It's doesn't sit well with me, not an example of good business ethics.  This is where Val's point comes home -- eventually principles are compromised, it just seems to happen.

 

They also acquire other companies and then force the legacy user base to use GMail (which is completely unnecessary inconvenience to YouTube users).  Look, fine you are just taking it from the Microsoft playbook.  But then you're not evil, right?  It is heavy-handedness, not "let the best mail win" behavior.  I don't accuse Google of doing anything worse than Microsoft, but that's not the "Do NO evil" standard they've set for themselves.  It's not about openness when you tell your friends that if they don't play your game then you'll pack up the toys and go home (which is what forcing GMail on YouTube is all about).

 

It's not based on whether or not Microsoft has done worse... they never had a "do no evil" code.

 

Anyhow, you could say they have to resort to these tactics in order to survive in the tech world, but then you're no longer above the fray.  You're down in the gutter with the trash.  So it becomes the pot calling the kettle black.  Thus, I view "do no evil" as hypocrisy.

 

Years down the road, Google's success may land them in antitrust proceedings.  Their behavior of abusing their YouTube monopoly to gain a stronger foothold in mail will just be color against a background of anti-competitive behavior, all patterned around protecting their search dominance.  Just like the one-off violations that Microsoft did were all cobbled together into "anti-competitive behavior".

 

Okay, so why does "do no evil" really bother me.  I guess there is a parallel with how I view religion.  I am not religious, and I have nothing against it.  I do have a serious problem with self righteousness.  That's what gets me going.  It's all well and good if they really walk the path of enlightenment, but when they stray it's open season when they don't drop the self-righteousness.

[ERICOPOLY]

We should probably stop this discussion TxLaw.

 

A little bit of humor on closing:

 

Accepting the Evil Empire analogy, I will introduce a new one:

Google is Anakin.  (sorry, I have small children and read them Star Wars books every day):

 

Anakin: "Something's happening. I'm not the Jedi I should be. I want more. And I know I shouldn't. "

...

Anakin: "I shouldn't have done that. It's not the Jedi way. " 

...

Obi-Wan: "You were the chosen one! It was said that you would destroy the Sith, not join them. You were to bring balance to the force, not leave it in darkness. "

...

Obi-Wan Kenobi: Anakin did not take to his new assignment with much enthusiasm.

Mace Windu: It's very dangerous, putting them together. I don't think the boy can handle it. I don't trust him.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: With all due respect, Master, is he not the Chosen One? Is he not to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force?

Mace Windu: So the prophecy says.

Yoda: A prophecy that misread could have been.

Obi-Wan Kenobi: He will not let me down. He never has.

Yoda: I hope right you are.

[Guest VAL9000]

Eric,

 

Before you venture any further down that path with your kids...  you should really review this PSA:

 

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e02d61361b/star-wars-talk-to-your-kids-psa

 

"I don't really want my son growing up in a world where we believe Greedo shot first."

[ERICOPOLY]

Eric,

 

Before you venture any further down that path with your kids...  you should really review this PSA:

 

http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/e02d61361b/star-wars-talk-to-your-kids-psa

 

"I don't really want my son growing up in a world where we believe Greedo shot first."

 

That's interesting (just watching the video now).  I think however that if someone takes a critical view of what is written in certain religious texts, similar points can be made.  A supreme being that will punish you if you do not worship him -- isn't that vanity?  Or intolerance of alternative lifestyles?

 

The reader books on Star Wars are actually pretty good at explaining the moral underpinnings of the force.  How anger leads to the dark side, etc...  In fact, I view Star Wars more as a spiritual guide now more so than ever -- because prior to having children, I'd never read the books, only the movie.  I"m just talking about the children's reader books:  level 1, 2, 3.  These are not the original novels.

 

Maybe the fathers in that video helped write the books.

[zarley]

"I don't really want my son growing up in a world where we believe Greedo shot first."

 

LOL.  My 5 year old loves Star Wars.  And, even though he hasn't seen the movies (aside from the new animated series), he already knows that Han shot first.

[ERICOPOLY]

"I don't really want my son growing up in a world where we believe Greedo shot first."

 

LOL.  My 5 year old loves Star Wars.  And, even though he hasn't seen the movies (aside from the new animated series), he already knows that Han shot first.

 

I wonder if our schools make it clear to children when the USA shoots first.

[Guest VAL9000]

That's interesting (just watching the video now).  I think however that if someone takes a critical view of what is written in certain religious texts, similar points can be made.  A supreme being that will punish you if you do not worship him -- isn't that vanity?  Or intolerance of alternative lifestyles?

 

The reader books on Star Wars are actually pretty good at explaining the moral underpinnings of the force.  How anger leads to the dark side, etc...  In fact, I view Star Wars more as a spiritual guide now more so than ever -- because prior to having children, I'd never read the books, only the movie.  I"m just talking about the children's reader books:  level 1, 2, 3.  These are not the original novels.

 

Maybe the fathers in that video helped write the books.

Or it could just be a joke video aimed at poking fun at hardcore Star Wars fans :D  I lol'd - it's hilarious.  Disclaimer: I'm a Star Wars fan.

 

[txlaw]

Okay, this will be my last post on the matter.

 

-----------

 

Well, I've already seen you post on how Microsoft killed Java's promise of "write once, run anywhere".  If it's not your impression then where did that come from?

 

And you wrote the following (I'm adding emphasis to the key section):

 

Oh, and if you're Netscape, you better use our proprietary APIs or we're going to dominate you by making sure that all businesses have to rely on IE because we know that once business start developing websites for IE, it will be more difficult for future businesses to ignore IE and all the other MSFT standards that are tied to IE.

 

The reason why I brought up the LAYER element, is that once a website was authored for these Netscape specific features it would only look good in Netscape!

 

So they were certainly playing the same game.  It's just how the game was played.  However you clearly implied that "if you were Netscape", as if they were being harmed!  They were throwing web standards bombs too!  It was just all out war.

 

I was under the impression that Java could potentially have developed such that it would pose a threat to the profitability of the Windows platform.  Microsoft execs also appear to have been worried about that possibility as well.

 

However, since you were a developer who was on the ground at that time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it that Java sucked at that time.  But could it never have posed a threat to the Windows platform?  I'm not entirely sure.  I will recognize that Java was probably over-hyped by its supporters.

 

Note that Apple makes the same arguments about Flash that you have made.  Apple claims not to support Flash because it's buggy.  But I don't think that is the rationale behind their not supporting Flash.  Instead, Jobs doesn't want Flash to progress in a way that allows developers to circumvent the App Store.

 

With respect to standards, I'm in support of standards bodies or open standards development.  I like the notion that HTML5 could become an alternative platform with various standards and codecs built in that don't require royalty payments to certain corporations or to patent pools.  Obviously, everything can't be open source, but I like the idea of building on open source platforms.

 

Well you play the "they're evil" part so well I just figured you were 100% lawyer.  Apologies.

 

I think I noted that I was being hyperbolic with the "MSFT is evil" language.  Partly, that was in reaction to the oft-used dismissal of the "don't be evil" motto that Google tries to follow.

 

Actually, you sound a lot like Steve Jobs when you start talking about how the "don't be evil" mantra is bullshit.  But is he being fair or is he being super competitive?

 

Relax, it's playful teasing based on the "do not evil" mantra.  Google make it their culture, but then they utilize government resources to prosecute disingenuous arguments.  That's not a benefit to society, it's taking advantage of public resources to gain an edge over a competitor.  It's doesn't sit well with me, not an example of good business ethics.  This is where Val's point comes home -- eventually principles are compromised, it just seems to happen.

 

They also acquire other companies and then force the legacy user base to use GMail (which is completely unnecessary inconvenience to YouTube users).  Look, fine you are just taking it from the Microsoft playbook.  But then you're not evil, right?  It is heavy-handedness, not "let the best mail win" behavior.  I don't accuse Google of doing anything worse than Microsoft, but that's not the "Do NO evil" standard they've set for themselves.  It's not about openness when you tell your friends that if they don't play your game then you'll pack up the toys and go home (which is what forcing GMail on YouTube is all about).

 

It's not based on whether or not Microsoft has done worse... they never had a "do no evil" code.

 

Anyhow, you could say they have to resort to these tactics in order to survive in the tech world, but then you're no longer above the fray.  You're down in the gutter with the trash.  So it becomes the pot calling the kettle black.  Thus, I view "do no evil" as hypocrisy.

 

Years down the road, Google's success may land them in antitrust proceedings.  Their behavior of abusing their YouTube monopoly to gain a stronger foothold in mail will just be color against a background of anti-competitive behavior, all patterned around protecting their search dominance.  Just like the one-off violations that Microsoft did were all cobbled together into "anti-competitive behavior".

 

Okay, so why does "do no evil" really bother me.  I guess there is a parallel with how I view religion.  I am not religious, and I have nothing against it.  I do have a serious problem with self righteousness.  That's what gets me going.  It's all well and good if they really walk the path of enlightenment, but when they stray it's open season when they don't drop the self-righteousness.

 

My take is that you're misconstruing the "do no evil" tenet as self-righteousness.  For certain Googlers or Google supporters, they are definitely being self-righteous in invoking the saying.  For others -- the vast majority, I believe -- they sincerely believe or at least agree with the underlying sentiment behind the motto.  Actually, "don't be evil" is far too simplistic a phrase that allows people to take potshots at the company.  The motto at Google should really be, "we try to do well by doing good."

 

If you have a YouTube account, you are now required to get a Google account.  But so what?  The vast majority of YouTube videos are available for watching without signing into the service.  You don't have to use Gmail.  In this case, leaving aside the privacy issues (which are fair game), cross-selling is occurring.  Is it unfair for Wells Fargo to migrate Wachovia customers to its own platform so that it can more easily cross sell to its newly acquired depositors?  Of course not.

 

With regards to getting down in the gutter, I would agree that certain actions have been taken that I would not approve of.  On the other hand, I also recognize that sometimes you have to be willing to get your hands dirty to protect the mission.  To what extent you can do this while still claiming to stick to your motto is debatable.

 

In the end, I think having the principle of "don't be evil" and trying to stick to it far outweighs any accusations of hypocrisy that may or may not be warranted.  That goes for religious/moral beliefs as well.  My gut reaction to actions that stray from the path is not to gleefully call the actor a hypocrite.  Nobody is perfect.  Institutions certainly can't be perfect. 

 

Obviously, we have different reactions to these moral stances taken by institutions or individuals.  We have had disagreements on this before with regards to Buffett and taxes, right?

 

------

 

Anyways, those are my final thoughts.  Have a good holiday weekend.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

Regarding Java.  I mentioned that I actually never used Windows at all until 1995.  I started at UCLA in fall 1995 and graduated in 1997 when I joined Microsoft.  

 

UCLA was very anti-Microsoft.  The computer science lab was full of Sun workstations (donated by Sun), and I took a Java programming course there in Fall 1996 (from the mathematics departement).  

 

So I did get a good dose of Java, in a pro-Sun environment, during a time when I'd only had 1 year of Microsoft software under my belt.

 

It was easy to program in, but you could only make relatively lame user interfaces that were really slow.  

 

My instructor of Software Engineering (course title) was an employee of the Rand Corporation -- he literally told the class not to work for Arthur Anderson or Microsoft.  

 

I also grew up near Palo Alto and the mother of a good friend worked for Sun when I was in high school.  I had a positive feeling about that company until I was exposed to Scott McNeally through the media.  My mother met him in the late 1990s when I was already at Microsoft -- she was an RN in Labor & Delivery at Stanford University Hospital (retired now).  His wife was having a baby, and while she was in labor he spent the whole time taking calls and chattering on about a deal HP was going to make with Microsoft.  What a prick!  That's what all the nurses thought of him.

 

Note that Apple makes the same arguments about Flash that you have made.  Apple claims not to support Flash because it's buggy.  But I don't think that is the rationale behind their not supporting Flash.  Instead, Jobs doesn't want Flash to progress in a way that allows developers to circumvent the App Store.

 

I am firmly behind Steve Jobs on this one.  I haven't done it on the most recent versions of Flash, but if you just go to pretty much any Flash website and enable Microsoft's "Application Verifier" tool on the iexplore.exe process, you'll get crashes just by refreshing the page.  They might have fixed that by now (it's been 4 years now), but it was something I always struggled with when attempting to find IE bugs (I relied on the Application Verifier tool to catch memory corruption).  So my stress automation software would always disable all of these third party addons.

 

The browser active x components are a plague.  They run in the IE process, and if you disable them the competitor will cry foul.  And people will just assume you are anticompetitive (like you suspect of Steve Jobs).

 

We were highly motivated to have the third parties fix the bugs -- they were not as motivated to fix them.  After all, "An Application Error Has Occurred in Iexplore.exe".  

 

People just blame it on IE.

 

Jobs doesn't want people to think they are Apple's bugs, which they most likely would do.

 

 

App Verifier turns on flags in ntdll.dll, so the memory allocator behaves in a sort of debug mode.  You can set it on a per-process basis:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms220931%28v=VS.90%29.aspx

 

It does things like put heap allocations on the end of pages, and mark the next page PAGE_NO_ACCESS.  So if code tries to write beyond the allocation, it's an instant death for the application and you can catch it in the debugger.  Without those flags turned on in the process, the corruption happens and the application may or may not crash later on (impossible to find out the code that caused the corruption).

 

That AppVerifier tool has been publicly available for more than a decade.  These third parties have absolutely no excuses for their lame crap -- why can't they just fix their bugs?  They don't have to.  Unless Jobs puts the screws on them.  It not a game of "you have a bug somewhere, go hunt for it" -- not when it's handed over on a silver platter. 

 

From A River Runs Through It

    Jessie: Why is it the people who need the most help... won't take it?

    Norman: I don't know Jess.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

However, since you were a developer who was on the ground at that time, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and take your word for it that Java sucked at that time.  But could it never have posed a threat to the Windows platform?  I'm not entirely sure.  I will recognize that Java was probably over-hyped by its supporters.

 

Here is one way to put it where it's not biased with anti-competitive slant.

 

Rich client-side applications could be developed using .NET.  In theory.

 

Supposedly, Microsoft could save a lot of money writing Internet Explorer, Office, etc... apps in .NET.  Then they could have a single codebase and ship it on every platform that they ship the .NET runtime engine on.

 

However, one of the most critical pushes on the IE team was for performance.  So it would never fly.  Never for a moment would they consider writing it in .NET.  That would be a performance nightmare -- relatively speaking compared to just writing it in C++.

 

Honestly, they is no way in hell any development manager would consider that even for a moment.  On servers though, it's terrific for getting many things done, just like Java.

 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

The motto at Google should really be, "we try to do well by doing good."

 

That would be better.  The don't be "evil" was clearly a swipe at the "Evil" Empire.

 

Thus, be prepared to have a thick skin.  It's one of those perfect "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" situations.

 

Taunting people... they might taunt you back.

[txlaw]

The motto at Google should really be, "we try to do well by doing good."

 

That would be better.  The don't be "evil" was clearly a swipe at the "Evil" Empire.

 

Thus, be prepared to have a thick skin.  It's one of those perfect "those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones" situations.

 

Taunting people... they might taunt you back.

 

Sure, it was a swipe at Microsoft.  A justified one that ultimately backfired on them.

 

Wouldn't say that Google lives in the same sort of house that Microsoft does, though.  Definitely not. 

 

Re: taunting -- very mature.

 

I thought you wanted to stop the discussion . . .

[ERICOPOLY]

Re: taunting -- very mature.

 

I thought you wanted to stop the discussion . . .

 

I am not saying that I am taunting.  I am saying that Google was taunting (but they were just adolescents at the time, so the maturity can be forgiven)... and they will get (and have been) taunted back because of it.

 

For example, as you mentioned Steve Jobs makes fun of it.  And Bill Gates jokes "Do less evil".... etc...

 

It's just all in good fun... don't get uptight.  People will say this and that at Google are "evil", but only because it's their word thrown back, but it's playful teasing.

 

A cross town rivalry if you will.  UCLA vs USC.  Stanford vs Cal.  I mean, even alumni still joke about that kind of stuff long after the day -- but it's not serious.

 

[txlaw]

Re: taunting -- very mature.

 

I thought you wanted to stop the discussion . . .

 

I am not saying that I am taunting.  I am saying that Google was taunting (but they were just adolescents at the time, so the maturity can be forgiven)... and they will get (and have been) taunted back because of it.

 

For example, as you mentioned Steve Jobs makes fun of it.  And Bill Gates jokes "Do less evil".... etc...

 

It's just all in good fun... don't get uptight.

 

 

Making fun is one thing.  Trying to get under someone's skin is another. 

 

When you say that someone is a hypocrite, that's a little bit more than good-natured ribbing.  That's the way I take it, at least.

[ERICOPOLY]

Re: taunting -- very mature.

 

I thought you wanted to stop the discussion . . .

 

I am not saying that I am taunting.  I am saying that Google was taunting (but they were just adolescents at the time, so the maturity can be forgiven)... and they will get (and have been) taunted back because of it.

 

For example, as you mentioned Steve Jobs makes fun of it.  And Bill Gates jokes "Do less evil".... etc...

 

It's just all in good fun... don't get uptight.

 

 

Making fun is one thing.  Trying to get under someone's skin is another. 

 

When you say that someone is a hypocrite, that's a little bit more than good-natured ribbing.  That's the way I take it, at least.

 

I said the culture is one of hypocrisy.  "culture" of a company is not the same thing as insulting a someone.

 

People have said Microsoft is evil -- that is not an insult to a specific "someone".

 

Perhaps you are just realizing that as a part of an organization, you feel a bit slighted personally when the organization is denigrated.  Lesson learned, one that I learned way the hell back when I joined Microsoft.  It's probably new for you, but if they keep going down that path of things you disapprove of, then you'll get used to it.

[txlaw]

Re: taunting -- very mature.

 

I thought you wanted to stop the discussion . . .

 

I am not saying that I am taunting.  I am saying that Google was taunting (but they were just adolescents at the time, so the maturity can be forgiven)... and they will get (and have been) taunted back because of it.

 

For example, as you mentioned Steve Jobs makes fun of it.  And Bill Gates jokes "Do less evil".... etc...

 

It's just all in good fun... don't get uptight.

 

 

Making fun is one thing.  Trying to get under someone's skin is another. 

 

When you say that someone is a hypocrite, that's a little bit more than good-natured ribbing.  That's the way I take it, at least.

 

I said the culture is one of hypocrisy.  "culture" of a company is not the same thing as insulting a someone.

 

People have said Microsoft is evil -- that is not an insult to a specific "someone".

 

Perhaps you are just realizing that as a part of an organization, you feel a bit slighted personally when the organization is denigrated.  Lesson learned, one that I learned way the hell back when I joined Microsoft.  It's probably new for you, but if they keep going down that path of things you disapprove of, then you'll get used to it.

 

You really do know how to get under someone's skin, don't you? 

 

Yeah -- I'm "just realizing that as a part of an organization, you feel a bit slighted personally when the organization is denigrated."  ::)

 

Okay, people have said or implied in the past that the "culture" of Microsoft was evil.  Was that right or not?  If not, then is it right to respond by saying that the "culture" of Google is one of hypocrisy? 

 

That's what I meant when I said, "very mature."  I've been goaded by you into relapsing into a "MSFT is evil" frenzy when I don't even believe that.

 

This is getting ridiculous.  I'm done.  I'm sure you will respond, but I'm done.

[ERICOPOLY]

You really do know how to get under someone's skin, don't you?  

 

I don't think it takes much to get under yours.

 

Sincerely, you take this all the wrong way.  It's all very lighthearted, just as you found it necessary to get unprofessional with the "evil" comments.  I'm sure you didn't mean anything by it, it's just fun to throw out there.  People are just human, you can't expect others to always behave with comments that don't get down to the level of yours.

 

 

Okay, people have said or implied in the past that the "culture" of Microsoft was evil.  Was that right or not?  If not, then is it right to respond by saying that the "culture" of Google is one of hypocrisy?  

 

Both just antics.  However, the game is on when a corporation makes it their motto to mock another.  That has got to be the most adolescent motto in all of the business world.  So people tease them, people say it's hypocritical.  Maybe change the motto to something more mature, like the one you suggested.  It makes more sense now that the company has grown.  I'm not sure that a single other company has a motto that swipes at another one.

 

[bargainman]

I don't see how Einhorn is going to do this.  It's one thing when he's shorting JOE, a piddly company losing money and posting gloomy looking pictures on the internet, it's an entirely different thing when he has a minuscule share of MSFT.  I guess his 'loudness' might move the needle?  I suspect that Einhorn knows next to nothing about the tech industry.  Next to the MSFT's board of directors, I'm sure his knowledge of tech and the tech industry pales in comparison.

[yudeng2004]

Einhorn's problem is that he thinks Ballmer is not in the same weight class as Jobs or the Google top brass etc, but he doesn't name any ALTERNATIVES。

 

Just because Jobs/Google guys beat Microsoft (and everyone else) in their respective areas, does this make Ballmer a BAD CEO? 

 

I have my own reasons for believing why Ballmer is a bad CEO but firing him is not necessarily the best course of action unless you have a replacement that is certain to be better.

 

Ballmer is bad because he has no vision, unlike BillG.  His problem is that his entire strategy for new product areas is look at what your competitor does that gets hot, then copy it, but he doesn't even know how to put himself in the best position to acheive that, unlike BillG. 

 

BillG always liked tablets, he was constantly talking about tablets back in the day.  Ballmer is too MBAish.  He is just not in the same weight class as BillG/Jobs etc.

[seshnath]

Not sure I agree, nor disagree with Einhorn on this.  I think the company needs to do more, but not sure firing Ballmer is the answer.  Cheers!

 

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2011/05/25/microsoft-fire-ballmer-says-einhorn/?mod=yahoobarrons

 

One look at the Value Line page and my conclusion about Einhorn is - another hedgie obsessed with share prices.

 

Here's a thought experiment - how much money will it take to have all the Windows/MS Office customers switch to another product?  The answer is simple enough for me - it isn't just the cost of rolling out a new/innovative product.  Think of retraining all the non-techies who grow up with MS products and having to do it without any cognitive dissonance.  Simple enough for me.

 

 

[Guest VAL9000]

Here's a thought experiment - how much money will it take to have all the Windows/MS Office customers switch to another product?  The answer is simple enough for me - it isn't just the cost of rolling out a new/innovative product.  Think of retraining all the non-techies who grow up with MS products and having to do it without any cognitive dissonance.  Simple enough for me.

 

It's an interesting thought.  I ran across similar reasoning regarding Microsoft's foray into the tablet market.  Users of Windows will have an easier time translating their proficiency to a tablet operating under Windows vs. a tablet operating under Apple / Android / QNX.  I agree with the rationale, but I'm skeptical given that most tablet use today occurs inside a browser and users need to move from a point-and-click interface to touch interface.  Then again, I find the iPad operating environment way too restrictive and applications too verticalized/silo'd.  I long for a true operating system - perhaps Android, Chrome OS or Windows 8 will fill the gap.

 

[bargainman]

Here's a thought experiment - how much money will it take to have all the Windows/MS Office customers switch to another product?  The answer is simple enough for me - it isn't just the cost of rolling out a new/innovative product.  Think of retraining all the non-techies who grow up with MS products and having to do it without any cognitive dissonance.  Simple enough for me.

 

It's an interesting thought.  I ran across similar reasoning regarding Microsoft's foray into the tablet market.  Users of Windows will have an easier time translating their proficiency to a tablet operating under Windows vs. a tablet operating under Apple / Android / QNX.  I agree with the rationale, but I'm skeptical given that most tablet use today occurs inside a browser and users need to move from a point-and-click interface to touch interface.  Then again, I find the iPad operating environment way too restrictive and applications too verticalized/silo'd.  I long for a true operating system - perhaps Android, Chrome OS or Windows 8 will fill the gap.

 

 

I agree that there are a lot of IT folks and the like in the enterprise that are trained on MS software, and that is a moat for sure, especially for current devices. However, with regards to the tablet here's a funny video imagining if MSFT had designed the iPod box:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aeXAcwriid0

 

Basically the point is that MSFT seems to be so concerned with branding things that they forgot to make the product really the best for its form factor.  I remember looking at MSFT's early smart phones and couldn't figure out why on earth the UI people decided to put a big start button on there.  The design was totally off and wasted precious screen real estate making it hard to use.  But hey, it was 'on brand'.  So the question becomes, what is more important, the brand or focusing on the form factor and making the best experience possible for that form factor.  (MSFT has finally started to get it with Windows 7 phone, after being killed by Apple and Google).  I think Steve Jobs said it and I tend to agree:  MSFT is run by Ballmer who is a sales/marketing guy, not a product/engineering guy.  When that happens to a tech company it tends to lose its innovative edge, but they focus on hitting their sales numbers.  It seems to me that MSFT was always 2nd or 3rd or later to a market, which is by necessity since they can only go after big markets.  But when someone else like Apple or Google is in the market already, it's pretty hard to make headway.

[Guest VAL9000]

Basically the point is that MSFT seems to be so concerned with branding things that they forgot to make the product really the best for its form factor.  I remember looking at MSFT's early smart phones and couldn't figure out why on earth the UI people decided to put a big start button on there.  The design was totally off and wasted precious screen real estate making it hard to use.  But hey, it was 'on brand'.  So the question becomes, what is more important, the brand or focusing on the form factor and making the best experience possible for that form factor.  (MSFT has finally started to get it with Windows 7 phone, after being killed by Apple and Google). 

The circumstances were quite a bit different, too.  MSFT attempted to recreate the point-and-click interface on the phone, but they didn't have the same technology now vs. then.  There's often pain involved in being too early.  Earlier than WinMo was the Apple Newton, and we all know how that turned out.  Apple today isn't free of flaws, either.  I can't understand why the Safari browser's controls are all at the top of the screen, but my hands and thumbs are always at the bottom.  When I think of examples like this, I try to remind myself that we're still very early in a long, long race with respect to tablets and smart phones.

 

I think Steve Jobs said it and I tend to agree:  MSFT is run by Ballmer who is a sales/marketing guy, not a product/engineering guy.  When that happens to a tech company it tends to lose its innovative edge, but they focus on hitting their sales numbers.  It seems to me that MSFT was always 2nd or 3rd or later to a market, which is by necessity since they can only go after big markets.  But when someone else like Apple or Google is in the market already, it's pretty hard to make headway.

Yeah, I tend to agree with that.  The numbers are the most important when you're running a business, but vision and execution are the most important when you're building a brand.  Gates was truly remarkable when you consider that he was both an incredible businessman and a tech visionary.  Jobs gets full credit here, too.  Few people can get close to these guys.  Ballmer's job as CEO is to enable guys with Gates' vision.  He can't change his own level of prescience, but his job as leader is to identify and enable the talent at Microsoft.