TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Microsoft’s best hope after Ballmer? A break up

48 pointsby newsignover 11 years ago

15 comments

brudgersover 11 years ago
<i>&quot;To me, Microsoft seems like the former Soviet Union—Politburo, five-year plans, and all.&quot;</i><p>Here is the essence of a horseshit analogy. Microsoft is compared to an oligarchy - the Politburo [1]. And then by magic transformed into the entire Soviet Union. This allows the advancement of an argument for breakup based on shortcomings in the delivery of consumer goods.<p><i>&quot;That’s why Steve Ballmer’s replacement should not be one executive but should be a number of people who have experience in different domains and who can run independent operating companies.&quot;</i><p>Mr. Wadhwa, how did that work for ATT? The article is utterly bereft of intellectual coherence. Microsoft is far more tightly focused than Samsung or Siemens and more profitable to boot.<p>[1]and what corporation couldn&#x27;t be?
评论 #6278797 未加载
评论 #6278756 未加载
cygwin98over 11 years ago
Don&#x27;t be silly. We&#x27;re having a world war in the IT scene at this moment among a number of monstrous companies: Microsoft, Google, Apple, Amazon and their allies. This proposal is like suggesting of partitioning the Soviet Union in 1942.
macspoofingover 11 years ago
It makes no fuckin sense to break Microsoft apart. Microsoft is actually highly focused. There&#x27;s synergy between every division, whether on the product side (e.g. hotmail&#x2F;outlook accounts used in Windows, Office, Xbox, Internet services) or the backend&#x2F;platform side (e.g Windows kernel powering PCs, Xbox, Tablets, Phones. Or the Azure cloud powering Office 365, XboxOne Cloud, and miscellaneous Windows SAAS, in addition to providing web-services AND also pushing and marketing the Windows and Xbox development platforms).<p>What a terrible article.
评论 #6278727 未加载
canistrover 11 years ago
Wadhwa mostly fails to address that Microsoft (prior to a couple of weeks ago) was already &quot;broken&quot; up and organized by business groups (or customer segments) in much the same way he is proposing (Xbox = IEB, Online Services = Bing, Windows = Windows, Office = Office, etc).<p>I realize he is proposing an entire break-up, but I would have liked it if he had approached the problem providing the context of the difference between his proposed plan and the business unit separation. Afterall, Microsoft is famous for teams fighting each other for power and resources and meanwhile still requiring cooperation.
acomjeanover 11 years ago
This is like Deja Vu. They said the same thing about IBM last century (I was an employee at IBM yorktown for a couple years). IBM was dying, the PC (clones mostly) won the day and was in offices everywhere. The plan was to split IBM up into lots of little companies.. They brought in a CEO (Gerstner) who basically said, don&#x27;t split it up, being big is a benefit and lets leverage that. It worked, and the company started doing better.<p>oblig wiki page: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_V._Gerstner,_Jr" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Louis_V._Gerstner,_Jr</a>.
评论 #6278626 未加载
radleyover 11 years ago
HA ha ha ha. No way. Don&#x27;t discount M$. They have a very solid track record of coming late to the game, failing, flailing over and over... and once a market matures they move in hard and take it over.
评论 #6278494 未加载
评论 #6278933 未加载
评论 #6278545 未加载
kylloover 11 years ago
Well, this is wishful thinking. With their recent major re-org, Microsoft went the complete opposite direction, and they are going to have tightly coupled, horizontal&#x2F;functionally-aligned departments rather than loosely coupled, vertical&#x2F;product-aligned divisions. Will be interesting to see how that works out.
rbanffyover 11 years ago
I too have written less than inspired articles in the past, so, I&#x27;ll assume the author was under some kind of editorial pressure and couldn&#x27;t think through the core idea.<p>The idea of giving away RT in order to compete with Android is only viable financially with the multiple network effects between the products of different divisions. If he proposes breaking up Microsoft, he should, at least, propose a business model that would work with the broken up company.
mbreeseover 11 years ago
At the time, I thought that <i>not</i> breaking up Microsoft during the monopoly trial (a very remote possibility) was the worst thing that could have happened to Microsoft. As a large company, they lost a lot of the tech edge that they had in the 90&#x27;s. Had they split into three groups something like: OS&#x2F; servers&#x2F;dev tools, Office applications, and Internet services&#x2F;Xbox(?), they would be a much more formidable competitor in the future.<p>Imagine how much would be different now, had there been baby-microsofts competing during the last ten years.
gutsyover 11 years ago
Not going to happen. Microsoft will continue to make gobs of money no matter what, just because so many users are afraid of change and learning new ways to do things (i.e. not using Office). Until Apple products drop dramatically in price, the average user will continue to buy PCs with Windows and other MS products.<p>The phone and Surface might end up failing (which is a shame, both of those products are WORLDS better than they ever should have been), but the classic Windows PC will stick around for quite awhile, and Xbox isn&#x27;t going anywhere either.
评论 #6278471 未加载
leokunover 11 years ago
I know it is silly, but its weird to see this post in the light of Bezos as owner of this publication. He is not exactly neutral on this topic. AWS competes with Azure.
评论 #6278235 未加载
评论 #6278203 未加载
crazygringoover 11 years ago
This actually makes a lot of sense. A lot of articles have been talking about how there&#x27;s no obvious candidate for new CEO, and that it&#x27;s basically too much for any single person to take on.<p>But if Microsoft were split into divisions (Windows&#x2F;Mobile&#x2F;Tablets, Enterprise&#x2F;Office, Xbox&#x2F;entertainment, Bing&#x2F;Hotmail somewhere?) that could freely compete, it&#x27;s actually pretty easy to imagine suitable CEO&#x27;s for each one.<p>I&#x27;m truly hard-pressed to think of any value Microsoft as a conglomerate of these divisions, actually provides, strategy- or synergy-wise -- at least that&#x27;s visible to those of us outside the company.<p>But is there any kind of precedent for this? It&#x27;s common for companies to spin off a division, but I can&#x27;t think of any company voluntarily truly breaking itself up like this. It&#x27;s hard to imagine a board saying, &quot;we admit we&#x27;re not providing strategic value here, let&#x27;s break ourselves up&quot;.
评论 #6278192 未加载
评论 #6278730 未加载
评论 #6278292 未加载
评论 #6278236 未加载
评论 #6278204 未加载
评论 #6278174 未加载
MichaelMoser123over 11 years ago
Not smart; Outlook is driving Exchange (or the other way round), so are lots of other products; a breakup would not help the bottom line.
评论 #6279132 未加载
评论 #6278844 未加载
devxover 11 years ago
Perhaps Microsoft should break up - but there&#x27;s a lot of wishful thinking in there. Windows RT would beat Android in tablets if it were its own company? How? It couldn&#x27;t do that with billions of dollars behind it.
graycatover 11 years ago
No, not a breakup. Silly. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Passing up a great opportunity.<p>Review: Windows 7 desktops remain important for people running high end applications from AutoCad, Adobe, Mathematica, Office, etc. Also developers for code to run on Windows Server or in house Windows 7 desktop applications.<p>There are many client devices with many more to come.<p>The client devices need the Internet and servers, and as concerns about security increase clients should just cache data, easy to erase quickly in case the device falls into other hands, and not store the data; servers need to be very secure; and many organizations and individuals will want their data on their servers in their physical space protected by the Fourth Amendment.<p>Shrink wrapped software? Okay, have a nice application and want to write it for sales, installation, support, and usage on all the different client devices, Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8, smart phones, tablets? Heck no. And, for Windows 7, etc. a user is very reluctant just to install a shrink wrapped application due to issues of system security and stability. So, the shrink wrapped business is in deep trouble except for the big applications from AutoCad, Adobe, Mathematica, etc.<p>So, what to do about the work of shrink wrapped applications? Sure: Make them Web apps; that is, use a Web browser for the user interface; let the browser run on whatever client; and put the rest of the code on a server. If the client can&#x27;t run a good Web browser, then do the same thing by writing a client app that uses a Web server for the data, algorithms, and computation.<p>So, we&#x27;ve got it: For Microsoft, push Windows Server for the servers. Push client devices. Have really good Web browsers. And in cases where <i>own both ends of the wire</i>, take advantage of that for more in functionality.<p>Fundamental point: People using devices, including mobile, want some <i>utility</i>, <i>functionality</i>, etc. Since a single mobile device is quite limited in what it can do, the device is mostly for user interface (UI) for services, applications, algorithms, data, etc. on servers. So, the servers remain just crucial.<p>Microsoft has shown that it knows how to run huge server farms, well managed, with minimal staff. That&#x27;s a huge business advantage. Computing is charging on; e.g., there is a new solid state mass memory that can put a terabyte on the area of a postage stamp. It&#x27;s been a while since Intel knew how to put 1000 cores on a single processor. New operating system concepts will be coming forward. All this progress will need lots of software development, e.g., for servers. Microsoft&#x27;s got the people, funds, market, etc. to do that work and lead in it.<p>Mistake: Dunkin Donuts sells more donuts than Windows sells copies of Windows 8. Similarly for hamburgers at McDonald&#x27;s. Similarly for smart phones from Apple. And, for all three cases, so what for Microsoft? There may be a lot of new client devices, but that does not mean that Microsoft has to dominate in all of them.<p>All the smart phones in the world won&#x27;t mean that a high end, 64 bit Windows 7 desktop system will be of no interest; a smartphone and a high end Windows 7 desktop just are not the same thing and are not really in direct competition; even more the case for Windows Server.<p>Breakup? Windows Server can&#x27;t exist alone and, instead, must <i>serve</i> the many client devices. So, Microsoft should stay in the business of soft&#x2F;hardware for some client devices. So, don&#x27;t breakup.