

Who Fatally Wounded Microsoft? It Was Bill Gates. - mikecane
http://ipadtest.wordpress.com/2010/03/11/who-fatally-wounded-microsoft-it-was-bill-gates/

======
jacquesm
> How is it that Apple is set to revolutionize all of computing within a few
> weeks with its iPad?

Can we cut down on the hype a bit, please?

Whether the ipad is fad, fashion or revolutionary remains to be seen.

Apples track record of late is very impressive but this is extrapolation
without any basis in fact.

~~~
stcredzero
A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are
revolutionary. The only question is whether Apple will succeed. Microsoft
already tried this same revolutionary move with tablet computing and failed.
(Because they were trying to drag along Windows. I can see this as I Write
this reply on a Windows slate PC.)

From the comments:

 _The idea of shackling an old business to a new business rings true in so
many industries right now.

Watching media companies try to get the web to pay for operating a printing
press, for example._

Apple is in danger of falling into this same trap as advancing tech enables
form factors that change how people use computers. Their closed strategy could
be a serious anchor as such new form factors blossom into a "Cambrian
explosion" of unexpected new uses.

The difference between a Jailbroken iPhone and a shackled one is _stark_. (I
can have say app in the background. I use this to make Google Voice calls over
Skype on Bluetooth. My normal cell calls are 10¢ a minute Prepaid.) Someone
smart could leverage a more open platform correctly and seriously wound Apple.
Lucky for Apple, the telecoms are 10x more shackled than they. But that will
only save them in the short term.

~~~
bad_user
> _A lot of the general notions about computing embodied in the iPad are
> revolutionary_

Name 2.

~~~
gizmo
1) sandboxed apps. Concept isn't new, but consumer PCs have never had
sandboxes. A game or word processor you install shouldn't have access to your
tax returns. With the iPad nasty apps can't do much damage.

2) backup app installations, settings and documents by syncing with iTunes.
iPad breaks or gets stolen? Buy a new one and plug it back in and you're back
in business.

3) App Store. Now only used for "gimmick" software on the iPhone, but the
potential is enormous. Only apt-get comes close, but apt-get doesn't have an
easy payment model. And it has this dependecy-hell and installing updates can
wreck havoc.

4) computer with built-in GPS & accelerometer and 3G internet. How many
laptops have that?

5) locked-down and DRMed, even for developers. That's certainly revolutionary
for a consumer PC.

6) No tree based filesystem. No /home/[user]/Documents, no
c:\Users\\[user]\AppData. Your files are just "there".

~~~
jacquesm
> 1) sandboxed apps. Concept isn't new, but consumer PCs have never had
> sandboxes. A game or word processor you install shouldn't have access to
> your tax returns. With the iPad nasty apps can't do much damage.

Sandboxes as a concept aren't new, and so are not revolutionary. Consumer PC's
have had sandboxes every since you've been able to run a java programs within
a browser.

> 2) backup app installations, settings and documents by syncing with iTunes.
> iPad breaks or gets stolen? Buy a new one and plug it back in and you're
> back in business.

That's a neat feature, but not a 'make-or-break' thing. Nice to have, not
revolutionary.

> 3) App Store. Now only used for "gimmick" software on the iPhone, but the
> potential is enormous. Only apt-get comes close, but apt-get doesn't have an
> easy payment model. And it has this dependecy-hell and installing updates
> can wreck havoc.

Apt-gets strength is that there is no payment model, access to lots of high
quality software for the sum of $0. That's not a weakness, that's a strength.
Iphone apps in general are trivial, with the occasional exception. There is an
enormous body of real world, non-trivial software in the apt-get (and yum)
repositories.

The potential is there to re-ignite a new closed source era, and that's
definitely not revolutionary.

> 4) computer with built-in GPS & accelerometer and 3G internet. How many
> laptops have that?

My netbook has all those except for the accelerometer, it runs Ubuntu notebook
remix and works pretty good. It also has access to the above mentioned apt-get
repositories.

> 5) locked-down and DRMed, even for developers. That's certainly
> revolutionary for a consumer PC.

That's a complete loss, not revolutionary. Trusted computing through the
backdoor. If microsoft were to do something like this there would be shrunken
heads on stakes. We definitely wouldn't call it revolutionary.

> 6) No tree based filesystem. No /home/[user]/Documents, no
> c:\Users\\[user]\AppData. Your files are just "there".

I can see how that would be useful if you only have a relatively small number
of files. But here on my collective drives there are literally 10's of
millions of files. Just being worried about namespace collisions as well as
forgetting what a file is named, I usually can find it because my directory
structure is organized. I can see how tagging would go a long way towards
mitigating that, but the 'tree' based file system works quite well because
that happens to be how we normally organize documents.

If the lack of something is revolutionary then I invite you to store all your
files in the root directory of your harddrive.

~~~
stcredzero
_Sandboxes as a concept aren't new, and so are not revolutionary._

You have a huge misconception here. Revolutionary tech takes _decades_ to be
fully absorbed by the culture. Or was the Internet not revolutionary because
Minitel Videotext terminals were in front of the general public years before
it was?

~~~
jacquesm
There is a bit of a split I think. The moment when some technology is invented
vs the moment when as the result of that technology some revolution happens
are not the same, but we can speak about a 'revolutionary invention' as well
as the actual revolution without getting mixed up.

So, Minitel, which in turn was a turnkey terminal version of the videotex
standard was revolutionary in the sense that it allowed a whole country
(France) to use online services.

But the real revolution came when the world wide web allowed _everybody_ to
publish and consume content. The videotex services made a big thing out of
being an 'information provider' and a 'consumer', which of course suited the
telcos that deployed these devices just perfect.

It never crossed their minds that the unwashed masses would want to publish
their own content.

The internet pre-dates the minitel system by about a decade by the way.

But the world-wide-web, a relatively simple layer on top of the internet is
about as revolutionary a change as we've had since the electronics revolution
and the advent of personal computing.

~~~
stcredzero
_The internet pre-dates the minitel system by about a decade by the way._

I'm aware of that. I'm a bit older than most suspect.

------
larsberg
Was Kodesh new to Microsoft at the time? The culture there is a "prove it
works first, ask for approval once you've worked everything through in detail
and need a Big Change" one. I would have expected any reasonable manager to
just spin up a small team to fully mock up a few devices in concert with a
couple of clients and present those up the chain.

I personally would have nixed him on this as well. It's quite easy to say, "we
should scrap this and build something else" and another entirely to provide
sufficient evidence that you're capable of doing so. If, for example, this guy
wasn't able to deliver but was given a charter based on his random memo,
Microsoft wouldn't be in third right now. They would be completely out of the
game.

Even readers of this site who hate Microsoft have probably experienced it:
most bad managers step into a new position and immediately talk about how the
old thing needs to be thrown out and a new one built, naturally at great time
and expense (and hiring a few of his old "Architect" buddies) but with amazing
benefits down the line. How does that story usually end when you say "ok"?

~~~
jeroen
According to his LinkedIn profile, Kodesh started working at MS in 1990. An MS
press release says Kodesh was promoted to "vice president of consumer
appliances" in august 1998 and he wrote his memo in september 1999.

------
ghshephard
Well, to be fair, It's not clear that Microsoft would have come up with the
Zune interface on their own without a number of companies such as Apple,
showing how successful such a platform can be.

It's easy to say "Create a simple, consumer oriented, touchscreen device" -
it's entirely a different thing to implement. I've been using, and hating, the
Windows Touch Screen Kiosks for over 10 years, frequently at Movie Theaters.
Someone has taken a Desktop OS, and just ported it to a touch screen, rather
than starting over from scratch, and saying "What should a touch screen OS
look like" (Hint, it doesn't have a mouse pointer)

Also, note that Microsoft _did_ try and start over with a "simple, icon
oriented, technology free" user environment - Microsoft Bob was that
technology attempt. It was just a failure.

Perhaps the lesson to be learned about Bob, was that it's important to fail
more quickly, so you can tack and take on a new approach. The goal was
admirable (eliminate the technology interfering with the user doing their job)
- Just didn't have the right team/processing/hardware at the time.

This may be contentious to a less informed audience, but in Many ways, the
goals embodied in Microsoft Bob are represented in the iPad.

~~~
mikecane
Your reference to BOB sent me researching:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Magic>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Bob>

------
raganwald
Very telling:

> Gates rejected the suggestions. “It’s very disappointing you feel that way,”
> he told Kodesh. “We don’t have time to start from scratch.”

1\. "I'm disappointed you feel this way:" This is a direct criticism of
Kodesh's personal feelings and an attack on his loyalty of the party line.
This would have been so much better had Gates written "I can understand your
enthusiasm for starting over, however..."

2\. The old, old story: "If you don't have time to do it right, where will you
find the time to do it over?" And indeed they did end up doing it over with
Zune, having frittered years away with CE.

~~~
ams6110
1\. Better for whom? Kodesh's feelings? WGAS? The guy was probably making 6,
maybe 7 figures. He can handle the truth.

~~~
raganwald
His salary is irrelevant. The point is that Gates criticized Kodesh for having
ideas that Gates didn't like. That is a very different matter from criticizing
Kodesh's ideas themselves. The message is clear: Think what we tell you to
think or leave.

Now you ask, better for whom? And I suggest, _Better for Microsoft_. It's
possible to encourage people to explore different directions without pursuing
them all. Gates could have ixnayed the message without ixnaying the messenger,
and I hope that I am able to do that when it's my turn to deal with someone
suggesting I scrap everything I've worked hard to build.

------
jasonlbaptiste
If 255 billion is fatally wounded, someone please shoot me.

I understand they have their problems. Windows 7 is doing well. Bing has been
growing. Mobile they're actually doing something with now. XBox division is
wiping the floor with PS3.

I think it's the long term stuff that worries me about MSFT. ie- windows and
office will one day disappear. what are their plans for then? Maybe they'll
just evolve?

~~~
potatolicious
I think the most major issue is managerial - the Xbox division from what I've
heard has managed to conquer many of the serious management issues that plague
the rest of MS (particularly the "main" teams, Windows and Office). MS is
infamous for having a thick, thick layer of middle management that has proven
to be detrimental to innovation and productivity.

I think MS's long-term success hinges on being able to determine the
managerial how and why of the successful, innovative teams at MS (Bing, Xbox,
etc) and transferring that to the rest of the company.

~~~
jasonlbaptiste
Too much middle management. Like 7 layers worth. Microsoft needs to cut fat.

~~~
wisty
Downmodded why? I. M. Wright's “Hard Code” (published by Microsoft no less)
pretty much makes this claim. Apparently they used to laugh at GM's layers of
management, and now they have a similar number.

~~~
potatolicious
I work in Seattle, and know a number of Microsofties, and this is a pretty
reliable consensus too even for people who are still there. The org tree is
very, very deep and this causes a lot of problems - especially as a company
ages and people go from enthusiastic risk takers to CYA corporate types.

------
cantastoria
Meh... I think this is part of the story but not the real reason.

If I remember correctly, most handset makers resisted Windows CE out of fear
of becoming "just another bunch of box makers" for Microsoft. I think that's
why you saw such an embrace of Symbian (or pretty much anything that wasn't
Windows).

It may be hard to believe now but there was a time when everyone was terrified
of Microsoft.

~~~
gte910h
I actually thought it was that CE required more expensive chips to do the same
thing.

------
ryanelkins
I don't know that I would call this a fatal wound. In hindsight it may prove
to have been a costly mistake but last I looked Microsoft was still around.

~~~
tbgvi
Not fatal but it opened the door for everyone else. If everyone was happy with
the new Windows Mobile proposed in this article and it had widespread
adoption, would Apple have developed the iPhone? They might have, but it
wouldn't have been such a slam dunk.

~~~
bad_user
They can still do a slam dunk ... the mobile market is big-enough for everyone
to fit in.

Anyway, why in the world would anyone use Windows CE when there isn't a market
for third-party apps on WinCE? What incentive does it offer for mobile
manufacturers? Pocket Word?

That's what Apple (and also Palm and Nokia) did right ... delivered their own
software, their own hardware, created a market for third-parties, delivered a
decent design (personally I don't think it's revolutionary. it irritates me
actually).

Hopefully Google/Microsoft learns from this. More competition is better for
everybody.

~~~
ams6110
Absolutely. They "almost missed the web" but then went on to have the dominant
browser for over a decade. The history of Microsoft has been to let other
people innovate. They did not invent the PC, the GUI, email, the web, the
browser, spreadsheets, word processing or anything else that they now dominate
the market in.

~~~
stcredzero
_They "almost missed the web" but then went on to have the dominant browser
for over a decade_

Leveraging the desktop OS monopoly to do so. Do you think they can pull an
analogous move again?

------
tbgvi
So this is what happens when you decide to hold the line, rather than
scrapping something that's not working for the next iteration. 11 years and
counting on this one...

------
roc
_"To Kodesh, Microsoft’s initiatives were driven by the dictates of the
company’s technology, rather than the wishes of consumers."_

That's the simplest summary, really. The bureaucracy problems feed into this,
but you don't need much more.

When you're designing to please people who won't be using the system, _at the
expense of those who will_ , nothing else is going to matter. You will fail.

------
SpacemanSpiff
I wouldn't call Apple's process of developing the iphone and ipad "starting
over" software wise though. As far as I know, the OS of both of these devices
is based on OS X which of course can be traced back to Nextstep. I believe
Microsoft did exactly the same thing with win NT; I've seen "embedded" systems
running it. I would say what held back Microsoft's mobile devices in the past
was UI and usability, which Apple seems to have well under control.

------
donaldc
Bill Gates' original vision was "a computer on every desk, running Microsoft
software". Once he more or less reached this goal, around the mid-90's, _of
course_ Microsoft stagnated.

I'd say that Bill's real failure was to not accept this fact and return as
dividends or stock buybacks the tremendous amount of money that Microsoft was
generating.

------
sriramk
I'm getting a bit tired of all this revisionist history from several years ago
(this anecdote seems to be 13 years old). Especially on places which don't
understand how the inside of MSFT works (and has evolved over time).

Also, I'm willing to bet that BillG had a lot more to say than just those 2
sentences.

------
wedesoft
10 years ago mobile phones where just microcontrollers with LCDs and Symbian
OS on it. Users couldn't even install J2ME software on it. In terms of
openness Google Android and Nokia Maemo are now the best mobile operating
systems (albeit still not fully open yet). Talking about fataly wounded:
iPhone is maybe the last phone which cannot run Java software in our days.

------
ErrantX
_Why has Microsoft found itself in third place, behind Apple and now Google,
in the mobile segment of computing?_

Because it's not an area they've ever been interested in.

Just because Mobile is the latest and greatest area of tech development
doesn't mean everyone will stop using PC's tomorrow (and more importantly -
that corporates will stop using PC's tomorrow)

So Microsoft got serious about "mobile" later than Apple - but it's always
been a half hearted attempt. It seems as lot like MS wanting a finger in all
the markets - "just in case".

~~~
rimantas

      So Microsoft scrabbled to jump on the mobile bandwagon
      much later
    

Uhm. MS released Pocket PC in 2000, Windows mobile in 2003. Apple announced
iPhone in 2007. Google aquired Anodroid, Inc. in 2005, Open Handset Alliance
was announced also in 2007. So no matter how you count MS jumped mobile
bandwagon earlier.

~~~
ErrantX
Well I was sort of jumping on the same theory as the blog post. i.e. Windows
Mobile was a passing thought - and it is only recently their trying to make
more serious inroads.

(I clarified my original comment)

~~~
ricree
That didn't really seem to be what the article was getting at. Windows Mobile
was a serious push to try and establish itself in that area. It just turned
out to be a flawed one, and the main thrust of the article was that at least
some people recognized it at the time but were shot down by the head of the
company.

~~~
ErrantX
I disagree it was a serious attempt. Or at least a heartfelt one. Mobile was
somewhere for windows to expand into.

