
Why can’t Microsoft get their products right on the first try? - owenwil
http://owened.co.nz/why-cant-microsoft-get-anything-right-on-the-first-try
======
eldavido
Also ex-employee of Microsoft -- used to work in SQL Server (very traditional,
old-Microsoft group).

Jobs people had in my group: (1) Developer: Write code. (2) Test: Write
automation to test the code developers write. (3) Program manager: Make sure
everyone is coordinated and that there's a reliable, up-to-date spec for the
product.

Microsoft doesn't have a strong tradition of product management or design, and
I'd argue those are the two areas where they're weakest as a company. Is there
someone who works at Microsoft with the title "Product Manager"? I know there
were "product planners", and "program managers", but not PM in the Silicon
Valley sense of the term.

They're especially good at partner management though, and I don't think they
get enough credit for that.

~~~
larsberg
#2 wasn't always that. When I started at MSFT, many moons ago, there were also
testers who solely provided end-user style testing and feedback on the
product. While their loss was less traumatic to my own division (DevDiv),
during and after that transition it seemed that replacing those STEs with
people who wrote automation (SDETs) caused some of my peer product units to
lose out on the only people with real customer empathy.

I guess in one way there are still STEs, but now they're called "customers."

------
rajeevk
I am a ex-employee of MS. In my observation, the decision making process is
very complicated inside microsoft. Because of big-hierarchy, there are many
people involved in making decision even for for a small feature. Most of the
decision maker are non-expert on the topic. Sometime they argue: we should do
A then after sometime few other manager will argue for B and again after
sometime they will argue for A and this keeps on going till there is little
time left for release. And at end, they randomly pick either A or B.

~~~
eldavido
You're right, and it's a very disempowering culture for the 59s and 60s (these
are internal levels) at the bottom.

I'm in SV now and no way I'll go back to that. Too much consensus, discussion,
meetings, not enough autonomy, action, or customer orientation.

------
rlu
So, really, a few thoughts:

1\. I think a theme that comes up on HN often is "when do you ship?". You
could _always_ argue that "well, we should wait to ship in order to [fix
this/add this feature/...]". At a certain point, you have to say that you're
done and ship it. There will always be room for improvement and the good news
is that you're actually able to improve it later on. You just need to set a
"ship" bar that is acceptable.

2\. Like others have said, the first point is made even more important as
Microsoft was already late to market with a tablet friendly OS.

3\. People could argue all day about whether it was acceptable or not for the
Office team to have released Office 2013 without Metro style apps. Whether it
was acceptable for Windows 8 to be released before the Office team made Metro
style apps. After taking points 1 & 2 into consideration, you have to remember
that you need to manage resources. I'm sure the Office team WANTED Metro apps,
but it was probably impossible for them to ship Office 2013 and Metro Office
at the same time and "on time" for Office 2013 desktop release. Like I said,
you could argue all day whether you think they managed their time/resources
properly but either way there is something to be learned from this. You simply
can't do everything at once. I don't know what the reasons are here, but for
some reason Microsoft must have deemed it more important to ship desktop
Office before the Metro apps. I'd also bargain that the Metro apps will have
something to do with Office 365 subscriptions and IIRC the desktop Office 2013
release is largely testing Office 365 out (the consumer version, anyways).
Anyways: point here is you can't do everything at once.

4\. The article talks about perception as if it was a permanent thing. I'd say
that perception can change without having it to be some colossal task. I have
to go soon and the first example that comes to mind is people made so, so, so
much fun of the iPad when it first came out. I remember people making fun of
the first person I know to have bought one. And now? "Everyone" has one. I
don't think Apple necesarily did anything to make this perception change, but
after people saw the benefits of it they changed their attitudes towards it
themselves. The same thing can happen here (e.g. if I didn't like Windows 8
but then I see someone using Windows 8.x in some way I think is really cool,
it might cross my mind that maybe now Windows is in a better state and my
perception of the product will change).

My $0.02

disclosure: i interned at microsoft in 2011 and 2012

~~~
Tobani
Regarding 1: I think this is the product Microsoft wanted to ship. I don't
think what they produced is necessarily a bad implementation of what they were
trying do. I think their goal didn't match what their customers wanted. Some
percentage(I'm guessing a high%) of users use Windows because its what they
know and are comfortable with. Windows 8 throws out what a lot of these users
spent a lot of time learning.

~~~
orclev
The bigger problem I think is that Microsoft failed to deliver not one, but
two products. They wanted a new version of Windows, and they wanted an entry
in the tablet OS market. Both are good goals, but not necessarily the same
goal. In attempting to hit both, they failed to hit either one. Windows 8 is a
bad replacement for Windows 7, it's missing features, and it's more difficult
to use with a mouse and keyboard. Windows 8 is a lackluster tablet OS, it's
missing a lot of the polish it needs to really compete with iOS and Android. I
think Microsoft should have released not one OS, but two. Preserve application
compatibility if possible, but don't sacrifice the ease of mouse and keyboard
control at the alter of touch interface. A keyboard and mouse versus touch
screen are different enough interfaces to warrant different UIs.

------
mosqutip
This isn't uniformly true, though. The original Xbox was, for all intents and
purposes, and amazing product launch. Same with the Kinect, Office 2003,
Windows XP, etc.

This models seems to hold more truth in recent years, however. I can't come up
with a solid reason why this is, but it isn't an absolute truth.

~~~
meritt
Unlike the rest of their products, the Xbox wasn't a massive design by
committee project. It was created by 4 guys from the DirectX team, effectively
their own little startup within the Microsoft world.

The Xbox was also able to leverage the past ~5 years of DirectX development
and PC gaming knowledge and built a OS that was very similar to Win32 minus
the HAL.

------
alyx
Am I missing something here, why is this "news"?

This "can't get right on first try" happens to virtually EVERY company. We
don't even have to look too far back to find examples. Just one example would
be Apple releasing Maps, which was oh-so-perfect out the gate.

~~~
grecy
I think the article is trying to say that for Microsoft, this behavior is the
rule, not the exception. I was a bit surprised there was no mention of things
like the Surface, Zune, Windows ME, etc. which all seem to fit the rule.

For Apple (in the last ~8 years at least) it seems to be the other way around,
in that this behavior is the exception, not the rule.

~~~
bediger4000
Or even further back: Windows 3, Windows 98, Windows NT (early versions).
There's a really really long history of doing that sort of thing at Microsoft.

------
anuraj
It is very rare to get products right on the first try. There is a reason
Google products launch as beta. Most companies go for limited launch of
initial versions. Microsoft generally does a mass launch; that is probably the
reason for the perception.

------
jacques_chester
"No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame."

Sometimes chasing feature parity is a mistake.

And Microsoft don't really do that. They generally do best when they attack
from a different angle.

von Clausewitz gave simple advice for winning battles: concentrate your
strongest forces and attack at the enemy's weakest point.

How did Microsoft beat Borland? They attacked at the interface and ease-of-
use, not on compiler speed.

How did they beat Apple on the desktop? They attacked on backwards
compatibility, not on a better UI.

------
codeonfire
People that run big companies don't care AT ALL about getting products right.
They want money, period. If they can get a promotion or bonus without getting
the product right, they will. Sometimes that means stepping in front of
progress.

------
lucid00
"Announce Windows Phone 7. No multitasking despite all competitors having it,
no application fast resume. No major applications that competitors have. No
turn by turn directions. No front-facing camera."

Honestly I think Windows Phone 7 was a case of blatantly copying Apple. It
came out at the end of the iPhone 3GS' life which had exactly "No multitasking
despite all competitors having it, no application fast resume" and "No front-
facing camera". Windows Phone 7 even threw away the ability to sideload apps
which was a staple of Windows Mobile in favor of an app store only approach.

I think Microsoft made the mistake of thinking that they could pull off what
Apple did with iOS, which is silly as Apple spent years building this unique
position through the iPod. As a sort-of new entrant, Microsoft can't afford to
start off with something that isn't ahead of the competition by a significant
margin, no company in the mobile space other than Apple or Google can do this
right now.

There also seems to be a lack in ubiquity across their products and platforms.

I remember when they had Windows Live Mesh, Windows Live SkyDrive and Windows
Live Sync only to later merge them all into SkyDrive, then they had
Silverlight for Windows, Mac and Moonlight for Linux along with Windows Phone
7's flavor of Silverlight and the XBox 360s flavor of Silverlight (used in
ads) only later to can everything and now Windows 8, Windows Phone 8 and the
XBox One all run the new Windows Runtime but don't have the same app store nor
can they run the same apps for no apparent reason.

------
vonskippy
"Because right now, it's still behind the pack."

Um.. Active Directory run's pretty much every Enterprise and Corporation
worldwide. From that, I'd say Microsoft "has got it right".

~~~
otterley
Active Directory is pervasive because Windows is pervasive, and Windows is
pervasive because MS Office is pervasive. To my knowledge, there is no other
effective central AAA (authentication/authorization/accounting) solution for
Windows than Active Directory.

Cloud-based office productivity products are slowly chipping away at AD's
necessity, but there's still a need out there for a cloud-based AAA solution
that meets the needs of BigCos and SmallCos alike. Unfortunately it's going to
be a while before we get there because it will have to emulate AD in the
meantime.

------
codex
Microsoft ships minimum viable products then iterates based on feedback. In
the software industry, lock-in effects can give a big advantage to first to
market.

~~~
owenwil
Well yes, and unfortunately for Microsoft they are never first to market. In
my opinion, the iteration model only works if you're dominating the market.
Otherwise, you need to create something that blows your competitors' products
out of the water.

------
computerslol
It's hard to know what will work before real consumers have had it in their
hands for a while. Perceptions change with propinquity.

Microsoft is one of the few companies that literally define modern consumer
computing. It makes me very happy every time I see them moving forward.
Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. When it doesn't, they grow and fix
it.

Apple has the same cycle, but it's less immediately apparent.

~~~
lostlogin
For me modern computing is defined by Apple and a bit by Google - I don't
knowingly use a single Microsoft product (who hosts iCloud stuff - is is MS?).
How does MS define modern computing - are you meaning in the last 10 years or
now?

~~~
computerslol
Microsoft owns about 90% of the desktop market, 30%+ of the server market and
25%+ of active gaming consoles. Right now.

------
BrentRitterbeck
It could be that there is a very large disconnect between those promising
features and the team that ultimately decides on whether or not something is
good enough to ship.

Let's say that the front office (those doing the selling) start promising tons
of features because they want to really sell this thing. Perhaps those
features might be a little more complex than the "visionaries" first imagined.
Now the expectations have been set.

The engineers try to meet those expectations. They try their best, but then it
gets to QA. The people doing QA really care about their job, about the quality
of what is being released, and they do a good job poking holes in things
trying to get it to a quality that was promised. QA sends it back, but the
developers have moved onto producing new features. Bug fixes are not cool.
Sometimes doing it right is hard. Things start to slow down.

The end product is something that doesn't quite meet the expectations and is
late...just a guess though.

------
rjzzleep
who can really? (insert quote of linus torvalds awesomeness here) their
problem isn't that they can't get it right. their problem is that it takes
them forever to fix it.

------
bitcuration
Microsoft's "the third is charm" strategy is wldely known for year and
tolerable since consumer is pretty much locked in by office software, and
Microsoft knew about this.

It is until apple spoiled consumer with perfection and true use friendliness
that made the contrast that Microsoft product along with the "beta" testing
with paid product is no long bearable.

Still, Microsoft can afford this lossy strategy because they knoe nobody can
really stop using office.

------
TerraHertz
Personally I don't think Microsoft's primary agenda is to produce user-
enabling products. Imo their desire is to produce user-hobbling products;
products that slow down or preferably reverse the knowledge-empowering
potential of computing machines for the average person. It's a political not
marketing objective, and you'll never see them admitting to it. You have to
analyze their actions not their words to see it.

If you assume Microsoft has always been trying to achieve the 'best' product
possible, then their development history looks like incredible incompetence.
If you view it in the political context of Elites trying to cripple
development of 'computing power to the people', it makes perfect sense and
reveals a high degree of sophistication in the Microsoft inner management
group.

Effectively their strategy is to steer development of their products in the
most socially harmful direction possible, constantly pushing the boundary of
what the market will reject as 'too stupid'. When they hit public resistance,
they wait as long as possible then back off with a slightly less stupid
product release. Once that version has become entrenched they then try again
with something even more stupid. Windows 8 was just an example of MS pushing a
little too hard.

~~~
AaronFriel
I am deeply bothered by this idea that you suggest and supposedly hold
yourself. It essentially "presumes malice" instead of assuming ignorance. To
believe that their desire is to produce user-hobbling products is to assume
that somehow there is a conspiracy of executives at a company whose explicit
policy is to do harm. That somehow no one has revealed this fact, their board
has been somehow complicit in this direction as revealed to them by
executives, and that they sit in these, perhaps smoke-filled, board-rooms
discussing how they can dumb down their products or harm the general public.

That's insane, you're insane, and your philosophy is far and above more
cynical than anyone's need be.

------
snprbob86
Temporarily ignoring all of Microsoft's specific problems (and there are many)
and any other company's specific problems for that matter (every company has
them)...

Nobody gets a product right on the first try. Full Stop.

The more interesting question here is this:

Why does Microsoft expose the first try to the public?

------
yRetsyM
I can't help but think that Vista -> Windows 7 is an example of this pattern.

~~~
meritt

        Win3  > Win3.1
        Win95 > Win98
        WinME > WinXP
        Vista > Win7
        Win8  > ? (unlikely to be 8.1)

~~~
ericd
Was Win95 a failure? From what I remember, it was a huge, smashing success for
them.

~~~
ciclista
Wasn't 95 the first "full" DE and sligthly better game support? With 3.1 you'd
still boot into DOS and start up windows to play solitaire.

~~~
pyre
DOS was still there under the hood. It wasn't until Windows XP that they
officially killed off DOS (there was a cheesy skit about this at the launch
event with Bill Gates killing off DOS).

~~~
ericd
And suddenly old game compatibility was much iffier. Good thing DOSBox stepped
up.

------
nfoz
Do they care to?

Seems like they make gobs of money regardless.

~~~
nharding
I was going to say that same thing...their strategy seems horrible to the
technocrats, but they continue to push on areas until they are a major player.
I'm no Microsoft fan, but you can't say their strategy isn't working for
them...Windows, Office, and Xbox are all huge in their respective markets.

