
Steve Ballmer is right, and I was wrong - rajeemcariazo
http://betanews.com/2013/10/13/steve-ballmer-is-right-and-i-was-wrong/
======
bad_user
He says " _Gmail was laughable early on_ ". I got a Gmail invitation, through
an acquaintance, before it was generally available to the public. I remember
how awesome it felt in comparison to Yahoo Mail: (1) file uploads were handled
after hitting "Send", instead of disrupting the writing of your message like
the other web interfaces did, (2) it came with huge online storage, (3)
searching emails actually worked which in combination with the huge storage
meant that I stopped deleting emails, (4) spam simply stopped hitting my Inbox
(a real problem with my Yahoo Mail account, which made my Y! account
unusable), (5) it was the only free email service I knew that provided
POP3/SMTP access and then later I noticed (6) conversation threads.

Ever since Gmail was invitation-only, it has been awesome on multiple levels.
It has its ups and downs, but if I am to think of products that have been
almost perfect ever since version 1, Gmail is right up there with iPhone 1 -
i.e. missing features, but so useful and refreshing.

How can you fail to mention that Internet Explorer, ever since version 6,
became the main barrier for adopting web standards, as development on it
simply stopped for several years, with the team being sent to work on other
things, like Silverlight? How can you fail to mention Firefox for that matter?
In 2006 Firefox version 2 was barely released. It then grew to over 20% of
market-share, without Mozilla making aggressive deals for prebundling it.
Internet Explorer isn't losing to Chrome only, it's losing to Firefox and
Safari too and they ended up in this position by their own incompetence or
malevolence.

There was a time when Microsoft was serving their customer's needs. They
stopped doing that in 2001, after Windows XP was released.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> I remember how awesome it felt in comparison to Yahoo Mail

The author is comparing it to Outlook and other email clients, not to the
existing webmail applications when Gmail launched.

~~~
bad_user
Yes, but then you're comparing apples with oranges, as Gmail wasn't initially
meant to be an Exchange/Outlook replacement, being in a different league
entirely and useful on its own merits. That along with Google Apps, Gmail is
suddenly viewed as a replacement for Outlook/Exchange, well that's a classic
innovator's dilemma.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
The latter half of your comment answers the objection you raise in the former
half. Gmail is a classic worse-is-better disruption of an existing superior
product.

------
shin_lao
_Looked at differently, though, the third-is-right adage is wrong. More
typically version 4 crosses the good enough threshold -- Windows 95 as the
fourth from 1.0 and XP as the fourth from Windows NT 3.51, for example. By
that reckoning, Windows 9 promises much, as v. 4 from Vista._

Windows XP is version 5.1 of Windows NT. I think it is really dumb to try to
see "laws" in product versions.

~~~
nknighthb
5.1 means nothing. It's an arbitrary internal version number. The article is
trying to address major overhauls to the system. (Though it should have said
NT 3.1, not 3.51.)

NT 3.x -> NT 4 -> Win2k -> XP

Win 1.x -> 2.x -> 3.x -> 95

~~~
shin_lao
The major and minor version number are not here just for show. For example the
transition from NT 3.51 to NT 4 implied the transition of the GDI to the
kernel.

In NT 5.0 there was the addition of PnP with full ACPI support (and it saw the
inclusion of the WDM).

NT 6 saw a major update of the graphic driver model that enabled to have a
smooth desktop experience (also IPV6 was totally included in the system).

So no, it does not mean "nothing". ;)

~~~
ygra
I guess your parent referred to the fact that NT didn't start with 1, as your
earlier statement sounded like »XP is actually version 5.1 so what's the
nonsense with iteration 4?«.

~~~
shin_lao
True, the first release of NT was named 3.1 to match the current Windows
version, but then minor updates count as iterations as well and therefore XP
is the 5th iteration (we will all agree that 2000 to XP is a major step).

My point was that if you want to find number laws, you will find making a
point around them is really, really silly.

~~~
mhurron
If you let DirectX 9 and the Microsoft firewall from XP be installed into
2000, 2000 would be exactly the same as XP.

XP and 2000 are basically the same OS, XP was a big service pack.

~~~
shin_lao
Unless I am mistaken, the following features were not available in Windows
2000: GDI+, Clear Type, Remote Desktop, Windows Media Player, much better
Internet support, USB 2.0, FireWire 800, etc.

The list is very long. XP is not a big service pack. It includes everything
that was missing in 2000 to make it consumer-ready.

~~~
mhurron
None of those things couldn't be added with a service pack, and several were.
XP and 2000 are basically the same OS.

I have no idea what you mean by 'better internet support' so I can't say
anything about that.

Remote desktop did exist in 2k, it was called Terminal Services. All XP did
was bring a stripped down server to the client.

GDI+ is available as a patch for Windows 2000.

There was nothing preventing MS from releasing ClearType on 2k, they just
didn't.

Media Player 9 was released on Windows 2000.

USB 2.0 and FireWire 400/800 are supported in Windows 2000, they're just
device drivers. A little googling seems to indicate they were added in Service
Pack 3 or 4.

XP wasn't like Vista where they changed the driver model or made changes to
the authentication system with UAC. XP was just addons to 2000, holding back
things like the firewall and the last patch to DirectX 9 were artificial
limitations to make XP seem worth the upgrade.

------
apapli
Even if Ballmer was correct in identifying google to be a competitor to
Microsoft a decade ago as the article states, surely this underpins his
immense failing as a CEO - given a decade and thousands of intelligent
employees he still couldn't set and execute to a clear strategy and address
the threat.

------
eksith
There's one overriding factor that's preventing Microsoft from holding on to
its reins. The company doesn't really understand simplicity.

I remember a post here about someone who worked at MS and how everyone just
sorta waft through their jobs without wondering what else is out there. No one
worries about Linux or other platforms really. No one explores new ways to do
things or even fixing things that aren't solving an immediate problem. The
description is hard to believe and reads like a dystopian city, but it's a
good indication of why MS is going the way of the dinosaur.

In many ways it's the opposite problem Google has. They've gone above and
beyond the simplifying and basically circled everything they offer around one
account. So far, the closest thing MS has to offer is Live sign in, and even
that is well after Chromebook in Windows 8.

Microsoft has always been about making it easy to buy. Not necessarily to keep
and maintain. With most services Google offer, I literally expend no effort
with upkeep. It's simple and it just works... well the Gmail UI is arguably
worse now, but that's another topic.

~~~
bad_user
Microsoft Account / Live ID was previously known as Microsoft Passport and it
started in 1998 I think. It has been a half-baked attempt, filled with
criticism from all sides, as Microsoft wanted it to be a " _Internet-wide
unified-login system_ " and they had the muscle to force it. That's the
biggest problem with Microsoft in my eyes, as they always tried to coerce the
usage of their own standards. Personally seeing Microsoft failing feels like
justice brought by the marketplace and I really hope Google won't follow this
path, although I'm seeing signs that they will.

~~~
michaelt
See, this is something I can't understand about Microsoft.

Passport could have been 'Log In With Facebook' years earlier. The NEC Versa
LitePad, running XP, came out years before the iPad. Windows CE ran on
touchscreen smart phones (costing less than some current iphone models) and
had native apps long before the iPhone came out.

I wonder whether these things should be attributed to a lack of CEO
vision/proper resourcing, or if they were simply 'ahead of their time', or
something else.

~~~
freehunter
They were a product of technical limitations of the time they came out (slow
processors, small resistive screens). The failing was that Microsoft didn't
put the effort into improving the product at the same rate that these
technical limitations were being resolved. What Apple and Google did was take
the existing idea and put in a faster processor, couple that with software
that takes advantage of that speed, and in Apple's case, make a leap of faith
that people would enjoy typing on a screen rather than a keyboard.

Apple and Google really did nothing _different_ in that space, they just did
things _better_. Or a least more modern. If Microsoft kept improving Windows
Mobile to take advantage of new technology, we would be in a very different
ballgame. Imagine if Windows Phone 7 came out in 2007.

------
qwerty_asdf

      For all Microsoft's CEO might have done wrong, he was 
      right about something dismissed by many (and I among 
      them): Google. 
    
      Ballmer started treating the search and information 
      company as a competitive threat about a decade ago. 
      Google as Microsoft competitor seemed simply nuts in 
      2003. How could search threaten Windows, particularly 
      when anyone could type a new web address to change 
      providers? 
    
      Ballmer was obsessed, chasing every Google maneuver, 
      often to a fault. Execution could have been better, but 
      his perception was right.
    

Two main points that contradict this line of thinking:

1\. The idea that Steve Ballmer's hostility could be recast as innovation is
laughable. Microsoft was pathologically hostile to any competition, and it's
obvious that this hostility was frequently tuned and recalibrated according to
the success of the quarry. If anything, it only reinforces my belief, that if
Ballmer were ever permitted to have is way, Ballmer's lifelong ambition is to
destroy anything good, and replace it with himself.

2\. Very early on, Google was a better search engine than most others, and it
wasn't difficult to recognize. Using it, you found what you wanted, and you
noticed it when you spent less time searching, and parsing irrelevant crap.
Contrast this with the MSN home page (with the earliest form of Microsoft's
version of a "web search"), which (like AOL) looks and feels like a
supermarket tabloid. Ballmer's recognition can be readily categorized as
jealousy, not genius. My hypothesis is that he tried out Google himself, he
liked it, realized it was useful, then realized it was not under his control,
and set out to either control it or destroy it. It's not inspiring. It's not
mere competition. It's simply another expression of greed.

------
gushie
Microsoft had Windows CE, Tablet PC's, Hotmail long before Google had
Android/Nexus, Chrome, Gmail. If they had developed / polished what they had,
they wouldn't be chasing now. Microsoft just need to hope Chrome OS and Google
Docs don't start eating into Windows and Office 365 and they need to be
prepared to take whatever actions are necessary to prevent it (even if it is
to give away a Microsoft Works type app for Android/iOS to entice people away
from Quickoffice.)

The next CEO needs to find the right balance between focusing on the assets
they have as well as picking the right fights with emerging technologies. That
said, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

------
abraxasz
Look, he's the CEO of the once mightiest tech company in the world and you
satisfy yourself with: "he was right about something dismissed by many". I
would expect that "[contending] with forces out of [his] control" is exactly
the job of a CEO, not something they should get a standing ovation for, if
they pull it off once in a decade.

So we should either all agree that most CEOs are clueless, add no value to
their companies, and have the anticipating power of dart throwing monkeys in
which case I wonder why we keep paying them so much. Or we believe that they
have a higher role to play (I do), and we raise our expectations and
criticism.

Note 1: that I'm not saying that their job is easy. It's certainly insanely
difficult. But they get paid a loooot of money for it, so they have to be held
accountable. And being right from time to time, here and there is not enough.

Note 2: my comment is specific to the article. I believe Ballmer did more than
just one thing right, also I'm convinced he did many things right.

~~~
michaelt

      So we should either all agree that most CEOs are clueless, 
      [...] in which case I wonder why we keep paying them so 
      much.
    

You know being highly paid doesn't mean someone's good at their job, right?

------
r0h1n
> In less than five years, Google did what seemed impossible: Launch and
> succeed with three new platforms, in categories Microsoft dominated:
> Browser, mobile OS and PC OS.

It's disingenuous to say Google has "launched and succeeded" against Microsoft
in the PC OS space.

~~~
felipeerias
When it comes to operating systems, sure. But that's not Google's real target.

However, many everyday tasks that we carry out in our PC are done on the Web
browser. Google has a very strong position in search, email and other
services. Even the leading Web browser is theirs.

When your PC becomes just another way to run a Google browser to use Google
services, I'd call that success.

Not in a small part because it lowers the barrier to doing a larger and larger
share of your computing outside of a Windows PC, on mobile. Where Google leads
as well.

------
RyanZAG
Running a company is not just about grand strategy, regardless of how big that
company is. As they say, execution is more important than the idea. It doesn't
only apply to startups.

------
vijucat
I never felt any respect for Mr. Ballmer (, unlike Bill Gates), and I am just
thinking aloud as to why:

I wonder if, like many other people, Mr. Ballmer found the existence of Google
a perfect fit to his personality, which involves finding an anathema, a thing
to be hated, and then sublimating one's energies into productivity by feeding
on that hatred. Let's call this Hatred-Driven Development. Or rather,
considering we are talking about a CEO, Hatred as a Strategy (HaaS). The
reason such behaviour feels petty is that these people literally don't exist
without the external object which forms the focus of their lives.

As others have pointed out, he had enough time to do something about Google,
and failed, and that shows that HaaS is not enough. If you want points just
for trying and just for hating the competition ferociously, there's a heaven
for that kind of person; middle-management at a large corporation.

I believe that this is a story of how to make $15.2 billion in net worth by
being in the right place, a rocket called Microsoft, at the right time.

------
scrabble
I think _good enough_ is an excellent lesson for most people, especially me.
Fear of not having something polished enough prevents me from getting things
launched on a regular basis.

------
devx
Different view:

[http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/23/steve-ballmer-the-worst-
ceo...](http://pandodaily.com/2013/08/23/steve-ballmer-the-worst-ceo-ever/)

~~~
kevbin
Funny---intentionally or not---From the comments: "Articles like this are akin
to fake profiles on myspace or bad link results from altavista." \-- 28
September 2013

------
pseut
Google docs and its "don't be evil" motto were as good as declaring war on
Microsoft. Missing that intent would have been tough.

------
infocollector
Did Steve Ballmer pay for this article?

------
innino
_Apple approaches similar crisis, strangely soon. I predict the company also
won 't respond fast enough to Google and the shift from touch to touchless
computing. CEO Tim Cook focuses too much on preserving revenues streams,
rather than disrupt them as predecessor Steve Jobs risked so many times._

Stuff like this makes me think this guy is a jackass. Steve Jobs never
"disrupted an established revenue stream" \- in 1999 he started with nothing,
and built everything from scratch. He died with the company in full throttle,
and that's that. Never had the need or the chance to do what this author is
suggesting.

Furthermore, how exactly can you fault Apple/Cook's performance post-2011?
Their releases have all been solid improvements which have sold like hotcakes.
Their products still command global consumer consciousness like no other
brand. The iPhone and iPad stand as the centre of gravity of the mobile
market, and the confusion and noise of the myriad products churned out by
Apple's ertswhile competition only further cements their stature. Other than a
few small exceptions (screen size in particular), they still control the focus
of consumer desire - the average consumer only knows and cares about a
particular feature once Apple has pointed to it. Watch what happens post-5s -
if other phone manufacturers release a spree of devices with novel unlocking
mechanisms, you can guess why.

Everything Apple has done has been profitable and popular. They're playing
from a position of incredible strength, so why should they rush out and
reinvent the wheel? They have time, their current position is stable, and it
would only advantage competitors to reveal their next plans before Apple is
ready or it is even necessary to do so.

I think the mistake people make here is in confusing what happened to
Microsoft with what might hypothetically happen to Apple. But Apple isn't
Microsoft. There's no indication whatsoever that Apple is taking their current
strength for granted - moves like the new campus suggest a firm focus on and
faith in a very long-term future. The only people who are dissatisfied with
Apple's performance are impatient, ignorant tech commentators, who seem to
depend for their sense of self-worth on a deluge of new gadgets to critique.
It's a serious cognitive failure to imagine that just because Apple overturned
incumbents, Apple must be equally vulnerable to being overturned, as if the
marketplace just cycles through the same rough dynamic with little to no
variation. Apple blew the competition out of the water because it was better,
and in so doing it set a new bar for product and ecosystem execution that
until now no other device manufacturer could equal - a bar which it has only
maintained and even raised.

We're only now starting to see the market rebalance with Google and Amazon
emerging as real competitors, with Microsoft a big question mark about when
and if they will ever rise to the occasion. But the ball is thoroughly in the
competition's court, so right now Apple can watch, analyse, and plot its next
move. We don't have even close to enough data to evaluate Apple's
"performance" yet because we haven't seen it.

