
Worries That Microsoft Is Too Tricky to Manage - kemoly
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/technology/worries-that-microsoft-is-growing-too-tricky-to-manage.html?hp
======
fauigerzigerk
I think things will become much much worse for Microsoft before they get
better. I'm afraid they will lose small and medium size enterprises and ISVs
because their licensing structure has become so complex, overpriced and
antiquated that a new generation of customers will refuse to deal with them.

In the past there was piracy as a way to lower the barriers to entry. Today,
piracy has become dangerous for small companies in developed countries. All of
a sudden SMEs and ISVs are confronted with scores of product feature matrices,
weird dependencies and restrictions, kafkaesque partnership programs and long-
term committments.

Sometimes they are just plain stupid. For instance, I recently came across
this page that explains developer account types:
[http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/apps/jj863494.aspx](http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/windows/apps/jj863494.aspx)

It seems harmless if convoluted at first sight. But look at the dependencies
they have created. In order to sell Windows desktop apps in the Windows store
and use all device capabilities you need a company account, and to get a
company account you need to be recognized as a company in your own country.

That's effectively a wholesale import of tax, social security and
incorporation laws of countless countries into Microsoft's own terms of
service. Microsoft operates in many countries so they have to know how onerous
this rule can be. They are erecting a huge barrier to entry for individual
software developers and early stage startups around the world.

I'm sure they will claim it's for their users' safety. But this must be the
most uncreative, idiotic safety measure ever invented, particularly if you
know how easy it is for real criminals to game this system.

Now, I'm not saying that developer relations is Microsoft's most serious
problem. Not at all. But it goes to show how incapable this company is of
putting themselves into the shoes of those who have to deal with them in any
capacity.

~~~
bad_user
> _In order to sell Windows desktop apps in the Windows store and use all
> device capabilities you need a company account, and to get a company account
> you need to be recognized as a company in your own country_

There are valid reasons for doing that. In Europe for example one reason would
be VAT handling. It may very well be that they were forced in doing this.

But, in European countries at least, you have the option to register as a Sole
Proprietorship. Depending on the country of course, this is painless to do,
accounting is simpler and taxes are much better (in comparison with starting a
LLC and paying yourself a salary). It has downsides of course, but for
developers trying to experiment it is perfect.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
> _There are valid reasons for doing that_

There always are, but it's a question of priorities. VAT handling is optional
for small businesses in most European countries and it has nothing to do with
device capabilities or types of software. Tell me a reason that is valid for
desktop software but not for other types of store apps, a reason that is valid
for some device capabilities but not others! They are creating unnecessary
dependencies between unrelated things (distribution/deployment, types of
software, permissions/capabilities, taxes/social security). That's what
incidental complexity is all about.

> _But, in European countries at least, you have the option to register as a
> Sole Proprietorship [...] for developers trying to experiment it is perfect_

Registering as a sole trader usually means that you have to pay minimum social
security contributions even if you make a loss. In the UK that's just 20 Euros
or so, but in most other European countries it's between 200 and 300 Euros per
month. If you're self funded that hurts.

~~~
bad_user
> _Registering as a sole trader usually means that you have to pay minimum
> social security contributions even if you make a loss ... in most other
> European countries it 's between 200 and 300 Euros per month_

That's true, unfortunately, although these social contributions means you get
access to healthcare, which is always nice to have even when starting out.

A minimum of 200 EUR seems too much though, are you sure? In Romania, you get
taxed with a percentage of the revenue for healthcare, the tax for
unemployment benefits is optional and the only tax that would be required is
the pension fund contribution which would amount to 32 EUR per month or
something like that.

~~~
fauigerzigerk
> _although these social contributions means you get access to healthcare,
> which is always nice to have even when starting out._

It is indeed, but often times there are various ways to get that. You could be
insured with a spouse or by opting into a voluntary scheme for low earners or
students. Having to register as a sole trader makes that impossible in some
countries.

> _A minimum of 200 EUR seems too much though, are you sure?_

Yes, for instance, in Spain it's 250 Euros per month just to be registered as
autónomo. It's similar in many other countries. Good to know it's different in
Romania!

~~~
bad_user
> _Yes, for instance, in Spain it 's 250 Euros per month just to be registered
> as autónomo._

Well, that sucks, I agree.

------
netcan
One thing that doesn't seem to come through in all these pundit articles and
internet discussions is how fantastically successful MS are.

They've survived several paradigms over decades in a business where most
didn't. Most years (including the last few) they make more money than the year
before. They have a bunch of very big businesses that make big money. Compare
that to Google. Google do lots of cool things: self driving cars, webmail.
glass, android. Cool stuff. Still, almost all their money comes from
search/adwords/adsense.

They have lots of faults. I really dislike Windows. But, they have a lot of
good traits too that others should emulate. A big one is stubborn survivey-
ness. Just because an MS thing is still lame 2 years after it was launched
doesn't mean it won't make it. They can stick at lame products until they make
them decent.

Bottom line I guess is that MS are survivors. I expect them to survive.

------
moca
It is tricky to manage any large company. The more tricky problem for
Microsoft is that it heavily depends on old business models. A significant
portion of Microsoft profit comes from Windows and Office. Other companies,
like Google, can offer competitive products almost for free. That could happen
eventually. It won't take Google too much efforts to provide a desktop version
of Android and Office-like product. Even at several billion dollars R&D cost,
it is still much cheaper than Motorola purchase.

Microsoft enterprise business is hugely competitive. But other than that, it
is hard to achieve meaningful profit margin (xbox may earn couple of billions,
internet services always lose money, Nokia probably break even for next few
years). So the problem is more about innovate than manage Microsoft.

~~~
jpatokal
Why would Google develop a desktop Android or Office, when they've already got
this?
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrome_OS)

~~~
pjmlp
Because it sucks?

~~~
Zigurd
At the current state of development, Google has a problem: Android is by far
the better general-purpose OS, but Google Drive's office productivity apps
suck REALLY bad on Android. If they were implemented to the same standard as
Android's GMail app, Windows would have a lot to worry about. But as it is,
Android isn't going to displace any enterprise desktops this week.

~~~
pjmlp
Even the office productivity sucks, at least for my workflows.

I just use them when I need to quickly share something in a tabular form with
someone else.

Otherwise I rather use Microsoft and Libre Office suites.

------
danso
> _An oft-cited example of this is the reluctance of the Office applications
> group to release complete versions of Word, Excel and other software for
> iPads and Android devices. That decision, in theory, could help Microsoft
> tablets that run Windows, though it hasn’t yet...An even broader
> conglomerate is Samsung, which is in areas as varied as electronics, life
> insurance and petrochemicals. But each of those businesses is run with a
> high degree of independence from the others. The company supplies screens
> and semiconductors for Apple, even though Apple is the main rival to
> Samsung’s mobile phone business._

The Samsung software layer on their Android phones was so awful, so devoid of
inspiration, that even as an Android user, I hoped that Apple would continue
to spank them in the phone industry. But I highly respect whosever management
decision it was to keep Samsung's units as independent as possible, even so
that one hand of the company may be helping to spank the other. Perhaps it's
because Apple's business is too good to lose, but hopefully there's some "a
rising tide lifts all ships" mentality in there.

Meanwhile, Microsoft could've ported Office and given it a good foothold as
the productivity software of mobile and the cloud..but by the time they've
waited for the Surface to become a success, Google and Apple may both eat its
lunch

------
pedalpete
Why is this a worry for Microsoft, but not Google and Apple? This isn't really
tackled until the last sentence of the article, and even then, they say that
Google and Apple are more focused.

Is that correct? or do Google and Apple just have one larger profit maker with
many smaller profit-makers or loss-leaders?

~~~
runn1ng
As a matter of fact, yes.

Apple has a _very few_ products and is quite famous for that.

Google is focused on selling ads. Yes, it has a lot of other products, but in
the end, most of them are about selling ads (and getting more information
about the user, so they can sell ads better).

What is Microsoft focused on?

~~~
bigdubs
Microsoft is focused on selling windows licenses.

The xbox and its ecosystem is the exception.

~~~
rdl
"Windows licenses" alone probably include more distinct SKUs than Apple has
total products. A lot of that is just inherent to enterprise vs. consumer, but
even then, Microsoft has lots of complexity, seemingly on purpose, while Apple
tried to be minimalist.

~~~
nightski
There are only 2 SKUs of Windows 8 that I know of. Standard and Pro. (At least
that you purchase directly, not already on a device).

~~~
FigBug
In my MSDN Account there are 38 versions of Window 8 and 12 of Window 8
Enterprise.

~~~
MichaelGG
You're counting N and KN versions, 32+64 bit, checked/debug? Or what exactly?

I'm sure Apple has SKUs for other countries, where they need different power
adapters. The core Windows licensing is down to 4 now, right? 2 on desktop, 2
on server.

SQL Server on the other hand...

~~~
DominikR
Why is there even a distinction between 32 and 64 bit versions? Why does a
customer have to know anything about it?

Maybe just to f __* customers which:

a) bought the wrong one and now have to buy another one, because conveniently,
they can't just return it. (at least in Europe that's the case)

b) want to upgrade their hardware at some point in the future from 32 to 64
bit, without having to buy the exact same software again

~~~
noinsight
> b) want to upgrade their hardware at some point in the future from 32 to 64
> bit, without having to buy the exact same software again

Retail copies contain both versions, OEM versions only contain the one and
those aren't transferable to other systems anyway. Of course, if you upgrade
_some parts_ in your current build you might get shafted with the OEM version.

------
orionblastar
Ever since Ballmer took over, Microsoft is just scoring 'Own Goals'. Microsoft
used to think that Apple was their enemy, that IBM was their enemy, that Sun
was their enemy, that Oracle was their enemy, that Google was their enemy?
Well Microsoft is their own worst enemy! In fact we have entered a Post-PC,
Post-Microsoft era.

Apple knew it was Post-PC and invested in smartphone and tablets and knew the
desktop GUI would not work in mobile devices. So iOS got a different GUI/UI
than Mac OSX has. Microsoft does not get that, a Desktop GUI for all products!
Hey why'd we lose $900M in Surface sales? Oh well better buy out Nokia who
failed to turn profits selling Windows Mobile 8 phones named Lumina, and
rebrand them as 'Surface' phone so they will sell better.

Microsoft has to fix their broken business model, they tried to steal Apple's
model and it backfired on them because they aren't Apple (Duh!) and they don't
manage things the same way Apple does. Steve Ballmer is no Steve Jobs or Tim
Cook, and he should understand why.

Instead of fixing what is wrong with their products and services, they just
'rebrand' them under a different name. Lumina becomes Surface phone, Zune
Music Player becomes XBox Music. Windows 8 gets updated to Windows 8.1 and
adds the Windows logo where the Start Menu used to be and it takes you to the
Start Page in the Metro UI. But where are the visual clues on how to find the
Charms Bar? Where are any visual clues at all in the Metro UI? Why is Windows
8.X the first version of Windows not to have visual clues to the user in some
form? Of course the desktop part has them, minimize, maximize, close buttons
on Windows. But Metro UI does not.

If I were Tim Cook I would not worry about Microsoft taking away anything
Apple has done. I would just develop a less expensive version of the iPhone
and iPad series, perhaps the iPhone Lite or iPad Lite that can compete with
Surface phones and tablets in price. Then let customers decide when the iOS
versions have the visual clues and a UI that works for mobile devices and
Surface does not.

------
Zigurd
If I were King of Microsoft I would break it into two companies:

1\. Take ex-Nokia handsets, XBOX, and all the miscellaneous hardware and
consumer software and cloud services and call that Microsoft Devices and
Services.

2\. Take Windows 8 for PCs and servers, Office, everything enterprise and call
it Azure, Inc.

Spin the two entities out to shareholders and reap the gains from letting
investors own the thing they want to own, and from managers managing the thing
they want to manage in the direction they want to go.

Azure would end up licensing a good deal of stuff to MD&S, but both entities
could end up with a strong licensing business to third parties, too.

That would be nice, but I agree with fauigerzigerk: "...things will become
much much worse for Microsoft before they get better"

------
Killah911
Props to the illustrator who came up with the graphic at the top... a broken
window... brilliant!

------
mherdeg
Wow, the "Mini-Microsoft" blog is now nearly a decade old! Interesting that it
doesn't get called out in the Times article, except implicitly by name in the
paragraph at "A list of missed opportunities and disappointing investments at
the company in the past decade in areas like smartphones, tablets and Internet
search have led to the belief that a more focused, nimble collection of mini-
Microsofts could respond more effectively to the never-ending flow of
disruptive technologies nibbling at its foundations."
([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-
Microsoft](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini-Microsoft))

------
nazgulnarsil
It's worrying for MS that for all the major divisions shown in that image,
I've never _once_ thought of or used them in relation to each other. MS has no
unifying experience to build on in consumer consciousness.

~~~
Encosia
That may be true for your average HN user, but Microsoft products generally
work pretty darn well with other Microsoft products. There are always
exceptions, but as someone who works with small businesses often, I don't see
any obvious silo'ing in how they use products from those different divisions
in their real-world work.

Cross-quadrant dynamic synergies where the rubber meets the road and pivots,
off the top of my head:

\- IE (technically part of the Windows division) and Xbox tie in with Bing (in
Win 8.1, Windows itself searches Bing and builds OS-native search results
pages that aggregate Bing results with results from the local machine).

\- As Live Messenger, Lync, and Skype converge, Office should have good
integration with whatever eventual amalgamation emerges since it already does
so with Lync.

\- Office and Bing. "Search with Bing" is right in the context menu for
selected text throughout Office apps.

\- SQL Server and SharePoint aren't depicted in the image, but Office has
great built-in support for working against SQL Server data and SharePoint
lists seamlessly.

\- I don't know the official word about Azure, but I would be shocked if at
least portions of services like Xbox Live and Office 365 aren't using the
Azure infrastructure (if it's good enough for iCloud...).

\- Skype and Windows have a bit of affinity in Win 8.1 too. The Skype app can
raise a call notification even when the computer is locked and you can answer
Skype calls directly from the Windows 8.1 lock screen.

\- A killer, overarching connection between groups is the newish Microsoft
Accounts. When you log into a Windows 8+ machine with your MS Account,
settings for a lot of apps are synced automatically. Even the progress I've
made on Angry Birds is automatically synced between my desktops, laptops, and
tablets. I'm not sure exactly which quadrants that connects (all?), but it's a
great example of MS divisions working well together.

~~~
RyanZAG
Hold on, are you saying the big integration effort between the different
Microsoft products is the ability to _search with Bing_ inside random
applications and devices? Come on, this is not something any consumer would
ever see as a value add. This is a waste of resources, nothing more.

Integration is only integration if it adds value. No wonder Microsoft is
dieing if this is the kind of thing they are wasting time on instead of useful
features. Who would ever want to search with Bing from their xbox?!

The awful Microsoft Accounts just gives consumers one new and popular question
to ask: how do I turn off Microsoft Accounts? That's literally the most asked
question in regards to that piece of terrible functionality.

Come on anybody at Microsoft reading this, get rid of people like this and
focus on giving consumers something they actually want. You might be able to
turn this around if you act quickly.

~~~
Encosia
Huh? No, I'm not saying that any of that is the result of a monumental effort
at Microsoft. Most of that has been around for quite a while. I was just
responding to the parent poster who pointed out that they hadn't noticed any
integration between the different Microsoft products in the image at the top
of the original post.

> The awful Microsoft Accounts just gives consumers one new and popular
> question to ask: how do I turn off Microsoft Accounts? That's literally the
> most asked question in regards to that piece of terrible functionality.

Needs citation. The only response I've seen from real people is roughly "Wow,
cool!" when the see their lock screen picture and wallpaper sync automatically
to a new machine when they log in for the first time.

> get rid of people like this

In case it wasn't clear to you, I don't work for Microsoft and haven't ever.

------
YeahKIA
It is mu h a worry as a factor that makes the company much stable as compared
to some others it competes with. Look at BlackBerry or Nokia. Their fall from
grace was precipitous. Google and to some extent Apple are one trick ponies.
Although its a damn good trick, its risky to only know how to make money doing
only one thing.

