
Microsoft Is Winning the Techlash - kristianc
https://www.axios.com/microsoft-is-winning-the-techlash-4d16b1ba-2da5-4f9b-8fd2-d591b0a3b2ea.html
======
d--b
Microsoft doesn't get a bad rep like facebook or google, because their
business model is not based on pushing ads onto their users and selling their
users' data, which everybody hates.

Apple's bad rep is probably due to high pricing, tech lock-in, horrible apple
store experience, bad behavior regarding right-to-repair, pretty bad software
overall.

~~~
denzil_correa
> Microsoft doesn't get a bad rep like facebook or google, because their
> business model is not based on pushing ads onto their users and selling
> their users' data, which everybody hates.

Microsoft has many business models and one of them is based on advertisements,
example : LinkedIn.

~~~
kristianc
> Microsoft has many business models and one of them is based on
> advertisements, example : LinkedIn.

LinkedIn make bank from selling Sales Navigator. Ads are a tiny proportion of
their revenue.

~~~
cosmie
I was surprised to see this is true about their advertising! While dated,
their 2016 disclosures showed ads making up only 18% of revenue ($109mm)[1].
Which was only about 10% of the $1.6bn that Bing pulled in around that
time[2].

Having managed ad campaigns on LinkedIn, that's both surprising and not. They
have a horrifically high cost per click compared to other channels, but the
results in B2B verticals were usually enough to warrant putting up with it. So
it's surprising it was only pulling in around $100mm. But then, their self-
service component didn't allow for accessing all of their inventory, and none
of my clients wanted to go in with the commitments necessary for the high-
touch placements. So that may have dampened demand a good bit.

That said, Sales Navigator (and premium subscriptions) is an equally small
portion of revenue. 65% of their money came from their "talent solutions"
recruiting features.

[1] [https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120214/how-does-
lin...](https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/120214/how-does-linkedin-
lnkd-make-money.asp)

[2]
[https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/313837/micros...](https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/313837/microsoft-
revenue-from-bing-search-ads-rose-in-201.html)

------
blueboo
...says Axios, an outlet infamous for obsequious coverage of the wealthy and
well-connected. In Tech, Microsoft is old money, thus this puff piece.

Just this year Microsoft's Outlook service had a massive breach, leaking ~800
million passwords. Their flagship product, Windows 10, is infamous for
randomly blocking people from working. The recent October automatic update
even went ahead and just deleted users' files. Remembebr Windows Phones?
Remember Bing? MSN is still live... so I guess it outlasted Google Plus.

I guess since its efforts in social media are a whisper of a joke, that by
default they're "winning" ? More likely it's just Axios being Axios.

meanwhile .. [https://www.forbes.com/powerful-
brands/list/](https://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/),
[http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/rankings-and-
reports/top...](http://www.millwardbrown.com/brandz/rankings-and-reports/top-
us-brands/2019), and any other extant brand ranking shows Microsoft pretty far
from the top

------
notacoward
The conclusion is contrary to the evidence presented.

> companies untouched by scandal — including Microsoft — > prospered in the
> eyes of consumers

Except that Amazon, which _has_ gotten a bit of a black eye later (HQ2 +
worker treatment + antitrust), has stayed steady near the very top of the
cited poll. Apple, which has had few such problems, has sunk from near the top
to #32. When you only have eight samples to begin with, and two strongly
contradict your theory, your theory sucks. Microsoft in particular is doing
relatively well for a variety of reasons, but not because of this one.

~~~
Funes-
>Microsoft in particular is doing relatively well for a variety of reasons,
but not because of this one.

Why exactly wouldn't Microsoft's newfound good reputation be included among
those reasons? Your rebuttal would be just as unfounded as the theory you are
dismissing. Perhaps it's not as determinant a factor as the author makes it
out to be, but discarding it altogether doesn't look reasonable to me.

~~~
notacoward
> Your rebuttal would be just as unfounded as the theory you are dismissing.

True enough, but that doesn't validate the higher-profile original either.
Seems a bit "well actually" TBH.

~~~
Funes-
>that doesn't validate the higher-profile original either.

You're right, it doesn't. I never said that, either.

>Seems a bit "well actually" TBH

I'm sorry if it came across that way, really. I like to be as precise as I can
with everything I say, so it just came out that way naturally. Actually, one
of the first replies I got here (not too long ago) was a similar kind of
comment to the one we are discussing now. At first, my reaction was negative,
as in "this guy is just trying to one-up me by nitpicking my comment"; then, I
realized it was an opportunity to start to make myself as clear as possible
whenever I wrote any other comments. Anyhow, I hope you can understand where
I'm coming from.

------
jussij
I think the problem with Google is it can't decide if they are into software
or into advertising.

Google had a big lead on Microsoft with their web based 'office like'
products, but they just could not get the paying business customer.

Microsoft can see what Google is doing, quickly push out their 'Office 365'
clone and without much effort find they have quickly become the biggest player
in that field.

I think Google would have easily won that game it they could just convinced
business they where more than just an advertising company.

I get the impression business is more than happy giving their data to
Microsoft, while also paying for that privilege where as they are not so sure
about trusting their data with Google.

~~~
coldpie
I would love so much to pay for Google services if it meant disabling all of
their ads and data tracking. But they're just not interested in that kind of
business model.

~~~
Kalium
If there's one uncomfortable thing Google has made painfully clear to all of
us, it's that the vast majority of consumers just aren't interested in paying
for things like email or search.

It isn't due to a lack of offerings. There are plenty of provides that will
happily do so. Anyone who wants to can buy email from Google _today_! Yet in
the face of this the vast majority of users choose not to pay for email.

My current operating hypothesis is that the vast majority of ordinary users
value their privacy right up to the point where they have to put a price on
it. At which point a handful of nerds (like us!) are willing to pay, but most
people happily trade their privacy for services instead of involving money.

~~~
coldpie
I pay for Fastmail and I get a relatively large amount of spam there. We self-
host our email at work, and plenty of spam gets through there, too. I never
see spam in the inbox on my gmail address, ever. Google's email is the best
I've seen (though I admit I haven't used a lot). I use it because I want to
use it, not because it is free.

I'm not sure what you mean by "buy email from google today." I don't want to
"buy email," I want to pay them to not serve ads or track me when I use their
services. That includes far more than email, I'm talking about the whole
ecosystem like Android, Maps, Search and so on. Surely $120/year from me is
worth far more than they're getting in ads, right? I dunno.

~~~
Kalium
Personally, I suspect that $120/year from 10,000 people like us is not worth
Google's time and effort.

I can also see the criticisms now: "privacy isn't a luxury only for rich
people!".

------
manigandham
"Tech industry/company" is a useless term. Facebook and Google are ad
networks, and it's advertising that's getting a backlash.

Microsoft has a much smaller ad business with Bing (although still 3x bigger
than Twitter) so of course they don't get the same amount of backlash because
of it. Apple is in a similar position.

------
Nasrudith
Really the whole "techlash" feels incredibly manufactured in the first place -
I think the uniform shallowness of criticisms is part of its smell. I mean
most content it shallow but you expect a "bell curve" of nuance between slogan
repeaters and those pondering more in depth at the edges. Look at other
movements and their diversity of ideas - even if mostly in agreement differing
implementations tend to be proposed by some even if most parrot shallow
slogans.

The selectivity also stinks. Comcast, a serial worst company winner infamous
for poor service is left unmentioned while social media somehow qualifies as
"a monopoly" and the equivalent of Store Brands in Amazon is somehow monopoly
abuse?

~~~
manigandham
Yes, the real backlash is people's trust in the media. Of course the media
will never write about that.

~~~
kitotik
Don’t discount the gentrification issue. In places like Austin, San Fran, and
West LA the “techlash” started when small businesses and non-tech workers
could no longer afford to pay rent in their city, and their culture was pretty
much replaced.

~~~
Nasrudith
That is a separate issue and far more local.

For LA they were going wannabe terrorists about gentrification back in the the
late 90s with the Yuppie Eradication Project - it seems nobody was sympathetic
to them and who can blame them? I think most would rather have the most
obnoxious yuppie stereotype than those idiot self-righteous vandals.

Gentrification seems to be a noisy minority issue - I hear far most people who
would want gentrification.

Which I suppose points to another cultural divide. To suburbanites and even
other major cities they look like huge spoiled brats - conplaining about
things other areas would kill for, and already offer more for far less. I am
aware of differing situations and needs but it seems that someone isn't being
reasonable.

~~~
kitotik
“Gentrification seems to be a noisy minority issue”

It does tend to affect minorities more. See Inglewood and Boyle Heights for
recent examples.

Expensive gelato and coffee shops are not things these communities “would kill
for”.

I understand your point, but it does seem quite tone deaf.

It’s not about “annoying yuppies” it’s about family businesses and lifetime-
long residents being pushed out due to rent increases.

------
yourbandsucks
Apparently, they averaged about 300 interviews per company, then stack ranked
on net favorability.

I'm not a social scientist, but that seems.. low? And while I'm sure the
initial call list was demographically weighted, apparently they'd ask each
respondent to talk about two companies they were more familiar with from the
list of 100. That doesn't sound like the ~300 people rating each company had
any proper demographic weighting at all.

Full report:
[https://theharrispoll.com/HarrisPoll_Axios_MostVisible_2019....](https://theharrispoll.com/HarrisPoll_Axios_MostVisible_2019.pdf)

~~~
mhermher
300 people rating 2 of 100 companies does seem very sparse. Thanks for the
link.

------
dalbasal
As an aside, FB's continued success, while having such a bad public image is
astonishing.

They obviously have a moat, a very literal network effect. But, FB also has
lots of competition (more than google, amzn, & msft anyway) and the type of
product that should be substitutable.. with some combination of twitter-
wechat-HN-or-whatnot. Social network, seems, at least to me, like something
that lends to rising and waning popularity. They're not embedded in businesses
or hard to turn off in any way.

It just seems that negative user opinion of FB should be a bigger deal than it
would be for amazon of msft.

I dunno how to square this circle.

~~~
icelancer
> As an aside, FB's continued success, while having such a bad public image is
> astonishing.

The public image is a bunch of people who want them to be bad, not actual
consumers. The media has narratives it drives and a bunch of nerds here hate
them for legitimate reasons. The average consumer does not care and never
will.

~~~
dalbasal
I disagree. The average FB user is opinionated about all sorts of things. I
bet you if you polled random people on the street, they have an opinion on
FB... and I bet it has gotten worse in the last few years.

------
darkmuck
Although Microsoft has been very successful lately, I wish they hadn't given
up on competing in some consumer areas such mobile. Now we are stuck with only
Apple & Google.

~~~
sgift
I wonder if they wait for the right moment (e.g. when Android gets replaced
with whatever Google tries to replace it with) for a new play on mobile or if
they really are "done" with it.

~~~
WorldMaker
I think there is a still a possibility that Microsoft expects the phone and PC
markets to merge and hopes to be there with welcoming arms when it does, but
I'm getting the impression they won't build new hardware to do it if they
can't convince other manufacturers to join in.

------
al2o3cr
I just last week had to deal with customers that had locked-down computers
stuck on IE11 and hit some JS that used unsupported features.

IE11 was released after the relevant features were in common use in the
Javascript community, but Microsoft was still in its "the web is better with
our proprietary extensions, trust us" mode so they aren't in IE11.

They can't upgrade their browser because IE11 is the last browser version
Microsoft supports on their Microsoft operating system, because they want
users to upgrade.

They can't use an alternative browser because they're in a security-sensitive
industry with policies written in the Old Days when running third-party
software was marketed as "dangerous", including by Microsoft.

They don't want to upgrade operating systems because that means a huge
software spend to Microsoft, plus migrating all their other software, POS
hardware, etc.

The point being, none of these are things Microsoft is doing _today_. But
they're all decisions they made in the past, and the consequences of those
decisions are _still_ making people's jobs harder.

~~~
tracker1
Edge is MS's current browser... IE11 was an incremental release over IE10 and
several years old at this point. Most browsers update very frequently. IE
never did.

Maybe you need to look at whoever locked said computers down to ONLY support
IE? Chrome and Firefox are both better options at this point. It really isn't
MS's fault that an organization can't be bothered to update their software for
what, 4 years now?

------
rchaud
Microsoft is more B2B than B2C compared to the other companies, so it makes
sense that they're barely ever in the news cycle. They've done a good job of
creating separate identities for their Office, Azure and Xbox brands, so bad
PR on the Xbox side won't adversely impact the company's reputation as a
whole.

------
ddebernardy
The chart is very misleading. Instead of charting rank year on year, Axios
should have charted the actual reputation, and then placed a few household
names next to them so they're more comparable.

[https://theharrispoll.com/axios-
harrispoll-100/](https://theharrispoll.com/axios-harrispoll-100/)

Facebook's score (58) is basically in the dumpster category, a notch behind
Comcast (61.4), Bank of America (60.9), and Goldman Sachs (60), though still
several notches ahead Trump Org (50.1), Philipp Morris (49.4), and the US
government (48.6).

The other tech giants are within a few points of each other: Amazon gets 82.3,
Microsoft 79.7, Netflix 77.3, Apple 76.4, and Google 75.4. Amazon is in the
same category as Disney. The other 4 are comparable to the likes of Coca Cola,
Procter and Gamble, Unilever, Nike, etc.

------
freewilly1040
“Microsoft lost on search because they were so distracted by getting sued by
the government” is a dubious take I've never heard anywhere else.

------
PorterDuff
I was just musing about what makes a tech company more likeable.

Personally, I made money for years using Microsoft products, find Amazon quite
useful (living in small towns) and just see Google as irritating. But then, if
the internet were reduced to USENET, email, and maybe a curated list of
serious websites like online banking, I'd be fine with it, and probably better
off in some ways.

~~~
asark
> Personally, I made money for years using Microsoft products, find Amazon
> quite useful (living in small towns) and just see Google as irritating. But
> then, if the internet were reduced to USENET, email, and maybe a curated
> list of serious websites like online banking, I'd be fine with it, and
> probably better off in some ways.

You're not alone in this thinking. The vast bulk of the Web is of marginal
benefit, or harmful, and I think in the end it's going to contribute to taking
us (humanity) to a very, very bad place.

------
bhauer
The Axios Harris poll [1] as a general matter is pretty interesting. I am
surprised at Amazon's position among the tech firms.

[1] [https://theharrispoll.com/axios-
harrispoll-100/#2019-ranking...](https://theharrispoll.com/axios-
harrispoll-100/#2019-rankings)

------
flyinglizard
Microsoft are selling an incredible suite of products and services. They are
dependable, responsible and innovative. When I choose to use their platforms,
I know they are taking me seriously, that they have a very long product
support horizon, that they are embracing openness, have excellent
documentation and integration with their tools (one fun exercise is debugging
an Azure Function (their serverless lambdas) locally and seamless inside
Visual Studio on your machine. Magical).

I would have thought they are a dying company just two years ago and today I
have a completely opposite outlook of them.

~~~
flyinglizard
This comment turned out an interesting experiment in internet crowd dynamics.
I have over 40 upvotes at this point, but all the replies to my post have been
more-or-less negative. My guess is that the people who are happy with
Microsoft or generally agree can't be bothered to reply, while the few who've
been burnt would take this as an opportunity to take out their anger (very
justifiably so).

Most of us know internet opinions behave in this manner where you mostly get
to hear discontent, but it's still fascinating to experience it first hand.

(I'm not in any way criticizing the replies to my post, which have been
diligently written with real life examples and definitely given me some things
to think about)

~~~
bartread
I've had similar experiences on HN, and funnily enough the last time was for a
comment that was fairly supportive of Microsoft. I got absolutely _roasted_ in
the comments, but received a ton of upvotes from the silent majority.

There are three areas I'd disagree with you though.

The first is Microsoft's Surface line of tablets and laptops. I literally
cannot find a kind word to say about the (very expensive) Surface Book devices
we bought en masse about 18 months ago. They are _awful_ [1] and we are
already starting to phase them out as a result. It makes no sense because
Microsoft can clearly do hardware well: for example, I have no complaints
about my Xbox One X - it's all round great.

The second may substantially be connected to the first, and that's Windows 10.
I increasingly hate using it because I find it slow, finicky, and
unresponsive/a serious resource hog. So much of the time my laptop is running
hot and draining its battery because Windows is doing _something or other_ not
related to what I'm working on.

The third is Microsoft Teams. The functionality it offers is good and, for
VOIP and video calls, it's probably second only to Zoom so does get a thumbs
up from me there. However, it's painfully slow to switch views, doesn't
support multiple windows (so you can't sensibly look at chat and wiki at the
same time), takes an age to start up, and behaves like an absolute moron when
it comes to switching networks or losing and regaining network connectivity
(usually requires a restart of the app).

 _[1] Underpowered, overpriced, poor battery life, run very hot, ropey WiFi,
poor speakers that are insufficiently loud, crappy trackpad, only a single
display port built in, poorly designed /laid out ports, unreliable (and often
weirdly slow) charging, drains battery within 12 - 18 hours whilst asleep, I
could go on (and on). In short: DO NOT BUY UNLESS YOU HATE YOURSELF!_

~~~
kyriakos
Microsoft teams is featured packed. But some ui decisions and bugs won't let
it be great. And the problems are not only on the desktop version. On android
I receive a notification only to open the app and the message hasn't loaded
yet, and doesn't load for at least 20 more seconds.

~~~
tracker1
I have a morning meeting in teams that I often wind up calling into on my
phone + bluetooth in my car... it often borks out and won't stay connected
without force stopping the app. That's about my biggest complaint with
teams... I also think the desktop version should use the material/android
interface for starting a new thread... it's to easy to think you are replying
but actually starting a new thread. Looking/finding old messages is pretty
nasty/hard too...

------
jrs95
Maybe they have a higher reputation but that doesn't mean people like or will
buy their consumer products. They still have a huge problem there.

------
dingo_bat
I really wish Microsoft would release a modern, capable smartphone. Not based
on Android. Revive the windows phone UI, couple it to good hardware. Maybe
partner with Samsung. A surface phone, so to speak. I'd buy it instantly. I
don't care about apps. I care about a good browser, good screen, maybe
whatsapp, long battery life.

