I'm sure he'd be awesome if it was ever actually necessary to move Mt. Fuji. The fact remains, he works for Microsoft in this day and age. How smart can he be?
(Maybe he just really likes their corporate culture?)
Whether you'd like to believe it or not, there are a bunch of smart guys who still work for Microsoft. Some really smart computer scientists actually prefer a steady, high salary in a company that's treated them well for a decade over the chance to make it big or go bust trying.
I've never worked for Microsoft and I doubt I ever will, but I have interacted with some really smart folks who do.
All I'm really getting at is the fact that you dislike the business tactics, operating systems, office applications, or corporate culture of Microsoft doesn't mean you should assume they don't have anyone smart working for them.
Sinofski is a revered person at Microsoft. He has been responsible for the last couple of versions of Office, includingthe radical 2007 decision, and was very much selected by merit to lead the development of Windows 7.
For anyone who tried the Vista beta, you know that traditionally Windows was a mess right up until (and often until after) it shipped. Lack of engineering discipline and talented engineers forced to go into management for raises was really hurting Windows. Sinofski shook up the rules and let the engineers quit management and go back to engineering at the same pay. He also helped shape policies that have substantially improved quality. For example, the main-line Windows 7 branch only contains ship-ready features. Windows 7 won't be late because Ballmer could say "hey, let's ship it tomorrow" and it would be ready.
He MCs the excellent Engineering 7 blog http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/ as well as a popular internal personal blog. His writing style is very long winded, but information rich. After reading his posts, seeing him at the company meeting, and giving a few tech talks, I am quite confident in his ability to turn Windows around. I wish I could say the same for many other teams.
[T]alented engineers forced to go into management for raises was really hurting Windows. Sinofski shook up the rules and let the engineers quit management and go back to engineering at the same pay.
While this sounds like a smart move by Sinofsky, it's even more revealing of Microsoft's cultural deterioration.
(Maybe he just really likes their corporate culture?)
This seems like a snide remark, though I can't tell for sure. While you doubtless know everything when it comes to Microsoft (viz, they're evil in every possible way) most of what I've heard is positive related to "corporate culture".
It's weird how people pick a side and stick with it whatever the context. So, when google gives its employees kindergarten toys to play with, that's great. When Microsoft gives every employee his own office, that's nothing.
hello_moto was way out of line. That said, it's probably a mistake to underestimate how smart Microsoft is. They should be respected as a formidable adversary. If they were all nitwits, they wouldn't have been able to build a platform as successful as XBox 360, for example.
The division is now quite profitable and projections show they will work off all of the previous losses in a few years. Additionally, Microsoft has gained key strategic control of the living room.
Of 'the' living room? I don't think that's the case. I'd wager there are more wii's in living rooms than xboxes.
The xbox is first and foremost a teenage hardcore gamer boys game system, not a family games console.
Also, working off all losses 'in a few years' is great, if things stay the same for those next 5-10 years. But these things can change over night. Some new device on the scene.
Being back to square one in 5-10 years isn't a resounding success though, considering the massive profits Nintendo is making.
Nintendo has been successful, especially in terms of sales and profits, no doubt. And yes, there are more Wiis in living rooms and 360s and PS3s combined.
However, success is not only measured in short term profits. When Netflix was support was added to the Xbox Dashboard software a few weeks ago, it became the number one delivery vehicle for instant watch videos overnight. To scoff at that level of influence over the entertainment space is shortsighted.
Additionally, the sales trends of every console in recorded gaming history shows 80% of the console sales occurred when the price was below $200. The 360 just recently dipped into that range this holiday season.
My Xbox 360 just stole 90% of my media watching from my laptop, with thanks to TVersity. I watch literally almost everything through my Xbox 360 now. It's even beat out my plans to get a Mac Mini to do the job, and even better it's capable of pushing at 720p for the same price.
Before I got the 360 I was struggling with DVD's and usually resorting to watching video off my media laptop. I'm hoping Hulu starts allowing their content in Canada so I can stream shows from the internet through TVersity.
I have a Wii, but I've found the 360 winning a lot more play time over the Wii mainly because of the mature games on the console and the fact it works as a DVD player and media center just kicks the Wii when it's down.
I bought a 360 elite, I see that the Arcade version isn't as bad of a deal as I originally thought it would be. Although I think they should have gone with a 12gb SSD over a memory card, but that's from someone who filled up 20 gigs of my Xbox's HDD in about a week when I first got the console.
IMO I'd say the Xbox isn't the best selling console out there, but for gamers it's got the best content (having stolen a lot of exclusives from the PS3 like Final Fantasy); it's also a great media center (amazing when you download TVersity), both of which mean it's going to stay as close to the TV as your VCR used to (at least I know it will in my house).
So has Facebook. Does that make them not formidable?
Almost every console loses money at launch. Consoles start as loss leaders. The XBox 360 recently turned a profit: http://www.joystiq.com/2008/01/24/the-xbox-turns-a-profit/ ... and the value of the platform is likely to continue going up.
Who cares about the 360? This time around Sony and MS came out with a more powerful 'same thing' while Wii innovated and made something really interesting. Why, my wife is even considering letting me get one of those. :)
I have a 360 and a Wii, the Wii controller is fucking amazing until it becomes a complete unresponsive pain in the ass with 90% of the games on the market. My most played games are WiiSports and Mario Galaxy, and in the past 9 months I've bought 1 game for it and it's a present! I'm considering getting Animal Crossing and that's probably it until the pre-summer game rush when I might buy 1 more game.
I bought my Xbox 360 about a month ago, I've got 5 games for it (10 for my Wii that I've had since release). I've got 6 games I'm waiting for the christmas price to get, which means that in under 3 months it'll have got more games than my Wii does.
I'm sorry, but the Wii really needs a kick in the ass because just like the PowerGlove by Nintendo, the controller has amazing potential but it really fucking sucks at the moment.
That's strange, this is the first negative review I've heard (not that I've been digging for them). Most of my friends have one and every game I've plaid on one of their systems was amazing. They all also seemed to be really impressed with the things you can do on the Zelda game (and most have bought the "crossbow" thing for the controller, etc.).
Depending on the measure, probably many, many more times than 4. But it has nothing to do with his title, which is what I was poking fun at ;) The implication he wasn't smart because of his title was out of line, good call. I apologize.
Since I'm sure he doesn't really care much about his title, I guess I'm making fun of the people at Microsoft who decided that motivating people with four-word titles is a good idea.
It's hard not to come with a very-long-title in an organization as big as Microsoft (last time I heard they have over 60k employees).
I don't see the title as a way to motivate him. It's just to show where his position in the ladder. If you compare it with Google where things are messy for managers because they have way too many underlinks... then those long titles/ladders/levels start to make a bit of sense.
Tagging doesn't seem to apply to corporate hierarchy (^_^).
I'm sure he'd be awesome if it was ever actually necessary to move Mt. Fuji. The fact remains, he works for Microsoft in this day and age. How smart can he be?
(Maybe he just really likes their corporate culture?)