Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors - they just managed to capture the market and extract a tax for a number of years. That is why the public does not like them. When they have to fight with Windows to log into their laptop and wait 20 minutes while it does so (Windows Vista?), they blame Microsoft. Microsoft's technical inabilities and millions of man hours wasted patching and rebooting their OS comes at the cost of most of the world's population being less than impressed by Microsoft and those who work there.
This whole post is written merely as a rebuttal to the widely publicized article about how Microsoft is telling lies about Bing. The rebuttal itself comes down to "he's lying, not us!" and "we don't track the results from the Bing It On challenge". Both positions are pathetic as the Yale article has no reason to lie, and the only reason a company would not track results is because the results are obviously unfavorable and so they cooked up their own favorable ones.
You want to know why nobody respects Microsoft? Because Microsoft employees post articles like this which are so far from reality it leaves you wondering how they drive to work.
The statement "Microsoft never did any of these industries any favors" seems to be exactly what I'm talking about. Can you honestly say that you think, in the many years that Microsoft have been producing some incredibly popular software that powers much of what makes modern business productive, that the company has done absolutely no good for anyone? If that's your actual belief, I don't even know how to discuss this with you, as it just seems transparently to be untrue. What is the alternative that you think would have powered this revolution? Nobody is going "damn, that cotton gin forced out all those sickle makers, they really hurt society". Bringing advancements to market has helped human society immensely; how do you see the enhancements Microsoft has brought differently?
So if you agree that Ford did not do the nuclear industry any favours, you must accept that Microsoft did not do the manufacturing industry any favours. Both companies simply got a nice income for providing a necessary but widely available resource. Saying Microsoft is the one bringing the advancements is just silly.
Whoa, Koolaid much?
I'll stop you right there.
You can call your employer's contraptions "ubiquitous". Popular they are not.
As far as MS lying about Bing, if you read the author's other post defending the Bing it on Challenge, he rebukes Ayres point-by-point.
I think you're forgetting a huge amount of computing history with that single sentence. Acorn, Commodore, Atari, Apple, others just in the consumer PC market. Sun, SGI, NeXT, DEC, others in the workstation market. That also doesn't consider purpose-built hardware already doing things that PCs eventually took over.
It should also be noted that Microsoft was condemned for criminal monopolist strategies in a court of law for those "market incidences".
Microsoft: For the Children.
Remember, it can't just be for kids, it has to be saving kids.
We don't make the MBA/OSX/Chrome you use to write this comment - we make the chair you sit on possible.
I can't see pushing Surface/Windows 8/Office/insert MS product here on students (especially young ones) being beneficial to anyone other than Microsoft. As a student who was expected to format essays according to Word and to use (Excel, Powerpoint, even FRONTPAGE) extensively in K-12 education, I really can't see a way to put this strategy in a positive light. "ad-free" bing for schools? Really? What's more poisonous--getting students dependent on a stack of proprietary software, or a search engine with ads?
IMHO, if the Office division were actually able to run as a separated business unit from the whims of Windows, they would be MUCH better off.
I think that as office suites go, MS Office is absolutely the best of breed. However, there isn't much of anything that it offers that gives an elementary student an advantage over a pre-configured linux convertible tablet with Libre Office.
I like windows.. it's a consistent platform that isn't subject to an incredibly fragmented desktop/application space. IMHO IIS is an incredibly good web server. VS is a great IDE, with a wonderful level of integration for devops environments.
That said, I don't feel that Windows has much of a life left in it, and that 10 years from now, it will be relegated to the same role that Solaris or AIX workstations were in the early-mid 90's, a developer platform for server deployments. There's money to be made there in the long run, sure... but if MS really wants to succeed, it needs to allow the windows core os to develop apart from the desktop, server and mobile spaces.. and for the VS and Office teams to operate apart from that. It would also do well to let competitive products rise from within. Both in terms of support, as well as vision.
If Microsoft never bought the software that eventually turned out to be Office, someone else would have provided a solution. If Microsoft hadn't bought (and resold) QDOS, someone else would have provided an operating system for IBM, and people who make chairs wouldn't have seen a big difference today.
I like a lot of the technology and software that has come out of MS.. VS is a pretty damned great IDE, and there's a lot to like. ASP.Net MVC is one of the nicer frameworks I've used, the Razor view engine in particular... That said, I stopped going to their developer presentations a couple of years ago, because every one seemed like an advertisement for Azure.
I like that Azure is there, as an option.. I also like that there's Joyent, Amazon, Linode and a dozen others. Options are great... But I'm tired of seeing it shoved down everyone that develops on an MS platform.
I've spent roughly half my development time for over two years developing towards node.js ... I find a much lower level of friction, that it lends itself better to modularization and can support multiple concurrent versions of libraries without having them all in the same bin directory. Not to mention imho better testing ability, and just a smoother cycle with less prescription in the core.
Ironically enough, I still think that Outlook + Exchange is the best tool combination out of MS compared to their competitors, and even that is much more open today than ever before. I don't think most people NEED MS Word, Excel, PowerPoint, etc. Especially with web tools for powerpoint and excel that are as good as their desktop counterparts. And Libre Office Writer in many ways besting Word... I don't see much value there.
If MS would really separate some of their business units, it could work so much better...
If Windows developed as a Core OS framework, with UI developers for desktop, xbox, and mobile separated, we wouldn't have to deal with Metro on the desktop, where it's imho a poor fit, but could have it in mobile where it makes more sense.
If the Office team were untangled and better able to target iOS and Android, a better job with OSX, and less tethered, they could be a powerhouse. Separate Outlook and push them back with the Exchange team.. or hell as a separate product. They could do what BlackBerry should have done and create a best of breed cross-platform mail app.
They've been so tethered to trying to integrate their marginal sales into windows + office that they've been strangled against competition that many of their departments should have been able to take advantage of.
In doing the above, their Visual Studio team could embrace other platforms better. Web Matrix is one of the best tools out there for NodeJS development, and most of the features haven't gotten into VS.
MS developed azure as a great platform to deploy too, but keeping a lot of their concepts tied to windows + vs, has restricted growth they could have had. Azure would have been better off without the heavy MS & Windows tie ins... they could have embraced other OSes earlier on, and perhaps been seen more favorably with them. Their PaaS levels could have even supported distributed/shared LXC deployments, and much better tooling.
Historically, MS has made most of their money with Windows and Office from business customers, and will continue to do so.
However, if they don't let their individual business units actually integrate, inter-operate and compete with third parties on a whole new level, I don't think that they'll find the niches that Oracle and IBM have found in the long run.
They'll be here for a long while regardless, but they won't have the same exposure to every person with a computer as the trend continues.
The whole premise of this paragraph is wrong. Yes, most big businesses run Microsoft Windows, but most people hate and struggle with it. They run it not because it's the best, because it's not. They run it because monopolistic business practises forced out the competition. If he's trying to argue that Microsoft are misunderstood, that they do deserve respect after all, then maybe respect the hard-nosed business practises which have forced Microsoft products into every nook and cranny despite consistently having a shittier product than the competition.
Actually, this puts a whole new perspective on the "Microsoft tax". Everything we do in life has been "taxed" by Microsoft. The argument is specious: you could be sitting on a chair that was sold for less money. You might be working in a more spacious building if better software was in use. You'd probably be paid more money if the costs for IT weren't so high.
Note I don't actually believe any of those things, but they could be valid counter arguments, depending on your own perspective.
The reasoning used in the article is pretty badly flawed. If Microsoft employees are disheartened by the general public's view of their company, that's probably something their management should fix.
I do, from first hand experience: we're developing insurance pro software, and also have an all in one hosted solution, where we handle everything for the customer (from storage to configuration to backup), we set up an IPsec link and they just connect via TS. The product, which has a codebase that organically evolved during 10 years (resulting in DWTF worthy stuff), solves a number of real problems for our customers and in spite of the warts and bugs, they do like the product. It's hosted on Windows machines, including Office and whatnot. The growing MS license costs are currently driving the hosting solution out of business. We know first hand that alternative solutions (like a hypothetic port to Linux) would have cleared enough money to hire two developers, and get rid of a dedicated MS sysadmin (so that makes three full-time engineer jobs). And we're not even talking about moving to a web-based solution, which would cost a fraction of that again (and we know that because we're developing and hosting web stuff too).
Very true, Microsoft's business level software does not have as much visibility IMHO. People underestimate the role their software plays.
>> Imagine you got out of that chair for a second. Walked across the street to get a cup of coffee. Got hit by a bus. The ambulance that picks you up? Microsoft. The hospital that saves you? Microsoft. The doctor? Trained at a school running Microsoft, using delicate instruments running Microsoft. If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy.
What role, Windows, SQL Server, Azure? Microsoft may have helped there but so has the janitor who keeps the hospital clean, the barista who makes coffee for the doctors. Doesn't mean I'm going to thank Microsoft for saving my life when I get hit by a bus. This is a valid argument, but a very weak one because Microsoft is one cog in so many that keeps a hospital running.
Rest of the arguments in the article are quite valid, but when some tells me my ambulance is running Microsoft software I have a horrible flashback with a BSOD.
And yet there are many people, especially in tech, who are willing to take pot shots at something just because it was produced by Microsoft. My answer was an attempt to look at that critically.
Unfortunately, all this doesn’t translate into a smooth day-to-day experience for the end user, which is why all the hate builds up. People contrast this with the relatively smooth and fluid experience on say, Apple products. They then conclude Microsoft is garbage. I understand that in some (note, some) cases, MS isn’t even directly responsible for the issues. For example, Enterprise IT departments tend to cram massive amounts of software into boxes with moderate specs, leading to a slowdown in performance.
I can’t think of any practical solution for all this. Some radical re-engineering without regard for backwards compatibility, accompanied by strict specifications for minimum hardware requirements maybe? Will take too much of Management willpower to fly. So I’m sorry to say, Microsoft and its employees will continue to be ridiculed for some more time to come.
Imagine you got out of that chair for a second. Walked across the street to get a cup of coffee. Got hit by a bus. The ambulance that picks you up? Microsoft. The hospital that saves you? Microsoft. The doctor? Trained at a school running Microsoft, using delicate instruments running Microsoft. If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy.
All of those things existed before Microsoft! Certainly the ubiquity of MS software has resulted in efficiencies over the years, but does anyone really doubt that another platform (Classic Mac, GNU, *BSD, VAX, etc) would not have filled the void in a World Without Microsoft?
In a weird way, minus the "but really we're great" part, it must be hell to spend your life touting Microsoft when they are so hated. Because in these networked days, a PR person can't go home and tell their friends "they suck, I just work there" because things get around much more quickly.
You seem to be suggesting that the only way someone could want to work at Microsoft and feel this way is if they are a shill. Isn't that exactly what I just wrote about, as basic lack of respect for the people who choose to build at Microsoft?
No, I don't think everyone who works at MS is a shill. I think the average MS engineer goes home and can put their Microsoft boosting away. It's only the people who professionally represent MS, who's job it might to say sell Bing to schools or similar stuff, who have to be always on, always convinced that MS is good.
And Yes, I agree I'm demonstrating some of your point. I think you were honest on the basic point. There's basic lack of respect. It must be hard. I don't know how to help you there. I try to focus my anger on the people with decision making power.
Other than this, everything else made sense. Microsoft does play an important part.
Many people feel the same about MS. What I find issue with is that people will completely dislike a solution for the brand alone. I've seen this for years when I've suggested/supported Mono in Linux. .Net is a pretty damned good platform/runtime.
I think it's a perfectly valid choice to not run something because of the company that makes it. Lambasting something for the same reasons, in a non-technical fashion isn't so great.
Many of the haters will poo-poo on anything. In my household I have Android on my phone and tablet, an osx macbook pro for my laptop, a windows desktop, an htpc now running ubuntu/xbmc (was running win7 before). A NAS running FreeNAS (BSD), and a handful of other devices.
I'm not tied to any one platform, and like most people don't care too much about what I run, as long as it works. I develop software for a living, and most of that has run on Windows. I appreciate that there are great, brilliant, and wonderful people at MS. I also recognize that many of it's management decisions have been bad for the larger community. Not to mention the damage being done to some what could be better divisions at MS.
Yeah, all altruistic no doubt.
We could do what Google is doing and advertise to kids. We are choosing not to do that. How is that anything but good?
That’s right. The worst part of working
at Microsoft has nothing to do with our
internal culture (that’s not quite true;
more on that in a bit). It isn’t stack
ranking or ship cycles or trying to get
things done. It is working at a company
that people don’t believe in, despite
the immense importance it plays in
their daily life.
n.b. I haven't worked there in six years (and in fact the ten year anniversary of my FTE interview was this week!), but my feelings on the matter have been confirmed in every conversation I've ever had with an ex-MSFT FTE. Call it survivorship bias if you want, but this has been consistent in every conversation I've had, regardless if the person left a year ago or five.
edit: and the in-fighting. and the backbiting... but I guess those are just politics by another name.
The worst thing about working for Microsoft? You have to run Windows.
The story is always "this shit we have in the pipeline is going to blow everyone away! why are you snickering!?" or "the consumers just don't understand us / never gave us a chance. we could have never anticipated this."
I do feel sorry for them, it can't feel good. I mean, obviously they are making cash hand over fist, but I really get the sense that they aren't getting any gratification.
What a larf. Why did Forbes print this? No, man, Alcoa picked me up. And US Steel. And Con-Ed. And Exxon. And Starbucks! Oh, wait, the driver had Dunkin' Donuts. Whatever.
Just when you got something right, after over a decade, and had a chance to build goodwill/positive response from your users, you go ahead and royally screw it up. I won't even go in their predatory/arm-twisting business practices.
The worst thing about Microsoft is that they never seem to learn from their mistakes or, more importantly, care.
"Asked to name the most innovative tech company, they’ll say Apple or Google. And they’ll do it with a straight face, while sitting in a chair made by Microsoft. Wait, Microsoft makes chairs? No, not directly. But the part of that chair? Manufactured in facilities running on, you guess it, Microsoft software."
Let's look at this statement. "sitting in a chair made by Microsoft". It's pretty clear what "made by Microsoft" should mean, shouldn't it? What do you think when I say "a smartphone made by nokia"? You surely think that the smartphone was manufactured in a facility that may or may not used some software from nokia, right?
So my issue with that article is very misleading language. Can I call it newspeak?
So "made by microsoft" means neither made by microsoft nor does it mean made with sotware made by microsoft. It means it was made in a facility that may or may not uses an operating system made by microsoft. Who actually made the chair is an ingenieur using software not made by microsoft but that for reasons decided to target the microsoft operating system.
And these reasons are not something anyone at microsoft should be proud about. They worked really hard at disabling their competition with unethical methods. It's not exactly secret, anyone can read about their history: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_litigation http://www.groklaw.net/staticpages/index.php?page=2005010107...
"Transported in trucks built by Microsoft software, on roads built by Microsoft software,"
Microsoft produces software for building trucks and roads?
"Trained at a school running Microsoft,"
Said as if it wasn't a bad thing microsoft is pushing educational institutions to use proprietary software.
"If you prefer not getting hit by a bus, think about the role that Microsoft has had in making sure your baby was born healthy."
Ok, do people really think that it's not a bad thing that (according to the article) the whole manufacturing chain is dependent on proprietary software made by one vendor? Is it not bad that fucking hospitals and their instruments "run on" proprietary closed source microsoft software? Again, this was achieved by becoming a (quasi-) monopolist by methods described in the links above.
"we’re only able to do so because of generations of Microsoft leadership in technology."
What gets me is the casual tone that (as I read it) sounds like microsoft had "generations of leadership in technology" on their own merits instead of because they disabled their competition by their business behavior.
"I run our Bing for Schools program. It gets hardware in the hands of kids, teaches them digital literacy skills, and creates a safe environment for them to practice in. And when we launched, the haters emerged from the woodwork with pitchforks and torches, growling “Google! Google!” Just for fun, see the comment stream on The Verge story: Microsoft offers classrooms free Surface RT tablets with ad-free Bing for Schools"
Again, as others have said. It's cool that children are introduced to technology. It's bad that it's proprietary technology. Especially at educational institutions. When I advocate that they get android tablets instead it's not because it's from google but because it is (mostly) free and open source. Meego/Sailfish OS/Firefox OS would be fine too. But getting taught proprietary microsoft software, possibly with their first contact to this technology? No.
"But think about the number of young people who make a face when you say Microsoft. That’s an entirely different problem."
Why is that a problem? Sounds totally healthy to me.
"Because even if you know that you are working on something that will help save lives"
Actually you don't do that. You are working on something that others will build something for that will save lives. And because you work for someone who has become a quasi monopolist with unethical behavior those others will have to give a lot of money to your employer even though without you we may or may not had a world running on free and open software by now.
"or make things better for humanity"
Again, look at the list of lawsuits microsoft was in and lost. And that's only the stuff that is actually illegal, there is a lot you can do that is not illegal but still unethical. There's everything from their faked "get the facts" studies to the plan to pressure hardware manufacturers to cripple absolute basic standard functionality just to make their competitors look worse http://antitrust.slated.org/www.iowaconsumercase.org/011607/...
"I’ve pushed through a program that does good things for kids."
You mean the program that is designed to make children already dependent on microsoft software? It's called vendor lock-in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in#Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Microsoft#Vendor_l...
Tl dr; I personally don't see how anyone that thinks stuff like "know that you are working on something that will help save lives or make things better for humanity,", i.e. who has a heart and a conscience can work for Microsoft. I'm sure the working conditions aren't as bad as some people say and the products aren't as bad as people say either. For example the metro interface: I don't really see why microsoft thought it was a good idea, but I could certainly work with it with no problems if I wanted to. It'd be only a little bit annoying but as someone who has no problems with fluxbox/openbox, xfce4, gnome2, gnome3, kde4 etc. it'd be no big deal.
The thing is that it's not just microsoft, they "support" a whole industry intentionally or coincidentally designed to lock you in: Adobe Flash DRM, while atrocious, did work on linux. But it wasn't "good enough" or something. The media industry had to choose microsoft technology with silverlight. Result: netflix, lovefilm, ... only (officially) work on either microsoft windows or apple's mac os, both commercial proprietary operating systems.