Maybe that's the problem at Microsoft: they think they can solve problems by throwing lots of people at them. They put together large teams to build products. And large teams require managers.
I didn't know Microsoft had a problem, they seem to be doing pretty well. They have some good products. Apple being successful doesn't necessarily translate to Microsoft sucking. They are both damn good companies.
@volski: "Apple being successful doesn't necessarily translate to Microsoft sucking."
Completely true, and as Steve Jobs famously said in 1997:
"If we want to move forward and see Apple healthy and prospering again, we have to let go of a few things here. We have to let go of this notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft has to lose. We have to embrace a notion that for Apple to win, Apple has to do a really good job."
@volski: "I didn't know Microsoft had a problem, they seem to be doing pretty well. They have some good products."
Personally, I use Microsoft Excel and Microsoft Exchange, and I feel they are best in class. For every other product they offer, I feel there are better alternatives.
The notion that Microsoft has a problem stems from the fact that most of the new product lines that Microsoft has put to market in the last 10 years, few have been a success. Microsoft's profit comes mostly from licensing and servicing Windows and Office.
Meanwhile, in the last 10 years Apple has introduced iTunes, iPod, iPhone, and iPad -- all mega hits. What makes it a sad sight to see is that every time Apple comes up with another iDevice, Microsoft tries to compete, and it simply hasn't worked out for them. Windows Marketplace, MSN Music, Zune, Kin, Windows Mobile 6.5, Courier -- the list goes on.
A dose of reality, Microsoft was in the smartphone market long before Apple. WinMo 6.5 was the last in a line of OS releases from the CE lineage that was incredibly successful. Apple for all its success with iPhone did not truly pioneer this space, they embraced and extended to borrow a term.
IBM was a damn good company for many years after the industry had effectively left their technology behind. Even today they make serious money; if that satisfies your criteria for doing well.
They just didn't grow in proportion to the industry.
And they've had to cut and refocus on their core products to maintain profitability.
Microsoft is now in a very similar situation.
Fumbled opportunity might not drag down today's numbers, but it's still a problem.
"Apple being successful doesn't necessarily translate to Microsoft sucking." - absolutely.
I remember reading somewhere (I'll post the link if I find it) that in terms of computers, Apple and Microsoft actually occupy very different positions in the market. Apple have something like 91% market share in desktops and laptops priced above $1000, while Microsoft dominate cheaper priced machines (how many Apple computers can you buy below $1000?). A person who is a Mac user is unlikely to voluntarily switch back to Windows, they tend to keep buying Macs despite the price tag (product differentiation justifies the price in their mind). How many people spend over $1000 on a new PC? Gamers and people who need/want advanced hardware, but they are in the minority of PC users.
Obviously, this is in relation to the historical relationship between Apple and Microsoft, now Apple is mainly a consumer devices company in terms of revenue, and Microsoft will go toe-to-toe will Apple in the tablets and smartphones markets soon. Will be interesting to see how the relationship fares as this happens.
I didn't know Microsoft had a problem, they seem to be doing pretty well.
In the mobile market? How about anything next-generation web? Social media? Microsoft doesn't seem to be doing well anywhere except the increasingly unimportant desktop and Office suite space.
Windows Live, Bing, Xbox, Servers, Cloud Services...
It's easy to bash on them, but they make quality products in a diverse range of markets. Sure they fail and fail big, but who the hell doesn't? If you have made anything successful, you've probably failed 100s of times. It comes with the territory.
Um, not to get all defensive, but we at STB are making quite a bit of money. It's probably over a million a quarter per developer. I don't know many people who can say that. ;)
Are you only including developers, or all the people who work on a product? I imagine that MS has a rather large team of non-developers working on products as well.
You want to be careful with that metric. You know the cleaners don't make much money, why not fire them?
I did actually mean all the people that work in development on the product. That is, in MS terms, all SDE, SDET, and PMs. I happen to know this figure is accurate for Windows (over a million per developer), although that doesn't include sales/marketing, administrative costs, etc. As for the cleaners comment, I don't really get your point.
Anyway, my statistic wasn't really meant to be taken that seriously, just proof that server is actually making money over here.
As I remember correctly, Office saves everything else at MS right now (by a large margin, followed by OSes). The gaming has recently been making more money than they are loosing (and will probably become their next important money maker). But the rest of the revenue makers are so low compared to those three that it's not even funny.
I suspect that they will probably announce service based offering (consulting) type in the long run (5-10 years maybe?) because they might not be able to sustain high margins of profit on Office and Windows sales due to competition and alternatives.
Right now they don't seem to have a great vision either, so we'll see were they are heading...
So I guess that we can say for sure (2009-2010 numbers) that online stuff is now loosing money, windows is now doing better that office, and gaming is quite behind but stable and profitable (albeit a lot less that office or windows). Let's be frank too, were talking about billions here, so those segments are quite big.
That's okay though - At least MS is smart enough to make an investment in a nascent technology. I bet everyone is losing money on the cloud, or barely breaking even.
Even Rackspace's Net Income is only 10 million dollars, coming off of 178 million dollars worth of revenue.
MCS (Microsoft Consulting Services) has been a business component for them for a long time. Whereas someone like IBM-GS seeks to make as much margin as they can off the services side, MCS is in the unique position of being willing to make smaller margins because the licensing revenue is significant. That attitude has been changing in the past 5 years but it is still part of the MCS culture.
I didn't know Microsoft had a problem, they seem to be doing pretty well. They have some good products. Apple being successful doesn't necessarily translate to Microsoft sucking. They are both damn good companies.