Microsoft's new mission... clear as mud.

Not sure if any of you have been following the latest public email out of Microsoft's new leader, Satya Nadella. It was perhaps the biggest waste of bandwidth I've ever had the misfortune of reading, and that's saying something. Anyway, I just stumbled upon this guy's analysis and thought it was outstanding:

http://www.mondaynote.com/2014/07/13/microsofts-new-ceo-needs-an-editor/

Particularly his re-written statement:

"This is the beginning of our new FY 2015 – and of a new era at Microsoft.
I have good news and bad news.
The bad news is the old Devices and Services mantra won’t work.

For example: I’ve determined we’ll never make money in tablets or smartphones.

So, do we continue to pretend we’re “all in” or do we face reality and make the painful decision to pull out so we can use our resources – including our integrity – to fight winnable battles? With the support of the Microsoft Board, I’ve chosen the latter. We’ll do our utmost to minimize the pain that will naturally arise from this change. Specifically, we’ll offer generous transitions arrangements in and out of the company to concerned Microsoftians and former Nokians.

The good news is we have immense resources to be a major player in the new world of Cloud services and Native Apps for mobile devices. We let the first innings of that game go by, but the sting energizes us. An example of such commitment is the rapid spread of Office applications – and related Cloud services – on any and all mobile devices. All Microsoft Enterprise and Consumer products/services will follow, including Xbox properties.

I realize this will disrupt the status quo and apologize for the pain to come. We have a choice: change or be changed.

Stay tuned."

If only that was what actually came out of Redmond. Unfortunately, I think the ship is still rudderless.

A lot of corporate suits simply speak a language that us mere mortals can't understand. These people are just completely out of touch with the real world.

The sad thing is that Microsoft is under a very real, imminent threat, and it seems they still haven't fully recognized it.

They are under attack on nearly all fronts. There is nothing Microsoft does that only Microsoft could do... they are an also-ran in every segment they compete in. And rather than reassess their real strengths and focus in on them, they're deluding themselves into thinking that they can just say what they want to be and suddenly they become it.

If I were at the helm of Microsoft, this is what I would do RIGHT NOW....

1. Release a service pack for Windows 8/Server 2012 that helps the system determine whether there's a touch screen attached or not. If not, default to the Windows 7 interface and scrap Metro unless the user specifically asks for it (make it an icon, like LaunchPad).
2. Discontinue the Surface lineup, post-haste. Let the OEMs have it and stop competing against them. Recognize that the mobile ship has sailed and we missed the boat. We're not going to own this market.... PERIOD.
3. Spin Nokia off, sell it, whatever. No use wasting effort and attention on that lost cause.
4. Development efforts are re-focused onto dominant mobile platforms (Android/iOS) and PC platforms Windows/Mac/Linux (yes, I said Linux!). Office becomes FREEmium for students and consumers or very low cost. Much like a drug dealer, Microsoft needs to get people hooked again. If people want advanced features (beyond what LibreOffice, et al. can provide) then they can pay an additional cost - same goes for support).
5. Focus on the enterprise. Meet with clients large and small, find their pain points and make sure Microsoft is addressing them. Reestablish that MIcrosoft is the preeminent enterprise and IT solutions provider.

These are all things that could help them regain ground and potentially assert their position in today's market. But this vague, delusional, hot mess of a mission that they're currently on is just insanity. Microsoft has always been at its best when they released a turd that flopped and they had to go back to the original formula that worked and refine it for a new release.

That's what they did following Windows Vista. Now they need the same approach with the whole darn company.

Anybody who has read any snippets of Satya Nadella’s memo to Microsoft employees will go away a bit befuddled by his over use of opaque management speak. I am sure Nadella is a smart guy, but usually people who use such management language are just using it to sound clever and professional.

I am a huge opponent to marketing and management speak, if you can't say what you mean in plain enough English, then don't bother. Sure, if you are giving a talk to fellow experts, then you can use some jargon, but if there is anybody more 'general' in the audience, stick to clear communication.

The article gets it right, does slip back into management speak a couple of times, but gets to the nub of what Nadella was supposed to be saying.

can help diagnose thinking malfunctions.

Click to expand...

should have been "can highlight wrong thinking"

– Strategy: Couple the Windows + Office licenses to help OEMs see the light; Embrace and Extend Office competitors.

Click to expand...

Should be, "Promote our products and get our customers to be enthusiastic about them", don't know what "Embrace and Extend Office competitors" means - give them a bear hug?

Microsoft had a great business plan that gave them utter dominance of the PC industry. Force PC makers to pre-install Windows on all PCs. Use their inside knowledge of Windows to out-manoeuvre their Office competitors and then own the business world, where most people used PCs. Then use that to extend its dominance in the home when people look for a home computer.

Then, in the 2000s they had the Windows everywhere mantra. Extend Windows to tablets, games consoles, mobile phones, cars, fridges, TVs.... you get the idea. It was looking good, why shouldn't the now familiar Windows be in everything. Then something happened.

Apple and Google,. People started to use phones and then tablets powered by iOS and Android for much of their digital needs, the half backed idea that was Windows Phone and Windows CE largely failed.

Now that people use desktop PCs less and less (we still use them, sure) Microsoft's Windows everywhere strategy is in tatters. I think Satya Nadella is the one to pull Microsoft back from a tech Stalingrad, I hope he does, but his 'clear as mud' memo has suddenly given me less confidence, not more.

louishen said:

Apple and Google,. People started to use phones and then tablets powered by iOS and Android for much of their digital needs, the half backed idea that was Windows Phone and Windows CE largely failed.

Click to expand...

This is the biggest boat that they missed and I fear that they are too far behind to catch up which is a shame since not only is more competition good for the consumer but, aside from a lack of apps, I don't think I've ever actually read a negative review of Windows Phone 7/8 (although I'm sure they exist). This is entirely Microsoft's fault as well since both they and Google were caught off guard by Apple's quite successful push into the mobile space (the only difference being that Google seemed to care enough to leverage its weight and reputation such that they were successful).

If Microsoft's new focus is going to be the mobile and cloud world, they're going to have a rough road. The mobile world is going to be difficult - if they haven't managed to secure a strong foothold yet, I don't see why that'll change especially since the competition between Android and iOS is so strong that they keep pushing each other to innovate. The cloud world they can be successful in and in many respects, they already are (Azure is apparently doing really well and as far as I can tell, things like Exchange services still rule in the enterprise). At a consumer level, OneDrive is amazing (the fact that it has a full Office compatible online suite alone makes it infinitely more useful than any other cloud service and it blows something like Google Docs out of the water). I don't think success in the cloud market is enough though.

Alas three words Chris.

Bring back Steve!!

Who would have believed that?

It was that numbskull that got them into this mess in the first place.

cwa107 said:

It was that numbskull that got them into this mess in the first place.

Click to expand...

That doesn't say much for the future of the LA Clippers....

Microsoft is a mess. They know it, which is why Satya Nadella is writing such vague platitudes in his memos. They more than missed the boat - ship - train...all gone.

In the 80's and 90's they had a captive market. Their customer service was fabulous. I could call with an issue and they would rush me new discs or provide a solution immediately. Apple was not in a strong position to challenge them. Then they changed. If you called them they charged per minute and forget a free fix. A new atmosphere of arrogance became the norm.

They have attempted to entered the mobile, phone, touch screen, tablet, search engine, cloud storage markets way too late. Playing catch up is not working for them. Say what you will about Steve Jobs but he was able to see the potential for all of those markets, turn Apple around and make it a hugely successful reality.

I was a diehard Windows/Microsoft lover since the early '80's. Now I would love to get my whole office changed over to Apple. Why? Reasonably priced new OS's and apps, few updates that ask politely to install, less virus issues, higher quality hardware.

If Microsoft would get back to developing a quality operating system that would be less buggy, virus prone, and more intuitive to operate that would be a huge step. Then get back to quality customer service. I realize that with all the PC manufactures, that is a huge job. They are charging into too many areas they are not prepared for and not fixing and perfecting what they started with.

Lisa

Holy Hannah! Not good....

Microsoft Will Cut up to 18,000 Jobs | Re/code

That's 18,000... unreal. That's more than half the size of the large, international company that I work for.

What's more interesting about that number is that 18,000 is only 14% of their employee base.

lclev said:

Microsoft is a mess. They know it, which is why Satya Nadella is writing such vague platitudes in his memos. They more than missed the boat - ship - train...all gone.
Lisa

Click to expand...

A business is a living entity. Many have a really good and productive youth, then grow into a powerhouse, then…

Like a human, they grow old and get stodgy and slow. Capitalistic history is littered with examples from the time that the railroads almost ran the country. The only company that I can think of, offhand, that really beat the aging process is IBM and they sort of took an anti aging cure rather than actually growing younger. Microsoft is just another has-been that is trying to fit itself into a muscle shirt and shorts in the hope that the young people on the beach will not notice the wrinkles.

And, if I may give a possibly unpopular prediction, one day Apple will get a board of directors who bring over the Harvard MBA attitude of, "Why are we spending so much money on customers - it is the stockholders that we need to keep happy!"

A long time from now, I hope, but it is inevitable.

cptkrf said:

The only company that I can think of, offhand, that really beat the aging process is IBM and they sort of took an anti aging cure rather than actually growing younger.

Click to expand...

I think there are a couple of companies now that are flexible enough to weather the signs of aging (I sound like an aging cream commercial here). Apple seems to set consumer trends in many markets which will help them since they don't often play catch up (they might in terms of functionality *cough* iOS *cough* but they entrench themselves well in new markets) and I think Google is flexible and successful enough in a whole bunch of areas (although certainly not all *cough* social networking *cough*) to weather any major shifts in the tech industry. Both companies are also not complacent, something MS surely was back in the 1990s.

cptkrf said:

The only company that I can think of, offhand, that really beat the aging process is IBM and they sort of took an anti aging cure rather than actually growing younger. Microsoft is just another has-been that is trying to fit itself into a muscle shirt and shorts in the hope that the young people on the beach will not notice the wrinkles.

Click to expand...

Brilliant analogy here!

And, if I may give a possibly unpopular prediction, one day Apple will get a board of directors who bring over the Harvard MBA attitude of, "Why are we spending so much money on customers - it is the stockholders that we need to keep happy!"

A long time from now, I hope, but it is inevitable.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's inevitable, but it sure is a high risk. I think they can mitigate that risk significantly by buying their stock back and go private.

cptkrf said:

And, if I may give a possibly unpopular prediction, one day Apple will get a board of directors who bring over the Harvard MBA attitude of, "Why are we spending so much money on customers - it is the stockholders that we need to keep happy!"

A long time from now, I hope, but it is inevitable.

Click to expand...

As someone who survived the John Scully days at Apple I think they have already had a taste of that. They were cranking out more machines than they could possibly sell at the time. To make matters worse I think more than one customer questioned just how much Apple was listening to them. Not to say that it can't happen again. Just that to some extent it's a "Been There. Done That" scenario.

As someone who survived the John Scully days at Apple I think they have already had a taste of that.

Click to expand...

That's what happens when you take a Pepsi Cola salesman and turn him into a high tech CEO.... no innovation. Just sell more Pepsi! (Or in that case Apples.)

I think you're right though. I just hope they keep that big painting of Steve Jobs hanging in the board room to remind them.

I remember his tenure vividly. The number of Macs being cranked out annually was ridiculous. Some of the models weren't bad in and of themselves but they were not what people had come to expect.

One of the things I read about that period suggested that he and some of the management team tried to translate the Pepsi mentality and methods to Apple. After all Pepsi had a good deal of brand loyalty too. There was a fundamental difference though: If you drink a Pepsi and want another one you'll buy iy almost immediately because it's cheap. That didn't motivate customers purchasing pricy gear that generally lasted a long time.

My opinion FWIW is that all really large companies are doomed to fail eventually. Growing large gives significant advantages, but of necessity takes away the ability to quickly pivot and shift. Still, as long as the competitive environment changes incrementally the big guys can use size to overcome flexibility and speed.
Inevitably, however, something comes along (environmental or technological) that fundamentally changes the playing field. When that happens the too-big-to-fail-in-their-own-estimate companies generally wait too long to move and ultimately lose out entirely. Look at what happened with Kodak and the film business. They lost out even though they literally owned digital photography when it came out.
Worst of all it was their internal competition more than external that doomed them.

RavingMac said:

My opinion FWIW is that all really large companies are doomed to fail eventually. Growing large gives significant advantages, but of necessity takes away the ability to quickly pivot and shift.

Click to expand...

Google just admitted that fact. They are very successful and without a doubt a powerhouse, but the Man (don't remember who it was - a high mucketymuck) said that they are very aware that the days when they could turn on a dime are long gone. And that despite their wanting to stay lean and mean, it is impossible to just have a Board of Directors on top and engineers doing the work. Without the usually maligned middle managers, each boss would have thousands of people reporting to him/her and that would obviously not work.

But, at least they know the problem. How many more companies have the attitude of "We have been very successful in the past, therefore we will always be successful." I would say about 95 percent of very large companies, for a guess.

That's true to some extent but there are some exceptions. In the 1989's there was a series of business management books written by Tom Peters (with a few different coauthors) He mentions several examples where companies were able to mitigate those problems to some extent. One of them was Kelly Johnson's aircraft design team (Skunkworks). In many respects it was separate from the rest of the company.

IIRC Apple did something similar with either the Apple IIGS or Mac design team. I think it was the Mac team though because the idea was to differentiate it from things they had done previously.