It's insanely difficult to change corporate business practices.
With a company as big as Microsoft, any such change is going to be slow.
I see Channel9, Microsoft bloggers, and other similar efforts as a faction within Microsoft trying to stress the "new paradigm" - but also one that has enough credibility to command some resources.
Microsoft no doubt has many, many other such factions - ones that support Microsoft going open source
entirely, and making money off of service and updates, ones that favor a closed source software-as-a-service model, ones that think Microsoft should be very secretive and blow the competition out of the water with innovate features, ones that think
a "glass pane" approach is best (this is basically Channel9), and others.
The thing is - all those factions are right. All of them are good ideas, and could work in theory. All of them have intelligent, persuasive, and passionate people behind them.
Notice the "shared source" initiative? That's not the same idea as Channel9, not really. It's closer to open source than "corporate transparency", which is probably more useful anyway. I'd wager that alot of the people who support one support the other, but
the differences are still there.
The question is figuring out which one is best. Trying to plan for the future, and knowing that a mixture is best but to stress what ones.
Fundamental business hasn't changed for decades - only the means to carry that out. The web is an important aspect in that, but what worked in the past will work, to an extent, in the future. No need to radically change business strategy, because that's something
that could literally destroy the company.
However, some change is required if they want to continue to maximise growth potential.
I think Microsoft has more than enough time.
Oh thank god.
Did you guys see the new satellite option for google maps? You can zoom in VERY close
My first search was "CIA, Langley". Just to see how long it takes before someone shows up at the door.
harumscarum wrote:MS sells software, Google sells its users.
Are you sure that's true? Think about it.
Yeah I think its true. Google is an advertising company and pimps its users to advertisers.
I can not debate on google products that dont exist and are not even in a beta. I still say you can not say google is kicking MS arse because they are 2 different types of companies. While they both may deliver a search engine, blogs, ect I have yet to see
google release an IDE, OS,Browser, Database, Server, ect.
Why does MS need to release free software? I may be wrong but when has MS ever been big or successful in Consumer type applications (excluding the OS and Office)?
*ps - google OS will not be an os like windows - more like a fullscreen webbrowser on top of linux - available from anywhere (your webtop) etc / again prediction not fact
they should call it "Google Operating System Helper"
...yielding the inevitable: Gosh Enterprise Edition:
* sorry GOLLY is still under wraps!
re: It's insanely difficult to change corporate business practices.
..well thats the innovators dilema.. how to change fast enough to beat disruputive technologies
ms not only needs to turn the battleship again - it needs to turn it twice as fast as the Internet shift
guess all i read is people going off to work at google - instead of about huge shake ups and entire groups being moved around
yep thats difficult - takes a visionary not a sales guy (no offence steve - your in the wrong position - you need a tailored title like gates made himself for what your best at) some younger "gates like" "kid" needs to steer .. go Sampy!
Comments have been closed since this content was published more than 30 days ago, but if you'd like to continue the conversation, please create a new thread in our Forums, or Contact Us and let us know.