←back to thread

371 points greggyb | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.203s | source
Show context
addicted ◴[] No.41978723[source]
This article doesn’t understand what was fundamentally wrong with Ballmer’s leadership and what Nadella actually changed.

The specific technologies that were successful is irrelevant. Microsoft has and continues to invest in nearly every computer related technology that may come around the corner or they got late on.

The problem with Microsoft was everything went through Windows. The entire company was designed to promote Windows.

This was the fundamental flaw with Microsoft that Nadella changed. He quickly not just made Windows just another part of Microsoft’s business, to a great extent he actively devalued it.

The fact that Ballmer invested in Azure, etc before Nadella would all be irrelevant because under Ballmer Azure would have remained a red headed step child to Windows, so it’s unlikely to have seen much success under him anyways. Same goes for pretty much everything else Microsoft is doing right now.

replies(12): >>41978980 #>>41979581 #>>41979633 #>>41980308 #>>41982340 #>>41982669 #>>41983142 #>>41983652 #>>41985347 #>>41985738 #>>41988158 #>>41990754 #
Hypergraphe ◴[] No.41982669[source]
I'm not sure that devaluating Windows is a good strategy at all...
replies(4): >>41982803 #>>41984256 #>>41985351 #>>41985590 #
belter ◴[] No.41982803[source]
Bad strategy for Microsoft but clearly a wining strategy for the World.
replies(1): >>41982863 #
1. rbanffy ◴[] No.41982863[source]
Selling licenses is not where the money is. Selling subscriptions to corporations so that every corporate-supplied computer (including Macs) pay Microsoft for something, be it Office or a full Windows+Office+Sharepoint license. All things considered, they can give Windows for free and they'll still profit from it as an enabler for further Microsoft lock-in.