←back to thread

371 points greggyb | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.788s | 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 #
chucke1992 ◴[] No.41985590[source]
The thing is that OS is not important these days as you can apps on thin clients now and a lot of folks are spending most of the time within apps and doing nothing else.
replies(1): >>41988987 #
1. Hypergraphe ◴[] No.41988987[source]
I think that it is not exact. OS is as important as yesterday since you need them to run your containers that provide your services used by your thin clients. This is still the backbone of everything. But you have a point windows kinda lost the servers battle.
replies(1): >>41989178 #
2. chucke1992 ◴[] No.41989178[source]
yeah. I think they have did some refactoring in OS though, to make it more modular. Not sure what are their long term plans for Windows. They probably would have benefitted from some handheld UI for sure.
replies(1): >>41992522 #
3. Hypergraphe ◴[] No.41992522[source]
They tried a handheld UI, with Windows phone but it failed. I think mostly because their UI was too far from what people expected aka something looking like ios (Android UI is almost a copy of iOS UI) and also because they came into the market too late with too few product innovations to be appealing. With 5% of market shared, this was not worth the cost, for devs on the plateform. If they want a comeback in the smartphone industry, maybe they have something to play with copilot and AI. Like an Android with free AI agents out of the box.