Comment by programminggeek | Hacker News Reader

Comment by programminggeek | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

programminggeek

It's worth noting that Ballmer has publicly laughed in the face of two of the biggest innovations in the last 5 years - the iPhone and the iPad. Now they're racing to catch up.

It seems like Ballmer, Sinofsky, and Gates pushed out people building products along those lines - J. Allard and co. only to pick up their vision later with Metro UI and Windows 8. (J. Allard and his team were behind Xbox, Zune, and Courier which basically gave a roadmap to Metro UI, Windows Phone 7 and Windows 8. J Allard also wrote a famous memo about internet connected apps back in 1994.)

Sinofsky and Ballmer also pushed out Ray Ozzie who was trying to make cloud computing a meaningful part of Microsoft's future.

Now that all the big vision is gone, where is Microsoft going to go? Continue to be a fast follower of Apple and Google?

Microsoft is a company without vision because it already achieved what it set out to - a computer on every desk. They won that battle. In the meantime, people's desks already have computers on them and are putting computers in their pockets, purses, and appliances. Microsoft was too busy with traditional computers to have a vision for mobile computing.

Maybe Microsoft should change their company goal to a computer in every pocket. Or a Microsoft app on every home screen. Or every computer to be powered by Windows. Or maybe a computer on every surface.

Without a big goal, Microsoft is going to be just another big tech company like IBM. It won't change the world again. It already did. Now it's just following everybody else.

>It's worth noting that Ballmer has publicly laughed in the face of two of the biggest innovations in the last 5 years - the iPhone and the iPad. Now they're racing to catch up.

Copy pasting from one of my previous comments.

I'm tired of these kinds of statements. The golden rule is that companies' employee publicly have to put down their competitors' new strategies. Imagine if Balmer said the iPad is great it's going to kill us, or if Jobs said 7" tablets are good but we'll make only in two years, so wait for us to make it. Or even Andy Rubin saying that Android UI is laggy compared to iOS, fix coming in 18 months. All of them(except maybe Jobs) would be summarily fired or atleast will be forced to recant their statements immediately on threat of being fired. It's almost part of their job to publicly mock their competitors, or their shareholders will dump the stock.

Privately they could be pissing in their pants about their competition, but you almost never hear about that except after maybe 5 years from unnamed sources. Care to think for a moment why?

The more puzzling thing to me is, why do so many otherwise smart people actually think that these people publicly say what they really believe and really believe what they publicly say?

Thing is many of us that saw the iPhone knew how full of ridicule Balmer is right when he laughed about it. Nobody expects a CEO to admit that competition will probably destroy them. But actions count more than words and when asked he could have been tactful.

Did you see Eric Schmidt or Larry Page laughing about Apple's devices?

No, instead they were busy with building Android, as they could see the writing on the wall - namely that the future belongs to tightly controlled mobile devices, and they can be left out of the equation, unless they provide an alternative.

Well, maybe it's my personality, but I expect people to be basically honest. I realize people lie constantly, but why should we believe anything that they say if we assume they are lying?

As in, if I believe that Steve Ballmer is lying about the iPhone being an overpriced product that won't sell, why should I believe him when he says that Windows Phone will sell millions of devices and that it's worth developing for?

I realize that nobody wants to admit that their competitors are making a good or better product than you, but I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to tell the truth.

Maybe it's a midwest thing, but if we assume that Jobs, Ballmer, and Rubin are all lying through their teeth, why would we ever buy their products? That is even dumber than believing they are telling the truth. The only thing dumber than trusting someone is buying from someone you don't trust.

"if we assume that Jobs, Ballmer, and Rubin are all lying through their teeth, why would we ever buy their products?"

Because the merits of a product have little or nothing to do with the public statements of their makers.

Ever had to use a lawyer? You'll probably find no lawyer that hasn't 'lied' in some court case. In fact, it's a lawyer's job to present his client the best way in a court case to get the least punishment.

What about buying a car or used car from a car dealer? Your salesman is 99.9999999% a liar.

>why should I believe him when he says that Windows Phone will sell millions of devices and that it's worth developing for

Why are someone's words or opinions enough to sway you? Can't you do your own research on the company's track record, the public demos, the public sales data etc. to make a (semi)informed decision? Ballmer could be telling the truth but he might be wrong in retrospect since he's heavily involved in the decisions on Windows Phone and would've changed course if he thinks it wouldn't succeed.

Also, the politically correct word is 'spin', not lying. There are entire professions where you need to spin your way through. PR, Law, selling cars etc. come to mind. Perhaps take a poll on HN about how many people lied or hid the truth in an interview. I think you might find yourself leaving HN after seeing the results if you're so fixated on absolute honesty.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com