Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Microsoft Businesses

Major Microsoft Re-Organization 286

Robert Scoble writes "Microsoft is unveiling a major reorganization today to help get Vista out the door. Some of the major changes include the appointing of three new officers to the three major divisions. The Microsoft Platform Products & Services Division will be led by Kevin Johnson and Jim Allchin as co-presidents; Jeff Raikes has been named president of the Microsoft Business Division; and Robbie Bach has been named as president of Microsoft Entertainment & Devices Division. In addition, the company said Ray Ozzie will expand his role as chief technical officer by assuming responsibility for helping drive its software-based services strategy and execution across all three divisions."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Microsoft Re-Organization

Comments Filter:
  • Same old story... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) * on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:30PM (#13608096) Homepage
    Typical corporate reaction to a Death March Project: "This is taking too long! I know, we'll throw more managers at the problem - that'll fix it!" MS is following in the footsteps of most big tech companies. When it started, it grew rapidly and pushed out a lot of code (really! MS used to write code!) because most of the staff, including the management were working on projects. As companies "mature", and more layers of mostly useless management come in, the actual percentage of staff producing paying work diminishes and growth slows.
  • by the_mighty_$ ( 726261 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:31PM (#13608102)

    the appointing of three new officers

    Adding more bureaucracy doesnt help anything, especially in an organization already totally overbloated.

  • by Ckwop ( 707653 ) * on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:39PM (#13608186) Homepage

    Vista (n) -"A distant view or prospect, especially one seen through an opening, as between rows of buildings or trees"

    How apt, because I'm struggling to see through the Microsoft PR to see what Vista really is. We had this problem about five years ago when the marketing team got hold of .NET. .NET was mentioned everywhere from in the server family, to Office, to development tools. When PR gave way to reality, .NET was a only a development tool and was really just Microsoft's (good) answer to Java. Nothing like the revolution the PR machine would have you believe.

    They question is whether Windows Vista going to solve a problem for me? The one thing that made XP a solution to my family was the welcome screen. Once they could select their username from a list that made it possible to give each family member an individual and run them in low privileged accounts. This has turned the family computer maintainence problem from a daily hastle to a once in a year activity.

    What is Vista going to give me to make my job any easier? The only thing I would have bought Vista for is IE7 because of its nice anti-phishing features but this is going to be available in XP too. Even if this was ever a reason to upgrade, Firefox will likely have these features too in the next couple of months negating the need for Vista.

    Feature after feature has been culled from Vista. We've got all these security "enhancements" in it but I can achieve the same in XP by following the NSA's Hardening Guide [nsa.gov]. Okay, this same level of hardening may be easier for the laymen to achieve in Vista but the layman doesn't care about security. When his PC fucks up due to a huge malware problem he just buys a new computer [slashdot.org].

    The man off the street does not need vista. In fact the man on the street doesn't even need XP. There are plenty of people still using Windows 98 and having a good time. Lord knows how they keep malware off their machine but they do it.

    And what about business. WinFS might have been useful, but it was cut. Monad might have been useful, but it was cut too. They've wasted time with Maestro when the open, widely deployed PDF format already exists.

    A reorganisation of Microsoft will not help these problems and I suspect the PR team will not save them from interia this time..

    Simon

  • by ben0207 ( 845105 ) <ben.burton@g m a i l . com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:39PM (#13608192)
    Yeah, it's just adding extra bureaucracy, rather than looking at the real problems.

    I still can't work out why nobody at MS doesnt look at their nearest (and very much growing) competitors: Apple, Google and Linux aren't innovative because they hire more managers, they're innovative because they let the designers design, the coders code and the corporate bullshitters sit at home unemployed.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:41PM (#13608210)
    It's good you know more about Microsoft than Microsoft does.

    This is a sweet fucking story by the way. Nothing to discuss of course, just something negative about Microsoft so we can have our afternoon anti-M$ circle jerk.

    When I get re-org e-mails at work I ignore them. Why do you think we care about Microsoft's?
  • Oh...okay. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:42PM (#13608217) Homepage Journal
    Microsoft is unveiling a major reorganization today to help get Vista out the door.

    For a moment I hoped they were doing a major code reorganization to finally rid their code base of all the design/security flaws.

    But hey, whatever floats their boat...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:44PM (#13608237)
    Major Microsoft Re-Organization
     
    ...and I don't know why I should care about it.

    I'm sure MTV changes the VJ's sometimes.

    I start missing the delightful interesting SCO articles.
  • A Quick Comparison (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JordanL ( 886154 ) <jordan,ledoux&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:45PM (#13608244) Homepage
    Many small start up companies succeed because they do nothing but what they do best. That was why MS succeeded at first, (among other things).

    But they lose that when they add management. Some people think that its inevitable that such a thing happens to large companies, but I give you a counter example: Pixar.

    Pixar has become the number one name in computer animated movies, and have had at least half a dozen box office toppers. But they continue to produce quality and quantity quickly because they have relatively few mangement positions which do their jobs well, and there are fewer seperations between ideas and implementations.

    That is the problem that needs to be addressed, not only in MS, but in other companies like Yahoo and even some non-profit projects.
  • by dtjohnson ( 102237 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:50PM (#13608288)
    M$ is officially reorganizing but really they are ossifying. With Allchin being superseded by a marketing/sales guy, it's suddenly become a lot less likely that Windows will ever evolve into the kind of system software that is needed in the future. Most of the world, to this day, uses the Windows NTFS and its fragmentable master file table to store their data on ever-larger disk drives. Probably now we'll just see 'better and better' defragmenters as the innovation of the future. The Windows user interface will further solidify as a 2D 'click on the icon on the desktop' and the Windows computer will further 'evolve' into an appliance that plays multimedia, reads web pages, email and AIM, and plays games. Windows ossification. The only slightly interesting thing will be how Microsoft will get users to pay bigger license fees than they are paying now for the new Windows.
  • by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:50PM (#13608296) Homepage Journal
    Ok, now that's scary. It'd be a great coup, but scary becuase the software would be that good. As a bonus, they get to lock the music market with iTunes. Only problem is AAPL's market cap is $44B, they'd need to reach about 20% above that to get the board to sign on and MS "only" has about $40B on hand. I doubt they'd be keen to try and raise $20B to finance the buyout.
  • Brilliant. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Onan ( 25162 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @04:58PM (#13608391)

    I've always found that when I'm working on a ginormous software project that's literally years and years behind schedule despite drastic pruning of scope, the _exact_ trick to speed things up is to reorganize the whole company and add a few more officers.

    I experience unshakeable confidence that the one and only thing the visthorn development effort was lacking was enough officers.

  • by bigman2003 ( 671309 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:05PM (#13608448) Homepage
    Then again, Microsoft is a corporation (as is Apple, and Google). They are trying to make money. The re-organization is really a financial strategy.

    And in that case, is Apple really one of their nearest competitors? Microsoft's quarterly reports show that it PROFITS more than Apple SELLS. And that is including all of Apple's hardware.

    I really don't think that Microsoft aspires to be the next Apple...or Google...or Linux...COMBINED.

  • Money in the Bank (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Danger Stevens ( 869074 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:05PM (#13608452) Homepage
    don't forget that MS could fail to turn a profit for two or three years and continue to make its payroll in full. There's some level of security when you have $20bil+ in the bank.
  • by JordanL ( 886154 ) <jordan,ledoux&gmail,com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:06PM (#13608456) Homepage
    But what I was really saying is that MS might still innovate if only their company model was more like Pixar's.
  • by Dink Paisy ( 823325 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:16PM (#13608555) Homepage
    I agree, which is why I think this reorganization will probably be very good for Microsoft. Realigning the divisions to match Microsoft's strengths, and cutting the number of divisions in half at the same time, seems to be the right track to make the company grow again.

    Of course, Microsoft has been successful in the past few years. But I think that is despite all the seemingly random new projects and acquisitions, rather than because of them.

    In some ways, Microsoft seems like a tobacco company: they have a ton of money, and no idea how they can use it to increase their growth. The tobacco companies just went out and acquired many other companies, often large and totally unrelated ones. Microsoft seems to have acquired many software companies that aren't really related to things that Microsoft does.

    This reorganization might help that, by shoehorning them into core areas that Microsoft does well. There (if things go well...) they can adapt and profit, or else they will not adapt, and either be sold off or killed. Ideally, anyway. They could also continue on indefinitely, doing unrelated things and losing money. But at least that seems less likely now.

  • by mcc ( 14761 ) <amcclure@purdue.edu> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:23PM (#13608625) Homepage
    The main response I'm left with is that this will make it somewhat more difficult for an interested company outsider to determine exactly how much money the XBox is losing. Before, this was easy, since the Home and Entertainment division was pretty much the "XBox and everything related" division. Now they are combining divisions, so as the XBox 360 is released the financial numbers for the XBox venture are going to be combined with other stuff and thus somewhat obscured.

    What exactly goes into "entertainment and devices"?
  • by amliebsch ( 724858 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:24PM (#13608629) Journal
    *Cough* Marketing and sales people at the top. Yeah, that'll fix things.

    I hate to say it, but it's the right choice. Microsoft succeeds when it gives people what they want. As competition stiffens, its only edge is in providing a better user experience. You don't go about doing this by putting developers in charge.

  • by hobo sapiens ( 893427 ) on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @05:45PM (#13608834) Journal
    Ossifying...well put.

    If I were Bill Gates, besides permanantly sealing off the gateway to hell I have in my basement, I would break with M$ start a new company. Let's face it, the guy did some nice stuff way back in the day. By that I don't necessarily mean DOS either...we can forget how novel the concept of a "software company" or a "personal computer" was 20 years ago and he played a large part in changing that (...donning my asbestos now).

    It's amazing what you can accomplish unencumbered by Suits and PR types. Part of running a big company should be knowing when to kill it. If they don't kill it, it'll die a slow painful death from immobility. Kind of like corporate ALS, I guess.
    --
    Ok, gotta go. Mom sez no more slashdot and boy does she sound mad!
  • by xgamer04 ( 248962 ) <xgamer04@NosPam.yahoo.com> on Tuesday September 20, 2005 @06:18PM (#13609119)
    Brooks' Law:

    "Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later."

    --Fred Brooks [wikipedia.org], The Mythical Man-Month [wikipedia.org]

    (Yeah, yeah, it's a "re-organization". Call it whatever makes you feel better.)

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Working...