Break Microsoft Up 355
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Tom Worstall writes in Forbes that the only way to get around the entrenched culture that has made Microsoft a graveyard for the kind of big ideas that have inspired companies like Apple, Google, and Amazon is to split the company up so as to remove conflicts between new and old products. With Ballmer's departure, instead of finding someone new to run the company, bring in experts to handle the legal side and find suitable CEOs for the new companies. 'The underlying problem for Microsoft is that the computing market has rapidly left behind the company's basic strategy of controlling the machines that people use with operating-system software,' says Erik Sherman. 'The combination of mobile devices that broke Microsoft's grip on the client end, and cloud computing that didn't necessarily need the company in data centers, shattered this form of control.' Anyone can see how easily you could split off the gaming folks, business division, retail stores, and hardware division says John Dvorak. Each entity would have agreements in place for long-term supply of software and services. 'This sort of shake up would ferret out all the empire builders and allow for new and more creative structures to emerge. And since everyone will have to be in a semi-startup mode, the dead wood will be eliminated by actual hard work.'"
Re:Amusing (Score:5, Funny)
Why don't all these brilliant analysts go make billions if they are so smart?
You don't have to be a successful automotive engineer or car designer to take one look at the X-90 [wikipedia.org] and see that someone somewhere, in more ways than one, fucked-up monumentally.
There's your car analogy, for simplicity's sake. ;)
Re:What's good for others apparently is no good fo (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What's good for others apparently is no good fo (Score:5, Funny)
I think that's on the back of their business cards, in very small print.
Re:What's good for others apparently is no good fo (Score:2, Funny)
Or you could understand windows 8?
There is no need for a start button becasue the desktop IS the start button.
What it needs is better Conveyance and Continuity.
Don't know what I am talking about? then STFU about UI.
Don't forget everyone told MS what was wrong when the changed from Dos 2 to 3, and again when they went from 4 to 5*. 3.11 to 95. AND when they changed from 2000 to XP, and so on.
*yes there where peopel writting about the mistakxe completely ignoring what a pile of crap DOS 4 was.