• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Microsoft Should Be Broken Up

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Ummm, calling for Microsoft to be broken up is soooo 2000. I thought Google was the company everyone was hating on now. :D

Microsoft has grown too cumbersome and needs to be broken up, according to Vanity Fair writer Kirk Eichenwald. Eichenwald appeared on "CBS This Morning" today to discuss his examination of what he calls Microsoft's downfall and Microsoft's lost decade.
Click to expand...
 
Except that the modern computer as we know it is all thanks to Microsoft. Plug and Play and DirectX single handedly changed the way we use computers from a consumer level.

Don't like em, go use Linux for all your consumer needs. We'll keep your room ready for when you move back in.
 
Does this guy not understand the kind of revinue MS brings in still?
 
PS, Vanity Fair we thank you for giving us Demi Moore naked with a painted suit on way back when.....
 
Soooo...writer from Vanity Fair decides that after it determines Microsoft is having a decade of messing up and apparent non-dominance in its field that it should be broken up, something that's usually done to companies that are large anti-competitive monopolies. Yup, lotsa business acumen here.
 
I think he is confusing restructure with broken up. It is never good for a company to be broken up, Microsoft needs to decide what business they want to be in and go with it. Personally I think their power has always been in software, they need to get back to their roots and innovate new products.
 
Haha didnt read the quote "microsoft needs to figure out what it wants to be when it grows up."

Talk about talking out of ones ass!
 
Non dominance? Is he referring only to the mobile market?

I'm pretty sure he's not talking about the desktop market.
 
Whiny East Coast ignorant genius talking heads calling for and end to a wildly successful company... go figure.
 
SkribbelKat said:
This has got to be the number one post of the day for it's reason, sense, and hard-hitting critical analysis. I also like how you used pretend television profanity, "fracking" (either that or you're talknig about natural gas harvesting) and then rambled about genital organs. You're awesome!
Click to expand...

"Hard hitting critical analysis"?

LMAO, ok...
 
What is it about several BILLION dollars per year in profit makes this guy think he knows anything?

Break this up...........dumbass.:eek:

I think Microsoft is doing just fine, but what does my opinion count for? About as much as this guy's, I'd say.
 
Vanity fair? LOL Microsoft isn't going anywhere for a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time.
 
In some ways, MS is a huge failure. MS hasn't managed to come out with a new successful product category in over 20 years. They have, and have only had, two successful products, the OS and Office. And, these two survive because of excessive federal IP laws and market entrenchment, not because MS is especially effective. Maybe keyboards, LOL.
 
Now that i think of it - as i see more and more companies shift into a Software-as-a-service model rather than the tradition Software-as-a-product, i question if Microsoft will continue to thrive with their usual business tactics. Hmm..
 
Stone Cold said:
In some ways, MS is a huge failure. MS hasn't managed to come out with a new successful product category in over 20 years. They have, and have only had, two successful products, the OS and Office. And, these two survive because of excessive federal IP laws and market entrenchment, not because MS is especially effective. Maybe keyboards, LOL.
Click to expand...

Xbox?
 
nOrVow said:
Now that i think of it - as i see more and more companies shift into a Software-as-a-service model rather than the tradition Software-as-a-product, i question if Microsoft will continue to thrive with their usual business tactics. Hmm..
Click to expand...

I think they see the writing on the wall with the whole SaaS thing and are kinda sorta heading that direction with some of their products:

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/office365/online-software.aspx
 
k1pp3r said:
I think he is confusing restructure with broken up. It is never good for a company to be broken up, Microsoft needs to decide what business they want to be in and go with it. Personally I think their power has always been in software, they need to get back to their roots and innovate new products.
Click to expand...

Choosing a single business (particularly software) right now would be a painful proposition. An ecosystem is what is going to win the battle of devices, and to have an ecosystem, you must have roots in all departments (Google--web for pc, android for phone and tablet; Apple--iTunes for PC, iOS for phone and tablet; Microsoft--Windows for phone, tablet, and PC) and back that up with content that is desirable (apps, music, TV, movies).

Microsoft is a large company, so making large changes cannot happen quickly. If you ask me, for a company as big as it is, they are moving at a breakneck pace. Could you imagine a the Microsoft of 5 years ago releasing a phone OS, desktop OS, and a tablet almost simultaneously? For better or worse, the company is undergoing radical change. It will be extraordinary interesting to see where this new, more focused way of operating takes them.

I'm no business mogul, but this is my .02.
 
Stone Cold said:
In some ways, MS is a huge failure. MS hasn't managed to come out with a new successful product category in over 20 years. They have, and have only had, two successful products, the OS and Office. And, these two survive because of excessive federal IP laws and market entrenchment, not because MS is especially effective. Maybe keyboards, LOL.
Click to expand...
Xbox?that makes it 3 products,look at apple for ex,they have had 2 succesfull products iphone and ipad,the second beeing an extension of the first. If u think about it apple has only had 1 succesfull product,the iphone ,and it was enough.
 
gokuz said:
Xbox?that makes it 3 products,look at apple for ex,they have had 2 succesfull products iphone and ipad,the second beeing an extension of the first. If u think about it apple has only had 1 succesfull product,the iphone ,and it was enough.
Click to expand...

Apple's success began with the iPod, and then that became the iPhone which then became the iPad.

Basically the same product 3 times.
 
ballistic90 said:
Apple's success began with the iPod...
Click to expand...

Huh?
250px-Apple_iie.jpg
 
ballistic90 said:
Apple's success began with the iPod, and then that became the iPhone which then became the iPad.

Basically the same product 3 times.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was about to the say the same thing. Apples vertical integration of their devices is a slick move. Unfortunately, everything is locked and closed from hardware to software.
 
Sticking to what Microsoft calls their core competency (software) was the reason why they sold most of the buildings they owned worldwide (except for the Redmond campus) and rented office space instead. To follow the same logic, they should also stop producing hardware, but a company this size needs to diversify, it's the only way to survive, especially at a time where the traditional software models are moving fast (cloud). When hardware is just an extension of software (Surface for Windows 8), the decision makes sense.

Surely they should restructure and they do just that very frequently (look at the number of names and reorgs the Windows division had since its creation), but I fail to see from the web article why they should split up. It mentions only stack ranking, which is not a reason to split up into different companies, but one to fire the oldish Steve Balmer and reinvent a happy company, so it's probably in the printed article that should go out soon.

Whether Microsoft splits into a group of several companies or not, the current departments and subdivisions should probably act as independent companies already, ones that make a profit on their own, not sucking other more successful departments' profits.

It would probably still make sense to keep some common structures, for instance the research labs, because multidisciplinary research is so much more inventive and productive. The R&D department is really one of Microsoft's greatest strength.
 
I love the Xbox live arcade. They have a wider selection 2D platform games. :)
 
Stone Cold said:
In some ways, MS is a huge failure. MS hasn't managed to come out with a new successful product category in over 20 years. They have, and have only had, two successful products, the OS and Office. And, these two survive because of excessive federal IP laws and market entrenchment, not because MS is especially effective. Maybe keyboards, LOL.
Click to expand...

No mention of the enterprise? Take off the horse blinders.
 
Well considering how well the last government break up of a company turned out (breaking up Ma Bell to give us ATT and Verizon essentially) and that most non-government break ups generally only occur when companies are on the verge of bankrupcy (Motorola selling mobile division to Google) or when they want to make a paradigm shift of business direction (IBM shedding laptop division when they became a services company) I don't think an MS breakup would be prudent or practical.

I think the whole phone and tablet based market is still in enough of an infancy that you can't write them off in that game. They still own the enterprise market worldwide and their OS and PC software are still standards for many. They could probably refocus or reorg as others have noted but I don't think they really have any dead weight that they need to cut loose. Even with the advice coming from the pinnacle of business world acumen this is stupid advice ... oh wait ... this is from Vanity Fair and not the Wall Street Journal ... nevermind, it is JUST stupid advice :D
 
Stone Cold said:
In some ways, MS is a huge failure. MS hasn't managed to come out with a new successful product category in over 20 years. They have, and have only had, two successful products, the OS and Office. And, these two survive because of excessive federal IP laws and market entrenchment, not because MS is especially effective. Maybe keyboards, LOL.
Click to expand...

What about the Xbox?
 
Azhar said:
Don't they own Bungee too? Quite a successful game developer if I recall.
Click to expand...

I remember that after the last Halo, Bungee departed from Microsoft and took its own path (I think they are developing a game for Activision-Blizzard at the moment).
 
xbox.. please tell me you guys know the red ring ring of death is still going on :p
 
OK, so this Vanity Fair writer must still have the granny smith Apple green lipstick stain ring still on his penis.
 
I think this is a bad idea. Before the merger, Micro and Soft didn't do so well because of their silly company names.
 
gabzor said:
xbox.. please tell me you guys know the red ring ring of death is still going on :p
Click to expand...

Well, the discussion is if a MS product has been successful, not if it has defects. So far, I would say the Xbox was a hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top