- Status
ronindaosohei
Distinguished
- Aug 25, 2006
- 47
- 0
- 18,530
Interesting suggestions, pretty much all successful turn-arounds have focused on the same core fundamental principles:
- Cutting costs to reign in expenses
- Focusing on the company's core businesses
- Heavy emphasis on the customer
To some extent axing Bing and Xbox might fit the first two criteria. Microsoft's in a tough spot right now for a number of their businesses...ironically, these aren't Bing or Xbox, which are both relatively predictable businesses compared with Windows and Office both of which are decades old cash cows but are seeing their existence threatened by new business models. Unfortunately, Microsoft is left with "the innovator's dilemma", to make the changes most might consider necessary requires that they do something that will cannibalize their existing businesses. Unfortunately, Microsoft's strategy in the last decade has been very poor missing out on several key opportunities they should have dominated, while sacrificing their most important asset (the partner network). They seem to be headed down a road where they essentially want to end up a bit like Samsung, which isn't a strong move for them strategically as it's highly competitive.
To be really successful today Microsoft needs to take a long hard look at who their customer is and what business they want to be in. For example, Bing tries to be in the advertisig business, but Microsoft's not really in the advertising business, that's not where they've excelled and put their focus. Windows Phone tries to be in the consumer business but that's not really their business either. Microsoft has always excelled at providing software platforms and being in the business of supporting developers, but lately Google has crushed them in that role. They've supported the partner network in monetizing a client base but they've been competing with their own partners rather than helping to make those partners more successful. They've supported businesses in productivity and that's the one area they've continued with fairly successfully, but for the most part they aren't in a position to do that across the board, their strengths are mostly in software platforms and services but they haven't created compatibility with those platforms and services so they've busy trying to promote their own devices, which is an expensive approach in a field where they have little expertise, I'd be wary of that approach.
- Cutting costs to reign in expenses
- Focusing on the company's core businesses
- Heavy emphasis on the customer
To some extent axing Bing and Xbox might fit the first two criteria. Microsoft's in a tough spot right now for a number of their businesses...ironically, these aren't Bing or Xbox, which are both relatively predictable businesses compared with Windows and Office both of which are decades old cash cows but are seeing their existence threatened by new business models. Unfortunately, Microsoft is left with "the innovator's dilemma", to make the changes most might consider necessary requires that they do something that will cannibalize their existing businesses. Unfortunately, Microsoft's strategy in the last decade has been very poor missing out on several key opportunities they should have dominated, while sacrificing their most important asset (the partner network). They seem to be headed down a road where they essentially want to end up a bit like Samsung, which isn't a strong move for them strategically as it's highly competitive.
To be really successful today Microsoft needs to take a long hard look at who their customer is and what business they want to be in. For example, Bing tries to be in the advertisig business, but Microsoft's not really in the advertising business, that's not where they've excelled and put their focus. Windows Phone tries to be in the consumer business but that's not really their business either. Microsoft has always excelled at providing software platforms and being in the business of supporting developers, but lately Google has crushed them in that role. They've supported the partner network in monetizing a client base but they've been competing with their own partners rather than helping to make those partners more successful. They've supported businesses in productivity and that's the one area they've continued with fairly successfully, but for the most part they aren't in a position to do that across the board, their strengths are mostly in software platforms and services but they haven't created compatibility with those platforms and services so they've busy trying to promote their own devices, which is an expensive approach in a field where they have little expertise, I'd be wary of that approach.
Philippe Leblanc
Honorable
- Mar 14, 2013
- 13
- 0
- 10,510
I'm no business expert and I don't know where tech economics are heading. But if I were to become the next MS CEO, I'd start looking at what the other two giants are doing. Google developed its own desktop OS (Chrome) and mobile OS (Android) and is offering both for free. Apple also has its desktop OS (Mac OS) and mobile OS (iOS). iOS has always been "free" (you are paying a premium for the iPhone) and in recent past, Mac OSX has gone from cheap ($20) to "free".
So I certainly see a pattern here. Now MS is not like Google or Apple so I don't think they should just start giving their software away for free. But maybe its time to reexamine at the concept of big expensive upgrades. I think we can all agree that the trend is going toward micro transactions. I'd wager people are much more willing to pay $30 every year than $150 every 3 years.
So coming back to MS, if I were the CEO, I'd try to move windows towards a more evolutionary approach. So instead of releasing a major revamp every 3 years for a lot of money, why not start selling smaller more incremental point releases once a year for $20-$30. Trends have shown that the average non technie user is not fond of big changes. Look at all the people still on windows XP. I also think evolutionary upgrades would also benefit tech savvy users. For the less tech inclined people, an evolutionary approach would provide them with a slower changing stable UI which they are comfortable with. For the technically inclined, you'd get a more stable and optimize system under the hood to perform computationally intensive tasks like gaming or 3D rendering etc. And with the smaller price tag of the modest upgrade, I think more people would be willing to pay it. It's just human psychology.
We've entered the era of micro-transactions. People are much more willing to spend $1 twenty times versus $20 at once. I think MS should embrace this way of doing things if they want to thrive in the future. Wow, this ^ is armchair quarterbacking at its best. Hahaha well I hope you all have a great day.
So I certainly see a pattern here. Now MS is not like Google or Apple so I don't think they should just start giving their software away for free. But maybe its time to reexamine at the concept of big expensive upgrades. I think we can all agree that the trend is going toward micro transactions. I'd wager people are much more willing to pay $30 every year than $150 every 3 years.
So coming back to MS, if I were the CEO, I'd try to move windows towards a more evolutionary approach. So instead of releasing a major revamp every 3 years for a lot of money, why not start selling smaller more incremental point releases once a year for $20-$30. Trends have shown that the average non technie user is not fond of big changes. Look at all the people still on windows XP. I also think evolutionary upgrades would also benefit tech savvy users. For the less tech inclined people, an evolutionary approach would provide them with a slower changing stable UI which they are comfortable with. For the technically inclined, you'd get a more stable and optimize system under the hood to perform computationally intensive tasks like gaming or 3D rendering etc. And with the smaller price tag of the modest upgrade, I think more people would be willing to pay it. It's just human psychology.
We've entered the era of micro-transactions. People are much more willing to spend $1 twenty times versus $20 at once. I think MS should embrace this way of doing things if they want to thrive in the future. Wow, this ^ is armchair quarterbacking at its best. Hahaha well I hope you all have a great day.
stevejnb
Honorable
- May 6, 2013
- 609
- 0
- 10,980
Heh, generally astute observation Leblanc, but your numbers are likely a bit off. People are willing to pay $1 forty times rather than pay $20 one time, if it's packaged and marketed correctly. A quick look at the actual numbers behind a cel phone plan that offers a "free" cel phone VS one where you buy a phone up front will make this pretty clear. Oddly enough, people oftentimes harp on about how expensive it is to use the "free" alternative to some previously expensive good or service when they in fact end up paying more with the "free" service in the long run.
JD88
Honorable
- Feb 25, 2013
- 1,424
- 0
- 11,660
Let’s simplify things a little bit.
The future of computing is in the cloud which means Windows as we know it is going to be obsolete in about 5-10 years. Native apps just won't be necessary as everything will be done on web apps or a browser. Microsoft has admitted as much when it said Windows 10 would be cloud based.
This is CLEARLY visible in current trends. Just look at web based photo editors, video editors, document editors, the game streaming technology Microsoft demoed running on a low end Nokia phone. The cloud gets more powerful daily and no PC application is safe. The PC as more than a web browser and media player is going to be obsolete and soon.
This means Microsoft's primary revenue stream is going to be gone within that time frame as no one needs Windows anymore. Again, MS knows this and are trying to fundamentally change their business model to something that will still be relevant. This means one of two things: Online services which are monetized using subscription fees and advertising similar to Google's model and/or selling hardware at a big price premium like Apple and Samsung do.
Problem is, MS isn't really very good at either one. They're fine now as long as businesses and consumers still believe they are Windows reliant, but once that stops the company is in real trouble.
Should they sell Bing and Xbox?
Well that's a tough question. Selling Bing and Xbox doesn't really make sense though as I believe they have a greater purpose in Microsoft's future than their current profit figure suggest.
Xbox is big for a reason a lot of people don't get yet: Game streaming. Those mediocre AMD processors aren't going to last for more than maybe 3-5 years in terms of keeping up with the latest games, but they weren't designed to and don't need to. Microsoft wants a presence in your living room for game streaming. They are going to charge you a subscription fee to play games over a cloud based streaming service once internet connectivity catches up. They've already demoed it. That's what the new Xbox is really about.
Bing is questionable, but it's the only real alternative to Google which gives it some value. Microsoft shouldn't let go of that.
Now Bing and Xbox aren't going to save MS on their own so Microsoft is going to have to innovate in some way and they need a CEO that is able to see that and look away from the status quo. Sure things look fine now, but look at where Blackberry and Nokia were 3 years ago. Things turn around fast.
The future of computing is in the cloud which means Windows as we know it is going to be obsolete in about 5-10 years. Native apps just won't be necessary as everything will be done on web apps or a browser. Microsoft has admitted as much when it said Windows 10 would be cloud based.
This is CLEARLY visible in current trends. Just look at web based photo editors, video editors, document editors, the game streaming technology Microsoft demoed running on a low end Nokia phone. The cloud gets more powerful daily and no PC application is safe. The PC as more than a web browser and media player is going to be obsolete and soon.
This means Microsoft's primary revenue stream is going to be gone within that time frame as no one needs Windows anymore. Again, MS knows this and are trying to fundamentally change their business model to something that will still be relevant. This means one of two things: Online services which are monetized using subscription fees and advertising similar to Google's model and/or selling hardware at a big price premium like Apple and Samsung do.
Problem is, MS isn't really very good at either one. They're fine now as long as businesses and consumers still believe they are Windows reliant, but once that stops the company is in real trouble.
Should they sell Bing and Xbox?
Well that's a tough question. Selling Bing and Xbox doesn't really make sense though as I believe they have a greater purpose in Microsoft's future than their current profit figure suggest.
Xbox is big for a reason a lot of people don't get yet: Game streaming. Those mediocre AMD processors aren't going to last for more than maybe 3-5 years in terms of keeping up with the latest games, but they weren't designed to and don't need to. Microsoft wants a presence in your living room for game streaming. They are going to charge you a subscription fee to play games over a cloud based streaming service once internet connectivity catches up. They've already demoed it. That's what the new Xbox is really about.
Bing is questionable, but it's the only real alternative to Google which gives it some value. Microsoft shouldn't let go of that.
Now Bing and Xbox aren't going to save MS on their own so Microsoft is going to have to innovate in some way and they need a CEO that is able to see that and look away from the status quo. Sure things look fine now, but look at where Blackberry and Nokia were 3 years ago. Things turn around fast.
Johnpombrio
Distinguished
- Nov 20, 2006
- 251
- 73
- 18,870
It's all about the share price. Buy a company, any company. Get the buzz going about how much money you will earn, just make up a number. The stock price rises and the major investors and company executives take their cut. Buyback your stock, a worthless investment of capital for the company but great for the buzz and the stock price. Sell off or spin off a chunk of the company, good for temporarily raising the stock price, may not be good for the company but WTH. Share price, share price, share price. SELL.
Duckhunt
Honorable
- Sep 22, 2012
- 339
- 0
- 10,810
I think they need someone younger. They new insight and vision. Uncle fester has been great at destroying shareholder value.
These other has beens could be good on the board but not CEOs. I can tell you where Microsoft can make Xbox a success?
How? Well you need to put in an alarm clock in Xbox and count down timers for cooking meals. This needs to be built into it. Yes is is crazy. This is important because when the kids have enough of it. The parents can use it to help cook healthy meals. The key part of it is it can be downloaded later. Everything is about speed and not bloat.
I want xbox to have downloads on BMI and other health content things. Xbox is critical to Microsoft , it is the future of computing. Xbox could be a way they could do job hiring. You put in your resume and it searches for you. This kind of things could help make Xbox kick out the competition.
These other has beens could be good on the board but not CEOs. I can tell you where Microsoft can make Xbox a success?
How? Well you need to put in an alarm clock in Xbox and count down timers for cooking meals. This needs to be built into it. Yes is is crazy. This is important because when the kids have enough of it. The parents can use it to help cook healthy meals. The key part of it is it can be downloaded later. Everything is about speed and not bloat.
I want xbox to have downloads on BMI and other health content things. Xbox is critical to Microsoft , it is the future of computing. Xbox could be a way they could do job hiring. You put in your resume and it searches for you. This kind of things could help make Xbox kick out the competition.
@Duckhunt I agree that Xbox is essential but not in the bloatware that you suggest. Xbox is a great way to introduce up and coming designs such as the metro interface. Kids and young adults will be able to easily be able to pickup win 8.1 devices and be able to relate.
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,764
- 3,376
- 143,290
Metro is the worst thing to come from M$ in awhile. I would rather run Vista than deal with Metro.
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,764
- 3,376
- 143,290
I cannot stand to look at metro in any form. It is a fugly UI and needs to die. I don't like its stupid clutter mess of tiles. A child could have come up with a better looking UI that that POS.
- Apr 27, 2009
- 37,764
- 3,376
- 143,290
Stephen Elop is a good representative of the kind of corporative thinking that has made America smaller and smaller. The kind of thinking that pretty much killed Kodak and Polaroid. He's the absolute opposite to the kind of thinking that leads Korean Samsung or Japanese Sony. Or Mitsubishi, or Matsushita. The opposite of Steven Jobs too.
Elop is not a builder of great things. He's the sell off-, give the money to shareholders-, sell the minimum investment cost product as long as there are buyers-, kind off CEO. The one that achieves a short peak on the stockmarket so he can cash in his bonus, but wrecks the backbone and assures that the company cannot ever rise again.
Microsoft has ignored supporting the market strength of PC-Windows with consumer applications that require the power of a PC. That's Ballmers single biggest mistake.
If they retire XBox, they leave the entire small computing, consumer computing, eventually business computing, server computing,.. to Sony. Playstation will become the new household standard - and then the world. Because tiers of computing are always conquered from below. ...If you let them.
Elop is not a builder of great things. He's the sell off-, give the money to shareholders-, sell the minimum investment cost product as long as there are buyers-, kind off CEO. The one that achieves a short peak on the stockmarket so he can cash in his bonus, but wrecks the backbone and assures that the company cannot ever rise again.
Microsoft has ignored supporting the market strength of PC-Windows with consumer applications that require the power of a PC. That's Ballmers single biggest mistake.
If they retire XBox, they leave the entire small computing, consumer computing, eventually business computing, server computing,.. to Sony. Playstation will become the new household standard - and then the world. Because tiers of computing are always conquered from below. ...If you let them.
I'd also like to say this: Microsoft earns good money. That money should be spent on building the company's future. There's nothing wrong with Bing, XBox and Windows Phone. MS should stick in there, and look out for gamechangers. The Japanese competitors never fold in, just because someone else is the temporary market leader. They keep at it as long as they have a great product. And MS have.
Bing is in some ways a better search engine than Google. It often has a better chance of delivering the info you want, rather than what someone has paid Google to make you find. I don't care how many who thinks Google "has won". Google is a monster, and sooner or later people will find out.
Bing is in some ways a better search engine than Google. It often has a better chance of delivering the info you want, rather than what someone has paid Google to make you find. I don't care how many who thinks Google "has won". Google is a monster, and sooner or later people will find out.
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
-
-
Question Recently my PC has started to randomly restart/turn off ?- Started by dreskyyy
- Replies: 8
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 3K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram