David Maynard writes:
You seem 'surprised'.
Not surprised at all, given what I know of him and the company (and
their history). But reading the latest trendy books on management for
tips when you're in charge of a multi-billion dollar company is a bit
worrisome. CEOs of large and successful companies are supposed to be
in a position to write books about their own successful techniques,
rather than try to pick them up from others.
Would you be surprised to hear the 'geeks' read all
the latest 'how to' technology books and trade journals?
Some do, some don't. A lot of trade rags aren't worth reading.
Well, now that is definitely true and gets back to the 'vision' thing.
IBM's computer vision went back to the early mainframe days when keeping
one running for 8 hours straight was big news and the vision that put them
on top was the 200% support paradigm. Remember the 'white shirt, black tie,
pocket protector army?
It's the stuff of legend. There were good reasons for it; it's just
that IBM tried to apply the same philosophy to very different markets,
unsuccessfully. It seems self-evident that what works for mainframes
would not work for PCs, but apparently this never occurred to IBM,
even though it certainly occurred to others.
But now others are making similar mistakes. One reason why Microsoft
has such a terrible time trying to break into the server market is
that it has absolutely no clue on how that market works. To
Microsoft, everything is just like a desktop, just as IBM saw
everything as a mainframe. A lot of people at Microsoft don't even
know what a mainframe is, and yet they are trying to sell into a
comparable market.
You don't 'produce' it, you gather it from many sources rather than
expecting one person to be omniscient.
Alas, most companies don't hire on the basis of intelligence. And the
larger they get, the more unintelligent deadwood they acquire.
I tend to agree, as long as the upgrades are relatively minor 'features'
but not terribly different to the primary mission.
Even if they are something new and different, most people using
computers don't want to continually change to something new and
different. They just want a tool that works; and once it works,
they're content to leave it untouched forever (and in fact that's what
they prefer).
Would you be willing to buy a new washing machine every year, each one
with a completely different way of operating and a whole new set of
instructions?
It's notable that you didn't include anything prior to 3.1, though, because
there was a major functionality shift at that point (I'd cut it off at
Win95) so it *is* possible for an 'upgrade' to delineate a major shift, if
it's functionally significant enough.
Yes. But remember that the market was microscopic in those days
compared to today. The inertia is much greater now. Additionally,
users today are much more likely to have all they need in current
operating systems, and so are even less likely to change.
And I'm not so sure we may not be near another one as 32 bit
transitions to 64, single core to dual core, and, perhaps, the
long touted 3D Desktop.
First we need a reason for these things. Most users have no reason to
care about any of these developments. Many users can still get by
with Windows 3.1 functionality; a far greater number are happy with
Windows 95 (tons of people are still running it, and I don't ever
expect them to change).
Well, they're 'big' now but that's about the only similarity to the IBM of
old. Completely different visions, primary business, and business models.
But increasingly similar management mistakes. DEC seemed very
different from IBM, too, but it eventually succumbed to the same
management errors.
This is where I disagree and intended the previous example to show. Even
the most brilliant buggy whip CEO can't stave off the automobile nor does
his brilliance in buggy whips give him one whit of insight into making good
cars. He's probably better off as the dreaded 'MBA type' that's
transportable to any industry 
If he's truly brilliant, he'll see the end of buggy whips coming and
steer his company into other domains before it happens. But CEOs tend
to fall in love with whatever brought them their first big successes,
and then they don't want to think about anything else later on.
We may be coming to a divergence here because I don't think it takes 'the
genius' for a company to survive. Plain old stupidity, of course, can kill
anything but there's a whole world in-between genius and idiot.
You can have a smart management team that serves the same purpose as a
genius. It doesn't really matter how you do it, as long as you get
the critical mass of intelligence together at the top.
Yes, I agree. But wasn't MSN a Bill Gates era idea?
Yes, I believe so. Bill Gates has never been gifted for domains
outside of his own, though. Just as Microsoft has no clue when it
comes to servers or mainframes, it has no clue when it comes to ISPs.
I agree. It's just not the kind of thing the 'great idea' originator does
because his idea is for the thing he started, not diversification. That
generally comes from those 'management types' who don't have a vested geek
interest in some pet project.
Yes.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see what develops. I don't have any
stock in any of these companies, so I don't care for the most part,
but I am concerned for the stability of my operating system and
applications and hardware, as I don't like to break things that are
working, and I don't like to spend money or time needlessly.
--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.