Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

It's starting to feel as though the philosophy in Microsoft is less about 'Windows everywhere', but more about relevance. Product teams are created for various niches (e.g. Surface, Azure, etc.) but those teams now have a large degree of autonomy in pursuing their goals.

As an example, the Office team's goals aren't to prop up Windows as a platform by providing a sufficient but substandard product on other platforms, but rather to make a great product; as a result, Office 365 for iPad. The Surface team isn't about making a platform to foist Windows 8 onto people or pressure tablet makers, it's about making a great personal tablet/laptop frankenstein.

Likewise, Azure is (reportedly) a great backend for apps on all kinds of platforms, especially on iOS, rather than a 'competitive advantage' to make sure that Windows 8 and Windows Phone 8 work great with each other and only with each other.

I really feel as though this is the right direction for them, and that it's producing some really great results so far.




It's like they finally got around to reading Dave Winer's post from 13 years ago (!) on the idea of the "strategy tax" (http://scripting.com/davenet/2001/04/30/strategyTax.html):

Sometimes products developed inside a company such as Microsoft have to accept constraints that go against competitiveness, or might displease users, in order to further the cause of another product. I recognized the concept but had never heard the term.

An example. Consider a company that develops both a Web browser and a word processor. The product team for the browser might get lots of input from users saying "We'd like a better editor in the browser." It would be natural to give the users what they want. So they put the feature in their project plan, but when it comes up for review, the CEO shoots them down. "They should use the word processor," he says.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: