RSSThe Buzz: Will MS Reorg Even Matter?
By Ed Oswald | Published September 21, 2005, 5:08 PM
On Tuesday, Microsoft announced a massive reorganization into three new divisions each headed by its own president. Also announced was the retirement of Windows head Jim Allchin after Windows Vista ships in late 2006. The following is a selection of what analysts and bloggers are saying about the changes.
"If Microsoft's premise is right, the new structure would better facilitate cross-product integration and improve product development. If Microsoft is wrong, the reorganization could slow down work in progress." - Joe Wilcox, Microsoft Monitor
"There's been a little re-org over at MSFT and it looks like while the seven PL centers still exist, three of them just became a little more important than the others. So now we know the players, but it's time to hear the game plan."
- Michael Gartenberg, Jupiter Research
"When some people turn 30, they assess their life's progress. When Microsoft turns 30, it dramatically restructures itself... The reorganization certainly comes at an ideal time. The company is facing competition on all fronts, and it just so happens that it's celebrating its 30th birthday this week. It's too early for a mid-life crisis, but change is definitely in the air. The question to be answered in the future is: can adding more oversight inject some zest into the company?" - Technology community Ars Technica
"Overall these changes speak to the why behind Vista's improvement and the direct correction of a major problem in Microsoft that was critical to its future. Don't discount this, these changes are both significant and far reaching." - Rob Enderle, The Enderle Group
"Our goal in making these changes is to enable Microsoft to achieve greater agility in managing the incredible growth ahead and executing our software-based services strategy." - Steve Ballmer, CEO of Microsoft
"Thank goodness, I felt like we've at least been thrown a bone. Microsoft certainly needed a reorg - something like a good, vigorous shaking of one of those snow-globes. Now, how it's all going to play remains to be seen. But I hope that as part of the good shaking that some of the cruft breaks off and gets swept out and some of the cream rises to the top." - Mini-Microsoft, a Web log of an anonymous Microsoft employee
I think Microsoft should create divisions that act like separate companies. I do not know everything Microsoft owns/does but here is my breakdown:
Windows:
client, server, mobile.
Internet:
IIS, IE, MSN, VBScript, ASP, ASP.NET, HotMail
front office:
MS Office, Money, small office accounting.
back office:
SQL Server, Exchange Server
Each division (Windows, Internet, etc.) would have a senior vice president, and each product (Windows, Office, SQL Server) would have a vice president. Doing it this way could force the individual products to stand on their own.
I am not asking that IIS, SQL Server, or Exchange be written to run on other operating systems, but they should be able to say no to ideas from other divisions. For instance, Exchange and Outlook go hand-in-hand, but if someone from the Outlook team thinks of a feature that is truely original and they go to the Exchange team and ask them to make it happen the Exchange team can say "No."
The .net framework should have it's own division that consults with the other divisions about namespaces that are specific their interest.
Score: 0
|Keep in mind this reorganization isn't for our benefit.
Individually, we do not matter, as home users, it's great having us, but the fish they want to fry aren't rushing down to their CompUSA with Sunday's flier.
Score: 0
|Will MS Reorg Even Matter?
Not in my opinion...at least as far as it genuinely affects me. In 5 years, I'll still be dragged into threads about how bad their latest OS is, how horrible their software is compared to this and that...
Score: 0
|"If Microsoft is wrong, the reorganization could slow down work in progress."
- Joe Wilcox, Microsoft Monitor
That's what I'm afraid of. I can just see it now: "Windows Vista. Coming Fall, 2007."
Score: 0
|I don't think they will allow their flagship product to be delayed again unless it was a genuine issue of quality with regard to security or performance. They're more likely to cut additional functionality for the sake of security, performance, and getting it out the door.
It's the rest of the product lineup that would probably end up delayed... Office 12 is likely a top-priority too, but... they can deal with delaying it because of the vast changes they're making to the suite... they can justify it as additional user-testing.
Score: 0
|Oh yeah - the world will be gone if VISTA won`t come tomorrow . . . shiver . . .
LOL - D.B.D.D.H.K.P.U.K.S.P.
Score: 0
|mmm...where did I first hear this separation into three divisions before ? was'nt it somewhere along the makings of anti trust lawsuits against msn in the USA and Europe ? was'nt this the wish of a large part of computing america ? in any case, nowadays there's lots of serious and challenging competition so they better do something notwithstanding the fact that they are and will remain a very dominant party in the computing game. lets just hope that in the end, us users will reap the greatest benefits...
Score: 0
|You really need to learn your history before spouting off such rhetoric... The Clinton Administration wanted to see them split into 3 companies... not 3 divisions. You know... like AT&T was back in the day. Furthermore, they are not splitting... they are consolidating from 7 to 3. That is a reduction, not an increase.
As you point out, there is tons of competition out there right now from traditional companies AND the Open Source arena... no government has a leg to stand on in an antitrust suit against them right now... OEM's that still ship only Windows do so only by customer demand and their own loyalty to Microsoft-- not strongarming from Microsoft. Besides, even if you buy a PC with Windows, nothing stops the consumer from making a conscious decision to use another product such as the umpteen zillion flavors of Linux. (We will not discuss the fact that probably 85% of computer users are not competent enough [with computers] to run Windows, let alone Linux)
Score: 0
|I think that number (85%) is extremely generous.
Score: 0
|hahahaha yeah. I'd say somewhere around 98% lol
Score: 0
|LOL! Indeed...
Score: 0
|Only problem is that, in nearly all cases, a tier one PC can only be purchased preloaded with some version of windows. In theory you can get a refund, but it's not really very easy.
Score: 0
|This is true, but that doesn't change the fact that the vendors do that by their own choice rather than strongarming from Microsoft... at least, that's true at this point, "thanks" to the agreements with the justice department et al.
Score: 0
|The *actual* number is 96.34527. And I can verify that. Just ask my ass.
Score: -1
|Companies that sell pre-installed Linux
http://www.addonshop.com/
http://www.emperorlinux.com/
http://www.ibexpc.com/
http://www.linare.com/
http://www.linspire.com/
http://www.linuxcertified.com/
http://www.microtelpc.com/
http://www.outpost.com/
http://shoprcubed.com/
http://www.sub300.com/
http://www.systemax.com/divisions.htm
http://www.walmart.com/
http://www.xandros.com/
http://tuxmobil.org/reseller.html
http://www.us.debian.org/distrib/pre-installed
http://www.linux.org/vendor/system/index.html
http://tuxmobil.org/ (general information)
No OS
(Sabio made by Quanta, like Dell-latitudes)
http://www.avadirect.com/
http://www.asimobile.com/
http://www.powernotebooks.com/
Score: 0
|