1. Make IE 6, 7, and 8 fully standards compliant. Don't say it can't be done. MS puts out hotfixes all the time. It can be done.
2. Release all Windows development tools for free. Free as in free for commercial use too. Build all the Windows apps you want, please!
3. Revamp the Windows API. Make it stupid easy to programmatically create and manipulate all types of media files and office documents.
4. No more DRM on anything. Tell Hollywood to get bent.
5. Simplify the Windows EULA: You own this copy of Windows. You can sell it or install it on as many machines as you like, even your friend's machines. No license keys required. You say you didn't even pay for this copy? Good for you. Enjoy.
5. Force OOXML designers to create their documents in OOXML using only Notepad. Watch format miraculously improve.
7. Open dust bin, deposit Vista source code, wash hands, walk away.
Kill Vista and start the a new operating system that focuses on creating a lightweight core you can grow and expand for the next 20 years.
This means stripping the OS to it's bare essentials and allowing modules to implement different features.
Kill the visual effects and focus on stability, speed and security.
This should be as small as possible, without loosing any of the items just mentioned.
Ship a version of Office lite, that strips out many of the extra features from Word/Excel/Powerpoint and provides the basics. Ship stripped down copies of Office '07 if necessary.
Be working on an online version of office. It's not important now--but in 5 years when Google's stolen your Office clients you'll be wishing you had a competitor.
Make syncing to/from Office and Web Office seamless. This means I can write my document in Word on my desktop and with no effort edit the document online. Leverage the user base here.
I don't see users shifting away from Office completely--more than likely there will be a balance between desktop and web users. Microsoft can and should dominate both.
Give up on the Yahoo! deal and partner with more content producers--say AOL, by providing advertising in order to expand your reach.
Your Facebook/Digg deals just aren't doing a lot here--focus on vertical niches that are profitable and then slowly fill the cracks.
Make advertising rates extremely competitive--perhaps even consider taking a loss until you build momentum in the market.
Adopt a pay-per-action model for search advertising instead of pay-per-click. There are some issues with this--but it's not impossible.
Advertisers are only paying for leads and sales now, merging affiliate marketing and search engine marketing--two fields that have been closely related for years.
You're not going to beat Google by copying them, you've got to change the game somehow.
Re-focus your efforts on search. MSN is the easiest engine to game right now--without decent search results, search advertising will never work.
Consider search engine acquisitions and heavily investing in researching new ideas (think AI, Semantic, Social, Personalized searching).
Do what you did with Halo again. That seems to have worked well for you.
Just a few thoughts.
I do believe the Yahoo! deal will not help Microsoft. Sure the reach Yahoo! has helps Microsoft--but there are other (better) ways to achieve this.
Not to mention without the core (good SERPs) search advertising just won't be effective.
Much of what I've said can be summarized in focus on the core and strip everything else. It's weighing you down.
I actually like what they're doing with Windows 7. The lightweight core is going to be great, hopefully. I remember hearing that they were going to implement previous functionality via virtualization. This is also the right direction.
With these in mind, I would commit to these steps:
In Business: I would throw my eggs in the virtualization basket. I would be promoting the hell out of Virtual Machine Manager 2008 and reorienting the entire business strategy around it. I would make sure it trounced VMWare infrastructure and brought using virtualization over a thousand-PC cluster into the imaginations of every CTO in the country.
With this, I would be building a Microsoft BSD from FreeBSD. This BSD would be marketed as a JeOS type system with virtualization in mind, and I'd be working with Oracle and IBM and every major builder to certify their products for it. This would be completely managed from VMM 2008 and would be touted as Unix for business with the ease of use that Microsoft has made with its server line. (I'd also give back to the BSD community any speed tweaks and such, and try to get as much positive press as I could from that -- and deliniate between open source good, gpl bad.)
I would also extend this to development and allow a simple license for MSDN developers the legal right to pull an image from a cluster and work with it on their own machines, as well as web interfaces that allow an untrusted user (such as an outside developer) to log into a single system that is encapsulated by a sandbox. (That's a lot harder than it sounds, but I'm thinking encapsulated zones and highly granular security.)
I would introduce the pricing structure as per-instance. I would drop the price to the point where it is more cost-effective to run virtualized systems than dedicated systems currently, and encourage people to get the beefiest boxes they can.
On the desktop, I would introduce virtualization through the idea of a "sandbox." I would make new images as simple as a few clicks, and copying images with the same ease of use. Then, hammer in the idea, "If you want to test something, like a new program, or if you're afraid you might break something, just make a new sandbox!
On the web, I would drop back to creating things that create value to the user. I think Live has lost sight of that. I think they've been thinking too strategically in the domain.
Can you name a single thing on msn.com or live.com where they do things better than the competition? Yahoo doesn't seem to do things much better either, but they did it earlier. Google did it better.
Picking up a few web 2.0 startups might not be a bad idea, but I think a more interesting approach would be to set up a subsidiary of 500 people or so and have them all set up as groups of 5-10. (A designer, content creation, liason, and other staff that allow a 2-3 person core to do what they're best at.) Have them throw as many things as they can on the web and see what sticks. Don't worry about monitization until later, create it as a startup culture. Things that are successful (by some metric) and monitizable get their founders a bonus where 100k is the minimum. At specified points, they have the option of moving it into mainline MSN with a larger team. They can either be a lead developer on that team or start with something new.
This would flood the net with new startups that may be competing with each other, but a few sensational products would be all that was needed to invigorate msn.com/live.com.
i guess, i would get rid of windows os-core, replace it with linux/bsd (more likely) and provide a nice skin on top. this would most likely destroy all hopes of having linux / osx having any resonable dominance on the desktop anytime soon. and a unix-y core would be quite welcome among the hackers too. world-domination with a vengeance :o)
edit: one thing that i realized is that _is_ possible to dress unix up quite nicely. an iron fist with a velvet glove.
another thing to do would be to buy out symbian. with mobile phones threatning to mete out the same treatment to desktops, as was done by desktops to main-frames in the not too distant past, it might prove to be quite useful.
I'd make virtualization go straight to the core. Then I'd extend the virtualization into smaller and smaller places until you can run indivual apps/windows in micro VM's without "feeling it." I'd also work on making the VM's interoperate securely via a bridge to allow seamless copy/paste and networking and remove the feeling of being different VM's. So long as the bridge is secure, the OS itself will be more secure. I would open source the bridge code.
Now the problem of legacy compatibility can be contained to VM's with support for the previous gen and the latest kernel can be free to update itself.
I'd clean up security and put out some smaller security X-prizes to make reporting exploits more profitable than selling them elsewhere.
I'd look to IBM or other companies that have already worked their way from a monopoly to a dominant commodity player.
Specifically I would work on making the brand name as strong as possible, and put a very high value on quality assurance and scalability. I'd try to set up a reputation of, "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft." I'd try to dominate the mid-low server market with ease of use for business applications and become the "premium brand".
Microsoft isn't going to beat Google or Apple or Redhat at their respective games.
I've seen a few people mention the idea that you could buy every venture backed company in the valley (including facebook) for $45B. That might be a bit much, but if you went on enough of a buying spree you could probably consolidate the advertising properties in a way that could be competitive with yahoo.
whoever takes over the market share in mobile/cell phone advertising will be the winner eventually - this is very new in north-america but in asia it has become a huge market concentration and the key local players are already trying to tap the market. MS should buy one of those companies who are good with that platform/technology.
1. Release a new revision of the OS every 24 months.
2. Make a console, like the xbox, but for offices. $1000 for word, excel, outlook and IE, and a box to run it on.
3. Buy EMI (or some other label) and give away a lot of songs with zunes.
if you are microsoft, you need to realize that you will never do anything that is going to win over the tech community. Refocus on the young, un-opinionated demographic. These 16-24 year old average college student doesn't care if you ripped off seattle computer company, or if you have a crappy OS, they like your gaming console, so buy some things they are interested in, and make services that bundle with the OS. Ive heard rumours of a socialized OS, this is interesting, this could make $$$. Dont even need 45B.
I'm a 20 year old college student - slap bang in the middle of your demographic - and I care they have a crappy OS, enough to move to a Mac. But that might also be because I'm also part of the tech community - by the virtue of reading YC?
i will start doing things that apple and google will do with that kind of budget.
- Fix search engine to make it fast and efficient (like google because ad revenue is all about search).
- Create innovative marketing campaign like apple to increase the market share of my search engine usage.
- Introduce new and innovative h/w products like apple.
- Convert all my apps as web 2.0 apps with optional search and ad feature.
I think all of these can be done with way under $45B budget.
Try to salvage their desktop market. This means licensing or purchasing the necessary software to make Windows usable out-of-the-box. DVD, MP3 codecs, compression and decompression utilities, basic compilation tools and more should be included by default in every Windows installation. Also: speech recognition, translation software, telephony applications and more.
Set up a commercial software repository and get into the business of managing a marketplace rather than just providing desktop software. Prepare the company for the day it will need to give away its operating system to attract users for ancillary services.
[+] [-] snorkel|18 years ago|reply
2. Release all Windows development tools for free. Free as in free for commercial use too. Build all the Windows apps you want, please!
3. Revamp the Windows API. Make it stupid easy to programmatically create and manipulate all types of media files and office documents.
4. No more DRM on anything. Tell Hollywood to get bent.
5. Simplify the Windows EULA: You own this copy of Windows. You can sell it or install it on as many machines as you like, even your friend's machines. No license keys required. You say you didn't even pay for this copy? Good for you. Enjoy.
5. Force OOXML designers to create their documents in OOXML using only Notepad. Watch format miraculously improve.
7. Open dust bin, deposit Vista source code, wash hands, walk away.
[+] [-] Xichekolas|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Jasber|18 years ago|reply
This means stripping the OS to it's bare essentials and allowing modules to implement different features.
Kill the visual effects and focus on stability, speed and security.
This should be as small as possible, without loosing any of the items just mentioned.
Ship a version of Office lite, that strips out many of the extra features from Word/Excel/Powerpoint and provides the basics. Ship stripped down copies of Office '07 if necessary.
Be working on an online version of office. It's not important now--but in 5 years when Google's stolen your Office clients you'll be wishing you had a competitor.
Make syncing to/from Office and Web Office seamless. This means I can write my document in Word on my desktop and with no effort edit the document online. Leverage the user base here.
I don't see users shifting away from Office completely--more than likely there will be a balance between desktop and web users. Microsoft can and should dominate both.
Give up on the Yahoo! deal and partner with more content producers--say AOL, by providing advertising in order to expand your reach.
Your Facebook/Digg deals just aren't doing a lot here--focus on vertical niches that are profitable and then slowly fill the cracks.
Make advertising rates extremely competitive--perhaps even consider taking a loss until you build momentum in the market.
Adopt a pay-per-action model for search advertising instead of pay-per-click. There are some issues with this--but it's not impossible.
Advertisers are only paying for leads and sales now, merging affiliate marketing and search engine marketing--two fields that have been closely related for years.
You're not going to beat Google by copying them, you've got to change the game somehow.
Re-focus your efforts on search. MSN is the easiest engine to game right now--without decent search results, search advertising will never work.
Consider search engine acquisitions and heavily investing in researching new ideas (think AI, Semantic, Social, Personalized searching).
Do what you did with Halo again. That seems to have worked well for you.
Just a few thoughts.
I do believe the Yahoo! deal will not help Microsoft. Sure the reach Yahoo! has helps Microsoft--but there are other (better) ways to achieve this.
Not to mention without the core (good SERPs) search advertising just won't be effective.
Much of what I've said can be summarized in focus on the core and strip everything else. It's weighing you down.
[+] [-] Jasber|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigbang|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ideas101|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ideas101|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ibsulon|18 years ago|reply
With these in mind, I would commit to these steps:
In Business: I would throw my eggs in the virtualization basket. I would be promoting the hell out of Virtual Machine Manager 2008 and reorienting the entire business strategy around it. I would make sure it trounced VMWare infrastructure and brought using virtualization over a thousand-PC cluster into the imaginations of every CTO in the country.
With this, I would be building a Microsoft BSD from FreeBSD. This BSD would be marketed as a JeOS type system with virtualization in mind, and I'd be working with Oracle and IBM and every major builder to certify their products for it. This would be completely managed from VMM 2008 and would be touted as Unix for business with the ease of use that Microsoft has made with its server line. (I'd also give back to the BSD community any speed tweaks and such, and try to get as much positive press as I could from that -- and deliniate between open source good, gpl bad.)
I would also extend this to development and allow a simple license for MSDN developers the legal right to pull an image from a cluster and work with it on their own machines, as well as web interfaces that allow an untrusted user (such as an outside developer) to log into a single system that is encapsulated by a sandbox. (That's a lot harder than it sounds, but I'm thinking encapsulated zones and highly granular security.)
I would introduce the pricing structure as per-instance. I would drop the price to the point where it is more cost-effective to run virtualized systems than dedicated systems currently, and encourage people to get the beefiest boxes they can.
On the desktop, I would introduce virtualization through the idea of a "sandbox." I would make new images as simple as a few clicks, and copying images with the same ease of use. Then, hammer in the idea, "If you want to test something, like a new program, or if you're afraid you might break something, just make a new sandbox!
On the web, I would drop back to creating things that create value to the user. I think Live has lost sight of that. I think they've been thinking too strategically in the domain.
Can you name a single thing on msn.com or live.com where they do things better than the competition? Yahoo doesn't seem to do things much better either, but they did it earlier. Google did it better.
Picking up a few web 2.0 startups might not be a bad idea, but I think a more interesting approach would be to set up a subsidiary of 500 people or so and have them all set up as groups of 5-10. (A designer, content creation, liason, and other staff that allow a 2-3 person core to do what they're best at.) Have them throw as many things as they can on the web and see what sticks. Don't worry about monitization until later, create it as a startup culture. Things that are successful (by some metric) and monitizable get their founders a bonus where 100k is the minimum. At specified points, they have the option of moving it into mainline MSN with a larger team. They can either be a lead developer on that team or start with something new.
This would flood the net with new startups that may be competing with each other, but a few sensational products would be all that was needed to invigorate msn.com/live.com.
[+] [-] signa11|18 years ago|reply
edit: one thing that i realized is that _is_ possible to dress unix up quite nicely. an iron fist with a velvet glove.
[+] [-] anupamkapoor|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prakash|18 years ago|reply
1. Startups that add value to current product line of windows, office, xbox, etc.
2. Startups that are disruptive, i.e. which will pretty much kill that cash cow
[+] [-] iamelgringo|18 years ago|reply
Have the dudes at Microsoft Research re-write the OS from scratch and see what happens.
[+] [-] ericb|18 years ago|reply
Now the problem of legacy compatibility can be contained to VM's with support for the previous gen and the latest kernel can be free to update itself.
I'd clean up security and put out some smaller security X-prizes to make reporting exploits more profitable than selling them elsewhere.
[+] [-] melvinram|18 years ago|reply
Search Engine: Simple, accurate & useful. Innovate & release.
Office: Web & desktop access, track feature usage, cut unused features, online storage
Windows: R&D stands for Release good stuff & Drive industry.
Win Server: Diamond strength reliablity. Easy life for admins.
Zune: Make deal with studios for unlimited free music for $50 per zune. Do it now! R&D on UI methods. More social!
XBOX - Beautiful. Social. Fun.
SQL - Simplify.
Visual Studio - Gemme new flagship product in half the code as VS. You've got 2 months.
[+] [-] av_ashish2000|18 years ago|reply
enterpreneuship, try to get max stake in promising startups.
You would never know you are 60 % stake holder of next
Youtube or Myspace.
Ashish A india
[+] [-] wheels|18 years ago|reply
Specifically I would work on making the brand name as strong as possible, and put a very high value on quality assurance and scalability. I'd try to set up a reputation of, "Nobody ever got fired for buying Microsoft." I'd try to dominate the mid-low server market with ease of use for business applications and become the "premium brand".
Microsoft isn't going to beat Google or Apple or Redhat at their respective games.
[+] [-] optimal|18 years ago|reply
I think many criticize Microsoft from a consumer standpoint, but the CEO of Microsoft is going to know where his bread is buttered.
If any of us was the CEO we'd realize that we couldn't make the kind of radical changes we crave as consumers.
Changing course will take them some time, but I believe we'll see MSX eventually (in some horrible form).
In the meantime I'll keep using Mac/open source at home and (barely) tolerating MS software at work.
[+] [-] cstejerean|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ra|18 years ago|reply
No more command prompt.
BASH baby. BASH in Windows 7 - I'm happy xxx
[+] [-] hooande|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ideas101|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jfoutz|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|18 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|18 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wkasel|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] neodude|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] popat|18 years ago|reply
[+] [-] trevelyan|18 years ago|reply
Set up a commercial software repository and get into the business of managing a marketplace rather than just providing desktop software. Prepare the company for the day it will need to give away its operating system to attract users for ancillary services.
[+] [-] dcurtis|18 years ago|reply
A new search engine marketed with Apple's style, while building hardware and converting apps to search/ads?
[+] [-] slim|18 years ago|reply
that worked great for fiat http://fiat.it