Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 8th Dec 2013 22:10 UTC
Microsoft

The Microsoft CEO succession process appears to be stalled. This is a company with immense human, technical, and financial resources; the tech industry is filled with intelligent, energetic, dedicated candidates. What's wrong with the matchmaking process?

The gist: Microsoft needs someone strong enough to stand up to the old guard still looking over everyone's shoulder (Gates and Ballmer) - and essentially dismiss them - since the company needs to look to the future, not the past.

Good luck with that.

Thread beginning with comment 578295
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Comment by Nelson
by Fergy on Mon 9th Dec 2013 18:16 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Comment by Nelson"
Fergy
Member since:
2006-04-10

You realize that business model is only possible if a single company owns the copyrights to the software. Just like when Sun/Oracle gave open office for free, but also sold star office which "had more features" and support. So a specific application developer can do that, and several have in the past and some currently do that ( mysql).

It is not that simple. It is about easy, fun, altruism, trust, support, brand, collection, social, price etc.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

"You realize that business model is only possible if a single company owns the copyrights to the software. Just like when Sun/Oracle gave open office for free, but also sold star office which "had more features" and support. So a specific application developer can do that, and several have in the past and some currently do that ( mysql).

It is not that simple. It is about easy, fun, altruism, trust, support, brand, collection, social, price etc.
"

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that most people would understand how those adjectives form a coherent response to my post. But for my stupid mind, would you mind breaking it down a little bit?

Are you saying that Open Office/Star Office failed despite having the same business model proposed ( free , but premium features for paying customers), because the offerings were not the right combination of fun, altruistic, trust worthy, supported, branded, collected, social, or were priced incorrectly?

I'd say they hit the marks on all of those, with the exception of "social". There were some group collaboration tools, but not as good as MS office's.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Comment by Nelson
by Fergy on Mon 9th Dec 2013 22:37 in reply to "RE[8]: Comment by Nelson"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Are you saying that Open Office/Star Office failed despite having the same business model proposed ( free , but premium features for paying customers), because the offerings were not the right combination of fun, altruistic, trust worthy, supported, branded, collected, social, or were priced incorrectly?

I'd say they hit the marks on all of those, with the exception of "social". There were some group collaboration tools, but not as good as MS office's.

It all makes sense if you look at Android/iOS. They make it easy to find, install, remove and update programs so the barrier becomes small to try. You can connect your credit card so you can try and buy apps within seconds and 2 clicks. The millions of $1 dollar games and apps show that if you make it easy they will come.
As far as I know StarOffice never had this. On top of that who is willing to pay for a word processor? People who are willing to pay a little bit more for the best word processor.

Reply Parent Score: 2