Bravo, and about bleeping time. More steps in same direction much needed.
There you go with the "hate" buzzword again.
I have no use for Microsoft, but that doesn't rise to the level of "hate". It is an increasingly prevalent position.
I would characterize Microsoft as the dead elephant in the room. Nobody can ignore it because it is very much in the way, but fewer people every day have any reason to want it to be around. Hauling away the carcass will be huge bother, but even when it is gone, its stench will still cling to the furnishings.
Possibly, but then the military will always be a small fraction of the manpower in the general populace.
The arms race will not likely be confined to personal firearms. Drones are spreading among the general populace, as are 3D printers. Think about where that trend will lead -- insect-sized drones, and ultimately nanobots.
Microsoft has lost its major goal of the past 15 years and more, i.e. to take over the Web through domination in browsers, authoring tools and servers. That in itself was only Plan B, after Microsoft found it could not destroy the World Wide Web with alternative networks such as MSN.
Then Microsoft found it could not destroy Unix-like operating system or mobile computing (Plans C and D).
LinkedIn acquisition probably represents Plan E. Will that fail also?
Nonsense. Guns do need to be used responsibly, as everything else does.
An armed populace is an essential restraint on the power-hunger of any government. That is why it is provided for in the Constitution of the US. And that is why Germany took care to confiscate guns in any nation it invaded.
"No clear path forward
"Many analysts are pointing to the potential for LinkedIn to boost Microsoft's cloud enterprise software and vice versa, but there's no clear path for how Microsoft will successfully do so. Even CEO Satya Nadella doesn't seem to have a plan.
"Despite all the talk about how the two companies can help each other, Nadella was short on concrete examples in his memo about the acquisition. He added, "I can't wait to see what our teams dream up when we can begin working together once the deal closes."
"Coming up with ways to make acquisitions work after the fact hasn't been Microsoft's strong suit. Its aQuantive purchase displayed how inept Microsoft is at running an ad business despite its push to grow Bing. It eventually sold some of the aQuantive assets to Facebook. It failed to integrate Nokia's devices with its mobile software business despite Nadella's focus on mobile upon taking over the company. Its Yammer acquisition has become an afterthought add-on to Office 365, which adds no real value to the enterprise chat app. That's why it's been surpassed by services like Slack."
Again, restating what seems obvious. Nobody seems to know just how this is can benefit Microsoft, $26B worth. Gotta wonder just what the decision process was...
Seeking more power is tne universal tendency of government, has been for thousands of years. 2500 years (or so) ago Rome was a republic, but around 2000 years ago it became an empire. Some (Noam Chomsky, for example) claim that the United States already is an empire.
Chomsky made an interesting video, in which he documented the constant back-and-forth between democratic (small d) and elitist tendencies in American government, a tug-of-war that has gone on since the beginning. It would be interesting to see an informed critique of the atgument. But please, not on the MSFT Message Board.
Problem you have is that you indulge the fantasy that all shillbots entertain, that anyone who doesn't worship Microsoft must hate Microsoft.
Further, you seem to suffer from malady attributed elsewhere to Nadella and others, namely Facebook envy.
The companies’ chief executives, Satya Nadella of Microsoft and Jeff Weiner of LinkedIn, explained their reasons for the deal in a PowerPoint presentation distributed to investors. In the center of a graphic titled, “A professional’s profile everywhere,” was a picture of an anonymous LinkedIn “professional” with arrows pointed outward to seven Microsoft products.
Outlook and Skype were two of these, .... But there were also arrows to Windows, to PowerPoint, to Excel and, most surprisingly, to Word. I’m not a Microsoft shareholder myself, but I am one of the 1.2 billion users of Microsoft Office, and I was baffled to see my workhorse word-processing software show up in the rationale for this deal.
Mr. Nadella supplied one explanatory clue in an email that he sent to Microsoft employees. “This combination will make it possible for new experiences,” he wrote, such as “Office suggesting an expert to connect with via LinkedIn to help with a task you’re trying to complete.” He went on to predict that such experiences would “get more intelligent and delightful.”
“Delightful” is not the first adjective that comes to mind here, or even the 10th. If I’m working in Word, I can’t see why I’d welcome the intrusion of even a close friend, let alone a bot telling me about a stranger pulled from LinkedIn’s database.
Did Mr. Nadella, who has been at Microsoft since 1992, learn nothing from the Clippy disaster? Clippy, the animated anthropomorphic paper clip introduced in 1996, popped up unbidden in Microsoft Office programs to offer advice. “Are you writing a letter?” it would ask annoyingly. Clippy became famous for the ire it provoked and, in 2010, Time magazine included Clippy in a roundup of the 50 worst inventions of all time, along with asbestos, leaded gasoline and pay toilets.
Excellent article. There is much more. Please go to the original article.
Good point. LinkedIn database is all about people presenting themselves in the best possible light.
Good interview only in that he is very upbeat, not very informative. How will Microsoft use what LinkedIn has? How will it be worth more as part of Microsoft? Microsoft has never done well with "content".
"In my opinion, the marriage of the leading professional social network and the world's largest software company demonstrates that we are decidedly at the start of a new era in software, where proprietary data is king, and will start to come bundled together with software. Moreover, I think we can expect that enterprise software will start to look and behave more like consumer internet services. It will be based upon the ability to harness behavioral data across the large sample of user inputs available in the cloud, and deliver useful and mheeaningful insight in a way that's never been done before."
I'll believe it when I see it.
The straight sccop is that we can presume that the value Microsoft sees in LinkedIn is not the company or its revenues but the personal data people have posted about themselves on LinkedIn.
I am heaving huge sigh of relief that I have not "joined" LinkedIn. I have always suspected it would be a very bad idea, and now I have been shown correct.
Why? Clearly the purpose is precisely to drown out any discussion of Microsoft, since the news is all bad and has been for years. I've said that before, and it seems others agree.
That deal has everybody scratching his head.
It looks like Microsoft is becoming a completely different kind of company, in an entirely different business, something other than software. The only expected synergy I've heard postulated with respect to its existing businss is that access to all the personal data owned by LinkedIn would enable sales reps to call prospective clients and ask about the wife and kids and pets, instead of having to make "cold calls".
True, and the most obvious reason is that Windows is simply far too large and complicated to be humanly maintainable. Perhaps by now, under a more intelligent and rational CEO and Chairman, the company has learned its lesson; and perhaps that is why the company is reportedly developing a smaller (and therefore more Linux-like) OS.
Only reason the stock price even approaches that of Jan 2000 is that the company has been repurchasing and retiring a LOT of shares of its own stock, in effect supporting the price. The long-term effect of that is that there are fewer shares outstanding, therefore the market capitalization is substantially lower than in 2000.