[Nokinside]

Two large changes for better in Microsoft:

1. 2006 Bill Gates stepped down as a Chief Software Architect

2. 2014 Satya Nadella became CEO after Ballmer.

Gates was good CEO but he was not a good Chief Architect. He had the knowledge, the intelligence and skills, but he had no ability to do good high-level choices. Chief Architect needs to know when to sacrifice in details to get the whole slightly better.

Microsoft is not known for innovation,but they should have been able to do gradual refinement better under Gates. Microsoft was really starting to crumble under the completely unprincipled approach to large scale architecture.

[ice3]

>Microsoft is not known for innovation

Can't really agree on this point. Microsoft has historically done a lot of research and innovation, what they weren't really good is making a product out of that and bringing it to market.

[s2g]

> Microsoft is not known for innovation

um, okay.

[zpallin]

They aren't. Almost most innovation they've tried to implement in the market have gone underappreciated or forgotten. That means they're "not known" for their innovation. I don't think Nokinside is saying Microsoft is not an innovator.

Then again, most of their money comes from products that are specifically borrowed concepts, competitively forced into dominance, with more purchase incentives than their competition, and before other companies could even get a foothold. So maybe that's what Nokinside meant.

Either way, I'm not surprised when people kick Microsoft for a lack of innovation. Nadella's focus on increasing innovation at Microsoft alone is evidence that they haven't been doing enough.

[KyeRussell]

Please make comments that actually contribute to the discussion. If you don’t care to defend your stance, don’t say anything.