Satya Nadella screwed up the cloud business and Microsoft named him CEO

[Revi Bennett]

No just type microsoft sec filings and microsoft revenue report in the search engine you prefer *****.

 

[Great deal]

Apple has had failures in the past - is it right to blame Steve Jobs?
Google glass failed - should management of Google step down?

Fact is MS had Balmer, a DISASTER! - Satya has invigorated MS and taken away the fundamental walls inside MS that held them back, namely the code sharing between teams for fear of losing out, W10 is the first OS on his watch, lets see what happens, bit silly to condemn a man before the fruits of his labour are seen let alone condemn him for something you clearly have no inside knowledge of.

 

[TechFreak1]

Apple has had failures in the past - is it right to blame Steve Jobs?
Google glass failed - should management of Google step down?

Fact is MS had Balmer, a DISASTER! - Satya has invigorated MS and taken away the fundamental walls inside MS that held them back, namely the code sharing between teams for fear of losing out, W10 is the first OS on his watch, lets see what happens, bit silly to condemn a man before the fruits of his labour are seen let alone condemn him for something you clearly have no inside knowledge of.

Actually MS had great years under Ballmer, just some of his decisions are questionable however with out knowing the inside knowledge or what he knows. One can only speculate... so it was by no means a disaster. Also what we (general public) are seeing now would have been in incubation during Ballmer's tenure, things don't happen over night let alone with-in several months...

 

[Great deal]

Actually MS had great years under Ballmer, just some of his decisions are questionable however with out knowing the inside knowledge or what he knows. One can only speculate... so it was by no means a disaster. Also what we (general public) are seeing now would have been in incubation during Ballmer's tenure, things don't happen over night let alone with-in several months...

This is true, we don't know the ins, only some of the outs, however some crazy decisions were made under Balmers watch, really stupid and for all the good he did its the scale of stupidity that stands out hence the reason people roll their eyes even today at MS. 100$ agree that what we are seeing over the past year has been the effects of MS of old, it takes time to shift and no point in blaming Satya for anything at this stage, lets see what happens when W10 is out, that's going to be a true test of his effect.

 

[Spectrum90]

This is true, we don't know the ins, only some of the outs, however some crazy decisions were made under Balmers watch, really stupid and for all the good he did its the scale of stupidity that stands out hence the reason people roll their eyes even today at MS. 100$ agree that what we are seeing over the past year has been the effects of MS of old, it takes time to shift and no point in blaming Satya for anything at this stage, lets see what happens when W10 is out, that's going to be a true test of his effect.

Nadella was responsible for the cloud business and by the numbers he did an awful job.

Why did Microsoft name an executive with poor track record as CEO? Maybe He's there just to endure the transition. Microsoft will face difficult times the next few years, some of their core businesses like Windows, Office and server software are experiencing big transformations and are being challenged by competitors.

 

[dkediger]

I'm not really sure what you are getting at by insisting on this "ruined" soapbox. The short of it is there wasn't anything there for anyone to ruin anyway, so I don't know what you expect they would have done. Give us some suggestions....

The same goes for the apparent narrow view of "cloud." My history in enterprise IT goes back 25 years - there are others here as well with similar and more experience. I think we would all say that to discount O365 for business/enterprise use as not part of the cloud is at best employing selective criticism. There is exaclty one product out there right now that offers native multi platform, multi device mail, productivity, collaboration, etc for the enterprise - and the name on it isn't Amazon, Apple, IBM, Google.

As I mentioned before in this thread, Microsoft is leverdging the best existing wedge they had - Office/Exchange - to move us in the enterprise away from our on premise installations. And most of us are going quite willingly. Because its not a "ruined" product or approach. It actually works pretty damn well.

The cloud is many things to many people, and to narrow it to a viewpoint of just SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, "X"aaS, "ABCDEFG"aaS or any of those against the other is overlooking the fact that its more than a big enough space for all of them. That's kind of the beauty in it - it can sort of be all things to all people. Some companies are naturally, and of necessity, going to be more focused at different parts of it than others. Is it Nadella's fault he had to work against the entrenched approach of Windows/Server/Office hard linking of a license to a physical PC?

 

[Spectrum90]

I'm not really sure what you are getting at by insisting on this "ruined" soapbox. The short of it is there wasn't anything there for anyone to ruin anyway, so I don't know what you expect they would have done. Give us some suggestions....

The same goes for the apparent narrow view of "cloud." My history in enterprise IT goes back 25 years - there are others here as well with similar and more experience. I think we would all say that to discount O365 for business/enterprise use as not part of the cloud is at best employing selective criticism. There is exaclty one product out there right now that offers native multi platform, multi device mail, productivity, collaboration, etc for the enterprise - and the name on it isn't Amazon, Apple, IBM, Google.

As I mentioned before in this thread, Microsoft is leverdging the best existing wedge they had - Office/Exchange - to move us in the enterprise away from our on premise installations. And most of us are going quite willingly. Because its not a "ruined" product or approach. It actually works pretty damn well.

The cloud is many things to many people, and to narrow it to a viewpoint of just SaaS, PaaS, IaaS, "X"aaS, "ABCDEFG"aaS or any of those against the other is overlooking the fact that its more than a big enough space for all of them. That's kind of the beauty in it - it can sort of be all things to all people. Some companies are naturally, and of necessity, going to be more focused at different parts of it than others. Is it Nadella's fault he had to work against the entrenched approach of Windows/Server/Office hard linking of a license to a physical PC?

amazon.com is hosted on AWS, but that doesn't mean Amazon has to add the revenue of their retail business to the cloud division. amazon.com is just one of the thousand of services hosted on AWS, in the same way Office 365 is one of the thousand of services hosted on Azure. Office 365 could be hosted on AWS and the users wouldn't notice the difference.

Microsoft has many advantages to be successful on the -infrastructure and platform cloud business-, but according to the numbers they failed, they made big mistakes.

 

[dkediger]

Well, I think many would question whether Amazon's physical retail ops actually generate profit without Amazon being able to "subsidize" it with internal AWS resources.

Anyway, what should Microsoft have done differently? What mistakes were made? Realize that up until 2010 when the demonstrated they were truly committing to a cloud vision, the entire organization was about that Wintel 1-1 licensing link with physical devices - and only that. Not many of those people are left in leadership anymore. And again, its a real reach to pin any of that on Nadella. I'm certainly not making him a saint, or beknighting him, but he certainly had some albatrosses around his neck getting the org behind hosted services.

You can perhaps fault them for not moving rapidly enough, or not diversifying enough, but hell, look at the grief we WP users give them now for their IOS/Droid offerings. Enterprises tend to be a cautious bunch when it comes to change and existing data also. Take a look at the main consumer/business offerings they had in 2010, with only 1 real high strengthonline hosted option, consider where they are at today, and that has all been accomplished through pretty direct migration paths.

2010:
Windows 7
Office 2010 / Office 2008 Mac
Windows Mobile 6.1/6.5
Windows Server 2008R2 / IIS8 / Hyper-V
Exchange 2010
Sharepoint 2010
SQL Server 2008R2
Office Communications Server 2007 / Lync Server 2010
Hotmail (hosted)
Windows Live Essentials (hosted)
BPOS (Exchange/Sharepoint) (hosted)

 

[HeyCori]

Some numbers for those that want to compare.

Amazon Web Services is a $5 billion business

Even though Amazon Web Services has taken off in recent years to become the cloud computing solution of choice for businesses, not much was known about how much money it was bringing in. Now, however, we do. In its first quarterly earnings report today, Amazon has reported the financials for its AWS division for the first time, stating that it is a "$5 billion business and growing fast." In Q1 alone, AWS brought in $1.57 billion in revenue, which is up from $1.1 billion this time last year (in previous Amazon reports, this info was simply filed under a mysterious "Other" column). On the whole, AWS seems to be one of a few operations within Amazon that is profitable, with about $265 million in profits in Q1. Despite that, however, the online retail giant still reported a net loss of $57 million overall for the quarter.

Full Report

 

[fatclue_98]

Yep, Nadella is a total failure. Right up there with my buddy Leo Apotheker.

Microsoft just showed up Google | America's Markets

 

[Spectrum90]

Some numbers for those that want to compare.

Amazon Web Services is a $5 billion business

Even though Amazon Web Services has taken off in recent years to become the cloud computing solution of choice for businesses, not much was known about how much money it was bringing in. Now, however, we do. In its first quarterly earnings report today, Amazon has reported the financials for its AWS division for the first time, stating that it is a "$5 billion business and growing fast." In Q1 alone, AWS brought in $1.57 billion in revenue, which is up from $1.1 billion this time last year (in previous Amazon reports, this info was simply filed under a mysterious "Other" column). On the whole, AWS seems to be one of a few operations within Amazon that is profitable, with about $265 million in profits in Q1. Despite that, however, the online retail giant still reported a net loss of $57 million overall for the quarter.

Full Report

Strong growth for AWS. Microsoft is still ashamed of Azure, they don't disclose revenue or growth rate.

 

[Spectrum90]

Yep, Nadella is a total failure. Right up there with my buddy Leo Apotheker.

Microsoft just showed up Google | America's Markets

It's too soon to evaluate Nadella as CEO.

 

[Jas00555]

It's too soon to evaluate Nadella as CEO.

What? You literally started the thread doing exactly that.

 

[Spectrum90]

What? You literally started the thread doing exactly that.

No. We've been talking of Nadella as president of Server and Tools business, and the problems of Azure to compete with AWS.

 

[dkediger]

Strong growth for AWS. Microsoft is still ashamed of Azure, they don't disclose revenue or growth rate.

Kinda like how Amazon didnt specifically break out AWS until just this quarter?

?\_(ツ)_/?

 

[fatclue_98]

It's too soon to evaluate Nadella as CEO.

You can backstroke all you like but in the end, you got smoked because you decided to post yet another of your anti-Microsoft rants without checking the timing of their earnings report. Face it, you don't like Nadella for whatever reason and he punked your beloved Google. Game. Set. Match.

 

[Spectrum90]

You can backstroke all you like but in the end, you got smoked because you decided to post yet another of your anti-Microsoft rants without checking the timing of their earnings report. Face it, you don't like Nadella for whatever reason and he punked your beloved Google. Game. Set. Match.

I think you have problems understanding what you read. Quote something I said that is wrong, I have no problem accepting errors.
I'm not "anti-Microsoft", on the contrary I'm a fan of the company.

I said Azure was destroyed by AWS while Nadella was in charge of that division and Microsoft named him CEO despite that.
Besides, Microsoft results weren't as bad as expected, but they can't be considered good.

 

[Laura Knotek]

It's too soon to evaluate Nadella as CEO.

Since you've already evaluated him in your original post and now contradicted yourself, this thread is closed.

 

[snowmutt]

Yep, Nadella is a total failure. Right up there with my buddy Leo Apotheker.

Microsoft just showed up Google | America's Markets

Really, Clue??? Didn't we ban that man's name on here, out of respect for the dead? (WebOS- RIP.)