My favorite bit about this is how none of the execs want to take ownership of the change, but instead trying to put someone else in the hot seat and/or start a Committee.
This feels like an email that should have been blasted to the entire company. Top-down, empower employees to think of a more unified experience. Then again, all of the external jokes about Microsoft indicate that every department is fighting for their lives against the others, so that kind of kumbaya togetherness was never going to happen.
I love how Google looks like an MLP. I suspect their leadership would agree with that portrayal. You can imagine the activation functions: "Will this get me promoted?" "Will this get us bad press?"
This is unfortunately par for the course at many big companies. I have re-lived this exact same thread so many times I've lost count
1. Leader escalates issue to his team
2. The team scrambles to come up with a solution
3. No one wants to take ownership. #NotMyProblem
4. weeks or months are spent on 'developing a plan'
5. nothinghappens.jpg
I have seen that too many times too in big companies, but I wouldn't say that it results in nothinghappens.jpg
It results in the equivalent of treating an infection with Tylenol rather than antibiotics. The exact symptom reported by a "Leader" will usually get fixed, but in a more of a "KPI hacking" rather than a fundamental fix to the problem. I have seen a "Leader" point to the staggering number of support tickets as a problem then have teams make it incredibility difficult to open a support ticket. The number of support tickets plummets and the first report to instruct their team to do so gets rewarded and all other teams follow suit. Have a leader point to complexity of the sign up process, and have teams "simplify" the signup process by just taking an email to create the account, then make the experience of doing anything post sign up a broken mess because you forgot to go into settings and filling up all the required details. Or have a leader complain about the install process like in this example, and have teams just bundle massive dependencies or make wide horrific modifications to the users machine to "simplify" the install process. Now suddenly installing a video editing software also modifies your default video player, your HDR or scaling settings, your audio device setup, and your keyboard layout (because why not?)
I drown in support tickets daily that used to go nowhere. Then people started realizing that I knew what I was talking about and not some standard business user. Now I still have to open tickets, but get visibility of the people who know what they’re doing on their end (having been moved up from lowly support to oversee some ticket filling company that doesn’t know crap). We get tom complain to one another how shit is broken, wait mandatory change periods and then get something working by exploiting loopholes because some process was developed and someone put a lot of money behind it.
Large companies are why large companies are large (in IT/OT at least)
The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns?
Standard psychology says they should be highly sensitive to status loss, but it almost seems the opposite.
Ask anyone at a FAANG and they will tell you that large corporations get flak every day for a lot of things, some justified and some unjustified. As an IC, you need to tune it all out and let the people whose full time job is to deal with that sort of thing handle it.
>"The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns?"
Existing in a large org over the long term becomes a game of survival. It's very much similar to the "dark forest" or the Eye of Sauron. Your number one goal as an IC is to complete the tasks directly assigned to you by a supervisor and avoid at all costs any kind of "hey you" assignments that have zero upside and plenty of possibility for downside. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where individual initiative mattered and was rewarded, but it doesn't. It becomes "why haven't you delivered XYZ", and the vague ephemeral reasoning of "well A, B and C for team D needed fixing" is not an excuse, and now you can't pay your mortgage anymore.
I’ve had “Boss I can fix this in one line of code.” situations, but nobody of 6 people wanted to make the call despite involving themselves excessively.
So nothing got done.
So the temperature on the issue went up.
So management whose failure was their own could only think of engaging more managers and processes….
Never ended.
I work at small companies now, less money but I enjoy it more. I just fix things and everyone is happy.
> Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.
This is so true, and not only under Windows. Install any modern program under any modern OS and have a look at the filesystem, it's a flaming mess.
Nowadays the only solution "smart people" have found is to install a complete system, complete with libraries and frameworks, for each program.
One of my "santa's not real" moments of computing was realizing how much static and dynamic libraries fucking suck. This cannot be overstated, and is illustrated perfectly by the heroic efforts of software vendors to get away from them.
Okay, a few functions like fopen are fine - but even those are syscall wrappers IRL. But every OS seems to have concluded, that in the place of API calls, one should rather have streams of text (UNIX) or binary messages (Windows, also a bunch of Linux desktop stuff, like Wayland), or File I/O.
Basically a major motivation behind JIT langauges (C#/.NET certainly) was an effort to get away from dynamically linked libraries,
Even DOS didn't really have libraries, you had peripherals mapped to memory at certain addresses, and a set of interrupts, and that was it.
These single file Go and Rust programs read and write stdio and/or network, which is a reasonable solution to a lot of problems, but certainly not all of them, especially in the interactive space.
The difference in complexity between my go and my Python docker image is actually hilarious. 100s of files and package managers and npm and whatever else.. vs 1 file.
From what I know about MS, I can understand what they mean. Microsoft famously had teams at odds with each other, so if you "own" something across multiple teams and can't get them to actually work together or take a particular issue seriously, then you just have the shit end of responsibility without the authority to make stuff happen.
For awhile under Balmer, Microsoft implemented a lot of Jack Welsh management philosophies. This included stack ranking, but also encouraging "internal competition" under the idea that it'll drive people to excel. In real life that caused friction, politics, sandbagging, and other problems that were not in the company's best interests. It's fine to be competitive, but in some competitive situations (team sports, companies, etc), the whole point is for the team to win, not individuals.
Sadly, even though most of these philosophies have been discredited over the long term (stack ranking can be fine if you do actually need to do layoffs, so long as you realized there are exceptions to the rule), other bad management practices have also taken over. We're now squarely in the depths of all the worst aspects of "product driven" development, where nebulous metrics are measured for success (such as the bad VSCode decision to append copilot in commit messages, which makes it look like copilot is more heavily used than it is).
Ironically, they could have learned from Jack Welsh to separate the product divisions and make redundant teams on each one to solve the ownership issues.
When people compete internally on Microsoft, what are they competing on if everybody works in a different horizontal?
Exactly. Jack Welsh’s management philosophy just further incentivizes doing what you can to bring everyone else (ie the company) down to make yourself look better.
Given that the way the company worked was the cause of the problem, sending the email company wide would have caused more confusion that solve the problem.
> My favorite bit about this is how none of the execs want to take ownership of the change, but instead trying to put someone else in the hot seat and/or start a Committee.
And with the exception of John Martin's reply (which recognizes that there are deeper problems they should think about, but seems resigned to the fact that that won't happen) the focus is pretty much entirely: "let's fix the exact issues Bill Gates ran into trying to download this one product we produce" (out of many hundreds/thousands) rather than "let's fix the root causes that caused us to arrive in this place to begin with".
I haven't worked at any companies as large and siloed as Microsoft, but I'd assume this is pretty common for them, at least if they don't have a Steve Jobs-like tyrant who both has all the power and is singularly product focused.
There was nothing surprising in that email chain at all, looking at it as someone with lots of experience in large companies.
In a twisted kind of way, the replies were reasonable and logical. They're not dumb, they can see it was crap. No one org can actually own this fix, so in that kind of situation it realistically requires someone like Bill to choose someone to drive it, and demand updates to ensure that everyone gets aligned. Telling his execs, especially in a company so notoriously political and "empire" oriented as it was, isn't going to work.
I actually liked that in Amazon, Jeff Bezos used to send out the infamous "question mark" emails on such a regular basis that they built an exec commitee specifically for the purposes of driving direct action on problems. Didn't matter where you were, or what you were working on, if that question mark email came you dropped everything to work on it.
I think they also suspect/know that Gates won't revisit the issue. The email is a flame as the subject line admits. Gates wasn't going to go back every week for the next six months to track progress.
I mean, you're 100% right, but what's the alternative? They wanna keep the salary. The machine rewards political people, not people who pick fights to improve the product. It's a perfect pair. :/
It's very common. From a certain level up, execs rarely use the products they are responsible for. It's all about strategy, committees, meetings, plans and reports. For them the product is just an abstract thing. When I rented a Buick car, I thought to myself that there is no way any decision maker ever tried the car and thought that this is ok.
I think one of the strengths of Apple during the Jobs days was that Jobs actually sometimes seemed to use the products himself and gave feedback. When I look at the blatant bugs MacOS and iOS had in the last years, I also think that the current Apple big shots never use their stuff or they would have noticed.
If you'd take the Gates email and give them to my colleagues, saying "this was some random guy complaining about Windows", they'd all react along the lines of "Well, that's just an idiot who makes things up because he's bored and hates Windows. There are good reasons for everything he complained about. He just reports it in a quite dramatized way."
> When I look at the blatant bugs MacOS and iOS had in the last years, I also think that the current Apple big shots never use their stuff or they would have noticed.
The crazy thing is that it's more likely that most people in Apple are using their own products, versus any of the Android phone manufacturers or within Google, where it's likely a few of them would be using the Apple ecosystem instead.
Many of them are definitely dogfooding it, but it's possible that there's communication or empowerment issues.
One thing that drives me nuts for example is the indicator for remaining disk space. I have this icon on my desktop that says "Macintosh HD | 995 GB, 273 GB free". This used to work great until a few years ago. Copy 1 GB onto the disk and it displays 1 GB less free disk space.
But since a few years it goes up and down daily by 100 GB or more. Sometimes I have 350 GB, sometimes I have 100 GB. I think it has to do with Time Machine snapshots and purgeable space (whatever that means) but it's totally useless now. I can't tell for sure if I can copy 250 GB to my disk or not. It may fail now but work 2 hours later. How come nobody notices such a fundamental thing not working? Somehow the dogfooding doesn't seem to work. Or maybe the Apple people all have 8 TB disks so they don't care.
> I haven't worked at any companies as large and siloed as Microsoft, but I'd assume this is pretty common for them.
Doesn't need to be that large, I worked for a company that ~4500 employees with about 1000 at HQ, that entire email chain looks exactly like what would ensue every time someone at the C-level flagged an issue.
I suspect the reason is much the same, no one wants to be in the hot seat to fix a problem they have no faith they can fix so everyone plays hot potato with the flaming sack of shit until it bursts and lands on someone.
> Fish begins to stink at the head, not the tail. (13th Century Persian Proverb)
Also I suspect that there's no real teeth in that angry email.
If the big boss is frustrated by the UX, they might send an angry email or even yell at you in person. If your division doesn't meet its sales projection for the quarter, you might get fired.
If BillG had wanted a company that made good user experiences, he'd have hired (and fired) for that. Sending a pissy email is what you do when you're annoyed but don't actually care enough to do anything about it.
Agreed. From the comments, lots of people down-thread who clearly haven't worked in large orgs.
They are arguing about not wanting to take ownership because they know the organizational structure is going to be an impediment. The problems Bill describes could not have been solved by Microsoft without a massive internal restructuring. We know this because Microsoft's UX is still abysmal.
Nobody wants to have the inevitable failure hung around their necks by "owning" something that depends on the cooperation and coordination of departments that don't report to them.
It's a fundamental, cultural and systemic lack of concern for those issues.
An 'afterthought' that should be 'integral'.
That Gates did not realize that means it's 100% on him.
1000% actually.
He was struggling with the language of design and usability in 2003, not even realizing even the implications of what he was seeing (because it would require total rethink).
Like a cars coming out of the factory with missing parts ... blame it on the guy on the line?
No. Something is deeply wrong.
I really like Gates - but it's beyond shocking how these cultures work and how myopic they are.
I worked for a Fortune 50 - and it's pretty amazing to watch how an army of actually smart people with 'one eye' can be so competent many ways, but blind in others.
I don't like to put Jobs on a pedestal but obviously this is something he understood (even then with gaping holes).
This email was literally BillG sending an email to the people he holds accountable for this, pointing out to them that he believes his experience resulted from a systematic lack of attention to end to end user experience.
I’m not sure why you see this as evidence BillG didn’t understand that to be his job.
I have struggle to understand how someone could come to that conclusion, maybe I missed something?
The email is a 'rant'.
It's a 'list of broken stuff'.
It's not:
1) identifying underlying first principles of design or UX that have been broken
2) not identifying which parts of the system may have resulted in the negative outcome
3) not reference for either operational or cultural that were braoched or need to be address
4) not at all cognizant of systemic concern at all.
5) didn't allocate responsibility, hint at how to organized a response, what structural issues need to be in place.
It's actually a really bad an embarrassing lack of leadership.
It's basically 'user rant' - not what one would expect from a leader.
He 'made a list of complaints and threw them onto the org.' - who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.
'Dear Leader, doesn't like how the picture frames are set in the office! Fire the picture framers, everyone get out your rulers and fix the picture frames'.
This is really common and it happens because people have this magical belief that the 'founder' or 'ceo' has 'special powers and insight' and then issues roll down hill among sycophants and yes men, trying to appease.
A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this', hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught, an attempt for accountability in certain areas (divide the concern), a requirement to convene on this issues and make sure everyone understands what's important. Especially and including the fact that anyone responsible for a product actually has to 'use it' aka dogfooding or else etc etc..
In 2003, Gates was no longer CEO; I think he was President of the Board and something like "Special Advisor"? None of the people involved reported to him, so he may actually correctly have felt he could not tell them what to do?--so he stuck to venting his frustration.
Exactly. bluegatty has great points for a CEO role but Bill stopped being CEO in 2000 three years earlier. The board and advisors cannot direct the company internally - this is by law. Separation of oversight and management. They can tell the CEO what to do but the CEO decides. Then they can fire the ceo if they don’t like it.
If the President of the board has an issue with how the company is fundamentally operating, they go to the CEO. If the CEO doesn’t understand or doesn’t prioritize the concerns of the board, then they get replaced.
He’s may not have been the CEO… but he was the boss of the CEO and represented all the individual owners of the company.
> It's basically 'user rant' - not what one would expect from a leader.
It is absolutely a user rant, but it's entirely appropriate for a leader to call out "this is not okay; this is a garbage experience".
> who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.
That was the intent. "Fix this." This was an email to a bunch of execs who are capable of driving the actual fixes. If Gates needs to hand hold them through this then they need to be replaced.
> A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this'
This is vacuous corporate speak, the kind of message you send to shareholders to soothe them. This is not leadership.
> hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught...
Again, if Gates needs to do this then everyone on the To line is dead weight.
1) sending the org into a reactive frenzy on the minor issue when the structural issue is the problem - is bad. He's also pointing them at the symptom and not the cause.
2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
Gates failed to institute 'design and usability' as a fundamental aspect of the product and operational culture.
The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing.
3) "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job.
I don’t see an actual “reactive frenzy” here. I see that Gates started a conversation with the execs he believes are responsible for fixing this mess.
And again, these are execs being paid millions. They do not need to be coddled. You are acting as if Gates sent this to a bunch of junior engineers.
> ‘taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
It’s absolutely vacuous to say 'I take responsibility for this' when you are telling a group of people they need to fix their shit.
Any CVP/EVP who fails at a job and then hears someone above them take responsibility for the failure knows they are about to be out of a job.
> The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing.
If by underling you mean “highly paid executives” then sure. At some point people have to take responsibility for their jobs. This wasn’t a failure of some individual engineers. It was a collective failure of a group of executives to deliver a good experience.
> "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job
It’s literally not. That’s not what CEOs of large corporations do and Gates wasn’t even CEO at this time. He was in an advisory role. His job was literally to give feedback.
> I see that Gates started a conversation with the execs he believes are responsible for fixing this mess.
I think the point here might be that what created this mess in the first place is the structure of the organisation, not the execs that are temporarily embodying it. It's actually quite clear from the follow-ups, there is nobody who can claim responsibility even for the website, never mind any vision or philosophy spanning multiple media and products.
Maybe Gates simply wasn't in the position of doing anything else at that time, or maybe his rant was a clever way to expose this exact problem. But it's pretty obvious that "will someone fix the website" doesn't sound like someone analysing and addressing the root cause of the issue. (However, it's also perfectly possible that this email is just a small part of a bigger conversation at different levels- inform the responsible and patch the immediate issue while more high level analysis and planning takes place elsewhere, informally).
> 2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
Tbh it seems like you're autistic and simply don't understand how such a "o take responsibility" message really looks like and what effect it'd have.
Sorry, but board room or top-50 professional discussions are ment to be a lot more meta. Bill using 500-1000 words to voice his concrete experience in downloading an app, with his directors immediately chiming in for fixes misses the forest for the trees. And Bill starts the quest for the one tree in his choice of words. It was disalignment in his organizational model and the CEO is on the line for that alignment. The happy install flow for moviemaker.exe - who cares… Just look at that thread! Response 3 is already “that’s not my turf”-ing. I’m not saying it’s easy to create a shift in a company of that size, it’s that they weren’t trying when the problem was yelling in their face.
(Typing this with a hot lap thanks to Windows update. The agony. Debian solved that 20-30 years ago.)
Most of the thread is lower level staff specifically trying to address the raised issues. We have no idea what conversations this triggered among the exec team about the broader strategic issues Bill raised.
It's actually funny that you're thinking they are 'lower level staff' because that's how it seems by their reaction, but those are literally top Execs.
That's really how these orgs often work.
'Dear Leader Is Angry' will set the whole org into a tizzy.
I've seen this countless times - 'XXX said it', and the littlest thing will get moved.
Often - this is good, it means the org is responsive to the direction of the founder, but it's 'abused' all the time. I think leaders forget their responsibility and truly believe that 'their whims' are essential.
25% of the US are looking at the insane things POTUS is putting out and believing there's some kind of 5D chess magic, when it's actually -5D - aka extraordinary bad leadership. That's the 'power of power'.
'Self Awareness' is probably the #1 superpower of a leader, because nobody is going to keep them in check.
Lower level than the former CEO And President of the board.
The point is this was not a round robin reply all buckpassing exercise with BillG and the senior corporate leaders still on the reply list. This is a specific downstream chain of email.
I’m not sure I understand what people here think the right thing to do is when the company founder emails a bunch of senior execs telling them they seem to have let things all go to crap.
Every single recipient on the thread was a Vice President, Corporate Vice President, or Senior/Group Vice President. Gates intentionally bypassed lower-level product managers and emailed the executive tier directly to demand accountability for platform-wide usability regressions.
If you think this is not missing the forest for the trees, please explain.
Becuase it was a typical MS user experience. MS was shipping their software on 25+ install floppies. Having an install fail on floppy 19 was a nightmare. Getting a fax modem that shipped with the PC to function could also be a problem MS would blame the vendor and the vendor blamed MS.
It’s not like his moviemaker experience was a rare occurrence.
It describes the culture of both companies at that time very clearly.
I think the difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Steve was a "product" CEO. He would bot only send that email, but in addition he would somehow oversee/sypervise those changes ALL the way until he was satisfied.
As for Jobs, I bought a Mac Mini last summer. I wanted to use iMovie to clip the edges off of a movie file. I clipped the edges, but was unable to discover how to save the resulting file, and gave up. Microsoft's Movie Maker has a menu item to save a file.
I use the Mini every day, but only via a tty window.
Apple used to have principled UX before designers got to innovation. There might be an argument that new UIs are better for people with no prior experience... if they did not completely change them once a decade or so.
Yes - this is a mind boggling design conceit of Apple that goes back almost 50 years.
They made certain design decisions a long time ago around a lot of things and that's one of them.
They 'conscientiously' designed the UX - which is great - it generally makes it better, but the problem is, when you make a mistake, the mistake is more ingrained.
We all know of 'Arrogant Engineers' thinking their 'Algorithm is more important than anything' - that 'save' thing is a design conceit, heavily instituted into the culture. The designers would look at you like an infidel for suggesting you know something they don't back in the day. Or even today.
I'm basically certain that Jobs himself will have defended that feature 1000 times over the years.
It's probably kept up like a religious ritual, a point of 'differentiation' and 'we're better here'.
Which is very different than a lack of operational rigour, it's where part of the system is overbearing.
"It's just the way we do it here" will be the justification for the next 100 years on that. And changing things that are ingrained is also very heard and risky. It's like changing the constitution, it's pulling a thread on the sweater.
There are quite a lot of weird 'Apple Way' things, most good, many bad.
yeah it's like one shortcut and a trim bar in QuickTime so that's the right tool for the job. iMovie isn't much harder but is a palaver with its whole pre-rendering thing just to export what should be a trivial edit.
There's a menu item. I believe it's File > Share > then you choose how (save to disk, email, export to photos app etc).
File > Save doesn't make sense because you would be saving your iMovie project. You're trying to export the final video from the project, not save it.
The problem was using a far too complex tool to do a simple job (and not understanding how the tool works). You can trim a video in Quicktime or Photos which directly manipulates the file.
File > Share is the same, just more user friendly language. I get it's a bit confusing if you've been using computers for a long time (it's certainly caught me out), but 'Share' makes much more sense. Especially because export/save to disk is only one of the multiple 'Share' options available.
Yes! It makes total sense to share with myself a Pages document as PDF! I‘ll promptly think of sharing if all I want to do is save/export a file in a different format. I think we can extend that helpful language to the entire OS! No need for a “copy” or “download” button, it’s all sharing, one way or another! Share share share!
"Export" means "save this working file in one of many formats, including possibly other formats that are first-class in third-party apps but not this app"
How exactly do you think Bill Gates at peak Microsoft is going to fix this given "it's 100% on him?" And do you think the guys on the line are the ones on this email thread?
This is immensely more "ownership"/initiative than the vast majority of middle managers at any tech company would willingly take to solve a minor UX/CUJ failure, that's surely literally why he started the email thread and including the ones he did, to model that behavior for the the other middle management bozos and to try to instill a culture of caring about their work/whether it actually accomplishes the intended goals.
But it didn’t. And Microsoft is worth $3.5 trillion. So maybe actually everyone should take a leaf out of the Microsoft book.
When something is on fire, pass the buck to other people and stand around saying “that thing is on fire… wouldn’t it be great if someone called the fire brigade? I have the number here. One of you guys, give them a call.”
That says more about the US software industry than anything else. You “win” by being hostile to consumers while you lawyer up and bribe the powers that be.
It’s the only OS available for most computers. Sort no one cares about Linux or a BSD. Normal people only know Linux and Mac and you can’t get MacOS with your non-Mac.
And we all know Microsoft caters hard to enterprise and Apple almost seems to give them the middle finger on purpose. So all those big companies only buy MS.
Add in the giant base of existing software, especially line of business/custom stuff, and MS is safe for a long time, no matter how bad they are.
Survivorship bias is a thing no? Microsoft succeeded despite their organizational flaws. Microsoft produced an insanely backwards-compatible[1] OS despite flawed overall strategy and lack of decisive leadership. Doesn't mean everyone should take a leaf out of their book.
I personally believe there are organizations in a Mr. Burns-type equilibrium[2]. Maybe, like Mr Burns, they are in that perfect but fragile state of dysfunction which somehow makes them deliver, for some definition of "deliver". Maybe they have a core team that keeps the whole thing going against the odds. Either way, I wouldn't call any of these organizations resilient.
It made me cringe about three emails post-Bill because I recognized exactly what was happening. My first job was in a company past its glory days and couldn't adapt to the mobile-firstness of the smartphone era. They, too, had "product devs" whose sole job, as far as I could tell, was to forward emails to and from the right department/partner. It was even more egregious than MS---most of the emails forwarded were just "Hi sysads. The request below from engineering is authorized." or "Hi Engineering, see reply from $PARTNER below".
The company died a relatively quick death, spurned on by the Conglomerate Mothership. Thankfully I recognized the signs and jumped ship as soon as they were on borrowed time.
[1] I wouldn't know personally as I daily drive Linux but that _was_ the conceit of why you'd choose Windows. I won't be surprised if this one solid invariant that Windows could offer has changed lately.
> I personally believe there are organizations in a Mr. Burns-type equilibrium[2]. Maybe, like Mr Burns, they are in that perfect but fragile state of dysfunction which somehow makes them deliver, for some definition of "deliver". Maybe they have a core team that keeps the whole thing going against the odds. Either way, I wouldn't call any of these organizations resilient.
Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. Dilbert made real.
Indeed... Their core product seems to be being an unavoidable blackhole of money where they are taxing all of society by virtue of inserting themselves into our lives by having acquired or squashed other competitors
A bunch of things like Nuclear submarines (which I think still run on Windows NT?) and gas turbines and things I think.
And then, presumably, their downstream supply chains and integration tooling and yadda yadda.
Every time I am in a railway station it seems that digital signage runs on Windows, because the digital signs are always throwing errors.
None of this stuff needs windows but most of the time I guess no one is going to switch away because they are all so embedded, and it requires work and a bunch of people to make a decision.
Maybe the Windows execs were just modelling how they hoped corporate culture would look in their perfect customer.
Which is why it’s nice when the Swiss and French and so on ditch Windows for more open alternatives.
But did they get any better at putting out fires by committee?
Or are there still groups of Microsoft employees saying “I saw a fire extinguisher in Bob’s office the other day. He was using it as footrest. I told Magda to warn him about the health and safety but she said it was Julian’s job… and the guy who pays for them to be filled and tested left three years ago and no one replaced him, so it probably doesn’t work anyway.”
Really? You’ve got this guy Dave Fester on there saying he was going to own the website issues and was coordinating everything to do with how the products surfaced on the web. That seemed like pretty clear accountability and ownership to me. What do you want? Some more performative mea culpas?
Point wasn't about fixing the exact issues, the point was how it even got that bad. Of course the easiest route to comprehending the complaint by Bill is to immediately fix the specified issues, making Bill a simple QA instead of concerned leader.
I think accountability would involve trying to understand how it got that bad, and figuring out a new process for preventing it from happening again. Though I'm sure that never happened.
In my humble opinion, some of the blame has to land on Bill himself as he has the full power and agency to build a style of management in his company that would've prevented this from happening. Instead he just scolded a bunch of senior execs who usually find a way to just delegate some work to tuck away any visible issues and go on with their merry lives.
I've been around these execs outside of professional settings. All they care about is their status (money) and getting blowjobs from their aides. I am not exaggerating. They do not give a damn about how software should work. The execs with humble beginnings often get sucked into the culture and eventually exhibit the same characteristics as the others within 5-10 years. As they say, dopamine is a hell of a drug.
For sure. This is consistent with how I would expect the TikTok generation to communicate. I would also add that not only does he know nothing about software development, but he knows even less about the basics of using his own computer.
Even today Microsoft can't get their shit together on a decent user experience. Tried to use Azure since I needed to code sign a binary on Github. My two previous accounts setup on Azure errored out with obscure errors and there was no way to fix them. I had to create a new account just to sign up for Azure Artifact Signing (which is now waiting for Microsoft to approve - no updates in a week). I don't know how anyone figures any of this out without reading pages of documentation. I honestly believe that no one actually cares about their products or user experience at Microsoft.
At this level none of it is about moviemaker. It's a mix of coaching and testing.
Coaching as in: reminding people that this matters and encouraging them to care outside the strict lines of their task/scope.
Testing as in: who's capable of hearing it, taking it to heart, and driving the necessary change. And who's not.
Not evident in this thread but interesting how it impacted BillG's overall perspective on the people on the field and the impact of it on their careers with him.
I feel like if he said, I feel like firing someone immediately for this issue would have sprouted a surprising level ownership to find the people or team (or teams) to be blamed.
At the top level most people are not designed to get shit done. They are accountable for only reporting. So, even if you want to get things done finding the team or person from that point high is impossible as they are not designed for that.
But as I write this I realized that even that wouldn’t work...as they will create a committee and hire an consulting agency whose exec was in the same sorority as them. And the consulting agency will recommend teams to be laid off. And then the same exec will come in pitching the board to buy a startup which has a great team and apparently was invested by a VC who went to same class of Wharton of that exec.
> I feel like firing someone immediately for this issue would have sprouted a surprising level ownership to find the people or team (or teams) to be blamed.
I’d be ducking away from an issue that had just got someone fired.
Tangent: The irony in Microsoft making a product called ‘Teams’. It works about as well as their teamwork.
I often wonder how CEOs and executives fail to notice how obviously broken their products are. This e-mail thread is quite illuminating. Most "work" in there is figuring out who will be blamed for it and why it shouldn't be your team.
I honestly think that "doing nothing" was actually their best outcome. If they had actually been serious about solving it, it would have been something like
Situation: there are 14 competing and incompatible ways to obtain Windows software (owned by 23 different teams)
Ridiculous! We'll come up with a single unified interface
(After 3 years of development and delays) Situation: there are 18 competing and incompatible ways to obtain Windows software (owned by 31 different teams)
MovieMaker was discontinued in 2017 and replaced by ClipChamp. MS acquired ClipChamp and it was integrated into windows in 2022. So basically closed, will not fix.
I know people rag on Windows programs a lot, but ClipChamp is the worst, most bloated piece of software I have ever used in my life. It's so confusing how bad it is.
Based on how long corporate email chains go (without clearly accountable people), you're 50/50 on waiting for the feature to get fixed versus the feature becoming deprecated in a few years.
This is a good and bit surprising one. I have a hard time believing the CEO of Palantir has this many generational points I agree with, Zuck too, but I do.
> While our company has a special role in the lives of this generation, this is likely particularly important for how I show up because I am the most well-known person of my generation.
My god these people… I didn’t even know you could be that self-absorbed. It’s jarring.
Musk has ingratiated himself with parts of the political spectrum, or at least had since he later alienated them. I have no idea what his current standing is.
So for everything wrong with Musk there are at least some people who like him, amazingly.
I read through it and had a few things I've flagged in my head - the ego fluffing, repeated usage of "Millennial" to the point of redundancy, and the framing of things in terms of "big picture", but can you elaborate on "deep brainwashing techniques"? I'm genuinely interested. This entire email thread feels a bit surreal to me
The judicious use of the royal we, is where he triggered my spidey senses. Mark seems to deflect it in his response, also using the royal we. But yeah, the ego fluffing, the fixation on terms, and the dialectic generalizations, this all adds up to some controlled attention-gathering ...
> For Millennials, authenticity, agency, autonomy, idealism, altruism etc all seem to be top of their list of desirable virtues – for better or worse, they are difficult to reconcile with Silicon Valley these days.
(Nick Clegg)
For better or worse. Right. It is incredible that one can list those five words and say that with a straight face.
Once they started passing the blame, almost immediately, I would expect the first thing to be a new email from Gates saying “Bob, you’re doing this, Frank, you’re doing that, no excuses, get it done.”
The fact he did is probably responsible for a lot of issues with Windows installing and problems. Normalizing a reboot as a common thing.
I also suspect the fact he keeps re-iterating that the download was fast is because the teams have been using slow internet as an excuse for code speed problems.
I think this is an example of "shipping your org chart". The fix is proposed in the reply "we need one person/team to own the overall picture", but I am not sure they reached that fix by the end of the thread.
The logical outcome of an escalation like this is that there is no single threaded leader for this user experience, the org charts are wrong, and one or more sr. leaders are culpable. But no one wants to hear that.
In 2002 after spending my first 30 minutes on windows XP (previously 98, 95 and 3.11 user) I realized that Microsoft will never improve their UX. Every new os will be different, but not better. So I left then and there and never looked back, after some distro tourism I settled on Ubuntu in 2006 and use it even now.
It's so sad that 17MB was at some point considered a humungous update filesize and now we need 330MB of a web browser everytime we want to install anything.
I feel, many times, the way Bill did in that email. Seems most people don’t mind or care.
I wondered how anyone successfully filed for unemployment a few years ago when I had to. But many seem to do it successfully.
I tell my wife that I pay too much attention to the details and have a low tolerance for poor work. I wish I didn’t notice though as it seems like a nice life!
Big-corporate dysfunction is one of the reasons I like working in early startups.
(Startups that act like startups. Which means neither mimicking nor tolerating big-corporate style dysfunction. Otherwise, you have the worst of both worlds: soul-sucking big-corporate culture and difficulty executing, without the big-corporate paycheck and sometimes resume prestige boost.)
Don't underestimate working for the medium size business nobody has heard of but prints money doing something semi boring. They won't change the world but it's often a reliable paycheck without all the BS
The one time I got to ask Bill a question was probably why Windows didn’t have a “make world” that just works like in FreeBSD. I wonder if he remembered that question during his ordeal.
This happens when you have people at the top of the chain who don't use the product and people at the bottom who are afraid to speak up, or use it so much they can't see the problems.
I suspect plenty spoke up. But once filtered through 35 layers of management “this is terrible and our users will hate us” becomes “best thing we’ve ever done, users love us”.
The reason why Apple won is Steve Jobs cared about quality and was an asshole about it and the inertia from that after his death has not entirely decayed yet.
The people in that thread need a good Linus Torvalds style rant about their incompetence and several of them should just have been fired.
Yes. When I was working at Apple, I was developing some animation stuff for Keynote. I came in to work one day, and my build was broken completely. Turned out that Roger Rosner had demonstrated this animation feature to Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs hated it, and before then end of the evening the code had been stripped from the Keynote build.
You also don't need to live in a fluffy cotton candy world where everyone pretends to be nice. A CEO needs to be able to directly tell people they're doing a bad job and give out consequences for it. Wrapping the same feedback in fluffy feelings oriented language is a different kind of abusiveness (and why I hate California)
Schadenfreude knowing that Gates, filthy rich owning the most popular OS ever, still have no agency on his own workflow, whereas the average Linux user, even a kid, has more. Love it.
> I decided to download Moviemake and buy the Digital Plus pack r so I went to Microsoft.com
That "r" from "Moviemaker" pushed to the end of "and buy the Digital Plus pack" displays the universally shared experience of writing something, then deciding to come back to add something else and fucking up the first sentence.
Everyone here saying about execs and so on - don't seem to catch a few nuances in this chain.
1. Bill Gates is doing the "Internal Disruptor" CEO style
2. Everyone is reacting in a way Bill Gates expects them to react
3. The results of his disruptor style is that Windows is absolutely further unbearable and horrendous, as seen today own the line.
Make no mistake: "Internal Disruptor" CEOs kill their own products and people from the inside, rather than competing or building good products outside.
I will give Bill this, he does know how to play a typical user. Yeah, MS has some shenanigans (putting it mildly) in its birth and climb, but it was obvious from that that he was a relatively competent nerd, programmer etc., and that he was trying to paint the thought process of someone trying to put together family videos not "hurr, where this go, what this do?" like a Neanderthal.
Amusing watching all the executives try to push responsibility on each other and stay out the spotlist or, if unavoidable, take ownership of the smallest possible part of the problem, and then convene committees (that largely caused the mess) to solve the mess.
While reading this I pictured an irate BillG screaming at his shitty pc first thing in the morning, probably after getting off a Skype or WebEx call, like the guy in The Onion's classic "Sony releases stupid piece of shit that doesn't fucking work" https://youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1_vWYQ
And that's exactly how I felt trying to reinstall Windows 10/11 on a new motherboard recently.
Just last week, I was trying to sign up to Microsoft.com and got stuck in the captcha step. They have famously dysfunctional captcha system, people can't sign up to Microsoft and complain a lot about it online, and yet, it's not fixed.
Microsoft always built dysfunctional software. They were never good at this. Hotmail was an unusable product, it was so painful to use it and Gmail took over the entire market in a year. Nobody ever said: "oh, I miss X about Hotmail"
Windows products were also same. They were so easy to break, you'd need to format the disk and re-install once a month, otherwise it'd keep breaking all the time.
> Hotmail was an unusable product, it was so painful to use it and Gmail took over the entire market in a year. Nobody ever said: "oh, I miss X about Hotmail"
“Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.”
That does not sound like something Bill Gates would say…
The email reads as if parts of it were dictated, and subsequent parts of it were taken from realtime notes, i.e. a third party is noting, episodic, everything Gates did during that attempt to install MoveMaker .. and then it was refactored into a "From Bill" mail at a later point ..
Microsoft can no longer engineer a software product, it simply cannot build anything innovative. It can certainly buy other companies and use what they have built. But even then they will over time ruin the product.
Microsoft needs Bill Gates back, the young, abrasive version of him that didn't tolerate bullshit, to call them out on what they're shipping these days.
Favorite part is Gates' opinion of the entire Windows project:
"Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up."
They also know it's shit, they're just gaslighting you.
As it says at the end, this was evidence at the class action suit "Comes v. Microsoft Corp.", which was eventually settled by Microsoft by paying $180 million, after many years of litigation.
My favorite bit about this is how none of the execs want to take ownership of the change, but instead trying to put someone else in the hot seat and/or start a Committee.
This feels like an email that should have been blasted to the entire company. Top-down, empower employees to think of a more unified experience. Then again, all of the external jokes about Microsoft indicate that every department is fighting for their lives against the others, so that kind of kumbaya togetherness was never going to happen.
> every department is fighting for their lives against the others
https://bonkersworld.net/img/2011-06-27_organizational_chart...
I love how Google looks like an MLP. I suspect their leadership would agree with that portrayal. You can imagine the activation functions: "Will this get me promoted?" "Will this get us bad press?"
This is unfortunately par for the course at many big companies. I have re-lived this exact same thread so many times I've lost count
1. Leader escalates issue to his team 2. The team scrambles to come up with a solution 3. No one wants to take ownership. #NotMyProblem 4. weeks or months are spent on 'developing a plan' 5. nothinghappens.jpg
I have seen that too many times too in big companies, but I wouldn't say that it results in nothinghappens.jpg
It results in the equivalent of treating an infection with Tylenol rather than antibiotics. The exact symptom reported by a "Leader" will usually get fixed, but in a more of a "KPI hacking" rather than a fundamental fix to the problem. I have seen a "Leader" point to the staggering number of support tickets as a problem then have teams make it incredibility difficult to open a support ticket. The number of support tickets plummets and the first report to instruct their team to do so gets rewarded and all other teams follow suit. Have a leader point to complexity of the sign up process, and have teams "simplify" the signup process by just taking an email to create the account, then make the experience of doing anything post sign up a broken mess because you forgot to go into settings and filling up all the required details. Or have a leader complain about the install process like in this example, and have teams just bundle massive dependencies or make wide horrific modifications to the users machine to "simplify" the install process. Now suddenly installing a video editing software also modifies your default video player, your HDR or scaling settings, your audio device setup, and your keyboard layout (because why not?)
I drown in support tickets daily that used to go nowhere. Then people started realizing that I knew what I was talking about and not some standard business user. Now I still have to open tickets, but get visibility of the people who know what they’re doing on their end (having been moved up from lowly support to oversee some ticket filling company that doesn’t know crap). We get tom complain to one another how shit is broken, wait mandatory change periods and then get something working by exploiting loopholes because some process was developed and someone put a lot of money behind it.
Large companies are why large companies are large (in IT/OT at least)
The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns?
Standard psychology says they should be highly sensitive to status loss, but it almost seems the opposite.
Ask anyone at a FAANG and they will tell you that large corporations get flak every day for a lot of things, some justified and some unjustified. As an IC, you need to tune it all out and let the people whose full time job is to deal with that sort of thing handle it.
>"The more interesting question is why would so many thousands of people in a big firm seemingly be fine with frustrating customers and giving the appearance of a gaggle of clowns?"
Existing in a large org over the long term becomes a game of survival. It's very much similar to the "dark forest" or the Eye of Sauron. Your number one goal as an IC is to complete the tasks directly assigned to you by a supervisor and avoid at all costs any kind of "hey you" assignments that have zero upside and plenty of possibility for downside. It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where individual initiative mattered and was rewarded, but it doesn't. It becomes "why haven't you delivered XYZ", and the vague ephemeral reasoning of "well A, B and C for team D needed fixing" is not an excuse, and now you can't pay your mortgage anymore.
I’ve had “Boss I can fix this in one line of code.” situations, but nobody of 6 people wanted to make the call despite involving themselves excessively.
So nothing got done.
So the temperature on the issue went up.
So management whose failure was their own could only think of engaging more managers and processes….
Never ended.
I work at small companies now, less money but I enjoy it more. I just fix things and everyone is happy.
The Soviet Union didn't fall, it got merged into Microsoft
Capitalism at its finest! Or wait, never mind
My fav is this :
> Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.
This is so true, and not only under Windows. Install any modern program under any modern OS and have a look at the filesystem, it's a flaming mess. Nowadays the only solution "smart people" have found is to install a complete system, complete with libraries and frameworks, for each program.
I miss the days of simple executables.
> I miss the days of simple executables.
One of my "santa's not real" moments of computing was realizing how much static and dynamic libraries fucking suck. This cannot be overstated, and is illustrated perfectly by the heroic efforts of software vendors to get away from them.
Okay, a few functions like fopen are fine - but even those are syscall wrappers IRL. But every OS seems to have concluded, that in the place of API calls, one should rather have streams of text (UNIX) or binary messages (Windows, also a bunch of Linux desktop stuff, like Wayland), or File I/O.
Basically a major motivation behind JIT langauges (C#/.NET certainly) was an effort to get away from dynamically linked libraries,
Even DOS didn't really have libraries, you had peripherals mapped to memory at certain addresses, and a set of interrupts, and that was it.
These single file Go and Rust programs read and write stdio and/or network, which is a reasonable solution to a lot of problems, but certainly not all of them, especially in the interactive space.
Rust and Go can create a single statically linked executable and they are very popular. It could become a thing.
The difference in complexity between my go and my Python docker image is actually hilarious. 100s of files and package managers and npm and whatever else.. vs 1 file.
Where does NPM play in to the build?
Npm always finds its way in, usually for building web artifacts.
I don't think I'll ever learn what the folder structure on Linux actually means
man hier (https://man.archlinux.org/man/hier.7.en).
"I don't know what it means to "own website issues""
made me irate. It was very clear! Read the issues and be accountable for fixing them?
From what I know about MS, I can understand what they mean. Microsoft famously had teams at odds with each other, so if you "own" something across multiple teams and can't get them to actually work together or take a particular issue seriously, then you just have the shit end of responsibility without the authority to make stuff happen.
For awhile under Balmer, Microsoft implemented a lot of Jack Welsh management philosophies. This included stack ranking, but also encouraging "internal competition" under the idea that it'll drive people to excel. In real life that caused friction, politics, sandbagging, and other problems that were not in the company's best interests. It's fine to be competitive, but in some competitive situations (team sports, companies, etc), the whole point is for the team to win, not individuals.
Sadly, even though most of these philosophies have been discredited over the long term (stack ranking can be fine if you do actually need to do layoffs, so long as you realized there are exceptions to the rule), other bad management practices have also taken over. We're now squarely in the depths of all the worst aspects of "product driven" development, where nebulous metrics are measured for success (such as the bad VSCode decision to append copilot in commit messages, which makes it look like copilot is more heavily used than it is).
Ironically, they could have learned from Jack Welsh to separate the product divisions and make redundant teams on each one to solve the ownership issues.
When people compete internally on Microsoft, what are they competing on if everybody works in a different horizontal?
Exactly. Jack Welsh’s management philosophy just further incentivizes doing what you can to bring everyone else (ie the company) down to make yourself look better.
> Microsoft famously had teams at odds with each other, ...
Instantly reminded me of this especially apt comic:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyJfRwHWYAI0_yt?format=jpg
[1] Also available here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/6jw33z/int...
Given that the way the company worked was the cause of the problem, sending the email company wide would have caused more confusion that solve the problem.
Somebody really oughta do something about this mess!
> My favorite bit about this is how none of the execs want to take ownership of the change, but instead trying to put someone else in the hot seat and/or start a Committee.
And with the exception of John Martin's reply (which recognizes that there are deeper problems they should think about, but seems resigned to the fact that that won't happen) the focus is pretty much entirely: "let's fix the exact issues Bill Gates ran into trying to download this one product we produce" (out of many hundreds/thousands) rather than "let's fix the root causes that caused us to arrive in this place to begin with".
I haven't worked at any companies as large and siloed as Microsoft, but I'd assume this is pretty common for them, at least if they don't have a Steve Jobs-like tyrant who both has all the power and is singularly product focused.
There was nothing surprising in that email chain at all, looking at it as someone with lots of experience in large companies.
In a twisted kind of way, the replies were reasonable and logical. They're not dumb, they can see it was crap. No one org can actually own this fix, so in that kind of situation it realistically requires someone like Bill to choose someone to drive it, and demand updates to ensure that everyone gets aligned. Telling his execs, especially in a company so notoriously political and "empire" oriented as it was, isn't going to work.
I actually liked that in Amazon, Jeff Bezos used to send out the infamous "question mark" emails on such a regular basis that they built an exec commitee specifically for the purposes of driving direct action on problems. Didn't matter where you were, or what you were working on, if that question mark email came you dropped everything to work on it.
Yeah. In context the answers make a lot of sense: it’s a dysfunctional company where ownership is non-existent and getting shit done is hard.
This is how learned helplessness looks like when you’re a high level executive.
I think they also suspect/know that Gates won't revisit the issue. The email is a flame as the subject line admits. Gates wasn't going to go back every week for the next six months to track progress.
> This is how learned helplessness looks like when you’re a high level executive.
Must be nice being so useless, yet getting paid so much.
Though I guess these people must have been good at politicking to rise so high.
I mean, you're 100% right, but what's the alternative? They wanna keep the salary. The machine rewards political people, not people who pick fights to improve the product. It's a perfect pair. :/
It's very common. From a certain level up, execs rarely use the products they are responsible for. It's all about strategy, committees, meetings, plans and reports. For them the product is just an abstract thing. When I rented a Buick car, I thought to myself that there is no way any decision maker ever tried the car and thought that this is ok.
I think one of the strengths of Apple during the Jobs days was that Jobs actually sometimes seemed to use the products himself and gave feedback. When I look at the blatant bugs MacOS and iOS had in the last years, I also think that the current Apple big shots never use their stuff or they would have noticed.
> I also think that the current Apple big shots never use their stuff or they would have noticed.
Or they do and they don't think it's worth their time and energy to get them fixed. I think they just don't care about their products, unlike Jobs.
If you'd take the Gates email and give them to my colleagues, saying "this was some random guy complaining about Windows", they'd all react along the lines of "Well, that's just an idiot who makes things up because he's bored and hates Windows. There are good reasons for everything he complained about. He just reports it in a quite dramatized way."
> When I look at the blatant bugs MacOS and iOS had in the last years, I also think that the current Apple big shots never use their stuff or they would have noticed.
The crazy thing is that it's more likely that most people in Apple are using their own products, versus any of the Android phone manufacturers or within Google, where it's likely a few of them would be using the Apple ecosystem instead.
Many of them are definitely dogfooding it, but it's possible that there's communication or empowerment issues.
One thing that drives me nuts for example is the indicator for remaining disk space. I have this icon on my desktop that says "Macintosh HD | 995 GB, 273 GB free". This used to work great until a few years ago. Copy 1 GB onto the disk and it displays 1 GB less free disk space.
But since a few years it goes up and down daily by 100 GB or more. Sometimes I have 350 GB, sometimes I have 100 GB. I think it has to do with Time Machine snapshots and purgeable space (whatever that means) but it's totally useless now. I can't tell for sure if I can copy 250 GB to my disk or not. It may fail now but work 2 hours later. How come nobody notices such a fundamental thing not working? Somehow the dogfooding doesn't seem to work. Or maybe the Apple people all have 8 TB disks so they don't care.
> I haven't worked at any companies as large and siloed as Microsoft, but I'd assume this is pretty common for them.
Doesn't need to be that large, I worked for a company that ~4500 employees with about 1000 at HQ, that entire email chain looks exactly like what would ensue every time someone at the C-level flagged an issue.
I suspect the reason is much the same, no one wants to be in the hot seat to fix a problem they have no faith they can fix so everyone plays hot potato with the flaming sack of shit until it bursts and lands on someone.
> Fish begins to stink at the head, not the tail. (13th Century Persian Proverb)
I have worked at MS-sized orgs that are like this, but have also worked at 100 employee startups that are exactly the same.
Once bad culture gets to your company, it doesn’t matter the size.
Also I suspect that there's no real teeth in that angry email.
If the big boss is frustrated by the UX, they might send an angry email or even yell at you in person. If your division doesn't meet its sales projection for the quarter, you might get fired.
If BillG had wanted a company that made good user experiences, he'd have hired (and fired) for that. Sending a pissy email is what you do when you're annoyed but don't actually care enough to do anything about it.
Microsoft is a company where you get promoted for playing politics, not taking ownership, improving things, fixing bugs.
Agreed. From the comments, lots of people down-thread who clearly haven't worked in large orgs.
They are arguing about not wanting to take ownership because they know the organizational structure is going to be an impediment. The problems Bill describes could not have been solved by Microsoft without a massive internal restructuring. We know this because Microsoft's UX is still abysmal.
Nobody wants to have the inevitable failure hung around their necks by "owning" something that depends on the cooperation and coordination of departments that don't report to them.
They think it's 'some issues' :) :) :)
It's a fundamental, cultural and systemic lack of concern for those issues.
An 'afterthought' that should be 'integral'.
That Gates did not realize that means it's 100% on him.
1000% actually.
He was struggling with the language of design and usability in 2003, not even realizing even the implications of what he was seeing (because it would require total rethink).
Like a cars coming out of the factory with missing parts ... blame it on the guy on the line?
No. Something is deeply wrong.
I really like Gates - but it's beyond shocking how these cultures work and how myopic they are.
I worked for a Fortune 50 - and it's pretty amazing to watch how an army of actually smart people with 'one eye' can be so competent many ways, but blind in others.
I don't like to put Jobs on a pedestal but obviously this is something he understood (even then with gaping holes).
This email was literally BillG sending an email to the people he holds accountable for this, pointing out to them that he believes his experience resulted from a systematic lack of attention to end to end user experience.
I’m not sure why you see this as evidence BillG didn’t understand that to be his job.
I have struggle to understand how someone could come to that conclusion, maybe I missed something?
The email is a 'rant'.
It's a 'list of broken stuff'.
It's not:
1) identifying underlying first principles of design or UX that have been broken
2) not identifying which parts of the system may have resulted in the negative outcome
3) not reference for either operational or cultural that were braoched or need to be address
4) not at all cognizant of systemic concern at all.
5) didn't allocate responsibility, hint at how to organized a response, what structural issues need to be in place.
It's actually a really bad an embarrassing lack of leadership.
It's basically 'user rant' - not what one would expect from a leader.
He 'made a list of complaints and threw them onto the org.' - who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.
'Dear Leader, doesn't like how the picture frames are set in the office! Fire the picture framers, everyone get out your rulers and fix the picture frames'.
This is really common and it happens because people have this magical belief that the 'founder' or 'ceo' has 'special powers and insight' and then issues roll down hill among sycophants and yes men, trying to appease.
A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this', hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught, an attempt for accountability in certain areas (divide the concern), a requirement to convene on this issues and make sure everyone understands what's important. Especially and including the fact that anyone responsible for a product actually has to 'use it' aka dogfooding or else etc etc..
In 2003, Gates was no longer CEO; I think he was President of the Board and something like "Special Advisor"? None of the people involved reported to him, so he may actually correctly have felt he could not tell them what to do?--so he stuck to venting his frustration.
Exactly. bluegatty has great points for a CEO role but Bill stopped being CEO in 2000 three years earlier. The board and advisors cannot direct the company internally - this is by law. Separation of oversight and management. They can tell the CEO what to do but the CEO decides. Then they can fire the ceo if they don’t like it.
If the President of the board has an issue with how the company is fundamentally operating, they go to the CEO. If the CEO doesn’t understand or doesn’t prioritize the concerns of the board, then they get replaced.
He’s may not have been the CEO… but he was the boss of the CEO and represented all the individual owners of the company.
> It's basically 'user rant' - not what one would expect from a leader.
It is absolutely a user rant, but it's entirely appropriate for a leader to call out "this is not okay; this is a garbage experience".
> who are obviously being 'reactive' and moving in a bit of a frenzy.
That was the intent. "Fix this." This was an email to a bunch of execs who are capable of driving the actual fixes. If Gates needs to hand hold them through this then they need to be replaced.
> A good example of 'leadership' would start out with 'I take responsibility for this'
This is vacuous corporate speak, the kind of message you send to shareholders to soothe them. This is not leadership.
> hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught...
Again, if Gates needs to do this then everyone on the To line is dead weight.
completely disagree
1) sending the org into a reactive frenzy on the minor issue when the structural issue is the problem - is bad. He's also pointing them at the symptom and not the cause.
2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
Gates failed to institute 'design and usability' as a fundamental aspect of the product and operational culture.
The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing.
3) "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job.
> sending the org into a reactive frenzy
I don’t see an actual “reactive frenzy” here. I see that Gates started a conversation with the execs he believes are responsible for fixing this mess.
And again, these are execs being paid millions. They do not need to be coddled. You are acting as if Gates sent this to a bunch of junior engineers.
> ‘taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
It’s absolutely vacuous to say 'I take responsibility for this' when you are telling a group of people they need to fix their shit.
Any CVP/EVP who fails at a job and then hears someone above them take responsibility for the failure knows they are about to be out of a job.
> The email implies that some underling is to blame which is bad framing.
If by underling you mean “highly paid executives” then sure. At some point people have to take responsibility for their jobs. This wasn’t a failure of some individual engineers. It was a collective failure of a group of executives to deliver a good experience.
> "hinting and the possible source of flaws, where in the process those things should have been caught.." - that's literally his job
It’s literally not. That’s not what CEOs of large corporations do and Gates wasn’t even CEO at this time. He was in an advisory role. His job was literally to give feedback.
> I see that Gates started a conversation with the execs he believes are responsible for fixing this mess.
I think the point here might be that what created this mess in the first place is the structure of the organisation, not the execs that are temporarily embodying it. It's actually quite clear from the follow-ups, there is nobody who can claim responsibility even for the website, never mind any vision or philosophy spanning multiple media and products.
Maybe Gates simply wasn't in the position of doing anything else at that time, or maybe his rant was a clever way to expose this exact problem. But it's pretty obvious that "will someone fix the website" doesn't sound like someone analysing and addressing the root cause of the issue. (However, it's also perfectly possible that this email is just a small part of a bigger conversation at different levels- inform the responsible and patch the immediate issue while more high level analysis and planning takes place elsewhere, informally).
> 2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good outcome.
Tbh it seems like you're autistic and simply don't understand how such a "o take responsibility" message really looks like and what effect it'd have.
Thanks for this reply. I learned something today!
Really good reply, well put
Sorry, but board room or top-50 professional discussions are ment to be a lot more meta. Bill using 500-1000 words to voice his concrete experience in downloading an app, with his directors immediately chiming in for fixes misses the forest for the trees. And Bill starts the quest for the one tree in his choice of words. It was disalignment in his organizational model and the CEO is on the line for that alignment. The happy install flow for moviemaker.exe - who cares… Just look at that thread! Response 3 is already “that’s not my turf”-ing. I’m not saying it’s easy to create a shift in a company of that size, it’s that they weren’t trying when the problem was yelling in their face.
(Typing this with a hot lap thanks to Windows update. The agony. Debian solved that 20-30 years ago.)
Most of the thread is lower level staff specifically trying to address the raised issues. We have no idea what conversations this triggered among the exec team about the broader strategic issues Bill raised.
Those are all Executives.
It's actually funny that you're thinking they are 'lower level staff' because that's how it seems by their reaction, but those are literally top Execs.
That's really how these orgs often work.
'Dear Leader Is Angry' will set the whole org into a tizzy.
I've seen this countless times - 'XXX said it', and the littlest thing will get moved.
Often - this is good, it means the org is responsive to the direction of the founder, but it's 'abused' all the time. I think leaders forget their responsibility and truly believe that 'their whims' are essential.
25% of the US are looking at the insane things POTUS is putting out and believing there's some kind of 5D chess magic, when it's actually -5D - aka extraordinary bad leadership. That's the 'power of power'.
'Self Awareness' is probably the #1 superpower of a leader, because nobody is going to keep them in check.
Lower level than the former CEO And President of the board.
The point is this was not a round robin reply all buckpassing exercise with BillG and the senior corporate leaders still on the reply list. This is a specific downstream chain of email.
I’m not sure I understand what people here think the right thing to do is when the company founder emails a bunch of senior execs telling them they seem to have let things all go to crap.
Every single recipient on the thread was a Vice President, Corporate Vice President, or Senior/Group Vice President. Gates intentionally bypassed lower-level product managers and emailed the executive tier directly to demand accountability for platform-wide usability regressions.
If you think this is not missing the forest for the trees, please explain.
Becuase it was a typical MS user experience. MS was shipping their software on 25+ install floppies. Having an install fail on floppy 19 was a nightmare. Getting a fax modem that shipped with the PC to function could also be a problem MS would blame the vendor and the vendor blamed MS. It’s not like his moviemaker experience was a rare occurrence.
People forget the "if Microsoft invented the iPod" parody video."
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yvh5k1RWER4
It describes the culture of both companies at that time very clearly.
I think the difference between Apple and Microsoft is that Steve was a "product" CEO. He would bot only send that email, but in addition he would somehow oversee/sypervise those changes ALL the way until he was satisfied.
As for Jobs, I bought a Mac Mini last summer. I wanted to use iMovie to clip the edges off of a movie file. I clipped the edges, but was unable to discover how to save the resulting file, and gave up. Microsoft's Movie Maker has a menu item to save a file.
I use the Mini every day, but only via a tty window.
Jobs has been dead for a long time.
And it shows.
He had bad ideas too but was much better at holding the line on good UI (unless the bad idea was his). We haven’t had that in a long time.
Apple used to have principled UX before designers got to innovation. There might be an argument that new UIs are better for people with no prior experience... if they did not completely change them once a decade or so.
Yes - this is a mind boggling design conceit of Apple that goes back almost 50 years.
They made certain design decisions a long time ago around a lot of things and that's one of them.
They 'conscientiously' designed the UX - which is great - it generally makes it better, but the problem is, when you make a mistake, the mistake is more ingrained.
We all know of 'Arrogant Engineers' thinking their 'Algorithm is more important than anything' - that 'save' thing is a design conceit, heavily instituted into the culture. The designers would look at you like an infidel for suggesting you know something they don't back in the day. Or even today.
I'm basically certain that Jobs himself will have defended that feature 1000 times over the years.
It's probably kept up like a religious ritual, a point of 'differentiation' and 'we're better here'.
Which is very different than a lack of operational rigour, it's where part of the system is overbearing.
"It's just the way we do it here" will be the justification for the next 100 years on that. And changing things that are ingrained is also very heard and risky. It's like changing the constitution, it's pulling a thread on the sweater.
There are quite a lot of weird 'Apple Way' things, most good, many bad.
I've used QuickTime for that, which has the expected menu items.
yeah it's like one shortcut and a trim bar in QuickTime so that's the right tool for the job. iMovie isn't much harder but is a palaver with its whole pre-rendering thing just to export what should be a trivial edit.
The Photos app (on Mac/iOS) has the same trim interface as QT too.
There's a menu item. I believe it's File > Share > then you choose how (save to disk, email, export to photos app etc).
File > Save doesn't make sense because you would be saving your iMovie project. You're trying to export the final video from the project, not save it.
The problem was using a far too complex tool to do a simple job (and not understanding how the tool works). You can trim a video in Quicktime or Photos which directly manipulates the file.
There's no File > Export?!
File > Share is the same, just more user friendly language. I get it's a bit confusing if you've been using computers for a long time (it's certainly caught me out), but 'Share' makes much more sense. Especially because export/save to disk is only one of the multiple 'Share' options available.
Yes! It makes total sense to share with myself a Pages document as PDF! I‘ll promptly think of sharing if all I want to do is save/export a file in a different format. I think we can extend that helpful language to the entire OS! No need for a “copy” or “download” button, it’s all sharing, one way or another! Share share share!
"Share" really means send to someone else
"Export" means "save this working file in one of many formats, including possibly other formats that are first-class in third-party apps but not this app"
Share doesn't really make any sense. And other macOS applications have an Export menu all right.
> just more user friendly language
you try to justify it in a logical way, but you fail to realize that this is inherently subjective
How exactly do you think Bill Gates at peak Microsoft is going to fix this given "it's 100% on him?" And do you think the guys on the line are the ones on this email thread?
This is immensely more "ownership"/initiative than the vast majority of middle managers at any tech company would willingly take to solve a minor UX/CUJ failure, that's surely literally why he started the email thread and including the ones he did, to model that behavior for the the other middle management bozos and to try to instill a culture of caring about their work/whether it actually accomplishes the intended goals.
Read the whole thing and all I saw was zero accountability, zero ownership and zero consequences.
That’s how great products die or become a nightmare. Every team keeps on passing the ball to other team and nothing gets fixed or done or improved.
But it didn’t. And Microsoft is worth $3.5 trillion. So maybe actually everyone should take a leaf out of the Microsoft book.
When something is on fire, pass the buck to other people and stand around saying “that thing is on fire… wouldn’t it be great if someone called the fire brigade? I have the number here. One of you guys, give them a call.”
That says more about the US software industry than anything else. You “win” by being hostile to consumers while you lawyer up and bribe the powers that be.
I read this somewhere else in HN (possibly in one of the Azure threads):
Microsoft's moat continues to be in the number of enterprise contracts that have already been signed.
It's easy for someone to get access to Copilot Copilot because their large company already has an Azure billing agreement set up somewhere.
It’s the only OS available for most computers. Sort no one cares about Linux or a BSD. Normal people only know Linux and Mac and you can’t get MacOS with your non-Mac.
And we all know Microsoft caters hard to enterprise and Apple almost seems to give them the middle finger on purpose. So all those big companies only buy MS.
Add in the giant base of existing software, especially line of business/custom stuff, and MS is safe for a long time, no matter how bad they are.
<fighter-planes-with-bulletholes.jpg>
Survivorship bias is a thing no? Microsoft succeeded despite their organizational flaws. Microsoft produced an insanely backwards-compatible[1] OS despite flawed overall strategy and lack of decisive leadership. Doesn't mean everyone should take a leaf out of their book.
I personally believe there are organizations in a Mr. Burns-type equilibrium[2]. Maybe, like Mr Burns, they are in that perfect but fragile state of dysfunction which somehow makes them deliver, for some definition of "deliver". Maybe they have a core team that keeps the whole thing going against the odds. Either way, I wouldn't call any of these organizations resilient.
It made me cringe about three emails post-Bill because I recognized exactly what was happening. My first job was in a company past its glory days and couldn't adapt to the mobile-firstness of the smartphone era. They, too, had "product devs" whose sole job, as far as I could tell, was to forward emails to and from the right department/partner. It was even more egregious than MS---most of the emails forwarded were just "Hi sysads. The request below from engineering is authorized." or "Hi Engineering, see reply from $PARTNER below".
The company died a relatively quick death, spurned on by the Conglomerate Mothership. Thankfully I recognized the signs and jumped ship as soon as they were on borrowed time.
[1] I wouldn't know personally as I daily drive Linux but that _was_ the conceit of why you'd choose Windows. I won't be surprised if this one solid invariant that Windows could offer has changed lately.
[2] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qgMKq2aOeEg
> I personally believe there are organizations in a Mr. Burns-type equilibrium[2]. Maybe, like Mr Burns, they are in that perfect but fragile state of dysfunction which somehow makes them deliver, for some definition of "deliver". Maybe they have a core team that keeps the whole thing going against the odds. Either way, I wouldn't call any of these organizations resilient.
Yeah, that’s basically what I mean. Dilbert made real.
they pivoted a few times since then in terms of what their core product is, though :D
Indeed... Their core product seems to be being an unavoidable blackhole of money where they are taxing all of society by virtue of inserting themselves into our lives by having acquired or squashed other competitors
I agree, but I think their hold on the monopoly is starting to erode, what with the gaming on linux momentum and all.
What else is there that _needs_ windows?
A bunch of things like Nuclear submarines (which I think still run on Windows NT?) and gas turbines and things I think.
And then, presumably, their downstream supply chains and integration tooling and yadda yadda.
Every time I am in a railway station it seems that digital signage runs on Windows, because the digital signs are always throwing errors.
None of this stuff needs windows but most of the time I guess no one is going to switch away because they are all so embedded, and it requires work and a bunch of people to make a decision.
Maybe the Windows execs were just modelling how they hoped corporate culture would look in their perfect customer.
Which is why it’s nice when the Swiss and French and so on ditch Windows for more open alternatives.
But did they get any better at putting out fires by committee?
Or are there still groups of Microsoft employees saying “I saw a fire extinguisher in Bob’s office the other day. He was using it as footrest. I told Magda to warn him about the health and safety but she said it was Julian’s job… and the guy who pays for them to be filled and tested left three years ago and no one replaced him, so it probably doesn’t work anyway.”
Windows MovieMaker remained a nightmare and did indeed die.
The book is simply: acquire monopoly, wield power ruthlessly to keep it. Everything else is orthogonal.
Those bits are in a completely different set of emails
Really? You’ve got this guy Dave Fester on there saying he was going to own the website issues and was coordinating everything to do with how the products surfaced on the web. That seemed like pretty clear accountability and ownership to me. What do you want? Some more performative mea culpas?
Point wasn't about fixing the exact issues, the point was how it even got that bad. Of course the easiest route to comprehending the complaint by Bill is to immediately fix the specified issues, making Bill a simple QA instead of concerned leader.
I think accountability would involve trying to understand how it got that bad, and figuring out a new process for preventing it from happening again. Though I'm sure that never happened.
In my humble opinion, some of the blame has to land on Bill himself as he has the full power and agency to build a style of management in his company that would've prevented this from happening. Instead he just scolded a bunch of senior execs who usually find a way to just delegate some work to tuck away any visible issues and go on with their merry lives.
Read it.
Stopped halfway through thinking "Damn, this Mike Beckerman is a piece of work. Doesn't understand English grammar let alone software development."
Looked him up...
>Michael Beckerman is an American lobbyist who is vice president at TikTok.
Not surprising at all.
I've been around these execs outside of professional settings. All they care about is their status (money) and getting blowjobs from their aides. I am not exaggerating. They do not give a damn about how software should work. The execs with humble beginnings often get sucked into the culture and eventually exhibit the same characteristics as the others within 5-10 years. As they say, dopamine is a hell of a drug.
Every good business is one MBA away from enshittification.
Wrong Michael Beckerman. Source: I know the TikTok Beckerman, but not the MSFT one.
That must be a different Michael Beckerman. This one was an executive at Microsoft in 2002...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Beckerman graduated in 2001, although it says nothing of any employment at Microsoft on his Wikipedia page... so you might be right?
It specifically says he worked for the US gov during that period, so your comment needs an edit
For sure. This is consistent with how I would expect the TikTok generation to communicate. I would also add that not only does he know nothing about software development, but he knows even less about the basics of using his own computer.
This was an email Bill Gates sent in 2003. Not sure you can hold the ‘TikTok generation’ accountable for that.
Even today Microsoft can't get their shit together on a decent user experience. Tried to use Azure since I needed to code sign a binary on Github. My two previous accounts setup on Azure errored out with obscure errors and there was no way to fix them. I had to create a new account just to sign up for Azure Artifact Signing (which is now waiting for Microsoft to approve - no updates in a week). I don't know how anyone figures any of this out without reading pages of documentation. I honestly believe that no one actually cares about their products or user experience at Microsoft.
Azures brutal in terms of UX. One of the best things about AI is that it has made dealing with Azure a heck of a lot easier.
at least you managed to sign up to MS. Many people can't even get that done in MS websites.
this is my favorite bit
>So I gave up and sent mail to Amir saying - where is this Moviemaker download? Does it exist?
>So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated
At this level none of it is about moviemaker. It's a mix of coaching and testing.
Coaching as in: reminding people that this matters and encouraging them to care outside the strict lines of their task/scope.
Testing as in: who's capable of hearing it, taking it to heart, and driving the necessary change. And who's not.
Not evident in this thread but interesting how it impacted BillG's overall perspective on the people on the field and the impact of it on their careers with him.
I feel like if he said, I feel like firing someone immediately for this issue would have sprouted a surprising level ownership to find the people or team (or teams) to be blamed.
At the top level most people are not designed to get shit done. They are accountable for only reporting. So, even if you want to get things done finding the team or person from that point high is impossible as they are not designed for that.
But as I write this I realized that even that wouldn’t work...as they will create a committee and hire an consulting agency whose exec was in the same sorority as them. And the consulting agency will recommend teams to be laid off. And then the same exec will come in pitching the board to buy a startup which has a great team and apparently was invested by a VC who went to same class of Wharton of that exec.
> I feel like firing someone immediately for this issue would have sprouted a surprising level ownership to find the people or team (or teams) to be blamed.
I’d be ducking away from an issue that had just got someone fired.
Tangent: The irony in Microsoft making a product called ‘Teams’. It works about as well as their teamwork.
I often wonder how CEOs and executives fail to notice how obviously broken their products are. This e-mail thread is quite illuminating. Most "work" in there is figuring out who will be blamed for it and why it shouldn't be your team.
>So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated
And it get worse from there. This is funny as hell. Billg eating his own shit.
Unix philosophy: tools should be simple and composable
Windows philosophy: don't get sued by AT&T
I love the fact that 2 days after the ceo surfaced basic usability issues there was still no tangible action plan.
It’s insane how much runway a monopoly can buy you.
I honestly think that "doing nothing" was actually their best outcome. If they had actually been serious about solving it, it would have been something like
(This appears to be a reference to https://xkcd.com/927/)
Can someone in Microsoft confirm my suspicion that this thread is still going and nothing was fixed?
MovieMaker was discontinued in 2017 and replaced by ClipChamp. MS acquired ClipChamp and it was integrated into windows in 2022. So basically closed, will not fix.
I know people rag on Windows programs a lot, but ClipChamp is the worst, most bloated piece of software I have ever used in my life. It's so confusing how bad it is.
Based on how long corporate email chains go (without clearly accountable people), you're 50/50 on waiting for the feature to get fixed versus the feature becoming deprecated in a few years.
No one from Microsoft will ever confirm, but the status of Windows "OS" says it all.. ;)
Tangent, but my favorite "Bill Gates does X" story is "Bill Gates Plays Petals Around the Rose":
https://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-bg.htm
https://www.borrett.id.au/computing/petals-j.htm
HN has never found it very interesting though:
https://hn.algolia.com/?q=petals+around+the+rose
That was fun. I should have kept track of how soon I solved it.
This is a good and bit surprising one. I have a hard time believing the CEO of Palantir has this many generational points I agree with, Zuck too, but I do.
https://www.techemails.com/p/mark-zuckerberg-peter-thiel-mil...
Zuck:
> While our company has a special role in the lives of this generation, this is likely particularly important for how I show up because I am the most well-known person of my generation.
My god these people… I didn’t even know you could be that self-absorbed. It’s jarring.
Ok, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to HN. We're trying for something different here.
(and particularly not unsubstantive+indignant ones, which are the worst for the kind of discussion we're trying for)
For all the pontificating, Zuckerberg is disliked more than Musk. According to this 2025 survey: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/02/19/how-ameri...
Musk has ingratiated himself with parts of the political spectrum, or at least had since he later alienated them. I have no idea what his current standing is.
So for everything wrong with Musk there are at least some people who like him, amazingly.
Zuck has no one.
Holy crap, Thiel is using deep brainwashing techniques in his mail to Zuck and his people. If you know, you know ..
I read through it and had a few things I've flagged in my head - the ego fluffing, repeated usage of "Millennial" to the point of redundancy, and the framing of things in terms of "big picture", but can you elaborate on "deep brainwashing techniques"? I'm genuinely interested. This entire email thread feels a bit surreal to me
The judicious use of the royal we, is where he triggered my spidey senses. Mark seems to deflect it in his response, also using the royal we. But yeah, the ego fluffing, the fixation on terms, and the dialectic generalizations, this all adds up to some controlled attention-gathering ...
Thiel says Zuckerberg is special. He is the chosen one. He will lead an entire generation etc. This is a master class in ass kissing.
> For Millennials, authenticity, agency, autonomy, idealism, altruism etc all seem to be top of their list of desirable virtues – for better or worse, they are difficult to reconcile with Silicon Valley these days. (Nick Clegg)
For better or worse. Right. It is incredible that one can list those five words and say that with a straight face.
Culture flows from the top. Bill doesn’t take responsibility in his email, so he’s teaching everyone downstream to pass the buck like he does.
As another thread has made it clear, Bill was no longer CEO at this point.
His role was pretty much the biggest shareholder having direct access to some of the company's top executives.
That was one thing I noticed.
Once they started passing the blame, almost immediately, I would expect the first thing to be a new email from Gates saying “Bob, you’re doing this, Frank, you’re doing that, no excuses, get it done.”
Nope. Nothing like that.
> I reboot every night
The fact he did is probably responsible for a lot of issues with Windows installing and problems. Normalizing a reboot as a common thing.
I also suspect the fact he keeps re-iterating that the download was fast is because the teams have been using slow internet as an excuse for code speed problems.
> So they told me that using the download page to download something was not something they anticipated
Based on my interactions with Microsoft support, it makes me feel a little better that I get the same treatment as the CEO.
I think this is an example of "shipping your org chart". The fix is proposed in the reply "we need one person/team to own the overall picture", but I am not sure they reached that fix by the end of the thread.
The logical outcome of an escalation like this is that there is no single threaded leader for this user experience, the org charts are wrong, and one or more sr. leaders are culpable. But no one wants to hear that.
Discussed a few times:
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41421018 - Sept 2024 (38 comments)
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker (2003) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34397436 - Jan 2023 (64 comments)
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34396958 - Jan 2023 (46 comments)
Bill Gates Tries to Install Movie Maker - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34392126 - Jan 2023 (1 comment)
Bill Gates tries to install Movie Maker (2003) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34391649 - Jan 2023 (2 comments)
p.s. Reposts are fine after a year or so; links to past threads are just to satisfy extra-curious readers!
In 2002 after spending my first 30 minutes on windows XP (previously 98, 95 and 3.11 user) I realized that Microsoft will never improve their UX. Every new os will be different, but not better. So I left then and there and never looked back, after some distro tourism I settled on Ubuntu in 2006 and use it even now.
I thought Windows 7 was a sweet spot. Windows 10 was acceptable too.
I abandoned Windows almost entirely for macOS and server Linux before 11 was forced onto everyone.
It was getting better until they integrated IE in Win98.
This explains my experience with any MS documentation. Links upon links, no information, feels circular but the UI changes every rotation.
The bit about updates not truly being critical if you’re behind a firewall doesn’t age too well lol
It's so sad that 17MB was at some point considered a humungous update filesize and now we need 330MB of a web browser everytime we want to install anything.
I feel, many times, the way Bill did in that email. Seems most people don’t mind or care.
I wondered how anyone successfully filed for unemployment a few years ago when I had to. But many seem to do it successfully.
I tell my wife that I pay too much attention to the details and have a low tolerance for poor work. I wish I didn’t notice though as it seems like a nice life!
Big-corporate dysfunction is one of the reasons I like working in early startups.
(Startups that act like startups. Which means neither mimicking nor tolerating big-corporate style dysfunction. Otherwise, you have the worst of both worlds: soul-sucking big-corporate culture and difficulty executing, without the big-corporate paycheck and sometimes resume prestige boost.)
Don't underestimate working for the medium size business nobody has heard of but prints money doing something semi boring. They won't change the world but it's often a reliable paycheck without all the BS
The one time I got to ask Bill a question was probably why Windows didn’t have a “make world” that just works like in FreeBSD. I wonder if he remembered that question during his ordeal.
This thread should be on the first page of every book on microservices.
This happens when you have people at the top of the chain who don't use the product and people at the bottom who are afraid to speak up, or use it so much they can't see the problems.
I suspect plenty spoke up. But once filtered through 35 layers of management “this is terrible and our users will hate us” becomes “best thing we’ve ever done, users love us”.
This is some Douglas Adams level comedy. My sides are in orbit.
I’m sure if he were to try and revisit this experience today he would learn that nothing has changed
I chuckle that this is in Windows XP days. You know, the pinnacle of Windows usability in retrospect.
BillG discovering the negative effects of BigCo's not having a Directly Responsible Individual.
in the whole email thread - no one owns up to fix it - they're just passing the hot potato around.
26 years later - windows is still a mess.
This is one of the reasons why people have stopped installing software and moved all programs to web.
Reminds me of trying to download printer drivers or manual from Epson.
Actually motherboard manufacturers are just as bad.
Some god awful user hostile interface. Never just a direct link.
Just as an aside, that Amir Majidimehr taking part of the conversation is Amir of audiosciencereview.com fame :)
The reason why Apple won is Steve Jobs cared about quality and was an asshole about it and the inertia from that after his death has not entirely decayed yet.
The people in that thread need a good Linus Torvalds style rant about their incompetence and several of them should just have been fired.
Yes. When I was working at Apple, I was developing some animation stuff for Keynote. I came in to work one day, and my build was broken completely. Turned out that Roger Rosner had demonstrated this animation feature to Steve Jobs. Steve Jobs hated it, and before then end of the evening the code had been stripped from the Keynote build.
This rigor is also upheld to the ODM too. This is why we like to work with them, we all come out learning a lot at the end of the project.
How did/do you feel about that?
Good. One of the things I loved about my years working at Apple is that everyone I had dealings with really cared about the user experience.
Was the animation objectively bad? like was it bad for the user and he was right or were you wronged?
Sorry - it was so long ago I really do not remember that particular feature.
You don't have to be an asshole to get better quality work. But it's a great way to chase off talented staff that don't need to work with assholes.
You also don't need to live in a fluffy cotton candy world where everyone pretends to be nice. A CEO needs to be able to directly tell people they're doing a bad job and give out consequences for it. Wrapping the same feedback in fluffy feelings oriented language is a different kind of abusiveness (and why I hate California)
It’s also a great way to retain talent that care about working with like minded people.
It’s not any better today. Probably the only difference is that you’ll get some ads too.
Schadenfreude knowing that Gates, filthy rich owning the most popular OS ever, still have no agency on his own workflow, whereas the average Linux user, even a kid, has more. Love it.
> I decided to download Moviemake and buy the Digital Plus pack r so I went to Microsoft.com
That "r" from "Moviemaker" pushed to the end of "and buy the Digital Plus pack" displays the universally shared experience of writing something, then deciding to come back to add something else and fucking up the first sentence.
I've been there too, Bill.
I'm sure MSFT used this as a learning lesson and things got better since then, right?.......
Now people get the downloads and bits that they don't want.
2023 post, recounting an incident from 2003.
Everyone here saying about execs and so on - don't seem to catch a few nuances in this chain.
1. Bill Gates is doing the "Internal Disruptor" CEO style
2. Everyone is reacting in a way Bill Gates expects them to react
3. The results of his disruptor style is that Windows is absolutely further unbearable and horrendous, as seen today own the line.
Make no mistake: "Internal Disruptor" CEOs kill their own products and people from the inside, rather than competing or building good products outside.
Could it be the reboot thing is legacy code from Windows 1.0? Wait, then Gates himself was at th wheel.
I will give Bill this, he does know how to play a typical user. Yeah, MS has some shenanigans (putting it mildly) in its birth and climb, but it was obvious from that that he was a relatively competent nerd, programmer etc., and that he was trying to paint the thought process of someone trying to put together family videos not "hurr, where this go, what this do?" like a Neanderthal.
Amusing watching all the executives try to push responsibility on each other and stay out the spotlist or, if unavoidable, take ownership of the smallest possible part of the problem, and then convene committees (that largely caused the mess) to solve the mess.
While reading this I pictured an irate BillG screaming at his shitty pc first thing in the morning, probably after getting off a Skype or WebEx call, like the guy in The Onion's classic "Sony releases stupid piece of shit that doesn't fucking work" https://youtube.com/watch?v=8AyVh1_vWYQ
And that's exactly how I felt trying to reinstall Windows 10/11 on a new motherboard recently.
I still reboot my desktop daily lol. I was born anti-tab pro fresh start
Here I am mad that work does forced reboots every 2 weeks on windows workstations.
Each little piece own by their own little hierarchy. Nobody owning the entire user journey. Classic.
I was reading through it and figured it had to be AI generated... But ... it's not? This email from billg is unhinged! Hilarious though.
Just last week, I was trying to sign up to Microsoft.com and got stuck in the captcha step. They have famously dysfunctional captcha system, people can't sign up to Microsoft and complain a lot about it online, and yet, it's not fixed.
Microsoft always built dysfunctional software. They were never good at this. Hotmail was an unusable product, it was so painful to use it and Gmail took over the entire market in a year. Nobody ever said: "oh, I miss X about Hotmail"
Windows products were also same. They were so easy to break, you'd need to format the disk and re-install once a month, otherwise it'd keep breaking all the time.
> Hotmail was an unusable product, it was so painful to use it and Gmail took over the entire market in a year. Nobody ever said: "oh, I miss X about Hotmail"
Hotmail was a 1997 acquisition:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlook.com#Launch_of_Hotmail
“Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up.”
That does not sound like something Bill Gates would say…
It’s from an email chain published as part of a 2007 lawsuit - so it looks like he did indeed say it.
Why in the world do you think that? It’s an email that came out in discovery for a lawsuit. It’s absolutely him.
Because he doesn’t talk like this in public? I promise you no big executives talk the same in public as they do internally.
Because he's trashing a project he himself oversaw for years? And his own judgment and leadership for all those years?
The email reads as if parts of it were dictated, and subsequent parts of it were taken from realtime notes, i.e. a third party is noting, episodic, everything Gates did during that attempt to install MoveMaker .. and then it was refactored into a "From Bill" mail at a later point ..
I've said this before but it's worth repeating.
Microsoft can no longer engineer a software product, it simply cannot build anything innovative. It can certainly buy other companies and use what they have built. But even then they will over time ruin the product.
Microsoft needs Bill Gates back, the young, abrasive version of him that didn't tolerate bullshit, to call them out on what they're shipping these days.
This happened under him.
----
Favorite part is Gates' opinion of the entire Windows project:
"Someone decided to trash the one part of Windows that was usable? The file system is no longer usable. The registry is not usable. This program listing was one sane place but now it is all crapped up."
They also know it's shit, they're just gaslighting you.
Peter Principle.
Interestingly, Gupta didn’t reply at all, despite being named on bill’s original email directly. https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/people/anoop/ He was natural-user-interface director at the time
Gupta was Bill's TA (Technology Assistant) and he was looped in to ensure the issues are fixed, not to respond to. He didnt own any of this.
Protecting his izzat
LOL
Gupta means "hidden" or "secret", kek.
Reads like Nikita from tonsky.me lol
Anyway to know this is real?
As it says at the end, this was evidence at the class action suit "Comes v. Microsoft Corp.", which was eventually settled by Microsoft by paying $180 million, after many years of litigation.
Thank you! I didn’t know what it was. The downvotes suggest I should have.
You can verify it yourself if you read until the end.
You know, I did read it. Without the full context, it isn’t entirely clear. I have looked again, and don’t feel it is wrong to come away unsure.