How Microsoft went from leading to lagging, and how it’s trying to change

Microsoft's Craig Mundie showing a software prototype in 2009.

Craig Mundie showing a software prototype in 2009.

Earlier this week I was part of a small group of journalists and bloggers who spent the day questioning and listening to Microsoft’s top executives from Xbox, Office, Bing and other parts of the company. Just about every senior leader (except for those from Windows) took part in on-the-record briefings.

It was an annual event called TechForum, led by Microsoft’s Craig Mundie, the company’s longtime research and strategy chief who recently announced plans to retire next year. He’s serving as senior adviser to Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer in the meantime.

There was a lot to absorb during the day, and I’ve been posting this week about some of the projects and trends that struck me during the day. But before the event fades from memory, there was one exchange toward the end of the day that’s worth sharing.

It came when Mundie was asked why Microsoft has struggled to keep up with Apple and other competitors over the past decade. It’s a common question, but Mundie gave a particularly introspective response, starting by cautioning that it wasn’t as simple as simply getting faster. Here’s an extended excerpt from his comments.

In many of the areas where people said, oh, you’re behind — Apple’s products are a great example, they did music players, and then they did touch devices and then they did phones and then they did tablets — well, it turns out that we had all four categories of those devices in the marketplace more than one year or two years before Apple did their first one. But for a whole variety of reasons — they were just business choices we made at the time — we didn’t end up capitalizing on them. And once we didn’t capitalize on the lead we had to fight our way back. So in each of those categories you go from leading to lagging not because we didn’t have the technology, and not because we didn’t do it fast enough. Some people said we did it too soon. It is a delicate balance.

On the other hand, we also shipped what have been our major products, particularly Office and Windows, at a scale that nobody else ever does. Our beta tests our bigger than the lifetime deliveries of most people’s software products. In every category. The only ones that even come close now are people doing phones, because phones as a device category have gotten big enough in absolute volume that you kind of get into the same zone. …

So those things had a long lead time, when we were packaging them up and testing them. And then shipping them in this, I’ll call it, increasingly uncontrolled hardware ecosystem. And so one of the things that has changed is we’re trying to provide more controls on the hardware ecosystem so it’s not so unruly, you could say, because that variety our testing process more complicated. And then the other thing is, because we’re able to move these things more into the services environment, as opposed to just shipping them as an upgrade, we bear the cost of managing the upgrade.

If you listen to an enterprise CIO over the last decade or 15 years, most of them would tell us, every two or three years, that’s absolutely the most frequently we would want to change.  In fact if you look at it, most of them who have paid for our software are skipping whole generations. They’re only upgrading every five or six years. In that environment, there was more pressure to be deliberate.

When we run these things in our own infrastructure, and you just buy a service, like you’re buying electricity, we say, hey, you know what, every 90 days we add a new feature. They say, great, we get a new feature. Didn’t have to do anything. Didn’t buy any new hardware, didn’t have to upgrade all the machines. So there is an element of the services component that allows the cycle time to be reduced. (Microsoft Office president Kurt DelBene) acknowledged it today when he talked about the Office evolution, and the Bing product evolution has been a whole rapid cycle. They introduce a new generation every 90 days.

So I think the company has the capability to engineer at whatever speed we need to. And it’s clear that there are certain categories now where getting it done more frequently is beneficial, and I think you’ll see us do that.

A lot to chew on there. It feels like Microsoft has gotten caught in the middle of the different markets it is trying to serve, from businesses to consumers. As Mundie makes clear, it’s not good enough to have the idea. The company needs to execute quickly and make the right business decisions.

Yes, consumers are driving tech trends in businesses these days, but the needs of businesses remain very different from the needs of consumers. The big question in my mind is whether Microsoft can become more nimble while trying to focus on both.

At the end of the day (literally) I still needed to be convinced that the company has made the fundamental changes to ensure it doesn’t end up trying to come from behind, again, when the next big thing arrives.

  • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

    “How Microsoft went from leading to lagging, and how it’s trying to change”

    This entire premise of this article really is absolute nonsense.

    “why Microsoft has struggled to keep up with Apple and other competitors over the past decade”

    Really? E.g. Windows, Microsoft’s flagship product? After over a decade of all out war, Mac has barely scraped past 5% market share against Windows. Perhaps the statement refers to mobile, as indeed Apple propaganda has a tendency to focus on mobile — because this is a segment in which Microsoft has only recently begun a major push.

    Where is Apple in games consoles? Where is Apple in productivity software? Microsoft is highly diverse business and is market leader in every key area — an odd definition of “lagging”.

    • http://geekwire.com Todd Bishop

      Thanks, Tim. As noted above, those are Craig Mundie’s own words related to music players, touch devices, phones and tablets. Essentially every big new consumer tech market that has emerged over the past decade.

      • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

        “music players, touch devices, phones and tablets”

        So, mobile then.

        Let’s not overlook gaming and general home entertainment, productivity software both installed and in the cloud, indeed both consumer and business cloud platforms, server operating systems and software, database platforms, enterprise platforms, development platforms and tools, programming languages, etc, etc. Microsoft is an extremely diverse business and is leading in its core segments.

        People who want to bash MS or hype Apple/Google always love to say “but mobile” and focus on that. ;)

        • Frank

          Total revenue, last four quarters:
          iPhone & related: $86.72B
          Microsoft Corporation: $72.97B

          • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

            Revenue does not present the whole picture, and the partial picture is not the good one you seem to believe it is.

            Over-priced products with short life-cycles requiring frequent upgrades OBVIOUSLY will generate much higher revenues all other factors being equal. And mobile is in rapid growth.

        • Roger

          What does MSFT have in general home entertainment that trumps AirPlay or iTunes for general home entertainment? Don’t say Xbox, you separated gaming and general home entertainment and the depth of content and breadth of iTunes clients trumps Xbox music/video.

          IMHO option, most people actually using MSFT office products would rather have pre-ribbon circa 2003 versions of the product but don’t have much say in the software they use. The fact that they had to extend the EoL date on WinXP also didn’t speak well to people embracing the new MSFT products.

          • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

            By revealing that you did not realise Xbox is a major general entertainment platform worldwide, you exposed yourself as somebody who knows little or nothing about Xbox and who is therefore poorly qualified to offer weighty opinions on the subject.

          • Hans

            Except XBox is not even $1 B revenue per year and is poised to get annilhilated by the upcoming Apple TV hardware that has its own software ecosystem. Utter annihilation is incoming to yet another failed MS line of business.

          • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

            “revenue”

            Revenue has nothing to do with it. My original point still stands.

            “annilhilated by the upcoming Apple TV hardware”

            That is pure conjecture, and frankly unlikely when superior platforms are available.

          • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

            The Catholic Church has a better business model than Apple. They are able to earn more money.

            http://money.msn.com/now/post.aspx?post=1a685537-b674-462d-9189-21772d2f4be4

            Die-hard fans and defenders of Apple often fall back on the company’s finances in response to criticisms and reports of failings of their beloved idol. For instance, if you dare to question the true quality and extent of Apple’s innovation, it won’t be long before somebody brings money into it to prove how great Apple is. Even as Apple’s share price crashed down to $400 yesterday, loyal supporters were wheeling out the old “if this much profit is failure, give me some failure” argument.

            But the Catholic Church is as big a business as Apple. And it makes an interesting comparison. Is the Catholic Church innovative? Are it’s products great, or even tangible? Making money does not demonstrate that a business or its products are great, it merely demonstrates that people are susceptible to marketing and ideologies.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nathan-Ottenson/548655560 Nathan Ottenson

            Get Windows 8, right click video file and play to xbox. Works like a charm and it’s not tied to my itunes account in any way. And to be clear I’ve been using my PS3 as a media server/Streaming device long before Apple had even conceived of “air play”. Last point, Office 2013 is by far the most versatile and robust consumer word processing program available today.

      • n8

        Check out my comment on this very topic on a post from Monday: http://www.geekwire.com/2013/details-emerge-apples-iwatch-set-debut-year/

    • calzoneous

      head in sand.

    • http://www.facebook.com/luckyvic Victor Huang

      Microsoft is in the technology business. I don’t think shareholders have decided it is only in the businesses you have defined, which reflects in the performance of MSFT shares. At the end of the day, a company and its board can decide what field it wants to play in based on the resources it has. I think it is undeniable that Microsoft has had far more resources in terms of IP, capital and personnel than just about any company on the planet in the technology space a decade ago. To witness the miserable return since is disheartening. There isn’t much to defend here. We all wish our hometown guys do well.

    • self made big wig

      the pc market is now a laptop market. within the laptop market apple is 30+%. and it’s the only pc maker that is not declining.

      • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

        Clearly not because MS has almost 100% of the PC market overall. Doh!

        • Hans

          MS’s share dominance is on the sub $1000 commodity PC’s that are getting devoured by the emerging tablet market. Above $1000 it’s Apple or go home. Keep drinking the Kool-Aid, MS is toast.

          • http://www.timacheson.com/ Tim Acheson

            Your entire argument seems to be that you have a theory about Apple reducing Microsoft’s market share. Meanwhile in the real world Samsung is eating Apple’s mobile market share and Microsoft still reigns supreme in every other key segment despite Apple’s best efforts for the past decade.

          • http://www.facebook.com/people/Nathan-Ottenson/548655560 Nathan Ottenson

            Above $1000 it’s Apple or go home?!? And you accuse Tim of drinking Kool-Aid?

  • Bob

    OMG! Seriously? Do the excuses ever stop? MS got surpassed in relevance, market cap and revenue and profit too (in Apple’s case), because of a senior management team that was perpetually arrogant, over confident, and serially underestimated competitors and MS’s ability to respond. It doesn’t matter than in some cases they were first, despite Mundie trotting out that particularly lame excuse many times previously (e.g. Siri). That just makes the resulting failure that much more embarrassing. And the thing about it is that there was no shortage of people warning them that they were heading for a cliff. Starting mid last decade and even earlier, everyone from Mini-Microsoft to Wall Street was offerings warnings and advice. But MS’s SLT disregarded all of them; they knew better. Only it turns out they didn’t. Now the company is effectively a non-player in two critical markets for the future that it helped pioneer (tablets and smartphones) and being disrupted in its core of Windows and Office. And people primarily responsible for this failure, including very specifically Mundie (whose R&D group spent 10x more than Apple during the decade but didn’t deliver 1/1000 as much), are still cashing in millions each year in salary and stock, making excuses for their demonstrated incompetence instead of taking ownership for it, and promising they’ll get it right next time now that’s it’s likely too late.

    • Guest

      tl;dr

    • Dave

      And add to it the only person in management who will even acknowledge as much as Mundie has….is someone who has no power (never really did anyway) and is on his way out the door.

  • guest

    These guys are sad. They maintained they were winning years after it was obvious to most that MS was losing. The excuse then was that others were maximizing for the short term while MS was focused on the long. Now, when the objective numbers make it impossible to continue even that pretense, they finally admit their strategy failed. But they still want to blame it on their unique “scale”, which is no longer so unique, or basically anything or anyone other than themselves and their own poor choices. You can’t begin to fix a problem if you’re not prepared to admit its root cause. And frankly there’s little reason to think the team that failed so spectacularly is also capable of turning it around. Their numerous recovery attempts to date support that. MS deserves better.

  • Guest500

    Very simple- Out of control infighting. When your primary objectifies looking in rather than out, that’s when you have a problem. Microsoft has a problem, employes are miserable, the good ones that are left anyway, constantly fending off attacks, shoehorning “strategic BS” into a product so you can get it shipped, and doing endless nonsense PPTs justifying your existence to a moron makes for pour product decisions, loss of market share, and a lack of innovation.

  • Mark

    After thirteen years of systematically destroying their dominant competitive position, erasing >$250 billion of shareholder value, and letting companies that were minor players at the start of that period surpass them to become today’s leaders, it’s a little late to say “trust us, we got this”.

  • Self Made Big Wig

    I used to work there for 8 years. One day I got up and left, started my own company and made close to $2M on an exit within 18 months. And my products are now at Best Buy and AT&T stores (and I this was my first foray into consumer electronics and my first founded company). I gained an immense sense of accomplishment, self-realization and confidence. Had i stayed at Microsoft, I would still be having conversations with my boss why I am still no ready for L66 and what I CAN’T do. Never what I CAN do, it was always a defensive play. Especially the VP types at Microsoft… good grief – “you can’t do this, you are not ready for that, this is not your skill set”. In your face! So glad I left, there are no rules, no levels, only beautiful brains that think and steely guts that energize.

    Also, while the company has smart people, they are generally sheepish, timid. I mean what kind of a person joins Microsoft? I know what kind because I was that person. A person that seeks safety, security, stability. That person (again, that used to be me) is not a mover and shaker, he and she innovate within the boundaries, and the boundaries at MSFT are damn narrow. Even if you are working at MSR…your world class innovations have a very narrow filter they must go through to come to life.

    Gates, come back to your company and save it from itself. It needs a cultural shakeup and common goals. It needs stock options, not stock awards, it needs stock options, not huge paychecks. There is no incentive to innovate…just to survice and beat the spreadsheet. Give people a ton of options, low pay, see how it goes. Only the hungry and truly visionary will stay.

  • Davidjobs

    Typical microsoft duchebaggery. No mention of their inferior design and aesthetics capabilities, and complete disregard of an intuitive user experience. Make your spread sheets and STFU.