Steve Ballmer: a.k.a. Captain of the Titanic

Does he not realize that people no longer buy stuff just because Microsoft made it? I think the public learned their lesson with Vista. Microsoft is now what IBM was 30 years ago. As a matter of fact, MSFT is going through a mid-life crisis while Apple - their similarly-aged competitor - is taking their Corvette, trophy mistress, and other trappings of mid-life denial right from under them.

iPhone comes out for the first time, and MSFT stays with WinMo6. MSFT realizes that their software doesn't have what people want, so they start working on 6.5.

iPhone3G comes out, and Android is released... MSFT releases WinMo6.5, and don't even cause a ripple.

In the meantime, MSFT releases Kin.. they almost sold 9000 units. a whopping 9k, that's not even a ripple, that's an electron in the pond. Palm was able to sell more Pixis, and that phone was/is garbage.

iPhone4 comes out, Android is on version 2.2, MSFT still working on WinMo7. Anything that Windows Mobile can tout, is already done by iOS4 or Android2.2. So why would MSFT even bother?

Chrome (the browser) is released, and it touts speed and simplicity. What is Microsoft's response? IE8, with more plug-ins, and more bloat. It's slow to load, slow to browse, and has all sorts of bells and whistles that no-one cares about. Way to go Ballmer. How much of the shareholders' money did you spend developing that winner?

The iPad is released... people forgot that Windows ever released tablet software. Why? Because previously released tablet PCs were uncomfortably bulky. So now that Apple is selling 3 million iPads and counting, a MSFT competitor won't be out until the iPad maybe reaches the 8 million mark. Are you kidding me Microsoft? You're not even coming to the party late, you're waiting until the punch bowl is empty, the garbage cans are overflowing, and the partygoers are passed out in their own vomit; then here you come in your best tux ringing the doorbell telling everyone within earshot how much you're ready to knock their socks off. The sad thing is that the only people who are listening, are by now shaking their heads at you because they know the only person you're fooling is yourself.

Try to figure out what you want to be, then go in that direction. Gone are the days when you can just slap Microsoft on some application and distribute it to every hardware manufacturer with a conveyor belt. You're competing with free (Google), so either be inventive, or just stick to Office and Windows.

Welcome To Fox News: Racism Accepted, Just Not On Air

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/foxs-baby-mama-reference-under-fire/20080613100909990001?icid=100214839x1203875191x1200159172

"Bill Shine, senior vice president of programming at News Corp.-owned Fox, said in a statement that a producer "exercised poor judgment" during the segment. The producer was not fired; no other disciplinary action was announced."

The Changing of the Guards

At this present point in time, I'm somewhat between jobs, but not really (you'll probably find out my industry from later posts). Between my reading of classified ad postings, and various business publications, I'm becoming more aware of the relative dichotomy that exists in today's career market: Longevity vs. Education/Credentials.

One example of a job posting to which I submitted an application was an entry-level job (I know because it's the same title as my current job). The pay was much higher than my current pay, but they required 5-7 years of experience at that position. The first question that popped into my head was "Why would someone with 7 years of experience at that lower-level position, want to apply to another job at the same level?" I look at my current role as something I'd want to do for a maximum of 3.5 years (maybe it's arrogant, or maybe it's because my company drills into our head that this is not the sort of position that you will be allowed to stay at for a long period of time).

My issue with this is: today's generation proceeds at an accelerated pace of the 'learning from mistakes' that the older generation expects when they require someone with 10+ years of experience. If John Q. Modern has spent his time in grad school learning about the past blunders of the Finance industry; learned how the blunders began, played out, and were resolved, as well as how to avoid them in the future, did projects and mock scenarios regarding those issues, completed an internship in the financial industry, and is then able to apply that theoretical knowledge to his first 3 years at his "real world" job... then how is he any less qualified (for, let's say, the position of Jr. VP of Finance) than someone who has the 10+ years of experience but less formal training?

The difficulty lies in the fact that we are being bombarded with stories of people with minimal "real world" experience who go on to start a venture that becomes a multi-million dollar company (Facebook, Dell, Google, etc.), but are told that hard work and experience are all that matter. It would make sense for someone who wants to run a Blue Chip company to put in the time required to rotate through the various departments of the company over a few decades; but why would someone who has taken the extra time to complete a graduate degree in a specified field such as Mathematics or Computer Science, be required to start at the bottom and "work their way up" like everyone else?

A Question To Ponder

Is it better to have a boring job with great pay, or a great job with low pay?

First Post

I would like to start off by apologizing to my one fan out there. It took a while between my starting this blog and actually making a post because I wanted to create something that was absolutely unforgettable to begin this thing with a 'bang'. Regrettably, I could not think of something amazing, so I swiped this PowerPoint presentation from CribChatter's comment threads.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present: The Subprime Fiasco (In a Nutshell)