Microsoft vs. Google vs. Linux

The last week I have read this news http://mashable.com/2013/05/15/google-stock-900/ and a few others about the fact that, according to the number and the value of the shares, Google now worth more billions than Microsoft. But money is not what I want to talk about, I would instead spend a few words on this recent and somehow related “story” I have seen here these days: http://blog.zorinaq.com/?e=74. For the lazy people not willing to read that blog post (in my opinion you really should), just know that a Microsoft insider has made a few critic statements, there reported, that point out how bad management decisions and bad hiring practices are destroying the company. Aside many technical considerations and comparisons with Linux that really worth reading, I'm going to report here a few things I consider particularly interesting:

“Another reason for the quality gap [with Linux] is that that we've been having trouble keeping talented people. Google and other large Seattle-area companies keep poaching our best, most experienced developers, and we hire youths straight from college to replace them.”

Then:

“our good people keep retiring or moving to other large technology companies, and there are few new people achieving the level of technical virtuosity needed to replace the people who leave. We fill headcount with nine-to-five-with-kids types, desperate-to-please H1Bs, and Google rejects. We occasionally get good people anyway, as if by mistake, but not enough. Is it any wonder we're falling behind?”

Sure, a few points are debatable, but what to say? Did he really tell the truth? Does it sound reasonable to you?

My short answer is: well, I think he is very right but somehow very wrong as well.

Honestly, I can help but saying that I really believe his words, because it is a very common situation these days, especially in Europe, and in Italy in particular. Saving costs is now the rule to be competitive and the vast majority of engineering companies seems to forget that the real value of this kind of company lies in the employers, their skills, their know-how and their ideas. And even worse, they have a pair of legs and can leave the company taking some knowledge away with them. I can say that here in Italy every medium to large business seems to care about just one thing, to pay the very least for their engineering staff. The result is that people starts being very frustrated, discouraged and less productive. Hence the most talented people (try to) leave the company (usually landing in smaller companies where their opinions and skills matter), which in turn makes these companies hire younger and less trained people, often unable to carry on because there are no longer enough experienced engineers to guide and train them. Of course you can't keep up for a long time, on the long run the company is going to loose a considerable know-how and market share.

So, sure, I believe is indeed a true story, but only half of the story. In fact he fails to see how a company cannot be considered good or bad and valuable on a technical basis only, there is much more. For instance, people's attitude, attention to the customers, meritocracy and many more aspects. The real problem with Microsoft is that it keeps copying and never innovate. It is not relevant how many skilled people you have, no innovation no future. I'm neither saying that copying is always bad as you might still gain money providing more value over pre-existing products; nor that innovation is sufficient as you are still required to translate it into a (good) product. But, seriously, I can't remember an innovation coming from Microsoft. Not even one! Neither MS-DOS. I'm not going to discuss and elaborate whether Windows was better than OS/2 & MacOS or not. whether MS-Office was better than StarOffice or not, whether Windows Server + IIS + ASP was better than LAMP, IE was better than Firefox, whether the .NET platform (C#, F#) is/was better than Java/Scala/Clojure, the Xbox is/was better than the PlayStation, Windows Phone is better than Android and so on. I'm just pointing out that I can't remember anything really new from Microsoft, at least targeting the mass market. If your products are good and the context is favorable you might perform well, but sooner or later you will fall behind as the market is a moving target. “Is it any wonder we're falling behind?”. Indeed, not at all, but mostly due to this latter fact than the former he was sustaining!

What surprises me most is that this problem has been there for at least 10 years and nothing really changed meanwhile. During my first year at the university back in 2001 there was a plenty of Microsoft advocates who would have joined the company immediately if only they got an offer. Because Microsoft is Microsoft and Bill Gates is a rich famous computer genius (while Richart Stallman is an horrifying loser and Linus Torvalds... who is Linus Torvalds?). There I was maybe the only person seriously interested in Linux (and not because of Stallman's ideas, I mostly don't give a shit even today), because it was something new, dynamic and different. I really thought about new possibilities. I admit it, Linux has never become what I expected and hoped for (it turned out it is not bad at all), but it really opened the road to many new and innovative products we have today that are not related to the data center world. And keeps changing and improving!

So, it comes as no surprise to learn that Google, which takes both skills and culture very seriously, is now more valuable than Microsoft and that Linux is faster than Windows.