Well, maybe not so great for ex-workers. Current employees still have RSUs and employee stock purchase plan, so those shares are making bank. OTOH, my Microsoft-employed spouse also says "no significant pay raises this review period", and I think that's the "not so great for workers" part that TFA missed. MSFT is going big guns, but doesn't have money for increased compensation.
Stock price doesn't have any effect on the value of ESPP at Microsoft, but you're right that it does on the RSUs. At least one company exec has directly proposed this as a counterbalance to "no pay raises" (From 2023: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-exec-defends-compa...).
That said, anyone can own Microsoft stock. With respect to current employees - the common wisdom has always been not to own too much stock in your employer, with the rationale that if things aren't going well and the stock is tanking, you're likely to get laid off and then you're even worse off. But these days I'm thinking that the opposite is true, at least in bigtech: The more likely scenario is that you get laid off regardless and the stock goes up in response.
ESPP is discounted from quarter end price (I vaguely recall it being either last q or following q, whichever is lower but that seems like too good to be true). So constantly increasing share price does have an effect, both short term and long.
Well, not that great for current workers either. Microsoft RSUs are usually 20% (compared to 40-80% in other big tech) or less for most employees, and on average msft has 30-50% less total compensation than other big tech.
All this stock upside might put some people's compensation to their true market value, but even that is based on tenure and historical stock vests.
Remember, today we are talking about "stock price is up", but tomorrow the price may be down. What the parent said does not change regardless -- Microsoft employees are not as well compensated compared to other companies, plus the layoff is real.
Retention was never a priority at MS. Lower comp compared to G/Meta/Amazon, no refreshers, poor special stock awards, tenure-based promo queue, (...). If RTO becomes a reality I think the calculus of staying at MS will be tipped over for many.
Over 25 years ago MSFT was doing the same thing. Amazon, Google, and Facebook didn't yet exist, so we were losing candidates to Oracle because MSFT paid so little. When Microsoft finally wiped the sleep from their eyes, my next review period saw me getting a 23% raise at review time, some from performance and a lot from Microsoft finally catching up to the rest of the industry because they couldn't hire anyone (I'd say it was also a demonstration of how badly I was getting screwed, but MSFT options were hot back then).
Will it happen again a generation later? Depends on how many candidates go to Amazon instead, I guess.
Where would those employees go? Almost all rival big tech companies are implementing the same thing. They also have a nearly complete hiring freeze unless it's for a super critical role (very rare) or extremely high skilled AI work (few tech workers can do).
These employees are going to complain, but unless they have their FU money already, they are 100% going to RTO. What else can they do within reason?
The "deal" at Microsoft is that you get paid 30-50% less than other big tech employers but it's a lot chiller (imo this is true from my experience at both msft and faangs, I hear it's worse recently though). A LOT of people are there for the lower work pressure and no RTO. If they get rid of that, there's no reason not to jump to Google where you'll get paid substantially more except for needing to grind leetcode. Or even go to Meta/Amazon if you're willing to grind for even bigger bags of cash.
I understand that, my point is that Meta/Amazon/Google have massively pulled back on hiring as well. I personally went from being contacted several times per year by Meta to being 100% ghosted mid-conversation last time. They fired all the recruiters.
It's actually been great for ex-workers. Most of their RSUs are much more valuable because the company has pushed for efficiency which has attracted investors and significantly increased market value.
While there have been layoffs, companies are generally still hiring and often employees can overlap severance with a new role.
The problem is that these last few rounds of layoffs have clearly demonstrated that, no matter who you are and what you do at MS, you don't know if you're going to still have a job tomorrow. Much good that unvested stock will do then...
"big guns" aka betting the future on something nebulous and the true price that is costs is still not being given to consumers of that service. Like Azure, they'll lock you in and raise rates. That's the business model
Is it <waves hands towards the sky> AI? or is it years of overhiring?
There was a great article I found on HN recently about how the recent layoffs in big tech are actually the result of overhiring for years in a talent arms race.
Like, is AI now doing the former work of 25,000 people at Microsoft? Probably not.
Almost certainly not AI, just more users going from hosted windows solutions to azure + office upsell (eg with Teams). Microsoft pretty much dominates the non Apple Desktop ecosystem and is used heavily by healthcare, defense and manufacturing industries.
As someone who has been looking to lessen my reliance on all things Microsoft, the hardest thing for me to quit has been C# and .NET. It's just a great combination of developer experience, speed, and features. It's also probably the least problematic part of Microsoft to continue using, but it still doesn't feel great.
dotnet has gone pretty open source these days, no? I guess it may depend on the rest of your environment - maybe the Windows specific stuff like forms and WPF are still under them?
Other than that, I think you don't need too much dependence on them, depending on how you look at them controlling it. It being OSS personally gives it more stability since it can always be forked if they pull some nonsense.
I am on the same boat but I'd say it does feel great since .NET belongs to .NET Foundation and is open source. Its development is very transparent too.
Depends, really. My exposure to agriculture and manufacturing sectors says everyone is still on Office 365 and Excel while digital marketing and advertising are almost all using Gmail and Sheets. Though it may also be location-dependent. I'm describing Europe, other parts of the world may be very different.
Not necessarily manufacturing. I led a Microsoft takeout at Sanmina (global high-tech contract mfr) all the way back in 2008-2009, and the result was 23,000 users moving to GSuite and mostly just Legal & Finance keeping Office as a fall-back only if LibreOffice wasn't sufficient. At the same time, several thousand Windows laptops were replaced with Chromebooks, and nearly all non-engineering workstations were replaced with ChromeOS devices or thin clients.
Don't mave many options on the OS front. Windows performance gets worse and worse, increasing risk of corp enshittification, my task manager stopped working recently, but... I find Linux's workflow too rooted in multi-user systems and servers.
> I find Linux's workflow too rooted in multi-user systems and servers.
Out of genuine curiosity (not *nix/OSS fanboying) - how so? macOS has been a BSD for a quarter of a century and modern Windows was designed by a guy who cut his teeth at DEC on VMS. Virtually all modern computer OSes have roots in time-sharing systems.
The user and permissions system. I struggle with things being set up on the root account vs user and vice versa, occasionally breaking my system by editing config files or with CLI commands. Did that a few weeks ago trying to get my PC to read USB-serial without launching the program from CLI with sudo+pw. I had an extra newline in one of the config files; it didn't like that! I cannot follow the decision-making logic that I would need sudo to talk to my embedded device. I've heard the explanations about connected storage devices, but I cannot agree with it. On windows, the same hardware, and same source code (compiled to a different ABI) just works, because its permission system is not so strict.
It's indisputable that Dave Cutler designed both VMS and NT. But Cutler hasn't been involved in years, maybe decades. I'm not a Windows guy, but I am curious. It looks to me like modern Windows has gotten well away from any Cutler design. Has modern Windows retained any Cutler style design?
If Nadella grows Microsoft into the AI era as fast as Gates did in the Desktop era, it would become a 100 trillion dollar company within the next ten years:
Life started with self-replicating molecules. And ramped up all the way to structures like the human body which consists not just of quintillions of molecules but of billions of quintillions of molecules.
And even if Gates were there, is his luck still the same: I see constantly attribute to work and intelligence what is also a big chunk of luck and opportunities. Yes he seized it, but could it do it again? How much was luck?
Microsoft's overall value was also much more tied to their performance in the desktop market. The whole company can grow at 60% yoy if 60% of the company doubles in value. AI is not bringing them any revenue, and double nothing is still nothing.
It's not static, global wealth been growing at 3.8% per year for the past 25 years, which is historically quite a high rate. 10 more years at that rate would be 50% growth, or $750T.
The numbers you're talking about aren't feasible. MSFT grew that fast into the Desktop era because it was starting from a much smaller number. You can grow from $400m to $40b, but you growing from $40b to $4T is a much different story (and remarkable that they were able to do that!). Growing from $4T to $100T is not only unprecedented but unimaginable.
So you might be making a calculation instead of a prediction, but it's a worthless calculation. You may as well extrapolate the 10x weight gain of an infant to an adult and calculate that their weight at middle-age will be 1000 pounds.
I have my doubts that any big tech leadership has visions for technology anymore. We seem to be heading straight to a boring tech dystopia, at least if the current enshittification trajectory continues.
I would say that Zuc has vision when compared to his counterparts.
To be clear, I do not _like_ the vision on a lot of fronts, especially around privacy, but there are a few points that are much less risk averse. The amount of money dumped into the metaverse shows they are willing to try some outlandish things to see if they stick. I don't see that attitude from any of the other big ones outside of more ways to bolt AI onto everything they ever wrote or feigning interest in something new like Apple Vision.
In a field of very mid players, he actually ends up standing out.
Not so great news for smaller companies either. MS continues to use their muscle to gain from each super cycle without having to work for it the way smaller companies do. Their size alone makes competition unfair.
Companies shouldn't ever be allowed to be so wealthy or powerful. This sort of power allows them to bypass legal regulations, squash small companies (something MS has been doing for a long time), force technology on people faster than they can react (think of the average clueless user that will just use anything MS puts on Windows), and create a true state of anti-competition (what kind of small company can compete with MS and not be bought out).
The only reason why they do exist is because the people with the money are the people with the power.
> Companies shouldn't ever be allowed to be so wealthy or powerful.
I see MS as a US gov approved monopoly.
I didn't check their SEC filings, but I suspect that US gov is a number one buyer, while various EU countries combined make number two. That's a coercion to me, not software business.
I would agree with that. And if that is so, it makes it even more apparent how broken our system is. The United States after all was built on decent values but without mechanisms to safeguard the average American from the interplay and long-term effects of very advanced technology interacting with the free market economy.
I would think so, given how important (whether we at HN like it or not) their stack has become, it's basically critical infrastructure at this point for a lot of industries.
I think I could see that happening to several companies, not just MS as well - once something gets so huge that it would be detrimental to the survival of a nation if it failed, it gets nationalized.
> - Maybe they can keep running Azure, since it's unpopular
That I'm not sure about though. Azure is unpopular with SaaS, but it's increasingly popular with non-tech enterprises, as well as basically anyone that remotely competes with Amazon. Good chance that if a company's core product isn't SaaS, they are on Azure.
There's no such thing as a large bureaucratic organization that is "good". The larger the scale, the less morality enters into the picture at all.
Making large companies state-owned wouldn't preclude them from being monopolies, it just changes who's in charge of monopoly abuse. With state-owned monopolies you end up with something more like USSR.
No, OP is right: this much concentrated power just shouldn't be allowed, period.
I disagree. The EU one of the largest and most bureaucratic organisations in the world and while they often make dumb laws - especially around technology - it's usually at least with the intent of making things better for people.
State owned monopolies really only make sense for natural monopolies (e.g. transport and communications infrastructure), and I wouldn't really count desktop operating systems as that. Windows is a monopoly due to extremely strong network effects.
That sounds like a good partial solution. Unfortunately, it's easier for governments to use tax dollars to expand, create more comfortable positions for federal civil servants, and watch the money roll in.
Compound AI layoffs with outsourcing and its a dangerous time to be a software engineer in the US. I look at the current job environment with dismay. I really don't like my current role and it provides almost no benefit to my resume as i work in such a specialized niche industry but it pays well and I see no alternative. So I just clock in each day, do what i have to do and clock out dreading the next morning when I have to clock in again. I have maybe 2 years until this position winds down so am trying to do whatever I can to prepare for whats next.
Insulate your house with cash as much as possible, I understand better than most that saving is possible sometimes and not others, but to the degree possible? Stack it up.
Cash on hand is leverage in tech employment just like anywhere, but amolified during periods of structural demand shift. If one can get a year or three of easy runway, one can reskill/upskill into stuff with demand shifting into it. Right now I'm screwing around with Jetson boards and stuff like that: LLMs may cone and go but robots are here to stay.
And even the BATNA of "I'll go do OSS full time for a year" is leverage with your current employer. People with options are less likely to be fucked with in the first place.
Well, maybe not so great for ex-workers. Current employees still have RSUs and employee stock purchase plan, so those shares are making bank. OTOH, my Microsoft-employed spouse also says "no significant pay raises this review period", and I think that's the "not so great for workers" part that TFA missed. MSFT is going big guns, but doesn't have money for increased compensation.
Stock price doesn't have any effect on the value of ESPP at Microsoft, but you're right that it does on the RSUs. At least one company exec has directly proposed this as a counterbalance to "no pay raises" (From 2023: https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-exec-defends-compa...).
That said, anyone can own Microsoft stock. With respect to current employees - the common wisdom has always been not to own too much stock in your employer, with the rationale that if things aren't going well and the stock is tanking, you're likely to get laid off and then you're even worse off. But these days I'm thinking that the opposite is true, at least in bigtech: The more likely scenario is that you get laid off regardless and the stock goes up in response.
ESPP is discounted from quarter end price (I vaguely recall it being either last q or following q, whichever is lower but that seems like too good to be true). So constantly increasing share price does have an effect, both short term and long.
Well, not that great for current workers either. Microsoft RSUs are usually 20% (compared to 40-80% in other big tech) or less for most employees, and on average msft has 30-50% less total compensation than other big tech.
All this stock upside might put some people's compensation to their true market value, but even that is based on tenure and historical stock vests.
Would they be better off without the stock upside? I dont think so.
Remember, today we are talking about "stock price is up", but tomorrow the price may be down. What the parent said does not change regardless -- Microsoft employees are not as well compensated compared to other companies, plus the layoff is real.
Retention was never a priority at MS. Lower comp compared to G/Meta/Amazon, no refreshers, poor special stock awards, tenure-based promo queue, (...). If RTO becomes a reality I think the calculus of staying at MS will be tipped over for many.
Over 25 years ago MSFT was doing the same thing. Amazon, Google, and Facebook didn't yet exist, so we were losing candidates to Oracle because MSFT paid so little. When Microsoft finally wiped the sleep from their eyes, my next review period saw me getting a 23% raise at review time, some from performance and a lot from Microsoft finally catching up to the rest of the industry because they couldn't hire anyone (I'd say it was also a demonstration of how badly I was getting screwed, but MSFT options were hot back then).
Will it happen again a generation later? Depends on how many candidates go to Amazon instead, I guess.
Google did the same thing about 15 years ago. Universal 10% raises one year.
In this economy the calculus will be “hold on to your job at all costs and hope that next round of quarterly layoffs hiring doesn’t touch you”
Where would those employees go? Almost all rival big tech companies are implementing the same thing. They also have a nearly complete hiring freeze unless it's for a super critical role (very rare) or extremely high skilled AI work (few tech workers can do).
These employees are going to complain, but unless they have their FU money already, they are 100% going to RTO. What else can they do within reason?
The "deal" at Microsoft is that you get paid 30-50% less than other big tech employers but it's a lot chiller (imo this is true from my experience at both msft and faangs, I hear it's worse recently though). A LOT of people are there for the lower work pressure and no RTO. If they get rid of that, there's no reason not to jump to Google where you'll get paid substantially more except for needing to grind leetcode. Or even go to Meta/Amazon if you're willing to grind for even bigger bags of cash.
I understand that, my point is that Meta/Amazon/Google have massively pulled back on hiring as well. I personally went from being contacted several times per year by Meta to being 100% ghosted mid-conversation last time. They fired all the recruiters.
The deal was that you could have a chill work environment without grind.
Not anymore.
I don't know what a tenure-based promo queue is, but from the name, wouldn't it in fact be extremely focused on retention?
And it doesn't seem to be a bad strategy for their market fit, at least not for the last 20 years.
> tenure-based promo queue
i wouldn't mind this
It's actually been great for ex-workers. Most of their RSUs are much more valuable because the company has pushed for efficiency which has attracted investors and significantly increased market value.
While there have been layoffs, companies are generally still hiring and often employees can overlap severance with a new role.
The problem is that these last few rounds of layoffs have clearly demonstrated that, no matter who you are and what you do at MS, you don't know if you're going to still have a job tomorrow. Much good that unvested stock will do then...
"big guns" aka betting the future on something nebulous and the true price that is costs is still not being given to consumers of that service. Like Azure, they'll lock you in and raise rates. That's the business model
Until they get laid off next
Please.
Is it <waves hands towards the sky> AI? or is it years of overhiring?
There was a great article I found on HN recently about how the recent layoffs in big tech are actually the result of overhiring for years in a talent arms race.
Like, is AI now doing the former work of 25,000 people at Microsoft? Probably not.
Almost certainly not AI, just more users going from hosted windows solutions to azure + office upsell (eg with Teams). Microsoft pretty much dominates the non Apple Desktop ecosystem and is used heavily by healthcare, defense and manufacturing industries.
As someone who has been looking to lessen my reliance on all things Microsoft, the hardest thing for me to quit has been C# and .NET. It's just a great combination of developer experience, speed, and features. It's also probably the least problematic part of Microsoft to continue using, but it still doesn't feel great.
dotnet has gone pretty open source these days, no? I guess it may depend on the rest of your environment - maybe the Windows specific stuff like forms and WPF are still under them?
Other than that, I think you don't need too much dependence on them, depending on how you look at them controlling it. It being OSS personally gives it more stability since it can always be forked if they pull some nonsense.
The tooling isn't all open source. VSCode C# debugger isn't, for example.
I am on the same boat but I'd say it does feel great since .NET belongs to .NET Foundation and is open source. Its development is very transparent too.
Not so thrilled as a customer either
Their Azure customer service is beyond atrocious. I have 6 days old completely untouched tickets on their paid support plan.
There's never been a better time to leave either
What is your business using instead of Excel?
90% of the business just uses Sheets. There's a few accountants & finance people who still need Excel.
Depends, really. My exposure to agriculture and manufacturing sectors says everyone is still on Office 365 and Excel while digital marketing and advertising are almost all using Gmail and Sheets. Though it may also be location-dependent. I'm describing Europe, other parts of the world may be very different.
Not necessarily manufacturing. I led a Microsoft takeout at Sanmina (global high-tech contract mfr) all the way back in 2008-2009, and the result was 23,000 users moving to GSuite and mostly just Legal & Finance keeping Office as a fall-back only if LibreOffice wasn't sufficient. At the same time, several thousand Windows laptops were replaced with Chromebooks, and nearly all non-engineering workstations were replaced with ChromeOS devices or thin clients.
So you can’t migrate off then… and how is sheets (Google) better than Microsoft?
Google sheets
Orange and apples comparison.
Sure, they are both fruits, that's where it ends.
Your accountants are using Google sheets?
Nah. They are a dev and have no idea how the rest of the company works. They use Linux and sheets so obviously everyone else should be able to.
If I were to guess some frankenstein SAP system
Sure, just let me run this multimillion dollar multi-year project past management. Reasoning? "Lol M$ is sux"
If i could even find a comparable OS/Productivity/Communications package to replace the existing i'd lose my own job for proposing it.
Don't mave many options on the OS front. Windows performance gets worse and worse, increasing risk of corp enshittification, my task manager stopped working recently, but... I find Linux's workflow too rooted in multi-user systems and servers.
> I find Linux's workflow too rooted in multi-user systems and servers.
Out of genuine curiosity (not *nix/OSS fanboying) - how so? macOS has been a BSD for a quarter of a century and modern Windows was designed by a guy who cut his teeth at DEC on VMS. Virtually all modern computer OSes have roots in time-sharing systems.
The user and permissions system. I struggle with things being set up on the root account vs user and vice versa, occasionally breaking my system by editing config files or with CLI commands. Did that a few weeks ago trying to get my PC to read USB-serial without launching the program from CLI with sudo+pw. I had an extra newline in one of the config files; it didn't like that! I cannot follow the decision-making logic that I would need sudo to talk to my embedded device. I've heard the explanations about connected storage devices, but I cannot agree with it. On windows, the same hardware, and same source code (compiled to a different ABI) just works, because its permission system is not so strict.
It's indisputable that Dave Cutler designed both VMS and NT. But Cutler hasn't been involved in years, maybe decades. I'm not a Windows guy, but I am curious. It looks to me like modern Windows has gotten well away from any Cutler design. Has modern Windows retained any Cutler style design?
If Nadella grows Microsoft into the AI era as fast as Gates did in the Desktop era, it would become a 100 trillion dollar company within the next ten years:
https://www.linkedin.com/posts/marek-gibney_microsofts-story...
If I place a grain of rice on the first square of a chess board and double the amount on each step, I'd have 18 quintillion grains of rice.
It happens.
Life started with self-replicating molecules. And ramped up all the way to structures like the human body which consists not just of quintillions of molecules but of billions of quintillions of molecules.
18 quintillion grains of rice? That is not going to happen.
Just for reference, 18 quintillion grains of rice is roughly 500 times the global production of rice in 2022.
Nadella is no Gates and Ballmer wasn't either. There is only one Bill Gates and I doubt history will repeat itself.
It's a fun what if, I guess.
And even if Gates were there, is his luck still the same: I see constantly attribute to work and intelligence what is also a big chunk of luck and opportunities. Yes he seized it, but could it do it again? How much was luck?
Related: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2vRqxf0HI&pp=0gcJCccJAYcqIYz...
That number seems completely arbitrary. Why not $10 trillion or $1 quadrillion?
Because, as can be seen in the chart, during the desktop era, Microsoft grew at 60% per year.
Growing at 60% per year for ten years is a factor of slightly over 100.
Microsoft's overall value was also much more tied to their performance in the desktop market. The whole company can grow at 60% yoy if 60% of the company doubles in value. AI is not bringing them any revenue, and double nothing is still nothing.
There is only $500T wealth in the entire world. You're saying in 10 years, Microsoft will be worth 15-20% of the entire world?!
I did not make any prediction. I made a calculation. About the market cap of MS if it grows into the AI era as fast as it grew into the Desktop era.
You seem to assume that the global wealth is static. If that is the case, how were those $500T created in the first place?
It's not static, global wealth been growing at 3.8% per year for the past 25 years, which is historically quite a high rate. 10 more years at that rate would be 50% growth, or $750T.
The numbers you're talking about aren't feasible. MSFT grew that fast into the Desktop era because it was starting from a much smaller number. You can grow from $400m to $40b, but you growing from $40b to $4T is a much different story (and remarkable that they were able to do that!). Growing from $4T to $100T is not only unprecedented but unimaginable.
So you might be making a calculation instead of a prediction, but it's a worthless calculation. You may as well extrapolate the 10x weight gain of an infant to an adult and calculate that their weight at middle-age will be 1000 pounds.
Windows Desktops were basically a monopoly. There are currently no monopolies in the AI era, and I wouldn’t even consider MS a first-tier competitor.
Finally Dr. Evil's 100 billion ransom can be paid with Microsoft shares without crashing the economy!
https://frinkiac.com/meme/S08E11/289555.jpg?b64lines=SUYgVEh...
Microsoft lose their chance at mobile/ads era, they better get shit together if they didn't want to be next IBM
So Microsoft would be multiple times the GDP of the biggest economy in the world?
GDP is not static.
In the 80s, when Microsoft went public, the US GDP was under 5 Trillion.
So it's 6x since then and people expect Microsoft to 25x.
Nadella is a glorified excel salesman. He has no vision about the future of technology.
I have my doubts that any big tech leadership has visions for technology anymore. We seem to be heading straight to a boring tech dystopia, at least if the current enshittification trajectory continues.
I would say that Zuc has vision when compared to his counterparts.
To be clear, I do not _like_ the vision on a lot of fronts, especially around privacy, but there are a few points that are much less risk averse. The amount of money dumped into the metaverse shows they are willing to try some outlandish things to see if they stick. I don't see that attitude from any of the other big ones outside of more ways to bolt AI onto everything they ever wrote or feigning interest in something new like Apple Vision.
In a field of very mid players, he actually ends up standing out.
More H1B visas eh? Very bad for American tech workers.
Not so great news for smaller companies either. MS continues to use their muscle to gain from each super cycle without having to work for it the way smaller companies do. Their size alone makes competition unfair.
related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44778541
Companies shouldn't ever be allowed to be so wealthy or powerful. This sort of power allows them to bypass legal regulations, squash small companies (something MS has been doing for a long time), force technology on people faster than they can react (think of the average clueless user that will just use anything MS puts on Windows), and create a true state of anti-competition (what kind of small company can compete with MS and not be bought out).
The only reason why they do exist is because the people with the money are the people with the power.
> Companies shouldn't ever be allowed to be so wealthy or powerful.
I see MS as a US gov approved monopoly. I didn't check their SEC filings, but I suspect that US gov is a number one buyer, while various EU countries combined make number two. That's a coercion to me, not software business.
I would agree with that. And if that is so, it makes it even more apparent how broken our system is. The United States after all was built on decent values but without mechanisms to safeguard the average American from the interplay and long-term effects of very advanced technology interacting with the free market economy.
I wonder if a more-organized democracy would buy them out and make them state-owned.
Terms like
- You won, Windows is very popular, we are going to buy it and open source it, no more ads, no more opt-out telemetry
- Same with Office
- Same with Github
- Maybe they can keep running Azure, since it's unpopular
- XBox and Kinect and all the hardware stuff can stay private since it's not a monopoly and not de-facto public infrastructure
I wish I could live to see government that is both good and powerful, you know
I would think so, given how important (whether we at HN like it or not) their stack has become, it's basically critical infrastructure at this point for a lot of industries.
I think I could see that happening to several companies, not just MS as well - once something gets so huge that it would be detrimental to the survival of a nation if it failed, it gets nationalized.
> - Maybe they can keep running Azure, since it's unpopular
That I'm not sure about though. Azure is unpopular with SaaS, but it's increasingly popular with non-tech enterprises, as well as basically anyone that remotely competes with Amazon. Good chance that if a company's core product isn't SaaS, they are on Azure.
There's no such thing as a large bureaucratic organization that is "good". The larger the scale, the less morality enters into the picture at all.
Making large companies state-owned wouldn't preclude them from being monopolies, it just changes who's in charge of monopoly abuse. With state-owned monopolies you end up with something more like USSR.
No, OP is right: this much concentrated power just shouldn't be allowed, period.
I disagree. The EU one of the largest and most bureaucratic organisations in the world and while they often make dumb laws - especially around technology - it's usually at least with the intent of making things better for people.
State owned monopolies really only make sense for natural monopolies (e.g. transport and communications infrastructure), and I wouldn't really count desktop operating systems as that. Windows is a monopoly due to extremely strong network effects.
That sounds like a good partial solution. Unfortunately, it's easier for governments to use tax dollars to expand, create more comfortable positions for federal civil servants, and watch the money roll in.
Microsoft would be so much more profitable if Satya Nadella left. His salary is over 48 million dollars.
Related:
Microsoft confirms it made $27 billion after laying off 9,000 people
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44778541
Compound AI layoffs with outsourcing and its a dangerous time to be a software engineer in the US. I look at the current job environment with dismay. I really don't like my current role and it provides almost no benefit to my resume as i work in such a specialized niche industry but it pays well and I see no alternative. So I just clock in each day, do what i have to do and clock out dreading the next morning when I have to clock in again. I have maybe 2 years until this position winds down so am trying to do whatever I can to prepare for whats next.
Insulate your house with cash as much as possible, I understand better than most that saving is possible sometimes and not others, but to the degree possible? Stack it up.
Cash on hand is leverage in tech employment just like anywhere, but amolified during periods of structural demand shift. If one can get a year or three of easy runway, one can reskill/upskill into stuff with demand shifting into it. Right now I'm screwing around with Jetson boards and stuff like that: LLMs may cone and go but robots are here to stay.
And even the BATNA of "I'll go do OSS full time for a year" is leverage with your current employer. People with options are less likely to be fucked with in the first place.
> its a dangerous time to be a software engineer in the US
Eh - it's a dangerous time to be a software engineer anywhere.
these disgusting leeches. Microsoft is a parasite