Yup. It might even be that while the engineering team is aware of the faults, the MS exec team considers Teams to be brilliant.
At the senior level the role becomes a sales role - you are continuously selling your output, team, product, vision, etc internally to the other execs, board, etc. It's important therefore to present whatever you are producing as exceptional. So you look for indicators that support your pitch. Sales and forecasts are far more important than product. Product is only as important as far as it directly impacts these numbers. And with channels / vertical integration / brand like MS, a core tool like Teams is almost a guaranteed success on these metrics as long as the product kinda works.
And then it's very easy to fall into the trap of buying into your own pitch. When you are continuously repeating how great the product is you begin believe it and ignore criticism, including public opinion. "What matters is the markets opinion not the publics opinion and Teams has huge market share".
So MS execs likely believe Teams to be brilliant, which is probably partly why there isn't the internal urgency to fix the issues.
Also - its a golden goose! Its good enough, generates tons of revenue and fills a strategic product gap. Why take a big risk and refactor it? This could be a disaster.
Takes a very brave, product focused leader to push on despite the above.
It is the old joke. Dev says it is shit. Manager says it is dung. Senior manager says it has a strong odor. Director says it is powerful features. VP smiles in satisfaction.
Was looking for a good place to post this in the thread but I'll just drop it here. Microsoft Teams still lacks multi-account support on desktop.
As in, you can't sign on to several business organizations like you can in Slack. It's so dumb and disqualifying. Utter nightmare if you work with several organizations.
The fun part is that this functionality already has been added to teams (for over a year now), it’s just disabled and hidden by default. Might be worth enabling it if you use multiple orgs. https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-teams/track...
> As in, you can't sign on to several business organizations like you can in Slack. It's so dumb and disqualifying. Utter nightmare if you work with several organizations.
I think they were really hoping they could make that cross-tenant thing work where you only have one account that you can use as a guest in other orgs, but that really doesn't reflect how things work in the field (you have separate accounts at each organization).
This is a problem even if you work for one organization (e.g. govt or university) but have clients/collaborators in other organizations, and want to join their teams.
There was a reddit thread about this article yesterday and it was filled with people who were suddenly able to find their medication for orders of magnitude cheaper. This meant that for some it made an immediate and significant financial difference to their lives, and for others it meant access to medication they could not previously afford. In some cases reading this article was being described as "life saving".
This is very interesting but not because Cuban's business model is unique. It suggests that this group, who are probably a bit more net savvy on average, were not aware of other similar businesses like GoodRX.
This implies that there is a highly in demand product (cheap medication) but the problem is awareness, so it's a marketing challenge. Cuban is very well positioned to solve this problem by using his personal brand and tools like these PR articles.
This is a good thing! He has the brand, marketing chops and resources to drive it forward. It will increase the size of the market, meaning more people have access to life changing affordable medication. This may spawn more clones of the business model, further increasing the market size, rinse repeat. If this market gets big enough maybe it will apply pressure for change upstream? That would be a great thing.
Here on HN we are heavily weighted in our thinking towards the value of product in business (which is normally undervalued) and that is great, but examples like this reveal a real blind spot. Sometimes the value of something like marketing is forgotten or even worse dismissed. But they're extremely powerful tools when used correctly. Apply good marketing to a good product and you have Apple.
I hear that you're suggesting that those involved shouldnt feel bad because its a systemic / just a job / etc. But the reality is that incidents like this can be very traumatic for those involved and thats not something they can control. If it was that simple to manage, depression and anxiety would not be a thing.
Think its best to show a large amount of support and empathy for the individuals having a really bad day today, and how awful they may feel. Some will probably end up reading this thread (I know I would).
And of course, still hold Fastly the business accountable for their response (but objectively, once we understand what the root cause was, and the long term solution).
I don't see how it's so traumatic for the engineers involved, unless the company culture in Fastly is really awful and there are punitive repercussions, or attempts to pin responsbility on individuals rather than systems, which I doubt.
Many here have been responsible for web service outages albeit on much smaller scales, and in my experience it feels awful while it's happening but you quickly forget about it because so does everyone else.
I guess it very much depends on your personality. I screwed up a a not very important project for a client 4 years ago while working at a different company, and I still feel bad when I think about it, despite the fact that my company had my back through the entire process and literally everybody involved has moved on and probably forgotten about it.
I wanted to show support to the engineers in the sense that I don't think you should encourage a working culture where you have "massive post-mortems" and expect people to feel bad for extended periods of time over simple mistakes. By not making a big deal out of it, you can also support your staff.
But I think our disagreement mainly stems from how we interpreted the parent comment. I thought it was very double, at one hand claiming to show support, at the other hand emphasizing how big of a catastrophy this was.
I just wanted to say that I think it most likely was a completely natural mistake, only exerbarated by the scale of the company, and that while you should take some action to prevent it in the future, you should not spend so much time dwelling on it. Shit happens, it's fine.
In my opinion over-engineering is a symptom of not enough thinking. Complex, over engineered solutions don't happen because a problem is too well understood, they happen because a problem is not understood well enough.
This is based on the assumption that more thinking == better understanding.
To be a little picky but it might help drive some further thinking - localization and translation are two different things and it looks like parrot does translation only? Translation is a subset of localization.
The two are conflated a lot, especially in gamedev. Translation is nice, but localization is a superpower.
Family killed by a truck driver doing exactly this, including dashcam footage showing how quickly this happens if you are distracted for even a tiny amount of time. Very scary.
Timing at high speed has a lot to do with it, and lots of things can distract drivers from the road but the margin of error is slim here and so it seems very reasonable to legislate against this.
The phone is about consuming/producing content and that's what many popular apps (like FB, Instagram, etc) are all about. No FB app on the watch indicates that the standard FB experience doesnt work on the platform, in the same way it wouldnt work on your kettle. That doesnt mean the kettle is a failure.
The watch is all about quick access to small, self-contained nuggets of information and simple actions. Previously, these have been limited to "what's the time?", "what's the date?", etc. With smart watches we can now have "what's next on my calendar?", "what's the weather like today?", "pay for this coffee", etc. They sound simple but they can quickly become habits. Developers will eventually work out which of these work, but this is a genuinely new platform - it will take time and iteration.
Additionally, any comparison to the iPad launch is unfair. The iPad, in terms of how it is used, really is just a big iPhone.
Really? Are we at an age when taking the phone out of our pocket is an inconvenience? Frankly, I live my life in front of a computer on a desk. My calendar and a million other things are one click away and in a format far more convenient than a phone or a a watch.
I think the watch will, in the long term, be a flop. Apple needs to find a real killer app for it or it is toast. I already have a $500 iPhone in my pocket or on my desk and a $5,000 computer on my desk. They are going to have to pull off a really interesting trick to justify a $500 watch that is redundant. Yes, they are selling bunches of them, but I fail to see this as a long term product unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat.
How many of you developed iPhone apps? Us? Over a dozen. How many of you are developing Apple Watch apps. Us? Zero. No interest in working for Apple for free.
> I think the watch will, in the long term, be a flop. Apple needs to find a real killer app for it or it is toast.
There already are killer apps. Fitness is one. The question isn't if wearables are going to be a success (they already are), but just how smart and connected we need them to be: do you choose the Fitbit or the Apple Watch? etc. It seems that most objections to smart watches are due to price and size/aesthetics, both of which are hopefully only temporary issues, rather than absolute functionality. A bit of imagination is all that's needed.
> Down-vote away. I know the truth hurts.
If you get down votes, it'll be for the attitude, not the opinion...
The issue with saying "Oh yeah the Apple Watch is killer for fitness!" is that everyone who is into fitness and who cares about tracking stuff already has a fitness tracker. And these fitness trackers are cheaper, smaller, hardier, less of a target for theft, don't need to be continuously paired with a phone, and don't interrupt a workout to notify of text or phone call.
Nobody's going to jump me on my morning run to steal my FitBit, but they damn well are gonna jump me for my Apple Watch. I'm not going to wear my Apple Watch doing something like Crossfit where it could easily get broken but I'll happily wear my Jawbone UP because I know it can handle it. Also, fitness wearables are simply more comfortable to wear while exercising compared to the Apple Watch because the watch is bigger with a much bigger band and watchface for sweat to get trapped behind plus it has to be worn tight to the skin to capture heart rate which greatly limits range of motion.
The purpose-built fitness trackers are also more accurate than an Apple Watch as confirmed by multiple tests. They're FAR cheaper: $60 for an entry level Fitbit vs $349 for the entry-level smaller Apple Watch. And Fitbit is outselling Apple Watch every week again now after the initial Apple Watch sales.
Oh contraire, fitness is a 'success' because many think they should do more but don't have the willpower and then buy this magic device to overcome their lack of will.
This leads to hardware sales and non-usage.
Which makes it really hard for others to work on such a plattform.
That's a rather cynical view, no? Many people actively enjoy working out, and use these devices as a tracking tool rather than a motivational aide. It's a big market. No doubt your comment is true in some cases, but there have been plenty of contrary anecdotes too (people who've bought a fitness wearable and have become a lot healthier as a result).
I run 60km+ per week, I use wearables to track performance and do accurate heart rate training. I compete with my friends for distances, speeds, segments, Nike fuel any other metric we think is fun.
I don't lack will power (when my wearables run out of battery I still run).
So your comment sounds way off base to me. Just to give you a perspective you may not have seen.
"Many think" differently to what you said, as I illustrated. Which therefore actually defines wearables in "fitness" as a huge success, which is the exact opposite of the point you were making.
You have a whole industry built on wearables and fitness with millions of miles run/ridden/hiked/whatevered... That's hardly "non-usage".
Did you forget the point you were making?
If you need further convincing, look at the higher end of wearables, with Garmin, Polar, etc making specialised wearable devices, for specific sports and making a killing. Consumer-ising that space is surely a winning ticket. I mean that's essentially GoPros business model isn't it?
Most of the 'fitness' the phone tracks can done far better by a specialized device like the Fitbit, which is outselling the Apple Watch, or just by your phone. The major thing that people buy fitness trackers for... counting steps... can already be done by quite well by your phone since it's the thing that has GPS already (which is what your smartwatch uses) and your phone already has all the sensors to be a pedometer.
If you're the type that doesn't have their phone on you all the time, it's better done by a lightweight, lower-cost Fitbit which start at about 60 bucks as opposed to the $350/$400 starting point of the Apple Watch.
> If you get down votes, it'll be for the attitude, not the opinion...
You missed the joke I guess. On HN almost anything negative about Apple gets you a virtual hanging more often than not. I was being sarcastic. There are a lot of people that are invested in the Apple cult to the point of being hurt by the truth. Down-voting is a way to close their eyes to pretend reality isn't there. In that world Apple's shit don't stink, even when there's plenty of it to go around.
> "Frankly, I live my life in front of a computer on a desk. My calendar and a million other things are one click away and in a format far more convenient than a phone ..."
This exact argument also applied to smartphones, yet we've seen what can happen if you put a computer in people's pockets and let people figure things out.
I'm not suggesting the watch will displace the phone (the way the phone can displace laptops for many users) but I believe there's huge scope for augmenting it.
> "Yes, they are selling bunches of them, but I fail to see this as a long term product unless they pull a rabbit out of a hat."
Selling bunches of them is enough to indicate that something will happen in this space (i.e. people are already spending their money on it). Whether this iteration or the next will be the one that nails it remains to be seen. For example, the upcoming changes to allow native watch apps (as opposed to only having the UI there) should allow developers a bit more freedom.
The smart phone has a utility that is very different from that of a watch (or wearable). I don't think that comparison can be made.
> Selling bunches of them is enough to indicate that something will happen in this space
I don't disagree. I am saying that THIS Apple Watch feels like a flop in the long run. They could come out with Apple Watch 2 and knock it out of the park. Or, some other company could do it.
Honestly, I don't see myself buying a smartwatch any time soon, but then again, I don't see myself buying a watch any time soon, period.
That said, it's obvious that the majority of watches sold will be smartwatches sooner or later. After all, if you've already made up your mind on having a watch - and yes, there are applications outside of fashion and jewelry - then why not get a smartwatch? Outside of the Apple bubble, the difference in price will be negligible.
There are two open questions in this context: First, will the Apple Watch come to dominate that market? Most likely, it will go the way of the smartphone market in the medium term: small number of units sold with comparatively high profits purely for brand reasons.
Second, will there be a land rush of application development comparable to when smartphones and tablets really came into their prime? Most likely not, or to a much lesser extent, for a combination of the reasons that you mentioned and that smartwatches will basically be appendixes to smartphones, where that land rush has already happened.
Why not get a smartwatch? Well, there are actually several reasons:
- price. It is still going to be more expensive than a cheap dumb watch
- lifespan. Electronics generally won't live more than 3-5 years on average. A good watch can outlive you and your children.
- too much feature. The same way some people still buy dumb phones because they just want to phone and text, some people only want time out of their watch (recent threads about iPod sells explain that pretty well, albeit for a different product).
- fashion, as you said. Some people want to look good, and a smartwatch with a digital screen (gasp!) may be against their sense of aesthetics
> How many of you developed iPhone apps? Us? Over a dozen. How many of you are developing Apple Watch apps. Us? Zero. No interest in working for Apple for free.
I think this is the best point you’ve made. If we throw every other argument out, we’re left with the simple fact that the watch follows the phone, and the market for phone software has already commoditized itself into the toilet.
iOS is a dog’s breakfast. So what’s the lure for writing watch software? That the first players in have the least zeroth chance of becoming the next unicorn, one of the few apps actually turning into a sustainable business?
There will be exceptions, but I feel safe in predicting that most successful watch apps will be free or nearly fee accessories for some other business model, like ride sharing.
“Commoditize your complements.”—Joel Spolsky
Apple is the watch. Your software is the complementary product they will inexorably commoditize.
> I think this is the best point you’ve made. If we throw every other argument out, we’re left with the simple fact that the watch follows the phone, and the market for phone software has already commoditized itself into the toilet.
Probably so. Many of the developers who will reject what I am saying are not, at the same time, devoting life and treasure to the development of apps for the watch. The iPhone was very different. It was a gold rush. Many made millions selling fart apps. Most --the vast majority-- lost their shirts. And, having learned their lessons they remain cautious or completely uninterested when it comes to the watch.
One of the huge angles is that of the leash to the iPhone. This is the same reason I just bought my son a stand alone GPS for his car. Google and Apple maps and nav require network connectivity. Amazingly enough I've been in places not too far from home where we can't raise WiFi or a cell connection. Your great phone-based navigation software breaks down very quickly when you can't "phone home" for map updates.
It took me a while to realize the convenience of paying $30 a month to not go home or use a payphone to make calls. I guess its just a thing you have to experience, maybe its legit, maybe not.
$30/month in 2002 was a lot of money for a grad student like me. If the Apple watch provides even a 5-10% efficiency gain in mobile device usage (by not having to unpocket their phone all the time), many will find it worth it, and once they are hooked, well, we won't be having this conversation anymore. For the record, I don't have an Apple watch, but I do see them selling very well where I live.
I've been to Basel World before, and the "I'm rich watches" start at around 40K CHF. And they aren't even very good watches given their mechanical movements, it has nothing at all to do with functionality or features.
They're comparing $30/month to a one-time payment of $500, so yes, that's reasonable.
Besides, if price is your argument, you should look beyond Apple anyway. Their devices mostly sell by branding. There are already smartwatches that are significantly cheaper than what Apple offer, and over time, the price difference between regular watches and smart watches is going to shrink further.
Yes pulling your pocket out is an inconvenience if every time you do so it's to find out that an email or text message is spam or unimportant. Likewise seeing what meeting you have next (and where it is) is a second on the watch. About 30 seconds on the phone.
Who cares if you are going to make an Apple Watch app or not. Most developers aren't. Nor should they. Not every phone app will work on the watch and vice versa. The Watch like the iPad requires a unique experience. I look at apps like IFFT and Workflow as the style of apps that are are the future of Apple Watch.
> Yes pulling your pocket out is an inconvenience if every time you do so it's to find out that an email or text message is spam or unimportant. Likewise seeing what meeting you have next (and where it is) is a second on the watch. About 30 seconds on the phone.
First. Do you own one?
Beyond that. Seriously. Please. Think about what you are saying a little bit. Is the technology owning you here?
If you need to take your phone out of your pocket so often that it is a nuisance...leave it on your desk.
If you get too many notifications you are not using them correctly.
Finally, I have thirty years as CEO of multiple tech companies and have conducted business across the US and internationally. I can't remember a single instance of having a schedule so complex that it required being leashed to an electronic device to the point that taking it out of my pocket became a nuisance.
Please, let's not exaggerate reality for the love of technology. I love technology and the Apple Watch is a marvel of what can be accomplished today. That is not being disputed here.
This is about a business case for this particular device, in it's present incarnation. I don't think it exists in the long run. I think they got a lot of sales because of the love for Apple and the idea of what could be. Now that it's been out there for a while people are probably not jumping on it at a rate that will sustain it as a business as it exists today. They might be able to come up with a new design that changes things, but I think the writing is on the wall for this one.
I like my Moto 360, but I disabled notification vibrations (I have it in silent mode all the time). It is terribly annoying when you are working or are having family time and something on your wrist vibrates all the time.
I've got a dumb Fitbit Charge. It already have shown me why would I want Apple watch: first, the incoming call notification is unexpectedly useful. Second, I already want the better activity tracking available on Apple Watch.
And yes, taking phone out of the pocket (or purse) is indeed inconvenience.
At the senior level the role becomes a sales role - you are continuously selling your output, team, product, vision, etc internally to the other execs, board, etc. It's important therefore to present whatever you are producing as exceptional. So you look for indicators that support your pitch. Sales and forecasts are far more important than product. Product is only as important as far as it directly impacts these numbers. And with channels / vertical integration / brand like MS, a core tool like Teams is almost a guaranteed success on these metrics as long as the product kinda works.
And then it's very easy to fall into the trap of buying into your own pitch. When you are continuously repeating how great the product is you begin believe it and ignore criticism, including public opinion. "What matters is the markets opinion not the publics opinion and Teams has huge market share".
So MS execs likely believe Teams to be brilliant, which is probably partly why there isn't the internal urgency to fix the issues.
Also - its a golden goose! Its good enough, generates tons of revenue and fills a strategic product gap. Why take a big risk and refactor it? This could be a disaster.
Takes a very brave, product focused leader to push on despite the above.