Tag

Microsoft

Browsing

The biggest ads from the biggest brands in big TV moments used to be dominated by cars, candy, and beer. Now—like everything else—it’s Big Tech.

For 32 years, USA Today’s Ad Meter has measured the popularity of Super Bowl ads, and this year’s list looked different than ever before.

Google nabbed the No. 3 spot, Amazon No. 7, and Microsoft No. 9. Even Facebook, which ranked much lower at No. 39, was airing its first-ever Super Bowl spot but still managed to beat out such TV ad stalwarts as GMC, Audi, Coke, and Pepsi.

Seemingly out of nowhere (although after years of building up to it), Big Tech has finally become the kind of major TV-advertiser class that used to be the sole domain of legacy brands—those TV ad staples in such popular categories as autos, beer, and candy. For most of their history, these companies scoffed at traditional media. Can’t measure it, can’t convert viewers into customers, not enough real-time data. Yet here are the 21st century’s most dominant brands behaving like their counterparts of the late 20th, using TV as a key tool to build image and consumer loyalty. Taking a half-step back, this development is a bit rich given that other than Microsoft, these are companies whose businesses are working, through digital advertising dominance and streaming content, essentially to destroy the modern TV industry.

The Super Bowl and most other high-profile TV opportunities like the Oscars and Grammys are now where the biggest tech companies go to forge the kind of emotional relationship with consumers that helps prevent us from becoming too critical, too nervous, and too creeped out by their actions.

It could not have been scripted better.

Big spenders

Microsoft was one of the biggest TV ad spenders in tech last year, shelling out half a billion dollars. On its Surface brand alone, the company boosted ad spending by almost 20%, to an estimated $219.1 million, according to measurement firm iSpot.

Amazon spent more than $1.25 billion overall in 2019, boosting TV ad spending for Prime, for example, by a massive 487% to hit about $210 million. Also notable for Amazon, it more than doubled TV ad spending on its home security system Ring, hitting about $79 million in 2019, compared with $32 million in 2018. Given that the company was recently accused of providing user data to Facebook and other companies without making Ring users aware that their data was being shared, adding to its other privacy scandals, it’s going to need all the brand loyalty it can muster.

Facebook is the smallest of the big tech companies, and it correspondingly spent just $300 million on TV marketing last year, with more than half of it, according to iSpot, going to burnish Facebook’s brand.

The ads, the strategies

After Google ran its Super Bowl ad on Sunday night, Twitter lit up with posts about its emotional effectiveness.

Microsoft received similar kudos for its ad profiling 49ers assistant coach Katie Sowers, which hit the perfect balance of product, brand, and a message of female empowerment that Secret and Olay, both of which have been marketing to women for as long as they’ve existed, couldn’t manage to find.

Amazon was back at its goofy celebrity best, this time teaming with Ellen DeGeneres to wonder what life was like before Alexa.

And then Facebook dropped in with an homage to eclectic Groups, with a side dish of Sly Stallone and Chris Rock.

All the game needed to have a Big Tech full house was Apple, but even Cupertino managed to launch a new spot yesterday for its Arcade video game subscription service.

Anyone wondering why the planet’s biggest and most successful tech and digital media companies are increasingly turning to good old-fashioned TV ads need look no further for a reason than what comedian and talk-show host Desus of Desus and Mero had to say:

As I wrote on Sunday, Facebook made its users the focus of its Super Bowl ad to draw as much attention as possible away from its myriad of corporate issues. Each of the companies chose the largest advertising stage and its most strategic products—Facebook Groups, Amazon’s Alexa, Microsoft Surface, Google Search—as the device with which to build a narrative and emotional connection with users.

Back in 2018, Google CMO Lorraine Twohill heralded the brand’s ads “Parisian Love” (which became Google’s first-ever Super Bowl ad) and “Dear Sophie” as the spark for what’s become the company’s strategy around humanizing its products and itself. When she joined the company in 2009, the marketing formula was more tech nerd than Mad Men and went something like this: We have to launch a new product, here’s a blog post, and here is a video of the product manager explaining its features. Please watch the video.

“In the early days, we had a Chrome digital-only campaign, which was about three things: safety, simplicity, and speed. Very rational,” said Twohill. “That did get us so far, but no one gets out of bed in the morning and says, ‘I need a new browser.’ What changed the game for us was to go out and create ‘The web is what you make of it,’ which is essentially a brand campaign about people using the web to make their lives better.”

Replace “web” with soap, cars, beer, insurance, or burgers and it becomes pretty clear that these companies we see as among the most innovative in the world still rely upon some of the most hardy advertising tropes in existence. Amazon’s humor is no different than VW in 2011’s “The Force” that charmed us all just before the company’s reputation imploded under the emissions scandal. Or how Snickers uses it to avoid us looking too closely at the sustainability and labor challenges of the chocolate industry. Facebook’s Groups spot is the direct descendant of any commercial gleefully celebrating human gathering, from McDonald’s “You Deserve A Break Today” back in the ’80s, to the longstanding idea of Miller Time.

Microsoft’s Super Bowl ad was fantastic, but let’s face it, the point was Sowers’s story and her accomplishment, not a tablet computer, and could’ve easily been a spot for paper towels. Kind of like P&G’s long-running “Thank You, Mom” Olympic campaign. And while Google’s “Loretta” expertly uses its own products to make those human connections, it hinges on tying human connection and emotion to the brand, a tactic perfected in spots like Coke’s classic “Hilltop” and Budweiser’s “Puppy Love.”

Back then, we were being charmed by companies that we knew—or had some sense—that they were connected to such serious problems as obesity, pollution, addiction, and more. Those, of course, still remain, but say what you want about beer or fast-food burgers, they don’t lead to issues of data privacy and misinformation, among others.

The emotional connections forged by these ads seek to paper over all of that, at least for 30 seconds at a time.

Oh, and add in a CEO tweet for good measure.

What’s next

These challenges—and Big Tech’s need to cultivate as much goodwill as possible—aren’t going anywhere, so expect this type of TV ad spending to continue to grow, at least until they actually do kill broadcast TV. This will be most acute during major events like the Super Bowl, Oscars, World Series, and anywhere else our fragmented media culture manages to come together in anything even remotely resembling a collective cultural experience. The more we love their ads, the more likely we’ll be to buy and use their products, and therefore less likely to address potential concerns, vote to have monopolies broken up, or otherwise question their motives.

On the bright side, though, at least Big Tech didn’t try to sell us a baby peanut.

Bing is known as the default search engine for Windows, and not much else. Microsoft’s solution? To forcibly install a Bing search extension in Chrome for Office 365 ProPlus users.

The company says that this is designed for enterprise and business users to find relevant workplace information directly from the browser address bar, but we all know Microsoft is desperate to get more people using its search engine. It sounds harmless, but here’s why forcing people to use Bing won’t help Microsoft in the long run.

Bing has a bad track record

Marketing jargon aside, the idea that Microsoft has with this is simple. By forcing enterprises and businesses with Office 365 Pro Plus to use Bing, the overall share and usage of the search engine might increase. However, there’s one problem. As it stands, Bing doesn’t have a good track record, and people might not want to use it at all, even if forced to it.

A report by TechCrunch in January of 2019 found that, at one point, Bing was providing really problematic search results. The search engine was providing users with child pornography, and other derogatory content. An earlier report from How-To Geek in 2018 also revealed that Bing was suggesting racist imagery, particularly in relation to searches regarding those of the Islamic and Jewish faiths. That publication also found that Bing was suggesting some conspiracy theories when searching for figures like former First Lady Michelle Obama.

Oh, and then there was the time the first result for “Google Chrome” was bringing up a malware site. Not a good look.

These issues have all since been corrected, but are particularly jarring. How can a search engine have been this bad? And why would someone even bother using a search engine with a reputation this bad?

Bing still has problems that need to be addressed

Fast forward to today, Bing still has a few problems that need to be addressed, and where Microsoft should put some extra attention towards, instead of forcing Bing down people’s throats. These include both search relevance and design — the two core areas of any search engine.

First of all, there is a search relevance. In our testing, searching for Digital Trends on Google and Bing provide two different results. On Bing, we get a look at some older Digital Trends articles, which at the time of this writing, were older stories from 4, 6, and 3 hours ago. Compared that to Google, and articles are more relevant pulled from a most recent time frame.

Google is even smart enough to show the Digital Trends Twitter feed, and provide the searcher with more relevant information. Google also suggests some competitors to Digital Trends, such as CNET or The Verge, to help users find alternative news and information. There’s even a topic page for what we write about, and information about our Editor in Chief, Jeremy Kaplan. None of these are on Bing.

microsoft bing focing wont win search engine wars bingvs google

Then, there’s the search page design. Google recently switched up its design for the good. Compared to Bing, its user interface features website icons similar to what you get when you “favorite” a website. There’s also added extra header text at the top of a result to help identify websites, and stop misinformation. Google explained in a series of tweets that its changes are designed to help the user “better understand where information is coming from, more easily scan results & decide what to explore.”

When put up against Bing, the difference is substantial. Google is clearly more user-friendly than Bing, and users are able to find more relevant information at a quicker pace. Microsoft has a lot to learn in this department.

Take care of the basics

In short, Microsoft needs to fix up Bing before it starts forcing people to use it. The good news is that Microsoft recently proved that it can do this. The company recently relaunched its Microsoft Edge browser, which has received great buzz and attention online. That’s all because Microsoft slowed down, fixed the problems, and did it right.

Similarly, Microsoft has to make moves to better position Bing as a search engine for us common people. It needs to make us see that Bing a solid alternative to Google and not just a copy cat.

We’ve seen attempts this with programs like Microsoft Rewards, which rewards users with “points” for searching on Bing, that can be redeemed for gift cards. Microsoft has even made terrific strides on the Bing experience over the past few years with a “collections” feature to collect, group and save search results, and an election experience designed to help fight misinformation.

Here’s the kicker: Bing could be a great option for businesses. When the main Bing is combined with Microsoft Search, you’re able to sign in with both work and personal accounts. You’re able to use Bing to search through work files and even people or websites set up by your organization. There’s great potential there.

But until Microsoft gets the basics covered, forcing people to use Bing is only exasperating the problem.

The views expressed here are solely those of the author and do not reflect the beliefs of Digital Trends.

Sourced from Digital Trends

By Douglas Montague

How rethinking brand expression influenced Microsoft products and vice versa

Imagine a sheet of paper with a couple dozen tiny dots spread out on it. Their placement doesn’t seem random. You can sort of make out a shape, but there’s no obvious way they go together.

Now imagine a sheet with identical tiny dots, only each one is numbered. The dots may still look like a jumble, but the numbers indicate how they link together. You draw a line from one to two, two to three, and so on. Oh look, you’ve drawn a seal balancing a beach ball on its nose! Gold star.

Working for a big company sometimes feels like staring at thousands of dots and having little idea how to connect them. I’ve been with Microsoft since 1995, but I don’t think I understood how these dots could work together until 2015.

That’s when we changed our marketing strategy. Before, the product design team would build and design the experiences, and the marketing team layered a brand identity on top to sell it. With the 2015 change, branding was no longer a “layer” of marketing disconnected from the product experience. Instead, branding became directly tied to and influenced by the product. And maybe, just maybe, the brand could influence the product in return.

In the heavily siloed world of giant corporations, that was practically crazy talk.

One dot at a time

Simplicity became our mission. We first needed to build brand principles and the brand story (in other words, why we exist in the world). Then, we’d figure out how the principles and story inform the product experience. We theorized that connecting experience and expression among product, brand identity, and marketing, and extrapolating those principles into meaningful guidance across the company, would create a better experience for customers.

Numbers started to appear next to those scattered dots staring me in the face. The trick was getting other people to see them, too.

To show people the value of brand creative teams in marketing, we needed to have a lot more conversations with product design. First, we needed to understand what they were building and where they were headed. Second, we needed to create a visual identity closely tied to the product’s visual language, which a worldwide marketing organization could later implement.

Easy enough, right?

Thankfully, our senior leadership encourages us to work together for the greater good of the company, pushing away our own egos as much as possible to bring success to all. We call this One Microsoft. Particularly in our area, acting as One Microsoft is a necessity: we have a tiny creative team and can’t succeed without the assistance of other great creatives, so we need to understand each other’s business and create together. When it works, it’s magical.

Case study: transforming Microsoft Office

Rebranding Office was one such magical example. For the first time, we looked to product teams for cues to lift the brand identity and create simple, scalable guidance. We worked directly with product design, an approach that we’d take later with Azure and HoloLens 2.

Our approach had five steps:

  1. Create the brand story working across brand strategy, engineering, and marketing, including a deep dive into product design principles and future principles.
  2. Conduct an end-to-end visual audit of the entire customer journey.
  3. Identify visual patterns and cues from the product, and from the parent Microsoft brand, to create a visual identity for the brand expression.
  4. Build creative principles and theories around color, illustration, typography, and photography, then stress test across all communication touchpoints in the marketing funnel.
  5. Create a simple design system that designers could scale worldwide without much creative oversight.
Three large black boards with print outs of the current Office branding.

Three large black boards with print outs of the current Office branding.

Boards from one of the many visual audits done in 2016 for Microsoft Office.

Our audit concluded that Office needed a more sophisticated yet simplified visual identity connecting our product experience and marketing communications. The marketing teams were doing their best; they followed the Microsoft brand guide for reference, but the broadness of the guide and visual system made it difficult to implement. We pared down the brand system in the name of simplicity.

Office brand guideline examples including personality, colors, and font.

Office brand guideline examples including personality, colors, and font.

Pages from the Microsoft Office Brand Guidelines.

Our collaboration effectively linked the pre-purchase marketing communications to the post-purchase ones. For example, we used our marketing expertise at engaging users to improve the first-usage experience (for example, the “how to” videos that introduced users to Office online). In that space, the product team focused more on UX, not the kind of branded moments within the product where you can tell a story.

The fifth step in that process was perhaps the toughest, simply because of scale. Several hundred marketers worked on Office, each with their own budget, each choosing their own creative. Because of that, and their concern that we’d just scold them for doing things wrong, none of their work went through a creative review process. We not only had to change how people worked, but we also had to assure them we had their best interests in mind.

In time, people from other teams understood that we weren’t focused solely on creative, that we wanted to help them meet their business objectives and performance metrics. Again, it comes back to that One Microsoft principle of trusting each other and helping each other succeed. Product teams started seeking out our involvement, and marketing trusted us to make more things on their behalf.

Keeping a good thing going

We emulated this turning point elsewhere. We worked directly with principal designers Paul Cooper and Lance Garcia to build creative principles (for everyone keeping track, that’s step 4) that ended up changing the patterns and UX of . Functionality informed brand choices, which reflected back on the site itself.

The front page of the Azure.com website.

The front page of the Azure.com website.

Azure.com

The same goes for HoloLens 2, which was perhaps our most daunting task. The product team had worked on it for two years by the time we stepped in to begin branding, so we had catching up to do. (Yes, not ideal.)

HoloLens 2 works in mixed reality, a new medium for most users. Because of that, people need more than product photography or UI to understand how it works. So, I partnered closely John Nguyen and David Wolf from the product design team to come up with a solution. We were inspired by prismatic light in holograms and by the way the product sensors understand the world and generate a 3D map. We believed that this prism and map would tie the marketing and the product experience together in a beautiful way. The product experience largely informed the elegant brand we created for HoloLens 2 and subsequent marketing materials.

Four expressions of the HoloLens branding.

Four expressions of the HoloLens branding.

HoloLens 2 Prismatic Color Blend used in illustration, full-bleed backgrounds, and HoleLens 2 wordmark logo.

These marketing materials turned out well — so well that they influenced the product. Romiro Torres, the creative director for HoloLens 2 UX, was working out the visual expression and experience of how the device maps a room. He integrated the same visualization into the product experience, so users see the same visualization we created for marketing when HoloLens 2 maps the room they’re standing in.

HoloLens 2 Room Mapping from the launch announcement in Barcelona

Chances are that doesn’t sound like a big deal to you, but it felt huge — that “maybe, just maybe” moment I mentioned earlier. If you listen closely, you can hear silo walls cracking.

Those are the kinds of moments we strive to create every day. They become a lot more likely when teams spend the time to truly understand each other. Branding makes that easier. It provides that layer of customer clarity, connecting the dots so that marketing and product can take a step back, look at the lines, and say, “Wow, a seal balancing a beach ball!”

By Douglas Montague

Microsoft Brand Creative Director. I don’t believe creative that has commercial success tags it with an odious suggestion that is stinks. Views are my own.

Sourced from Medium

By Robert Ramsey

New best friends?

Well here’s an interesting announcement: Sony and Microsoft have revealed that they’re working together on a variety of tech-related ventures. The two companies are obviously competitors in the gaming console space with PlayStation and Xbox, but that hasn’t stopped them from forming what they call a “strategic partnership”.

“The two companies will partner on new innovations to enhance customer experiences in their direct-to-consumer entertainment platforms and AI solutions,” reads the press release. A little vague, but more specific plans are outlined further in.

“The two companies will explore joint development of future cloud solutions in Microsoft Azure to support their respective game and content-streaming services,” the statement continues. “In addition, the two companies will explore the use of current Microsoft Azure datacenter-based solutions for Sony’s game and content-streaming services. By working together, the companies aim to deliver more enhanced entertainment experiences for their worldwide customers,” it adds.

This sounds like it has a lot to do with cloud and streaming-based entertainment — something that both companies have had a hand in over the years. It’ll be interesting to see how far-reaching this stuff is when it comes to gaming in particular.

Beyond that, Sony and Microsoft are even teaming up on the “potential joint development” of “intelligent image sensor solutions”. With Sony’s experience in crafting consumer-friendly products and Microsoft’s expansive software know-how, it could prove to be a strong partnership.

Of course, we’re going to need to see all of this come together at some point in order to determine what kind of partnership this is, but it’s still an intriguing premise.

What really caught our eye, though, is how Sony president CEO Kenichiro Yoshida talks about the partnership: “PlayStation itself came about through the integration of creativity and technology. Our mission is to seamlessly evolve this platform as one that continues to deliver the best and most immersive entertainment experiences, together with a cloud environment that ensures the best possible experience, anytime, anywhere.”

Yoshida continues: “For many years, Microsoft has been a key business partner for us, though of course the two companies have also been competing in some areas. I believe that our joint development of future cloud solutions will contribute greatly to the advancement of interactive content.”

In other words, Microsoft’s advancements in tech may indeed play a part in the future of PlayStation as a platform. Again, we’re going to have to wait and see how this actually unfolds, but right now, it’s clear that the two companies are getting along very well indeed.

Feature Image Credit: Microsoft. Sony president and CEO Kenichiro Yoshida (left) and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella (right)

By Robert Ramsey

Sourced from PUSH SQUARE

By

Remember MSN.com? It’s still around – and Microsoft is trying to bring it back by relaunching its mobile apps with a new moniker.

Available for Android and iOS, Microsoft News brings you stories from the company’s MSN News effort, that’s been online for several years – with a modern interface that should be familiar to folks who’ve tried Apple News and Google News.

The service brings curated news from more than 1,000 publishers and 3,000 brands. Microsoft says that its AI scans more than 100,000 pieces of content each day, and has over 800 human editors across the globe to select the top stories that its app will surface on your device.

This effort also “powers news on Microsoft Edge, the News app in Windows 10, Skype, Xbox and Outlook.com.” To that end, signing in with your Microsoft account syncs your news preferences across all the devices you’re logged in on.

I spent a few minutes with the Android app, and found the interface to be simple enough to navigate. You’ll initially be prompted to indicate your interests to aid curation, after which you can browse through stories sorted into the categories you selected.

There’s also a section for local news; testing it in my hometown of Bangalore, India, I was served up stories from various outlets covering my city. However, these articles were displayed in an in-app browser, as opposed to the native view.

You can choose between a light and dark theme, and opt to receive notifications for breaking news stories. One feature I missed from Google News is the ‘Full Coverage’ button, which brings up multiple publications’ perspectives on the same topic or event in a single list.

Microsoft says it supports publishers by offering them channels to earn revenue, but it didn’t exactly how that works. It’s likely through partnerships and a bespoke advertising platform (you can see ads in the app which aren’t present in the articles’ original web view); the company noted that it’s “delivered more than $600 million back to our publishers” in the past four years.

While I prefer Google News’ UI, Microsoft’s offering is a formidable rival that arguably does a better job of surfacing local content. You can try it now by grabbing the free app from Google Play and the App Store.

Feature Image Credit: Microsoft

By

Sourced from TNW

By:

The August Power BI update allows Excel users to import their work into Microsoft’ cloud-powered business intelligence tool.

Microsoft wants to help business users unearth insights that may be locked away in Excel workbooks with the latest update to Power BI Desktop.

Formerly called Power BI Designer, Power BI Desktop is the free data exploration and interactive reporting tool that enables users to run analytics on various sources of business data, including Google Analytics, SQL Server and Salesforce, to name a few. Now users have another option: Excel.

The new import capability “makes it possible for users to convert their Excel Workbooks containing Power Query queries, Power Pivot models and Power View worksheets into a Power BI Desktop file,” announced Miguel Llopis, program manager for Microsoft Power BI, in a company blog post. “This is a one-time operation to help users get started in Power BI Desktop with their existing reports.”

Llopis characterized the Excel import feature as a stepping stone to business analytics until his company inevitably improves how the two platforms share data. “While we plan to have other means of communication (import/export) between Excel and Power BI Desktop in the future, the current feature allows existing Excel users to get started with Power BI Desktop.”

There are limits to the types of Excel data that can be imported to Power BI, according to a Microsoft support document, he cautioned. They include SQL Server Analysis Services Tabular models, the KPI (key performance indicator) Data Model objects and binary data columns, among a handful of others.

The August update also includes connectors for HDInsight Spark, the company’s Azure-backed, open-source big data analytics solution, and Azure SQL Data Warehouse. Plus, the product now supports custom Multidimensional Expressions (MDX) and Data Analysis Expressions (DAX) queries from SQL Server Analysis Services Database.

In addition to those new behind-the-scenes additions, Microsoft has made some improvements to Power BI Desktop’s Navigator, Query Editor and data modeling tools. For instance, users can “resize the Navigator dialog, so that they can easily preview tables with lots of columns” and use shortcuts to select multiple items, said Llopis.

On the data modeling front, users can resize columns or double-click on a column’s border to auto-adjust. “Users can now easily move measures from one table to another, without having to recreate the measure in the destination table,” Llopis added. They can “select a measure and use the ‘Home Table’ option in the Data Tools – Modeling tab in the ribbon,” he instructed.

Finally, Power BI Desktop users have a little more flexibility in selecting their Live Analysis Services data sources.

“Based on feedback from many of you, we have improved the Edit Queries dialog for Live Analysis Services connections to allow users to modify the database and model, in addition to the server (which was available in our previous release),” Llopis said. “After confirming the Server name and clicking OK, users are presented with the Navigator dialog where they can browse to the right Database and Model, just like they were able to do on the initial connection.”

By:

Pedro Hernandez is a contributor to eWEEK and the IT Business Edge Network, the network for technology professionals. Previously, he served as a managing editor for the Internet.com network of… V

Sourced from eWeek

By .

Microsoft announced that its conversational speech recognition system has reached a 5.1% error rate, its lowest so far. This surpasses the 5.9% error rate reached last year by a group of researchers from Microsoft Artificial Intelligence and Research and puts its accuracy on par with professional human transcribers who have advantages like the ability to listen to text several times.

Both studies transcribed recordings from the Switchboard corpus, a collection of about 2,400 telephone conversations that have been used by researchers to test speech recognition systems since the early 1990s. The new study was performed by a group of researchers at Microsoft AI and Research with the goal of achieving the same level of accuracy as a group of human transcribers who were able to listen to what they were transcribing several times, access its conversational context and work with other transcribers.

Overall, researchers from the latest study reduced the error rate by about 12 percent compared to last year’s findings by improving the neural net-based acoustic and language models of Microsoft’s speech recognition system. Notably, they also enabled its speech recognizer to use entire conversations, which let it adapt its transcriptions to context and predict what words or phrases were likely to come next, the way humans do when talking to one another.

Microsoft’s speech recognition system is used in services like Cortana, Presentation Translator and Microsoft Cognitive Services.

Featured Image: Bloomberg/Contributor/Getty Images

By

Sourced from TechCrunch

Sourced from The Economist.

The world’s biggest software firm has transformed its culture for the better. But getting cloud computing right is hard.

A DECADE ago, visiting Microsoft’s headquarters near Seattle was like a trip into enemy territory. Executives would not so much talk with visitors as fire words at them (one of this newspaper’s correspondents has yet to recover from two harrowing days spent in the company of a Microsoft “brand evangelist”). If challenged on the corporate message, their body language would betray what they were thinking and what Bill Gates, the firm’s founder, used often to say: “That’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard.”

Today the mood at Microsoft’s campus, a sprawling collection of more than 100 buildings, is strikingly different. The word-count per minute is much lower. Questions, however ignorant or critical, are answered patiently. The firm’s boss, Satya Nadella (pictured), strikes a different and gentler tone from Mr Gates and Steve Ballmer, his immediate predecessor (although he, too, has a highly competitive side).

Both these descriptions are caricatures. But they point to an underlying truth: how radically the world’s biggest software firm has changed in the short time since Mr Nadella took charge in early 2014. Back then everything at Microsoft revolved around Windows, the operating system that powered most computers. It was a franchise the company believed needed to be extended and defended at almost any price.

Windows has since retreated into a supporting role; sometimes it is little more than a loss-leader to push other products. At the heart of the new Microsoft is Azure, a global computing cloud. It is formed of more than 100 data centres around the world, dishing up web-based applications, bringing mobile devices to life and crunching data for artificial-intelligence (AI) services. Along with this shift in strategy has come a less abrasive, more open culture.

Microsoft’s transformation is far from complete. Windows, Office—the once equally dominant package of applications for personal computers—and other PC-related products together still generate about two-fifths of its revenues and three-quarters of its profits. But even those who have watched Mr Nadella’s actions with a high degree of scepticism reckon the firm is moving on from its cash-cows.

The firm’s transformation did not begin with Mr Nadella. It launched Azure and started to rewrite its software for the cloud under Mr Ballmer. But Mr Nadella has given Microsoft a new Gestalt, or personality, that investors appear to like. The firm’s share price has nearly doubled since he took over (see chart).

Dethroning Windows was the first task. Previously, new products were held back or shorn of certain features if these were thought to hurt the program (something known internally as the “strategy tax”). One of Mr Nadella’s early decisions was to allow Office to run on mobile devices that use competing operating systems. He went so far as to use a slide that read “Microsoft loves Linux”. Mr Ballmer had called the open-source operating system a “cancer”.

The downgrading of Windows made it easier for Mr Nadella to change the firm’s culture—which is so important, he believes (along with Peter Drucker), that it “eats strategy for breakfast”. Technologies come and go, he says, so “we need a culture that allows you to constantly renew yourself”. Whereas Mr Ballmer was known for running across the stage and yelling “I love this company”, Mr Nadella can often be seen sitting in the audience, listening. When, in 2016, internet trolls manipulated Tay, one of Microsoft’s AI-powered online bots, into spewing racist comments, people waited for heads to roll. Mr Nadella sent around an e-mail saying “Keep pushing, and know that I am with you…(the) key is to keep learning and improving.”

Employees are no longer assessed on a curve, with those ending up at the lower end often getting no bonus or promotion. For the firm’s annual executive retreat in 2015, Mr Nadella included the heads of companies Microsoft had recently acquired, such as Mojang, the maker of Minecraft, a video game, and Acompli, an e-mail app, breaking with the tradition that only longtime executives can attend.

The book of Nadella

Sending such signals matters more than ever in the tech industry. Well-regarded firms find it easier to recruit top-notch talent, which is highly mobile and has its pick of employers. A reputation for aggression can attract the attention of regulators and lead to a public backlash, as Microsoft itself knows from experience and Uber, a ride-hailing unicorn, is finding out.

Mr Nadella has changed the firm’s organisation as well as its culture. It is now more of a vertically integrated technology firm—“full stack”, in the jargon. It not only writes all kinds of software, but builds its own data centres and designs its own hardware. Mr Nadella points out that it now even develops some of the chips for its data centres.

His imprint can be seen on three businesses in particular: the cloud, hardware and AI. Microsoft does not break out by how much it has increased investment in the cloud, but building data centres is expensive and its capital expenditure is soon expected nearly to double, to $9bn a year, from when Mr Nadella took over. If you take only basic services, such as data storage and computing, Microsoft’s cloud is much smaller than Amazon Web Services, the leader in cloud computing, which is owned by Amazon, an e-commerce giant. But if you add Microsoft’s web-based services, such as Office 365 and other business applications, which are only a negligible part of AWS’s portfolio, the two firms are of comparable size. Both AWS’s and Microsoft’s cloud businesses boast an annual run rate (the latest quarterly revenues multiplied by four) of $14bn. Microsoft hopes to reach $20bn by its 2018 financial year, a fifth of total expected revenues.

In terms of scale, then, there has been much progress. Yet in stark contrast to AWS, which supplies the bulk of Amazon’s profits, Azure is still loss-making. Some analysts are optimistic that this could change. Mark Moerdler of Sanford C. Bernstein, a research firm, thinks that once Microsoft tapers its investments in data centres and their utilisation goes up, it could approach the margins enjoyed by AWS, which reached more than 30% in the last quarter.

Scott Guthrie, who heads Azure, admits that the margins for cloud-based services will probably be lower than for conventional software. But when applications are delivered online, he points out, Microsoft can capture a bigger slice of the overall pie. As well as offering its existing software as services in the cloud, it also takes care of components of IT systems, such as storage and networking, that used to be provided by other vendors. The firm’s addressable market is far bigger, he says.

Perhaps. But however well Microsoft performs, life in the cloud will always be far tougher than it was in the realm of personal computers, argues David Mitchell Smith of Gartner, a consultancy. Microsoft will not only have to compete with Amazon, but with Google, which intends to go after business customers.

Although the cloud is the core of the new Microsoft, hardware is another important bet. The firm has shed its ailing mobile-phone division, which it had bought from Nokia, but on its campus in Redmond hundreds of employees are busy developing new devices. Its prototyping lab offers all that a designer of mobile gadgets could want, such as 3D printers to churn out overnight new models of a hinge, for example, or machines to cut the housing of a new laptop from a block of aluminium.

“Failing faster” is the purpose of the new equipment, says Panos Panay, who is in charge of Microsoft’s hardware business. Designers can test ideas more quickly in pursuit of the firm’s goal to develop new categories of product. Hardware, software and online services are meant to be bundled into a single product to create what the firm gratingly calls an “experience”.

One example is the Surface Book, a high-end laptop. It features a detachable screen which doubles as a computing tablet—a combination that has already found a following, and according to some, offers better value than comparable laptops from Apple. More daring still is HoloLens, an augmented-reality device in the form of a wireless head-mounted display. It is capable of mixing “real” and virtual reality for business purposes—for example, by projecting new parts on a motorcycle frame so a designer can easily see what works. (It is currently only available for developers.)

HoloLens, its designers hope, will also be a device where people use artificial-intelligence services—Mr Nadella’s third big bet. In September Microsoft formed a new AI unit, combining all its efforts in the field, including its basic-research group of more than 1,000 people and the engineering team behind Bing, its search engine.

Every single business application is going to be disrupted by AI, says Harry Shum, who is in charge of the new unit. Algorithms trained by reams of data could tell sales staff which leads to spend most time on, and help identify risky deals where, for instance, the customer might not fulfil contract terms. This, he explains, is also a big reason why Microsoft spent a whopping $26bn to buy LinkedIn, a professional social network that has 467m users. The deal adds to the data the firm needs to train its new AI applications.

AI is a growing part of Azure, too. In recent months Microsoft has introduced two dozen “cognitive services” to Azure. Some understand language and can identify individual speakers, others recognise faces and can tap into academic knowledge. The idea is for other firms to be able to use these offerings to make their own products smarter, thus “democratising AI”. Schneider Electric, which makes gear to manage energy systems, for instance, uses some of Microsoft’s AI services to monitor its equipment.

It is easy to be impressed by what Mr Nadella has achieved in only three years. But it is far from certain that his technology bets will play out as planned. To run a computing cloud profitably you need hyper-efficient operations; something that Amazon, in contrast to Microsoft, has grown up with. Although Microsoft has expertise in AI, others, such as Google and IBM, got a far earlier start. Nor is designing integrated devices part of Microsoft’s DNA in the way it is for Apple. Augmented reality is an extremely promising field but HoloLens may turn out to be no more than an expensive toy for developers.

Success or failure in the new areas will of course continue to be cushioned for some time by the revenues and profits from Windows and Office. Yet there, too, lie risks. If the PC market, whose secular decline has slowed since last year, take another turn for the worse, the company’s finances would suffer badly, warns John DiFucci of Jefferies, an investment bank.

Mr Nadella doesn’t seem to be worried by such unknowns, which are to be expected in a fast-changing industry. Instead, he frets about too much success. “When you have a core that’s growing at more than 20%, that is when the rot really sets in,” he says. It remains to be seen whether or not the firm can ever again achieve such velocity. For now, though, its share price is showing plenty of speed.

Sourced from The Economist

Sourced from Fortune.

You can now add Microsoft to the list of technology companies wanting to make big money in virtual reality.

The technology giant said today it would release an update to its Windows 10 operating system called Windows 10 Creators Update, which comes with the ability for device manufacturers to build virtual reality headsets powered by Windows 10. Microsoft msft said that companies like HP Inc hpq , Lenovo, Dell, Acer, and ASUS would build new virtual reality headsets based on the new Windows 10 feature.

Get Data Sheet, Fortune’s technology newsletter.

Unlike other virtual reality headsets, such as the Sony Playstation VR or the HTC Vive, Microsoft said these new devices will be capable of producing so-called mixed reality in which the headsets can display both the physical world and the digital world, and intermix the two together for user interaction.

From Microsoft’s announcement on Wednesday:

Coming in 2017, these accessories will contain built-in sensors to enable inside-out, six-degrees of freedom for simplified setup and to more easily move around your home as you experience virtual worlds —no markers required.

Microsoft said these new devices will sell for $300 in 2017, but it did not say which manufacturers would be the first to create them. Additionally, the company said that unlike other VR headsets, including Facebook’s fb Oculus Rift, the new headsets “will work with affordable laptops and PCs.”

Currently, powerful VR headsets like the Oculus Rift and HTC Vive require powerful computers that tend to be more expensive than what the average consumer would spend. A decent computer to run VR content smoothly can cost over a $1,000—although some can be sold cheaper—but would generate a lesser experience in terms of graphics and speed.

For more about virtual reality, watch:

Microsoft currently sells for $3,000 its HoloLens augmented reality device, which overlays digital, holographic images onto the real world.

Sourced from Fortune

By Timothy B. Lee.

I was skeptical of the Touch Bar when I first read rumors about it earlier this week. Those rumors turned out to be true: The newest MacBook Pro has a small touchscreen above the keyboard, where there used to be a row of physical “function” keys.

But now that I’ve seen the Touch Bar in action in Apple’s presentation, I think it has the potential to be the biggest change in the way people use their Macs since Apple introduced multi-touch gestures on trackpads more than 10 years ago.

What’s more, the creation of the Touch Bar illustrates what’s so powerful about Apple’s distinctive model of innovation.

New Money logo
This article is part of New Money, a new section on economics, technology, and business.

Most technology companies have focused on one part of the technology “stack” and left the rest to others. In the Windows PC world, Intel made chips, Dell made computers, Microsoft made the Windows operating system, and Adobe made software like Photoshop. Companies took a similar approach in the world of Android smartphones, with Google making the software and a variety of companies making competing handsets. That approach has helped Windows and Android dominate their respective markets.

In contrast, Apple controls the entire “stack” for its products. It manufactures the hardware, writes a lot of the software, and even makes some of its own chips. This makes it hard to achieve a large market share, since it’s difficult for one company to serve a lot of different kinds of customers. But the example of the Touch Bar shows that the Apple approach still has some distinct advantages.

It’s hard to imagine anyone other than Apple successfully pulling off an ambitious innovation like the Touch Bar because it requires simultaneous investments on both the hardware and software sides of the business.

Apple’s ability to make dramatic changes to its platforms has been an important source of strength for the company. And it’s a big reason that two of Apple’s chief competitors — Google and Microsoft — have increasingly aped Apple’s business model in recent years.

Why it’s hard to bring features like the Touch Bar to Windows laptops

The idea of a Windows Touch Bar isn’t entirely hypothetical. Lenovo, one of the biggest players in the PC laptop business, tried to introduce a similar feature in 2014, called the Adaptive Keyboard. But the “execution was poor,” Tech Radar writes. “It was hard to tell which icons did what and difficult to customize the various modes.”

The feature never really took off. And on one level, this was a result of poor execution on Lenovo’s part. But there were deeper factors that made that result almost inevitable.

A feature like Touch Bar or Adaptive Keyboard is only going to succeed if it becomes a platform-wide standard. And on a decentralized platform like Windows, that creates a chicken-and-egg problem: Applications developers are only going to put in the effort to support it if it’s available on a lot of laptops. But laptop makers are only going to offer it if there’s a lot of application support.

This is a particularly severe problem in the Windows PC world precisely because the PC market is so competitive. The hardware for the Touch Bar is apparently expensive — Apple is charging $300 extra for the cheapest MacBook Pro with a Touch Bar compared with the entry-level MacBook Pro without it.

So if a PC maker added a Touch Bar to its laptops, it would be taking a big risk of getting undercut by competitors that skipped the Touch Bar and charged significantly less. This is probably one reason Lenovo’s adaptive keyboard was so much less impressive than the Touch Bar — the Chinese company couldn’t spend a lot on the feature and risk being priced out of the market.

Why Apple’s model can be good for innovation

Apple Announces Launch Of New Tablet ComputerFormer Apple CEO Steve Jobs. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Apple is in a better position, not just because people are already willing to pay a significant premium for Apple products but also because Apple’s ownership of the entire Mac platform allows the company to recoup more of the benefits from bets that work.

Apple has one final advantage: Because it controls 100 percent of Mac sales, it can give software makers confidence that a new feature is going to be widely adopted across the platform. Apple initially introduced the Touch Bar only on high-end MacBook Pros. But presumably over the next few years the company will add it to other laptops, as the company has done with other new features like the iSight camera and multi-touch trackpad.

Knowing this, software companies like Adobe (makers of Photoshop) are going to be more willing to make their own investments in supporting the technology, knowing that they’ll be able to recoup those benefits for years to come.

And Touch Bar is just one example. You can tell a similar story about Apple Pay, Apple’s electronic payment system. Getting it off the ground required buy-in from both stores and software developers. And that buy-in was easier to get when Apple could promise that tens of millions of iPhones would have the necessary hardware — including the TouchID fingerprint sensor — over the next couple of years. Now Apple is adding the technology to the MacBook as well.

Google and Microsoft are shifting toward Apple’s model

Until a few years ago, the model Microsoft pioneered — provide the software and let others build the hardware — looked like a winner. The strategy allowed Microsoft to dominate the PC business and capture a large share of the value from the Windows ecosystem. Google pursued a similar strategy with Android, and today the platform dominates the smartphone market.

But both Microsoft and Google have found that this model has a big downside: With so many players involved, it can be hard to deliver a consistent user experience or introduce major new innovations.

For Microsoft, the big problem has been the rise of tablets. Microsoft has been anticipating the rise of tablets for more than a decade, and it has tried several times over the years to introduce more tablet-friendly versions of Windows.

But Microsoft relied on third parties both to produce the tablets and to write much of the software these tablets ran on. That often produced chaos, with different features being supported on different platforms and few common standards that software developers could rely on. So the tablet computing experience was often subpar, and users often just fell back to using an old-fashioned keyboard and trackpad.

Google has had a similar challenge with Android. Not only does Android run on a wide variety of different smartphones with different sizes, features, and processor speeds, but many smartphone makers also customize the Android software itself. This kind of “fragmentation” makes developing software for the Android platform a more frustrating experience. And it inherently makes it harder for Google to move the Android platform in bold new directions, since it has to wrangle a bunch of different Android hardware makers to go along.

This explains why both Microsoft and Google have become increasingly aggressive about building their own hardware instead of relying on third parties to do it.

“We’re not just building hardware for hardware’s sake,” Microsoft’s Satya Nadella said in 2015. “We plan to invent new personal computers and new personal computing.”

For the past few years, Microsoft has been building its own Surface tablets. That has made it easier for the company to engage in Apple-like innovations like the Surface Studio, a desktop computer Microsoft introduced this week with a giant touchscreen display.

For its part, Google adopted the Apple model in earnest only this month with the introduction of the Pixel, the first fully Google-made smartphone.

Microsoft and Google are both hoping that adopting Apple’s business model will allow them to duplicate Apple’s record of innovation and, ultimately, Apple’s profits. But doing that won’t be easy. Apple has had 30 years to develop its expertise at the wide variety of functions — hardware design, software design, chip design, supply chain management, marketing, retail, and so forth — that go into bringing a MacBook or an iPhone to market. Google and Microsoft have a lot of catching up to do.

By Timothy B. Lee

Sourced from VOX