I'd say that it will be incredibly important for them to lock onto a cohesive user interface experience moving forward. Metro is cool, but there's still an odd duality that happens where SOME applications are normal desktop ones and others are metro and you're switching back and forth. This duality is watering down the experience and confusing the less technically inclined.
I think Msoft is pretty much what it wants to be--a supplier of devices (phones and xbox) and sw and services for them. But its just sorta unintegrated and a bit clunky going between them and (except for Xbox) they are largely seen as second or third in all their markets.
I like phone apps and UI on phone, and laptop apps and UI type on laptop.
And I like e-books on non-color glare-free outdoor display type.
A Single UI would not work for me, as far as I can see.
Frankly, I like e-book reader for beach or patio, outdoors, so none work except the paper white with black letters, adjustable in size of course, but no glare from typical color screens. Hardware is not MS strength so far and moving in that direction while other software and services companies are getting out of hardware (or so it seems, with Sony PC departure...but game consoles that eat your entertainment center may be a real Trojan Horse bet if you can beat Apple and Google et al.
Maybe they can make a phone with a curved display that works outdoors or indoors. My smart phone is a nightmare in daylight (I live in Arizona...duh)
I would expect him to do something really novel like giving customers what they actually want. Sure that sounds obvious, but I think MS has for too long been doing what they want whether their customers like it or not.
I vaguely agree with that sentiment....Microsoft got into mobile without the same zest for it that its customers had. It got into XBox in spite of the fact that its customers didn't necessarily need it to gethere. Then there's the cloud. Exactly what direction Microsoft is taking within the cloud is somewhat unclear--although Nadella's appointment suggests that they are taking it very seriously.
I don't doubt they take it seriously, but you can take something seriously and do it your way and say our stupid cistomers will accept it because we're MS, or you can take it really seriously and say we want to give our customers what they want (and start by fining out what the is) Look at apple, their idea of a new product is we've cot a coloured phone wow! or 1/4 of our users are over 40 let's change the UI on our phones in a manner that makes it 10 times more difficult for them to use the phone and give them no way to fix it or make it the way it was they'll love us for it. Obviously that;s not what they're thinking but it might as well be for the outcome.
There are other advantages to using Apple or Microsoft's technology that offset these drawbacks....most importantly, there is a lack of an alternative (except to the extent that these two are alternatatives to one another). Once you design the OS, you control the user in many ways, unless its open source then the powe ris in the user's hands.
I do agree with you on all counts, All I'm saying is that my customer base is growing and loyal to my company because I give them what they want and am always supporting their needs. At times I do things that don't immediately benefit me just my customer. They therefore develope a relationship with me and if something new comes along they don't jump ship because they know while my offerings may not be perfect I do what is humanly possible to ensure their success. MS and Apple take quite a different approach so that the next thing that comes along is where the customer goes because they are held by "force" rather than desire. Vendor lock-in is a short term strategy. Obviously the size difference has some inpact on this but the word loyalty is still an important paradigm in my opinion.
Somewhere on that list there should be a reminder to manage that consultant who is his technical adviser. After all, the guy committed to provide at least a third of his time, but it seems like there may be other demands on his time. I wonder what his hourly rate is? Satya is also going to have to sign his timesheet and give him performance feedback as well. That should be fun...
Move Gates and Balmer away to a consulting role. Use their expertise and knowlege of how MS runs, but keep them out of the decision making process. Gate's and Balmer's hostility to open standards and open source has done the company a lot of long term damage. New thinking is needed, don't taint with the old.