|
|
ONLINE FEATURES
Book Reviews
BW Video
Columnists
Interactive Gallery
Newsletters
Past Covers
Philanthropy
Podcasts
Special Reports
BLOGS
Auto Beat
Bangalore Tigers
Blogspotting
Brand New Day
Byte of the Apple
Economics Unbound
Eye on Asia
Fine On Media
Green Biz
Hot Property
Investing Insights
Management IQ
NEXT: Innovation
NussbaumOnDesign
Tech Beat
Working Parents
TECHNOLOGY
J.D. Power Ratings
Product Reviews
Tech Stats
Wildstrom: Tech Maven
AUTOS
Home Page
Auto Reviews
Classic Cars
Car Care & Safety
Hybrids
INNOVATION
& DESIGN Home Page Architecture Brand Equity Auto Design Game Room SMALLBIZ Smart Answers Success Stories Today's Tip INVESTING Investing: Europe Annual Reports BW 50 S&P Picks & Pans Stock Screeners Free S&P Stock Report SCOREBOARDS Hot Growth 100 Mutual Funds Info Tech 100 S&P 500 B-SCHOOLS Undergrad Programs MBA Blogs MBA Profiles MBA Rankings Who's Hiring Grads | |
MAY 10, 2004
Hey, Microsoft: Try Listening To Your Customers More Re "Microsoft's midlife crisis" (Cover Story, Apr. 19): As a Microsoft Corp. (MSFT ) customer, all I really need is a version of Windows that doesn't take five minutes to boot and runs any application I choose -- simply, reliably, and quickly -- whether my data are local to my laptop or on a server on a different continent. I don't need my operating system to talk to me, read me my e-mail, make phone calls, guess whose e-mail I might want to read next, or choose a Web browser for me. In the interview with William H. Gates III and Steve Ballmer, it's very clear that Microsoft chooses not to listen to this basic input from customers. This is a cultural problem that originates at the top, since Gates openly confesses to spending significant time sitting around visualizing more "neat" stuff that his bloated and corrupt operating system could do for me. Thanks, but no thanks. Microsoft needs to concede that its strength lies in identifying and developing applications that corporations need. After 30 years, the company still has no clue as to what's required of a robust, industrial strength operating system. If it tossed Windows into the garbage and just ported Office to Linux, the world would be a better place. Indrajit Rajeev Gajendran Saratoga, Calif. The biggest threat to Microsoft's growth is its inability to penetrate markets in China and, to a lesser extent, Korea and Japan. These countries have joined forces to develop open-source alternatives to Windows. The Chinese in particular present a barrier. There is abiding mistrust of foreigners in China. That mistrust is especially strong among government ministers who view dependence on Microsoft as a liability. They do not want an American vendor dictating terms and functionality to them. They also do not trust Microsoft's software, which is known to be full of security holes and "back doors." Lynn Moyers Portland, Ore. "Microsoft's midlife crisis" describes the company as an American icon, but its modus operandi is pure Japanese: Watch what others do and imitate, executing ruthlessly in marketing and operations to drive innovators out of the market. Compilers (where Microsoft began), word-processors, spreadsheets, operating systems, and game consoles are all big businesses for Microsoft now, but there is no noticeable original thought from the company in any of them. This does not bode well for its future. Second, achieving the growth shown in your charts is implausible. The Western world, particularly the U.S., is saturated with information technology. To keep growing means stealing considerable market share and moving to similar levels of adoption in developing countries, which frankly can't afford Windows. Philip Carnelley London Cap One: Seven-Year Growth Boosted The Chief's Paycheck Re "Executive pay" (Special Report, Apr. 19): At Capital One Financial Corp. (COF ), 100% of our chairman and chief executive officer's salary and incentives since 1998 have been in the form of long-term equity compensation. Richard D. Fairbank is compensated only to the extent that stockholders see their investment in Capital One appreciate. BusinessWeek's interest in comparing shareholder returns with executive compensation is entirely appropriate. The difficulty is in selecting the appropriate time frame for making this comparison. Mr. Fairbank's compensation for 2001-2003 was derived solely from the exercise of stock options granted to him in 1994 and 1995. By 2001, when these options were exercised, Capital One's stock price had risen by over 1,000%. Mr. Fairbank's compensation in 2001 was his reward for Capital One's performance over the prior seven years, not the three years covered in your survey. Richard Woods Senior Vice-President Capital One Financial Corp. McLean, Va.   Novartis' Version Of The Gleevec Story Your review of The $800 Million Pill ("Drugs: Is something rotten?" Books, Apr. 19) quotes author Merrill Goozner alleging that "it took a dedicated researcher...before a reluctant drug company [Novartis International] (NVS ) delivered on the promise of its proprietary product [Gleevec]." That comment misrepresents the development of Gleevec. More important, Goozner belittles the contributions of thousands of people at Novartis and in the oncology community who had some role in the discovery and development of Gleevec. Novartis invested aggressively once the medical promise of Gleevec became apparent -- scaling up production and expediting clinical development to allow far more patients than initially planned to enter clinical studies. The Food & Drug Administration also rose to the occasion, completing its regulatory review of Gleevec in record time. Paul Herrling Head of Corporate Research Novartis International Basel, Switzerland More Fuel For The Debate Over MBA Alumni Data Harvard business school and the Wharton School recently announced that they will no longer provide names of students and alumni for use in ranking business schools ("Why Harvard and Wharton are wrong," Editorials, Apr. 19). While they cite privacy concerns, their fundamental argument is that rankings don't reflect the quality of academic programs. It could reasonably be argued that rankings may actually serve to drive up the cost of education. As schools struggle to improve their standing in the rankings, they bid up the cost of faculty and staff, increase marketing expenses, and expand financial aid budgets. We know of no evidence that these increased costs have improved the quality of MBA education. On the other hand, there are more than 700 U.S. schools offering MBA programs, and the number of annual MBA degrees has ballooned from 4,000 in the early 1960s to more than 110,000 today. In such a crowded market, recruiters and students seek some kind of shorthand to distinguish among the many offerings. Rankings serve as that shorthand. Withholding student and alumni names, therefore, will weaken the quality of rankings data, resulting in even poorer service to recruiters and students. We will continue to supply student and alumni names, but only with their permission. Louis E. Lataif, Dean Boston University School of Management Boston Wharton and Harvard's decision to no longer provide access to student and alumni for the purposes of rankings is not wrong. They are part of a growing list of more than 150 B-schools that are working with us to refine a searchable database we have been developing over several years. All of the schools involved are committed to providing reliable information that is independently audited. Such information lets prospective students make an informed decision based on their educational needs and career objectives. The proliferation of rankings, which are rife with opinions and questionable data, has only made prospective students' decisions more difficult, not less. David A. Wilson President and CEO Graduate Management Admission Council McLean, Va. Editor's note: GMAC is a membership organization of business schools.
| | |
 Copyright 2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. All rights reserved.Terms of Use | Privacy Notice |
Printer-Friendly Version
